applied by all. In fact, the very purpose for which it was complied was to impart
information, vital information relative to man’s salvation. Were it not for its
intelligibility, salvation would be null and void, kings never would have been
influenced to rule by its precepts, poets inspired by its lucidity, philosophers by
the profundity of its tenets, musicians by its sweet psalms, nor historians by its
remarkable records and equally astounding accuracy, and it certainly would have
never become the most published tome of literature in the world.
In spite of all this, it would be remiss to overlook the fact that parts of the Bible
are, at least at first glance, somewhat difficult to comprehend (cf. II Pet. 3.15ff).
Paul’s statement in I Tim. 1.20 is one such passage, though ostensibly there are
others that are equally nebulous. It must be observed, however, that these
passages are not beyond our capacity to grasp, and a study with regard to this text
will prove this so to be. Therefore, what did Paul mean when he said, “whom I
have delivered unto Satan”?
The brethren to whom Paul makes this reference, Hymenaeus and Alexander,
evidently were guilty of some sin so public that they had led others astray from
the truth. Paul identifies their sins as “blasphe[my]”. They were speaking evil of
the faith in some way and were, consequently, false teachers. Throughout the
Scriptures, the apostles dealt with false teachers in the same or in a similar way –
through discipline. They were “marked and avoided” (Rom. 16.17), “withdrawn
from” (II Thess. 3.6), or, as in this case, “delivered unto Satan”. The purpose of
church discipline was essentially two-fold: 1. To correct the fallen brother or
sister; and, 2. To keep the church untainted with sin. Whatever form of discipline
which Paul employed in the case of Hymenaeus and Alexander, it can be certain
that it was the same form of discipline which the Corinthians rendered upon the
fornicating brother in their midst. Notice the parallel.
“In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my
spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto
Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of
the Lord Jesus…Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked
person” (I Cor. 5.4-5, 13).
It will be observed that the “deliver[ing] such an one unto Satan” involved “the
destruction of the flesh,” a phrase which is even more nebulous than the one in
question. Nevertheless, it is most probably the case that the “destruction of the
flesh” refers to the consequence of Christian discipline, whereby the disciplined
party would destroy not the flesh, per se, but the lusts thereof. This is, after all,
the desired result, that the spirit may be saved.
Some have suggested that apostolic discipline, administered specifically and
exclusively by the apostles, involved more than a rebuke and subsequent
withdrawal of fellowship, but that it also involved the act of inflicting the culpable
party with some physical malady. For instance, Barnes remarks, “The meaning
here is, that Paul excommunicated them, and not improbably brought upon them,
by giving them over to Satan, some physical maladies, that they might be
reformed” . This theory is not entirely without New Testament precedent. On his
very first missionary journey, the apostle Paul was preaching in the city of
Paphos, on the island Cyprus. There, he encountered a man to whom the Bible
refers as “Elymas the sorcerer” (Acts 13.8). Paul referred to him as a “child of the
devil..enemy of all righteousness” (Acts 13.10). Elymas probably received the
most blistering indictment of any individual recorded in the New Testament. But
Paul didn’t stop there. He proceeded to blind him, saying, “the hand of the Lord is
upon thee” (Acts 13.11). Again, this act of discipline was a benefit for some who
witnessed it – not a blight, as some are disposed to deem it – for they believed in
the doctrine of the Lord, and most probably for Elymas as well, who may have
eventually become a believer himself. Note, however, that this sort of power
faded into oblivion after the first century, since it was most certainly limited to
the miraculous age, and very probably limited to those in the apostolic office. It is
never seen as an act of church discipline.
It should also be observed, from the above reading, that the act of “delivering
such a one unto Satan” was synonymous with “put[ting] away from among
yourselves that wicked person”. The Scriptures are clear and unequivocal with
regard to the instructions relative to church discipline. We are not to extend
fellowship to those who are walking disorderly (II Thess. 3.6). Rather, we are to
“reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (II Tim. 4.2). As
was previously mentioned, erring brethren are to be marked and avoided (Rom.
16.17). When Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander unto Satan, and when the
church at Corinth did the same, they made sure the fallen brothers knew they
were no longer worthy citizens in the kingdom of God – they were in Satan’s
camp. They had no fellowship with the church, until they repented, and the only
other alternative outside of the church is to become the progeny of Satan.
Therefore, the phrase in question, though rather difficult to perceive at first, is
certainly not beyond our ability to comprehend – as, indeed, no part of the Bible
is. The passage very definitely is speaking of Christian discipline, probably
executed in two distinct ways, one of which is no longer extant. Hymenaeus and
Alexander were delivered unto Satan by being withdrawn from, marked and
avoided, rebuked heavily, and were in all probability inflicted with some physical
malady that would teach them not to “blaspheme”.
Whenever a false teacher or an erring brother completely denies the faith, he
has thrown himself in league with the devil. There comes a point in our efforts to
restore such a one in the spirit of meekness (Gal. 6.1) when there is nothing else
we can do, no other words we could possibly say that would provoke them to
repent (cf. Matt. 7.6). In our ceasing to cast the pearls of God before the swine of
Satan, we essentially deliver them over to Satan – allow them to pursue their
pernicious course – lest they influence others to do wrong. It is for this very
reason that Church discipline simply must be practiced today. Otherwise, as is
evinced in copious current churches, worldliness swiftly and uncompromisingly
will infiltrate God’s people, bringing the cause of Christ to the brink of oblivion.
Indeed, so much depends upon the disciplinary measures of faithful churches of
Christ!
Bibliography
Barnes, Albert, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament: I Corinthians, Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1955.
Barnes, Albert, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament: Thessalonians-Philemon,
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1955.
Clarke, Adam, Clarke’s Commentary: Matthew-Revelation. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, n.d.
Henry, Matthew, Matthew Henry’s Commentary: Volume 6, Acts to Revelation.
Hendrickson Publishers, 2000.
Lenski, R.C.H., The interpretation of I and II Corinthians, Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1963.
Lipscomb, David and J.W. Shepherd, New Testament Commentaries Based on the
American Standard Version: I Corinthians, Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate
Company, 1989.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
