When the Faith is Shipwrecked (I Timothy 1)

Who made shipwreck of their faith? Hymenaeus and Alexander (I Timothy 1:19, 20)

First Timothy is a letter from Paul to Timothy relaying advice concerning Timothy’s ministry in Ephesus (I Timothy 1:1-3), hence it is classified as a Pastoral Epistle. The author devotes the majority of the epistle’s first chapter to encouraging his protégé to remain faithful (I Timothy 1:3-11, 18-20). After a brief tangent (I Timothy 1:12-17), Paul reiterates his argument by closing the chapter with an obscure reference to Hymenaeus and Alexander that functions as a cautionary tale (I Timothy 1:18-20).

This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme. (I Timothy 1:18-20 NASB)

Hymenaeus and Alexander exemplify the danger of relenting in the faith. Jouette M. Bassler (b. 1942) explains:

The author’s purpose in mentioning them here is to provide concrete counterexamples to Timothy’s faithful discipleship, a common technique in hellenistic moral exhortation and one used extensively in II Timothy (see II Timothy 1:15-18, 2:15-18, 3:1-12). Identifying Hymenaeus and Alexander as “certain persons” (see also II Timothy 1:3) who have “suffered shipwreck in the faith” (i.e., whose piety or fidelity to saving doctrine has been destroyed)...returns the argument to its opening emphasis on opposition to sound teaching. (Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 46)

Paul’s naming of his opponents is rare; even earlier in First Timothy the apostle names sins, not sinners (I Timothy 1:3, 6, 7). In the Pastoral Epistles, four are named who failed to persevere: Alexander, Hymenaeus, Philetus and Demas (I Timothy 1:18-20; II Timothy 2:14-19; 4:10). In naming names, Paul kills two birds with one stone as he fortifies his charge while correcting his opposition’s errors.

Nothing is known definitively about Hymenaeus and Alexander. For them to have been expelled, they were clearly once in the church. The fact that they are named and have influence suggests that they were prominent leaders who have defected and become false teachers.

Hymenaus is a very rare name. It also appears in II Timothy (II Timothy 2:17) and some believe that the Hermogenes that appears in the second century apocryphal work Acts of Paul and Thecla is a conflation of Hymenaeus.

Jerome D. Quinn (1927-1988) and William C. Wacker (b. 1951) note:

The name Hymenaeus recurs in II Timothy 2:17 along with a person called Philetus as examples of “those who have deviated in the truth” about the resurrection. The name is not documented otherwise in the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, or the Septuagint. The Greeks and Romans invoked the god of marriage under that name (or Hymen), but they rarely named their children after him...Jewish people did not use the name at all. (Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 145)

Alexander, not surprisingly, is a far more common name (Mark 15:21; Acts 4:6, 19:33; I Timothy 1:20; II Timothy 4:14), twice connected to Ephesus in the New Testament. As such Alexander has been linked to a Jewish man who tried to speak at a riot in Ephesus years earlier (Acts 19:33) and a trouble making coppersmith who later caused “much harm” to the apostle (II Timothy 4:14 NASB).

Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) comments:

The name “Alexander” was more common and often taken by Jews. Four occurrences of the name in the New Testament have something to do with Paul (Acts 19:33[2x]; II Timothy 4:14) and are all, even if coincidentally, linked to Ephesus. On balance, though some maintain that the additional reference to his trade in II Timothy 4:14 intends to distinguish between two people bearing the same name, it seems just as plausible that the additional information supplied at a later time was meant to identify the same opponent who, because of Paul’s disciplinary action...moved to a new location and posed a new level of threat to Timothy. (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament),160)

Though many attempts have been made to connect the Alexanders, it cannot be done with any certainty.

Whoever Hymenaeus and Alexander are, Paul does not mince words, diagnosing that they have “suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith” (I Timothy 1:19 NASB). In the ancient world, shipwreck was used proverbially, like the modern use of “train wreck”. Even so, this is not an expression that Paul would have uttered lightly (Acts 27:14; II Corinthians 11:25).

S.M. Baugh (b. 1954) expounds:

Hymenaeus and Alexander...are said to have “shipwrecked their faith.” This image is powerful anywhere, but particularly at Ephesus, which was one of the most important seaports and shipping distribution points in the eastern Mediterranean. The shipwreck image was also vivid for Paul, of course, since “three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea” (II Corinthians 11:25). With the small size of sailing craft in those days...lack of compass and other navigational aids, and the unpredictable storms at certain times of the year in the Mediterranean...shipwrecks and drowning were all too common events for travelers by sea. Hence, shipwreck became a fairly common metaphor for tragedy or downfall in life. (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 50-51)

Thomas C. Oden (b. 1931) adds:

Ordinarily ships having wrecked cannot be recovered. This was a radical image of destruction of that which was once sound. When the reliable ship, faith with good conscience, becomes corrupted by novel teachings it founders on the shoals, as did Hymenaeus and Alexander, about whom Timothy appears well informed already. These individuals, “not content with their own destruction,” wrote Epiphanius (320-403), “desire to involve others in death with them” (Letters, From Epiphanius to Jerome XCI, NPNF 2 VI, 185). (Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 123-24)

As Oden alludes, Hymenaeus and Alexander’s plight affects others. Literally what is shipwrecked is not “their faith” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NLT, RSV) but the faith (ASV, KJV, NIV, NKJV, NRSV) (I Timothy 1:19).

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) clarifies:

The Greek is not totally clear as to whether the reference is to the personal faith of Hymenaeus and Alexander or “the faith” in general, thinking of the havoc that they have wreaked not only in their own lives, but also in those of others. The text is rightly translated “the faith,” but the nuance probably includes the thought of damage done both to their faith and by them to others and to the witness to the faith when they thrust away the Christian teaching, since they were leaders. (Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 209)

The specific infraction that Hymenaeus and Alexander committed is not stated though it is clearly grievous enough to have upset Paul. It can be deduced that their error began with the rejection of “good conscience” (I Timothy 1:19). George W. Knight III (b. 1931) specifies, “The relative pronoun,ἥν, must have ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν, and only it, as its antecedent. It is rejection of “good conscience,” not rejection of faith that causes shipwreck regarding faith (Knight, The Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 109).”

What began as a rejection of good conscience evolved into bad speech (I Timothy 1:20). Warren W. Wiersbe (b.1929) sees a pattern, generalizing:

Professed Christians who “make shipwreck” of their faith do so by sinning against their consciences. Bad doctrine usually starts with bad conduct, and usually with secret sin. Hymenaeus and Alexander deliberately rejected their good consciences in order to defend their ungodly lives. Paul did not tell us exactly what they did, except that their sin involved “blaspheming” in some way. (Wiersbe, Be Faithful (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon): It's Always Too Soon to Quit!, 28)

Based upon another reference to Alexander in the Pastoral Epistles (II Timothy 2:17), many have concluded that their error is an over realized eschatology, one of the early forms of Gnosticism. Thomas R. Schreiner (b. 1954) and Ardel B. Caneday (b. 1950) examine:

It is in the midst of extended exhortations to Timothy to be faithful to his charge as a minister of the gospel (II Timothy 2:1-16) that Paul associates with Hymenaeus and Philetus, “whose teaching will spread like gangrene” (II Timothy 2:17). In II Timothy 2:17 the apostle says these two men “have wandered from the truth” because they teach that the resurrection has already occurred. Their heresy is similar to one that Paul counters in I Corinthians 15, a form of overrealized eschatology. Belief that the resurrection has already happened creates a mutated version of Christianity, a version Paul does not regard to be Christianity as all. It seems that these two men believed and taught that when Christ arose resurrection was complete. They collapsed the not-yet resurrection of believers into the already resurrection of Christ, so that they believed there is no future resurrection on the last day. This heretical belief influenced and shaped how they behaved with regard to the appetites of the body. Whereas this heresy in Corinth evidently prompted some to indulge in the bodily appetites (I Corinthians 6:13), in Ephesus it evidently prompted ascetic prohibition of marriage and use of certain foods (I Timothy 4:1-5). Their heresy strikes at the very core of Christian faith... (I Corinthians 15:12-14). (Schreiner and Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance, 228-229)

Thanks to letters like the Pastoral Epistles, the modern Christian is unlikely to make this theological error. Even so, the cautionary tale holds today: rejecting good conscience can result in calamity and blasphemy. Even Christian leaders can be guilty of these sins.

Why does Paul name names in this epistle? Should he have publicly called out Hymenaeus and Alexander? What do you think caused Hymenaeus and Alexander to stumble? Which typically comes first, bad thought or action? How would you behave if you stopped listening to “good conscience”? Have you ever known anyone who “suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith”? Does Paul write the backsliders off? Have you ever given up on someone? How should the Christian respond to those who have suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith?

Paul flexes his apostolic muscles in his response to Hymenaeus and Alexander: “I have handed [them] over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme (I Timothy 1:20 NASB).” Though rare, this seems to be an established disciplinary recourse known in the Pauline churches as there is a precedent in Corinth (I Corinthians 5:5). There, however, Paul instructs the congregation to hand the offender over (I Corinthians 5:5). The use of the first person verb here suggests his direct role in the action. And that action is difficult to read.

One’s interpretation of “handed over to Satan” is crucial as it dictates not only how the church handles the lapsed but also reflects how God responds to sinners.

Walter L. Liefeld (b. 1927) analyzes:

It is not clear what it means to hand someone over to Satan. It appears to be a much stronger action than the one prescribed in II Thessalonians 3:14-15, not to associate with someone “in order that he may feel ashamed.” The language is close to that in I Corinthians 5:5, where an immoral man is to be “handed over [paradidomi, as here in I Timothy] to Satan.” In I Timothy the purpose is correction; in I Corinthians it was to save the person’s spirit by destroying the “flesh,” which could, as in the NIV, mean destroying the sinful nature or, perhaps more likely, afflicting the incestuous man physically...These two men must learn not to blaspheme. Since they are already in the church, their blaspheming is more serious than Paul’s (I Timothy 1:13), who acted in ignorance. (Liefeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (The NIV Application Commentary), 79-80),

The esoteric clause is problematic and as such has been interpreted in several ways. Thomas D. Lea (b. 1938) surveys:

To “hand over to Satan” has at least two possible interpretations. First, it may refer to some illness or physical disability Satan is allowed to inflict on evildoers (see Job 2:6). J.D.N. Kelly (1909-1997) insists that we “must infer that illness, paralysis, or some other physical disability was in the Apostle’s mind.” Second, it may be used as a semitechnical phrase that regards life in the church as the sphere of the Spirit and life outside the church as the sphere of Satan. Paul may have been saying that he had removed the offenders from the fellowship of the church and placed them in Satan’s realm, where they would experience his malice. This seems the more likely interpretation. (Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (The New American Commentary), 81)

The latter interpretation is most common. “Handed over to Satan” has been read as synonymous with excommunication. In an age where there was one church, excommunication was especially tragic. The underlying supposition is that Satan rules this world (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11; II Corinthians 4:4) and outside the confines of the Church, there is no safeguard against attack. When one is “turned over to Satan”, she is more susceptible to “the snare of the devil” (I Timothy 3:7; II Timothy 2:26).

The ultimate goal of expulsion is a return to inclusion. N.T. Wright (b. 1948) surmises:

As in I Corinthians 5, this seems to mean that such people are to be put out of the Christian assembly, forbidden to meet with, and eat with, the rest of the church. Paul saw the fellowship of the church as the place above all where the power of God was active to heal, guide, lead and direct individual Christians. To forbid people access to it was therefore tantamount to sending them away into outer darkness, to a place where the only spiritual influence they might come under would be that of ‘the accuser, the satan. The aim, of course is that after a very short time in such a condition they would realize their mistake and come back with sorrow and penitence, ready to learn wisdom. That is what probably happened in the other case, as II Corinthians 2 seems to indicate. (Wright, Paul for Everyone: The Pastoral Letters : 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, 16-17)

The fact that Paul aims to “teach” them a lesson is further cause for hope, as “taught” implies living through the experience. In this reading, being handed over to Satan is an exercise in “tough love”.

Rob Bell (b. 1970) theorizes:

What is clear is that Paul has great confidence that this handing over will be for good, as inconceivable as that appears at first. His confidence is that these two will be taught something. They will learn. They will grow. They will become better...“Satan,” according to Paul, is actually used by God for God’s transforming purposes...There is something redemptive and renewing that will occur when Hymenaeus and Alexander are “handed over.” (Bell, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, 89)

The agency of Satan supports the author’s original premise. Deborah Krause (b. 1962) connects:

Through their example he is able to reaffirm the theological claim made earlier in the doxological formula in I Timothy 1:17...God indeed is immortal and invisible, and due all glory for all eternity, because within the letter writer’s theological system even Satan can be marshalled for the purposes of teaching right doctrine. (Krause, 1 Timothy (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 44)

William D. Mounce (b. 1953) concludes that the goal is indeed redemption:

Despite all the trouble Hymenaeus and Alexander have caused, the purpose of Paul’s delivering them to Satan is not merely punishment but remedial, looking forward to the day when they might learn not to blaspheme. παιδεύειν, “to instruct,” means not only to educate but more significantly “to practice discipline,” “to discipline with punishment” (BAGD, 603-4). Timothy and the Ephesian church must discipline to the extent of punishment, but they must do it with the goal of redemption. (Tertullian thought that both men were eternally lost [De pudicitia 13:99f.].) The word is used of divine discipline (I Corinthians 11:32 [where it is remedial]; II Corinthians 6:9; cf. Hebrews 12:6, 10; Revelation 3:19 [where it is also remedial]) as well as human discipline (Luke 23:16, 22)...This difficult balance of firm yet not vindictive discipline is admirably represented by the only other occurrence of the word in the Pastoral Epistles. Paul tells Timothy that he must discipline his opponents with gentleness, hoping that God will grant that they repent, come to know the truth, and escape the snare of the devil (II Timothy 2:25-26). Throughout the Pastoral Epistles we see that Paul desires not only that the opponents be silenced but that they turn from their evil ways (cf. Titus 1:3). (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 68)

Though their fate is unknown, the goal of their having been handed over to Satan is for Hymenaeus and Alexander to reassess their apostasy, see the error of their ways and return to fellowship. If God could save Paul, the self professed worst of all sinners (I Timothy 1:15), he can certainly salvage these two from their shipwreck.

Even in the early days of the church, there were dissenters. When Hymenaeuses and Alexanders invade your church, know that the Church survived others before them. And there is always hope for them as well.

Does God punish or discipline? When have you experienced tough love? What other alternatives did Paul have in dealing with Hymenaeus and Alexander? How would your life be different were you to be expelled from your church? Do you know anyone who has been driven out of a church? What are the guidelines for being removed from your church? In comparison to the New Testament era, do we discipline church members enough today?

“The man who has experienced shipwreck shudders even at a calm sea.” - Ovid (43 BCE-17 CE)

Sceva’s Seven Shyster Sons (Acts 19:14)

How many sons of Sceva were overcome by the man with the evil spirit? Seven (Acts 19:14)

While ministering in Ephesus, God performs miracles through Paul (Acts 19:11-12). Some itinerant Jewish exorcists attempt to replicate the apostle’s success by casting out evil spirits (Acts 19:13-17). Seven sons of a Jewish man named Sceva think that they have mastered an incantation and appeal to “Jesus whom Paul preaches (Acts 19:13 NASB).” They have bitten off more than can chew as the afflicted man questions their authority, famously responding:

And the evil spirit answered and said to them, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” (Acts 19:15 NASB)

The man then proceeds to leave the would be exorcists battered and naked with their physical condition mirroring their spiritual reality (Acts 19:16). The seven sons of Sceva represent the most explicit case of spiritual counterfeiting in the New Testament (Acts 19:14-17).

Sceva is described as “high priest” (archiereus) though he is likely as much a high priest as his sons are exorcists. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) explains:

No person of that name ever was the Jewish high priest. Either Sceva was simply a member of a high-priestly family, or he assumed the title for professional purposes in order to impress and delude the public, since a high priest (or his sons) would have close contact with the supernatural; we may compare the way in which modern quacks take such titles as ‘Doctor’ or ‘Professor’. (Marshall, Acts (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 311)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) deduces:

We know nothing about any Scaeva, and it is difficult to assess the characterization of him as a “chief priest.” There are two historical possibilities: a) Scaeva was part of a priestly family–he certainly was not one of the Jerusalem priests we know about from other sources; b) he advertised himself as such, the way Mark Twain [1835-1910]’s charlatan in Huckleberry Finn advertised himself as the “Lost Dauphin.” But it is also possible that: a) the Latin name Scaeva could bear some of its etymological weight of “untrustworthy,’ and that b) Luke had no historical information to deal with here at all. (Johnson, Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 340)

Some have wanted to legitimize Sceva’s status because the narrative itself gives no indication that his position is fabricated. While Sceva was certainly not the high priest, the term might be broader than typically thought as it is used in the plural in Luke-Acts (Luke 9:22, 19:47, 20:1, 19). It may better be thought of as “chief priest” (Acts 4:23). Ernst Haenchen (1894-1975) claims that the author believed Sceva to be authentic, rationalizing that the story would only be included if the author presumed Paul had triumphed over a legitimate priest (Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, 565).

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) adds another theory, speculating that Sceva was a Jew who defected to a pagan Roman cult (Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible), 650).

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) concludes that the most likely scenario is that the sons of Sceva are con men perpetuating a fraud:

It is possible that Sceva actually belonged to a Jewish chief-priestly family, but more probably “Jewish chief priest” (or even “Jewish high priest”) was his self-designation, set out on a placard: Luke might have placed the words between quotation marks had they been invented in his day. The Jewish high priest was the one man who was authorized to pronounce the otherwise ineffable name; this he did once a year, in the course of service prescribed for the day of atonement. Such a person would therefore enjoy high prestige among magicians. It was not the ineffable name, however, but the name of Jesus that Sceva’s sons employed in their imitate Paul’s exorcizing ministry. But when they tried to use it, like an unfamiliar weapon wrongly handled it exploded in their hands. (Bruce, The Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 368)

Given their falsely citing Jesus’ name in the story, this interpretation fits the context. When a sin, such as duplicity, is present in one realm of a person’s life, it tends to leak over to others.

Whatever else they may be, French L. Arrington (b. 1931) concludes that the sons of Sceva are misinformed:

Sceva may have been a member of a high-priestly family, or he may have been a renegade Jew who had assumed the title to impress others and deceive the public. The exorcists themselves could have falsely claimed to be the sons of the high priest. Evidently, they do not know much about the life and the ministry of Jesus. These unbelieving brothers are simple magicians, and they fail to recognize that the name of Jesus is powerful only when it is pronounced by His authority and with faith in Him. (Arrington, The Spirit-Anointed Church: A Study on the Acts of the Apostles, 303)

As Jews in Ephesus, the sons of Sceva are far from home both geographically and spiritually. It is possible that they are a religious order and not literal brothers. Presumably, the exorcism industry was substantial enough in Ephesus to support these practitioners. Their competitors were offering something they were not and the sons of Sceva opted to enter the Jesus market.

Acts is likely implying that the sons of Sceva are modeling Paul who had presumably invoked the name of Jesus. David G. Peterson (b. 1944) conjectures:

Paul’s apparent success at healing and exorcism prompted imitation...These itinerant Jewish exorcists, who were fascinated by Paul’s power and influence, recognised that his secret was the name of Jesus. But theirs was a fraudulent activity, since they were not Christians and used the name of Jesus like a magic formula. Although they sought to emulate Paul...they were unsuccessful. The implication is that the name of Jesus was effective to deliver and to heal only when used by those who genuinely called upon Jesus as Lord. These pretenders did not have the appropriate moral or spiritual integrity with which to engage the powers of evil. Luke further emphasizes the incongruity of the situation by revealing that seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. (Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 538)

The fact that they claimed connection to the high priest may demonstrate their interest in names. William J. Larkin, Jr. (b. 1945) explains:

Since the high priest was the only one permitted to utter the “unpronounceable name of God” and enter his presence in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, it makes sense that these brothers would use that title as part of their “hype” (m. Yoma 3:8, 5:1, 6:2)...The sons’ syncretistic appropriation follows the time honored practice of piling name upon powerful name so as to create incantations strong enough to require spirits to do one’s bidding. One such conjuration goes “I conjure you by the god of the Hebrews/Jesus, JABA IAĒ ABRAŌTH AIA THŌTH ELE ELŌ...” (Hans Dieter Betz [b. 1931] 1986:96). The name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches is these men’s newest and most potent “power name” (compare Ephesians 1:21). (Larkin, Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary Series), 277)

Ephesus proves a hotbed of supernatural activity (Acts 19:1-41), so much so that the abnormal appears normal there. The supernatural aspects of this text (Acts 19:11-20) has proven difficult for some and many commentaries ignore the episode entirely. Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) laments:

In this most difficult of chapters in Acts, readers find themselves with a “John the Baptist Cult,” healing through sweat towels, and now the bizarre account of the seven sons of Sceva. No less a conservative scholar than Sir William M. Ramsay [1851-1939] chokes right at this point. (Gangel, Acts (Holman New Testament Commentary), 324)

The fact that the sons of Sceva are performing a cultic incantation is seen in the use of the Greek term horkizo (Acts 19:13), translated as “adjure” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NRSV, RSV), “command” (HCSB, MSG, NIV, NLT) and “exorcize” (NKJV) (Acts 19:13). Eric Sorensen (b. 1961) relays:

An important term in later magical texts, ὁρκίζω [horkizo] refers to the swearing of an oath, or putting one under the obligation to say or to do something. It appears, however, only once in the New Testament, in the sons of Sceva episode. When ὁρκίζω receives the intensifying prefix ἐξ we arrive at the basis for our own familiar terminology for “exorcism.” It is a compound, however, that also very nearly eludes the New Testament, with one occurrence of a substantive form (ἐξορκίστής), also found in the story of the sons of Sceva, and a single occurrence of the verbal form which appears in a non-exorcist context. The verbal form, “to exorcize” (ἐξορκίζειν) only begins to gain currency with reference to the removal of evil spirits during the second and third centuries of the Common Era, when exorcismus also entered as a loan word into the Latin language through the influence of Christian writers. Its use in this context in ecclesiological writings from the second century of the Common Era onwards led to its eventual adoption also into English, where it conveys the sense of casting out demons from its earliest occurrences. (Sorenson, Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity, 132)

The sons of Sceva are actually correct in identifying the name of Jesus as critical to Paul’s methodology but they wrongly assume that the name can be used haphazardly. C. Peter Wagner (b. 1930) comments:

The central issue here is the name of the Lord Jesus...As all who minister deliverance on a regular basis know, the use of the name of Jesus is crucial. Jesus said, “If you ask anything in My name, I will do it” (John 14:14). He also said that among the signs that follow believers, “In My name they will cast out demons” (Mark 16:17)... The only authority we have to cast out demons does not reside inside of us naturally; it is delegated to us by Jesus. This is similar to the authority a United States ambassador would have in a foreign country. Ambassadors do not go to other countries in their own names; they go in the name of the president of the United States. And only those whom the president so designates can use his name effectively. If I went to the Japanese Foreign Ministry, for example, and announced that I have come in the name of the president of the United States, they would laugh at me...This is exactly what happened to the seven sons of Sceva. The name of Jesus is no magic formula...Jesus had not authorized the seven sons of Sceva to use His name and, therefore, the power was absent...Because they used the Lord’s name in vain, the seven sons opened themselves to a ferocious spiritual backlash that they would not soon forget. (Wagner, The Book of Acts: A Commentary, 438-39)

The sons of Sceva arrogate the authority of the name of Jesus. If one is not in communion with the owner of the name, she is not in a position to use it. Graham H. Twelftree (b. 1950) notes:

Through repeating the word ’Ιουδαιος (“Jew,” Acts 19:13, 14; cf. Acts 19:17), Luke draws attention to the sons of Sceva being Jews. This is not to be taken in any anti-Semitic sense, for all his major characters are Jews, but in the sense of not being Christians. In particular, in light of what he has just narrated about Paul, Luke is probably condemning these peripatetics in that they are not God or Spirit empowered. Luke describes Paul as letting God work directly through him (Acts 19:11), but the sons of Sceva are said to rely on a thirdhand source of power-authority...Thus Luke draws attention to the importance of the “spirit” identity of the exorcist. Unlike Jesus and Paul of Luke’s narrative, the sons of Sceva are not known in the spirit realm. Therefore, even though, by implication, the spirit would obey Jesus and Paul, their authority is obviated by the intrusion of an unqualified exorcist. (Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism Among Early Christians, 150)

Paul produces miracles; the sons of Sceva perform magic. The difference is the authorized use of the name of Jesus. Spiritual liberation comes not from incantations but rather God’s spirit. Without this power source, we are left to battle with our own insufficient strength. As such, Bob Larson (b. 1944) views the story of the sons of Sceva as a cautionary tale:

Be careful not to presumptuously engage in spiritual warfare. If you do, the protection of God’s guidance might be excluded, as it was with the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:14-16). These arrogant exorcists tried to cast out demons without the apostle Paul’s knowledge and authority. They didn’t know Christ and acted in self-confidence. Demons attacked them and physically over powered and disgraced them. (Larson, Larson’s Book of Spiritual Warfare), 26)

Bruce B. Barton (b. 1943) reminds that in matters of the spirit, using mere formula is ineffective:

The seven sons of Sceva thought they could manipulate God for selfish ends. If they just had the incantations right, the techniques down, and the process perfected—so they thought—they could “use” God for their own purposes. They failed to realize, however, that Christ’s power cannot be accessed by reciting his name like a magic charm. God works his power only through those he chooses and only at times he determines. Beware of thinking that you can control God by your clever prayers or by precisely following man-made schemes. God is free to do as he likes. (Barton, Acts (Life Application Bible Commentary), 330)

How important are the right words in prayer? Have you ever thought if you found just the right phrase or prayer posture that God would respond as you desired? Conversely, have you ever known someone who said all of the right words but had no substance behind them? Have you ever known someone who tried to play themselves off as something they were not? Why are the sons of Sceva engaging in this activity? Are the sons of Sceva successful?

The sons of Sceva were presumably effective on some levels (Acts 19:13). J. Bradley Chance (b. 1954) realizes:

In some sense, the sons of Sceva do succeed in casting the unclean spirit out of its original victim. The man in need of cleansing is rescued—the narrator does not leave this demon-possessed man, with whom readers are likely to show sympathy, without deliverance. Yet the evil spirit is not conquered—it has found some new hapless victims, persons with whom the reader, however, is presumably not to be sympathetic. The victim is released while the villainous characters get what they deserve. (Chance, Acts (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 347)

Ajith Fernando (b. 1948) analyzes:

As Ed Murphy [b. 1921] points out, this was a case of evil spirits battling each other—that is, the evil spirit in the possessed person battled the demonized exorcists [ The Handbook of Spiritual Warfare, 349]. How can we harmonize this fact with Christ’s statement that Satan will not be divided against Satan [Matthew 12:25-28; Mark 3:23-26]? Demons can expel and attack other demons to enhance the control of demons over people. Such demon-to-demon attacks only increase Satan’s hold over people. (Fernando, Acts (The NIV Application Commentary), 468)

The text’s real issue is the incomparable power of the name of Jesus and ostensibly the believer’s access to it. N.T. Wright (b. 1948) reminds:

The point is of course that Ephesus...was a centre of power: magic power, political power, religious power. And Paul’s ministry demonstrated that the power of the name of the Lord Jesus was stronger than all of them...Luke tells this splendid little tale of the exorcists who thought they could just add the name of Jesus to their repertoire of magic charms, only to discover that the demon they were addressing on this occasion respected Jesus (and Paul as well, as it turned out) but had no respect for them. Here is a vital principle, which Luke has emphasized already in chapters 8 and 13: the gospel does indeed provide power, but it is not ‘magic’. Magic attempts...to gain that power without paying the price of humble submission to the God whose power it is. But to reject the power, as some (alas) do, because you are afraid of magic, is to throw out the teapot with the old teabags. (Acts for Everyone, Part 2 (New Testament for Everyone), 117-119)

How do you read the supernatural passages of the Bible? Do you believe that there is power in the name Jesus? Are you known in the spiritual realm? Do you wish to be?

“The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.” - Alice Walker (b. 1944)

Chloe’s People: Gossip? (I Corinthians 1:11)

In which city did Chloe’s people live? Corinth (I Corinthians 1:11)

While working in Ephesus, Paul wrote to the Corinthian church which he had founded (I Corinthians 16:8). Paul’s letter was topical, addressing conflicts that existed within the church. Paul remained familiar with the Corinthian news as he had informants in the form of “Chloe’s people” (I Corinthians 1:11).

For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. (I Corinthians 1:11 NASB)

This is the only time Chloe’s name appears in the New Testament. Any other statements regarding her are speculative.

Paul’s informants were most accurately “Chloe’s “people”. Though this is reflected in many translations (ESV, NASB, NRSV, RSV), it is not the most common rendering. “Family” (CEV), “house” (KJV, MSG) and “household” (ASV, HCSB, NIV, NKJV, NLT) are all used in prominent translations of this passage. Even so, Chloe’s people were likely unrelated to her. Family would customarily be identified through the name of the father (not the mother) even if the father was deceased.

Gordon D. Fee (b. 1934) summarizes:

Most likely, therefore, Chloe was a wealthy Asian–whether a Christian or not cannot be known–whose business interests caused her agents to travel between Ephesus and Corinth. Some of them had become Christians and members of the church in Ephesus. (Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 54)

Were Chloe’s people correct to tell Paul of the shortcomings of the Corinthian church? When have people informed others of your actions? How did it make you feel?

Paul names his informants. They give validity to his letter. In naming them, Paul brings everything out into the open. Evidently, Chloe’s people proved to be a reliable source.

In a very real sense, Paul relied on gossip. Though gossip has a pejorative connotation, this has not always been the case. The word is from Old English godsibb, from god and sibb, the term for godparents.

Richard Lischer (b. 1943) writes:

A gossip was a sponsor at baptism, one who spoke on behalf of the child and who would provide spiritual guidance to the child as it grew in years. A gossip was your godmother or godfather. Gossiping was speech within the community of the baptized...For all its negative assocations, gossip retains something of its salutary function in a small town. (Lischer, Open Secrets: A Memoir of Faith and Discovery, 95-96)

When is gossip be helpful? When is it hurtful? How do you determine the difference?

Dirty Diana (Acts 19:28)

What female goddess was the “patroness” of Ephesus? Artemis [or Diana] (Acts 19:28)

Paul stayed two years at Ephesus during his “third missionary journey” (Acts 19:10). Near the end of his sojourn, as was often the case in Paul’s ministry, he faced significant conflict (Acts 19:23). He was challenged by a silversmith named Demetrius whose occupation was creating shrines for the goddess Artemis (Acts 19:24). The temple of Artemis at Ephesus was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (pictured). Paul’s monotheism severely threatened the local economy. In modern parlance, Paul went from preaching to meddling.

Artemis was one of the most widely worshiped Greek gods (Acts 19:24, 27, 28, 34, 35). In Greek myth, Artemis is the daughter of Zeus and Leto and the twin of Apollo. She is a virgin huntress and is frequently depicted carrying a bow and arrow. She was the goddess of the hunt, wild animals, wilderness, childbirth, virginity and young girls, and bringing and relieving disease in women. The Roman equivalent is Diana though this name never appears in the Bible. The temple of Artemis had been at Ephesus for centuries before Paul challenged its authority and would stand until 401.

Though people in the western world seldom worship a pantheon of gods, they do often put other things before God that become false idols.

What idols do people worship today? What do you put ahead of God? Does your religious belief system affect your purchasing patterns? When do you feel preachers go from preaching to meddling, overstepping their bounds into your comfort zone?

Demetrius was able to enlist support in his crusade against Paul and delivered a stirring speech:

“Men, you know that our prosperity depends upon this business. You see and hear that not only in Ephesus, but in almost all of Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all. Not only is there danger that this trade of ours fall into disrepute, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis be regarded as worthless and that she whom all of Asia and the world worship will even be dethroned from her magnificence.” (Acts 19:25-27 NASB)

The plea was effective and a riot ensued (Acts 19:28) before being quelled by the town clerk (Acts 19:35-40). Helmut Koester (b. 1926) speculates that this clerk was perhaps the most powerful Ephesian of his day (Koester, Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, 130). He was able to restore peace and the incident would prove to be Paul’s final battle against a pagan religion as a free man.

For Demetrius the issue was simple: “our prosperity depends upon this business (Acts 19:25).” Whether Paul spoke truth was not a primary concern.

What would you do if you felt God asked you to change professions? What if God asked you to give up your “prosperity”? What goal do you seek, truth or prosperity?