Alexander the coppersmith In this man was exhibited a shocking instance of apostasy. He had made profession of some zeal in advancing the reign of Christ, against which he afterwards carried on open war. No class of enemies is more dangerous or more envenomed than this. But from the beginning, the Lord determined that his Church should not be exempted from this evil, lest our courage should fail when we are tried by any of the same kind. Hath done me many evil things It is proper to observe, what are the "many evils" which Paul complains that Alexander brought upon him. They consisted in this, that he opposed his doctrine. Alexander was an artificer, not prepared by the learning of the schools for being a great disputer; but domestic enemies have always been abundantly able to do injury. And the wickedness of such men always obtains credit in the world, so that malicious and impudent ignorance sometimes creates trouble and difficulty greater than the highest abilities accompanied by learning. Besides, when the Lord brings his servants into contest with persons of this low and base class, he purposely withdraws them from the view of the world, that they may not indulge in ostentatious display. From Paul's words, (ver. 15,) for he vehemently opposed our discourses, we may infer that he had committed no greater offense than an attack on sound doctrine; for if Alexander had wounded his person, or committed an assault on him, he would have endured it patiently; but when the truth of God is assailed, his holy breast burns with indignation, because, in all the members of Christ that saying must hold good, "The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up." (Psalm 69:9.) And this is also the reason of the stern imprecation into which he breaks out, that the Lord may reward him according to his works. A little afterwards, when he complains that all had forsaken him, (Psalm 69:9,) still he does not call down the vengeance of God on them, but, on the contrary, appears as their intercessor, pleading that they may obtain pardon. So mild and so merciful to all others, how comes it that he shows himself so harsh and inexorable towards this individual? The reason is this. Because some had fallen through fear and weakness, he desires that the Lord would forgive them; for in this manner we ought to have compassion on the weakness of brethren. But because this man rose against God with malice and sacrilegious hardihood, and openly attacked known truth, such impiety had no claim to compassion. We must not imagine, therefore, that Paul was moved by excessive warmth of temper, when he broke out into this imprecation; for it was from the Spirit of God, and through a well regulated zeal, that he wished eternal perdition to Alexander, and mercy to the others. Seeing that it is by the guidance of the Spirit that Paul pronounces a heavenly judgment from on high, we may infer from this passage, how dear to God is his truth, for attacking which he punishes so severely. Especially it ought to be observed how detestable a crime it is, to fight with deliberate malice against the true religion But lest any person, by falsely imitating the Apostle, should rashly utter similar imprecations, there are three things here that deserve notice. First, let us not avenge the injuries done to ourselves, lest self-love and a regard to our private advantage should move us violently, as frequently happens. Secondly, while we maintain the glory of God, let us not mingle with it our own passions, which always disturb good order. Thirdly, let us not pronounce sentence against every person without discrimination, but only against reprobates, who, by their impiety, give evidence that such is their true character; and thus our wishes will agree with God's own judgment otherwise there is ground to fear that the same reply may be made to us that Christ made to the disciples who thundered indiscriminately against all who did not comply with their views, "Ye know not of what spirit ye are." (Luke 9:55.) They thought that they had Elijah as their supporter, (2 Kings 1:10,) who prayed to the Lord in the same manner; but because they differed widely from the spirit of Elijah, the imitation was absurd. It is therefore necessary, that the Lord should reveal his judgment before we burst forth into such imprecations; and wish that by his Spirit he should restrain and guide our zeal. And whenever we call to our remembrance the vehemence of Paul against a single individual, let us also recollect his amazing meekness towards those who had so basely forsaken him, that we may learn, by his example, to have compassion on the weakness of our brethren. Here I wish to put a question to those who pretend that Peter presided over the church at Rome. Where was he at that time? According to their opinion, he was not dead; for they tell us, that exactly a year intervened between his death and that of Paul. Besides, they extend his pontificate to seven years. Here Paul mentions his first defense: his second appearance before the court would not be quite so soon. In order that Peter may not lose the title of Pope, must he endure to be charged with the guilt of so shameful a revolt? Certainly, when the whole matter has been duly examined, we shall find that everything that has been believed about his Popedom is fabulous.

Alexander the coppersmith - Or, rather, "the brazier" - ὁ χαλκεύς ho chalkeus. The word is used, however, to denote a worker in any kind of metals. This is probably the same person who is mentioned in 1-Timothy 1:20, and perhaps the same as the one mentioned in Acts 19:33; see the notes on 1-Timothy 1:20.
Did me much evil - In what way this was done, is not mentioned. If this is the same person who is referred to in 1-Timothy 1:20, it is probable that it was not evil to Paul personally, so much as embarrassment to the cause of religion which he advocated; compare 2-Timothy 2:17-18.
The Lord reward him according to his works; - compare the notes at 1-Timothy 1:20. This need not be regarded as an expression of private feeling; still less should it be understood as expressing a desire of revenge. It is the language of one who wished that God would treat him exactly as he ought to be treated, and might be in accordance with the highest benevolence of any heart. It is the aim of every just government that every one should be treated exactly as he deserves; and every good citizen should desire and pray that exact justice may be done to all. It is the business of a police officer to ferret out the guilty, to bring them to trial, to secure a just sentence; and any police officer might "pray," with the utmost propriety, that God would assist him in his endeavors, and enable him to perform his duty. This might be done with no malevolent feeling toward any human being, but with the purest love of country, and the most earnest desire for the welfare of all.
if such a police officer, or if a judge, or a juryman, were heard thus to pray, who would dare to accuse him of having a vindictive spirit, or a malevolent heart? And why should Paul be so charged, when his prayer amounts to no more than this? For it remains yet to be proved that he refers to any private wrong which Alexander had done him, or that he was actuated by any other desire than that the sacred interests of truth should be guarded, and equal justice done to all. Why is it wrong to desire or to pray that universal justice may be done, and that every man may be treated as, under all the circumstances of the case, he ought to be treated? On the subject of the "Imprecations in the Scriptures," the reader may consult an article in the Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 1, pp. 97-110. It should be added here, that some manuscripts, instead of ἀποδῴη apodōē, "may the Lord reward," read it in the future - ἀποδώσει apodōsei, "will reward." See Wetstein. The future is also found in the Vulgate, Coptic, and in Augustine, Theodoret, and Chrysostom. Augustine says (on the Sermon on the Mount), "He does not say, may he reward (reddat); but, he will reward (reddet), which is a verb of prophecy, not of imprecation. The authority, however, is not sufficient to justify a change in the present reading. These variations have doubtless arisen from a belief that the common reading expresses a sentiment inconsistent with the true spirit of a Christian, and a desire to find a better. But there is no reason for "desiring" a change in the text.

Alexander the coppersmith - We are not to understand this of any tradesman, but of some rabbin; for it was not unusual for the Jews to apply the name of some trade as an epithet to their rabbins and literary men. He is, in all probability, the very same mentioned Acts 19:33 (note); and it is not unlikely that he may have been the same whom the apostle was obliged to excommunicate, 1-Timothy 1:20.
The Lord reward him - Αποδῳη αυτῳ ὁ Κυριος· But instead of αποδῳη, which has here the power of a solemn imprecation, αποδωσει, he will reward, is the reading of the very best MSS., several of the versions, and some of the chief Greek fathers. This makes the sentence declaratory: The Lord Will reward him according to his works. This reading is most like the spirit and temper of this heavenly man. See 2-Timothy 4:16.

Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil,.... This seems to be the same person that was at Ephesus in the tumult, when the apostle was there, Acts 20:33 and whom he afterwards delivered to Satan, along with Hymenaeus, for blasphemy, 1-Timothy 1:20. It was very likely he had lately been at Rome, though now returned to Ephesus, and had done great injury to the apostle's character, and had reproached and reviled him as a man of bad principles and practices; his business is mentioned, to distinguish him from any other of that name, and to show the insolence of the man, that though he was an illiterate person, and in such a mean station of life, yet took upon him to resist the apostle and his doctrine.
The Lord reward him according to his works; which may be considered either as an imprecation upon him, as knowing him to be a wicked blasphemer, and a reprobate person; and which arose, not from private resentment, and on account of the private injury he had done to him; but from a pure zeal for the glory of God, and the honour of his name, without mingling his own spirit and passions with it: or as a prophecy, or declaration of what would be; and so the Alexandrian copy, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions, read, "the Lord will render to him", &c.

There is as much danger from false brethren, as from open enemies. It is dangerous having to do with those who would be enemies to such a man as Paul. The Christians at Rome were forward to meet him, Acts 28, but when there seemed to be a danger of suffering with him, then all forsook him. God might justly be angry with them, but he prays God to forgive them. The apostle was delivered out of the mouth of the lion, that is, of Nero, or some of his judges. If the Lord stands by us, he will strengthen us in difficulties and dangers, and his presence will more than supply every one's absence.

Alexander the coppersmith--or "smith" in general. Perhaps the same as the Alexander (see on 1-Timothy 1:20) at Ephesus. Excommunicated then he subsequently was restored, and now vented his personal malice because of his excommunication in accusing Paul before the Roman judges, whether of incendiarism or of introducing a new religion. See my Introduction. He may have been the Alexander put forward by the Jews in the tumult at Ephesus (Acts 19:33-34).
reward--The oldest manuscripts read, "shall reward," or "requite him." Personal revenge certainly did not influence the apostle (2-Timothy 4:16, end).

Alexander the coppersmith. An Alexander is named in Acts 19:33 and in 1-Timothy 1:20 as belonging to Ephesus. This may have been the same man. We cannot be sure whether the evil was done in Ephesus, or Rome.
Did me much evil. By his opposition.
The Lord reward him. The Christian, when wronged, is to turn over to the Lord the recompense for the wrong.
Of whom be thou ware. This seems to indicate that Alexander was at Ephesus still.

The Lord will reward him - This he spoke prophetically.