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.

Alexander the coppersmith

Comp. 1 Timothy 1:20, and Acts 19:33. The same person is probably meant in all three cases.

Did me much evil (πολλά μοι κακὰ ἐνεδείξατο)

Lit. shewed me much ill-treatment. Comp. 1 Timothy 1:16.

May the Lord reward (ἀποδώσει)

More correctly shall reward. A.V. follows the reading ἀποδω ῄ.

Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:

4:14 Alexander the coppersmith. An Alexander is named as belonging to Ephesus in Ac 19:33 1Ti 1:20. 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 according to his works. The Christian, when wronged, is to turn over to the Lord the recompense for the wrong. See Mt 16:27.

4:14 The Lord will reward him - This he spoke prophetically.

Margin Lord

Jehovah. 2Sam 3:39.

14. Alexander the coppersmith-or "smith" in general. Perhaps the same as the Alexander (see on [2509]1Ti 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 [2510]Introduction. He may have been the Alexander put forward by the Jews in the tumult at Ephesus (Ac 19:33, 34).

reward-The oldest manuscripts read, "shall reward," or "requite him." Personal revenge certainly did not influence the apostle (2Ti 4:16, end).

4:14-18 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, Ac 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.