1 Timothy 1:20

of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered to Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme.

Hymenaeus ... Many scholars, along with Spence, agree that "Hymenaeus is probably identical with the heretic of this name, charged in the second Epistle as teaching that the resurrection was passed already!"[42]

Alexander ... Although some have done so, it would appear to be precarious to identify this character with "Alexander the coppersmith" (2 Timothy 4:14), or with another Alexander mentioned in Acts 19:33.

Whom I delivered to Satan ... Another glimpse of this same apostolic power is found in the case of the incestuous person (1 Corinthians 5:5), and this is a power no longer on earth. From this and other passages it is clear that the apostles had such power; but it came to an end with the cessation of miracles. Hendriksen also was of the opinion that the exercise of it meant excommunication from the church, but that it also included "even more than this, bodily suffering or disease."[43]

This may strike us as unbelievable, but is it after all so strange that added to the charismatic gift of bodily healing was the power to inflict bodily suffering? If we deny the latter, should we not also deny the former?[44]

The wisdom of the venerable Adam Clarke supplied the following observation upon this apostolic gift:

No such power as this remains in the church of God, and none should be assumed; and the pretensions to it are as wicked as they are vain. It was the same power by which Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead, and Elymas the sorcerer struck blind. Apostles alone were entrusted with it.[45]

That such views as those of Clarke are correct would appear to be implicit in the fact of the stated purpose of the infliction, namely, that these two heretics may "be taught not to blaspheme."

Not to blaspheme ... Such evil teaching as that of denying the resurrection was equivalent in every way to "speaking against God." It is absurd to suppose that St. Paul here refers to a railing disparagement of his own apostolic claims."[46] We are not told here of the exact nature of their "blasphemy," but something far more serious than opposition to Paul is indicated. The two sinners singled out in this verse were gross offenders whom Paul punished for the sake of checking the damage which their example might otherwise have wrought in the church. If the denial of any future resurrection was involved in their behavior, along with the teaching that "the resurrection was passed already," this would have led to the exercise of all kinds of sins in the church. "That suggests that they were antinomians, teaching that believers should continue in sin that grace may abound (Romans 6:1).[47]

[42] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 183.

[43] William Hendriksen, op. cit., p. 87.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. VI (London: Carlton and Porter, 1829), p. 213.

[46] Newport J. D. White, op. cit., p. 102.

[47] F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), p. 113.