1 Timothy 1:20

‘Of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered to Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme.’

Paul then gives two well known example, something that he does not often do. This is probably because they had been prominent members of the church at Ephesus, even possibly elders, although it may also be because of the seriousness of their offence. They were guilty of blasphemy. These men had clearly been a great disappointment to him, and had let him and God down badly.

For Hymenaeus see also 2 Timothy 2:17. He was clearly prominent amongst those who taught foolish things, but had also taught that the resurrection was already past, upsetting the faith of others. We do not know precisely how he did this, but we can see why it was seen as blasphemy. He had rid the cross of its power, replacing it with some psychological or mystical experience. Perhaps his claim was that some had already become ‘divine’ as a result of some spiritual resurrection, which only applied to initiates. He may well have been misrepresenting Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 1:19 to Ephesians 2:6.

About Alexander we know nothing further. There is no reason for seeing this Alexander at Ephesus as the same Alexander who did much harm to Paul in 2 Timothy 4:14. That was not at Ephesus, and Alexander was a common name. But these two had also thrust their consciences to one side and their behaviour had been so bad that Paul had felt it necessary to act openly against them

Paul then goes on to say that he had "delivered them over to Satan so that they might learn not to blaspheme," and that raises the question as to exactly what this means. A number of suggestions have been made.

1) That he was thinking of the Jewish practise of excommunication. According to synagogue practise, if a man was an evildoer he was first publicly rebuked. If that was ineffective, he was banished from the synagogue for a period of thirty days. And then if he was still stubbornly unrepentant, he was put under ‘the ban’. This put him into a position where he was seen as accursed, and debarred from both the society of good men and the fellowship of God.

2) That he was saying that he has barred them from the fellowship of the church. The world outside the church was seen as being in the arms of the evil one (1 John 5:19). Thus to exclude them from the church may well have been seen as delivering them to Satan. The aim would be to bring about repentance as a result of their exclusion. However, this suggestion does not strictly tie in with the idea of ‘the destruction of the flesh’ in 1 Corinthians 5:5 unless Paul also expected that God’s punishment would follow, which may well be the case (see 1 Corinthians 11:30). It does, however, tie in with Mat 18:17 ; 2 Thessalonians 3:14.

3) That he was saying that he has handed them over to Satan in a similar way to that in which Job was handed over to Satan (although in his case it was because he was such a man of faith). The point then is that he has called on God to let Satan have his way with them so that they will become subject to suffering in order that it might make them rethink their position. We can compare here the man in the church at Corinth who was guilty of incest. Paul's advice was that he should be delivered to Satan "for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Corinthians 5:5). The hope would be that, after chastisement, he might finally be saved. We can compare the blindness which fell on Elymas because of his opposition to the gospel (Acts 13:11). It could well be that it was Paul's prayer that these two men should be subjected to some painful experience which would be both a punishment and a warning.