Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Titus 3:10

A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject;

10. This and the next verse seem to close the last instruction; St Paul reviews the counsel given as to doctrine and discipline; similarly at the close of 1 Tim. See summary at beginning of ch. vi.

A man that is a heretick ] This being so, it would be unnatural if the epithet here were required to have the definite narrowed meaning which we now give to the word ‘heretic’. The internal consideration favours a meaning which covers quarrelsome opinionative controversy and speculation, contentiousness in faith and morals. The external consideration is from St Paul’s usage of the word and its substantive. Prof. Reynolds misrepresents Bp Ellicott as saying ‘St Paul uses the word for contentious conduct, not heterodox opinions: divisions, not doctrinal error.’ His words are, ‘the word does not imply specially the open espousal of any fundamental error in 1Co 11:18-19; Gal 5:20; but more generally, “divisions in church matters,” possibly of a somewhat maturer kind.’ In that early day the ‘self chosen divergence,’ which is the essence of the word, included both religious belief and practice. Theod. Mops. Lat. Comm. defines ‘ haereticum illum qui ea quae contraria sunt pietatis praeelegit.’ And Augustine’s definition was exact, ‘haeresis schisma inveteratum.’ it was not till later that Jerome’s distinction held good, ‘haeresis perversum dogma habet; schisma propter Episcopalem dissensionem ab ecclesia separatur.’ This distinction as to doctrine and discipline found illustration in the Council of Nica, Arius being condemned as a heretic for maintaining that Christ was a Divine being but created, Meletius as a schismatic for ordaining bishops without the authority of his metropolitan or consent of his fellow bishops in the province of Egypt. Here the R.V. by its rendering heretical and its marginal ‘factious’ adopts this more general meaning for the word.

after the first and second admonition, reject ] A first and second admonition. Cf. Eph 6:4, ‘nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord.’ ‘Discipline’ or ‘chastening’ (see the verb ch. Tit 2:11) is per poenas, ‘admonition’ is verbis, encouraging or reproving words according to the occasion. Here the reference must be to Tit 1:13, the reproof of confutation and condemnation. ‘Reject’ should be rather refuse, as in 1Ti 4:7 where see note; and (of the widows) 1Ti 5:11; refuse, that is, to argue with, or to countenance. St Paul’s use is against the interpretation which has classical support, ‘exclude’ from Church membership, as in Lucian of divorcing a wife. But his use is for a stronger meaning than ‘avoid.’

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

A man that is an heretic – The word heretic is now commonly applied to one who holds some fundamental error of doctrine, a person who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy. Webster. The Greek word here used hairetikos occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. The corresponding noun ( hairesis) occurs in the following places: Act 5:17; Act 15:5; Act 24:5; Act 26:5; Act 28:22, where it is rendered sect; and Act 25:14; 1Co 11:19; Gal 5:20; 2Pe 2:1, where it is rendered heresy, and heresies; see the notes at Act 24:14. The true notion of the word is that of one who is a promoter of a sect or party. The man who makes divisions in a church, instead of aiming to promote unity, is the one who is intended. Such a man may form sects and parties on some points of doctrine on which be differs from others, or on some custom, religious rite, or special practice; he may make some unimportant matter a ground of distinction from his brethren, and may refuse to have fellowship with them, and endeavor to get up a new organization. Such a man, according to the Scripture usage, is a heretic, and not merely one who holds a different doctrine from that which is regarded as orthodoxy. The spirit of the doctrine here is the same as in Rom 16:17, and the same class of persons is referred to. Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have received; and avoid them. See the notes at that passage. The word here used is defined by Robinson (Lexicon), one who creates dissensions, introduces errors, a factious person. It is not found in classic Greek, but often in ecclesiastical writers; see Suicers Thesaurus.

After the first and second admonition – Compare Mat 18:15-17. That is, do not do it hastily and rashly. Give him an opportunity to explain himself, and to repent and abandon his course. No man is to be cut off without giving him a proper opportunity to vindicate his conduct, and to repent if he has done wrong. If after the first and second admonition a man who is undoubtedly doing wrong, will not repent, then he is to be cut off. The apostle does not say in what way this admonition is to be given, or whether it should be public or private. The language which he uses would justify either, and the method which is to be adopted is doubtless to be determined by circumstances. The thing which is to be reached is, that his fault is to be fairly set before his mind.

Reject – paraitou. This word is rendered excuse in Luk 14:18-19; refuse, Act 25:11; 1Ti 4:7; 1Ti 5:11; Heb 12:25; avoid, 2Ti 2:23, and entreated, Heb 12:19. Its prevailing meaning, as used in connections like the one before us, is to reject in relation to an office; that is, to decline appointing one to an office. It probably had a primary reference to that here, and meant that a man who was given to making dissensions, or who was a factious person, should not be admitted to an office in the church. The general direction would also include this, – that he should not be admitted to the church. He is neither to be owned as a member, nor admitted to office; compare Mat 18:17. Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. In regard to this passage, then, we may observe:

(1) That the utmost limit which this allows is mere exclusion. It does not allow us to follow the offender with injury.

(2) It does not authorize us to oppose one on account of his mere private opinions. The essential idea is that of a factious, division-making man; a man who aims to form sects and parties, whether on account of opinions, or from any other cause.

(3) It does not make it right to deliver such a man over to the secular arm, or to harm him in body, soul, property, or reputation. It gives no power to torture him on the rack, or with thumb-screws, or to bind him to the stake. It authorizes us not to recognize him as a Christian brother, or to admit him to an office in the church – but beyond this it gives us no right to go. He has a right to his own opinion still, as far as we are concerned, and we are not to molest him in the enjoyment of that right.

(4) It demands that, when a man is undoubtedly a heretic in the sense here explained, there should be the utmost kindness towards him, in order if possible to reclaim him. We should not begin by attacking and denouncing his opinions; or by formally arraigning him; or by blazoning his name as a heretic; but he is to be dealt with in all Christian kindness and brotherly fidelity. He is to be admonished more than once by those who have the right to admonish him; and then, and then only, if he does not repent, he is to be simply avoided. That is to be an end of the matter so far as we are concerned. The power of the church there ceases. It has no power to deliver him over to anyone else for persecution or punishment, or in any way to meddle with him. He may live where he pleases; pursue his own plans; entertain his own opinions or company, provided he does not interfere with us; and though we have a right to examine the opinions which he may entertain, yet our work with him is done. If these plain principles had been observed, what scenes of bloody and cruel persecution in the church would have been avoided!

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Tit 3:10-11

An heretic reject

The treatment of heresy

I.

Heresy is not an unsound opinion, but an unsound life. A man may hold an erroneous opinion, and hold it sincerely; but the word used here denotes one who seeks to promote discord in the Church (See Rom 16:17).

II. Heresy is to be dealt with firmly, but gently.

1. Firmly–by admonition.

2. Gently–by repeated admonitions.

III. Hardened heretics are to be rejected.

1. But this only applies to exclusion from Church fellowship.

2. It is no warrant for persecution.

3. Excluded heretics are to be deemed objects of pity. (F. Wagstaff.)

Treatment of heretics

Paul having exhorted Titus both to teach the truth according to godliness, as also to resist all such foolish and vain doctrine as might do hurt in the Church of God. Titus might object: This indeed is my duty wherein I extend to exercise myself with diligence; but when I have laboured and done all I can, many there are who will not yield to the truth, nor submit themselves to this ordinance of God; how am I to carry myself towards such? Answer: The apostle, careful to prevent all such things as he foresaw might be hurtful to the Church, giveth direction in these two verses how to proceed in this business also. The former, giving direction and laying down the duty; and the latter, enforcing the same by moment of reason. In the former are three things to be considered:

1. The persons against whom Titus is to deal–here called heretics.

2. The direction how he is to behave himself towards them–reject them.

3. The orderly manner of proceeding, after once or twice admonition.

The latter verse containeth the reason of this severity, because such persons are incurable and incorrigible; which is proved by two arguments.

1. Such a one is subverted, that is, turned or cast off the foundation.

2. He sinneth against his own conscience, being damned of his own self, that is, he wittingly and willingly spurneth against that truth of which his conscience is by the former admonition convinced. (T. Taylor, D. D.)

Heresy not to be trifled with

I am asked sometimes to read an heretical book. Well, if I believed my reading it would help its refutation, and might be an assistance to others in keeping them out of error, I might do it as a hard matter of duty, but I shall not do it unless I see some good will come from it. I am not going to drag my spirit through a ditch for the sake of having it washed afterwards, for it is not my own. It may be that good medicine would restore me if I poisoned myself with putrid meat, but I am not going to try it: I dare not experiment on a mind which no longer belongs to me. There is a mother and a child, and the child has a book to play with, and a blacklead pencil. It is making drawings and marks upon the book, and the mother takes no notice. It lays down one book and snatches another from the table, and at once the mother rises from her seat, and hurriedly takes the book away, saying: No, my dear, you must not mark that, for it is not ours. So with my mind, intellect, and spirit; if it belonged to me I might or might not play tomfool with it, and go to hear Socinians, Universalists, and suchlike preach; but as it is not my own, I will preserve it from such fooleries, and the pure word shall not be mingled with the errors of men. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Contagion of false doctrine

Sin is like the bale of goods which came from the East to this city in the olden time, which brought the pest in it. Probably it was but a small bale, but yet it contained in it the deaths of hundreds of the inhabitants of London. In those days one piece of rag carried the infection into a whole town. So, if you permit one sin or false doctrine in a church knowingly and wittingly, none can tell the extent to which that evil may ultimately go. The Church, therefore, is to be purged of practical and doctrinal evil as diligently as possible That sour and corrupting thing which God abhors must be purged out, and it is to be the business of the Christian minister, and of all his fellow helpers, to keep the church free from it. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Dilution of the truth

I have likened the career of certain divines to the journey of a Roman wine cask from the vineyard to the city. It starts from the wine press as the pure juice of the grape, but at the first halting place the drivers of the cart must needs quench their thirst, and when they come to a fountain they substitute water for what they had drunk. In the next village there are numbers of lovers of wine who beg or buy a little, and the discreet carrier dilutes again. The watering is repeated, till, on its entrance into Rome, the fluid is remarkably different from that which originally started from the vineyard. There is a way of doctoring the gospel in much the same manner. A little truth is given up, and then a little more, and men fill up the vacuum with opinions, inferences, speculations, and dreams, till their wine is mixed with water, and the water none of the best. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Wilful heresy

Heresy, in the New Testament, is most commonly used in an indifferent sense, and but seldom in a bad one. It generally signifies no more than a sect or party in religion. Thus we read of the sect, or heresy, of the Sadducees; of the sect, or heresy, of the Pharisees; St. Paul is styled a ring leader of the sect, or heresy, of the Nazarenes; and he says of himself that, after the strictest sect (where the same Greek word is used) of the Jewish religion, he lived a Pharisee. In this last passage particularly nothing can be more plain than that the word has an innocent meaning, since the apostle rather commends than charges himself with anything criminal for having been a Pharisee before his conversion to the Christian faith. And we find it applied in the same manner in Act 28:22. I shall mention but one text more, and that is, For there must also be heresies among you, etc. (1Co 11:19). The evident design of which is, that considering the various tempers of men, their different views, passions, prejudices, their selfishness, ambition, vanity, and the like, it was natural to expect that they would divide into parties about religion, as well as about politics, and the civil affairs of life; and that the providence of God wisely permitted this for the trial of their integrity, and to distinguish the indolent, careless, and insincere from the real friends of truth, persons of an honest, inquisitive, and ingenuous temper. Now, according to this account, the general notion of a heretic is no more than this, viz., one that sets up to be the head, or chooses to join himself to a particular religious sect. I say who makes this the matter of his choice because it is implied in the original signification of the word; and, besides, nothing can be supposed to have any concern with religion but what is a voluntary action. A heretic, therefore, in a bad sense, must be one who knowingly espouses a false doctrine, is insincere in his profession, and asserts and defends what he is convinced is contrary to Christianity, and, consequently, one who maintains and supports the interest of a faction, to serve some base designs. According to St. Pauls account in the text, a heretic is not only subverted or turned aside from the true faith, he not only entertains wrong sentiments of Christianity, but sinneth, i.e., doth this wilfully, and with an ill attention. He is one that makes religion a cloak for his immoralities, and espouses and propagates what he knows to be false, to promote the ends of his ambition, covetousness, or sensual pleasure; who, indeed, thinks it his interest to retain the name of a Christian, and in that circumstance only differs from a thorough and wilful apostate from Christianity, but which incurs the greater guilt may perhaps be hard to determine; for as the one rejects the Christian religion altogether, the other out of choice corrupts it, and opposes its true doctrines, even while he pretends to believe and reverence its authority. Such as these, I say, persons of such vile and dishonest principles, and of so flagitious a character, are the heretics condemned by St. Paul; and therefore to fix it as a term of reproach on any in whom there does not appear hatred of the truth, a sensual mind, and a profligate conscience, must be unChristian and scandalous. And if we examine other passages of the New Testament we shall find that they all concur in giving us the same idea of heresy. It is represented as a work of the flesh, because it has its foundation in the corrupt inclinations of human nature. It is reckoned among the most heinous and execrable vices–such as adultery, idolatry, hatred, variance, seditions, murders. And heretics are constantly described as men of no probity or honour, strangers to all the principles of virtue, and embracing such opinions only as were calculated for the gratification of irregular appetites, and advancing selfish and worldly views (1Ti 1:19; 2Pe 2:1.)

1. It appears from what has been said that no mere error of the judgment can be heresy. For heresy is a high degree of wickedness; and necessarily supposes irregularity of the affections and a depraved and vicious choice; whereas erroneous conceptions and apprehensions of things are no crime at all, but natural to mankind in the present weak and imperfect state of the faculties.

2. We may infer that no honest man can possibly be a heretic. He may, indeed, have errors (and who is there among us that has not?)–nay, he may err in points of importance too, but his mistakes cannot be dangerous while he takes care to maintain a good conscience.

3. If heresy be an error of the will, and such only can be guilty of it who are condemned of themselves, how can we certainly know, in most cases at least, whether a man be a heretic or not? Let each of us put this question to himself impartially, and if we cannot answer it to our satisfaction, let us, however, learn thus much from our ignorance, to be modest in the censures we pass upon others. If it be said that such wicked deceivers are generally known by their fruits, and that their vicious lives will show us by what views they are acted, and the vile design of their imposture, I answer that, even upon this supposition, I should think it better that they be rejected for their immorality, which is notorious and palpable, than for heresy, of which we cannot so certainly judge.

4. Though it be a point of great nicety to judge of heresy in particular instances, the persons who come nearest the character of the old heretics are violent party men, who confine Christianity to their own faction, and excommunicate all that take the liberty to differ from them; the rigid imposers of human schemes of doctrine and modes of worship, as essential branches of religion, and laws binding conscience, these, I say, are most like the heretics condemned in Scripture, notwithstanding their insolence and presumption. (James Foster.)

I. What patience the Lord useth in His just proceedings, even against the worst men, whom He wilt. Not have condemned nor cast out of the Church upon suspicions, or surmises; nor nor presently after an open sin is committed; but there must be a time between wherein the Church must rightly inform herself, that she may know the nature and degree of the sin before she turn her to any censure or sentence. Yea, and further, the sin being apparent, she must not reject any, till all good means of reclaiming have been in vain used. Which may teach us, that to hasten excommunications ipso facto; or (as it is often) before the party can come to the knowledge or suspicion of any such proceeding, is to swerve from the rules of the Word, and those weighty reasons also upon which they are grounded. As namely:

1. Some offenders are curable; and what man in his wits will cut off his arm or leg so soon as it beginneth to ache and pain him, and not rather use means of surgery and cure? is any member in the body so despised?

2. Ourselves must not be so uncharitable as presently, to despair of any mans conversion. God may in time raise the most desperate stoner unto repentance.

3. The means used are not lost; for if it attain no other end, yet shall it make them more inexcusable, the censure more just, and the Churchs proceeding more equal and moderate.

4. Add here unto the Lords example, who never striketh before He have sufficiently warned; He never precipitateth either sentence or execution, but first cometh down to see (Gen 18:21), and hearkeneth and heareth (Mal 3:16), and accordingly passeth sentence.

II. Note that when a sinner is known to sin of obstinacy, the best way is to avoid him and cast him out.

1. For labour is but lost on such a one.

2. He doth but tread holy things under his feet; of which holy things the Church is the keeper, and must be faithful.

3. He sins not only of judgment and reason, but of affection; and this is the reason why very few heretics are converted, when many unregenerate men and outrageously wicked in other kinds are, who sin not of affection and wilfulness, but of corrupt judgment only.

4. The Lords example (Hos 4:17).

III. Note hence, also, what use the Lord maketh of a wicked conscience, even in desperate sinners. It shall be the accuser, witness, and judge to pronounce the sentence of death against his own soul; and so shall make way unto the Lords most righteous judgment. Use.

1. It letteth us see what an intolerable torment a wicked conscience is. Use.

2. This further teaches us not to neglect the checks of conscience, nor our own hearts reproving us of our ways; as those men who are resolved to hold on their lewd courses, let the word and spirit, yea, their own spirits, suggest what they will or can against it. For the time cometh when thou canst not set the voice of thy conscience so light, and then that conscience which hath checked thee shall judge thee, and that heart which hath reproved thee shall torment thee, and thou shalt never be able to turn off the charge of it, but shalt by it be accused and convicted to have been a wilful chooser of thine own destruction. Use.

3. This consideration also teacheth us to look that in everything we keep good consciences before God and all men, the use of which will be manifold.

(1) To keep us from errors and heresies, and contain us in the profession of the true faith; for let good conscience be put away, there must needs follow a shipwreck of faith; as is to be seen in all heretics. Hence are we counselled to make pure conscience as the coffer to keep faith in (1Ti 3:9).

(2) In doing any action lawful in itself, a good con science only maketh it good to the doer; for to do even the will of God against my conscience is sin to me, be the same in itself never so materially good.

(3) In suffering or enduring anything for well doing (as not the pain, but the cause maketh a martyr so), not the cause so much as the conscience of the sufferer worketh out his boldness and peace in the midst of the combat, and giveth him security, in his conflict; whereas a bad conscience will betray the best cause.

(4) In enjoying any condition of this present life, a good conscience is a sweet companion; even a dry morsel with peace of heart is better than a house full of sacrifices with strife and war within. In outward afflictions there is inward rejoicing, for let the heart be pacified in God, it can rejoice in tribulation. The disciples can go away rejoicing from the council that they were counted worthy to be beaten and suffer rebuke for Christ (Act 5:41). The martyrs can kiss the stake, embrace the fire, and sing in the midst of the flames.

(5) Yea, it doth not only through the whole life minister joy and comfort even in the remembrance of death, as in 2Ti 4:7-8, but it followeth a man after death, when all things else forsake him; and as a most faithful friend it goeth with him before Gods judgment seat, and pleadeth for him at the bar of Jesus Christ; yea, testifieth with him, and cleareth, and quite acquitteth him from the judgment of the great day. All which being so, what pains and labour can be thought too much in the getting and keeping of such a jewel, which bringeth in so rich a recompense for so little labour, and how worthily doth he forfeit all these sweet fruits of it, who will be at no costs nor pains for it. (T. Taylor, D. D.)

Heresy hunters

You can imagine a husbandman who would neglect to care for his soil, and go out after squirrels and all manner of vermin that were eating his grain if he had any that they could eat–who would go out to shoot weasels in the wall, foxes in the field, wolves in the wood, and bears everywhere; and who, when he could find nothing to shoot, would lie out at night, watching for racoons, and range up and down through the day, searching for some stray dog, where there should be sheep, but where there are none. There are in the Church what may be called heresy hunters. They always carry a rifle–a spiritual rifle under their arm. You will find them forever outlying, watching for heresy–not so much in their own hearts, not so much in their own Church, not so much in their own minister, but in other peoples hearts, in other peoples Churches, in other peoples ministers. If any man happens to hold an opinion respecting any doctrine which does not accord with their own peculiar views, they all spread abroad to run him down. They are taking care of and defending the faith! They are searching for foxes, and wolves, and bears, that they suppose are laying waste Gods husbandry! They never do anything except fire at other folks. I have no doubt that Nimrod was a very good fellow in his own poor, miserable way, but a Nimrod minister is the meanest of all sorts of hunters. (H. W. Beecher.)

Treatment of heretics

In what way are the directions here given to Titus to be used for our own guidance at the present time? They do not apply to persons who have always been, or who have ended in placing themselves outside the Christian Church. They refer to persons who contend that their self-chosen views are part and parcel of the gospel, and who claim to hold and teach such views as members or even ministers of the Church. Secondly, they refer to grave and fundamental errors with regard to first principles; not to eccentric views respecting matters of detail. And in determining this second point much caution will be needed; especially when inferences are drawn from a mans teaching. We should be on our guard with regard to assertions that a particular teacher virtually denies the Divinity of Christ, or the Trinity, or the personality of God. But when both these points are quite clear, that the person contradicts some of the primary truths of the gospel, and that he claims to do so as a Christian, what is a minister to do to such a member of his flock? He is to make one or two effects to reclaim him, and then to have as little to do with him as possible. In all such cases there are three sets of persons to be considered: the heretic himself, those who have to deal with him, and the Church at large. What conduct on the part of those who have to deal with him will be least prejudicial to themselves and to the Church, and most beneficial to the man himself? The supreme law of charity must be the guiding principle. But that is no true charity which shows tenderness to one person in such a way as to do grievous harm to others, or to do more harm than good to the person who receives it. Love of what is good is not only consistent with hatred of what is evil; it cannot exist without such hatred. What we have to consider, therefore, is this. Will friendliness confirm him in his error? Would he be more impressed by severity? Is intercourse with him likely to lead to our being led astray? Will it increase his influence and his opportunities of doing harm? Is severity likely to excite sympathy in other people, first for him, and then for his teaching? It is impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule that would cover all cases; and while we remember the stern instructions which St. Paul gives to Titus, and St. John to the elect lady, let us not forget the way in which Jesus Christ treated publicans and sinners. (A. Plummer, D. D.)

Condemning of himself

Ferdinand, Emperor of Germany, possessed a great number of watches, in collecting of which he had a fancy. It pleased him once, says our quaint author, to put this, his variety of speaking gold, upon a table, as if he would expose it to sale: he then stepped aside. A stander-by, driven by a desire of stealing, filched one of them (a repeater), which the emperor espying aslant, called him, and without accusation, kept him in various discourse till the watch striking disclosed the hour and his theft. (Saturday Magazine.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 10. A man that is a heretic] Generally defined, one that is obstinately attached to an opinion contrary to the peace and comfort of society, and will neither submit to Scripture nor reason. Here it means a person who maintains Judaism in opposition to Christianity, or who insists on the necessity of circumcision, c., in order to be saved. This is obviously the meaning of the word heretic in the only place in which it occurs in the sacred writings.

After the first and second admonition, reject] Labour to convince him of his error but if he will not receive instruction, if he have shut his heart against conviction, then – burn him alive? No: even if demonstrably a heretic in any one sense of that word, and a disturber of the peace of the Church, God gives no man any other authority over him but to shun him, . Do him no harm in body, soul, character, or substance; hold no communion with him; but leave him to God. See the notes on Ac 5:17; Ac 24:14, where the word heresy is particularly explained.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

A man that is an heretic: two things make up a heretic according to the common acceptation of the term now:

1. An error in some matters of faith.

2. Stubbornness and contumacy in the holding and maintaining of it.

Whether it so signified so early I cannot tell; it seems to refer to the former verse, supposing some that, notwithstanding all the endeavours of Titus, would be striving and contending for niceties about questions, genealogies, &c.

After the first and second admonition reject: for such, saith the apostle, admonish them once and again; if they will not have done, refuse them, reject them. Whether excommunication can be certainly built upon this text, may be doubted; signifies no more than to avoid, reject, or refuse.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

10. hereticGreek“heresy,” originally meant a division resulting fromindividual self-will; the individual doing and teaching what hechose, independent of the teaching and practice of the Church.In course of time it came to mean definitely “heresy” inthe modern sense; and in the later Epistles it has almost assumedthis meaning. The heretics of Crete, when Titus was there, were indoctrine followers of their own self-willed “questions”reprobated in Tit 3:9, andimmoral in practice.

rejectdecline, avoid;not formal excommunication, but, “have nothing more to do withhim,” either in admonition or intercourse.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

A man that is an heretic,…. An heretic, according to the notation of the word, is either one that makes choice of an opinion upon his own judgment, contrary to the generally received sense of the churches of Christ, and prefers it to theirs, and obstinately persists in it; separates from them, forms a party, and sets himself at the head of them, whom he has drawn into the same way of thinking with himself: or he is one that removes and takes away a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, which affects particularly the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity, and personality of Father, Son, and Spirit, and especially the doctrines relating to the person, office, and grace of Christ; one that brings in, or receives damnable doctrines; speaks or professes perverse things, and draws away disciples after him; or is among such disciples: for though schism and heresy do differ, and every schismatic may not be an heretic, yet every heretic is a schismatic; he makes a rent in the doctrine of Christ, and makes parties and divisions in his church; and such are not always to be contended and disputed with, but to be avoided and rejected:

after the first and second admonition reject; have nothing to do with him; have no society with him; admit him not to private conversation; and eject him from church communion, after he has been publicly admonished twice by the order of the church; for this is not to be understood of private admonition, by a particular person or persons; as in the case of private offences, Mt 18:15 but of public admonition, in the name of the church. An admonition with the Jews did not continue less than seven days a; some say b thirty; that is, there were so many days before it was out, or between one and another.

a T. Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 16. 1. b Bereshit Rabba, sect. 33. fol. 28. 3.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Heretical (). Old adjective from (, to choose), a choosing of a party (sect, Ac 5:17) or of teaching (2Pe 2:1). Possibly a schism had been started here in Crete.

Refuse (). Present middle imperative of , to ask from, to beg off from. See same form in 1Tim 4:7; 1Tim 5:11. Possibly an allusion here to Christ’s directions in Mt 18:15-17.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

A man that is an heretic [ ] . Airetikov heretical, N. T. o. For airesiv heresy see on 1Pe 2:1.

Admonition [] . Only here, 1Co 10:11; Eph 6:4 (note). See on nouqetein to admonish, Acts 20. 31.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “A man that is an heretic,” (airetikon anthropon) “A factious man,” one who will not be instructed, a contentious know all.

2) “After the first and second admonition.” (meta mian kai deuteran nouthesian) “After one and a second effort to instruct him,” after a first and second conference, Deu 19:15; Mat 18:15-17.

3) “Reject. (paraitou) “Ask no more questions alongside or no longer appeal to, entreat him.” Such an unteachable person was to be expelled from the congregational fellowship for persistence in:

a) foolish questioning of truth.

b) defense of family lineage, genealogy -personal goodness.

c) contentions, strifes, persistent factionalism.

d) and threatening of legal recourse to have his own way.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

10 Avoid an heretical man This is properly added; because there will be no end of quarrels and dispute, if we wish to conquer obstinate men by argument; for they will never want words, and they will derive fresh courage from impudence, so that they will never grow weary of fighting. Thus, after having given orders to Titus as to the form of doctrine which he should lay down, he now forbids him to waste much time in debating with heretics, because battle would lead to battle and dispute to dispute. Such is the cunning of Satan, that, by the impudent talkativeness of such men, he entangles good and faithful pastors, so as to draw them away from diligence in teaching. We must therefore beware lest we become engaged in quarrelsome disputes; for we shall never have leisure to devote our labors to the Lord’s flock, and contentious men will never cease to annoy us.

When he commands him to avoid such persons, it is as if he said that he must not toil hard to satisfy them, and even that there is nothing better than to cut off the handle for fighting which they are eager to find. This is a highly necessary admonition; for even they who would willingly take no part in strifes of words are sometimes drawn by shame into controversy, because they think that it would be shameful cowardice to quit the field. Besides, there is no temper, however mild, that is not liable to be provoked by the fierce taunts of enemies, because they look upon it as intolerable that those men should attack the truth, (as they are accustomed to do,) and that none should reply. Nor are there wanting men who are either of a combative disposition, or excessively hot-tempered, who are eager for battle. On the contrary, Paul does not wish that the servant of Christ should be much and long employed in debating with heretics.

We must now see what he means by the word heretic. There is a common and well-known distinction between a heretic and a schismatic. But here, in my opinion, Paul disregards that distinction: for, by the term “heretic” he describes not only those who cherish and defend an erroneous or perverse doctrine, but in general all who do not yield assent to the sound doctrine which he laid down a little before. Thus under this name he includes all ambitious, unruly, contentious persons, who, led away by sinful passions, disturb the peace of the Church, and raise disputings. In short, every person who, by his overweening pride, breaks up the unity of the Church, is pronounced by Paul to be “heretic.”

But we must exercise moderation, so as not instantly to declare every man to be a “heretic” who does not agree with our opinion. There are some matters on which Christians may differ from each other, without being divided into sects. Paul himself commands that they shall not be so divided, when he bids them keep their harmony unbroken, and wait for the revelation of God. (Phi 3:16.) But whenever the obstinacy of any person grows to such an extent, that, led by selfish motives, he either separates from the body, or draws away some of the flock, or interrupts the course of sound doctrine, in such a case we must boldly resist.

In a word, a heresy or sect and the unity of the Church — are things totally opposite to each other. Since the unity of the Church is dear to God, and ought to be held by us in the highest estimation, we ought to entertain the strongest abhorrence of heresy. Accordingly, the name of sect or heresy, though philosophers and statesmen reckon it to be honorable, is justly accounted infamous among Christians. We now understand who are meant by Paul, when he bids us dismiss and avoid heretics. But at the same time we ought to observe what immediately follows, —

After the first and second admonition; for neither shall we have a right to pronounce a man to be a heretic, nor shall we be at liberty to reject him, till we have first endeavored to bring him back to sound views. (266) He does not mean any “admonition,” whatever, or that of a private individual, but an “admonition” given by a minister, with the public authority of the Church; for the meaning of the Apostle’s words is as if he had said, that heretics must be rebuked with solemn and severe censure.

They who infer from this passage, that the supporters of wicked doctrines must be restrained by excommunication alone, and that no rigorous measures beyond this must be used against them, do not argue conclusively. There is a difference between the duties of a bishop and those of a magistrate. Writing to Titus, Paul does not treat of the office of a magistrate, but points out what belongs to a bishop. (267) Yet moderation is always best, that, instead of being restrained by force and violence, they may be corrected by the discipline of the Church, if there be any ground to believe that they can be cured.

(266) “ Au droit chemin.” — “To the right road.”

(267) “ Ce qu’il convient au Pasteur de faire.” — “What it belongs to the pastor to do.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(10) A man that is an heretick.The Greek word translated heretick in the New Testament occurs here only. The term heresies occurs twice (1Co. 11:19; Gal. 5:20). In neither, however, of these passages does the word signify there a fundamental or doctrinal error. This sense belongs to a usage of later times. From the meaning of the word heresy in these passages of St. Paul, we are able to deduce the signification of the term heretic here. The heretic of the Church in Crete appears to have been a man who, dissatisfied with the organisation and discipline introduced by Titus into the Christian communitynot improbably considering himself in some way slightedwithdrew himself from the common body, and gathering round him other discontented spirits, established what might be termed a rival Church in Crete. Although at first, perhaps, no marked erroneous teaching forms part of the practice of such schismatics, still the tendency in such small rival communities is ever more and more to distinguish between their teaching and that of the larger body from whom they, in the first instance, cut themselves adrift.

After the first and second admonition reject.The Greek word rendered reject would be more accurately translated shun, or avoid. There was, no doubt, some self-willed factious party leader in Crete well known to St. Paul to whom he referred here; but partly out of a loving hope that Titus would win him to his side, partly from the knowledge that this Letter was a public instruction to many a Church besides that of Crete, the disturber remained nameless. He was to be exhorted once, twice, and then if he remained contumacious he was to be left simply alone to his own devices. The community over which Titus presided in the place of Paul no longer were to know the obstinate heretic as a brother.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

10. A heretic A maintainer of the above profitless dogmas, yet in the Church, seeking to form a party.

Admonition That his are not Christian doctrines, and that the Christian Church is not the place for their propagation.

Reject Rather, abandon, let alone. And as the Church is supposed to follow its bishop, the Church will leave him to his own fellowship.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse, knowing that such a one is perverted, and sins, being self-condemned.’

And if a man is a promoter of dissension and will insist on continually arguing about such things and pushing his ideas forward he may be given a second warning. And if he fails to heed the second warning he is to be ‘refused’, that is, not be given the opportunity of ministry. He has revealed by his behaviour and attitude that he is perverted, and is sinning. He is revealing himself as self-condemned.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Tit 3:10. A man that is an heretic, &c. The word , from the verb , to choose, signifies a form or mode of religious worship, discipline or opinion, which any one chooses, follows, and professes; or, the persons who follow such form or mode. See Act 5:17; Act 15:5; Act 24:5; Act 26:5; Act 28:22. This word seems to be used by St. Peter in the sense of electing, espousing, or defending some fundamental error, concerning Christian doctrine, whether of faith or practice. 2Pe 2:1. “I define heresy, says Dr. Waterland, not merely a mistake of judgment, though in fundamentals, but espousing such erroneous judgment: either teaching or disseminating it, or openly supporting or assisting those who do.” Hence , a heretic, is a man who chooses and espouses some fundamental error concerning the Christian doctrine; “Not every one that mistakes in judgment,though in matters of great importance, in points fundamental;but he who openly espouses such fundamental errors, I take to be a heretic, says Dr. Waterland, in the true and full scripture notion of the word;”a definition, very agreeable to thatexcellent saying of St. Austin, Errare possum, haereticus esse nolo, “I may err, but I am not willing to be a heretic.” St. Paul orders Timothy, after the first and second admonition, to reject such a person, that is, to declare him unfit to be any longer looked upon as a member of the church, and to treat him as suchto refuse all kind of notice or concern in respect to him; knowing that he who is such, that is, continues such after two admonitions, is now without excuse; ; and, as it were, passessentenceupon himself; either as voluntarily cutting himself off from the church by an open revolt, or, as rendering himself incapable of the privileges and blessings belonging to it, by renouncing its faith: which, in a just construction, is judging or declaring himself unworthy of the blessings tendered. See Waterland’s “Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity,” p. 114-120. Dr. Benson observes well, that St. Paul does not say to Timothy, “After the first andsecond admonition, imprison the heretic; seize him with artful, sly, insinuating examinations; or put him to the torture to make him confess; and then, if he will not recant, roast him in a slow and lingering fire, as a heretic convict:” such rules never proceeded from the apostles of our Lord, but from the synagogue of Satan; who themselves answer to the apostolic description of heretics, while many of those whom they condemn as heretics, have the marks of being the faithful followers of Christ, and members of his true church. “Exciting the rage of the populace, or awakening the zeal of the civil magistrate; inflicting bodily pains and penalties, confiscating possessions, or using men’s names and persons ill, because of their thinking for themselves, or choosing to worship God according to their own consciences,has never yet been found the way to enlighten men’s understandings, or to make them better Christians, or honester men.”

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Tit 3:10-11 . An injunction regarding behaviour towards the heretics.

] ( . .) is not equivalent to contentiosus, but is, according to Calvin: quisquis sua protervia unitatem ecclesiae abrumpit, any one who causes departure from the pure sound doctrine of the gospel. With this Wiesinger agrees, only that he wishes to consider the divisions as not brought about by heresies, but by “eccentricities and perversities.” The word is often used by Paul of ecclesiastical divisions, 1Co 11:19 ; Gal 5:20 . So, too, in 2Pe 2:1 , where it expressly refers to heresies. Comp. also Rom 16:17 : .

] Vitringa ( De Vet. Synag. iii. 1. 10) understands to mean the formal excommunication, and the excommunicatio privata, as these were appointed among the Jews for certain cases. But he is wrong; Paul is not speaking here of excommunication proper. (1Co 10:11 ; Eph 6:4 ) is equivalent to “ reprimand ,” including both blame and exhortation. This is not to be employed once, but several times: “after one or two.”

] 1Ti 4:7 . Bengel: monere desine, quid enim juvat? laterem lavares.

Tit 3:11 . ] see 2Ti 2:23 .

] “that such an one is perverse;” comp. Deu 32:20 : , ; it shows the total perversion of thought and endeavour. Baur says arbitrarily and wrongly: “he has turned away from us, and departed out of the communion of believers.”

] defines the preceding words more precisely. is connected with , but not with also (Hofmann). The perversity shows itself in the fact that he sins condemning himself. is equivalent to , 1Ti 4:2 , qui suopte judicio est condemnatus. The meaning is: he sins with the consciousness of his guilt and of his own condemnation, so that there is no hope of his return.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

Ver. 10. A man that is a heretic ] All heresies are found to flow (saith Chemnitius) either from the supercilious pride of Samosatenus, or from the sophistry of Arius, or from the ignorance of Aetius. (Loc. Com., i. 2.) These men’s wits will better serve them to devise a thousand shifts to elude the truth, than their pride will suffer them once to yield and acknowledge it. And here this rule of St Paul takes place. Nestorius was an unlearned and proud man, but very bold and well spoken; insomuch as thereby he often carried it, and so seduced the emperor Theodosius, as that Cyril, a very good bishop, was thrown out of his place. Howbeit he was afterwards restored again with honour, when the emperor had better bethought himself, and the heretic Nestorius was condemned and cast out. (Zanch. Misc. Epist. Dedicat.)

After the first and second admonition reject ] Or, avoid, devita, which some Popish dolts interpreted de vita tolle, kill them (as Erasmus reporteth), so to justify their bloody practice of putting Protestants to death. But what saith the same Erasmus speaking of Berquin the martyr, burnt by them for religion; Damnari, dissecari, suspendi, exuri; To be condemned, hanged, quartered, burned, beheaded, are things common to good and bad people. (Scultet. Annal.) To condemn, hang, quarter, burn, behead, is a thing common to righteous judges with pirates and tyrants. The judgments of men are various; happy is he that is absolved by God the Judge of all. And this was as much as he dared say against their proceedings, who for saying so much as he did, hardly escaped with this reproach, that for Erasmus they named him Erat-mus; because he so truly but bitterly biteth their ulcers.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

10 .] An heretical man (one who founds or belongs to an a self-chosen and divergent form of religious belief or practice. When St. Paul wrote 1 Cor., these forms had already begun to assume consistency and to threaten danger: see 1Co 11:19 . We meet with them also in Gal 5:20 , both times as , divisions gathering round forms of individual self-will. But by this time, they had become so definite and established, as to have their acknowledged adherents, their . See also 2Pe 2:1 . For a history of the subsequent usage and meanings of the word, see Suicer, vol. i. pp. 119 ff. “It should be observed,” says Conyb., “that these early heretics united moral depravity with erroneous teaching: their works bore witness against their doctrine”), after one and a second admonition (reff. and note on ref. Eph.), decline (intercourse with: ref. and note: there is no precept concerning excommunication, as the middle shews: it was to be a subjective act), knowing that such an one (a thoroughly Pauline expression: see reff.) is thoroughly perverted (ref. Deut.: and compare 1Ti 1:6 ; 1Ti 5:15 ; 2Ti 4:4 ), and is a sinner (is living in sin: the present gives the force of habit), being (at the same time) self-condemned (cf. 1Ti 4:2 , note, with his own conscience branded with the foul mark of depravity: see Conyb. above).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Tit 3:10 . : St. Paul passes from the reprehensible opinions to the man who propagates them. He is the same kind of man as the of 1Co 11:16 ; or “he that refuseth to hear the church” of Mat 18:17 ; he is of “them which cause divisions and occasions of stumbling,” Rom 16:17 . The term is applied in a non-offensive sense to the sects of Judaism, Act 5:17 ; Act 15:5 ; Act 26:5 . St. Luke represents the Jews as so speaking of the Christian Church (Act 24:5 ; Act 28:22 ), and St. Paul as resenting this application of the term (Act 24:14 ). The Apostle himself uses the word in an unfavourable sense (1Co 11:19 ; Gal 5:20 ), as does 2Pe 2:1 . A comparison of 1Co 11:19 with 1Jn 2:19 suggests that involved the formation of a separate society (so R.V.m. here, factious ), not merely the holding of aberrant opinions, or the favouring a policy different from that of the Church rulers. The addressed to a member of such a would be of the nature of a verbal remonstrance, pointing out the essentially unchristian character of needless separation. It is evident that the would be beyond any Church discipline. The permission of a second attempt at reconciliation is probably not unconnected with our Lord’s counsel, Mat 18:15 .

: Have nothing to do with him . See note on 1Ti 4:7 . The word does not necessarily imply any formal excommunication. Such procedure would be unnecessary. Excommunication has no terrors for those who deliberately separate themselves. “Monere desine. quid enim iuvat? laterem lavares” (Bengel).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

man. App-123.

heretiek. Greek. hairetikos. Only here. See Act 5:17.

after. App-104.

the = a.

admonition Sr. nouthesia. Elsewhere, 1Co 10:11. Eph 6:4.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

10.] An heretical man (one who founds or belongs to an -a self-chosen and divergent form of religious belief or practice. When St. Paul wrote 1 Cor., these forms had already begun to assume consistency and to threaten danger: see 1Co 11:19. We meet with them also in Gal 5:20, both times as , divisions gathering round forms of individual self-will. But by this time, they had become so definite and established, as to have their acknowledged adherents, their . See also 2Pe 2:1. For a history of the subsequent usage and meanings of the word, see Suicer, vol. i. pp. 119 ff. It should be observed, says Conyb., that these early heretics united moral depravity with erroneous teaching: their works bore witness against their doctrine), after one and a second admonition (reff. and note on ref. Eph.), decline (intercourse with: ref. and note: there is no precept concerning excommunication, as the middle shews: it was to be a subjective act), knowing that such an one (a thoroughly Pauline expression: see reff.) is thoroughly perverted (ref. Deut.: and compare 1Ti 1:6; 1Ti 5:15; 2Ti 4:4), and is a sinner (is living in sin: the present gives the force of habit), being (at the same time) self-condemned (cf. 1Ti 4:2, note,-with his own conscience branded with the foul mark of depravity: see Conyb. above).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Tit 3:10. , a heretic) one following, according to his own will, the things which are found fault with at Tit 3:9.-, reject) cease to admonish him, for of what advantage is it? We should be labouring in vain.[14] Mat 7:6.

[14] The proverb is, we should be washing a brick.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Tit 3:10

A factious man-A factious man is one that creates strife and division. These questions and practices not taught by God all gender strife. He who persists in introducing these subjects not taught in the Scriptures is a heretic and excites division.

after a first and second admonition refuse;-He is to be admonished as to the evil of his course a first and second time, and if he does not desist, he is to be rejected. Introducing questions and practices not required by the word of God is a cause of strife and division, and the man who cannot be convinced that he is wrong in doing it must be excluded from the membership of the church. The failure to do this brings division and strife into the churches.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

heretic: 1Co 11:19, Gal 5:20, 2Pe 2:1

after: Mat 18:15-17, 2Co 13:2

reject: Rom 16:17, 1Co 5:4-13, Gal 5:12, 2Th 3:6, 2Th 3:14, 2Ti 3:5, 2Jo 1:10

Reciprocal: Lev 14:40 – take away Num 5:3 – without Act 24:14 – heresy Gal 1:8 – though 2Th 3:15 – admonish Tit 1:11 – mouths

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Tit 3:10. A heretic is a false teacher according to Thayer’s lexicon. When Titus came in contact with such in his work on the island, he was to admonish him to cease his false teaching because it was divisive. He was to be given a second opportunity to cease his heretical teaching, and if he persisted in it, Titus was to reject him, which means he was to avoid all association with him.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Tit 3:10. Thus far of Titus attitude to the errors; now, to the errorists. In Pauls sense, heretic comes nearer schismatic than what we now describe by the word. As in 1Co 11:19 and Gal 5:20, so here, he speaks of making party factions to divide the Church, rather than of false doctrine. Most divisions have their root in self-will, but do not necessarily involve fundamental error. The word admonition covers every kind of earnest endeavour to bring the sectary to a better mind. Failing that, after two attempts, he was to be shunned (reject)probably in personal intercourse; possibly referring to church censure. The wisest measures may fail to hinder scandalous schisms in the Church.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

As if the apostle had said, Avoid and shun, and refuse communion with, him that doth obstinately persist in dangerous errors and heresies, and accordingly let him be excommunicated.

Learn hence, 1. Who is an heretic in the apostle’s sense; even he who is preverted from the true faith, and holds opinions which subvert the foundations of it; and one who is condemned in his own conscience, and sins against his own convictions: for the apostle here bids Titus not to inform him of his fault, which shows him that the crime lay not in his head, in his understanding, but in his will and affections: for no man who acts according to his judgment and conscience, how erroneous soever, is self-condemned in that action.

Learn, 2. That even heretics themselves ought to be tenderly and lovingly dealt with, so long as there is any hope that they may be gained or won.

Learn, 3. That the charity of the church, in her censure of excomminication, aims rather at the cutting off errors than of persons.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Tit 3:10-11. A man that is a heretic Greek, , a party or schism-maker, namely, in the church, among the true, genuine people of God; or one that causes divisions among those that are united in Christian fellowship; see on Rom 16:17; after the first and second admonition From thee and the elders of the church, given with proper solemnity; reject Avoid, and declare him unfit to be any longer looked upon as a member of your community. This is the only place in the whole Scripture where this word heretic occurs; and here it evidently means a man that obstinately persists in contending about foolish questions, and thereby occasions strifes and animosities, schisms and parties, among the faithful. This, and this alone, is a heretic in the Scripture sense. And his punishment likewise is here fixed. Shun, avoid, leave him to himself, have no fellowship with him. As for the Popish sense of the word, A man that errs in fundamentals, although it crept, with many other things, early into the church, yet it has no shadow of foundation either in the Old or New Testament. Wesley. Knowing that such a one Who is so fond of his own darling notions, that he will ruin the peace of the church: and will not submit to thy remonstrances, and those of the wiser and better part of the society; is subverted Or perverted, as maybe properly rendered; and sinneth In making such obstinate efforts to diffuse his notions, and form a party to himself; being condemned of himself Convinced in his own conscience that he acts wrong, as he cannot but see it to be evil to cause strife, animosity, contention, and disunion among those that fear God, and were, before he thus troubled them, united in Christian love. In the first age, when the doctrines of the gospel were delivered by the apostles in person, under the guidance of inspiration, and when the true meaning of the doctrines was not liable to any doubt, because it was ascertained by the apostles themselves, if any teacher taught differently from them, and made a party in the church in opposition to them, he must have done these things contrary to his conscience, either from the love of money, or the lust of power, or from an immoderate propensity to sensual pleasures. Macknight; who observes further, This method of treating heretics is worthy of attention; for the Spirit of God doth not order heretics to be banished, and their goods confiscated; far less doth he order them to be imprisoned, tortured, and burned, if they will not retract their errors. He doth not even give allowance to rail at or speak evil of them. Such methods of treating heretics never proceeded from the college of the apostles, but from the synagogue of Satan. To disown a wicked man as a Christian brother, and to avoid all familiar society with him, and to cast him out of the church by a public sentence of excommunication, is what the church and every society hath a right to do, agreeably to our Lords rule, (Mat 18:15; Mat 18:17,) and is all that should be done in such a case.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 10

That is a heretic; that maintains the corrupt opinions and practices which the apostle had been condemning.–Reject; exclude from the church.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

Week 11: Tit 3:10-12 THE HERETIC

A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;

Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

The thought of church discipline is lacking in most churches today, but here is a plain statement of its principle. If someone is a heretic, then after two admonitions, he is to be rejected. There is no room for less than this action!

False doctrine is like cancer. No one with an operable cancer would allow it to continue to grow and sap their strength and life, nor should a church tolerate false teaching.

When pastoring in Nebraska, a very dear man began to attend our church. His wife was a radical charismatic. She came to church now and then, but never was very friendly to us. I knew that she would be trouble, just because of the type of person she was. She was causing trouble in her own family spiritually and I was sure that she would cause trouble in the church. I found out one day that she had been to see every woman of the church in the same week, and there was indication that it was to stir trouble. I did not have to deal with her, because the Lord brought her to a service when I was preaching on the Devil’s counterfeits and one of those counterfeits was tongues. She left and never returned.

Many churches are troubled by false doctrine. Many churches have split because they have tolerated false doctrine. Many organizations have become liberal due to toleration of false doctrine.

DON’T TOLERATE IT!

It should be noted that the term “subverted” is a perfect tense indicating this is a constant state that will not change. The person is and always will be in error.

Verse 11 has an interesting concept in it. I don’t think that I have ever heard this concept verbalized before in any class or book that I have taken or read.

False doctrine is sin. Is the sin from the belief in the false system or doctrine, or is the sin from improper action taken due to belief in a false teaching?

Both could be and are correct. The false teaching is probably not sin if the belief is in innocence or lack of knowledge, however if you know something is false and you hold to it anyway, you are thumbing your nose at God and are living in sin.

False teaching that you teach, even if you are ignorant of its falsehood, can affect and mislead others. This misleading will result in sin, which you are responsible for.

The action based on false doctrine is certainly sin if it violates the Word of God. For a person to know that materialism is wrong, to continue to add unto himself things, is wrong – is sin.

So, false doctrine is sin in three areas for sure.

False doctrine is sin in and of itself if you know that it is false.

False doctrine is sin if you teach others and it leads them into sin.

False doctrine is sin if you act upon it yourself.

False doctrine is also sin if you don’t know that it is false. Believing in anything that is counter to God’s Word is missing the mark that God has set. It is possible that this type of sin will be cared for by 1Jn 1:9 in that the verse mentions ALL unrighteousness, and many feel this is unknown sin.

Thus there are six areas where false doctrine is sin.

1. If you know it is false.

2. If you don’t know it is false.

3. If you act on it knowing it is false.

4. If you act on it not knowing it is false.

5. If you teach it and others act on it.

6. If you allow it to continue in your church.

You might even add sin against the family when you allow false doctrine to continue. The father has the responsibility to his family to see to it that only truth is taught in the home. If he or a family member teaches false doctrine then trouble can occur.

Going back to the Charismatic wife. The husband was a firm believer in truth, but allowed his wife to teach her falsehood to the children, and to cause problems in the family. I do not know the specifics of that family, but I wonder if he had attempted to settle the issue much earlier, if the wife might have submitted to truth.

The term “heretic” is “haireticos” – humm does that mean bald people can’t be hair-ethics 🙂 I’m safe! The term means schismatic, factious, or is used of someone that “takes or chooses a thing” – one that has taken a false teaching as his/her own. Notice I used both pronouns – women can also be heretics and should be treated with equal opportunity when they choose to go into error.

The admonition seems to ask for patience in rejecting the person as there is to be a first and second admonition. I would think this might relate to the confrontation mentioned in Matthew eighteen where you are to confront personally, then with others and if all is futile, then go before the church and have the decision to reject. This is a process that will take a little time, giving the erring one time to reconsider his views and an opportunity to change his mind/course.

Gill suggests, and he may well be correct, that since this is a public problem in the church that rather than the Matthew formula that the admonitions should both be public in nature by the church leaders so that all the church knows what is going on publicly.

This might be the better course though at the very least use the Matthew concept. A church had a problem of division and the leaders tended to the problem privately. There was never a public explanation of the problem, nor the fact that the divisive ones left the fellowship at the leader’s request. Nothing was said, only rumor was allowed to circulate. The problem festered due to this secrecy to a much larger problem. Public admonition would be the best.

“Reject” simply means to refuse or reject something. It means to remove yourself from the false doctrine. It could mean isolation from. In the fifteen hundreds there was a document called “On The Ban: Questions and Answers” by Menno Simons the founder of the Mennonite movement, which among other things spelled out in detail how church members were to refuse to interact with one rejected. It even gave instruction about how the heretic’s family was to relate to the wrong doer. It was some serious rules for rejection and removal from the false teacher.

It was somewhat harsh, but if some of its principles had been used through church history many a mess would have been averted. It is all too common for a church to just allow false teaching to continue rather than rocking the boat.

We attended what we thought was a sound church a few years back. The people weren’t overly friendly so we kind of found a Sunday school class – we went in and were treated to some very liberal views from the teacher relating to Scripture and its validity. We left class feeling this was a very liberal church. We went ahead and stayed for church to see what the pastor was like.

The message was powerful and fundamental as could be. We left totally confused. The pastor called that afternoon to thank us for visiting. I started with some questions about our confusion. He asked what class we had attended. He said, “Oh yea, that class – they are people that split from another church in our group and they decided to settle with us. They kind of do their own thing in that class. The right class you should attend is ….”

This man had rank liberals in his church, he had one of them teaching in his church and doing nothing about it. What a dangerous situation that could be. Unwitting visitors could easily be sucked into that false doctrine, and what is worse, the interaction with these folks could confuse and lead astray other believers in the church.

“Reject” is used in another way, but the idea is the same – reject. In Luk 14:18 invited guests reject the invitation. “And they all with one [consent] began to make excuse.”

In 1Ti 4:7 the word is translated “refuse,” “But refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself [rather] unto godliness.”

The term translated “subverted” has the thought of tearing loose from something, or even turning inside out. Not just a little bend, but a bending that does some real damage.

Recently I saw a Discovery channel show on shipping accidents on the Great Lakes. There was a paddle wheel steamer loaded with people that was caught in a storm, while a sailing ship was having problems of its own and not paying attention to what was going on ahead of them rammed the steamer. The sailing ship thought their vessel could not have hurt such a large steam ship so continued on its way fighting its shifting load and the terrible storm.

Unknown to the sailing ship the steamer sank due to the large hole that was torn in its side.

Great damage can come from seemingly insignificant doctrines. We must be on our guard for those that would tear a hole in our churches.

Let’s look at church discipline for a few moments and see what we can learn. This is a section from my systematic theology.

THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH Copyright Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D. 1992

I personally have only been in a church involved in church discipline one time and that only recently. Church discipline is a topic that many let slip for many years. It is coming back into the foreground again for which we should be very thankful.

It is the means of keeping the local assembly pure, and it is a needed tool at times.

It is not hard to recall a minister that has fallen from his position due to immorality or theft. It is not hard to remember several members of local congregations that have gone off into open sin.

The hard thing to recall or remember maybe that any of these people were ever disciplined for their activity.

In the past there have been many that have taken church discipline very seriously. We have a series of Questions and Answers from history that were set forth by Menno Simons in 1550 concerning how the disciplined person should be treated. The “ban” in these questions refers to the fact that the sinner is banned from the local congregation. (I have included this complete article by Simons as appendix two.)

I would like to share some of these questions for you. So you can see how seriously some believers in the past were about discipline.

“Should husband and wife shun each other on account of the ban?”

“Should we greet one that is banned, with the common, everyday greeting, or return our respects as his greeting?”

“Are we allowed to show the banned any charity, love, and mercy?”

“Are we allowed to sell to, and buy of, the apostates….?”

“Are we allowed to be seated with an apostate in a ship or wagon, or to eat with him at the table of a tavern?”

We might assume from the questions on the ban that these people were serious about what the word says about church discipline.

I read an article some time ago that mentions a study in the south. The author had done some research on church discipline in a specific area (Mississippi). The church members did not know of any serious church discipline, except for one person that remembered a discipline of a singing star in Hollywood. The point? Church discipline is not a common thing.

Someone has, tongue in cheek suggested, that church discipline today is the pastor and elders keeping quiet about the sin in deacon Jones life so that he won’t rock the financial boat.

To say the least, discipline is not a prime topic of activity or discussion these days in the local church, yet the Bible very clearly teaches that open sin should be dealt with by the church body.

DEFINITION

Let us define church discipline as the correction of action, or the removal of the erring believer from the local church body, for the purpose of correction and/or restoration. This is normally undertaken for immorality or deviation from approved doctrine.

At the outset we must realize that discipline is NOT to make the church sinless. It is to maintain a proper testimony before the world. Anyone thinking that discipline can make the church sinless does not understand the teaching of man and his relationship to sin.

Mat 5:23-24 is a text that would indicate we should be right with any brother that has anything against us before we offer to God. This is under the law but in the New Testament context I would assume we could apply this to coming before God with our gifts or offerings. In short if we have anything against a brother, we should settle it before we move into a place where we are approaching the Lord.

This alone would eliminate many of the problems of the church. We need to work on these items as we attempt to build a body for the Lord.

Mat 18:15-17 is the text which gives us the guidelines for correcting a brother. If you have a problem go to the brother alone and confront him. If this does not work take one or two with you so all can be established in front of witnesses. If this fails then tell it before the church. If this also fails then “let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a tax collector”.

Some might wonder if this text is appropriate for the church age. The fact that it appears after Mat 13:1-58 where the Jews seem to reject the Messiah, and He begins to teach of things other than the millennial kingdom indicates that it is for this age. Even if you saw it for the kingdom age the principles seem to be good, and I think some of these ideas are born out in the epistles.

Most definitely the most drastic account of church discipline is found in Act 5:1-42. Ananias and Saphira have lied to the church and more specifically to God, and their discipline is very quick and strong. Their lives are taken upon confrontation with their sin. This is a text which relates to the apostolic leadership however the idea that the sin was confronted and cared for immediately should be usable to us today. Note should be made that it was God that took their lives and not the church. The church confronts and in our age takes action of reprimand and/or removal. This is the extent of the church’s authority. God may and I personally believe in some cases does, take further action in the lives of unrepentant believers. I believe that Joh 15:1-14 and 1Co 11:30 show that God may remove a sinning believer that is unwilling to turn from their sin from this life.

In Rom 14:1-23; Rom 15:1 Paul sets down some principles for handling differences of opinion. This chapter shows clearly that differences of opinion are not in view for church discipline. These items are of personal decision and Paul lays down principles to deal with these situations.

The basis for removal of an erring believer from the assembly is based on 1Co 5:4-11. I would like to consider this for a moment. First of all is this a believer or nonbeliever? It seems to most that this is a believer for we see in verse five that Paul is concerned for his soul. If this was a nonbeliever their soul would be on the way to destruction and there would be no need to turn it

over to Satan.

Some suggest that verse 11 mentions him as being a so-called brother or lost (“…any man that is called a brother….”). However, the context seems to shift in verse nine from the man in sin to another topic.

This man was involved with his father’s wife. Paul is quite plain there is a problem and that it should be dealt with. Verse seven uses the terminology that indicates the removal of the person from the church assembly. “Purge out.” The term purge would indicate there is to be a cleansing action in the whole process. If you have removed a man that is in open sin, you certainly are cleaning up the church.

In verse five they are to deliver him to the Devil for the destruction of his flesh. The purpose of discipline is seen in seven and eight. Sin is like leaven and you must get it out of the lump before it leavens the whole lump. (Leaven is the same as yeast.) Leaven is usually seen as a type of sin in the Bible.

I have wondered if Paul’s choice of words wasn’t deliberate. “Puffed up,” would picture a lump with leaven throughout – fully raised. His comments then in seven and eight would call on them to clean out that pride – which is sin – they can be a new lump. Indeed verse six indicates this.

It seems somewhat hard to envision a church that is proud of the sin that is within. The idea may be they were proud of how tolerant they were of the sinners. Tolerance is not something that is to be desired in the church, be it tolerance of sin, tolerance of false doctrine, or tolerance of improper activities.

We attended a Sunday school class in the South while on vacation and the teacher was involved in this idea of being pleased about how tolerant the people in her church were of one another. She mentioned they even had fundamentalists and liberals in the church and they all got along fine.

That is not getting along, that is being tolerant of false doctrine in your church assembly!

We need to look briefly at 2Co 2:6-11 before we move on. Most agree that this is speaking of the man in 1Co 5:1-13 that was to be put out of the church. Paul tells them to commend their love to him and to forgive him and comfort him. Restore your fellowship with him would be the idea of the text.

Another text which relates to the topic is Gal 6:1-2. If anyone be taken in a fault restore him in meekness. The warning also is given to consider yourself so that you aren’t tempted in the same manner.

The question is, “Does this relate to church discipline?” Specifically I would doubt it. It seems more of a generic type sin rather than immorality etc. The principles set forth may well apply however. Restore in meekness – and seeing to it that you don’t become tempted. Along with this we must not forget that Christ was very forceful when he ran the money changers out of the temple (Joh 2:12-17), and most consider him meek.

There seems to be evidence that unruliness or disobedience is also a basis for taking steps of discipline. 1Th 5:14 “Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be patient toward all men.” 2Th 3:6; 2Th 3:14-15, mentions that we should withdraw from those that are disorderly and those that walk not after “the tradition which he received of us.” Verse 14 tells us to “have no company” with anyone that disobeys the words

of the epistle.

The elders or church leaders are not exempt from the possibility of discipline. 1Ti 5:19-20, “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” Trouble with elders should be heard only if two or three witnesses are available. Then confront him before the assembly.

In our “don’t scare people” atmosphere today we don’t dwell on the aspect of hell because we don’t want to scare anyone into heaven. This text tells us that disciplined people will cause fear in the assembly. Fear is not the best motivation to obedience however, the Word states that it is a possible motivation.

Tit 3:10-11 sets a basis for discipline for divisiveness. “A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject, Knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” This verse tells us to reject after the second admonition the heretic. The term heretic seems to have the idea of one that is divisive.

Another text which we need to look at is 2Jn 1:7-11. First of all we need to see that verse seven shows these to be lost people! This seems quite clear that we are to have no part with “RELIGIOUS” people that have a wrong view of Christ. This would be in the realm of having them in our homes for hospitality and encouragement. I’m not sure it prohibits having them in to witness to them yet I’m not sure that is a good idea either. You might run into difficulties. We can

certainly witness to them – that is not a thought in the text!

From what we have seen there is plenty of evidence to show that we should and must discipline believers that are in sin. If we do not then we are allowing the leaven that Christ spoke of to contaminate the entire assembly. If we do not discipline, then we invite trouble and strife into our churches.

Discipline is not popular in our churches today. I have talked with pastors that have taken a needed stand and found themselves questioned for their activities.

The next question. What offences do we discipline for? I would submit a list of topics and references for your consideration.

a. Immorality. 1Co 5:1-13

b. Unresolved disputes between brethren. Mat 18:15-17

c. Elders that sin. 1Ti 5:19-20

d. Repeated troublemaking. Tit 3:10

e. Outward sin, such as divorce or immorality.

A related question. Are there others that we should separate from?

a. Those teaching false doctrine. 2Jn 1:7-11.

b. Professing people involved in fornication, covetousness, idolatry, railing, drinking or cheating. 1Co 6:11.

We have shown that discipline is Biblical and that it is being ignored in our day. So, why do churches today fail to discipline? May some possibilities be set forth for your consideration and future avoidance?

a. Afraid to rock the boat. Financial problems will come if we make trouble. We might hurt someone’s feelings. How would it look to the community?

b. Indifference. We don’t care.

c. There is always the usual outcry that “We can’t judge.” This argument is illogical. God states that we are to discipline. Thus we must assume that discipline is not “judging,” or else God is telling us to do something that He has told us not to do. Now, just how logical is that?

All of these allow the leaven to leaven the whole lump.

Now that we see discipline to be correct, we need to consider who it is that should do the disciplining? Yes, the individual should confront, yes there should be witnesses on the second trip. These witnesses should be the elders so they are involved from the beginning. Several references indicate that the elders are the ones to become involved. Act 20:28 show the elders over the church. 1Th 5:12 mentions some are over the church for the purpose of admonishment. Heb 13:7; Heb 13:17 mentions those that rule over the church and that the church is to submit them.

If you have been reading newspapers or listening to the network news over recent years you know that churches have been sued for disciplining a member. There is a lot of worry about lawsuits.

First of all we need to remember that the law of man is not the law of God. God tells us to discipline. If the law of the land punishes us for doing so, then so be it. We must do that which God has said.

The lawsuits that I have heard about seem to have been caused by improper application of the discipline. One lawsuit in particular was brought because the church broadcast the sin of the person far and wide. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that we should take out a personal want ad to advertise a persons’ sin. We should be as discrete about discipline as possible without

causing hurt.

We need to consider a few easy steps of prevention that might save your church from a lawsuit.

I might suggest an article from Christianity Today, “Church Discipline Without a Lawsuit” by Carl Laney, Nov. 9, 1984 which deals with this problem. I have adapted some of Mr. Laney’s points into the following list for you in case the magazine is not available to you.

1. Get insurance for the problem. Some church insurance companies have it available. We have insurance to avoid lawsuits for accidents etc. so there should be no real moral question in taking this step. Yes, it is sad that our Christian society has degenerated to the place where we have to insure ourselves against such activities, but this is the society that God has asked us to operate in.

2. Don’t slander while the discipline is going on nor after. There is no need to cause pain and suffering. Present the facts to the church family, act and keep your mouth shut.

3. Don’t spread the information outside the church family. This is a family problem and there is no need to take it outside the family, no matter how badly you want to talk about it.

4. Include in your constitution a clause that allows for church discipline. Have each member sign the constitution as they join the church. This may or may not take care of the possible situations.

5. Possibly a visit to your lawyer in your state would be of good advantage.

Include just what you believe church discipline is, why it is to be used, and the procedure which is to be followed. Indeed if there is no clause in your constitution, put one in and ask all to sign it, be they new members or old.

Dr. Laney suggests the inclusion of a paragraph which forbids the member to sue the church leadership or the church if they bring church discipline action against the member.

I would work into this statement, something that covers you and the church in case they withdraw membership during the procedure. This would give them a moral obligation not to sue. You could also include information on the fact that Scripturally the believer is not to go to law with a brother etc.

5. If someone tells you something in confidence then you are bound to keep that confidence. If there is a real problem it will probably come to the surface in time.

I might take a side track for a moment and state there is a real lack of keeping confidences in the church today. Many of the illustrations I hear come right out of counseling sessions. That is not confidence!

6. In all of the activities attempt not to embarrass those that are involved. This can only hurt and bring about hard feelings. The desired result of discipline is restoration and hard feelings will not aid in this process.

7. During the process be sure to reveal only the information that is necessary for a proper procedure. Disclosing all of the little details is not necessary.

If at all possible, keep all discipline activities within the local assembly. If the person tries to transfer membership to another church, you should be bound to let the new church know they are under discipline. The details may not need to be given unless it affects the new church’s decision.

If it is a pastor that is disciplined then there should be contact with the men of his ordination council, so that proper steps can be taken if any are needed.

Now, the following is my OPINION! DOCTRINE OF DERICKSON.

If you have someone come to your church for membership from a church close by, take time to find out why they left the other church. It may save you a multitude of trouble. Usually when people leave it is because of problems. You don’t need those problems. If this is the case it would be good to talk to them and ask them to return to their previous church to solve their problem, and then they can be considered for membership.

8. If a lawsuit comes into your future, find a good lawyer so that you know you are doing things correctly and seek an out of court settlement. This will allow you to not go to court with your brother. If this is not possible, then you are bound by the law of the land to answer the charges and you must do the best you can to bring about a peaceful end to the matter.

9. Be very careful to inform the congregation. A church in Oregon discovered a teacher and woman were involved. They were guilty and would not cease their activity. The elders wanted to keep it quiet because both parties were very prominent members. The couple left the church voluntarily, but the elders did not inform the congregation. Rumors began flying and the elders still kept quiet. Before the situation was over others left because they mistakenly thought that the elders had kicked the erring couple out of the church with no reason.

Let’s draw some conclusions to our study.

1. Church discipline is not a four-letter word. It is taught in Scripture and we should be practicing it!

2. We need to know our own attitudes. Discipline is to be done in love and concern for the other person. Forgiveness is the required when confession and repentance are forthcoming. (1Co 5:2; Gal 6:1; 2Co 2:7)

3. There should be a restraining influence from discipline upon the rest of the membership. 1Ti 5:20

4. For the church that is contemplating not bringing discipline I would recommend they read Rev 2:12-17.

5. 1Pe 1:15 calls us to holiness. 2Ti 3:2 mentions that the elder is to be “above reproach”. 1Th 5:22 calls us to avoid any appearance of evil. Let these be your guide.

In light of such verses, we as local churches must maintain the purist assembly that we can. This comes from personal purity. This comes from prodding our friends to purity. This comes from purging impurity, if need be.

Years ago we attended a church in Denver, CO that had a missions conference. Two missionaries from Africa came to the conference and were talking about how great the church was doing in Africa. It was growing, it was evangelizing, and it was an alive church.

I asked the two missionaries why the church in Africa was such an alive, growing church. The younger missionary quipped out some quick answers that I accepted. (I wasn’t convinced that he had answered my question.) The next day the older missionary came to me and said, “Stan, I think I can answer your question from last night with one word. “Purity.” He went on to explain that the church was pure on a personal basis and they were pure on an ecclesiastical basis as well.

That was an answer that made much sense.

6. In the end result, I believe our emphasis should be squarely upon the Word of God. If lawsuits come they come. If bankruptcy comes it comes. God’s Word must stand and we for it!

Mr. Laney ended his article with I Tim. 3 12, “Indeed, all who desire to live Godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted..”

I suspect that the following is the best policy. PROBABLY THE BEST CURE FOR CHURCH DISCIPLINE IS CHURCH DISCIPLIN’. If we teach them right there will be less chance for error.

Some other references which might add to your personal study: Exo 12:15-19; Exo 13:7; Lev 2:11; Deu 16:4; Mat 16:6; Mat 16:12; Mar 8:15; Lu. 12:1; Gal 5:9; 1Co 6:11.

Enough of that let us move on in the passage.

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

3:10 {4} A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

(4) The ministers of the word must at once cast off heretics, that is, those who stubbornly and seditiously disquiet the Church, and will pay no attention to ecclesiastical admonitions.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

If a false teacher who engendered faction rather than unity by his teaching refused to change his ways after one or two warnings, Titus should have nothing more to do with him (cf. Mat 18:15-17). [Note: See Ted G. Kitchens, "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline," Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.] The reason for this rejection is that the false teacher is not straight in his thinking, he is sinning, and he is self-condemned. If such a person refuses to judge himself, God will judge him (1Co 11:31-32). I believe all the leaders of God’s people should follow this instruction; Paul evidently did not intend it only for Titus. Church leaders should give ministry by such a false teacher no platform in the church.

"The significance of refuting false teaching in this letter is indicated by Paul’s direct attack on factious men at the beginning of the letter (Tit 1:10 ff.) and now at its conclusion (Tit 3:9-11). His outstanding theological statements (Tit 1:1-4; Tit 2:11-15; Tit 3:3-7) provide the ’sound doctrine’ that motivates believers to ’good works’ and makes the gospel ’attractive’ to a lost world. In contrast, the false teachers with their erroneous teaching motivate their followers to works that in essence ’deny’ a true knowledge of God (Tit 1:16) and destroy the doctrinal unity of the church." [Note: Griffin, p. 328.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 26

THE MEANING OF HERESY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, AND THE APOSTLES DIRECTIONS RESPECTING THE TREATMENT OF HERETICAL PERSONS. – Tit 3:10-11

IT is in connection with this instruction respecting the treatment of heretical persons that we have some of the earliest testimonies to the genuineness of the Epistle to Titus. Thus Irenaeus about A.D. 180 writes: “But as many as fall away from” (, 1Ti 4:1) “the Church and give heed to these old wives fables” ( , 1Ti 4:7), “are truly self-condemned” (, Tit 3:1): “whom Paul charges us after a first and second admonition to refuse” (“Adv. Haer.,” I 16. 3). It will be observed that in this passage Irenaeus makes an obvious allusion to the First Epistle to Timothy, and then quotes the very words of our text, attributing them expressly to St. Paul. And about ten or twelve years later, Tertullian, after commenting on St. Pauls words to the Corinthians, “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among, {1Co 11:19} continues as follows: “But no more about that, seeing that it is the same Paul who elsewhere also in writing to the Galatians reckons heresies among sins of the flesh,” {Gal 5:20} and who intimates to Titus that a man who is heretical must after a first admonition be refused, because he that is such is perverted and sinneth as being self-condemned. But in almost every Epistle, when insisting on the duty of avoiding false doctrines, he censures heresies of which the practical results are false doctrines, called in Greek heresies, with reference to the choice which a man exercises, whether in instituting or in adopting them. For this reason he says that the heretical person is also self-condemned, because he has chosen for himself that in which he is condemned. We, however, may not allow ourselves anything after our own will; nor yet choose what any one has introduced of his own will. The Apostles of the Lord are our authorities; and even they did not choose to introduce anything of their own will, but faithfully consigned to the nations the instruction which they received from Christ. And so, even if an angel from heaven were to preach any other gospel, he would be called accursed by us” (“De Pries. Haer.,” 6). In this passage, which contains a valuable comment on the meaning of the word “heresy, ” it will be noticed that Tertullian not only quotes the text before us as coming from the Epistle to Titus, but, like Irenaeus, his earlier contemporary, says expressly that the words are those of St. Paul. Thus, from both sides of the Mediterranean, men who had very large opportunities of knowing what books were accepted as Apostolic and what not, attribute our Epistle without hesitation to St. Paul. And in both cases this is done in treatises directed against heretics, who might be expected to reply with very telling effect, if it could be shown that what was quoted against them as the writing of an Apostle was of quite doubtful origin and authority.

But the testimony which these passages bear to the authenticity of this Epistle is not the main reason for their being quoted here. Their interest for us now consists in the light which they throw upon the history of the word “heresy,” and upon the attitude of the primitive Church towards heretics.

“Heresy,” as Tertullian points out, is a word of Greek origin, and the idea which lies at the root of it is “choice.” Choosing for oneself what pleases oneself, independently of other considerations; -that is the fundamental notion on which later meanings of the term are based. Thus in the Septuagint it is used of a free-will offering, as distinct from what a man is bound to offer (Lev 22:18; comp. /RAPC 1Ma 8:30). Then comes the notion of choice in reference to matters of opinion, without, however, necessarily implying that the chosen opinion is a bad one. And in this sense it is used quite as often for the party or school of thought which holds the particular opinion as for the body of opinion which is held. In this sense it is several times used in the Acts of the Apostles; as “the sect of the Sadducees,” {Act 5:17} “the sect of the Pharisees”: {Act 15:5; Act 26:5} and in this way Christianity itself was spoken of as a “heresy” or “sect”; that is, a party with chosen opinions. {Act 24:5; Act 24:14; Act 28:22} And in profane literature we find Diogenes Laertius in the second or third century speaking of ten “heresies” or schools in moral philosophy (1:19). But it will be seen from the passages in the Acts that the word is already acquiring somewhat of a bad meaning; and indeed this was almost inevitable, unless the original signification was entirely abandoned. In all spheres of thought and action, and especially in matters of belief, a tendency to choose for oneself, and to pursue ones own way independently, almost of necessity leads to separation from others, to divisions and factions. And factions in the Church readily widen into schisms and harden into heresies.

Outside the Acts of the Apostles the word heresy is found in the New Testament only in three passages: 1Co 11:19; Gal 5:20; and 2Pe 2:1. In the last of these it is used of the erroneous opinions themselves; in the other two the parties who hold them may be indicated. But in all cases the word is used of divisions inside the Church, not of separations from it or of positions antagonistic to it. Thus in 2Pe 2:1 we have the prophecy that “there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them.” Here the false teachers are evidently inside the Church, corrupting its members; not outside, inducing its members to leave it. For the prophecy continues: “And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of.” They could not cause “the way of the truth to be evil spoken of,” if they were complete outsiders, professing to have no connection with it. In Gal 5:20 “heresies” are among “the works of the flesh” against which St. Paul warns his fickle converts, and “heresies” are there coupled with “factions” and “divisions.” In 1Co 11:19 the Apostle gives as a reason for believing the report that there are divisions in the Church of Corinth the fact that (mans tendency to differ being what it is) divisions are inevitable, and have their use, for in this way those which are approved among Christians are made manifest. It is possible in both these passages to understand St. Paul as meaning the “self-chosen views,” as in the passage in 2 Peter, rather than the schools or parties which have adopted the views. But this is not of much moment. The important thing to notice is, that in all three cases the “heresies” have caused or are tending to cause splits inside the Church: they do not indicate hostile positions outside it. This use of the word is analogous to that in the Acts of the Apostles, where it represents the Pharisees and Sadducees, and even the Christian Church itself, as parties or schools inside Judaism, not as revolts against it. We shall be seriously misled, if we allow the later meaning of “heresy,” with all its mediaeval associations, to color our interpretation of the term as we find it in the New Testament.

Another important thing to remember in reference to the strong language which St. Paul and other writers in the New Testament use with regard to “heresies” and erroneous doctrine, and the still stronger language used by early Christian writers in commenting on these texts, is the downright wickedness of a good many of the “self-chosen views” which had begun to appear in the Church in the first century, and which became rampant during the second. The peril, not only to faith, but to morals, was immense, and it extended to the very foundations of both. When Christians were told that there were two Creators, of whom one was good and one was evil; that the Incarnation was an impossibility; that mans body was so vile that it was a duty to abuse it; that his spirit was so pure that it was impossible to defile it; that to acquire knowledge through crime was estimable, for knowledge was good, and crime was of no moral significance to the enlightened; -then it was necessary to speak out, and tell men in plain terms what the persons who were inculcating such views were really doing, and what strong measures would be necessary if they persisted in such teaching.

Unless we keep a firm grasp upon these two facts; –

(1) the difference between the meaning of the word “heresy” as we find it in the New Testament and its usual meaning at the present time; and

(2) the monstrous character of some of the views which many persons in the first century, and many more in the second, claimed to hold as part and parcel of the Christian religion; -we shall be liable to go grievously astray in drawing conclusions as to our own practice from what is said on the subject in Scripture.

“Woe unto the world,” said our blessed Lord, “because of occasions of stumbling! For it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh”. {Mat 18:7} Human nature being what it is, it is morally impossible that no one should ever lead another into sin. But that fact does not destroy the responsibility of the individual who leads his fellows into sin. St. Paul takes up the principle thus laid down by Christ and applies it in a particular sphere. He tells his Corinthian converts that “there must be heresies” among them, and that they serve the good purpose of shifting the chaff from the wheat. Wherever the light comes, it provokes opposition; there is at once antagonism between light and darkness. This is as true in the sphere of faith and morals as in that of the material world. Sooner or later, and generally sooner rather than later, truth and innocence are met and opposed by falsehood and sin; and it is falsehood, willfully maintained in opposition to revealed and generally held truth, that constitutes the essence of heresy. There are many false opinions outside what God has revealed to mankind, outside the scope of the Gospel. However serious these may be, they are not heresies. A man may be fatally at fault in matters of belief; but, unless in some sense he accepts Christianity as true, he is no heretic. As Tertullian says, “In all cases truth precedes its copy; after the reality the likeness follows” (“De Pries. Haer.,” 29.). That is, heresy, which is the caricature of Christian truth, must be subsequent to it. It is a distortion of the original truth, which some one has arrogantly chosen as preferable to that of which it is the distortion. Error which has not yet come in contact with revelation, and which has had no opportunity of either submitting to it or rebelling against it, is not heretical. The heretical spirit is seen in that cold critical temper, that self-confident and self-willed attitude, which accepts and rejects opinions on principles of its own, quite independently of the principles which are the guaranteed and historical guides of the Church. But it cannot accept or reject what has never been presented to it; nor, until the Christian faith has to some extent been accepted, can the rejection of the remainder of it be accounted heresy. Heresy is “a disease of Christian knowledge.” The disease may have come from without, or may have developed entirely from within; and in the former case the source of the malady may be far older than Christianity itself. But until the noxious elements have entered the Christian organism and claimed a home within the system, it is a misuse of language to term them heretical.

We have not exhausted the teaching of the Apostles respecting this plague of self-assertion and independent teaching, which even in their time began to afflict the infant Church, when we have considered all the passages in which the words “heresy” and “heretical” occur. There are other passages, in which the thing is plainly mentioned, although this name for it is not used. It has been said that “the Apostles, though they claimed disciplinary authority, had evidently no thought of claiming infallibility for any utterances of theirs.” But they certainly treated opposition to their teaching, or deviations from it, as a very serious matter. St. Paul speaks of those who opposed him in the Church of Corinth as, “false apostles, deceitful workers” and “ministers of Satan” {2Co 11:13-15}. He speaks of the Galatians as “bewitched” by those who would pervert the Gospel of Christ, and pronounces an anathema on those who should “preach any gospel other than that which he preached”. {Gal 1:7-8; Gal 3:1} Of the same class of teachers at Philippi he writes: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision.” {Php 3:2} He warns the Colossians: against any one who may “make spoil of them through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition” “of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ”; {Col 2:8} just as he warned the elders of the Church at Ephesus that after his departure “grievous wolves would enter in among them, not sparing the flock; and that from among themselves men would arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them”. {Act 20:29-30} And in the Pastoral Epistles we have several utterances of the same kind, including the one before us. {1Ti 1:3-7; 1Ti 1:19-20; 1Ti 4:1-3; 1Ti 6:3-4; 1Ti 6:20-21; Tit 1:10-16; Tit 3:8-11; 2Ti 2:16-18; 2Ti 3:8; 2Ti 3:13}

Nor is St. Paul the only writer in the New Testament who feels bound to write in this strain. The same kind of language fills no inconsiderable portion of the Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. {2Pe 2:1-22; Jud 1:8-16} More remarkable still, we find even the Apostle of Love speaking in tones not less severe. The Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia abound in such things. {Rev 2:3} In his General Epistle he asks, “Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son” (1Jn 2:22 : comp. 1Jn 2:26; 1Jn 4:1; 1Jn 4:3). In his letter to “the elect lady and her children” he speaks of the “many deceivers” who “confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh.” And, in a passage not unlike the direction to Titus which we are now considering, he says: “If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works.”

The impression which these passages produce on our minds is at least this; -that, whether or no the Apostles were conscious of being protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching anything that was doctrinally false, they were at any rate very stern in their condemnation of those Christians who deliberately contravened what an Apostle had taught. And this sternness is not confined to those who resisted the instructions of Apostles in matters of discipline. It is quite as clearly manifested against those who contradicted Apostolic teaching in matters of faith. The context of the passage before us shows that by “a man that is heretical” is meant one who willfully takes his own line and thereby causes divisions in doctrine quite as much as one who does so as regards the order and discipline of the Church.

What, then, does St. Paul mean when he directs Titus to “refuse” such a person after once or twice admonishing him? Certainly not that he is to excommunicate him; the passage has nothing to do with formal excommunication. It is possible to maintain that the direction here given may imply excommunication; but it is also possible to maintain that it need not imply anything of the kind; and therefore that such an interpretation substitutes an uncertain inference for what is certainly expressed. The word translated in the R.V. “refuse,” and in the A.V. “reject,” is the same as that which is used in 1Ti 5:2 in the text, “Younger widows refuse” (). It means, “avoid, shun, excuse yourself from having anything to do with”. {comp. Heb 12:25} It is also used of things as well as of persons, and in much the same sense: “Refuse profane and old wives fables,” {1Ti 4:7} and “Foolish and ignorant questions refuse.” {2Ti 2:23} The meaning, then, here seems to be that, after a few attempts to induce the heretical person to desist from his perverse and self-willed conduct, Titus is to waste no more time on him, because now he knows that his efforts will be useless. At first he did not know this; but after having failed once or twice, he will see that it is vain to repeat what produces no effect. The mans self-will is incorrigible; and not only that, but inexcusable; for he stands self-condemned. He deliberately chose what was opposed to the received teaching; and he deliberately persists in it after its erroneous character has been pointed out to him. He “is perverted, and sinneth”: that is, he not only has sinned, but goes on sinning: he continues in his sin, in spite of entreaty, exhortation, and reproof.

In what way are the directions here given to Titus to be used for our own guidance at the present time? Certain limitations as to their application have been already pointed out. They do not apply to persons who have always been, or who have ended in placing themselves, outside the Christian Church. They refer to persons who contend that their self-chosen views are part and parcel of the Gospel, and who claim to hold and teach such views as members or even ministers of the Church. Secondly, they refer to grave and fundamental errors with regard to first principles; not to eccentric views respecting matters of detail. And in determining this second point much caution will be needed; especially when inferences are drawn from a mans teaching. We should be on our guard with regard to assertions that a particular teacher virtually denies the Divinity of Christ, or the Trinity, or the personality of God. But when both these points are quite clear, that the person contradicts some of the primary truths of the Gospel, and that he claims to do so as a Christian, what is a minister to do to such a member of his flock? He is to make one or two efforts to reclaim him, and then to have as little to do with him as possible.

In all such cases there are three sets of persons to be considered:-the heretic himself, those who have to deal with him, and the Church at large. What conduct on the part of those who have to deal with him will be least prejudicial to themselves and to the Church and most beneficial to the man himself? The supreme law of charity must be the guiding principle. But that is no true charity which shows tenderness to one person in such a way as to do grievous harm to others, or to do more harm than good to the person who receives it. Love of what is good is not only consistent with hatred of what is evil; it cannot exist without such hatred. What we have to consider, therefore, is this. Will friendliness confirm him in his error? Would he be more impressed by severity? Is intercourse with him likely to lead to our being led astray? Will it increase his influence and his opportunities of doing harm? Is severity likely to excite sympathy in other people, first for him, and then for his teaching? It is impossible to lay down a hard-and-fast rule that would cover all cases; and while we remember the stern instructions which St. Paul gives to Titus, and St. John to the “elect lady,” let us not forget the way in which Jesus Christ treated publicans and sinners.

In our own day there is danger of mistaking lazy or weak indifferentism for Christian charity. It is a convenient doctrine that the beliefs of our fellow-Christians are no concern of ours, even when they try to propagate what contradicts the creed. And, while emphasis is laid upon the responsibility of accepting articles of faith, it is assumed that there is little or no responsibility in refusing to accept, or in teaching others to refuse also. To plead for tenderness, where severity is needed, is not charity, but Laodicaean lukewarmness; and mistaken tenderness may easily end in making us “partakers in evil works.” To be severe, when severity is imperatively called for, is not only charity to the offenders, it “is also charity towards all men besides. It is charity towards the ignorant as carrying instruction along with it; charity towards the unwary, as giving them warning to stand off from infection; charity towards the confirmed Christians, as encouraging them still more, and preserving them from insults; charity towards the whole Church, as supporting both their unity and purity; charity towards all mankind, towards them that are without, as it is recommending pure religion to them in the most advantageous light, obviating their most plausible calumnies, and giving them less occasion to blaspheme.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary