33. “An Heretick” (Titus 3:10)
We come next to Paul’s warning to Titus,
the elder of the ecclesia (or ecclesias) on the island of
Crete:
“Avoid foolish questions, and
genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are
unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second
admonition reject (paraiteomia); knowing that he that is such is
subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Tit.
3:9-11).
The word paraiteomia has also been
translated “avoid” (2 Tim. 2:23) and “refuse” (1 Tim.
4:7; 5:11); it points to the clear duty of rejecting or excommunicating a
“heretic”. However, the provision of a first and second admonition
must not be forgotten, and this points the way to a comparison with the similar
order of admonition in Matthew 18:15-17 (see Chapter 9). The disfellowship, if
such is finally deemed necessary, must be done in the spirit of meekness, and at
every step the brethren so acting must endeavor in love to reclaim the offender.
Such matters must be handled locally, and not be allowed to unsettle
ecclesias elsewhere.
“There is need for a faithful rather than a
harsh observance of this apostolic counsel today. The most serious consideration
should be given to the question of whether a brother’s nonconformity is of
such a nature as to justify the grave decision of exclusion. Each elder should
ask himself the question, in all cases, not ‘Do we traditionally
disfellowship for this divergence?’ but ‘Can I, as a responsible
elder and shepherd, give full satisfaction to my Lord at his judgment seat, that
I do well to exclude this brother?’ “ (J.B. Norris, The First
Century Ecclesia, p. 55).
Furthermore, it must be noted that those brethren
or ecclesias that fail to excommunicate “heretics” are not to
be equated with the “heretics” themselves. (Such a notion is based
solely, but erroneously, on 2 John 10,11.) They may be disobedient to the
apostolic injunction, but this shortcoming does not of itself constitute them
guilty of the same or as serious offence as their erring brother. These words of
Paul do not sanction the judging and disfellowshiping of large numbers at a
distance — for how then could the “admonitions” be properly
administered? In fact, no Bible passage sanctions division from a nominally
sound ecclesia because of its supposed failure fully to discipline an
offender.
The seventeenth-century translators have made a
rather unfortunate choice of words here. “Heretick” is a quite
interesting and complex word, but subject to misinterpretation. Transliterated
from the Greek, it is hairesis, or “heresy”. The word
denotes a “choice”, or that which is chosen; hence, an opinion.
Secondarily, it means a “sect” or division — a party formed,
either as a subgroup of a main body, or in extreme cases entirely independent
(W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 217, and Vol. 3, p. 335).
It is not even implied that the distinctive character of the “sect”
is a doctrine at all (Speaker’s Commentary, New Testament, Vol. 3,
p. 817). The Sadducees and the Pharisees were called “sects” or
“heresies” (Acts 5:17; 26:5), as were the “Christians”
before their break from Judaism was complete (Acts 24:5,14; 28:22). The Greek
word has no inherent suggestion of an error, only of party spirit tending toward
division. It was only in post-apostolic times that “heresy” acquired
the invariable meaning of doctrinal divergence; the term was so applied to all
deviations from the Roman Catholic apostasy during the fourth century and beyond
(Imperial Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, p. 86; International Standard
Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol. 3, p. 1377).
A “heretick”, therefore, would
signify an “opinionated person” (W.R. Mitchell, “The Epistle
of Titus”, The Dawn Ecclesial Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 12 —
Dec. 1957 — p. 274), a separatist, a causer of schism or division, for
whatever reason. Paul says that a heretic is “self-condemned”
(Tit. 3:11), apparently because of the position of separation in which he has
placed himself. Thus the ecclesia’s rejection of him is more or less an
official acknowledgement of the “status quo”.
The main accompanying idea in the other passages
where hairesis occurs is of some sort of
division:
- In 1 Corinthians 11:18,19 it is used synonymously with
“schisms”, which, however, had not yet resulted in full-scale
ecclesial division, but only in factions.
- It is listed
with strife, seditions, and envyings as one of “the works of the
flesh” (Gal. 5:19-21); the list, however, includes no false
doctrines.
- In 2 Peter 2:1,2 “heresy” is the
division which certain men cause unjustly, not the false doctrines they
teach!
All this agrees well with the context of
Paul’s letter to Titus. Therein he more than once characterizes the
Cretans in general as liars, lazy gluttons, and envious (1:12; 3:3), men
naturally given to controversies, dissensions, and quarrels (3:9) — in
short, men who are always combative, never satisfied, potential sectarians,
troublemakers, or “heretics”. It is an extraordinary irony that
those brethren who feel they are most scrupulous at resisting
“heretics” (i.e. teachers of false doctrines?) through their policy
of absolute separation are themselves guilty of b
eing “heretics” (schismatics) in the
Biblical sense.