Dealing with the Divisive Person in Titus 3:10

In Titus 3:10, the Apostle instructs Titus to “Reject a divisive person after a first and second warning” (CSB). However, in the KJV the divisive person is called a “heretic.” Clearly, the connotation is different. A divisive person is one who is given to strife, quarrelsome, and contentious, and thus is the target of this disciplinary action. Alternatively, according to the KJV, the man’s heretical beliefs are the issue, presumably as this heretic tries to persuade others to his views.

Two questions arise when discussing the identity of the divisive man/the heretic: (1) Does the word mean divisive or heretic? (2) Is this process of church discipline different than what Jesus laid out in Matthew 18?

What Does the Word Divisive or Heretic mean?

The word for “divisive” (CSB) comes from the Greek word heretikos (αἱρετικὸς), from which we get “heretic” in English. To some, this settles the matter. But before we say this, we need to recognize that words and their meanings change over time. For example, our English word dynamite is related to the Greek word dynamis (δύναμις), but whereas the English word conveys explosive power, the Greek word more often conveys the idea of ability rather than raw power. In a similar sense, we need to be careful when using our English conception of what a word means and importing that idea into the original Greek language.

So how do we tell what the idea behind the Greek word is? A helpful exercise is to examine the NT use of the noun form of the word (αἵρεσις). These uses are listed as follows (translations are from CSB):

What we can deduce from this list is that the term is not inherently negative. Only the context determines whether or not it is a negative grouping. In fact, the word group is used to refer to the Christian group in Acts 24:5, 14 and 28:22. Also notable is the fact that the word can refer to factions caused by differing sets of beliefs (such as Acts 5:17 in reference to the Sadducees). Further, it can also refer to behavior-oriented divisions (such as 1 Cor 11:19 and Gal 5:20). It is also worthwhile to mention that although translators translate 2 Pet 2:1 as “heresies,” it is unlikely that it carries the same meaning as we would think of as “heresies.” Although it is undoubtedly clear that these are “destructive” teachings given the context of 2 Pet 2.

Applying this information to Titus 3:10, I think it would be a mistake to identify this man as a heretic in the English sense of the word. Galatians 5:20 lists “factions” in the midst of other behavior-oriented sins. In addition, 1 Cor 11:19 refers not to heretical doctrine, but to the divisions within the church which revolve around segregating during the Lord’s Supper. What this evidence suggests is that Titus 3:10 applies not only to division caused by unorthodox doctrine, but also to division caused by unrepentant adherence to fleshly desires (which always characterized false teachers). In other words, a divisive person is the target of Titus 3:10 because of the nature of causing divisions.

If the translations of “divisive” or “factious” are correct, then a word of caution must also be given. Paul is not simply targeting deviant behavior which departs from the Christian norm. For every church struggles with sinners growing slowly out of their sinful habits (cf. 1 Thess 5:14). Rather, Paul is targeting the divisive individual who is actively stirring up division in the church, and thus threatening the body’s unity. A divisive individual is most dangerous to church health. Paul instructs Titus to warn such divisive individuals twice, and if he or she refuses to repent, Titus is to reject them (presumably from the assembly).

Comparing the “Divisive Person” of Titus 3:10 and the Matthew 18 Process

In contrast to the divisive situation of Titus 3, Matthew 18:15-18 gives a four step process of discipline: (1) private confrontation, (2) confrontation in the presence of witnesses, (3) confrontation by the entire assembly, (4) removal from the assembly. If we compare this process with Titus 3:10-11, we find that step #1 is missing from Titus 3. The individual in sin is still given the same chances to repent, however, the process is expedited since the nature of the sin in Titus 3:10 is public (e.g., causing division within the church). In other words, whereas Matthew 18 understands there will be private sins, Titus 3 addresses matter which is already public. Furthermore, the nature of a divisive scenario necessitates a rapid solution.

I think it is telling that Paul concludes his instruction in Titus 3:11 by laying out the reason Titus should proceed along this path. Titus can follow this path because divisive individuals have turned from what is proper. In other words, the church will not be able to help such people targeted by Titus 3:10-11, thus it is better for the body to remove their poisonous influence.

photo credit: Axt mit Hackstock via photopin (license)