An heretical man after a first and second admonition have done with,
Paul's instruction to Titus is blunt: warn the man twice, then be done with him. Everything turns on who this "person who stirs up division" is, and on what it means to "have nothing more to do with him."
The Greek word here comes from a verb meaning "to choose." The same word is also used for a religious "sect."
The word hairesis comes from "to choose." The New Testament translates the same Greek word as "sect," and uses it of the Jewish sects, such as the Sadducees and the Pharisees... Since the root means "to choose," a heresy is something a person picks out as his own. The doctrine a man holds and pushes may be true in itself, but he may exaggerate it or take it out of its connection. The usual result is that a party or sect is formed. God has given in His word everything the church needs, so there is no room for man's choice or man's will: he must be a humble receiver.
The word points at party-making, not at wrong belief. So a man may believe nothing false and still fall under this verse.
By "heretical man" the apostle means anyone active in originating or adopting a sect, even if he were orthodox.
Another writer defines the heretic not by what he denies, but by what his will produces.
A heretical man, then, need not be one who denies any article of the Christian faith. He is a heretic who allows his mind or will to work in connection with doctrine, and so produces or supports a sect.
Wrong teaching and party spirit are two different evils, and they move in opposite directions.
The apostle uses "heresy" for a party of self-will, a faction that cuts itself off from the assembly... But wrong doctrine (the later church sense of "heresy") does not always lead the man who holds it to form a party outside. A divisive spirit heads straight there. A split inside soon becomes a split outside, while wrong teaching hides inside, so as to spread through the whole group like yeast if it can.
The command is not the formal removal of someone from fellowship. Paul uses the same verb elsewhere for turning away from silly stories and pointless arguments.
This also explains, at least in part, why there is not a word here about putting the evildoer away. Titus was to "shun" or "avoid" him. Scripture uses paraitou of avoiding old wives' fables (1 Tim. 4:7), younger widows (v. 11), foolish and ignorant questions (2 Tim. 2:23), as well as the heretic in the passage before us. In no case does it mean excommunication. It simply means avoiding things or people. Only the heretic was outside.
The two warnings are not a formality. They are corrective instruction, given in the hope that he will learn.
He is not to be rejected at once... To admonish him does not mean to rebuke him exactly. Admonishment is corrective instruction, and that is what you must give such a person. If after that instruction he seems slow to learn or stubborn, and still wants to go back to his own gathering, then give him this corrective instruction a second time. And if he still stays hardened, then he must be rejected.
The second turning back is what settles the matter. It shows what is driving him.
If the evil is present in an honest mind, get the thing clearly before him and he will be set free. If a second time the mind turns back to it, there is reason to fear a lack of straightforwardness... His will had been at work.
No one else needs to pass sentence on this man. His own act has already done it.
He is not satisfied with the assembly of God, with the truth of God: he wants to make a truth of his own. Why is he a Christian, if Christianity, as God has given it, does not satisfy him? By making a party for his own opinions he condemns himself.
One writer refuses to treat this as a small matter:
If any Christians who claim spiritual insight count this a light sin, they are themselves to be pitied, warned, and prayed for. What is self-will but sin against God? And in someone who claims to love Christ, what self-will is worse than despising the church of God? He tries to form a church of his own, on views of his own.
- Choice — the word behind "divisive" means choosing. The man picks his own line, and what he teaches may even be true in itself.
- Will — the sin is not error but self-will at work with doctrine, until a party forms around one man's preference.
- Warning — patience comes first. Give corrective instruction once, then a second time.
- Withdrawal — "have nothing more to do with him" means avoidance, not excommunication. The sect-maker has already left on his own.
- Verdict — no one needs to pass sentence. By preferring his own church to God's assembly, he has already condemned himself.
knowing that such a one is perverted, and sins, being self-condemned.
Paul has just told Titus what to do with a divisive person; this verse tells him why he can act with such confidence. The man's own course has already passed sentence on him, so Titus needs no long inquiry. But who is meant, and how far does the instruction go?
False teaching is not what the word points to. It describes a man who picks his own creed and gathers others around it:
A heretical man does not have to be someone who denies the faith. The word means one who chooses his creed. So Paul, speaking of the Pharisees, the party he once belonged to, called it "the strictest party of our religion" (Acts 26:5) — and the word he used there is hairesis, "heresy." The Pharisees counted as orthodox in their creed, yet Paul uses that word of them... A man is a heretic when he lets his own mind or will work on doctrine, and so produces or supports a sect.
Because of this, the man's opinions may even be correct. What condemns him is the use he makes of them.
The whole root of it is self. He first takes up his own opinion and, against the word of God, presses it on others. It need not be wrong in itself; the opinion may be sound enough, but the use made of it is sectarian. The man who prefers his own opinions and line to the church is self-condemned... The question is not whether one's view is mistaken: to go out because of it is purely selfish, and contrary to Christ. The party-maker presses his will or view for ends of his own. Whoever does so sins — and, as it says here, is self-condemned.
Darby traces the twist in such a man to his discontent with what God has already given.
A man might try to set up his own opinions, and by that means form parties in the assembly. After a first and a second warning, Titus was to reject him. His faith had been overturned. He sins, and he stands judged by himself. He is not satisfied with the assembly of God, with the truth of God: he wants to make a truth of his own. Why is he a Christian, if Christianity, as God has given it, does not satisfy him? By making a party for his own opinions he condemns himself.
Commentators differ on whether "warped" reaches the man's faith. Kelly limits it, and reads "self-condemned" as a verdict in the act, not an inward pang.
Some add to the verse the words "perverted from the true faith." That goes beyond Scripture. Other passages teach it, but not this one, which marks the evil of faction apart from false doctrine, though the two often go together. The word here does not mean "condemned by his own conscience." It means self-condemned — condemned by the fact itself. Nothing is said of conscience, which may have been quite dull or darkened instead of passing sentence on the man. He was self-condemned because he liked his own will, and perhaps his own ideas too. So he could no longer bear the atmosphere of God's assembly. He preferred to be outside God's dwelling in the Spirit, to have a church of his choosing, or to be his own church.
The double warning is not a formality. It allows for different degrees of hardness.
Titus was to warn him once or twice. Self-will that had gone outside came in different measures. One man was so determined that a first warning would prove enough. Another was not so far gone, and might encourage the Lord's servant to keep on and warn a second time.
Translations render the word in different ways. Grant weighs them, and finds the sense personal rather than official.
For "reject," other translations have "refuse," "avoid," or "have done with." Literally the word means "ask off," or in everyday speech, "ask him to excuse you"... The discipline of the assembly is not implied here, and the assembly is not in question. This verse deals with a man determined to have and keep his own opinion. When this is clear, the instruction is to leave him to himself — refuse to listen to him.
Kelly points to the plain situation: the man has already walked out.
Now how could you properly put away someone who had already gone away?
Some count party-making a small fault.
If any Christians, claiming spiritual understanding, count this a light sin, they are to be pitied, warned, and prayed for. What is self-will but sin against God? And what self-will in someone professing to love Christ is worse than despising the Church of God by trying to form a church of his own on views of his own?
- Choice — "Heretic" means a chooser. He picks his own creed and builds a following on it, sound doctrine or not.
- Self — The root is self-will, not error. The man who prefers his own opinion to the church is the man the verse calls warped.
- Sentence — He sins, and the act itself condemns him. His conscience may be dull and say nothing.
- Patience — Two warnings come first. Self-will comes in degrees, and one man may still listen.
- Distance — "Reject" means to have done with him and stop listening. It is a personal step, not the assembly's discipline.