Titus 3:10 Commentary: Handling a Divisive Person

Paul wrote to Titus on the island of Crete, where the church faced a particular threat from Jewish-influenced false teachers. These ‘factious’ people turned households upside down with empty talk, myths, and commands to abstain from foods (Titus 1:10, 16). The apostle’s instruction in verse 9 to shun ‘foolish questionings, genealogies, strife, and disputes about the law’ sets the stage for verse 10. In that setting, a divisive person was not merely someone who held an unpopular opinion, but one who, with stubborn self-will, created factions and refused to submit to sound teaching or to the authority of elders.

The two-stage admonition echoes Jesus’ pattern in Matthew 18:15, 17: first go privately, then with witnesses, then bring it before the assembly. The Greek word nouthesia (admonition) implies a verbal correction meant to change the mind, a form of gentle discipline common in both Jewish and Greco-Roman household management. After two such warnings, the instruction paraitou (reject/avoid) does not match the formal excommunication language used in 1 Corinthians 5 (where Paul says ‘put away’ using a different verb). As Clarke and others note, the church is not given the sword; it is given the right to withhold fellowship. This fits the early church’s practice of protecting the community from chronic troublemakers while leaving judgment to God.

The Greek text for Titus 3:10 is well established. The verb paraitou (do reject) appears in the earliest papyri and major uncials (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus). A few later manuscripts read the future indicative (paraitēsē) instead of the imperative, but this is not supported by the best witnesses. The consulted sources note no significant variant that changes the meaning.

In the early church, this verse was a primary text for shaping disciplinary practice. Tertullian and Cyprian appealed to it when dealing with schismatics, though they broadened the meaning to include doctrinal heretics. The Council of Nicaea (AD 325) cited the principle of two warnings when condemning Arianism. During the Reformation, both Luther and Calvin used the verse to argue against harsh punishment of heretics: the church’s remedy is avoidance, not violence. In the Anabaptist tradition, this verse supported a strong practice of shunning. Across centuries, the pastoral tension has remained: how to love without enabling division, and where to draw the line after patience has run its course.

Three-point outline

1. Identify the divisive person. Not every disagreement makes someone a heretic. The Greek hairetikon points to one who chooses his own way over the church’s unity, stirring up parties, insisting on nonessential issues, refusing to listen.
2. Give two chances. Discipline is not hasty. The warning is a gift, an opportunity to repent. Jesus gave a similar pattern (Matthew 18:15, 17). First and second admonition reflect patience and hope.
3. Reject for the sake of peace. Paraitou means avoid, refuse, decline, stop engaging. This protects the church from endless conflict and leaves that person with the consequences of his own choices.

Five-point outline

1. Paul’s context: false teachers on Crete threatening sound doctrine and church unity.
2. The meaning of ‘factious man’: one who picks his own opinions over the apostles’ teaching, causing divisions (Romans 16:17).
3. The process of warning: nouthesia is a loving but firm correction, spoken twice to give full opportunity to change.
4. The action of rejecting: not excommunication in a formal sense, but a personal and corporate boundary: stop arguing, stop associating, leave him to the Lord.
5. The pastoral reason: such a person is ‘self-condemned’ (v.11), his refusal to listen shows he has already judged himself.

Illustration hooks

• A contentious church meeting. One member constantly derails discussions with minor points, refuses to drop it after repeated pleas from the elders. The pastor finally says, ‘We love you, but we won’t debate this again.’ That is paraitou.
• A family member who splits the family over politics. After two calm conversations setting boundaries, you stop engaging in discussion on that topic. You still love them, but you refuse to feed the division.

Questions your congregation is asking

• How do I know if someone is truly ‘divisive’ and not just raising a valid concern?
• Does this mean we kick people out of church for disagreeing with the pastor?
• What if the divisive person is a close friend or family member? How do I reject them and still love them?

In a culture that prizes endless debate, Paul’s instruction to ‘reject after a first and second admonition’ strikes many as harsh. Yet it is a gift: it sets limits on conflict and protects the community’s health. This study explores what the church owes a divisive person, and what it does not owe.

Discussion questions

1. Read Titus 3:9, 11. What kinds of behavior does Paul associate with a ‘factious man’ in the surrounding verses?
2. The Greek word hairetikon means someone who creates a sect or party. How does that differ from someone who holds a different doctrinal conviction?
3. Why does Paul specify two admonitions before rejecting? What does this tell us about God’s patience?
4. Compare this verse with Matthew 18:15, 17 and Romans 16:17. What similarities and differences do you see in the process of correction?
5. The verb paraitou can mean ‘refuse, avoid, decline.’ In what practical ways can a church community ‘reject’ a divisive person without being harsh or unloving?
6. Verse 11 says such a person is ‘self-condemned.’ What does that mean for the person’s responsibility? How does this shape the church’s attitude toward him?
7. Think of a situation where a group gave too many chances to someone who kept causing division, and the group eventually fractured. How might this verse have helped?