Truth Magazine

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

Introduction to 1 Cor. 12

The apostle Paul begins 1 Corinthians 12 by pointing out to the brethren there what spiritual gifts are not. Erdman expresses the undoubted rationale behind Paul’s discourse on the charismata, “These supernatural endowments were being regarded by the Corinthian Christians as ends in themselves. They were being displayed for the pride and gratification of their possessors. The most surprising of the gifts and not the most useful were the most highly prized, and the exercise of these gifts was resulting in envy and vanity and division.”(1) Paul makes a deliberate contrast between the work of the Spirit and what they were familiar with in their former heathen celebrations. “. . . the Corinthian Christians were inclined to believe that the more one was deprived of reason and self-consciousness, the more truly was he under the power and control of the Spirit of God.”(2) The “frenzied ecstasy” of pagan cult worship is a vivid contrast with worship directed by and toward the true and living God. Being “seized” as in their prior manner of worship was the very opposite of being possessed of spiritual gifts. No one under the direction of the Spirit can utter language that will dishonor Christ and conversely only those truly led by Him can say that Jesus is Lord (vs. 3). It is significant to note that the apostle’s stress is always upon the rational, intelligible exercise of the gifts of the Spirit.

From this editorial introduction, Paul proceeds to point out the source and purpose of such gifts in the church. It should be noted that in vs. 4 Paul strategically substitutes “charismata” in place of what undoubtedly was the Corinthians’ favorite designation for the gifts pneumatika. Oh how “spiritual” these brethren felt when they egocentrically exercised their gifts. As F. D. Bruner has pointed out, there was evidently the tendency for the Corinthian church to see the Spirit’s work not in only in a particular way (being “carried away,” vs. 2) but also in a particular way (speaking in “tongues,” ch. 14).(3) Just as there are different gifts but the same Spirit, different types of service but the same Lord, and different manifestations of power but the same God-so are the abilities and gifts of each member to be seen. The gifts were not bestowed for their exotic appeal or to elevate the possessor above another, but for the common good of the whole assembly (vs. 7). The apostle’s emphasis throughout chapters 12-14 is upon the mutual edification of all, the whole assembly. When a brother begins to think of his gift as the most important or worse yet, that he himself is the most important saint in that community, then division is inevitable. This is the very thing Paul is seeking to correct and which is an insight into the problem of the Lord’s supper observance at Corinth (1 Cor. 11). The gifts were never granted for “private devotion” for the individual but that all the saints might “profit withal.”

Gifts of Revelation

In vss. 8-11 of 1 Cor. 12, Paul provides a catalogue of nine gifts which serve to illustrate the theme he began in vss. 1-7. There are varieties of gifts, but they all proceed from one source, the Spirit; consequently no one should feel either superior or inferior, realizing that “all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as He will” (vs. 11). In granting the gifts, God’s sovereign will is involved and each member has his own indispensable function (vss. 12-31) for the progress of the church. Conspicuously prominent at the top of the apostle’s list are the gifts associated with intelligible and thoughtful utterance. Equally conspicuous at the bottom of the list are the gifts of tongues and interpretation. How surprised and unsettled his readers must have been, seeing their most prized and sought after gifts at the very end of Paul’s catalogue. However, this is but a preliminary by the apostle of a more severe attack upon and expose of the Corinthians’ improper priorities regarding the gifts in chapter 14.

The first two gifts listed may properly be designated “gifts of revelation,” in that they entail the unusual and supernatural ability to utter truth and then explain its application. On the surface, it appears a difficult task to distinguish between “wisdom” and “knowledge”; Paul, however, clearly has in mind not one gift, but two and thus we are constrained to discover the difference between them. The uncertainty of Biblical scholars regarding the difference between the two terms is somewhat vivid proof that no one possesses such gifts today. The term for wisdom here is sophia and it occurs 51 times in the New Testament. The term for knowledge is gnosis which occurs 29 times in the New Testament. The terms are used together only three times: 1 Cor. 12:8, Rom. 11:33 and Col. 2:3. The latter two instances, however, afford us little assistance in ascertaining a distinction between the two. We are obliged then to turn within 1 Corinthians itself to get an insight into possible differences.

“Wisdom” is one of the recurring motifs in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church. Lenski, focusing on 1 Cor. 1:30, contrasts the wisdom of God, “consisting of all the gracious, heavenly, and efficacious thoughts of God embodied in Christ Jesus for the enlightenment of our souls” with “fleshly, worldly, and mere human wisdom, 1:20, 2:5, 6, 13; 3:19; 2 Cor. 1:12.”(4) The wisdom that was embodied in Christ (Col. 2:3) consists also in the gospel-the message announced by His apostles. God’s wisdom then, consisting “not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth” (1 Cor. 2:13), involves the whole scope of God’s redemptive plan for mankind. If “wisdom” is thus the revelation of God’s eternal plan, it is not improbable that “knowledge” then deals with an elaboration of that data. Robertson suggests the contrast is between “speech full of God’s wisdom” and “insight” into that revelation.(5) Eph. 1:8 is a fair parallel: “. . , which He made known to us in all wisdom and prudence.” “Prudence” in this text is phronesis which is understanding or insight. The implication is that “wisdom” involves a revelation of factual material regarding the will of God and that “prudence” or knowledge involves an appreciation for and understanding of its application. We may surmise that the “word of wisdom” at Corinth entailed the revelation of spiritual data relative to the establishment and maintenance of the church, while the “word of knowledge” entailed the explanation, application, and implication of the “word of wisdom.” Perhaps it is proper to visualize the relationship between these two gifts as that existing between tongues and interpretation.

A plausible example may be found in the preaching of the apostle Peter. On the day of Pentecost, he announced, “Repent ye and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him” (Acts 2:38, 39). Despite this rather clear declaration of the universality of the gospel, Peter evidently did not understand the implication of his words: he excluded Gentiles. It took a rooftop vision to convince him otherwise (Acts 10:9-16; 34, 35). Hence, one may possess the “word of wisdom” as a gift and still be in need of the “word of knowledge.”

Thus the two gifts complement each other and their linking in the apostle’s list is readily understood. Conceivably the exercise of the gifts was as closely aligned as that of tongues and interpretation. In any event the value and purpose of the two gifts in the Divine economy is apparent for the early church. Each was essential to the growth and stability of the first century community of faith.

Endnotes

1. Charles R. Erdman, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967), p. 118.

2. Erdman, p. 120.

3. Frederick Dale Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1970), p. 288.

4. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of 1 and 2 Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 500.

5. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 4 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931), p. 169.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 5, pp. 73-74
December 5, 1974

By James E. Cooper

Those who defend miraculous healing for today often insist that regeneration is a miracle. A. J. Gordon quotes with approval another man who said, “You ask God to perform a real miracle when you ask Him to cure your soul of sin as you do when you ask Him to cure your body of fever” (The Ministry of Healing, p. 193). The assumption here is that when one is convinced that regeneration itself is a miracle, a major obstacle to belief in miraculous healing is overcome. We deny that regeneration is by miraculous means.

Webster defines miracle in part as “An event or effect in the physical world deviating from the known laws of nature, or transcending our knowledge of these laws.” Anything that happens contrary to the known laws of nature is called a miracle; it may not be a miracle at all. One may simply be unaware of what laws of nature are acting.

The latter part of Webster’s definition (“an extraordinary, anomalous, or abnormal event brought about by superhuman agency”) comes nearer to the realization that a proper definition of miracle must distinguish God’s special, supernatural manifestations from things which occur by natural force or law. The difference in a miracle and a natural occurrence is not that the power of God is at work, but that in a miracle God operates in an unusual manner. Gordon says, “a miracle is the immediate action of God, as distinguished from his mediate action through natural laws” (p. 193). We accept this definition with the provision that we remember that there are “natural laws” in the spiritual as well as the physical realm. Paul shows that the law, “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap,” applies in the spiritual realm as well as in the physical realm (Galatians 6:7-8).

Regeneration refers to the new birth. To be regenerated is to be born again. As there is no miracle involved in being born the first time, there is no miracle involved in being born again. The child comes as the result of the operation of God’s natural laws. Conception takes place when sperm and egg are united. Following a period of gestation, delivery follows, and a new life begins. The “miracle” of birth is the result of God’s natural law of procreation at work.

In the process of regeneration, the new (or spiritual) birth, the seed must also be planted. In the parable of the sower, Jesus taught that the “seed of the kingdom” is the “word of God” (Luke 8:11). Peter declares that we have been “begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth” (1 Peter 1:23). By the preaching of the gospel, which is “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16), we are “begotten” by the gospel (1 Corinthians 4:15) and thus receive the “implanted word, which is able to save our souls” (James 1:21). When the Word of God works on our hearts, we are brought to the completion of the new birth when we are “born of water and of the Spirit” (John 3:5) and enter into the church of Christ.

Regeneration is the normal spiritual effect of the working of God’s fixed spiritual law in the matter. The Scripture teaches us that God’s law concerning regeneration requires faith in Jesus as Christ (John 8:24) based on evidence in God’s word (Romans 10:17), repentance of sins (Acts 17:30), and baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38; compare also Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16 and Galatians 3:26-27). One who thus enters “into Christ” becomes a “new creature” (2 Corinthians 5:17), and walks in “newness of life” (Romans 6:3-4). There is no miracle in regeneration; it takes place in harmony with God’s fixed (and known) spiritual law of procreation!

Truth Magazine XVIII: 7, p. 98
December 19, 1974

By Cecil Willis

In spite of the fact that ours is a world of diversified concepts concerning the church, and even though most of us have misapprehensions of what the church is, yet surprisingly, we are agreed that the church belongs to God. Whatever the church is, it is God’s. So we speak of the divine church. All that pertains to God’s part of the church is divine. God definitely had a part in the building of the church.

Importance of Knowing Its Birthdate

We are undertaking to find the day when the church of the Lord Jesus Christ had its beginning. This is a subject of much more importance than most would think. Many are disposed to inquire, “What difference does it make when the church began?” But so far as you and I are concerned, this is a subject of great import. The most of us, at some time or other, decide to affiliate ourselves with some church or other. The very fact that we feel we need to be a part of some religious body is indicative of an inner feeling that we need God. The only way in which I can please God is by doing what He has commanded I do, part of which is to become a member of his church. Knowing the date the church began helps one distinguish between the church provided by God and those created by man. The church is the result of the eternal, divine wisdom and purpose of God. The apostle Paul discusses God’s eternal purpose in building the church in Eph. 3:8-11, to which I invite your attention at this time. “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things; to the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The church was not an after-thought in God’s mind. It was no temporary expedient. It was God’s divine, eternal purpose. And we today can share the blessings purposed from eternity by God, in the church of Jesus Christ.

So when God purposed that his church should become a reality, it did. Any church that did not begin when the Lord’s did, is not the church of the Lord. There are some who believe that the church began during the days of Adam, others affirm it began when Abraham was called, others believe John the Baptist started it, and yet many others think it was started during the time when Christ was on earth. These all are false concepts as we shall presently see. Millions must frankly confess that the church of which they are members is of recent origin.

Toward Pentecost

Scriptures are numerous which point toward the time when the church was to begin. We can turn back to the Old Testament and see some references which tell us the church was, at that time, a future organization. The prophet Isaiah said, “And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow into it. And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem” (Isa. 2:2, 3). In this passage you will notice that the prophet is speaking of Jehovah’s house. In I Tim. 3:15, Paul says he hopes to come shortly, but if he tarries long, these following instructions found in the letter will instruct you “that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God.” The house of Jehovah is the church of God. In the Old Testament passage we just read, we have a prophecy of the coming church.

In Daniel 2:44, in speaking of the future kings of Rome, the prophet says, “And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.” In this passage, the kingdom is yet future. It will be set up in the days of the Roman kings. Surely these Old Testament prophets did not foretell the establishment of an already existing church. So the very fact that these prophecies are made, indicates that the church of the Lord is not an Old Testament organization. Hence it was not established during the days of Adam or Abraham.

The New Testament virtually begins with an utterance that the kingdom of heaven is “at hand.” This was the substance and purpose of John the Baptist’s message. We read, “And in those days cometh John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:1, 2). The expression, “at hand,” does not mean already come. It means the church will soon be established. So the church was not established during the days of John the Baptist.

You will remember that John’s preaching immediately preceded that of the Lord’s. Yet when John finished his work, and Jesus began his, the church had not been established. Early in Christ’s preaching ministry, his disciples came to him, asking Him how to pray. In what man has come to call “The Lord’s Prayer,” Jesus taught the disciples to pray “thy kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10). This indicates that the church had not been set up as yet. For certainly Jesus would not have commanded the disciples to pray for the coming of an already existing institution.

In Mark 1:15, Jesus preached that the “kingdom of God is at hand.” Again, when he sent the disciples on what is called the limited commission, sending them only to the Jews, he told them to preach, saying, “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 10:5-7). So during the ministry of Christ, the kingdom was preached “at hand.” It was still future. It seems to me that the meaning of the expression “at hand” can clearly be understood from Paul’s statement in 2 Tim. 4:6, when he speaks of his death as being “at hand.” It was imminent. It was to occur in the immediate future. So was the kingdom. But it was yet in the future.

Later Jesus promised that “upon this rock (namely the confession that Peter had made, that He was the Son of God) I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). Notice Jesus said; “I will build my church.” It was not accomplished as yet. We can read everything the New Testament says that Jesus did while he was on earth. Further you can read of his crucifixion on the cross, and in that very account learn that the church was yet to be established. In fact, Jesus had taught that Hades, or his going into the tomb, would not prevail, or hinder, him in the building of the church. After Jesus had been nailed to the cross, a man named Joseph came inquiring if he could take the body. The executors would not release Christ’s body until they made sure he was dead. The account says: “There came Joseph of Arimathea, a councillor of honorable estate, who also himself was looking (waiting–K.J.V.) for the kingdom of God; and he boldly went in unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus” (Mk. 15:43). After Christ’s death, men were still waiting for the kingdom.

He arose from the dead, lived forty days with men, and prepared to go back to the Father, when his disciples asked, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6). They were yet looking for the kingdom when Jesus ascended to the Father. So we see from the days of the prophets of the Old Testament, until Christ ascended to the Father, the kingdom was future.

Pentecost

Jesus had told his disciples that the kingdom of God would come with power (Mk. 9:1), and later he told them when they would receive the power. He said, “But ye shall receive power when the Holy Spirit is come upon you” (Acts 1:8). So the kingdom was to come when the Holy Spirit came upon them. We find in Luke 24:49 that Jesus commanded them to tarry in the city (of Jerusalem) until they be endued with power from on high. Acts 2 begins: “And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy, spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:1-4). So we see the kingdom was to come with power (Mk. 9:1); the power was to come when the Spirit came (Acts 1:8); and the Spirit came on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). So we must conclude that the kingdom came on Pentecost. This is the only logical conclusion to draw from these three passages.

Not only is this so, but Peter argues that the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost, was the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. Peter says, “But this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel: And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh.” The prophecy said it will be in the last days. Peter said “this is that.” This event fulfills what Joel predicted would happen. But not only had Joel made a prediction as to what would happen, in the last days, but Isaiah had also. Isaiah said the Lord’s house, his church, would be built in the last days. Peter said these are the last days. “This is that,” he says. So Pentecost, fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah as to the time when the church was to be built. Of course, it was also during the days of the Roman kings, which fulfills Daniel’s prophecy found in Dan. 2:44.

On this day of Pentecost, when Peter spoke, the Scripture says that there were Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven, present. He was laboring to prove that the Jesus, whom they had crucified, was the Son of God with power. He reminds them of the mighty works or miracles that He hrd performed. He says Jesus also fulfills prophecy, and that God raised Him from the dead, after you had killed him, and that He hath shed forth the Spirit which ye now see and hear. He persuaded his audience that the message he spoke was the truth. So they cried out, “what shall we do?” We have murdered God’s Son. Peter answered them, saying “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Verse 41 says, “They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.” And verse 47 of the same chapter, adds that the “Lord added to the church daily those that were being saved” (K.J.V.). Here for the first time in all the Bible we find the church referred to as an existing organization. People were added to it. Previously they had only been promised it would come, and later that it was “at hand.” But now men and women are permitted to enter the kingdom. The gospel was preached to them. Believing, they were told to repent and be baptized. Three thousand of them did, and they were added to the church. That is the only way to get into the Lord’s church. If the church of which you are a member did not begin on Pentecost, it is not the Lord’s church. And if you did not enter it merely by believing in Christ, repenting of your sins, and being baptized for the remission of sins, you are not in the Lord’s church. Truly the divine church had its beginning at the divinely appointed time: Pentecost!

Truth Magazine XVIII: 5, pp. 67-69
December 5, 1974

By Mike Willis

In as much as there has been some discussion of the meaning of “factious” in Tit. 3:10 (“Reject a factious man after a first and second warning”), a study of hairetikos and its cognate hairesis seems useful. To illustrate how the “unity-in-diversity” movement is attempting to destroy the clear meaning of another passage which commands fellowship to be broken on doctrinal basis, I insert these, sometimes lengthy, quotations:

“Since the factious man (hairdkos) in the KJV is called a `heretic’ — a word subject to misunderstanding-we should look carefully at what this term denotes. The root from which it comes means ‘to choose,’ and a `heretic’ is one who makes a choice. In the Bible a hairesis is a body of people built around the same choice; hence a sect or party. Although the English word heresy is associated with the one who holds an unorthodox doctrine, this meaning is not found in the Bible. Even in 2 Pet. 2:1 (the only passage in which the RSV used the word) it does not seem to denote unorthodox doctrine.

“The heresies (factions) in 1 Cor. 11:19 result from separatists who do not recognize the inherent oneness of the body. The original word is properly rendered ‘party spirit’ in Gal. 5:20. The Biblical usage emphasizes the evil of dividing the body. Therefore the factious’ man in Tit. 3:10 is one who creates division by the manner in which he holds his theological opinions, even though those opinions may not be actually `heretical’ in the modern sense . . . . So the word at this stage had nothing to do with orthodoxy of teaching” (Integrity, Vol. V, No. 11, pp. 164-165).

“Do our errors make us heretics ? A heretic is a trouble-maker, a factious person. He is one who viciously seeks to build his own party to the destruction of the body of Christ. Such a one is described in Titus 3 as perverted and sinful’ and ‘self-condemned'” (Leroy Garrett, Restoration Review, Vol. VII, No. 6, p. 117).

“1. As the Holy Spirit uses the term, heresy does not refer to any opinion whether true or false. A man might hold any opinion regardless of how wrong it is and might even express that opinion to others and still not be a heretic.

“2. Heresy has no relation to doctrine. It is not something preached or taught and is never employed in direct connection with any word translated preaching’ or `teaching.’

“3. A man may be a heretic even though what he teaches is in perfect harmony with the word of God, for heresy does not relate to that which is taught, but to the motive and attitude of the one who teaches.

“4. The definition of heresy as now exemplified by the various groups designated `The Church of Christ’ is not that of the new covenant scriptures. It has been borrowed from Rome where it was developed to enable an apostate church to enforce her dogmas under penalty of physical death.

“5. In the scriptural sense those who are most frequently rejected in these days as heretics are not such at all, but the term can be justly applied to those who reject them” Mission Messenger, Vol. 23, No. 7, p. 5).

One can see from these quotations that an attempt is being made to discredit using Tit. 3:10 to any of the issues which divide us today. One should notice, however, that these brethren would not classify using mechanical instruments of music in worship as false doctrine even if one could prove that hairesis and hairetikos involved doctrinal errors. However, to those who believe the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship, sponsoring churches, and institutionalism to be sin, the demonstration that hairesis and hairetikos applies to errors in doctrine will prove one can withdraw fellowship from another on the basis of his teaching false doctrine. Let us, therefore, consider the evidence.

Occurrences in the NT

Acts 5:17-which is the sect of the Sadducees

Acts 15:5-certain of the sect of the Pharisees

Acts 24:5-of the sect of the Nazarenes:

Acts 24:14-the way which they call heresy

Acts 26:5-Straitest sect of our religion

Acts 28:22-for as concerning this sect,

1 Cor. 11:19-there must be also heresies

Gal. 5:20-strife, seditions, heresies,

2 Pet. 2:1-shall bring in damnable heresies,

(The Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament, p. 17).

You can see that the word is translated by two English words-sect and heresy. Let us now relate the lexicographical information on these words.

Lexicons on “Hairesis”

Arndt and Gingrich: “1. sect, party, school . . . . a. Of the Sadducees Acts 5:17 . . . . Of the Pharisees 15:5 . . . . Of the Christians . . . . b. in the later sense, heretical sect . . . . c. opinion, dogma …. destructive opinions 2 Pet. 2:1. . . .” (p. 23).

Thayer: “1. act of taking, capture . . . . 2. choosing, choice . . . . 3. that which is chosen, a chosen course of thought and action; hence one’s chosen opinion, tenet; acc. to the context, an opinion varying from the true exposition of the Christian faith (heresy): 2 Pet. ii.l. . . . 4. a body of men separating themselves from others and following their own tenets (a sect or party): as the Sadducees, Acts v. 17; the Pharisees, Acts xv. 5; xxvi. 5; the Christians, Acts xxiv. 5, 14. . . . 5. dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims: Gal. v. 20; 1 Cor. xi. 19. . . .” (p. 16).

W. E. Vine: “denotes (a) a choosing, choice (from haireomai, to choose); then, that which is chosen, and hence, an opinion, especially a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth, and leads to division and the formation of sects, Gal. 5:20 (marg., `parties’); such erroneous opinions are frequently the outcome of personal preference or the prospect of advantage; see 2 Pet. 2:1, where `destructive’ (R.V.) signifies leading to ruin; some assign even this to (b); in the papyri the prevalent meaning is ‘choice’ (Moulton and Milligan, Vocab.); (b) a sect; this secondary meaning, resulting from (a), is the dominating significance in the N.T., Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5,14; 26:5; 28:11 . . . .” (Vol. II, p. 217).

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: ‘Hairesis in Classical Usage and Hellenism

“From this there develops in Hellenism the predominate objective use of the term to denote a. `doctrine’ and especially b. `school.’ . . . It thus comes to be the hairesis (teaching) of a particular hairesis (school).

‘Hairesis in the N.T.

“1. The usage in Acts corresponds exactly to that of Josephus and the earlier Rabbis …. In these passages the term has the neutral flavor of ‘school.’

“2. Against this background, it is impossible to solve the problem of the derivation of the special Christian sense of heresy. For the development of the Christian concept is not wholly analogous to that of the Rabbinic min, as though, in the process of the separation of non-orthodox groups, the heterodox practices came to be designated heresy. On the contrary, the word seems to have been suspect in Christianity from the very first, and when it is used as a Christian technical term in conscious or unconscious connection either with the Greek philosophical schools or the Jewish sects it denotes at once societies outside Christianity and the Christian church . . . . schismata are splits in the community caused by personally motivated disputes . . . . In this respect it (hairesis) is distinguished from schisma, and obviously indicates something more serious. The greater seriousness consists in the fact that haireseis effect the foundation of the church in doctrine (2 Pet. 2:1), and that they do so in such a fundamental way as to give rise to anew society alongside the ekklesia. This the church cannot accept, since as the lawful public assembly of the whole people of God the church embraces this people exclusively and comprehensively. By its very nature, however, hairesis is a private magnitude with a limited validity. It is, in fact, a school or party” (pp. 181-183).

Lexicons on “Hairetikos”

Thayer: “1. fitted or able to take or choose a thing …. 2. schismatic, factious, a follower of false doctrine, Tit. iii. 10” (p. 16).

Arndt and Gingrich: “factious, causing divisions perh. heretical Tit. 3:10” (p. 23).

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: “In Christianity, it seems to have been used technically from the very first, and denotes the ‘adherent of a heresy.’ In the NT it is found in Tit. 3:9f. . . .” (Vol. I, p. 184).

Word Studies

To help us to get even a better grasp of the meaning of this word, although I might be becoming bogged down somewhat, I would like to quote some of the writers who have done some significant word studies.

M. R. Vincent: (This is taken from his comments on 2 Pet. 2:1 because, in his comments on Tit. 3:10, Vincent refers the reader to this comment.) “Damnable heresies (hairesis apoleias), lit., heresies of destruction. Rev., destructive heresies. Heresy is a transcript of hairesis, the primary meaning of which is choice; so that a heresy is, strictly, the choice of an opinion contrary to that usually received; thence transferred to the body of those who profess such opinions, and therefore a sect. So Rev., in margin, sects of perdition. Commonly in this sense in the New Testament (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 28:22), though the Rev. has an odd variety in its marginal renderings. See Acts 24:14; 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20. The rendering heretical doctrines seems to agree better with the context; false teachers bringing in sects is awkward” (Word Studies in the New Testament, p. 328).

William Barclays Barclay is frequently quoted from his comments on Tit. 3:10 which say that a heretikos is “a man who has decided that he is right and everybody else is wrong. Paul’s warning is a warning against the man who has made his own ideas the test and standard of all truth” (The Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, p. 304). However, Barclay commented on the meaning of hairesis in 2 Pet. 2:1, which comment you have yet to see any of the “unity-in-diversity” group quoting. The comment is lengthy but worthwhile. He said: “They insidiously introduce destructive heresies. The Greek word for heresy is hairesis, and it is a word with a very curious and a very interesting history. It comes from the Greek verb haireisthai, which means to choose; and originally it was a perfectly good and honourable word. It simply meant a line of belief and action which a man had chosen for himself. In the New Testament itself we read of the hairesis of the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Nazarenes (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5). It was perfectly possible to speak of the hairesis of Plato, and to mean nothing more than those who were Platonist in their thought and their philosophy. It was perfectly possible to speak of a group of doctors who believed in, and practiced, a certain method of treatment as a hairesis. All that a hairesis meant was a belief which one had personally chosen for oneself, and to which one by choice adhered. But very soon in the Christian Church the word hairesis quite changed its complexion. In Paul’s thought heresies and schisms go together as things to be condemned (1 Corinthians 11:18,19): haireseis (the plural form of the word) are part of the works of the flesh; a man that is a heretic is to be warned, and even given a second chance, and then rejected (Tit. 3:10).

“Why the change? The whole point is that before the coming of Christianity, and before the coming of Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, there was no such thing as definite, God-given truth. A man was presented with a number of alternatives any of which he might choose honestly to believe. But with the coming of Jesus, God’s truth came to men, and men had either to accept or to reject that truth. In other words, with the revelation of God in Christ, it is no longer a question of choosing the particular line of belief which happens to appeal to us; it is a question of accepting, or rejecting, the revealed truth of God. A heretic then becomes a man who believes what he wishes to believe instead of accepting the truth of God which he must believe.

“What was happening in the case of Peter’s people was that certain men, who claimed to be prophets, were insidiously persuading men to believe the things they wished to be true rather than the things which God has revealed as true. (Sounds a little like our “unity-in-diversity” brethren, doesn’t it?-MW). They did not set themselves up as opponents of Christianity. Far from it. Rather they set themselves up as the finest fruits of Christian thinking. Insidiously, unconsciously, imperceptible, so gradually and so subtly that they did not even notice it, people were being lured away from God’s truth to men’s private opinions, for that is what heresy is” (The Letters of James and Peter, pp. 373-374).

The Encyclopedias

I perfectly realize that the main purpose of Bible encyclopedias is not to give a word study, although they are attempts to summarize the Bible evidence on any given subject. Therefore, I have chosen to insert what they have to say on the meaning of “heresy.”

Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: “(hairesis, ‘a selection’) designates in the New Testament a party or school; and the Pharisees (Acts xv. 5, xxvi. 5), the Sadducees (Acts v. 1), and even the Christians (Acts xxiv. 14, xxviii. 22), are called ‘heresies.’ The use of the term, however, in connection with schisms, proves that it did not exclusively designate dissent in the matters of doctrine (1 Cor. xi. 19; Gal. v. 20). At a later period, the term was employed principally in the sense of doctrinal departures from revealed truth, or erroneous views (Tit. iii. 10; 2 Pet. ii.1)” (Vol. II, p. 975).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “Its application, with censure, is found in 1 Cor. 11:19m; Gal. 5:20m, where it is shown to interfere with the unity of faith and community of interests that belongs to Christians. There being but one standard of truth, and one goal for all Christian life, any arbitrary choice varying from what was common to all believers, becomes an inconsistency and a sin to be warned against . . . . The destructive heresies (RVm, ERVm `sects of perdition’) are those guilty of errors both of doctrine and of life very fully described throughout the entire chapter (2 Pet. 2-MW), and who, in such course, separated themselves from the fellowship of the church.

“In the fixed ecclesiastical sense that it ultimately attained, it indicated not merely any doctrinal error, but ‘the open espousal of fundamental error’ (Ellicott on Tit. 3:10), or, more fully, the persistent obstinate maintenance of an error with respect to the central doctrines of Christianity in the face of all better instruction, combined with aggressive attack upon the common faith of the church, and its defenders” (Vol. III, p. 1377).

McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature: “The word hairesis . . . originally meant simply choice (e.g. of a set of opinions; later, it was applied to the opinions themselves; last of all, to the sect maintaining them . . . . In the historical part of the New Testament, the word denotes a sect or party, whether good or bad (Acts v, 17; xv, 15; xxiv, 5; xxvi, 5; xxviii, 22). In 1 Cor. xi, 19 (there must be heresies among you), he uses it apparently to denote schisms or divisions in the church. In Tit. iii, 10 he comes near to the later sense; the ‘heretical person’ appears to be one given over to a self-chosen and divergent form of belief and practice” (Vol. IV, p. 198).

Conclusion

The quotations could be continued; of the eleven commentaries which I have on Titus, only three believed that doctrinal errors were not involved in the problem mentioned in Tit. 3:10. Practically every source which can be quoted admits that doctrinal error is involved in hairesis and hairetikos, although the problem might be compounded by the wrong attitude. Sometimes the attitude seems to be primarily what is condemned (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20, although this is not altogether certain; a schisma possibly might be a division caused by personality clashes and hairesis one which is caused by doctrinal differences). However, although some commentators (namely, William Barclay who is most generally quoted) say that haireikos in Tit. 3:10 refers to the wrong attitude, the overwhelming weight of evidence is that hairetikos has basically the same meaning as our English ward “heretic”-” one who holds to a doctrine or opinion contrary to the fundamental doctrine or creed of any particular church.” You can rest assured that Tit. 3:10, along with many other passages, supports the idea that fellowship can be broken because of doctrinal differences.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 4, pp. 57-59
November 28, 1974