Titus 3:9-11: Warn a Divisive Person Once, Then Avoid
Short answer: Titus 3:9-11 tells us to avoid foolish controversies and, after a first and second warning, to reject a person who keeps causing divisions. The warning is patient and limited, not endless. It aims at repentance, protects the church, and refuses to let quarrels become the church's daily diet. It is not a license to shun anyone who disagrees with us; it concerns someone who persistently stirs strife after correction. The same concern appears in Romans 16:17-18, Matthew 18:15-17, 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, and 2 John 1:9-11. The goal is always restoration where possible, and the boundary is the apostolic teaching.
The problem in Crete and the shape of Paul's command
Titus was left in Crete to set things in order in the churches, and the island's churches were troubled by people who loved arguments. Paul's letter repeatedly warns about false teachers and quarrels, and Titus 3:9-11 is the climax of that concern. The instruction is blunt: after one or two warnings, have nothing more to do with a factious person. This is not the language of a casual disagreement. It describes someone whose pattern is to split, to draw people away, and to keep the argument alive even after correction. Paul's command is pastoral, but it is not timid.
The verses just before our passage tell Titus to remind believers to be subject to rulers, to be ready for every good work, and to speak evil of no one. Then Paul turns to the congregation's internal life. He says, according to Titus 3:9, to shun foolish questionings, genealogies, strife, and disputes about the law. The word for shun means to stand away from, to avoid. The reason given is that such things are unprofitable and vain. They produce no growth, no holiness, no unity. They are empty calories for the soul, and Paul does not want the church to be malnourished by them.
Paul's list is specific to his first-century setting, but the underlying problem is timeless. Genealogies and disputes about the law were the thorny issues of the day, and they generated endless talk. In our own day, the issues change, but the pattern remains: a person who loves the fight more than the fellowship. The instruction in Titus 3:10 is to warn such a person once, then a second time, and then to have nothing more to do with them. The warning itself is an act of love; the withdrawal is a last resort, not a first response.
Notice the order. Paul does not say to avoid the person immediately. He says to warn them first and second. The factious person is given a real opportunity to hear, to repent, and to change. Only after that does the church step back. This order reflects God's own patience. He is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. The church is to reflect that patience, but also its limits. A warning that is never followed by any consequence is not a warning; it is a suggestion. Paul's command holds both kindness and firmness together.
What makes a person factious in the biblical sense
The Greek word behind factious in Titus 3:10 is hairetikos, from which we get the word heretic. In the New Testament, the emphasis is not on holding a wrong opinion but on creating a faction or party. A factious person is a divider. They gather a following around themselves, often around a secondary issue, and they thrive on controversy. The issue they raise may even be a real one, but their manner is self-serving. Paul's concern is not merely doctrinal error, though that matters; it is the party spirit that tears the body of Christ apart.
This is why the preceding verse tells Titus to avoid foolish questionings and strife. The factious person does not simply ask hard questions; they use questions as weapons. They are not looking for answers but for followers. Their disputes are unprofitable and vain because they cannot produce the righteousness, peace, and joy that the kingdom of God is about. When a person's identity is built on being right against others, they will always need a new controversy to sustain it. That is the spiritual condition Paul addresses.
We should be careful, then, not to label every difficult brother or sister as factious. A believer who raises a legitimate concern about doctrine or practice may be doing exactly what Scripture requires. A person who has been hurt and speaks sharply once is not necessarily factious. The factious person is known by a persistent pattern: they divide, they recruit, they refuse correction, and they keep the quarrel going after the church has addressed it. The label belongs to the pattern, not to a single hard conversation.
Paul also tells Titus to reject such a person after the second warning. The word for reject can mean to refuse, to have nothing further to do with. This is not excommunication in the full formal sense of 1 Corinthians 5, but it is a deliberate withdrawal of fellowship in the context of the church's life. The goal is not to destroy the person but to stop the spread of the division and to give the person a chance to see the seriousness of their course. The church's unity is worth protecting.
How the two warnings work in practice
The first warning should be direct and private. Following the pattern of Matthew 18:15-17, the goal is to win the brother back, not to shame him. A mature believer, or perhaps a pastor, should talk with the person plainly. The conversation should name the pattern without exaggeration, appeal to Scripture, and invite repentance. It should be done in a spirit of gentleness, remembering that we too are tempted. The warning is not a verdict; it is a summons to turn. If the person listens, the matter is over, and the relationship can be restored.
If the person does not listen, a second warning follows. This may involve one or two witnesses, again following Matthew 18, and it makes clear that the church takes the matter seriously. The second warning is not merely a repetition; it is a final appeal before withdrawal. It should be documented, prayerful, and delivered by people who have the spiritual maturity to do it without rancor. The person should know exactly what is at stake and what will happen next. There is no ambush in biblical discipline.
Only after the second warning does the church reject the person. This does not mean hatred or personal revenge. It means that the church no longer gives the person a platform, no longer treats their divisive teaching as a legitimate voice, and no longer lets the controversy dominate the congregation's life. If the person repents later, they should be welcomed back, because the goal has always been restoration. The process is meant to be redemptive, not vindictive. It is a boundary, not a grudge.
Practically, this requires wise leadership. A church must distinguish between a person who is genuinely factious and a person who is simply immature, hurting, or confused. It must also be willing to examine itself: sometimes the church has contributed to the division by being dismissive or unteachable. Paul's command does not excuse leaders from listening. But when the pattern is clear and correction has been refused, the command stands. Warn once, warn twice, and then step away.
Why false teaching is treated so seriously
The Bible's warnings about division are not petty. In Romans 16:17-18, Paul tells believers to look out for those who cause divisions and stumbling blocks contrary to the doctrine they learned, and to turn away from them. The phrase contrary to the doctrine is crucial. The issue is not personal preference but the apostolic faith once delivered to the saints. False teaching about the gospel, about Christ, or about the Christian life is not a minor matter. It can shipwreck faith and destroy churches.
This is why 2 John 1:9-11 says that whoever transgresses and does not remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God. The elder is not being harsh for its own sake; he is guarding the flock. To welcome a false teacher into your home and greet them is to share in their evil work. That is a strong statement, but it flows from the seriousness of the gospel. The truth about Jesus is not negotiable. When someone denies it and persists in that denial, the church cannot pretend that nothing is wrong.
At the same time, we must be careful to apply these passages to the right cases. The New Testament distinguishes between a person who is weak in faith and a person who is factious. Romans 14 makes room for differences of opinion on matters that are not essential. 1 Corinthians 8-10 urges patience with the weak conscience. The line is not drawn at every disagreement; it is drawn at the gospel and at the persistent, divisive spirit that refuses correction. A church that treats every secondary difference as a test of orthodoxy will become the very thing Paul warns against.
So the seriousness of the command in Titus 3:11, that such a person is perverted and sins, being self-condemned, must be read in context. Paul is not saying that anyone who ever causes trouble is beyond redemption. He is describing a settled pattern. The person has been warned twice and has chosen to continue. The church's withdrawal is a solemn acknowledgment that the person has placed themselves outside the fellowship by their own choice. It is a tragedy, not a triumph.
How the church should treat the person afterwards
Paul does not leave the church with a bare rule. In 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, a parallel passage, he says to note the disobedient person and have no company with him, so that he may be ashamed. Yet he immediately adds, do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. The goal is still restoration. The withdrawal of fellowship is a form of admonition, a wake-up call. The church does not hate the person; it refuses to normalize their behavior. It treats them as a brother who has gone astray, not as an outsider to be despised.
This means that the church's posture after withdrawal should be one of sorrowful hope. We should pray for the person, speak of them with charity, and be ready to receive them back if they repent. We should not spread rumors about them or treat them as a social outcast. The boundary is about the church's life and teaching, not about personal vengeance. The person may still be in the neighborhood, still be in the family, still be in the workplace. The withdrawal is specifically from the fellowship and from the platform that their divisiveness was using.
It also means that the church should examine whether it has been faithful in the process. Were the warnings clear? Were they given in love? Were they based on Scripture and not on personal irritation? Did the leaders listen to the person's concerns before rejecting them? Sometimes a person is labeled factious when the real problem is that they were never heard. Paul's instruction presupposes a church that is serious about truth and about people. It is not a shortcut for avoiding hard conversations.
What this passage does not mean
Titus 3:9-11 is often misused to justify cutting off anyone who disagrees with a pastor or a church tradition. That is not what Paul wrote. The factious person is not simply someone who asks a difficult question or raises a concern. The context is a person who stirs up strife, draws people into quarrels, and refuses correction after being warned. The passage does not authorize leaders to silence legitimate dissent or to treat every critic as an enemy. That would be an abuse of the text and a violation of the charity that Paul commands elsewhere.
The passage also does not mean that we should never talk to the person again. The withdrawal is about church fellowship and the platform for divisiveness. It does not cancel family relationships, workplace interactions, or the call to love our neighbor. 2 Thessalonians 3:15 explicitly says not to count the person as an enemy but to admonish them as a brother. So the goal remains redemptive. If the person repents, the church should welcome them back with open arms. The line is drawn so that it can be crossed back over in repentance.
Biblical fidelity check
Titus 3:9-11 establishes a process: avoid foolish controversies, warn a factious person once and twice, and then reject them. It does not establish a general permission to shun anyone who disagrees with us, nor does it set a precise timetable or a detailed procedure for every situation. It assumes that the church has already taught sound doctrine and that the person has been clearly warned. It also assumes that the issue is significant enough to warrant such a step. The passage does not tell us to reject someone merely because they are difficult, immature, or different from us.
A common misreading is to treat the passage as a weapon for silencing any criticism. But the context is about a person who is divisive and self-condemned, not about a faithful believer who raises a biblical concern. Another misreading is to skip the warnings and go straight to rejection. Paul explicitly says after a first and second warning. The patience of the process is part of the command. A church that rejects someone without warning is not obeying this text; it is disobeying it. The passage is about protecting unity through truth and love, not about preserving a leader's power.
Other passages that speak to Titus 3:9-11
Several passages in the New Testament echo Paul's concern. In What Does 1 Corinthians 1:10 Mean? Context, Theology, and Application, Paul pleads for unity and the end of divisions in the church. In What Does 1 Corinthians 1:9 Mean? Context, Theology, and Application, he grounds that unity in God's faithfulness and our calling into fellowship with his Son. The broader study 1 Corinthians 1: Called, United, and Boasting in the Lord shows how the cross exposes the folly of party spirit. And 1 Corinthians 10: Warnings and Freedom reminds us that love and the good of others must govern our conduct. Together these passages show that the New Testament consistently treats division as a serious threat to the gospel.
Frequently asked questions
Does Titus 3:10 mean I should cut off anyone who disagrees with me?
No. The verse is directed at a factious person, someone who persistently causes divisions after being warned. It is not about ordinary disagreements, honest questions, or personal conflicts. The context of Titus 3:9 is foolish controversies and quarrels that are unprofitable and vain. If you use this verse to shun everyone who differs from you, you are misusing it. The Bible commands us to bear with one another in love and to be patient with those who are weak in faith.
How many warnings should I give before avoiding someone?
Titus 3:10 says after a first and second warning. That means two warnings are the normal pattern. The first warning may be private; the second may involve witnesses, following the pattern of Matthew 18:15-17. The purpose is to give the person a real opportunity to repent. If they listen, you have gained your brother. If they refuse, the church may then withdraw fellowship. The point is not to count warnings mechanically but to be patient and clear.
What if the person repents later?
Then they should be welcomed back. The goal of the process is always restoration, not punishment. 2 Thessalonians 3:15 says not to count the person as an enemy but to admonish them as a brother. If they turn from their divisiveness and submit to the apostolic teaching, the church should forgive and restore them. The boundary is not a permanent exile; it is a call to repentance. Churches should be as eager to receive the repentant as they were to warn the stubborn.
