The primary meaning of
áἵñåóéò
is ‘taking,’ used especially of ‘taking a town’ (Herod. iv. 1). Its secondary meaning is ‘choice,’ ‘preference.’ From this it passes to ‘the thing chosen,’ and so ‘a plan,’ ‘a purpose.’ In later classical usage it comes to mean a philosophic school of thought, and hence a sect.
In the passages in which the word occurs in the Acts, it has the meaning of a religious party, e.g.Act_5:17
ἡ áἵñåóéò ôῶí Óáääïõêáßùí
; Act_15:5; Act_26:5 :
êáôὰ ôὴí ἀêñéâåóôÜôçí áἵñåóéí ôῆò ἡìåôÝñáò èñçóêåßáò ἔæçóá Öáñéóáῖïò
. Thus it is used of the Christians not by themselves but by others, e.g.Act_24:5 :
ðñùôïóôÜôçí ôå ôῆò ôῶí Íáæùñáßùí áἱñÝóåùò
; and again, v. 14:
êáôὰ ôὴí ὁäὸí ἥí ëÝãïõóéí áἵñåóéí
(see also Act_28:22). In the Epistles it is used of the evil principle of party spirit, division, and self-assertion. Thus in Gal_5:20 it is classed among the works of the flesh in company with
ἐñéèåῖáé
and
äé÷ïóôáóßáé
. In 1Co_11:18 f. St. Paul uses
áἱñÝóåéò
as the natural outcome of
ó÷ßóìáôá
:
ἀêïýù ó÷ßóìáôá ἐí ὑìῖí ὑðÜñ÷åéí
,
êáὶ ìÝñïò ôé ðéóôåýù
.
äåῖ ãὰñ êáὶ áἱñÝóåéò ἐí ὑìῖí åἶíáé
,
ἴíá ïἱ äüêéìïé öáíåñïὶ ãÝíùíôáé ἐí ὑìῖí
. So that, bad though these things are, they may serve a providential purpose in testing men’s characters and showing those that can stand the test.
These divisions destroyed the harmony of the Agape. The brotherly spirit which should have characterized the common meal was absent and the sacredness of the Communion was lost in general disorder. In this passage ‘heresy’ and ‘schism’ (q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.]) approach very nearly to becoming synonymous.
As St. Augustine says: ‘Haeresis autem schisma inveteratum’ (c. Crescon. Don. ii. 7). And Nevin quoted by Trench (NT Synonyms8, 1876, p. 359) says: ‘Heresy and schism are not indeed the same, but yet they constitute merely the different manifestations of one and the same disease. Heresy is theoretioschism: schism is practical heresy. They continually run into one another, and mutually complete each other. Every heresy is in principle schismatic; every schism is in its innermost constitution heretical.’
So far we have found no trace of
áἵñåóéò
being used in connexion with false doctrine but simply with divisions and factious party spirit. But in 2Pe_2:1 a new meaning is introduced, and from the idea of a party or sect we pass to the principles and teaching which characterize the sect.
áἱñÝóåéò ἀðùëåßáò
must refer to doctrines which lead to destruction; indeed the following words, ‘even denying the Lord that bought them,’ point to a specimen of such false teaching, implying either a rejection of Christ as the Son of God, or a denial of His redemptive work. As this Epistle was written at a much later date than the Acts, it marks the gradual transformation that was going on in the meaning of ‘heresy’ as it passed from party or sect, first to schism and finally to erroneous teaching.
There is no trace in the NT of either
áἵñåóéò
or
ó÷ßóìá
denoting a party that had separated itself from the main body. Pharisees and Sadducees were sects in Judaism, not withdrawn from it. Such sects were, so to speak, recognized, not deprecated. Again, the parties in the Corinthian Church which called themselves after the names of Paul, Cephas, Apollos, and Christ were divisions in the Church, not separated from it. It was the harm done by strife and the absence of that spirit of unity and charity, which is the very essence of Christianity, that called for the Apostle’s rebukes. By the time that we pass into the sub-apostolic period,
áἴñåóéò
connotes theological error and false teaching, and the sense of a sect or party gradually recedes till it passes away entirely. Two passages from Ignatius may be quoted in support of this:
ὅôé ðÜíôåò êáôὰ ἀëÞèåéáí æῆôå êáὶ ὅôé ἐí ὑìῖí ïὐäåìὶá áἵñåóéò êáôïéêåῖ
(ad Eph. vi.); and
ðáñáêáëῶ ïὖí ὑìᾶò
…
ìüíῃ ôῇ ×ñéóôéáíῇ ôñïöῇ ÷ñῆóèå
,
ἀëëïãñßáò äὲ âïôÜíçò ἀðÝ÷åóèå
,
ἤôéò ἐóôὶí áἴñåóéò
(ad Trall. vi.).