Titus 1
Commentary from 28 fathers
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου, ἣν ἐπηγγείλατο ὁ ἀψευδὴς Θεὸς πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων,
ѡ҆ ᲂу҆пова́нїи жи́зни вѣ́чныѧ, ю҆́же ѡ҆бѣтова̀ нело́жный бг҃ъ пре́жде лѣ́тъ вѣ́чныхъ,
But God can neither be in doubt, nor can he be deceived. For he only is in doubt who is ignorant of the future. One who has predicted one thing while something else has happened is deceived about the future. Not so with God. What is plainer than the fact that Scripture states the Father to have said one thing of the Son and that the same Scripture proves another thing to have taken place? The Son was beaten, he was mocked, was crucified and died. He suffered much worse things in the flesh than those servants who had been appointed before. Was the Father deceived? Was he ignorant of it? Was he unable to give help? The One who is the truth cannot make a mistake. It is written that "the ever-truthful God cannot lie." How could he who knows all be ignorant? What could he not do, who could do all?
Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.17.215-16I confess that I do not know what ages passed before the human race was created, yet I am perfectly sure that no one creature is coeternal with the Creator. Curiously enough, the apostle uses the expression tempora aeterna in reference not to the future but to the past. Thus he says: "in the hope of eternal life which God, who does not lie, promised before the eternal times, he has in due times manifested, his word." He seems to be saying that time stretches backward eternally; yet time is not coeternal with God, since not only did God exist "before eternal times" but he promised eternal life which he manifested in his own time, that is, in due time. Now, what he promised was his Word. For the Word is eternal life. But how did he make this promise, since it was made to those who certainly did not exist before the "eternal times"? The meaning, then, must be that what was to take place in its own time was already predestined and determined in his eternity and in his coeternal Word.
City of God 12.16Having then this hope [in the resurrection], let our souls be bound to him who is faithful in his promises and just in his judgments. He who has commanded us not to lie shall much more himself not lie; for nothing is impossible with God, except to lie.
FIRST LETTER OF CLEMENT 27For we can embrace all time in imagination or knowledge, since we know that what is now to-day, did not exist yesterday, because what was yesterday is not now; and on the other hand what is now, is only now and was not also yesterday. And by imagination we can so span the past that we have no doubt that before some city was founded, there existed a time in which that city had not been founded. Since, therefore, all time is the sphere of knowledge or imagination, we judge of it by the perceptions of human reason; hence we are considered to have reasonably asserted about anything, "It was not, before it was born," since antecedent time is prior to the origin of every single thing. But on the other hand, since in things of God, that is to say, in regard to the birth of God, there is nothing that is not before time eternal: it is illogical to use of Him the phrase "before He was born," or to suppose that He Who possesses before times eternal the eternal promise, is merely (in the language of the blessed Apostle) in hope of eternal life, which God Who cannot lie has promised before times eternal, or to say that once He was not. For reason rejects the notion that He began to exist after anything, Who, so we must confess, existed before times eternal.
ON THE TRINITY 12.27This truth, then, the knowledge of which is according to piety, is set in the hope of eternal life, because it at once bestows the reward of immortality on him who has come to know it. Without piety, however, the knowledge of truth delights for the present, but does not have the eternity of rewards, which God, who does not lie, promised before eternal ages, and manifested in his own times in Christ Jesus. But to whom did he promise beforehand, and afterwards make it plain, if not to his own Wisdom, which was always with the Father, when it rejoiced at the completed world and was glad over the sons of men; and did he not promise that whoever would believe in it would have eternal life? Before he laid the foundations of the world, before he poured out the seas, set up the mountains, hung up the sky, and made the earth firm with its mass cast down, God, in whom there is no lie, promised these things. Not because he could lie and is unwilling to break out into words of falsehood, but because he who is the father of truth has no lie in himself, according to that saying: "But let God be true, and every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4). Now God is called "who does not lie" for this reason: for he promises certain things with an oath in the prophets, so that we, made more secure, may hope the more that the things foretold will come to be, and, believing with our whole mind, may be prepared to attain the things that are to come.
It seems not beside the point to touch briefly on why God alone is called true, and every man a liar, by the voice of the Apostle. And unless I am mistaken, just as he alone is said to have immortality, although he has made both angels and many rational creatures to whom he has given immortality, so too he alone is said to be true: not that the others are not also immortal and lovers of truth, but that he alone is, by nature, both immortal and true. The others, however, obtain immortality and truth from his bounty, and it is one thing to be true, to have something through oneself; another to have what you have in the power of the giver. But neither do I think this should be passed over in silence: how God, who does not lie, pledged eternal life before eternal ages, from the time the world was made, according to the history of Genesis, and the times were established through the succession of nights and days, of months and years alike. In this course and wheel of the world, times glide by and come, and either are to be or have been. Hence certain of the philosophers think that there is no present time, but only past or future, because everything we say, do or think either passes while it is being done, or, if it has not yet been done, we await it. Before these times of the world, then, we must believe there was a certain eternity of ages, in which the Father was always with the Son and the Holy Spirit; and, so to speak, the one time of God is all eternity; nay rather, the times are innumerable, since he is himself infinite who, before times, exceeds all time. But not yet a thousand years of our world are fulfilled: and how many eternities before, how many times, how many origins of ages must we think there were, in which angels, thrones, dominions and the other powers served God, and, without the successions and measures of times, subsisted at God's command! Before all these times, then, which speech cannot utter, nor mind comprehend, nor silent thought dare to touch, God the Father promised to his Wisdom his Word, and that his very Wisdom and the life of those who were going to believe would come into the world.
Commentary on TitusAttend carefully to the sequence and order of the reading: for the eternal life which God, who does not lie, promised before eternal ages, is nothing other than the Word of God. For he has manifested, he says, in his own times his word: therefore the eternal life which he had promised is itself his Word, which in the beginning was with the Father: and the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us (John 1). And that the Word of God, that is, Christ himself, is life, he testifies in another place, saying: "I am the life" (John 14:6). A life, moreover, not brief, not bounded by any times, but perpetual, but eternal: which has been manifested in the last ages, in the preaching which was entrusted to Paul, the teacher and master of the Gentiles, that it might be announced in the world and become known to men, according to the command of God the Savior, who willed us to be saved, by fulfilling what he had promised.
Commentary on TitusVer. 2. "Which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began."
That is, not now upon a change of mind, but from the beginning it was so foreordained. This he often asserts, as when he says, "Separated unto the Gospel of God." (Rom. i. 1.) And again, "Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate." (Rom. viii. 29.) Thus showing our high origin, in that He did not love us now first, but from the beginning: and it is no little matter to be loved of old, and from the beginning.
"Which God, that cannot lie, promised." If He "cannot lie," what He has promised will assuredly be fulfilled. If He "cannot lie," we ought not to doubt it, though it be after death. "Which God, that cannot lie," he says, "promised before the world began"; by this also, "before the world began," he shows that it is worthy of our belief. It is not because the Jews have not come in, that these things are promised. It had been so planned from the first. Hear therefore what he says,
"But hath in His own times manifested."
Wherefore then was the delay? From His concern for men, and that it might be done at a seasonable time. "It is time for Thee, Lord, to work" (Ps. cxix. 125), says the Prophet. For by "His own times" is meant the suitable times, the due, the fitting.
Homily on Titus 1in the hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the beginning of time.
in hope of eternal life. Indeed, to know the truth itself for its own sake is a great reward beyond thousands, but now the generous God also gives, besides this very reward, eternal life. For it is said to be for the knowledge of the truth, of the life that is based on hope, eternal. And the term "eternal," making a comparison to the Jews: for they had the promise of present life.
which God, who never lies. If God is without deceit, He will certainly fulfill what He has promised.
promised before the beginning of time. Not by a later decree or repentance, Paul says, did God determine this, but from the beginning. The greatest honor is that we were loved from the beginning.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSHaving said how much God has benefited us for the present life, he speaks also of what He will give in the future. Already the very knowledge of the truth is the greatest benefit for us who have been freed from error. But as a reward for this, He will give us also eternal life. Since we have come to know Him, "we hope," he says, "for eternal life." Do you see how he immediately, from the very beginning, points to the benefits of God, so as to make both the bishop himself and all the more his disciples more ready to please the Benefactor? With the words "in hope of eternal life" he overturns Jewish rites, for they had the present life as their reward.
If He is unchangeable, then He will undoubtedly give even after death what He promised. From ancient times, he says, He predetermined this, and not as a result of repentance. It is not because the Jews did not turn to Him that He will give this to us, but because it was predetermined from ancient times — and He loved us from eternity. That He loved us from the beginning — this points to our nobility.
Commentary on TitusHe then describes apostleship from its objective: first, the objective is mentioned; second, its dignity, at which God, who does not lie.
But the objective is hope of life everlasting, because even though Moses can be called an apostle, inasmuch as he was sent by the Lord, yet not in the hope of life everlasting, but of the land of the Hevite and Amorrhite. Paul, however, is an apostle in the hope of life everlasting: for this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:40); by his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope (1 Pet 1:3); we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God (Rom 5:2).
This promise is firm for two reasons: first, by reason of the one who promises; hence he says, God, who does not lie. For God is truth, the opposite of which is a lie: God is not a man, that he should lie (Num 23:19).
Second, by reason of God's intention to give; hence he says, has promised before the times of the world. For an age, according to the Philosopher, is the measure of a thing's duration. The ages of the world, therefore, are times which are distinguished according to the successions of things. As if to say: before time began its march. And because this time began when the world began, God's intention existed before the beginning of the world.
Another version has times eternal, i.e., olden times, for that is the meaning of the word 'eternal,' namely, old. Or eternal, not really, but in the imagination. And so, even prior to that, he promised this. But to promise is to declare one's intention to give: and from all eternity God uttered his Word, in which was contained the promise that the saints would possess eternal life: he chose us in him before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).
Commentary on TitusBut hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;
ἐφανέρωσε δὲ καιροῖς ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν κηρύγματι ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγὼ κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ,
ꙗ҆ви́ же во времена̀ своѧ̑ сло́во своѐ проповѣ́данїемъ, є҆́же мнѣ̀ порꙋ́чено бы́сть по повелѣ́нїю сп҃си́телѧ на́шегѡ бг҃а:
Ver. 3. "But hath in due times manifested His word through preaching, which is committed unto me."
That is, the preaching is committed unto me. For this included everything, the Gospel, and things present, and things future, life, and godliness, and faith, and all things at once. "Through preaching," that is, openly and with all boldness, for this is the meaning of "preaching." For as a herald proclaims in the theater in the presence of all, so also we preach, adding nothing, but declaring the things which we have heard. For the excellence of a herald consists in proclaiming to all what has really happened, not in adding or taking away anything. If therefore it is necessary to preach, it is necessary to do it with boldness of speech. Otherwise, it is not preaching. On this account Christ did not say, Tell it "upon the housetops," but "preach upon the housetops" (Matt. x. 27); showing both by the place and by the manner what was to be done.
"Which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour."
The expressions, "committed unto me," and "according to the commandment," show the matter to be worthy of credit, so that no one should think it discreditable, nor be hesitating about it, or discontented. If then it is, a commandment, it is not at my disposal. I fulfill what is commanded. For of things to be done, some are in our power, others are not. For what He commands, that is not in our power, what He permits, is left to our choice. For instance, "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matt. v. 22.) This is a commandment. And again, "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." (Matt. v. 23, 24.) This also is a command. But when He says, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast" (Matt. xix. 21): and, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (Matt. xix. 12): this is not a command, for He makes His hearer the disposer of the matter, and leaves him the choice, whether he will do it or not. For these things we may either do or not do. But commandments are not left to our choice, we must either perform them, or be punished for not doing so. This is implied when he says, "Necessity is laid upon me; yea woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel." (1 Cor. ix. 16.) This I will state more plainly, that it may be manifest to all. For instance, He that is intrusted with the government of the Church, and honored with the office of a Bishop, if he does not declare to the people what they ought to do, will have to answer for it. But the layman is under no such obligation. On this account Paul also says, "According to the commandment of God our Saviour," I do this. And see how the epithets fit in to what I have said. For having said above, "God who cannot lie," here he says, "According to the commandment of God our Saviour." If then He is our Saviour, and He commanded these things with a view that we should be saved, it is not from a love of command. It is a matter of faith, and the commandment of God our Saviour.
Homily on Titus 1but has now been revealed in his times his message through his preaching, which was entrusted to me, according to the command of our Savior God.
but has now been revealed. What did God reveal in his own times and appropriate seasons? The life which he had promised from eternity. For his Word, that is, Christ, is life and the giver of life. Therefore, when Paul said that God had promised life, he immediately added, "revealed in his times his message through his preaching": but through his preaching, as if the Word itself, that is, Christ, is the author and giver of that life. Through preaching indeed, that is, openly and plainly.
which was entrusted to me. From what Paul says: It has been entrusted to me, and, according to the command, he signified that it must necessarily be done and, without making any excuse, whether willing or unwilling, to preach. This also you, he said, do, O Titus.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSLest someone say: why did He delay in giving that which was determined from eternity? he says it was out of care for us and in order to do it at the fitting time. By "time" Scripture means the opportune time, as for example: "It is time for the Lord to act" (Ps. 119:126). So "in its own time," he says, that is, the suitable, proper time. And what did He manifest? "His Word," he says, that is, the Gospel. In what manner? "In preaching," that is, openly, with boldness. He who preaches neither adds nor takes away. So we too preach what has been commanded to us, assuredly, only in the hearing of all, just as Christ said: "Preach upon the housetops" (Matt. 10:27), signifying by the manner and place directness, impartiality, and freedom. Note: the sequence required him to say: "He manifested in its own time," that is, eternal life, but he did not put it that way, but rather "He manifested His Word." Rightly so. For the Gospel encompasses everything: both what has been given to us in the present time, such as godliness, faith, and truth, and what is promised in the age to come, that is, eternal life. Some, however, understood "His Word" to mean the Son.
This preaching, he says, has been entrusted to me. So then, if it has been entrusted, I must not think anything unworthy of the One who entrusted it to me, nor must I pretend or express displeasure at what has been entrusted to me. Moreover, it has been entrusted to me "by commandment," which is to say: I am compelled to do this against my will. Of the things that must be done, some are done "by commandment," and others by exhortation. For example: "be reconciled to your brother" (Matt. 5:24) — this is a commandment, and whoever does not fulfill it is punished; but: "sell your possessions" (Matt. 19:21), if you wish, and also: "he who is able to accept it, let him accept it" (Matt. 19:12) — these are exhortations, and the one who does not fulfill them is not punished. So then, he says, preaching has been entrusted to me by commandment, so that I must necessarily fulfill it. "Woe to me," he says, "if I do not preach the gospel" (1 Cor. 9:16), and this is not out of love of power, but out of necessity. Whose commandment is it? "Of God our Savior." Therefore, if God, who desires our salvation, has commanded this, how shall I not show my devotion to the work of salvation?
Commentary on TitusThis hope is confirmed by the manifestation of the promise; hence he says, but has in due times manifested his word. And he describes this manifestation in three ways.
First, from the time; hence he manifested when his Word became incarnate. Therefore, he says, in due times, i.e., when man became convinced of his pride, through which he sinned. Hence a physician, first of all, convinces his patient in order to heal him more easily. For man took pride in his knowledge; but he became convinced of his ignorance before the time of the law, when he fell into idolatry and vices against nature. He also took pride in his strength, but became convinced of his weakness during the time of the law: but when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law (Gal 4:4).
Second, this manifestation is described from its manner, because it occurred through public preaching: go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation (Mark 16:15). Hence he says, in preaching: a dispensation is committed to me (1 Cor 9:17).
Third, from its author; hence he says, according to the commandment of God our Savior: he will save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21); he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel (Acts 9:15).
Commentary on TitusTo Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
Τίτῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν· χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν.
ті́тꙋ, прⷭ҇номꙋ ча́дꙋ по ѻ҆́бщей вѣ́рѣ: блгⷣть, млⷭ҇ть, ми́ръ ѿ бг҃а ѻ҆ц҃а̀ и҆ гдⷭ҇а і҆и҃са хрⷭ҇та̀ сп҃са на́шегѡ.
Now the Apostle writes to Titus, dearest son, which in Greek is said γνησίῳ τέκνῳ (true-born son), and cannot be expressed in the Latin tongue: for γνήσιος rather conveys this, when someone is called faithful and one's own, and (so to speak) legitimate or genuine, beyond comparison with another. From this we understand that there was also a very great difference among Paul's sons: that some he had as γνησίους, that is, most genuine, and joined to himself, and begotten of a true marriage and of a free woman; but others as if of a handmaid and of Hagar, who cannot receive the inheritance with Isaac, the son of the free woman. For the speech and wisdom and doctrine with which Titus instructed the churches of Christ made him the Apostle's own son, and set him apart from all fellowship with others. Let us see after this what follows: According to the common faith: whether he called the faith common to all who believed in Christ, or common only to himself and Titus? It seems better to me that the faith was common to the apostle Paul and Titus than to all believers, in whom, according to the variety of their minds, the faith also could not be common, but diverse. Finally, the preface of the Epistle and the greeting of the Apostle's preface to Titus are completed with this ending: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior: whether because both grace and peace come as much from God the Father as from Christ Jesus, and both may be understood as given by each; or because grace is referred to the Father, and peace to the Son. We must not pass over without scruple that the Apostle prayed for some that grace and peace might be multiplied to them, whereas now, to Titus, peace and grace are set down without multiplication. Noah, a just man, alone preserved when the world was shipwrecked, is said to have found not many graces but one grace in the sight of God. And Moses to the Lord: "If I have found," he says, "grace with you" (Exod. 33:13). And wherever else grace is set down in the person of the saints, seek and you will find that they found not graces, but grace. That merchant in the Gospel who had many pearls at last found one precious one, which alone he bought with the many pearls (Matt. 13). For it belongs to the perfect to buy one pearl and one treasure in exchange for all their pearls and their whole substance; but to beginners, and those still set upon the road, to have not just one and only one, but many pearls.
Commentary on Titus"To Titus mine own son," that is, my true son. For it is possible for men not to be true sons, as he of whom he says, "If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, with such an one no not to eat." (1 Cor. v. 11.) Here is a son, but not a true son. A son indeed he is, because he has once received the grace, and has been regenerated: but he is not a true son, because he is unworthy of his Father, and a deserter to the usurped sovereignty of another. For in children by nature, the true and the spurious are determined by the father that begot, and the mother who bore them. But it is not so in this case, but it depends on the disposition. For one who was a true son may become spurious, and a spurious son may become a true one. For it is not the force of nature, but the power of choice, on which it depends, whence it is subject to frequent changes. Onesimus was a true son, but he was again not true, for he became "unprofitable"; then he again became a true son, so as to be called by the Apostle his "own bowels." (Philem. 12.)
Ver. 4. "To Titus, mine own son after the common faith."
What is "after the common faith"? After he had called him his own son, and assumed the dignity of a father, hear how it is that he lessens and lowers that honor. He adds, "After the common faith"; that is, with respect to the faith I have no advantage over thee; for it is common, and both thou and I were born by it. Whence then does he call him his son? Either only wishing to express his affection for him, or his priority in the Gospel, or to show that Titus had been enlightened by him. On this account he calls the faithful both children and brethren; brethren, because they were born by the same faith; children, because it was by his hands. By mentioning the common faith, therefore, he intimates their brotherhood.
Ver. 4. "Grace and peace from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour."
Because he had called him his son, he adds, "from God the Father," to elevate his mind by showing whose son he was, and by not only naming the common faith, but by adding "our Father," he implies that he has this honor equally with himself. Moral. Observe also how he offers the same prayers for the Teacher, as for the disciples and the multitude. For indeed he needs such prayers as much, or rather more than they, by how much he has greater enmities to encounter, and is more exposed to the necessity of offending God. For the higher is the dignity, the greater are the dangers of the priestly office. For one good act in his episcopal office is sufficient to raise him to heaven and one error to sink him to hell itself. For, to pass over all other cases of daily occurrence, if he happens, either from friendship or any other cause, to have advanced an unworthy person to a Bishopric, and have committed to him the rule of a great city, see to how great a flame he renders himself obnoxious. For not only will he have to account for the souls that are lost, for they are lost through the man's irreligion, but for all that is done amiss by the other. For he that is irreligious in a private station will be much more so when he is raised to power. It is much indeed, if a pious man continue such after his elevation to rule. For he is then more strongly assailed by vainglory, and the love of wealth, and self-will, when office gives him the power; and by offenses, insults, and reproaches, and numberless other evils. If therefore any one be irreligious, he will become more so when raised to office; and he who appoints such a ruler will be answerable for all the offenses committed by him, and for the whole people. But if it is said of him who gives offense to one soul, "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matt. xviii. 6); what will he have to suffer who offends so many souls, whole cities and populations, and multitudes of families, men, women, children, citizens, and husbandmen, the inhabitants of the city itself, and of all places subject to it? To say thrice as much more is to say nothing, so severe is the vengeance and the punishment to which he will be obnoxious. So that a Bishop especially needs the grace and peace of God. For if without these he governs the people, all is ruined and lost, for want of those helms. And though he be skilled in the art of steering, he will sink the vessel and those that sail in it, if he has not these helms, "the grace and peace of God."
Hence I am struck with astonishment at those who desire so great a burden. Wretched and unhappy man, seest thou what it is thou desirest? If thou art by thyself, unknown and undistinguished, though thou committest ten thousand faults, thou hast only one soul for which to give an account, and for it alone wilt thou be answerable. But when thou art raised to this office, consider for how many persons thou art obnoxious to punishment. Hear what Paul says, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls as they that must give account." (Heb. xiii. 17.) But dost thou desire honor and power? But what pleasure is there in this honor? I confess, I see not. For to be a ruler indeed is not possible, since it depends upon those under thy rule to obey or not. And to any one who considers the matter closely; it will appear that a Bishop does not so much come to rule, as to serve a multitude of masters, who are of opposite desires and sentiments. For what one commends, another blames; what this man censures, that admires. To whom therefore shall he listen, with whom shall he comply? It is impossible! And the slave that is bought with money complains if his master's commands are contrary to each other. But shouldest thou grieve, when so many masters give the contrary orders, thou art condemned even for this, and all mouths are opened against thee. Tell me then, is this honor, is this rule, is this power?
Homily on Titus 1to Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
to Titus, my true child. For one is a child because they have been baptized by them, but not legitimately, because they are sinful. The reason for you being my child, Paul says, is shared faith. He praises Titus as having nothing more than faith in him.
Another way. Titus, the child of Paul, as he was taught faith by him, and according to common faith, that is, from baptism, is a brother of Paul. For there is one Father, Christ, and one mother, the baptismal font.
Grace, mercy. It is fitting that grace and mercy be prayed for Titus, who is a teacher. For if you do not govern the people, that is, with grace, mercy, and peace, Paul says, the ship of the Church will be overturned.
On the training of teachers for ministry and the rebuke of the disobedient.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSNatural generation does not operate by the assent of the one who is born, whereas the birth that comes from faith requires such assent. Although the one who preaches may sincerely believe, he who hears, unless he takes to himself what he learns with faith, cannot be called the son of the preacher.
INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO TITUSA son can also be not true, as a fornicating Christian, or a covetous one: such a son, although regenerated through baptism, is not true, because he is unworthy of the father.
Having called Titus a son and having assumed for himself the title of father, the apostle again diminishes this honor, saying: in faith I have nothing more in comparison with you, for it is common, and by it both I and you were regenerated. Why then does the apostle call him his son? Either to show his love for him, or because he himself baptized Titus. Since both share one and the same faith, they are brothers to one another. But since Paul baptized Titus, he is a father to him. Thus, the expression "according to the common faith" signifies brotherhood.
And by this he indicates brotherhood, when he says "from God the Father," he stirs up Titus so that he might remember whose son he is, namely God's. See how what he wishes for ordinary people, the same he wishes for the bishop and teacher. For he himself more than others needs the gracious power of God, as one bearing exceedingly heavy burdens; he needs mercy, as one for whom it is difficult to avoid being guilty before God in many things; he needs peace, as one placed in the necessity of being in conflicts and waging unceasing struggle. For even faithful discharge of the episcopate alone leads one up to heaven, and negligence alone casts one down to hell.
Commentary on TitusThe person greeted is mentioned when he says, to Titus, whom he describes from three marks: first, from his name; second, from his love; third, from his sonship.
He is a son or child through love and the faith, which should be common, so that all say the same thing. Hence he says, according to the common faith, which is also called Catholic, i.e., universal. Hence, it is said: one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5).
The good he wishes him is grace and peace. These usually go together, because grace is the beginning of all spiritual gifts, and peace is the end: he makes peace in your borders (Ps 147:14). From God the Father and from Christ Jesus our Savior.
Commentary on TitusFor this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Τούτου χάριν κατέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ, ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ, καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους, ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην,
Сегѡ̀ ра́ди ѡ҆ста́вихъ тѧ̀ въ кри́тѣ, да недоконча̑ннаѧ и҆спра́виши и҆ ᲂу҆стро́иши по всѣ̑мъ градѡ́мъ пресвѵ́теры, ꙗ҆́коже тебѣ̀ а҆́зъ повелѣ́хъ:
Whoever loves Christ must demonstrate this in the way he treats his slaves, knowing that the Lord will require of him whatever he expects from them.
Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers.
The Didache, Chapter 15And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. Writing to Titus the apostle says: "For this cause I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and appoint presbyters in every city, as I had instructed you: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having believing children not accused of wantonness or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God." … When subsequently one was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself.
LETTERS 146.1For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might correct the things that were lacking. It belongs to the apostolic dignity to lay the foundation of the Church, which no one can lay except the master builder. "But there is no other foundation than Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. 3:11). Those who are lesser craftsmen can build houses upon the foundations. Paul, therefore, as a wise master builder, striving with all labor not to boast in things already prepared, but to preach where Christ had not yet been announced, after he had softened the hard hearts of the Cretans to the faith of Christ, and had tamed them as much by word as by signs, and had taught them to believe not in their native Jupiter but in God the Father and in Christ, left his disciple Titus in Crete to strengthen the rudiments of the newborn Church, and to correct anything that seemed lacking, while he himself went on to other nations, to lay the foundation of Christ among them in turn. Now his saying that you might correct the things that were lacking shows that they had not yet come to the full knowledge of the truth, and that, although they had been corrected by the Apostle, they still needed correction. For everything that is corrected is imperfect. For in the Greek too the addition of the preposition, by which ἐπιδιορθώσῃ is written, does not convey the same as διορθώσῃ, that is, you might correct (corrigeres), but, so to speak, you might correct further (supercorrigeres): namely, that the things which have been corrected by me, and have not yet been drawn back to the full line of truth, may be corrected by you and receive the rule of evenness.
And you might appoint presbyters throughout the cities, as I arranged for you. Let the bishops hear, who have the power of appointing presbyters in each city, under what law the order of the Church's constitution is held; and let them not think these to be the words of the Apostle, but of Christ, who says to the disciples: "He who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16). So also he who hears you hears me; and he who hears me hears him who sent me. From this it is plain that those who, scorning the Apostle's law, have chosen to confer an ecclesiastical rank on someone not on merit but by favor act against Christ, who through his Apostle has set out in what follows what kind of presbyter is to be appointed in the Church. Moses, the friend of God, to whom God spoke face to face (Deut. 5 and 31), could certainly have made his own sons the successors of his rule and left his own dignity to his descendants; but Joshua, an outsider from another tribe, is chosen, so that we might know that rule over the peoples is to be conferred not on blood but on life. But now we see very many making this matter a favor, so that they do not seek to raise up as pillars of the Church those who can be of more benefit to the Church, but those whom they themselves love, or by whose services they have been soothed, or for whom one of the great has asked, and (to say nothing of worse things) those who have obtained by gifts that they should become clerics.
Commentary on TitusLet us attend carefully to the words of the Apostle, who says: That you might appoint presbyters throughout the cities, as I arranged for you. Discussing in what follows what kind of presbyter ought to be ordained, he says this: "If anyone is without crime, the husband of one wife", and the rest; and afterwards he added: "For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God". A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop; and before, at the devil's instigation, factions arose in religion, and it was said among the peoples, "I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Cephas" (1 Cor. 1:12), the churches were governed by the common council of the presbyters. But after each one thought that those whom he had baptized were his own and not Christ's, it was decreed throughout the whole world that one chosen from among the presbyters should be set over the rest, to whom the whole care of the church should belong, and the seeds of schisms be removed. Should anyone think that the view that bishop and presbyter are one, and that the one (presbyter, that is, "elder") is a name of age, the other a name of office, is not that of the Scriptures but our own, let him read again the words of the Apostle to the Philippians, saying: "Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: grace to you and peace" (Phil. 1:1, 2), and the rest. Philippi is a single city of Macedonia, and certainly in one city there could not have been several bishops, as they are called. But because at that time they called the same men bishops whom they also called presbyters, for that reason he spoke of bishops indifferently as of presbyters. This may still seem doubtful to someone, unless it is proved by a second testimony. In the Acts of the Apostles it is written that when the Apostle had come to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and called the presbyters of that church, to whom he afterwards said, among other things: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, to feed the Church of the Lord, which he acquired by his own blood" (Acts 20:28). And here observe more carefully how, calling the presbyters of the single city of Ephesus, he afterwards called the same men bishops. If anyone is willing to receive the Epistle written under the name of Paul to the Hebrews, there too the care of the church is divided equally among several. For he writes to the people: "Obey your rulers and be subject to them: for they are the ones who keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account, so that they may not do this with sighing; for this is useful for you" (Heb. 13:17). And Peter, who received his name from the firmness of faith, speaks in his Epistle, saying: "The presbyters among you, therefore, I beseech, as a fellow presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of his glory which is to be revealed in the future: feed the flock of the Lord which is among you, not as under necessity, but willingly" (1 Pet. 5:1, 2). This we have said in order to show that among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops, but that little by little, so that the seedlings of dissensions might be rooted out, the whole responsibility was conferred upon one. Just as the presbyters, then, know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to him who has been set over them, so let the bishops know that they are greater than the presbyters more by custom than by the truth of the Lord's arrangement, and that they ought to rule the church in common, imitating Moses, who, though he had it in his power to preside alone over the people of Israel, chose seventy with whom to judge the people (Num. 11). Let us see, therefore, what kind of presbyter, or bishop, is to be ordained.
Commentary on Titus"For this cause left I thee in Crete."
As if the whole world had been one house, they divided it among themselves, administering its affairs everywhere, each taking care of his several portion of it.
"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are [R. V. were] wanting."
He does not command this in an imperious manner; "that thou shouldest set in order," he says. Here we see a soul free from all envy, seeking everywhere the advantage of his disciples, not curiously solicitous, whether the good was done by himself or by another. For where he in his own person set it in order. But those things which were rather attended with honor and praise he committed to his disciple, as the ordination of Bishops, and such other things as required some farther arrangement, or, so to speak, to be brought to greater perfection. What sayest thou? does he farther set in order thy work? and dost thou not think it a disgrace bringing shame upon thee? By no means; for I look only to the common good, and whether it be done by me, or by another, it makes no difference to me. Thus it becomes him to be affected who presides in the Church, not to seek his own honor, but the common good.
"And ordain elders in every city," here he is speaking of Bishops, as we have before said, "as I had appointed thee. If any is blameless." "In every city," he says, for he did not wish the whole island to be intrusted to one, but that each should have his own charge and care, for thus he would have less labor himself, and those under his rule would receive greater attention, if the Teacher had not to go about to the presidency of many Churches, but was left to be occupied with one only, and to bring that into order.
Homily on Titus 2For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might put in order what was left unfinished, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.
You see them as distributing the inhabited world like one house, and each doing something; but look at the athlete of Christ. Where there was danger, Paul himself was present; but when some honor was about to come, he sent the disciples. For Paul had left Titus to appoint bishops in each city, since he had first made him a bishop. And see, he is not ashamed to write to the disciple, saying, "put in order what was left unfinished." For Paul was looking to this one thing alone, namely the salvation of all.
elders in every city. For Paul did not wish the entire island of Crete, which was large, to be governed by one bishop, but each city to have its own shepherd. And he calls the bishops elders.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSThence, therefore, among us the prescript is more fully and more carefully laid down, that they who are chosen into the sacerdotal order must be men of one marriage; which rule is so rigidly observed, that I remember some removed from their office for digamy.
On Exhortation to ChastityPaul emphasizes that correct teaching must accompany these ordinations. He mentions only presbyters, since theirs is the most general office.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSJust as in a household among those appointed for service one does one thing and another does another, so too they divided the whole world among themselves by regions, and all labored. This is precisely what is indicated here by the words "I left you in Crete," because he himself evidently departed for another place to labor there. See how he is not embarrassed to write to his disciple to finish what he himself had left incomplete. He was concerned with the common benefit, not with his own honor. Notice also that he corrected all these things himself; but what pertained to honor or praise, this he entrusted to his disciple — I mean the ordination of bishops and everything else that required greater organization.
So he calls bishops here, and in the Epistle to Timothy. "In every city," he says. He did not wish the entire island to be entrusted to one person, but that each city should have its own pastor. In this way both the labor will be lighter, and the oversight more diligent.
Commentary on TitusHe comes now to the message and, as has been said, he aims at defending the Church against heretics: first, he admonishes Titus to instruct others to resist heretics; second, he teaches how they are to be resisted, at but speak the things (Titus 2:1).
In regard to the first, he does two things: first, he advises Titus to ordain bishops to resist the heretics; second, why this is necessary, at for there are also many (Titus 1:10).
In regard to the first he does three things: first, he entrusts Titus with the task of appointing bishops; second, he describes the marks bishops ought to have, at if anyone is without crime; third, he applies what he said, at for a bishop must be.
Because the Apostle had been commissioned to the Church of the gentiles and was unable to do everything by himself, he says, for this cause I left you in Crete, i.e., the island of Crete, to take my place as bishop of the church in Crete: a brother helped is like a strong city (Prov 18:19).
But instead of saying, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, he should have said, you should supply it.
I answer that a Gloss amplifies this statement: that you should correct everything that is evil and supply whatever is lacking in good: that we may supply what is lacking in your faith (1 Thess 3:10). Or, one might answer that there are sins of omission and sins of transgression, and both need correction. But among the saints and the perfect, as Titus was, transgressions did not abound; hence he does not say, you should correct transgressions, but the things that are wanting, i.e., omissions.
And should ordain elders, i.e., bishops; hence further on he says, a bishop must be without crime. And he uses the names, 'elder' and 'bishop' indiscriminately. A certain heretic took advantage of this and campaigned for the bishopric; but when he failed, he separated from the Church and taught many false doctrines, among which was the teaching that there is no difference between bishops and priests. This is contrary to Dionysius. Therefore, the Apostle uses the same name in both cases to identify the two, although the name 'elder' suggests a senior. Also, because it is the duty of superiors to appoint bishops, even though the canons elect him.
And he says, ordain, not in the villages, but in every city; for just as in a republic kings live only in the cities, so in the spiritual kingdom bishops live in the cities: a royal priesthood (1 Pet 2:9). Furthermore, they should be elders: woe to you, O land, when your king is a child (Eccl 10:16). By elders we should understand those who are so not only in years, but also in morals: gather for me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them (Num 11:16). Second, they should be ordained according to the form of the Church; hence he says, as I also appointed you: my son, keep sound wisdom and discretion; let them not escape from your sight (Prov 3:21).
Commentary on TitusIf any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα.
а҆́ще кто̀ є҆́сть непоро́ченъ, є҆ди́ныѧ жены̀ мꙋ́жъ, ча̑да и҆мы́й вѣ̑рна, не во ᲂу҆коре́нїи блꙋда̀, и҆лѝ непокори̑ва.
I have set down these things which I have been told are to be avoided, but the Apostle is the Master of virtues, and he teaches that gainsayers are to be convicted with patience, who lays down that one should be the husband of a single wife, not in order to exclude him from the right of marriage (for this is beyond the force of the precept), but that by conjugal chastity he may preserve the grace of his baptismal washing; nor again that he may be induced by the Apostle's authority to beget children in the priesthood; for the speaks of having children, not of begetting them, or marrying again.
And I have thought it well not to pass by this point, because many contend that having one wife is said of the time after Baptism; so that the fault whereby any obstacle would ensue would be washed away in baptism. And indeed all faults and sins are washed away; so that if anyone have polluted his body with very many whom he has bound to himself by no law of marriage, all the sins are forgiven him, but if any one have contracted a second marriage it is not done away; for sin not law is loosed by the laver, and as to baptism there is no sin but law. That then which has to do with law is not remitted as though it were sin, but is retained. And the Apostle has established a law, saying: "If any man be without reproach the husband of one wife." So then he who is without blame the husband of one wife comes within the rule for undertaking the priestly office; he, however, who has married again has no guilt of pollution, but is disqualified for the priestly prerogative.
Letters, Epistle 63, Sections 62-63We have already said that a bishop, a presbyter and a deacon, when they are constituted, must be married but once, whether their wives are alive or whether they are dead. It is not lawful for them, if they are unmarried when they are ordained, to be married afterwards; or if they are married at that time, to marry a second time, but to be content with that wife which they had when they came to ordination.
CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLESWe have already said, that a bishop, a presbyter, and a deacon, when they are constituted, must be but once married, whether their wives be alive or whether they be dead; and that it is not lawful for them, if they are unmarried when they are ordained, to be married afterwards; or if they be then married, to marry a second time, but to be content with that wife. which they had when they came to ordination.
CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLESThe first stage of liberty, then, is to be free from crimes. And so the Apostle Paul, when he determined on the ordination of either elders or deacons, or whoever was to be ordained to the superintendence of the Church, says not, If any one is without sin; for had he said so, every one would be rejected as unfit, none would be ordained: but he says, "If any one is without crime," such as, murder, adultery, any uncleanness of fornication, theft, fraud, sacrilege, and others of that sort. When a man has begun to be free from these (and every Christian man ought to be so), he begins to raise his head to liberty; but that is liberty begun, not completed.
TRACTATES ON JOHN 41.10.1"A bishop then must be blameless." The same thing that he says to Titus, "if any be blameless." All the virtues are comprehended in this one word; thus he seems to require an impossible perfection. For if every sin, every idle word, is deserving of blame, who is there in this world that is sinless and blameless? Still he who is chosen to be shepherd of the church must be one compared with whom other men are rightly regarded as but a flock of sheep.
LETTERS 69.8"One that rules well his own house." That is, not by increasing riches, not by providing regal banquets, not by having a pile of finely wrought plates, not by slowly steaming pheasants so that the heat may reach the bones without melting the flesh upon them. No, he does this rather by first requiring of his own household the conduct which he has to inculcate in others.
LETTERS 69.9If anyone is without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not under accusation of licentiousness, or not submissive. First, then, let him be without crime, which I think is named by another word to Timothy, "irreproachable" (1 Tim. 3): not that he be without any crime only at the time when he is to be ordained, having washed away past stains by a new manner of life, but that from the time he was reborn in Christ he be gnawed by no consciousness of sin. For how can the head of the Church remove evil from its midst, if he has fallen into a like offense? Or with what freedom can he reprove a sinner, when he silently answers himself that he has committed the same things that he reproves? Thus whoever desires the episcopate desires a good work. "A work", he says, not an honor, not glory. "But he must also have a good testimony from those who are outside, so that he may not fall into reproach and into the snare of the devil". Now what he says, the husband of one wife, we ought to understand thus: not that we should think every once-married man better than a twice-married man, but that he can exhort to monogamy and continence who holds out his own example in teaching. For suppose that someone in early youth has lost his wife and, overcome by the necessity of the flesh, has taken a second wife, whom he too has at once lost, and from then on has lived continently; and that another has stayed married into old age, and, enjoying the use of a wife, which most people consider happiness, has never ceased from the work of the flesh: which of the two seems to you to be better, more chaste, more continent? Surely the one who was unfortunate even in his second marriage, and afterwards lived chastely and holily, and not the one who was not separated from his wife's embrace even in old age. Let not anyone, then, who is chosen as a once-married man applaud himself as being better than every twice-married man, since in him it is rather good fortune than will that has been chosen. Some take this passage thus: It was the custom of the Jews, they say, to have two wives or more, which we also read of Abraham and Jacob in the old Law; and they will have this now to be the precept, that he who is to be chosen bishop should not have two wives together at one time. Many, more superstitiously than truly, think that even those who, when they were Gentiles, had one wife, and when she was lost married another after the baptism of Christ, are not to be chosen for the priesthood: whereas, surely, if this is to be observed, those ought rather to be kept from the episcopate who, having before indulged a roving lust among harlots, took one wife after being regenerated; and it is much more detestable to have fornicated with many than to be found a twice-married man, since in the one there is the misfortune of marriage, in the other a wantonness prone to sin. Montanus, and those who follow the schism of Novatus, have presumed to claim for themselves the name of purity, and think that second marriages should be barred from the communion of the Church: whereas the Apostle, in commanding this of bishops and presbyters, surely relaxed it in the case of the rest: not that he exhorts to second marriages, but that he makes allowance for the necessity of the flesh. Tertullian too wrote a heretical book On Monogamy, which no one who has read the Apostle will fail to recognize as contrary to the Apostle. And indeed, for a bishop, or presbyter, to be without crime and to have one wife lies within our power. But what follows, To have faithful children, not under accusation of licentiousness, and not submissive, is outside our will. For suppose that parents have brought up their children well and from an early age have always instructed them in the Lord's precepts: if these afterwards give themselves to licentiousness and, overcome by vices, give the reins to lust, will the blame flow back upon the parents, and will the sins of the sons stain the holiness of the father? If anyone instructed his sons well, among these I think was Isaac too, who surely must be believed to have brought up his son Esau well. Yet Esau, a fornicator and profane, sold his birthright for one meal (Gen. 25). Samuel also, who was such that he called upon the Lord and the Lord heard him, and obtained winter rain at the time of harvest, had sons who turned aside after avarice and took gifts, and proved such unjust judges that the people, unable to bear it, demanded a king for themselves in the likeness of the other nations (1 Sam. 12). If, therefore, there were an election of priests, both Isaac because of Esau and Samuel because of his sons would be thought unworthy of the priesthood. And since the sins of the parents are not imputed to the sons, now that the saying, "The parents ate the sour grape, and the teeth of the sons were set on edge" (Ezek. 18:2), is no longer in force, shall the vices of the sons tell against the parents? First, then, it must be said that the name of the priesthood is so holy that even things set outside us are reckoned to us: not that we are not to be made bishops because of our own vices, but that we are to be kept from this rank because of the incontinence of our sons. For with what freedom can we reprove other people's sons and teach what is right, when the one who has been reproved can at once throw at us: First teach your own sons? Or with what face do I reprove a stranger who fornicates, when my own conscience answers me: Then disinherit your fornicating son; cast off your sons who are slaves to vices? But when a worthless son lives with you in one house, do you dare to take the mote from another's eye, not seeing the beam in your own (Matt. 7 and Luke 6)? So the just man is not polluted by the vices of his sons; but freedom is reserved by the Apostle for the leader of the Church, in that he should be such a one as does not fear to rebuke strangers because of the vices of his children. Next, this too must be brought against those who swell with pride over the episcopate and think they have obtained not a stewardship of Christ but a command: that those who have not been ordained bishops are not at once worse than all these, nor should they think themselves the more approved from the fact that they were chosen; but let them understand that certain men have been removed from the priesthood for this reason, that the vices of their children hindered them. But if the sins of the sons debar a just man from the episcopate, how much more will each one, considering himself and knowing that the mighty shall suffer torments mightily (Wisd. 6), draw back from this, which is not so much an honor as a burden, and not seek to occupy the place of others who are more worthy! Lastly this must be said: that in the Scriptures by sons are understood λογισμοὺς, that is, thoughts, and by daughters πράξεις, that is, works; and that he is now commanded to be made bishop who has both his thoughts and his works in his power, and believes truly in Christ, and is stained by no blot of creeping vices.
Commentary on TitusVer. 6. "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, hating faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly."
Why does he bring forward such an one? To stop the mouths of those heretics, who condemned marriage, showing that it is not an unholy thing in itself, but so far honorable, that a married man might ascend the holy throne; and at the same reproving the wanton, and not permitting their admission into this high office who contracted a second marriage. For he who retains no kind regard for her who is departed, how shall he be a good president? and what accusation would he not incur? For you all know, that though it is not forbidden by the laws to enter into a second marriage, yet it is a thing liable to many ill constructions. Wishing therefore a ruler to give no handle for reproach to those under his rule, he on this account says, "If any be blameless," that is, if his life be free from reproach, if he has given occasion to no one to assail his character. Hear what Christ says, "If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matt. vi. 23.)
"Hating faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly."
We should observe what care he bestows upon children. For he who cannot be the instructor of his own children, how should he be the Teacher of others? If he cannot keep in order those whom he has had with him from the beginning, whom he has brought up, and without? For if the incompetency of the father had not been great, he would not have allowed those to become bad whom from the first he had under his power. For it is not possible, indeed it is not, that one should turn out ill who is brought up with much care, and has received great attention. Sins are not so prevalent by nature, as to overcome so much previous care. But if, occupied in the pursuit of wealth, he has made his children a secondary concern, and not bestowed much care upon them, even so he is unworthy. For if when nature prompted, he was so void of affection or so senseless, that he thought more of his wealth than of his children, how should he be raised to the Episcopal throne, and so great rule? For if he was unable to restrain them it is a great proof of his weakness; and if he was unconcerned, his want of affection is much to be blamed. He then that neglects his own children, how shall he take care of other men's? And he has not only said, "not riotous," but not even "accused of riot." There must not be an ill report, or such an opinion of them.
Homily on Titus 2If anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children who are not accused of overindulgence or insubordination.
If anyone is blameless. Let his life be pure, it is said, and let no one have occasion to find fault with his life.
the husband of one wife. Paul says that she alone should know the lawful one. He silences heretics who detest marriage, as if they could also take care of anything after marriage. But he forbids the second marriage, as being under condemnation.
having faithful children. For he who has not disciplined his own children, how can he manage others?
COMMENTARY ON TITUSShould we not rather recognize, from among the store of primitive scriptural precedents, those that correspond with the gospel order of things respecting discipline? By this means we convey to the new community the typical requirements of antiquity. In the old law I find the pruning knife applied to the license of repeated marriage.… Among us the prescript is more fully and more carefully laid down, that they who are chosen into the sacerdotal order must be men of one marriage. This rule is so rigidly observed that I remember some removed from their office for bigamy.
ON EXHORTATION TO CHASTITY 7How detrimental to faith, how obstructive to holiness, second marriages are, the discipline of the Church and the prescription of the apostle declare, when he suffers not men twice married to preside (over a Church ), when he would not grant a widow admittance into the order unless she had been "the wife of one man; " for it behoves God's altar to be set forth pure.
To His Wife Book ICome, now, you who think that an exceptional law of monogamy is made with reference to bishops, abandon withal your remaining disciplinary titles, which, together with monogamy, are ascribed to bishops. Refuse to be "irreprehensible, sober, of good morals, orderly, hospitable, easy to be taught; "nay, indeed, (be) "given to wine, prompt with the hand to strike, combative, money-loving, not ruling your house, nor caring for your children's discipline,"-no, nor "courting good renown even from strangers.
On MonogamyPaul does not measure the virtue of fathers by the depravity of their children, nor did the misbehavior of his sons make Samuel unworthy of the priesthood; Paul wishes only to show the likely intentions of the father from what has been created in the sons.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSIf he leads a life free from reproach, if no one reproaches him for his way of life. For if the light, He says, is darkness, then the darkness how much more?
To shut the mouths of heretics who condemned marriage, he accepts a married man into the episcopacy. For marriage is so honorable that with it one can even ascend to the sacred throne. But to restrain the incontinent, he says: "the husband of one wife." For he who preserved no affection for his deceased wife, how will he be a good leader in the Church? A bishop must be blameless. But a man twice married is not blameless, even though this is permitted by civil laws.
Who has not raised his own children, how will he manage others? It is clear that if he had first raised his children well and with care, they would not have turned out disobedient. For sins are not such by their nature that they could be stronger than such diligence. The Apostle did not say simply: not profligate children, but even entirely free from reproach of profligacy and free from evil suspicion.
Commentary on TitusThen, when he says, if anyone is without crime, he describes them in three ways: first, in regard to themselves; second, in regard to their wives; third, in regard to their children.
In regard to themselves he says, without crime. But is there such a person? For it is said: if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8). I answer that a crime is one thing and a sin another. A sin is an evil which might be great or small, open or secret; but a crime is great and public: O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill? (Ps 15:1) And the answer is given: he who walks blamelessly, and does what is right. This does not mean that a person who has sinned after baptism cannot be chosen, but that the chosen must not be disreputable.
In regard to the second he says, the husband of one wife. The Orientals explain this by saying that he may not have two wives simultaneously, as was the custom some followed. But if this were so, the Apostle would have had no reason for writing this; whereas, according to the laws of the Romans to whom the Apostle was writing, it was not lawful to have more than one wife. Furthermore, in 1 Timothy he says, let a widow be enrolled, having been the wife of one husband (1 Tim 5:9), and yet it was never lawful for a woman to have more than one husband at once. And thus, he desired the same of widows, namely, that they have never had more than one husband.
Jerome says that the requirement was that he have had only one wife after baptism; and it does not apply if he had others before baptism. Nevertheless, Augustine and Ambrose say that through baptism all crimes are washed away, but it does not wash away matrimony. Therefore, according to them it is more correct to say that he may not have had more than one wife either before or after baptism.
According to others the reason behind this law was that it had been a sign of incontinence to have more than one. But this is not true, because it would not be held against him if he had concubines, who are more incontinent. But there is a deeper reason, namely, because he dispenses the sacraments, and no sacramental defect should be present in him; but the sacrament of matrimony signifies Christ's union with the Church. Therefore, if the sign is to correspond to the things signified, then as Christ is one and the Church is one, so also a bishop. But this signification would be lacking if the bishop had more than one wife. However, in the old law the Patriarchs signified this union, not as joined to Christ but because they would be joined in the future; and because the Church of the future was to be composed of Jews and gentiles, the Patriarchs took not one but several wives. Consequently, that multitude of wives signified this.
In regard to the third, i.e., on the part of the children, he says, having faithful children, not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate. For a bishop is ordained to oversee; and one appointed to such a task ought to be skilled in it; otherwise, he will be unable to rule prudently. But it is presumed that he is well skilled, if he has ruled others well.
Yet a bishop is expected to do three things besides rule: first, to teach the faith; make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19); therefore he says, faithful. Second, to instruct the people in virtue: do you have children? Discipline them, and make them obedient from their youth (Sir 7:23). But sins of lust destroy virtue: a braggart and fool goes beyond the right moment (Sir 20:7); therefore he says, not open to the charge of being profligate. In 1 Samuel, Eli is punished for failing to correct his sons on this point (1 Sam 3:13). Third, it is required that he correct the unruly; hence he says, or insubordinate, i.e., not obedient: a horse that is untamed turns out to be stubborn, and a son unrestrained turns out to be willful (Sir 30:8).
Commentary on TitusFor a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκονόμον, μὴ αὐθάδη, μὴ ὀργίλον, μὴ πάροινον, μὴ πλήκτην, μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ,
Подоба́етъ бо є҆пі́скопꙋ без̾ поро́ка бы́ти, ꙗ҆́коже бж҃їю строи́телю: не себѣ̀ ᲂу҆гожда́ющꙋ, (не де́рзꙋ, не напра́сливꙋ,) не гнѣвли́вꙋ, не пїѧ́ницѣ, не бі́йцѣ, не скверностѧжа́тельнꙋ,
For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. And the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct. And this also, we see, was done by you in the ordination of our colleague Sabinus; so that, by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood, and by the sentence of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, and who had written letters to you concerning him, the episcopate was conferred upon him, and hands were imposed on him in the place of Basilides. Neither can it rescind an ordination rightly perfected, that Basilides, after the detection of his crimes, and the baring of his conscience even by his own confession, went to Rome and deceived Stephen our colleague, placed at a distance, and ignorant of what had been done, and of the truth, to canvass that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been righteously deposed. The result of this is, that the sins of Basilides are not so much abolished as enhanced, inasmuch as to his former sins he has also added the crime of deceit and circumvention. For he is not so much to be blamed who has been through heedlessness surprised by fraud, as he is to be execrated who has fraudulently taken him by surprise. But if Basilides could deceive men, he cannot deceive God, since it is written, "God is not mocked." But neither can deceit advantage Martialis, in such a way as that he who also is involved in great crimes should hold his bishopric, since the apostle also warns, and says, "A bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God."
Epistle LXVIIThat a priest must avoid covetousness even Samuel teaches when he proves before all the people that he has taken nothing from anyone. And the same lesson is taught by the poverty of the apostles who used to receive sustenance and refreshment from their brothers and to boast that they neither had nor wished to have anything besides food and clothing. What the epistle to Timothy calls covetousness Titus openly censures as the desire for filthy lucre.
LETTERS 69.9For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not insolent, not irascible, not given to wine, not a striker, not a seeker of shameful gain. It is required, then, among stewards that one be found faithful, and not, eating and drinking with drunkards, strike the menservants and maidservants; but let him await the uncertain coming of God, and give his fellow servants their food in due season. Now between the steward (of the estate) and the household there is this sole difference: that a fellow servant has been set over his fellow servants. Let the bishop and the presbyter know, then, that the people are his fellow servants, not his servants. The other things that follow are set within our power: Not insolent, that is, not swelling and pleased with himself because he is a bishop, but, like a good steward, seeking what benefits the greater number. Not irascible. He is irascible who is always angry, and is stirred by the slight breeze of a reply or of an offense, like a leaf by the wind. And truly nothing is more foul than a raging teacher, who, though he ought to be gentle (and according to what is written (2 Tim. 2): "But the servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but be humble toward all, a teacher, patient, instructing in gentleness those who oppose"), on the contrary, with grim look, trembling lips, wrinkled brow, unbridled abuse, a face changing between pallor and redness, roars with shouting, and does not so much draw back the erring to the good as hurl them headlong into evil by his savagery. Hence it is that Solomon also says: "Anger destroys even the wise" (Prov. 15); and: "The anger of man does not work the righteousness of God" (Jas. 1:20). Nor yet is he who is sometimes angry irascible; but he is called irascible who is frequently overcome by this passion. He also forbids the bishop to be given to wine, as is written to Timothy: "Not given to much wine" (1 Tim. 3:8). But what a thing it is to see a bishop given to wine, so that, his senses seized, he either raises a laugh against the seemliness of gravity and guffaws with slack lips, or, if he has a little sadly remembered something, bursts out among the cups into sobs and tears. It would be long to go through each point and unfold the madnesses that drunkenness prompts. You may see some turning their cups into weapons, throwing a goblet in the face of a fellow guest; others, with torn clothes, rushing to wound others; some shouting; some dozing; he who has drunk more is counted the braver; it is a ground for accusation, when adjured by the king's name, not to have drunk the more often. They vomit in order to drink, they drink in order to vomit. The digestion of the belly and the throat are taken up with one office. Let it suffice to have said this now: that according to the Apostle, in wine there is licentiousness. And wherever fullness and drunkenness have been, there lust holds sway. Look at the belly and the genitals: the order of the members follows the character of the vices. I shall never think a drunk man pure; for even if, put to sleep by wine, he has slept, he could still have sinned through wine. Yet we marvel that the Apostle condemned fondness for wine in bishops or presbyters, when in the old Law too it was commanded that the priests, when they enter the temple to minister to God, should drink no wine at all (Lev. 10); and that the Nazirite, as long as he grows his holy hair and looks on nothing defiled, nothing dead, should abstain both from wine and from raisins and from the weaker drink that is usually made from grape skins, and from all strong drink, which turns the mind away from its whole soundness (Num. 6). Let each say what he will: I speak my own conscience: I know that abstinence, when interrupted, has harmed me, and when resumed has helped me. After fondness for wine he commands this, "that he be not a striker": which, even understood simply, edifies the hearer, that he should not readily stretch out his hand to strike, nor burst out like a madman to beat another's face. But it is better that we call him not a striker who, gentle and patient, knows in due time what is to be said or what kept silent, and does not strike the conscience of the weak with useless speech. For the Apostle, in forming the leader of the church, does not forbid him to be a boxer and a pancratiast [παγκρατιαστὴν, that is, an athlete] (which is censured even in a common man and in any Gentile whatever, if it is found in him), but this, as I said: that he should not, being insulting and garrulous, destroy one whom he could have corrected by modesty and mildness. A craving for shameful gain also ought to be foreign to one who is to be a bishop. For there are many teaching what they ought not, for the sake of shameful gain, who overturn whole houses and think piety to be a source of profit. "But better is", according to Solomon, "a modest receiving with righteousness than many fruits with iniquity" (Prov. 16:8); and a good name in poverty is rather to be chosen than a very bad name in riches. A bishop who desires to be an imitator of the Apostle, having food and clothing, ought to be content with these alone (1 Tim. 6). Those who serve the altar should live from the altar (1 Cor. 9). Let them live, he says, not grow rich. Hence also the copper is shaken out of our belt, and we are clothed in a single tunic only (Matt. 10 and Mark 6), and we take no thought for the morrow. It is a craving for shameful gain to take thought for more than the present. Up to this point it has been commanded by the Apostle's word what a bishop or presbyter ought not to have; now, on the contrary, what he ought to have is set out.
Commentary on TitusVer. 7. "For a Bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker."
For a ruler without, as he rules by law and compulsion, perhaps does not consult the wishes of those under his rule. But he who ought to rule men with their own consent, and who will be thankful for his rule, if he so conduct himself as to do everything of his own will, and share counsels with no one, makes his presidency tyrannical rather than popular. For he must be "blameless, as the steward of God, not self-willed, not soon angry." For how shall he instruct others to rule that passion, who has not taught himself? For power leads on to many temptations, it makes a man more harsh and difficult to please, even him that was very mild, surrounding him with so many occasions of anger. If he have not previously practiced himself in this virtue, he will grow harsh, and will injure and destroy much that is under his rule.
"Not given to wine, no striker." Here he is speaking of the insolent man. For he should do all things by admonition or rebuke, and not by insolence. What necessity, tell me, for insult? He ought to terrify, to alarm, to penetrate the soul with the threat of hell. But he that is insulted becomes more impudent, and rather despises him that insults him. Nothing produces contempt more than insult; it disgraces the insolent person, and prevents his being respected, as he ought to be. Their discourse ought to be delivered with much caution. In reproving sins they should bear in mind the future judgment, but keep clear of all insolence. Yet if any prevent them from doing their duty, they must prosecute the matter with all authority. "Not a striker," he says. The teacher is the physician of souls. But the physician does not strike, but heals and restores him that has stricken him. "Not given to filthy lucre."
Homily on Titus 2For the bishop must be blameless as God's steward, not stubborn, not quick-tempered, not drunken, not violent, not greedy for gain; but hospitable, loving what is good, self-controlled, righteous, holy, disciplined.
To be accused is a general concept. For to be accused encompasses all things that are to be named: that is, one against whom no crime can be charged.
as God's steward. Since, Paul says, the office is great, it also requires great watchfulness.
not quick-tempered. For he who cannot master himself, how will he be able to beneficially lead others?
not drunken. Drunkard, overbearing.
not violent. Not one who harms the consciences of brothers.
not greedy for gain. As one who is poor is usually like: as if any profit, even if it seems just, is disgraceful for a bishop.
holy. Pure from passions.
disciplined. Not only regarding food alone, but also all passions.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSPaul here shows that at this time "elders" and "bishops" were interchangeable and that some were put in charge of towns, some of whole regions. These latter became the bishops of later times.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSHe is not given to useless discord.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSHere it is clear that he calls presbyters bishops. In the same community it was the custom that there would be more presbyters than bishops.
INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO TITUSHow can he be blameless if he has unbelieving and undisciplined children? God has placed him over His house, he occupies God's place; therefore in all respects he must be a precise fulfiller of His will.
Civil authorities rule over their subordinates by the force of law, and therefore can display boldness and self-assertion. But a bishop governs those who are voluntarily subject to him, and he must not reach such a degree of boldness as to act autocratically, arbitrarily, and without asking the opinion of his subordinates; for this would be coercive.
Self-love is necessarily followed by irascibility, from which also, of course, consequently, the bishop must abstain. For how will he teach others to bridle this passion if he has not taught this to himself?
That is, an insulter. What need is there to insult? The disobedient should be brought to fear by gehenna, not insulted.
Not striking with the hands, nor with bitter and harsh words. For he is a physician. And a physician rather heals wounds, but does not inflict them himself.
That is, showing great contempt for wealth. In a bishop, all covetousness, even righteous covetousness, is shameful.
Commentary on TitusThen when he says, a bishop must be without crime, he amplifies what he has said: first, the fact that he said, without crime; second, the marks he must be without, at not proud.
The reason for the first requirement is that he must dispense divine things: like the magistrate of the people, so are his officials (Sir 10:2); he who walks in the way that is blameless shall minister to me (Ps 101:6).
Then when he says, not proud, he shows the vices from which he should be immune: first, the crimes from which he should be immune; second, the virtues he should have, at but given to hospitality.
Now some sins are carnal and some spiritual. He makes no mention of the first, because it is taken for granted that he is free of those: but immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints (Eph 5:3). But he does mention spiritual sins, which are five in number. Two of them have no place among prelates, namely, envy, which is a childish sin: envy slays the little one (Job 5:2), for a prelate should be above envy; and spiritual sloth, because all things succeed for him according to his wishes. But pride is mentioned because it tempts those in authority, and anger and covetousness, which bear on the temporal things which he dispenses.
In regard to the first of these three he says, not proud: the man of haughty looks and arrogant heart I will not endure (Ps 101:5); if they make you master of the feast, do not exalt yourself; be among them as one of them (Sir 32:1).
In regard to the second, he removes anger when he says, not subject to anger; then its incentive, which is wine, when he says, nor given to wine: who has redness of eyes? Those who tarry long over wine (Prov 23:29). Then, the result of anger, which is to strike; hence he says not violent, i.e., not cruel: I gave my back to the smiter and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard (Isa 50:6). Or, not violent, i.e., not offending the consciences of others with their depraved character, wounding their conscience (1 Cor 8:12).
In regard to the third he says, not greedy of filthy gain: but they considered our existence an idle game, and life a festival held for profit, for he says one must get money however one can, even by base means (Wis 15:12).
Commentary on TitusBut a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
ἀλλὰ φιλόξενον, φιλάγαθον, σώφρονα, δίκαιον, ὅσιον, ἐγκρατῆ,
но страннолюби́вꙋ, бл҃голю́бцꙋ, цѣломⷣреннꙋ, првⷣнꙋ, прпⷣбнꙋ, воздержа́тельнꙋ,
But hospitable, a lover of good things, pure, just, holy, self-controlled, or abstinent, holding fast the faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to comfort in sound doctrine, and to refute those who contradict. Before all things hospitality is enjoined on the future bishop. For if all desire to hear that word of the Gospel, "I was a stranger, and you took me in" (Matt. 25:35), how much more the bishop, whose house ought to be the common lodging of all! For a layman, receiving one or two or a few, will fulfill the duty of hospitality; a bishop, unless he receives all, is inhuman. But I fear that, just as the queen of the South, who came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon (Matt. 12), will judge the men of her time, and the men of Nineveh, who did penance at the preaching of Jonah, will condemn those who scorned to hear the Savior, greater than Jonah, so very many among the peoples may judge the bishops, withdrawing themselves from the ecclesiastical rank and practicing what does not befit a bishop. Of these I think John too writes to Gaius: "Dearest, you act faithfully in whatever you do for the brethren, and that for strangers, who have borne witness to your love before the Church: you will do very well if you send them on their way worthily of God: for they went out for the name of the Lord, accepting nothing from the Gentiles" (3 John 5 ff.). And truly, the Holy Spirit speaking in him, he even then rebuked what was to come in the churches, saying: "I wrote also to the Church: but Diotrephes, who loves to hold the first place among them, does not receive us. Therefore, when I come, I will call to mind his works which he does, slandering us with evil words; and it is not enough for him that he does not himself receive the brethren, but he also forbids those who wish to, and casts them out of the Church." Truly one can now see what was foretold: in very many cities, bishops, or presbyters, if they see laymen hospitable, lovers of good things, envy them, rage, excommunicate them, expel them from the Church, as though it were not lawful to do what the bishop does not do, and as though for laymen to be such were a condemnation of the priests. So they find them burdensome, and as though set upon their own necks, and harass them with various persecutions in order to draw them away from good work. Let the bishop also be chaste, whom the Greeks call σώφρονα; and the Latin translator, deceived by the ambiguity of the word, rendered "prudent" (prudentem) instead of "chaste" (pudicum). Now if laymen are commanded to abstain from intercourse with their wives for the sake of prayer, what are we to think of a bishop, who is every day to offer to God unblemished victims for his own sins and those of the people? Let us read again the books of Kings, and we shall find that the priest Abimelech was unwilling to give of the loaves of the presentation to David and his young men before he asked whether the young men were clean from a woman: not, of course, another man's, but a wife (1 Sam. 21). And had he not heard that they had kept away from the marital act yesterday and the day before, he would by no means have granted the loaves which he had at first refused. There is as great a difference between the loaves of the presentation and the body of Christ as between the shadow and the bodies, between the image and the truth, between the patterns of things to come and those very things which were prefigured through the patterns. Just as, therefore, gentleness, patience, sobriety, moderation, abstinence from gain, and also hospitality and kindness ought to be found especially in the bishop, and to stand out among all the laymen, so too a purity of his own and (so to speak) a priestly chastity, so that he abstain not only from the unclean act, but also from the glance of the eye and the straying of thought, so that the mind that is to consecrate the body of Christ may be free. The bishop ought also to be just and holy, so as to exercise justice among the peoples over whom he presides, rendering to each what he deserves, and not to respect persons in judgment. Now between the justice of a layman and of a bishop there is this difference: that a layman can appear just in a few things, but a bishop can exercise justice in as many as he has subjects. Now holy, which in Greek is said ὅσιος, signifies rather this: when holiness itself is mixed with piety and is referred to God. For whom we call holy (sanctus), the Greeks call ἅγιον; but whom they call ὅσιον, we can call devout toward God (pium in Deum). Let the bishop also be abstinent: not only (as some think) from lust and from his wife's embrace, but from all the disturbances of the soul: that he not be roused to irascibility, that sadness not cast him down, that fear not agitate him, that immoderate joy not lift him up. Now abstinence is numbered by the Apostle among the fruits of the spirit. And if it is required of all, how much more of a bishop, who, patient and gentle, ought to bear the vices of those who sin, comfort the fainthearted, support the weak, render to no one evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.
Commentary on TitusVer. 8. "But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate."
Ver. 9. "Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught."
You see what intensity of virtue he required. "Not given to filthy lucre," that is, showing great contempt for money. "A lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy"; he means, giving away all his substance to them that need. "Temperate"; he speaks not here of one who fasts, but of one who commands his passions, his tongue, his hands, his eyes. For this is temperance, to be drawn aside by no passion.
"Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught." By "faithful" is here meant "true," or that which was delivered through faith, not requiring reasonings, or questionings.
"Holding fast," that is, having care of it, making it his business. What then, if he be ignorant of the learning that is without? For this cause, he says, "the faithful word, according to teaching."
"That he may be able both to exhort, and to convince the gainsayers."
So that there is need not of pomp of words, but of strong minds, of skill in the Scriptures and of powerful thoughts. Do you not see that Paul put to flight the whole world, that he was more powerful than Plato and all the rest? But it was by miracles, you say. Not by miracles only, for if you peruse the Acts of the Apostles, you will find him often prevailing by his teaching previously to his miracles.
"That he may be able by sound doctrine to exhort," that is, to retain his own people, and to overthrow the adversaries. "And to convince the gainsayers." For if this is not done, all is lost. He who knows not how to combat the adversaries, and to "bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ," and to beat down reasonings, he who knows not what he ought to teach with regard to right doctrine, far from him be the Teacher's throne. For the other qualities may be found in those under his rule, such as to be "blameless, to have his children in subjection, to be hospitable, just, holy." But that which characterizes the Teacher is this, to be able to instruct in the word, to which no regard is now paid.
Homily on Titus 2Not only not to receive profit, but also to give everything away to strangers.
The apostle thus calls the gentle, moderate, and unenvious person.
That is, pure.
Impartial in regard to people.
That is, reverent toward everything divine, neglecting nothing in relation to God.
The temperate person [must be temperate] not only in food, but also in tongue, hands, and shameful glances; for in this consists true temperance.
Commentary on TitusThen he mentions the good they should have: first, that which pertains to right living; second, to true doctrine, at embracing that faithful word (Titus 1:9).
All of these are obvious and need no comment.
Commentary on TitusHolding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου, ἵνα δυνατὸς ᾖ καὶ παρακαλεῖν ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ καὶ τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν.
держа́щемꙋсѧ вѣ́рнагѡ словесѐ по ᲂу҆че́нїю, да си́ленъ бꙋ́детъ и҆ ᲂу҆тѣша́ти во здра́вѣмъ ᲂу҆че́нїи, и҆ проти́вѧщыѧсѧ ѡ҆блича́ти.
If anyone says, however, that if teachers are made learned by the Holy Spirit then they do not need to be taught by educators what they should say or how they should say it, he should also say that we should not pray because the Lord says, "for your Father knows what is needful for you, before you ask him." With such a false premise one might argue that the apostle Paul should not have taught Timothy and Titus what or how they should teach others. One upon whom is imposed the personage of a teacher in the church should have these three apostolic epistles before his eyes. Do we not read in the first epistle to Timothy … and in the second epistle is it not said … again, does he not say to Titus that a bishop should persevere in "that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers"?
ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 4.16.33There are three orders: the priestly, corresponding to the Thrones; the episcopal, corresponding to the Cherubim; and the patriarchal, corresponding to the Seraphim--not properly speaking on account of the imposition of some new character, since there is no level above the priesthood, but because of eminence and power. It is fitting that the bishop "be holding fast the faithful word." But the Pope must be the most perfect of them all. And if the interior ordination corresponded to the exterior, that would be the best.
Collations on the Hexaemeron, Collation 22To Titus he gives commandment that among a bishop's other virtues [which he briefly describes] he should be careful to seek a knowledge of the Scriptures. A bishop, he says, must hold fast "the faithful word as he has been taught that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." In fact, want of education in a clergyman prevents him from doing good to any one but himself. Even if the virtue of his life may build up Christ's church, he does it an injury as great by failing to resist those who are trying to pull it down.
LETTERS 53.3Finally, let him hold fast the faithful word which is according to doctrine, so that, just as the word of God is faithful and worthy of all acceptance, so he too may show himself such that everything he says is deemed worthy of faith, and his words are the rule of truth. Let him be able also to comfort those who are tossed by the whirlwinds of this age, and through sound doctrine to destroy weak precepts. Now doctrine is called sound to distinguish it from languid and weak doctrine. Let him also be such as to refute those who contradict: the heretics or the Jews, and the wise men of this age. And indeed the earlier qualities which he set down among the virtues of a bishop pertain to life. But this which he says, That he may be able to comfort in sound doctrine, and to refute those who contradict, is to be referred to knowledge. For if a bishop has only a holy life, by living so he can benefit himself. But if he is learned in doctrine and speech, he can instruct himself and the others; and not only instruct and teach his own, but also beat back the adversaries, who, unless they are refuted and convicted, can easily pervert the hearts of the simple. This passage tells against those who, giving themselves to sloth and leisure and sleep, think it a sin to read the Scriptures, and despise as garrulous and useless those who meditate on the Law of the Lord day and night, not noticing that the Apostle, after the catalogue of the bishop's manner of life, likewise commanded doctrine too.
Commentary on Titus"For the bishop," he says, "must hold to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to convict even the gainsayers." How, then, if he is inexperienced at speaking, as they say, will he be able to convict the objectors and to stop their mouths? If it is permissible to welcome such inexperience in the episcopacy, then why should any church leader bother to read books and study the Scriptures? This is all just a pretense and excuse and a pretext for carelessness and indolence.
ON THE PRIESTHOOD 4.8holding firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he may be able both to encourage with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.
holding firmly to the trustworthy message. Or of the true, or of that which is granted through faith, and not from reasoning.
Therefore Paul said, as it has been taught, meaning that one can teach even without external wisdom. For, he says, there is no need for natural or philosophical evidence, but rather for doctrine and usefulness.
be able both to encourage with sound doctrine. This will be from both understanding and knowledge of the Scriptures. Teaching that is healthy is that which teaches true doctrines and a righteous life.
and to refute those who contradict it. For the one who does not know how to fight against enemies, and to capture every thought into the obedience of Christ, will do none of the necessary things.
Against those who advocate for bodily purifications, and in favor of spiritual virtue.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSWhen Paul describes the character of those who are called bishops and portrays what sort of a man a bishop ought to be, he instructs that he should be a teacher. He must be "able also to refute the adversaries," that by his wisdom he may restrain those who speak vainly and deceive souls. He prefers for the episcopate a man once married rather than one twice married, and a man unblamable rather than blameable, and a sober man rather than one not of this character, and a prudent man rather than one imprudent, and an orderly man rather than one even slightly disorderly. In the same way he most wishes that the one who is to be selected as bishop should be a teacher and capable of "refuting adversaries."
AGAINST CELSUS 3.48Instead of: caring, taking concern for this matter. "Faithful," that is, handed down through faith, and not through reasoning. Therefore he also said: "according to the teaching," showing that he could teach even without external wisdom. It is not grandeur of expression that is needed, but experience in the Scriptures and power in thought. For only such teaching will be successful, as was the teaching of Paul himself.
That is, so that he might both guard and strengthen his own, and repel enemies. For whoever is not "mighty" either to fight against enemies "and bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5), or to comfort, admonish, and establish his own, is a false bishop. Other virtues can be found even in subordinates, such as hospitality, sound-mindedness, and the rest; but what most characterizes a bishop is the ability to teach.
Commentary on TitusAbove, he described what a bishop should be in his conduct; here he shows how he should be equipped in doctrine: first, he shows that he should apply himself diligently to study; second, he describes what he should study; third, its profit.
In regard to the first he says, embracing that faithful word. For when one embraces something he holds it firmly, embraces, as it were, with love. So a bishop must hold knowledge in his embrace, clinging to it firmly with his mind and heart: she hastens to make herself known to those who desire her (Wis 6:13); prize her highly, and she will exalt you; she will honor you if you embrace her (Prov 4:8).
The matters he studies must not be fables, nor temporal subjects, but that faithful word, i.e., true: the Lord is faithful in all his words and gracious in all his deeds (Ps 145:13). Or, that faithful word, i.e., of the faith, in which a bishop should be well instructed.
For some study merely to learn things and adapt them to their own lives. But this is not enough for a bishop, for he must instruct others. And therefore he says, which is according to doctrine. Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct (1 Tim 4:12).
Its usefulness lies in making his office easy to fulfill. But a bishop's duties are akin to those of a shepherd: feed my sheep (John 21:17). But a shepherd has two things to do, namely, feed the flock: feed the flock of God that is your charge (1 Pet 5:2), and hold off the wolf. So also a bishop: he should feed his flock with true doctrine: I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding (Jer 3:15).
Hence he says, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine. He does not say, that he may exhort, but that he may be able to exhort, which means that he must have exhortations ready to hand, when it is necessary to give them. This is prefigured in Exodus by the handle on the ark, enabling it to be carried: mighty in deed and word (Luke 24:19). And he says, sound, i.e., without admixture of falsity: but speak the things that become sound doctrine (Titus 2:1); for our appeal does not spring from error or uncleanness, nor is it made with guile (1 Thess 2:3).
Second, he must guard the flock against heretics; hence he says, and to convince those who contradict it; and this is by the study of Sacred Scripture: all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction (2 Tim 3:16); I have not denied the words of the Holy One (Job 6:10).
And these two things, according to the Philosopher, pertain to the work of a wise man, namely, not to lie about things he knows, as to the first, and to be able to unmask liars, as to the second.
Commentary on TitusFor there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Εἰσὶ γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἀνυπότακτοι, ματαιολόγοι καὶ φρεναπάται, μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς,
Сꙋ́ть бо мно́зи непокори́ви, сꙋесло́вцы и҆ ᲂу҆мо́мъ прельще́ни, наипа́че же сꙋ́щїи ѿ ѡ҆брѣ́занїѧ,
"For there are," he says, "many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers:" Wherefore it was not said to all, "Ye are the salt of the earth." For there are some even of the hearers of the word who are like the fishes of the sea, which, reared from their birth in brine, yet need salt to dress them for food.
The Stromata Book 1I therefore, yet not I, out the love of Jesus Christ, "entreat you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment." For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and "corrupting the word" of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk, as if they mingled aconite with sweet wine, that so he who drinks, being deceived in his taste by the very great sweetness of the draught, may incautiously meet with his death. One of the ancients gives us this advice, "Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil." For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.
Epistle of Ignatius to the TralliansFor there are many who are also not submissive, empty talkers and deceivers of minds, especially those who are of the circumcision, on whom silence must be imposed; who overturn whole houses, teaching what they ought not, for the sake of shameful gain. Let him who is to be the leader of the Church have eloquence joined to integrity of life, so that his works may not be silent without speech, nor his words blush for lack of deeds; especially since there are not few but many, and not submissive but insolent, who do not care to say that word of the Psalmist, "Is not my soul subject to God?" (Ps. 61:1), but by empty persuasion pervert the good seed of minds, which by nature has knowledge of God. For this is what Paul seems to me to have meant when he says φρεναπάται: not, as the Latin translator simply rendered it, deceivers (deceptores), but deceivers of minds (mentium deceptores). And indeed, without the authority of the Scriptures their garrulity would win no belief, unless they seemed to strengthen their perverse doctrine with divine testimonies as well. These are the Jews of the circumcision, who at that time were striving to overturn the newborn Church of Christ and to bring in the precepts of the Law; of whom Paul treats more fully both to the Romans and to the Galatians. And we, a few months ago, dictated three volumes in the explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians.
Commentary on TitusVer. 10. "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision;"
Ver. 11. "Whose mouths must be stopped."
Seest thou how he shows that they are such? From their not wishing to be ruled, but to rule. For he has glanced at this. When therefore thou canst not persuade them, do not give them charges, but stop their mouths, for the benefit others. But of what advantage will this be, if they will not obey, or are unruly? Why then should he stop their mouths? In order that others may be benefited by it.
"Who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake."
For if he has undertaken the office of a Teacher, and is not able to combat these enemies, and to stop their mouths who are so shameless, he will become in each case the cause of their destination who perish. And if some one has thus advised, "Seek not to be a judge, unless thou canst take away iniquity" (Ecclus. vii. 6); much more may we say here, "Seek not to be a Teacher, if thou art unequal to the dignity of the office; but though dragged to it, decline it." Dost thou see that the love of power, the love of for filthy lucre, is a cause of these evils? "Teaching things which they ought not," he says, "for filthy lucre's sake."
Homily on Titus 2For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially those from the circumcision. They must be silenced, who overturn whole households, teaching things they ought not for dishonest gain.
Paul said the root of all things, from which the rest also grow. For the disobedient person does not want to yield themselves, but desires to rule and oversee others. Then it is necessary that he who rules with ecclesiastical authority also teaches, but he who teaches before he has learned, because he does not obey others, is rightly found to be a babbler and a deceiver of minds.
especially those from the circumcision. For even Christ reproached them for seeking power: who, even after receiving faith, did not abandon this disease.
They must be silenced. For if a bishop has the care and leadership entrusted to him of others, and does not know how to silence the mouths of babblers and seducers, and to convict them, he becomes the cause of loss for those who perish. And rightly it is said: must be silenced: that is, by the force of rebukes, they should not even be allowed to speak, so that from this there may also be found listeners.
teaching things they ought not for dishonest gain. There is nothing that this passion does not urge to transgress.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSHe pointed to the root of all evils — insubordination. Since the insubordinate person does not want to be under authority, but pushes forward to have authority over others, he has obviously learned nothing sound or right, because he did not want to endure being taught. One who deceives himself and others is an idle talker and a mind-deceiver.
The Lord also reproached them for their love of preeminence, because they had not abandoned this malady even after they came to believe.
Commentary on TitusSo then when he says, for there are also many, he posits the necessity of teaching. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes the false teachers; second, the perverse things they study, at one of them.
In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes the condition of false teachers; second, the perversity of their learning at who subvert whole houses.
Then first he shows their condition; second he prescribes a remedy, at who must be reproved.
He describes their condition on four points: first, from the number, when he says, many: the number of fools is infinite (Eccl 1:15); second, from the vice of disobedience, when he says, disobedient, both to God and to superiors: disobedient to parents (Rom 1:30); stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry (1 Sam 15:23); third, from their speech, when he says, vain talkers, namely, in relation to themselves: the Lord knows the thoughts of men, that they are in vain (Ps 94:11): for all men who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature (Wis 13:1); and false teachers especially are foolish. Then he continues, seducers, namely, in relation to inferiors: evil men and deceivers will go on from bad to worse (2 Tim 3:13). Fourth, from their place when he says, especially they who are of the circumcision, who compelled men to observe Jewish practices: look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh (Phil 3:2).
Against these he proposes a remedy; for they are not to be tolerated, because the people would become corrupt, and the shepherd would be blamed: you have not gone up into the breaches, or built up a wall for the house of Israel, that it might stand in battle in the day of the Lord (Ezek 13:5); convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching (2 Tim 4:2); therefore, he says, who must be reproved.
Commentary on TitusWhose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
οὓς δεῖ ἐπιστομίζειν, οἵτινες ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσι διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ δεῖ αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν.
и҆́хже подоба́етъ ᲂу҆ста̀ загражда́ти: и҆̀же всѧ̑ до́мы развраща́ютъ, ᲂу҆ча́ще ꙗ҆́же не подоба́етъ, скве́рнагѡ ра́ди прибы́тка.
Reborn in Christ, they are still not pure Christians; they wish for the law to be partly venerated, for Christ to be partly venerated, all of this as if to profit from the Jews.
COMMENTARY ON THE LETTER TO TITUSBut could I do otherwise than utter my feelings when my heart was pierced with such grief? Shall they do such things, and am I to be commanded to hold my peace? When He commands me by the mouth of the apostle saying that those who teach what they ought not must be rebuked by the bishop, shall I be silent through dread of their displeasure? The Lord deliver me from such folly!… For, since the Lord commands us to speak and proclaim the truth, and in teaching to rebuke what is wrong, and to labour in season and out of season, as I can prove by the words of the Lord and of the apostles, let no man think that I am to be persuaded to be silent concerning these things.
LETTERS 34.4, 35.3Such men the teacher of the Church, to whom the souls of the peoples have been entrusted, ought to overcome by the reasoning of the Scriptures, and impose silence on them by the weight of testimony: men who overturn not one or a few houses, but whole houses, with their masters and households, teaching about the distinctions of foods, about the long since abolished sabbath, about the injury of circumcision. And would that they did this very thing out of zeal for the faith! It could be pardoned in some measure, since the Apostle says: "I confess, they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge" (Rom. 10:2). But because their belly is their God, they wish for the sake of shameful gain to make disciples their own, so that, as masters, they may be fed by their followers. We can, however, also interpret otherwise what was said, for the sake of shameful gain: so as to think that the Apostle used a common word, by which all heretics, when they teach perverse things, are wont to declare themselves gainers of men, whereas it is not gain but perdition to kill the souls of those they deceive. On the contrary, whoever has reproved his erring brother according to the Gospel, if he has been converted, has gained him. For what greater gain can there be, or what more precious, than if one gains a human soul? Every teacher of the Church, therefore, who persuades to the faith of Christ by right reasoning is an honorable gainer. And every heretic, who deceives men by certain tricks and is deceived, speaks what he ought not, for the sake of shameful gain.
Commentary on TitusThey must be rebuked sharply, so that their "mouths" are stopped. But what is the benefit, when they are of those who do not submit to the truth? For them there is none, but it is beneficial for those whom they might corrupt if the bishop remains silent; for their corruption the bishop himself will give an account. Therefore the mouths of such people must be "stopped": if you cannot do this, do not be a bishop.
You see what disobedience combined with love of money and "shameful gain" means, how "they subvert whole houses"! They are levers in the hands of the devil, by means of which he destroys the "houses" of God.
Commentary on TitusThen when he says, who subvert whole houses, he shows their zeal: first, from the harm they inflict; second, from the false doctrine they teach; third, from the gain they desire.
The harm they cause is that they subvert whole houses. For Catholic doctrine is preached openly in the Church, but heretics teach in secret. That is why they seek hidden places: stolen water is sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant (Prov 9:17). Therefore, they go from house to house to seduce women particularly: for among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins (2 Tim 3:5). Teaching things which they ought not, i.e., vain and useless things, not seeking spiritual gain but temporal. Hence he adds, for the sake of filthy gain, or their own temporal glory: they considered our existence an idle game, and life a festival held for profit, for he says one must get money however one can, even by base means (Wis 15:12).
Commentary on TitusOne of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
εἶπέ τις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης· Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί.
Рече́ же нѣ́кто ѿ ни́хъ, сво́й и҆̀мъ проро́къ: кри́тѧне при́снѡ лжи́ви, ѕлі́и ѕвѣ́рїе, ᲂу҆трѡ́бы пра̑здныѧ.
Yet, though a man use terms not in Scripture, it makes no difference so that his meaning be religious. But the heretic, though he use scriptural terms, yet, as being equally dangerous and depraved, shall be asked in the words of the Spirit, "Why dost thou preach My laws, and takest My covenant in thy mouth?" Thus whereas the devil, though speaking from the Scriptures, is silenced by the Saviour, the blessed Paul, though he speaks from profane writers, "The Cretans are always liars," and, "For we are His offspring," and, "Evil communications corrupt good manners," yet has a religious meaning, as being holy,—is "doctor of the nations, in faith and verity," as having "the mind of Christ," and what he speaks, he utters religiously.
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA 3.39What wonder, too, that others, such as Heracles and Perseus, should be called gods on the ground of their strength? And yet others, as Asclepius, on the ground of their skill? Either their subjects accorded them this honor or else the rulers themselves seized it. Some got the title from fear, others from reverence.… And those who lived later accepted these deifications uncritically.The Cretans always lie; for they, O King, Have built your tomb, and you are not yet dead. While you, Callimachus, believe in the birth of Zeus, you disbelieve in his tomb. While you imagine you are hiding the truth, you actually proclaim, even to those who do not realize it, that Zeus is dead.
A PLEA REGARDING CHRISTIANS 30If you were to hear even from any one that was profane the prayer of the priest couched in the words suitable to the mysteries of the gospel, can you possibly say to him, Your prayer is not true, though he himself may be not only no true priest, but not a priest at all? seeing that the Apostle Paul said that certain testimony of I know not what Cretan prophet was true, though he was not reckoned among the prophets of God for he says, "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said the Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies: this witness is true." If, therefore, the apostle even himself bore witness to the testimony of some obscure prophet of a foreign race, because he found it to be true, why do not we, when we find in any one what belongs to Christ, and is true even though the man with whom it may be found be deceitful and perverse, why do not we in such a case make a distinction between the fault which is found in the man, and the truth which he has not of his own but of God's? and why do we not say, This sacrament is true, as Paul said, "This witness is true"?
The Letters of Petilian the Donatist 2.30.69You ask me at the close of your letter why it is that sometimes in my writings I quote examples from secular literature and thus defile the purity of the church with the foulness of heathenism.… For who is there who does not know that both in Moses and the prophets there are passages cited from Gentile books and that Solomon proposed questions to the philosophers of Tyre and answered others put to him by them.… The apostle Paul also, in writing to Titus, has used a line of the poet Epimenides: "The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies." Half of this line was afterward adopted by Callimachus.
LETTERS 70.2One of them, their own prophet, said: Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies. This testimony is true: for which cause rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not attending to Jewish fables and the commandments of men who turn themselves away from the truth. As far as the sequence of the discourse and the context of the passage are concerned, what he says, One of them, their own prophet, said, seems to be referred to those of whom he spoke above: "especially those who are of the circumcision, who must be restrained, who overturn whole houses, teaching what they ought not, for the sake of shameful gain", so that there follows: one of them, their own prophet, said. But because this little hexameter verse is found in none of the prophets who prophesied in Judea, it seems to me that it should be read in two ways: so that what he says, One of them, their own prophet, said, is joined with the earlier words, "for this reason I left you in Crete, that you might correct the things that were lacking", and there follows: one of them, their own Prophet, said, that is, of the Cretans. But because much lies in between, and this seems absurd, and perhaps no one would accept it, it must therefore be fitted otherwise to the earlier words, which are nearer, so that we read: "For there are many who are also not submissive, empty talkers and deceivers of minds, but especially those who are of the circumcision"; these many, both not submissive, empty talkers and deceivers of minds, together with those who are of the circumcision, must be restrained, who overturn whole houses, teaching what they ought not, for the sake of shameful gain: one of them, their own Prophet, said; so that what he says, their own Prophet, is referred not specially to the Jews, and to those especially who are of the circumcision, but to the many who are not submissive, and empty talkers, and deceivers of minds, who, since they were certainly in Crete, must be believed to have been Cretans. Now this little verse is said to be found in the Oracles of Epimenides, the Cretan poet; whom he here called a prophet either mocking, namely that such Christians deserve to have such prophets, just as there were also prophets of Baal, and prophets of confusion, and others of stumblings, and whatever corrupt prophets Scripture mentions; or truly, because he wrote about Oracles and responses, which themselves foretell the future and proclaim long beforehand the things that are to come. Indeed the book itself is headed with the title Oracles; and because it seemed to promise something divine, I think the Apostle looked into it on that account, to see what the divination of the Gentiles promised, and at the right time made use of the little verse, writing to Titus, who was in Crete, so as to convict the false teachers of the Cretans by the island's own teacher. And Paul is found to have done this not only in this passage, but in others as well. For in the Acts of the Apostles, when he was addressing the people and disputing in the Areopagus, which is the senate house of the Athenians, he says among other things: "As certain of your own poets also have said: For we are also his offspring" (Acts 17), a half-line which is read in the Phaenomena of Aratus, whom Cicero translated into the Latin tongue, and Germanicus Caesar, and lately Avienus, and many whom it would take very long to enumerate. To the Corinthians too (1 Cor. 15:33), who were themselves polished with Attic eloquence and, because of the nearness of the places, seasoned with the savor of the Athenians, he took an iambic verse from a comedy of Menander: Evil conversations corrupt good morals. Nor is it any wonder if, as the occasion offered, he made use of the verses of Gentile poets, since, changing some things in the inscription of an altar, he even spoke to the Athenians: "For passing through," he says, "and beholding your objects of worship, I found also an altar on which was written: To an unknown God. What, therefore, you worship without knowing, this I announce to you". But the inscription of the altar was not as Paul declared, To an unknown God, but thus: To the gods of Asia and Europe and Africa: to unknown and foreign gods. But because Paul did not need many unknown gods, but only one unknown God, he used the singular word, to teach that his God was the one whom the Athenians had inscribed in the title of the altar, and that they ought rightly to worship, knowing him, the one whom they venerated without knowing, and whom they could not fail to know. But Paul did this rarely, and as the occasion of the place rather than of display required, in the manner of bees, which are wont to make honey from various flowers and fit together the cells of the combs. There are those who think this verse was taken from Callimachus, the poet of Cyrene, and in some measure they are not mistaken. For he too, writing in praise of Jupiter against the Cretans, who boasted that they could show his tomb, says: Cretans are always liars, who even with sacrilegious mind built his tomb. But, as we said above, the whole verse was taken by the Apostle from the poet Epimenides, and Callimachus used its opening in his own poem; or else he put into meter, without theft of another's work, a common proverb by which the Cretans were called deceitful.
Commentary on TitusThat Paul knew secular letters, though not to perfection, his own words testify: "One of them, a prophet of their own, said: Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies" (Titus 1:12). This heroic verse is by the poet Epimenides, whom both Plato and the other ancient writers recall. Among the Athenians also, when he was making his defense in the Areopagus, he added this: "As also certain of your poets have said: For we are also his offspring" (Acts 17:28). This half-line is found in Aratus, who wrote about the heaven and the stars. And also this: "Very evil conversations corrupt good morals" (1 Cor. 15:33); it is an iambic trimeter taken from a comedy of Menander. From these and other passages it is evident that Paul was not ignorant of secular letters, and that what he here called allegory he elsewhere called spiritual understanding.
Commentary on GalatiansSome think the Apostle should be censured for having slipped imprudently, and that, while refuting false teachers, he approved that little verse which says that the Cretans are called deceitful for this reason, that they built an empty tomb of Jupiter. For if, they say, Epimenides or Callimachus charge the Cretans with being deceitful, evil beasts and idle bellies for this reason, that they do not perceive divine things and imagine that Jupiter, who reigns in heaven, is buried in their island; and if what they said is proved true by the Apostle's judgment, it follows that Jupiter is not dead but alive. Ignorantly, then, did Paul, the destroyer of idolatry, while dealing with perverse teachers, assert the gods whom he was attacking. To these we must reply briefly: just as in his saying, Depraved conversations corrupt good morals, and in that other, For we are also his offspring, he did not at once approve the whole comedy of Menander and the book of Aratus, but made use of the fitness of the little verse; so too in the present passage he did not, through one little verse, confirm the whole work of Callimachus or Epimenides, of whom the one sings the praises of Jupiter, the other writes about Oracles; but he only rebuked the Cretans as liars for the vice of their race: not because of that opinion for which they were charged by the poets, but because of their inborn readiness to lie, confuting them by the race's own author. But those who think that one who has used a part of a book must follow the whole book seem to me also to receive among the Scriptures of the Church the apocryphon of Enoch, from which the apostle Jude set down a testimony in his Epistle, and many other things which the apostle Paul spoke from hidden writings. For by this argument we could say that, because he said that among the Athenians he worshipped the unknown God whom they had noted on the altar, Paul ought also to follow the other things which had been written on the altar, and to do the things the Athenians did, since he had agreed in part with the Athenians in the worship of the unknown God. Far be it from me to drag an argument and scholastic elegance into calumny. No one is such an assassin, such a parricide, such a poisoner, as not to have done something good at some time. If, then, seeing one good deed of his, I approve it, will the necessity also lie on me of approving his other deeds, which were evil? If an enemy wrangles against us and shouts, will he not speak something of truth amid the words of enmity and quarrel? which is not altogether censured even by us, against whom he speaks. So too Callimachus and Epimenides did not speak truly that Jupiter is a god, and the rest that is contained in their poems, because the Cretans are deceitful; but they spoke truly only in this, that they expressed the inborn vice of lying of the Cretans, who, because they are deceitful, have not therefore never spoken the truth at some time. For Jupiter would not on that account not be a god, if the Cretans spoke truly; but yet, even if they were silent, one who was dead would not have the title of god. Finally, so that we may know that the Apostle spoke against the Cretans not by chance and casually, as one pleases (as those men think), but with consideration and circumspection, and guarding himself on every side: This testimony, he says, is true: not the whole poem from which the testimony was taken, not the entire work, but only this testimony, this little verse in which they are called liars. And surely he who agreed with only one part of a poem must be believed to have refuted the rest. But how the Cretans are marked as liars, and the Galatians as foolish, and Israel as stiff-necked, and each province by its own vice, we have discussed in the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians; and because there is nothing more that we can bring forward here, we are content with that.
Commentary on TitusThere are several questions here. First, who it was that said this? Secondly, why Paul quoted it? Thirdly, why he brings forward a testimony that is not correct? Let us then offer a seasonable solution of these, having premised some other things. For when Paul was discoursing to the Athenians, in the course of his harangue he quoted these words, "To the Unknown God": and again, "For we also are His offspring, as certain also of your own poets have said." (Acts xvii. 23, Acts xvii. 28.) It was Epimenides who said this, himself a Cretan, and whence he was moved to say it is necessary to mention. It is this. The Cretans have a tomb of Jupiter, with this inscription. "Here lieth Zan, whom they call Jove." On account of this inscription, then, the poet ridiculing the Cretans as liars, as he proceeds, introduces, to increase the ridicule, this passage.
For even a tomb, O King, of thee They made, who never diedst, but aye shalt be.
If then this testimony is true, observe what a difficulty! For if the poet is true who said that they spoke falsely, in asserting that Jupiter could die, as the Apostle says, it is a fearful thing! Attend, beloved, with much exactness. The poet said that the Cretans were liars for saying that Jupiter was dead. The Apostle confirmed his testimony: so, according to the Apostle, Jupiter is immortal: for he says, "this witness is true"! What shall we say then? Or rather how shall we solve this? The Apostle has not said this, but simply and plainly applied this testimony to their habit of falsehood. Else why has he not added, "For even a tomb, O king, of thee, they made"? So that the Apostle has not said this, but only that one had well said, "The Cretans are always liars." But it is not only from hence that we are confident that Jupiter is not a God. From many other arguments we are able to prove this, and not from the testimony of the Cretans. Besides, he has not said, that in this they were liars. Nay and it is more probable that they were deceived as to this point too. For they believed in other gods, on which account the Apostle calls them liars.
And as to the question, why does he cite the testimonies of the Greeks? It is because we put them most to confusion when we bring our testimonies and accusations from their own writers, when we make those their accusers, who are admired among themselves.
Homily on Titus 3One of them, a prophet of their own, said: "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."
It is asked for what reason Paul brought forward the testimony of the Greeks, and commended it, especially since it was not rightly said? But what is the testimony? The Cretans built a tomb for Zeus. And so a certain poet says: The Cretans built a tomb for you, O king; but you are by no means dead, for you always live. Part of this prophecy is: The Cretans are always liars, etc. However, the Apostle attested that this saying is true. But if this testimony is true, then Zeus must be immortal. Yet we say that in this alone he said the testimony was true, because he called them liars themselves.
— [OECUMENIUS] Epimenides the Cretan, the oracle of the prophet. Callimachus has also made use of the verse spoken by him in the hymn to Zeus. [end of the excerpt by Oecumenius G f. 314r] —
Where Paul says: "This testimony," namely that he says they themselves are liars. Indeed, someone might say this is so: but why did he bring forth testimony from the Greeks? And we say that this affected them with the greatest shame that it produced testimony of their own wickedness from their own people. For since those among us do not have faith in them, Paul brought their own accusers to them. This God was also doing when, through the star, He indicated Christ to the Magi, so that they would be occupied with astronomy (Matt. 2), as if admonishing them by their own. Again, the prophet from the oxen drawing the ark (2 Sam. 6:3). Moreover, Saul from the woman having the spirit of Python (Acts 16:16), because he believed her. In these ways God was revealing Himself. Nor is it opposed by the fact that Christ and afterwards the apostles forbade demons to speak: for signs were made which could persuade (Mark 9:38). It was necessary that they persuade men by those whom they believed.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSYou possess the commentaries of Leo, and are displeased with our refutations of them; and having in your hands the opinions of Apion concerning the Egyptian gods, you denounce us as most impious. The tomb of Olympian Zeus is shown among you, though some one says that the Cretans are liars. Your assembly of many gods is nothing.
Address of Tatian to the GreeksYour Jupiter too, stolen in his infancy, was unworthy of both the home and the nutriment accorded to human beings; and, as he deserved for so bad a child, he had to live in Crete. Afterwards, when full-grown, he dethrones his own father, who, whatever his parental character may have been, was most prosperous in his reign, king as he was of the golden age.
Ad Nationes Book IIComic poets deride the Phrygians for their cowardice; Sallust reproaches the Moors for their levity, and the Dalmatians for their cruelty; even the apostle brands the Cretans as "liars." Very likely, too, something must be set down to the score of bodily condition and the state of the health.
A Treatise on the SoulHaving criticized the dangers that arise from Christians of Jewish background, Paul now does the same with Gentile believers. "Of their own" does not refer to the Jews but to a poet or prophet of Gentile background, even one of the Cretans. He wished to criticize the Cretans because they believed they could show the tomb of Jove, even though Jove existed not as a man (as the poet thought) but as a god.
Commentary on TitusThe quote is from Callimachus, who is not a Jewish prophet but a pagan poet. He calls the Cretans liars on account of a tomb of Jove. Paul is not here offering fables but insisting on the inconsistency of the Cretans, for it is true that the one they call Jove is in another place dead and they have built him a tomb.
Interpretation of the Letter to TitusThen, he describes their hearers, for they were Cretans, and to them he refers this work: first, he describes their condition; second, he prescribes a remedy, at wherefore, rebuke them.
In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes their condition from witnesses; second, he confirms it.
He says, therefore: such are their teachers; but their hearers are just as easy to seduce according to the testimony of one of their poets, namely, Epimenis, whom Paul calls one of their prophets.
Here it should be noted that a prophet is one whose intellect is enlightened by God to know things that transcend common knowledge: if there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream (Num 12:6); or one who explains prophecies in the same spirit and method as they were delivered; or one who utters prophetic words. Hence something prophetic might be uttered from an inner instinct without understanding it: Caiaphas being high priest that year prophesied (John 11:51). For he had no intention of prophesying when he said that it is expedient for him to die lest he seduce the people. Nevertheless, he was moved to say this by the Spirit. This manner of prophesying also belongs to those who accept someone's words as an omen that might actually be from demons.
And he says, a prophet of their own, because such a person is familiar with their condition.
Then when he says, Cretans, he gives the testimony. And he describes them with three marks: first, the corruption of reason, when he says, are always liars: you destroy those who speak lies (Ps 5:6).
Second, the corruption of their irascibility when he says, evil beasts, i.e., cruel. They are called beasts, as it were, laying waste, because they are cruel: like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people (Prov 28:15). He says, evil, because according to the Philosopher in the Politics, when a man acts according to reason, he is the best of animals; but when he stoops to wickedness, he is the worst: for if he falls away because of cruelty, no beast is as cruel. Hence he says that an evil man is ten thousand times worse than an evil beast.
Third, from the corruption of their desire when he says, slothful bellies, having sloth present in their bellies; for they were gluttons and such men seek rest: soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, be merry (Luke 12:19).
Commentary on TitusThis witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
ἡ μαρτυρία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀληθής. δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως, ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει,
Свидѣ́тельство сїѐ и҆́стинно є҆́сть: є҆ѧ́же ра́ди вины̀ ѡ҆блича́й и҆̀хъ неща́днѡ, да здра́ви бꙋ́дꙋтъ въ вѣ́рѣ,
Therefore rebuke them, he says, sharply: for they are liars, and evil beasts, and idle bellies; who persuade men of falsehoods, who after the manner of wild beasts thirst for the blood of those they deceive, and do not eat their own bread working in quietness; whose god is their belly, and their glory is in their shame; and rebuke them, that they may be sound in the faith. Of this soundness of faith he speaks also in what follows: that the old men be sober, honorable, chaste, sound in faith, and in love, and in patience; and after the likeness of faith, soundness is also ascribed to doctrine. "There will be", he says, "a time when they will not acquiesce in sound doctrine". There are also words of soundness, of which he speaks to Timothy in the first Epistle: "If anyone teaches otherwise, and does not acquiesce in the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the doctrine which is according to piety" (1 Tim. 6:3). And in the second: "Having a pattern of sound words which you have heard from me" (2 Tim. 1:13).
Commentary on TitusVer. 13. "Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith."
This he says, because their disposition was froward, deceitful, and dissolute. They have these numberless bad qualities; and because they are prone to lying, deceiving, gluttonous, and slothful, severe reproof is necessary. For such characters will not be managed by mildness, "therefore rebuke them." He speaks not here of Gentiles, but of his own people. "Sharply." Give them, he says, a stroke that cuts deep. For one method is not to be employed with all, but they are to be differently dealt with, according to their various characters and dispositions. He does not here have recourse to exhortation. For as he who treats with harshness the meek and ingenuous, may destroy them; so he who flatters one that requires severity, causes him to perish, and does not suffer him to be reclaimed.
"That they may be sound in the faith."
This then is soundness, to introduce nothing spurious, nor foreign. But if they who are scrupulous about meats are not sound, but are sick and weak; for, "Them that are weak," he says, "receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations" (Rom xiv. 1); what can be said of those who observe the same fasts, (with the Jews,) who keep the sabbaths, who frequent the places that are consecrated by them? I speak of that at Daphne, of that which is called the cave of Matrona, and of that plain in Cilicia, which is called Saturn's. How are these sound? With them a heavier stroke is necessary. Why then does he not do the same with the Romans? Because their dispositions were different, they were of a nobler character.
Homily on Titus 3This testimony is true. For this reason, he rebuked them sharply, so that they might be sound in the faith.
For this reason, he rebuked them sharply. Therefore, because some are wicked, he says, rebuke them more harshly, for they could not be led from gentleness to what is right.
be sound in the faith. To be sound in faith, however, is if one has introduced nothing external to it, neither Jewish nor Gentile.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSThe question is asked, why did he adduce a "testimony" from Greek writers and approve it, even though it is unjust? And who said this? In truth, it was said by Epimenides, who more than all the Greek sages was occupied with prophecies and the propitiation of the gods, and was renowned for the beneficent gift of divination. He, indeed, when he saw that the Cretans had erected a tomb for Zeus and began to honor him as some mere man, as though zealous for the glory of their national god, composed the following address to Zeus: being such and such, the Cretans erected a tomb for you; but you have not died, you live forever. To this saying Paul now gives a "testimony" of truth. But how does he do this? For if it was spoken truly, then Zeus is immortal. No, it was not to this that the apostle directed attention when he said the "testimony" is true, but to the fact that Epimenides called the "Cretans liars" and the rest. And what is the benefit of a pagan testimony? Through this he best influenced them, presenting to them as proof of their arrogance their own writers. Paul customarily does this; in a similar manner he also reasoned with the Athenians on the basis of Aratus: what that poet ascribes to the falsely-named god Zeus, he applies to the true God, since on the basis of their own testimonies they can be better convinced. In a similar manner, with the Jews he speaks on the basis of the prophets, and not on the basis of the Gospels. So also does God act, drawing each person to Himself by the path that is familiar and trustworthy to that person. Thus, the "Magi" — by means of a "star" (Matt. 2:1–2), Saul through the sorceress (1 Sam. 28:3–25), since he believed her, and the diviners — through animals (cows) that carried the ark; and this does not mean that the pagan diviners speak the truth — on the contrary, He convicts them by their own mouths. And God allowed Balaam to bless and prophesy (Num. 23–24). For He customarily always shows condescension for our benefit. Why then did Christ and Paul forbid the demons to speak and testify? Because the signs were sufficient for believing; and Christ Himself preached about Himself, and this was sufficient. Moreover, the demons were not worshipped, and the idol did not speak of itself. Therefore the demons were forbidden to speak.
Since they are, he says, liars, which is explained by their craftiness, and gluttons, a strong and reproachful word is needed for them, for gentleness is useless with them. Just as one who rebukes a gentle person destroys him, so too one who flatters a shameless person ruins him, not allowing him to know himself. Here, the apostle says, it is not strangers who must be rebuked, but one's own people.
Commentary on TitusThen he confirms this testimony when he says, this testimony is true. A Gloss says: this gives us to understand that a teacher of Sacred Scripture takes the testimony of truth wherever he finds it. Hence the Apostle frequently cites the sayings of gentiles, as in 1 Corinthians: bad company ruins good morals (1 Cor 15:33); and in Acts: we are indeed his offspring (Acts 17:28). This does not mean that their entire doctrine has been approved, but only what is good is chosen, because all truth, no matter by whom it is spoken, comes from the Holy Spirit; and what is evil is rejected. Hence it is said: when you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails (Deut 21:11), i.e., remove all superfluities.
Having described the character of the Cretan people, he now prescribes the remedy: first, the remedy of rebuke; second, the reason for this, all things are clean to the clean.
In regard to the first he does three things: first, he advises Titus to rebuke them; second, he tells him the purpose of the rebuke, at that they may be sound; third, he shows the correct method for reaching the end, at not giving heed.
He says, therefore: the Cretans are evil beasts who should be whipped and flogged. And therefore, rebuke them sharply: the reproofs of discipline are the way of life (Prov 6:23); rebuke the beasts that dwell among the marshes (Ps 68:30).
But this seems contrary to the advice given in Timothy: rebuke, unfailing in patience (2 Tim 4:2).
I answer that there are two reasons for this advice: one on the part of those who are rebuked. For the Cretans are difficult and obstinate; consequently, they deserve to be rebuked sharply. Not so the Ephesians, whose archbishop was Timothy. The other is on the part of those who rebuke, because Titus was meek and mild; consequently, he is urged to act opposite to this. But Timothy was strict; therefore, he was urged to be patient.
Then when he says, that they may be sound in the faith, he touches on the purpose of the rebuke. For a man is sound when there is no decay in him: and he is sound in faith when no article of faith is incorrectly understood. But the Cretans' faith was vitiated by heresy: but I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ (2 Cor 11:3); if any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit (1 Tim 6:3).
Commentary on TitusNot giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
μὴ προσέχοντες Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις καὶ ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν.
не внима́юще і҆ꙋдє́йскимъ ба́снемъ, ни за́повѣдемъ человѣ̑къ ѿвраща́ющихсѧ ѿ и҆́стины.
Those who have this soundness of faith and doctrine and words will not attend to Jewish fables and the commandments of men who turn themselves away from the truth. Let us humor the Jews for a little while, and listen patiently to the absurdities of those among them who are called wise; and then we shall understand what are the Jewish fables, of men who, without the authority of Scripture, without any support of reason, invent certain fabulous animals; of whom Isaiah prophesied, saying: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But they worship me in vain, teaching the doctrines and commandments of men" (Isa. 29:13). Approving this testimony in the Gospel, the Savior convicts them of having preferred the commandments of men to the Law of God. "For God says: Honor father and mother"; but they handed down: "That whoever says to father and mother, Whatever gift is from me will profit you, shall not honor his father and his mother" (Matt. 15:3 ff.). If anyone after the coming of Christ is cut, and not circumcised, he serves Jewish fables and the commandments of men who turn themselves away from the truth. For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but he who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter. If anyone keeps the Pasch, not in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, so as to purge from his soul all the old leaven of malice and wickedness, he attends to fables and follows shadows, neglecting the truth. If anyone, not rising with Christ, nor seeking the things that are above but those that are below, says, "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle the things that are in corruption", by their very use, according to the precepts and doctrines of men, he follows righteousnesses that are not good, and precepts that are not good. But where there is truth, and the spiritual law, there are good justifications, and the precepts are the best: whoever does them shall live in them.
Commentary on TitusVer. 14. "Not giving heed," he says, "to Jewish fables."
The Jewish tenets were fables in two ways, because they were imitations, and because the thing was past its season, for such things become fables at last. For when a thing ought not to be done, and being done, is injurious, it is a fable even as it is useless. As then those ought not to be regarded, so neither ought these. For this is not being sound. For if thou believest the Faith, why dost thou add other things, as if the faith were not sufficient to justify? Why dost thou enslave thyself by subjection to the Law? Hast thou no confidence in what thou believest? This is a mark of an unsound and unbelieving mind. For one who is faithful does not doubt, but such an one evidently doubts.
Homily on Titus 3not paying attention to Jewish fables and human commandments that turn away from the truth.
Jewish fables. The Jewish stories are called fables for two reasons: both because their time has passed, and because even when they were in force, they were a resemblance of truth and not the truth itself.
and human commandments. Paul speaks about the observations concerning food, which is evident from what follows.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSBut let us see what rule of understanding concerning these things Paul the Apostle has handed down to us. Writing to the Corinthians, he says in a certain place thus: "For we know that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them; and the rock was Christ." You see how much Paul's tradition differs from the historical reading: what the Jews think a crossing of the sea, Paul calls baptism; what they reckon a cloud, Paul sets down as the Holy Spirit; and he wishes that to be understood as like this which the Lord commanded in the Gospels, saying: "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdoms of heaven." And again the manna, which the Jews reckon food for the belly and satiety for the gullet, Paul names "spiritual food." And not only Paul, but the Lord Himself in the Gospel says concerning the same thing: "your fathers ate manna in the desert, and they died. But whoever shall eat of the bread which I give him shall not die for ever." And after this He says: "I am the bread which came down from heaven." Then, further, concerning "the rock that followed" Paul openly declares and says: "and the rock was Christ." What, then, must we do, who have received from Paul, the teacher of the Church, institutions of understanding of this kind? Does it not seem just that we should keep the rule of this kind handed down to us by a like example in the rest? Or shall we, as certain people wish, forsaking these things which so great and such an Apostle handed down, turn back again to "Jewish fables"?
HOMILIES ON EXODUS 5Paul uses the term "Jewish fables" not to describe the law but the interpretation of the law put forward by the Jews. The Lord accuses them of this very thing when he says, "Why do you transgress the law for the sake of your own traditions?"
Interpretation of the Letter to TitusSo then, soundness consists in not introducing anything false, anything foreign to the faith; just as submitting oneself to the law does not mean boldly relying on faith that it is sufficient for salvation. This is no small error. Jewish customs are doubly fables: both because they are untimely and utterly useless, and because attending to them is harmful. So then, just as one must not believe fables, neither should one believe these. Of course, the holy books of the Old Testament, rightly understood, are not fables. And how could they be, when from them we learn the evangelical truth? But wrong interpretations and additions — that is what the fables are. Listen to what follows next.
You see that what he calls fables? The commandments of men, as it is written in Isaiah (Isa. 29) and in the Gospel (Matt. 15), and the rest, obviously, also the observances concerning foods, as is evident from what follows.
Commentary on TitusThe road to this soundness is to avoid the errors of the Jews; hence he says, not giving heed to Jewish fables. For in the law there are two types of articles: those dealing with beliefs, and those dealing with precepts of religion, which were to be observed in divine worship. The first he calls fables, and the second commandments of men and not of God.
In this he seems to be condemning the old law as the Manicheans do. But the word fables could refer to their legends (matters above and beyond the doctrines of the law), which are myths, as in the Talmud: not to occupy themselves with fables and endless genealogies (1 Tim 1:4). Or, it might refer to the doctrine which formerly was true, but is now a fable as they understand it. Thus, behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son (Isa 7:14) was true, but now, because they say that it still remains to be fulfilled, it is a fable. Likewise, commandments of men can mean those not found in the law of Moses, but in the tradition of their fathers: for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God (Matt 15:6).
But does that mean that commandments of men are to be ignored?
I answer that they are not, so long as they do not turn one from God's truth; that is why he continues, who turn themselves away from the truth: for the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching but will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths (2 Tim 4:4); the same thing is found in Matthew: in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men (Matt 15:9). Or, it might be said that the commandments in God's law have been changed into commands of men. For when they are interpreted as signs of truth to come, they are commandments of God, but when they wish us to observe them after our body is dead to the law, they are commands of men.
Commentary on TitusUnto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς· τοῖς δὲ μεμιαμμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν, ἀλλὰ μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νοῦς καὶ ἡ συνείδησις.
[Заⷱ҇ 301] Всѧ̑ ᲂу҆́бѡ чи̑ста чи̑стымъ: ѡ҆сквернє́нымъ же и҆ невѣ̑рнымъ ничто́же чи́сто, но ѡ҆скверни́сѧ и҆́хъ и҆ ᲂу҆́мъ и҆ со́вѣсть.
"If a man has attained to that which the apostle speaks of 'to the pure, everything is pure,' he sees himself less than all creatures." The brother said, "How can I deem myself less than a murderer?" The old man said, "When a man has really comprehended this saying, if he sees a man committing a murder he says, 'He has only committed this one sin, but I commit sin every day.' "
SAYINGS OF THE FATHERS 97Everything created by God is good; for those who do not know this, they become impure.
Commentary on the Letter to TitusAll things made by God are beautiful and pure, for the Word of God has made nothing useless or impure.… But since the devil's darts are varied and subtle, he contrives to trouble those who are of simpler mind, and tries to hinder the ordinary exercises of the brethren, scattering secretly among them thoughts of uncleanness and defilement. Come, let us briefly dispel the error of the evil one by the grace of the Savior and confirm the mind of the simple.… For tell me, beloved and most pious friend, what sin or uncleanness there is in any natural secretion—as though a man were minded to make a culpable matter of the cleanings of the nose or the sputa from the mouth? And we may add also the secretions of the belly, such as are of a physical necessity of animal life. Moreover if we believe man to be, as the divine Scriptures say, a work of God's hands, how could any defiled work proceed from a pure Power?… But when any bodily excretion takes place independently of will, then we experience this, like other things, by a necessity of nature.
LETTERS TO AMUN 48With all this, no one is pressed to endure hardships for which he is unfit. Nothing is imposed on anyone against his will, nor is he condemned by the rest because he confesses himself too feeble to imitate them. They bear in mind how strongly Scripture enjoins charity on all.… Accordingly, all their endeavors are concerned not about the rejection of kinds of food as polluted but about the subjugation of inordinate desire and the maintenance of brotherly love.
The Morals of the Catholic Church 1.33.71The Jews, you see, had accepted that there were certain animals which they could not eat, and others from which they must abstain. The apostle Paul makes it clear that they received this law as a symbolic sign of future realities.
SERMONS 149.3But now, when you abstain for the sake of chastising the body from various kinds of food that are in themselves quite permissible, remember that "to the pure all things are pure"; don't regard anything as impure except what unbelief has defiled; "for to the impure and unbelievers," the apostle says, nothing is pure. But naturally, when the faithful are reducing their bodies to slavery, whatever is deducted from bodily pleasure is credited to spiritual health.
SERMONS 208.1Those likewise are to be detested who deny that our Lord Jesus Christ had Mary as his mother on earth. That dispensation did honor to both sexes male and female and showed that both had a part in God's care; not only that which he assumed but that also through which he assumed it, being a man born of a woman.… Nor should our faith be lessened by any reference to "a woman's internal organs," as if it might appear that we must reject any such generation of our Lord because sordid people think that sordid. "The foolishness of God is wiser than men"; and "to the pure all things are pure."
On Faith and the Creed 4.9-10For, with respect to what you say, that the aspect of an infant in the first days after its birth is not pure, so that any one of us would still shudder at kissing it, we do not think that this ought to be alleged as any impediment to heavenly grace. For it is written, "To the pure all things are pure." Nor ought any of us to shudder at that which God hath condescended to make. For although the infant is still fresh from its birth, yet it is not such that any one should shudder at kissing it in giving grace and in making peace; since in the kiss of an infant every one of us ought for his very religion's sake, to consider the still recent hands of God themselves, which in some sort we are kissing, in the man lately formed and freshly born, when we are embracing that which God has made. For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us.
Epistle LVIIIThat red fire is only the flower on a stalk of living habits, which you cannot see. Only because your mother made you say 'Thank you' for a bun are you now able to thank Nature or chaos for those red stars of an instant or for the white stars of all time. Only because you were humble before fireworks on the fifth of November do you now enjoy any fireworks that you chance to see. You only like them being red because you were told about the blood of the martyrs; you only like them being bright because brightness is a glory. That flame flowered out of virtues, and it will fade with virtues. Seduce a woman, and that spark will be less bright. Shed blood, and that spark will be less red. Be really bad, and they will be to you like the spots on a wall-paper.
Tremendous Trifles, The Diabolist (1909)For, as in the old Testament outward acts were attended to, so in the New Testament it is not so much what is done outwardly as what is thought inwardly that is regarded with close attention, that it may be punished with searching judgment. For while the law forbids the eating of many things. as being unclean, the Lord nevertheless says in the Gospel, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but the things which come forth from the heart, these are they which defile a man." And soon after He added in exploitation, "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts." Hence it is abundantly indicated that what is shewn by Almighty God to be polluted in act is that which is engendered of the root of polluted thought. Whence also Paul the Apostle says, "All things are pure to the pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure." And immediately, to declare the cause of this defilement, he subjoins, "For their mind and conscience is defiled." If, then, food is not impure to one whose mind is not impure, why should what with a pure mind a woman suffers from nature be reckoned to her for impurity?
Register of Epistles, Book 11, Epistle 64All things are clean to the clean, but to the defiled and to unbelievers nothing is clean: but both their mind and their conscience are polluted. Because he had said above, "For there are many who are also not submissive, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those who are of the circumcision", and of those who had been deceived by them he had consequently added, "Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and the commandments of men who turn themselves away from the truth"; and because, as is argued most fully to the Galatians and to the Romans, they thought there was a distinction among foods, since some seemed clean and some unclean, he therefore now adds: All things are clean to the clean, that is, to those who believe in Christ and know that every creature is good, and that nothing is to be rejected which is received with thanksgiving. But to the defiled and to unbelievers nothing is clean: because both their mind and their conscience are polluted; and for this reason even the things which are clean by nature become unclean to them. Not that anything is either clean or unclean, but that, according to the character of those who eat, it becomes both clean to the clean and unclean to the defiled. Otherwise, even the bread of blessing and the Lord's cup do not help any who are unbelievers and polluted; because whoever eats of that bread and drinks of the cup unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself (1 Cor. 11). By the coming of Christ all things have been purified. What he has cleansed, we cannot make common. But we must take care, in treating these things, not to give occasion to that heresy which, according to the Apocalypse (ch. 2) and the apostle Paul himself writing to the Corinthians, thinks one may eat of things sacrificed to idols, because all things are clean to the clean (1 Cor. 8). For the Apostle's purpose here was not to discuss the things that are sacrificed to demons, but to argue against the Jews, who, according to the discipline of the abolished Law, thought some things clean and some unclean. "For we cannot," he says, "partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons; nor can we drink at once the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons" (1 Cor. 10:20, 21). It lies with us, then, to eat things either clean or unclean. For if we are clean, the creature is clean to us. But if we are unclean and unbelievers, all things become common to us, whether through heresy dwelling in our hearts, or through the consciousness of offenses. But if our conscience does not reproach us, and we have the confidence of piety toward the Lord, we will pray with the spirit, we will pray also with the mind; we will sing with the spirit, we will sing also with the mind (1 Cor. 14); and we shall be far from those of whom it is now written: Both their mind and their conscience are polluted.
Commentary on TitusVer. 15. "Unto the pure," he says, "all things are pure."
Thou seest that this is said to a particular purpose.
"But unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure."
Things then are not clean or unclean from their own nature, but from the disposition of him who partakes of them.
"But even their mind and conscience is defiled."
The swine therefore is clean. Why then was it forbidden as unclean? It was not unclean by nature; for, "all things are pure." Nothing is more unclean than a fish, inasmuch as it even feeds upon human flesh. But it was permitted and considered clean. Nothing is more unclean than a bird, for it eats worms; or than a stag, which is said to have its name from eating serpents. Yet all these were eaten. Why then was the swine forbidden, and many other things? Not because they were unclean, but to check excessive luxury. But had this been said, they would not have been persuaded; they were restrained therefore by the fear of uncleanness. For tell me, if we enquire nicely into these things, what is more unclean than wine; or than water, with which they mostly purified themselves? They touched not the dead, and yet they were cleansed by the dead, for the victim was dead, and with that they were cleansed. This therefore was a doctrine for children. In the composition of wine, does not dung form a part? For as the vine draws moisture from the earth, so does it from the dung that is thrown upon it. In short, if we wish to be very nice, everything is unclean, otherwise if we please not to be nice, nothing is unclean. Yet all things are pure. God made nothing unclean, for nothing is unclean, except sin only. For that reaches to the soul, and defiles it. Other uncleanness is human prejudice.
"But unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled."
For how can there be anything unclean among the pure? But he that has a weak soul makes everything unclean, and if there be set abroad a scrupulous enquiry into what is clean or unclean, he will touch nothing. For even these things are not clean, I speak of fish, and other things, according to their notions; (for "their mind and conscience," he says, "is defiled,") but all are impure. Yet Paul says not so; he turns the whole matter upon themselves. For nothing is unclean, he says, but themselves, their mind and their conscience; and nothing is more unclean than these; but an evil will is unclean.
Homily on Titus 3Things are always pure to the pure; but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and conscience are defiled.
— [OECUMENIUS] What then was the law given to the Jews concerning uncleanness? And we say, not because they were unclean did God legislate accordingly, but by this law cutting off much luxury and indifference among the Jews. For what is clean and unclean depends chiefly on the character of those receiving it. Since by nature all things are clean to those who do not examine too closely; but to those who are not such, all things are unclean, though not actually unclean. For only sin is truly unclean. [end of the excerpt by Oecumenius A f. 185v; B f. 224v; G f. 314v] —
but to the defiled. Therefore, impure things come from a defiled mind: just as for a person suffering from an illness, all things are unpleasant because of the disease.
but both their mind and conscience are defiled. No food is indeed impure, Paul says, but the mind and conscience of those people are impure, and their skepticism makes foods impure and useless.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSGod has made all things pure. If anything is unclean, the use to which it is put makes it so.
PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCHSo then, foods are not clean or unclean by their own nature, but by the disposition of those who partake of them. The latter, being clean and pious, know that all things are clean, as the creation of God, and that only sin is unclean. For even if the law considered certain things unclean, this was not without purpose, but for the restraint of intemperance, knowing that the Jews would not have obeyed it without compulsion, being gluttons. Of course, if those who partake are clean and pious, then for such people all things will be clean. In what way? For if one reasons thus, then fish that devour men, and birds considered clean but feeding on worms, ought to seem unclean. Therefore an unclean mind, directed toward the bad side, by itself defiles what is not such by nature. In the same way, one suffering from a stomach ailment thinks that foods are unpleasant, even though they may be pleasant; and to one suffering from dizziness, the firmly standing earth seems to be moving. Such suspicion depends on his illness. This applies both to the Manichaeans and to the Marcionites and to the heretics newly sprung from them, called by most people Galatae.
Commentary on TitusThen when he says, all things are clean to the clean, he specifies the reason behind his statements, namely, how they turn one from the truth and how they repeat fables and commands of men, which are chiefly concerned with distinguishing between foods according to the law, which some false prophets said must be observed. Consequently, first, he shows how these foods are related to those who are good; second, to those who are wicked, at but to them that are defiled.
He says, therefore: not giving heed to Jewish fables about food, because all things are clean to the clean.
Does this mean that adultery is clean to the clean?
I answer: no, because by the very fact that it is adultery it is unclean. But those things that are clean to the clean which of themselves do not defile one. In this matter Matthew says: whatever enters into the mouth does not defile a man (Matt 15:11); therefore, whatever enters the mouth is clean.
Against this there are two objections: one is found in Leviticus: and the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof is unclean to you (Lev 11:7).
I answer according to Augustine in Against Faustus: a thing is unclean either according to its nature or according to what it signifies; for example, if this word 'fool' is taken merely as a sound, it is not unclean but good; but if it is taken according to its signification, it implies uncleanness, because it signifies lack of wisdom. But the acts of that people were prophetic acts. Hence a pig as such is not unclean, but only inasmuch as it signifies a man given to pleasure. But now that the reality has come, these significations cease, and men use foods according to their nature.
Another objection is that in Acts the apostles commanded to abstain from blood and from things strangled (Acts 15:29). Consequently, it does not seem lawful to partake of such things. And so, all things are not clean to the clean.
I answer that some believe that this commandment should be interpreted literally, but in a mystical sense, so that by blood is understood homicide, and by strangling, the oppression of the poor. And this is good, but it is not the whole truth. Therefore, I say that literally it is a commandment, but we are not obliged to it. For some things are forbidden because they are evil; and these must simply be avoided. But other things are not evil absolutely, but for a time, and these must be observed so long as a reason exists. But the apostles forbade these things, not because they were evil in themselves, because in Matthew the Lord says the opposite (Matt 15:17). The reason behind them was that some had been converted from Judaism and some from paganism; consequently, it was necessary, if one people was to be formed, that one should condescend to another. In this matter the Jews were to be condescended to, because it was abominable to them to eat blood and anything suffocated. Therefore, to maintain peace, the apostles declared that this law was to be observed for that time.
Then when he says, but to them that are defiled, he shows how these foods are regarded by wicked men: concerning this he does three things, first, he shows this; second, he assigns the reason, at but both their mind; third, he manifests this with a sign, at they profess that they know.
He says, therefore: those foods are clean to the clean, but unclean to the defiled, i.e., to those whose consciences are defiled: whoever touches pitch will be defiled (Sir 13:1), and to unbelievers, i.e., whose faith is corrupt: he who is an unbeliever, acts unfaithfully (Isa 21:2).
Does the unbelieving sinner make an alms unclean?
The answer is that the Apostle does not employ an affirmative, but a negative word. Hence he does not say, all; he says that nothing is clean to them, which is true, because nothing is perfectly clean to them, because no act is clean unless it is directed to its proper end; whereas these acts are outside the end.
But is anything clean to them?
It seems so, although it is also true that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin (Rom 14:23).
I answer that evil never corrupts the good altogether. For it is impossible that there not be some good in every sinner, even in devils. Therefore, when a sinner does something precisely as sinner and unbeliever, the entire act is a sin in its root; but if he does something which springs from some good in him, such as from unformed faith or from his nature, it is not unclean. So it is signified that he says, but to them that are defiled and to unbelievers, i.e., in so far as they are such. For they ate contrary to conscience and erred in faith; consequently, what was clean in its very nature they made unclean, as far as they were concerned.
The reason for this is that the cause of their acts is unclean, namely, their depraved intellect and will; hence he says, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled, namely, their mind by unbelief, and their conscience by sin: why is it, O Israel, why is it that you are in the land of your enemies, that you are growing old in a foreign country? (Bar 3:10)
Commentary on TitusThey profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι, τοῖς δὲ ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται, βδελυκτοὶ ὄντες καὶ ἀπειθεῖς καὶ πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι.
Бг҃а и҆сповѣ́дꙋютъ вѣ́дѣти, а҆ дѣ́лы ѿме́щꙋтсѧ є҆гѡ̀, ме́рзцы сꙋ́ще и҆ непокори́ви и҆ на всѧ́кое дѣ́ло бл҃го́е неискꙋ́сни.
All the heresies … they all say, "Jesus is Lord." And he's not, of course, going to eliminate from the kingdom of heaven those whom he finds to be in the Holy Spirit; and yet he did say, "Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven." But: "Nobody can say: Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit"; nobody at all, evidently; but in the sense in which it was meant, that is in deeds.… The same apostle, you see, also says of some people, "They claim to know the Lord but deny it by their deeds." As it can be denied by deeds, so it can be said by deeds.
SERMONS 269.4We take up the name of God in vain through frustration of a Sacrament received; and according to this there is a threefold degree of taking the name of God in vain. The first is when someone does not believe in the Sacrament, like a heretic. Second, when one believes but does not dispose himself for the Sacrament, like a usurer. Third, when someone does not preserve the grace received in the Sacrament, like one who afterward sins. Hear, you who are marked with the Christian name: the character is then imprinted upon you through the power of the name of God; and when you afterward sin, you empty out the power of the Sacrament. Of such persons the Apostle says to Titus: "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him."
Collationes de Decem Praeceptis, Collation 3So that confession is by all means necessary. For it is in our power. But to make a defence for our faith is not universally necessary. For that does not depend on us. "But he that endureth to the end shall be saved." For who of those who are wise would not choose to reign in God, and even to serve? So some "confess that they know God," according to the apostle; "but in works they deny Him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate." And these, though they confess nothing but this, will have done at the end one good work. Their witness, then, appears to be the cleansing away of sins with glory.
The Stromata Book 4"For many are called, but few are chosen," because many come to faith, yet few are led to the heavenly kingdom. For behold, how many of us have gathered for today's feast, we fill the walls of the Church, yet who knows how few there are who are numbered in that flock of God's elect? For behold, the voice of all proclaims Christ, but the life of all does not proclaim Him. Most follow God with their voices, but flee from Him by their conduct. Hence Paul says: "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him." Hence James says: "Faith without works is dead." Hence through the Psalmist the Lord says: "I have declared and spoken, they have multiplied beyond number." For when the Lord calls, the faithful are multiplied beyond number, because sometimes even those come to faith who do not attain to the number of the elect. For here they are mingled with the faithful through confession, but because of their reprobate life they do not deserve to be numbered there in the lot of the faithful.
Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 19What greatly gladdens is what follows: "Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed." In this saying, we are indeed specially marked out, we who retain in our minds Him whom we have not seen in the flesh. We are marked out—but only if we follow our faith with works. For he truly believes who practices by his deeds what he believes. In contrast to these, concerning those who hold faith in name only, Paul says: "They profess that they know God, but in their deeds they deny Him." Hence James says: "Faith without works is dead."
Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 26"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned." Perhaps each one may say within himself: "I have already believed; I shall be saved." He speaks truly, if he holds faith by works. For true faith is that which does not contradict in conduct what it says in words. Hence it is that Paul says of certain false believers: "They profess to know God, but they deny Him by their deeds." Hence John says: "He who says he knows God and does not keep His commandments is a liar." Since this is so, we ought to recognize the truth of our faith in the consideration of our life. For then we are truly faithful, if we fulfill in works what we promise in words.
Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 29They confess that they know God, but in deeds they deny him: detestable, and disobedient, and reprobate for every good work. These, whose mind and conscience are polluted, confess that they know God, but in deeds deny him, according to that which is said in Isaiah: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me" (Isa. 29:13). Just as, therefore, one who honors with the lips and withdraws far off with the heart, so one who confesses God in speech denies him by works. And one who denies God by works, with a feigned confession, is rightly detestable and profane; and, persuaded by no reasoning of the truth, he is called disobedient and unbelieving. Hence it comes about that he is reprobate for every good work: namely, that even the things that, overcome by natural goodness, he may perhaps have done well are not good, since they are reprobate through the perversity of his mind. Some think that God is denied only if someone, seized by the Gentiles in persecution, refuses to own himself a Christian. But see, the Apostle declares that God is denied by all deeds that are perverse. Christ is wisdom, righteousness, truth, holiness, fortitude. Wisdom is denied by folly, righteousness by iniquity, truth by lying, holiness by shamefulness, fortitude by weakness of soul. And as often as we are overcome by vices and sins, so often do we deny God; so that, on the contrary, as often as we do something well, we confess God. Nor should it be thought that on the day of judgment only those will be denied by the Son of God who denied Christ in martyrdom; but through all works, words and thoughts, Christ either, being denied, denies, or, being confessed, confesses. Of this confession, I think, he also gave command to the disciples, saying: "You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" (Acts 1:8), so that in all good works and words the mind devoted to him may confess Christ. There is also a certain praiseworthy denial, of which the Apostle himself says: "That, denying impiety and worldly desires, we may live purely and justly and piously in this present age, awaiting the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior God" (Titus 2:12). Whoever denies with this denial, and is willing to follow the Savior when he says, "Whoever will come to me, let him deny himself" (Luke 9:23), having put off the old man with his works and put on the new, will follow his God. But how one denies himself must be considered. The chaste man denies the fornicator that he formerly was; the wise man the imprudent, the just man the unjust, the brave man the weak. And, to speak of all in common, we deny ourselves as often as, trampling on our former vices, we cease to be what we were and begin to be what we were not before.
Commentary on TitusVer. 16. "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate."
This then is uncleanness. They are themselves unclean. But be not thou silent on that account. Do thy part, although they may not receive thee. Advise and counsel them, though they may not be persuaded. Here he censures them more severely. For they who are mad imagine that nothing stands still, yet this arises not from the objects that are seen, but from the eyes that see. Because they are unsteady and giddy, they think that the earth turns round with them, which yet turns not, but stands firm. The derangement is of their own state, not from any affection of the element. So it is here, when the soul is unclean, it thinks all things unclean. Therefore scrupulous observances are no mark of purity, but it is the part of purity to be bold in all things. For he that is pure by nature ventures upon all things, they that are defiled, upon nothing. This we may say against Marcion. Seest thou that it is a mark of purity to be superior to all defilement, to touch nothing implies impurity. This holds even with respect to God. That He assumed flesh is a proof of purity; if through fear He had not taken it, there would have been defilement. He who eats not things that seem unclean, is himself unclean and weak, he who eats, is neither. Let us not call such pure, they are the unclean. He is pure, who dares to feed upon all things. All this caution we ought to exercise towards the things that defile the soul. For that is uncleanness, that is defilement. None of these things is so. Those who have a vitiated palate think what is set before them is unclean, but this is the effect of their disorder. It becomes us therefore to understand the nature of things pure, and things unclean.
Homily on Titus 3Our state of peace, therefore, dearly-beloved, has its dangers, and it is vain for those who do not withstand vicious desires to feel secure of the liberty which is the privilege of their Faith. Men's hearts are shown by the character of their works, and the fashion of their minds is betrayed by the nature of their actions. For there are some, as the Apostle says, "who profess that they know God, but deny Him by their deeds." For the charge of denial is truly incurred when the good which is heard in the sound of the voice is not present in the conscience. Indeed, the frailty of man's nature easily glides into faults.
Sermon 36 On the Feast of the Epiphany, 6They confess to know God, but by their works they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient, and unfit for every good work.
They confess to know God. This is truly impure, for faith without works is dead. (James 2:26)
COMMENTARY ON TITUSDo you see what makes them unclean and abominable? It is that their deeds are wicked and unclean. For truly "faith without works is dead" (James 2:17). And a dead thing inspires disgust and is good for nothing.
Commentary on TitusThen when he says, they profess that they know God, he explains their faith with a sign. For if a person claims that their words are true and that they believe in one God and confess him, this must be rejected as impossible.
First, he shows the good that was in them, namely, they profess outwardly with their lips that they know God: this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me (Isa 29:13); you are near in their mouth and far from their heart (Jer 12:2).
Second, he shows their inward failing: first, in regard to things present; second, in regard to things yet to come, at incredulous.
In regard to the present, in their works they deny him. For one who sins actually denies him by his actions, because a person cannot confess God without admitting his power, namely, that he should be obeyed. Hence, if they sin, they disobey and deny by their works the very things they profess by their lips.
But you say: whoever denies God is an unbeliever; but sinners deny God in their works. Therefore, sinners are unbelievers.
I answer that just as a person with general knowledge can err in particular cases, so a person with a general knowledge of the faith fails in a particular action, because his love is corrupted: he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim 5:8).
But can they fail as far as the future is concerned? They can, because they not only deny God but are not inclined to return to him.
For there are three things which incline a person to return to God, namely, God's grace: justified by his grace as a gift (Rom 3:24); the second is faith: he cleansed their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9); the third is the performance of a good work: the doers of the law will be justified (Rom 2:13).
But these three ways are not open to unbelievers: not the way of grace because they are abominable, i.e., not disposed to grace; not the faith, because they are incredulous, i.e., not suited for believing; you are among believers and destroyers (Ezek 2:6); third, not the performance of good works, because they are reprobate to every good work: refuse silver they are called (Jer 6:30).
Commentary on Titus
PAUL, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
Παῦλος, δοῦλος Θεοῦ, ἀπόστολος δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας τῆς κατ’ εὐσέβειαν
[Заⷱ҇ 300] Па́ѵелъ, ра́бъ бж҃їй, а҆пⷭ҇лъ же і҆и҃съ хрⷭ҇то́въ, по вѣ́рѣ и҆збра́нныхъ бж҃їихъ и҆ ра́зꙋмꙋ и҆́стины, ꙗ҆́же по бл҃гочⷭ҇тїю,
Although those who have made void their first faith are not worthy of faith (I speak of Marcion and Basilides, and of all the heretics who tear apart the Old Testament), yet we would bear with them in some measure if they at least kept their hands off the New, and did not dare to violate either the evangelists or the apostles of Christ, the Son (as they themselves boast) of the good God. But now, since they have both scattered his Gospels and made the epistles of the apostles to be not the apostles' of Christ but their own, I wonder how they dare to claim for themselves the name of Christians. For, to say nothing of the other Epistles, from which they erased whatever they had seen to be contrary to their doctrine, some they believed should be rejected entire: namely both the Epistles to Timothy, the one to the Hebrews, and the one to Titus, which we are now attempting to expound. And if indeed they gave reasons why they did not think them the Apostle's, we would try to make some reply, and perhaps to satisfy the reader. But now, since they pronounce with heretical authority and say, "That epistle is Paul's, this one is not," let them understand that they are refuted, on behalf of the truth, by the same authority by which they themselves do not blush to feign falsehoods. But Tatian, patriarch of the Encratites, who himself also rejected some epistles of Paul, believed that this one above all, that is, the one to Titus, must be pronounced the Apostle's, setting little store by the assertion of Marcion and of the others who agree with him on this point. The Apostle, then, O Paula and Eustochium, writes from Nicopolis, which, situated on the shore of Actium, is now by far the greatest part of your property; and he writes to Titus, his disciple and his son in Christ, whom he had left in Crete to instruct the churches; and he commanded him that, when one of the two, Artemas or Tychicus, had landed in Crete, he himself should come to Nicopolis. For it was just that he who had said, "my care for all the churches", and who, setting out from Jerusalem, had founded the Gospel of Christ as far as Illyricum, should not allow the Cretans, from whom the seeds of idolatry first sprouted, to be left deserted by his own absence and that of Titus, but should send them, in place of himself and Titus, Artemas or Tychicus, by whose teaching and consolation they might be cherished.
Commentary on TitusPaul, a servant of God, but an apostle of Jesus Christ. In the Epistle to the Romans he began thus: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called an apostle". In this one, however, he calls himself a servant of God, but an apostle of Jesus Christ. For if the Father and the Son are one, and whoever has believed in the Son believes also in the Father, then the servitude of the apostle Paul too is to be referred without distinction either to the Father or to the Son. But this servitude is not the one of which the Apostle himself says: "For you did not receive the spirit of servitude again in fear, but you received the spirit of adoption, in which we cry, Abba, Father" (Rom. 8:15); rather, it is a noble servitude, of which David also speaks to God: "I am your servant, the son of your handmaid" (Ps. 115:16). And blessed Mary to the angel: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). Moses too had this servitude, of whom the Lord says to Joshua the son of Nun: "Moses," he says, "my servant is dead" (Josh. 1:2). And in another place: "Moses the servant of the Lord died in the land of Moab by the word of the Lord" (Deut. 34:5). God forbid, indeed, that we should believe that Moses and Mary had the spirit of servitude in fear, and not in the love of God. Nor is it any wonder that men, holy though they are, are nobly called servants of God, since through the prophet Isaiah the Father speaks to the Son: "It is a great thing for you to be called my child (puer)" (Isa. 49:6), which in Greek is said: μέγα σοί ἐστι τοῦ κληθῆναί σε παῖδά μου. Now because "child" (puer), that is, παῖς, can according to the Greeks signify both servant (famulus) and son, we inquired in the Hebrew, and found written not "my son" but "my servant", that is, ABDI (עבדי). Hence also the prophet Obadiah (Abdias), whose name means "servant of the Lord", received his name from his service to God. If it disturbs anyone that the Lord and Savior, who is the founder of the universe, is called a servant of God, he will not be disturbed if he hears him speaking to the apostles: "Whoever wishes to be greater among you, let him be the servant of all"; and: "The Son of man came, not to be served, but to serve" (Matt. 20:27, 28); and, lest he should seem to teach this by words alone, he showed it by example. For taking a towel, he girded himself, and filling a basin with water, he washed the feet of the disciples (John 13). It is therefore not impious to believe that he who had taken the form of a servant did those things which belong to a servant, so that he may be said to have served his Father's will, since he himself served his own servants. Now this servitude belongs to love, through which we are commanded to serve one another. And the Apostle himself, though he was free from all, made himself the servant of all (1 Cor. 9). And in another place: "Your servant," he says, "for Christ's sake". He is a servant of God who is not a servant of sin. "For everyone who commits sin is a servant of sin" (John 8:34). The Apostle, therefore, who was not a servant of sin, is rightly called a servant of God the Father and of Christ. Further, his saying but an apostle of Jesus Christ seems to me to be just as if he had said: prefect of the praetorium of Augustus Caesar, master of the army of the emperor Tiberius. For just as the judges of this age, in order to appear more noble, take their titles from the kings whom they serve and from the dignity with which they swell: so too the Apostle, claiming for himself a great dignity among Christians, inscribed himself beforehand with the title of an apostle of Christ, so as to awe his future readers by the very authority of the name, indicating that all who believed in Christ ought to be subject to him. Moreover, what we set down a little before as written to the Romans, "A servant of Jesus Christ", does not differ from his having said: a servant of wisdom, a servant of righteousness, a servant of sanctification, a servant of redemption: "For Christ was made for us by God the Father wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30).
Commentary on TitusAccording to the faith of the elect of God, and the knowledge of the truth which is according to piety, in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before eternal ages; but he has manifested in his own times his word in the preaching which has been entrusted to me according to the command of our Savior God. To Titus, dearest son, according to the common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father, and Jesus Christ our Savior. He who had said, not out of humility, as most suppose, but truly: "Even if I am unskilled in speech, yet not in knowledge", a Hebrew of the Hebrews, as to the Law a Pharisee, does not unfold his profound meanings in the Greek tongue, and scarcely brings out in words what he thinks. Let us therefore discuss each point as it is written, following the order of the meanings and the sequence of the matters rather than of the words. According to the faith, he says, of the elect of God: refer what he has brought in to what precedes: Paul, a servant of God, but an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the faith of the elect of God, that is, of those who are not only called but also elect. Among the elect themselves, too, there is great diversity according to the variety of their works, minds and words. Nor does whoever is elect of God at once possess faith according to his election, or have knowledge of the truth according to his faith. Hence the Savior also spoke to the Jews who had believed in him: "If you remain in my word, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:31, 32). And the evangelist testifies that he said these things to those who believed indeed, but did not know the truth, which they could attain if they remained in his word, and, being made free, would cease to be servants. The question is asked why, to his saying according to the faith of the elect of God and the knowledge of the truth, he joined which is according to piety: whether there is some truth that is not set in piety, and the knowledge of the truth which is according to piety is now brought in to distinguish it from that other. There plainly is a truth that does not have piety: if someone knows the art of grammar, or dialectic, so as to possess the method of speaking correctly and to judge between false and true. Geometry also and arithmetic and music have truth in their knowledge; but that knowledge is not of piety. The knowledge of piety is to know the Law, to understand the prophets, to believe the Gospel, not to be ignorant of the apostles. And on the contrary there are many who have a true knowledge of piety, but not at once the truth of the other arts as well, and of those which we mentioned above.
Commentary on TitusVer. 1. "Paul, a servant of God, and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect."
You observe how he uses these expressions indifferently, sometimes calling himself the "servant of God," and sometimes the "servant of Christ," thus making no difference between the Father and the Son.
"According to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness. In hope of eternal life."
"According to the faith of God's elect." It is because thou hast believed, or rather because thou wast intrusted? I think he meant, that he was intrusted with God's elect, that is, not for any achievements of mine, nor from my toils and labors, did I receive this dignity. It was wholly the effect of His goodness who intrusted me. Yet that the grace may not seem without reason, (for still the whole was not of Him, for why did He not intrust it to others?) he therefore adds, "And the acknowledging of the truth that is after godliness." For it was for this acknowledgment that I was intrusted, or rather it was of His grace that this too was intrusted to me, for He was the author of this also. Whence Christ Himself said, "Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you." (John xv. 16.) And elsewhere this same blessed one writes, "I shall know, even as also I am known." (1 Cor. xiii. 12.) And again, "If I may apprehend that, for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus." (Phil. iii. 12.) First we are apprehended, and afterwards we know: first we are known, and then we apprehend: first we were called, and then we obeyed. But in saying, "according to the faith of the elect," all is reckoned to them, because on their account I am an Apostle, not for my worthiness, but "for the elect's sake." As he elsewhere says, "All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos." (1 Cor. iii. 21.)
"And the acknowledging the truth that is after godliness." For there is a truth in other things, that is not according to godliness; for knowledge in matters of agriculture, knowledge of the arts, is true knowledge; but this truth is after godliness. Or this, "according to faith," means that they believed, as the other elect believed, and acknowledged the truth. This acknowledging then is from faith, and not from reasonings.
"In hope of eternal life." He spoke of the present life, which is in the grace of God, and he also speaks of the future, and sets before us the rewards that follow the mercies which God has bestowed upon us. For He is willing to crown us because we have believed, and have been delivered from error. Observe how the introduction is full of the mercies of God, and this whole Epistle is especially of the same character, thus exciting the holy man himself, and his disciples also, to greater exertions. For nothing profits us so much as constantly to remember the mercies of God, whether public or private. And if our hearts are warmed when we receive the favors of our friends, or hear some kind word or deed of theirs, much more shall we be zealous in His service when we see into what dangers we had fallen, and that God has delivered us from them all.
"And the acknowledging of the truth." This he says with reference to the type. For that was an "acknowledging" and a "godliness," yet not of the Truth, yet neither was it falsehood, it was godliness, but it was in type and figure. And he has well said, "In hope of eternal life." For the former was in hope of the present life. For it is said, "he that doeth these things shall live in them." (Rom. x. 5.) You see how at the beginning he sets forth the difference of grace. They are not the elect, but we. For if they were once called the elect, yet are they no longer called so.
Homily on Titus 1HYPOTHESIS ON THE EPISTLE TO TITUS
Paul sends this letter from Nicopolis. For he spent the winter there. The purpose of this letter is this: He left Titus in Crete to appoint clergy in the cities. Since many there were attempting to deceive the people under the pretext of the law, Paul, having learned this, writes. And first, giving thanks to God for His reverence, it signifies that the faith in Christ is not new, but has been prepared and promised by God from eternity. Then concerning the state of the clergy, and it teaches how and what kind of minster they ought to be. And he is commanded to rebuke those who contradict the sound doctrine, especially those of the circumcision, knowing that the Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons, and to teach that all food is clean to the clean, and how the older women who owe this duty must train the younger women in self-control. He also exhorts how slaves ought to be subject to their own masters. And finally, having reminded that the grace of the Spirit did not justify us by works, but by His own kindness; and having commanded to avoid legal disputes as shameless, Paul shows that after sending Artemas to Titus, so that he might come to him, he also instructed him to teach and to take the lead in good works among his own, and thus Paul completes the Epistle.
Titus was an excellent disciple of Paul. Indeed, he was appointed by Paul to be the bishop of Crete, which was very large. Moreover, he was authorized and entrusted to ordain bishops in the lower ranks. When Paul wrote these things, he was in freedom: for he nowhere mentions affliction. The letter is also extended to the Jews. However, this letter seems to have been earlier than the letter to Timothy.
The Epistle to Titus by the Apostle Paul
Preface.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSPaul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness.
Paul places no distinction here; elsewhere indeed a servant of Christ, but an apostle of God, now truly in a different manner.
according to the faith. Because of faith, that is, because the chosen vessels of God have entrusted themselves to me, I have been made an apostle to teach them. Or in this way: I am an apostle to bring the elect to faith through me, and to know the truth of godliness, Christ. Or thus: To become an apostle and for the elect to be believed was not simply given to me, but because I came to know the truth of godliness. But what is this truth? Christ. Well then, the truth concerning godliness, just as with any other truth, is not about godliness as if it were a skill to be learned.
COMMENTARY ON TITUSBy means of these organs, indeed, we are to enjoy flowers; but if he declares that those who make idols will be like them, they already are so who use anything after the style of idol adornings. "To the pure all things are pure: so, likewise, all things to the impure are impure; " but nothing is more impure than idols.
De CoronaThe opening of every one of his letters is distinguished by the divine apostle with this address. At one time it is "Paul a servant of Jesus Christ called to be an apostle." At another "Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ." At another "Paul a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ." And suiting his benediction to his salutation he deduces it from the same source and links the title of the Son with God the Father, saying "grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
LETTERS 146He uses these expressions interchangeably, sometimes calling himself a servant of Christ, an apostle of God, and now the reverse. Thus he made no distinction between the Father and the Son.
This can be understood in different ways: either that I became an apostle so that the chosen ones would come to believe through me, or that I was chosen as an apostle not for my own merits, but because God was pleased to entrust His chosen ones to me. Therefore, everything is a matter of grace, and not because I was worthy, but for the sake of the chosen ones. Then, to show that we too must contribute something, he added: "and the knowledge of the truth," that is, since I came to know the truth of this teaching, therefore it was entrusted to me. But better: even the knowledge is not ours, but He is the source of this as well. For first we were known, and then we came to know. Or, that I believed, just as the other chosen ones did, and came to know the truth. He even said "truth" in contrast to Jewish rites. For they are not the truth, though neither are they falsehood, but a type and shadow; and in calling us chosen, he condemns the Jews. For even if they were once chosen, they are not now. Notice: first "faith," and then from it "knowledge," but not from rational inquiries. Having said "truth," he added "relating to godliness," because even in worldly affairs there is "knowledge of the truth." For example, someone may truly know the art of agriculture or the art of building. So it is not about that truth, but about "truth according to godliness."
Commentary on TitusThis letter is divided into a greeting and a message, at for this cause I left you in Crete (Titus 1:5).
In the greeting, first, the person who sends the greeting is mentioned, and he is identified by certain marks: first, by his name; hence he says, Paul, which signifies humility: I am the least of the apostles (1 Cor 15:9); second, by his state when he says, a servant of God: O Lord, I am your servant (Ps 116:16).
But this seems contrary to John: no longer do I call you servants (John 15:15). I answer that the saints are sometimes servants and sometimes not, but friends. For there are two kinds of servitude: one is from fear, which is not suitable to a son of God, but is contradistinguished against sonship: for you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of sonship (Rom 8:15); the other is from love, which follows upon sonship. The reason behind this distinction is that a free man is one who exists for his own sake, for he does what he wills; but a servant exists for someone else's sake.
But there are three causes which serve as the beginning of a work, namely, the final cause, the formal cause and the efficient cause. If we consider the final cause of one's actions, then all the saints are servants of God, because they do all things for God's sake: so, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). And this springs from love, by which we do all for God. If we consider the efficient cause, which is extrinsic and compels one to act, one is a servant under fear, and such servitude belongs to wicked men. But if we consider the formal cause of actions, it is a habit causing an inclination: then some are servants of sin and others servants of justice, because a habit inclines a person either to good or to evil.
Third, he is identified by his authority when he says, and an apostle: he chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles (Luke 6:13); and his gifts were that some should be apostles (Eph 4:11).
His apostleship is described in terms of its author, when he says, of Jesus Christ, because he was chosen by him: not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ (Gal 1:1). Or, of Jesus Christ, because he preaches only Christ: for what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus's sake (2 Cor 4:5); or because he is Christ's representative whose authority he enjoys: so we are ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor 5:20); for which I am an ambassador in chains (Eph 6:20); what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ (2 Cor 2:10).
He is also identified by the specialty, for an apostle is one who preaches: make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19).
But a teacher should have a firm foundation in knowledge and be perfect: the first can belong to anyone, but the second is expected of preachers and teachers. And just as in the other sciences there are principles, so in the preacher's knowledge there are principles, namely, the articles of faith which are known to every believer in virtue of an infused light. These articles are the foundation of faith, which is the substance of things to be hoped for; the conviction of things not seen (Heb 11:1). Therefore he says, according to the faith of the elect of God.
Furthermore, the preacher should be perfect in doctrine; hence he says, and the acknowledging of the truth. For knowledge of the truth can be possessed in two ways: perfectly in heaven, when we shall see face to face; and imperfectly by faith, which the saints have: you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free (John 8:32).
But what sort of truth? In the acknowledging of the truth, which is according to godliness. Now religion and godliness, according to Cicero, are parts of justice, but they differ: because religion is the worship of God. But since God is not only the Creator, but also a Father, we owe him worship not only as Creator, but also love and worship as to a Father; accordingly, godliness is sometimes taken for the worship of God: behold godliness itself is wisdom (Job 28:28); according to another text: lo, the fear of the Lord is wisdom.
Commentary on Titus