Titus 1

Titus 1:1

Jerome: “Paul the servant of God: an apostle however of Jesus Christ.” In the Epistle to the Romans he begins thus: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle,” but in this one he calls himself “a servant of God,” while he is “an apostle of Jesus Christ.” For if the Father and the Son are one, and he who believes in the Son, believes also in the Father, that servitude of the Apostle Paul is to be referred, indiscriminately, either to the Father or to the Son. But, however, this servitude is not that of which the Apostle says himself: “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father” (Romans 8:15), but it is a noble servitude, of which David speaks to God: “Behold, oh Lord, I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the son of thy handmaid” (Psalms 116:16), and of which the blessed Mary speaks to the angel: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word" (Luke 1:38). Moses had this bondage, of whom the Lord said to Joshua the son of Nun, ‘Moses, my servant, is dead’ (Joshua 1:2). And in another place, ‘Moses, the servant of the Lord, died on the land of Moab according to the word of the Lord’ (Deuteronomy 34:5). It is to be far from thinking that Moses and Mary had the spirit of servitude in fear and not in love for God. It is not surprising that although called holy men, they were nobly called servants of God, as the Father speaks to the Son through the prophet Isaiah: ‘It is great for you to be called my servant, my child’ (Isaiah 49:6), which is said in Greek: μέγα σοὶ ἐστι τοῦ κληθῆναί σε παῖδά μου. But we sought after ‘my child’ in Hebrew and found it not written, but ‘my servant,’ that is, Abdi. Hence, Obadiah the prophet, whose name means ’the servant of the Lord,’ received his name from serving God. If anyone is moved when he hears that the Lord and Savior, who created the universe, is called a servant of God, he will not be moved if he listens to the apostles speaking to themselves, ‘Whoever wills among you shall be the greatest, let him be the servant of all,’ and ‘The Son of Man came not that he should be served, but that he should serve’ (Matthew 20:27-28). He did not only seem to teach this with words, but also demonstrated it through example. For once, he took a towel, girded himself, and filled a basin with water and washed the disciples’ feet (John 13). It is not therefore impious to believe that he who assumed the form of a servant did those things which were the duty of a servant, so that he should be said to have served his Father’s will by serving his own servants. But this servitude is of charity, by which we are commanded to serve one another. And the Apostle himself, though free from all, made himself the servant of all (1 Cor. 9). And in another place: “Your servant for Christ’s sake.” He is the servant of God who is not the servant of sin. For everyone who commits sin is the servant of sin (John 8:34). Therefore, the Apostle, who was not the servant of sin, is rightly called the servant of God the Father and of Christ. Furthermore, when he says, “The Apostle of Jesus Christ,” it seems to me to mean the same as if he had said, “The appointed prefect of the emperor Augustus, the commander-in-chief of the army of Tiberius Caesar.” For just as judges of this world, in order to appear more noble, take their titles from the kings they serve and from the dignity with which they are inflated, so the Apostle, claiming for himself a great dignity among Christians, designated himself by the title of Apostle of Christ, so that he might inspire terror in those who read his name itself, indicating that all who believed in Christ should be subject to him. Moreover, what we have just written in Romans: “The servant of Jesus Christ” does not differ from his saying, “The servant of wisdom, the servant of righteousness, the servant of sanctification, the servant of redemption, for Christ became for us from God the Father, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30). — Commentary on Titus

John Chrysostom: Ver. 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 1

Oecumenius: HYPOTHESIS 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 TITUS

Oecumenius: Paul, 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 TITUS

Tertullian: By 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 Corona

Theodoret of Cyrus: The 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 146

Thomas Aquinas: Therefore he says Paul, — a name to be revered by all the faithful who have been taught by him — a prisoner. 2 Timothy 2:9: ‘in which I suffer even to bonds, as a criminal’. For now he is a prisoner in Rome, but of Christ Jesus, to give the reason for his chains. For it is highly praiseworthy to be imprisoned for the sake of Christ; for in this he is blessed. Matthew 5:10: ‘Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice’ sake…’ 2 Peter 4:15: ‘Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a slanderer, or as one coveting what belongs to others. But if he suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God under this name.’ Acts 5.41: ‘So they departed from the Sanhedrin, rejoicing that they had been counted worthy to suffer disgrace for the name of Jesus.’ And our brother Timothy… They are brothers with regard to perfect faith. Philippians 2:20: ‘For I have no one so like-minded who is so genuinely solicitous for you.’ He joins Timothy to himself, that he might more easily succeed, because it is impossible that the prayers of many will not be heard. Then he mentions the persons greeted. And first the principal person greeted, then others, particularly the husband and wife whose house it is, to whom the servant is obliged. To Philemon, our beloved and fellow worker, and to Appia, beloved sister… Beloved, he says on account of her good works. John 13:34: ‘This is my command, that you love one another.’ Fellow worker, because he ministers to the saints. Proverbs 18.19: ‘A brother that is helped by his brother is like a strong city.’ Then he mentions Archippus our fellow soldier, who was so powerful at Colossae that all Christians were under his protection.

Thomas Aquinas: ‘If you have a faithful servant, let him be to you as your own soul’ (Sirach 33:31). The wise man shows three things concerning master and slave, namely, what is required on the side of the servant; what ought to be the feeling of the master towards the servant; and what is the use of the servant. From the servant fidelity is asked, for in this he is a good servant, because what he is and all that he has he ought to give to the master. Matthew 24-45: ‘Who, do you think, is the faithful and prudent servant…’ And he says, ‘if he is faithful’, because fidelity is found in few. Proverbs 20:6: ‘But who shall find a faithful man?’ The master ought to feel towards his servant as a friend, hence it is said, ‘as his own soul’. For this is proper to friends, that they are of one mind in what they will and what they do not will. Acts 4.32: ‘Now the multitude of the believers were of one heart and one soul.’ By which we are given to understand that there is a consensus of master and servant, when the faithful servant becomes a friend. As for his use, he should be treated like a brother, for he is a brother, both with respect to generation of nature, because they have the same author —Job 31.13: ‘If I have despised to abide judgement with my man-servant’; Malachi 2:10: ‘Have we not all one father? Did not one God created us?’ —and with respect to the generation of grace, which is the same for both. Galatians 3:27: ‘For all you who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor freeman; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ Matthew 23:8: ‘And all you are brothers.’ These words are relevant to the matter of this epistle. For as it was shown above how spiritual prelates should relate to their subjects, so here he shows how temporal masters should relate to their temporal servants, and how the faithful servant to his master. The occasion of the epistle is this. At Colossae an important Christian had a servant who secretly fled to Rome where he was baptized by the Apostle who now writes on his behalf. First he gives a greeting, followed by the narrative of the epistle. In the greeting he mentions persons who send their greeting and then the recipients and finally the good hoped for.

Titus 1:2

Ambrose of Milan: 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 5.17.215-16

Augustine of Hippo: I 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 12.16

Clement of Rome: Having 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 27

Hilary of Poitiers: Since the periods of time, therefore, come within the scope of our knowledge or speculations, we pass judgment upon them according to the understanding of human reasoning. In this way we believe ourselves justified in saying about anything: “It has not been before it is born.” The times that have already past always come before the origin of everything. Since in the things of God, that is, in the birth of God, everything is before the eternal time, then we cannot say of him: “Before he was born.” Nor can we say that he to whom the eternal promise was made before the eternal time has the “hope of life everlasting,” according to the statement of the apostle, which the God who does not lie has promised to him before the eternal time, nor can we say that at one time he had not been. We cannot assume that he whom we must confess as being before the eternal time has had his beginning after something. — ON THE TRINITY 12.27

Jerome: “According to the faith of the elect of God and the knowledge of the truth, which is in accordance with piety towards eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before eternal times and has manifested in due time His word in preaching, believed in accordance with the command of our Savior God by me, Titus, his dear son according to the common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father, and Jesus Christ our Savior.” If anyone knows the art of grammar, or dialectic, in order to have the correct reasoning of speech, and to judge between false and true. Also, geometry and arithmetic and music have truth in their science; but that is not the science of piety. The science of piety is to know the Law, understand the prophets, believe in the Gospel, and not ignore the apostles. Conversely, there are many who have a true knowledge of piety: but not immediately the truth of the other arts of which we have just mentioned above. Therefore, this truth, whose knowledge is in line with piety, is placed in the hope of eternal life: because he who knows himself immediately bestows on him the reward of immortality. Without piety, knowledge of the truth is pleasing at present: but it does not have the eternity of rewards, which the truthful God promised before eternal times: and he manifested it in his time in Christ Jesus. To whom did he promise it before and afterwards made it clear except to His wisdom, which was always with the Father, when He rejoiced over the perfect world and rejoiced over the sons of men, and promised them who would believe in Him, that they would have eternal life? Before the foundation of the world was laid, before the seas were spread, the mountains established, the sky hung, and the earth with a solid mass lowered, God promised this, in whom there is no falsehood. Not because He can lie, and does not want to break out into words of falsehood: but because He is the father of truth and has no lie in Him, according to the saying: But let God be true: and every man a liar (Rom. 3:4). Therefore, God is called not a liar: indeed, when He promises certain things to the prophets with an oath, in order that we may be more secure, we hope that what is foretold will come to pass, and believing with our whole heart, we may be prepared to attain what is to come.

It seems not irrelevant briefly to discuss why God alone is true, and every man a liar, as it is said by the voice of the Apostles. And if I am not mistaken, how is he alone said to have immortality, when he has made angels and many rational creatures to whom he has given immortality: so too he is said to be true alone, not because the others, who are not immortal, are not lovers of truth, but because he alone is naturally, and immortal, and true. The others, indeed, attain immortality and truth by his gift, and it is one thing to be true, but another to have something in and of oneself: it is another thing to have what the giver has in his power to give. But I also think that this should not be passed over in silence, that God is not a liar, having promised eternal life before the eternal ages: from which, according to the history of Genesis, the world was made, and through the succession of nights and days, months and years, times were established. In this cycle and wheel of the world, times slip away and come, and either the future or the past is. Hence some philosophers do not believe that there is a present time: but either the past or the future; because everything that we speak, do, or think, either passes if it has happened, or if it has not yet happened, we expect it to come. Therefore, before the times of this world, it must be believed that there was a certain eternity of centuries, in which the Father always was with the Son and the Holy Spirit: and, so to speak, the time of God is one, that is, all eternity: in fact, there are innumerable times, since he who exceeds all times was there before all time. But not even a thousand years of our world are yet completed: and how many previous eternities, how many times, how many origins of ages must be considered, in which the angels, thrones, dominations, and other powers served God: and without the vicissitudes and measures of times, they stood by God’s command! Before all these times, therefore, which neither speech can utter nor mind can grasp, nor silent thought dare touch, God the Father promised his Word and Wisdom, and his very Wisdom and the life of those who were to believe, should come into the world. Pay close attention to the text and order of the reading: for eternal life, which the not false God promised before eternal ages, is none other than the Word of God. For he has manifested his word in due time, saying: Therefore the word itself, which was in the beginning with the Father, must be that life eternal which he had promised; and the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1) But that the Word of God, which is Christ himself, is life, he testifies in another place, saying: I am the life (John 14:6). Now life is not short, not bounded by certain periods; but eternal, which was manifested in the last ages, in the preaching which was believed in by the teacher of the gentiles, Paul, and revealed to the world, and made known to men, according to the command of the Savior God, who wished us to be saved, and fulfilled what he had promised. And the Apostle writes to his beloved son Titus, which is called in Greek, γνησίῳ τέκνῳ: and cannot be explained in Latin: for γνήσιος means this rather, when someone is called faithful and proper, and (so to speak) legitimate or genuine without comparison to another. From which we understand that there was much difference even among the sons of Paul, that he had some γνησίους, that is, most genuine, closely connected to himself, and born of true marriage and free procreation; but others almost from a handmaid and from Hagar, who cannot receive inheritance with the free son, Isaac. For the speech and wisdom and doctrine by which Titus instructed the Churches of Christ, made him a true son of the Apostle, and separate from all the companionship of others. Let us see after this what follows: According to the common faith, whether he said that it was common to all who believed in Christ, or common to him and Titus alone. Indeed, to me it seems that the common faith of the Apostle Paul and Titus was better than that of all believers; among whom, due to the variety of opinions, faith 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 such an ending: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. Whether both grace and peace are given to both the Father and Christ Jesus, and both can be understood from each other, or whether grace refers to the Father and peace to the Son, must not be passed over without doubt. The Apostle had cursed some, that grace and peace would multiply to them: now, to Titus, peace and grace are placed without multiplication. Noah the righteous man, and the only one saved in a storm-tossed world, is said to have found not many graces, but one grace before God. And Moses said to the Lord, “If I have found grace with you” (Exodus 33:13). And wherever grace is placed in the person of the saints, seek and you shall find it, not that they have found graces but grace. That merchant of the Gospel who had many pearls, at last found one precious one, which he bought alone from many pearls (Matthew 13). For the perfect, indeed, it is to buy one pearl and one treasure for all pearls and all their substance by their business: but for those who are just beginning and are still on the way, not only one and alone but many pearls must be had. — Commentary on Titus

John Chrysostom: Ver. 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 1

Oecumenius: in 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 TITUS

Titus 1:3

John Chrysostom: 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 1

Oecumenius: but 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 TITUS

Titus 1:4

John Chrysostom: “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 1

Oecumenius: to 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 TITUS

Theodoret of Cyrus: Natural 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 TITUS

Titus 1:5

Ambrosiaster: 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.

Didache: 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 15

Jerome: “For this reason, I left you in Crete, so that you would correct what was lacking.” It is the dignity of the apostolic Church to lay the foundation, which no one can lay except the architect. And the foundation is none other than Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11). Those who are lesser artisans can build houses upon the foundation. Therefore, as a wise architect, Paul exerted himself in every labor, not to glory in what had already been prepared, but after he had softened the hard hearts of the Cretans to faith in Christ, and had subdued them by both word and signs, and had taught them to believe in God the Father and in Christ, not in their native Jupiter, he left Titus as his disciple in Crete, to confirm the rudiments of the nascent Church and to correct anything that might appear lacking, while he himself went to other nations, in order to lay again the foundation of Christ in them. But when he says, “so that you would correct what was lacking,” it shows that they had not yet attained to the full knowledge of the truth, and even though they had been corrected by the Apostle, they still needed further correction. However, everything that is corrected is imperfect. Moreover, in Greek, the addition of the preposition in the word ἐπιδιορθώσῃ, which means “correct,” does not mean exactly the same thing as διορθώσῃ, that is, “to correct,” but rather, to over-correct, so that the things that I have corrected, and which have not yet been brought to the full line of truth, may be corrected by you, and receive the rule of equality.

And (as) you should appoint presbyters through cities, just as I arranged for you. Bishops who have the power to appoint presbyters in individual cities should listen, under which law the order of Ecclesiastical constitution is maintained: nor should they think that the words of the apostles are their own, but Christ’s, who said to the disciples: He who despises you, despises me; but he who despises me, despises him who sent me (Luke 10:16). So whoever hears you, hears me; and whoever rejects me, rejects him who sent me. From this it is clear that those who wish to confer the Ecclesiastical grade on anyone without merit, but through grace, contrary to the law of the apostles, do so against Christ himself, who through his apostle carried out the appointment of presbyter in the Church. Moses, the friend of God, to whom God spoke face to face (Deut. 5 and 31), could certainly have made his sons his successors in the principality and bequeathed his dignity to his descendants; but Jesus, a stranger from another tribe, was elected so that we would know that the principality must not be conferred on bloodline, but on life. But now we see many doing this as a favor, so that they do not seek to elevate pillars in the Church who can benefit the Church more, but those whom they themselves love, or with whose services they are entangled: or for whom someone of their ancestors begged, and, to not speak of worse things, who obtained the office by gifts. Let us carefully attend to the words of the apostles, saying: That you appoint presbyters in cities, just as I arranged for you. The person speaking about who ought to be ordained as a presbyter says this: “If anyone is without blame, a one-woman man, etc., for it is necessary for the bishop to be blameless, as a dispenser of God.” Therefore, the presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before, by the instigation of the devil, competitions arose in religion and it was said among the people, “I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollo,” “I am of Cephas” (1 Cor. 1:12), the governance of the church was conducted by the joint counsel of the presbyterate. But when each person began to consider those whom he had baptised as his own rather than Christ’s, it was decided throughout the world that one chosen from among the presbyters should be placed in charge of the others and have care of the general well-being of the church, so that the seeds of schism might be rooted out. Someone may think that this is not the teaching of the scriptures but our own opinion, that a bishop and a presbyter are the same, that the difference lies only in the age of the office. That person should pay attention to the words of the Apostle to the Philippians, where he addresses his epistle to “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 so on. Now, although the city of Philippi is one in Macedonia, it is impossible for there to be several bishops in one city. But because they used to call the same persons bishops then, whom they did “presbyters” also, for this reason he spoke without distinction of bishops and presbyters. Finally, lest this statement by confirmed only by one witness, let it be confirmed by another. In the Acts of the Apostles it is written, that when the Apostle came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and called the presbyters of the same Church, to whom afterwards among other things he spoke: ‘Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood’ (Acts 20:28). And here observe carefully how, calling the Ephesian presbyters to him, he afterwards called the same men bishops. If anyone desires to receive the Epistle which is written to the Hebrews under the name of Paul, and in which the care of the Churches is equally divided, it is read among many. For he writes to the people: ‘Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you’ (Hebrews 13:17). And Peter, who for the strengthening of the faith received the name of Firm, speaks in his epistle to the elders, saying: ‘The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it not by constraint, but willingly according to God: not for filthy lucre’s sake, but voluntarily’ (1 Peter 5:1-2). This we have shown in order to demonstrate that in former times those same people were presbyters whom later on were called bishops; and gradually it was so arranged that the various obligations were entrusted to one person. Therefore just as the presbyters know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to him who has been placed over them as their head, so also let the bishops know that according to the custom of the Church they are greater than the presbyters and ought to regulate the whole church by common council, imitating Moses, who, when he alone had power over the people of Israel, chose seventy others with whom he might judge the people (Numbers 11). Let us see therefore what sort of man ought to be ordained presbyter or bishop. — Commentary on Titus

Jerome: And 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 146.1

John Chrysostom: “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 2

Oecumenius: For 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 TITUS

Tertullian: Thence, 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 Chastity

Theodore of Mopsuestia: Paul emphasizes that correct teaching must accompany these ordinations. He mentions only presbyters, since theirs is the most general office. — COMMENTARY ON TITUS

Titus 1:6

Ambrose of Milan: 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 62-63

Apostolic Constitutions: We 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 APOSTLES

Apostolic Constitutions: We 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 APOSTLES

Augustine of Hippo: The first freedom, then, is to be without crimes. And so when the apostle Paul chose either priests or deacons to be ordained, and when anyone is to be ordained to take charge of a church, he does not say, If anyone is without sin. For if he were to say this, every person would be rejected, no one would be ordained. But he says, “if anyone is without crime,” such as homicide, adultery and uncleanness of fornication, theft, fraud, sacrilege, and other things of this sort. — TRACTATES ON John 41.10.1

Jerome: “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

Jerome: “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 69.9

Jerome: “If anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of reckless living, or disobedient.” Therefore he must be blameless, which I believe is also referred to in Timothy as irreprehensible (1 Tim. III): not that during the time he is ordained he has no crime, and has washed away past stains with a new life, but from the time he is reborn in Christ, he is not tormented by any consciousness of sin. For how can the leader of the Church remove evil from those who are in similar transgression? Or with what freedom can he rebuke the sinner, when the sinner answers silently that he himself has committed the same thing he is rebuking? Therefore, whoever desires a bishopric, desires good work. He says work, not privilege, not glory. But he must also have a good testimony from those outside, so that he does not fall into shame, and into the trap of the devil. And what he says, the husband of one wife, must be understood thus: so that we do not think that every monogamist is better than a widower; but so that he can exhort to monogamy and continence, who offers his example in teaching. For suppose a young man lost his wife and was overcome by the necessity of the flesh, and took a second wife, whom he also immediately lost and then lived continently; another, however, married until old age, and, as most believe, never gave up the work of the flesh: which of the two do you think is better, more chaste, more continent? Certainly he who was unfortunate even in a second marriage and afterwards conducted himself modestly and piously, is preferable to him who has been separated neither by the embrace of his wife nor by advanced age. Therefore, whoever is chosen as a quasi-monogamist should not applaud himself because he is better than every man who is twice married, since the greater happiness rather than his will has been chosen. Some people think this about this place: it was the custom of the Jews either to have two or more wives: which we read in the Old Law of Abraham and Jacob: and now they want it to be a precept, that he who is to be elected bishop should not have two wives at the same time. Even those who have been with the Gentiles, and after losing one wife, have taken another after the baptism of Christ, think more superstitiously than truly, that they should not be read in the priesthood: for certainly, if this is to be observed. those who, before taking one regenerated wife, indulged in wandering through prostitutes, should be more strongly barred from the episcopate: and it is much more detestable to fornicate with several than to find one who is twice married; because in the former, there is a kind of unhappiness in marriage, while in the latter there is a tendency to voluptuousness towards sin. Montanus and those who follow the Novatian schism, took the name of cleanliness to themselves: and they think that second marriages should be prohibited from the communion of the Church: whereas the Apostle, imposing this on bishops and presbyters, relaxed it in other respects. Not that he encourages second marriages; but that he indulges the necessity of the flesh. And Tertullian wrote a heretical book about Monogamy, which no one who has read the Apostle will be ignorant of opposing. And indeed, it is in our power to have a bishop or a presbyter without blame, and to have one wife. But that which follows, to have faithful children, not accused of lewdness, and not subject, is beyond our power. For to be sure, if parents have well instructed their children and always taught them the precepts of the Lord from a young age, if later they give themselves to lewdness, and putting aside the reins of vice, will the fault then rebound to the parents, and the sins of the father will stain the holiness of the son? If anyone has well instructed his children, I believe that includes Isaac, who is to be held as having well instructed his son Esau. But Esau, a fornicator and profane, sold his firstborn for one meal (Gen. 25:29-34). Samuel too, who was such that he called upon the Lord, and the Lord answered him, and in the time of harvest obtained the rain of the winter season, had sons who turned aside after bribes, and became such wicked judges that the people, not bearing it, demanded a king for themselves like the other nations (1 Samuel 8:4-5). Therefore, if the election of the priests were to take place, and Isaac on account of Esau and Samuel on account of his sons were deemed unworthy of the priesthood. And since the sins of parents are not attributed to their children, will the faults of the children prejudge the parents? (Ezekiel 18:2) First of all, it must be said that the name of the priesthood is so sacred that even external things are considered for us, not because we are not bishops because of our faults: but because we are barred from this position because of the incontinence of our sons. For with what freedom can we correct other people’s children and teach what is right: when immediately he who has been corrected can say to us: First teach your sons? Or with what confidence do 1 Cor.ect a stranger who commits fornication when my own conscience responds to me: Therefore disinherit the fornicating son: reject your sons serving vices? But when a wicked son comes together with you under the same roof, do you dare to remove the speck from someone else’s eye, not seeing the beam in your own eye (Matthew VII and Luke VI)? Therefore, the righteous is not polluted by the vices of his children: but freedom is reserved by the Apostle for the prince of the Church: so that he may become such that he may not be afraid to rebuke outsiders because of the vices of his children. Then also it must be inferred against those who are swollen with pride about the episcopate and think that they have achieved not the dispensation of Christ, but authority: because they are not immediately better than all those who have not been ordained bishops: and from the fact that they have been elected they themselves think that they are more confirmed: but understand that some are removed from the priesthood because their children’s vices have hindered them. But if the sins of the children prohibit the righteous from the episcopate: how much more should each one consider himself and know that the powerful suffer torment powerfully (Wisdom VI), so he will withdraw from this not as much honor as burden: and he will not seek to take the place of others who are more worthy! Finally, it must be said that in the Scriptures by sons are meant reasonings, that is, thoughts; but by daughters, deeds, that is, works, and now he who will become a bishop must be commanded to have both thoughts and works in his power, and he truly believes in Christ, and is not stained by any creeping vice. — Commentary on Titus

John Chrysostom: Ver. 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 2

Oecumenius: If 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 TITUS

Tertullian: Should 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 7

Tertullian: How 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 I

Tertullian: Come, 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 Monogamy

Theodore of Mopsuestia: Paul 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 TITUS

Titus 1:7

Cyprian: 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 LXVII

Jerome: “For it is necessary that a bishop be without blame, as the steward of God: not arrogant, not prone to anger, not given to wine, not a striker, not greedy for filthy lucre.” Therefore, it is required among stewards that a faithful person be found: and not eating and drinking with drunkards, striking slaves and maidservants; but uncertain of the return of God, and giving food to his servants in due season. But between the stewards and the servile, this is the only difference: that a servant is appointed over his servants. Therefore, a bishop and a priest must know that the people are their servants, not slaves. The rest that follows is up to us: Not arrogant, that is not swelling and pleasing himself because he is a bishop, but like a good steward, seeking what will benefit many. Not prone to anger. He is angry who is always angry and is moved like a leaf by a light breeze of provocation and sin. And indeed, there is nothing more shameful than an angry teacher, who ought to be gentle (and according to what is written: But the servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but be gentle to all, masterful, patient, instructing in meekness those who oppose him), he, on the other hand, with an angry face, trembling lips, wrinkled front, unrestrained invective, a face varying between paleness and redness, shouting uproariously, does not lead astray so much towards good, as hurries towards evil by his cruelty; hence Solomon says: Anger destroys even the wise (Prov. 21); And: The anger of a just man does not work the justice of God (James I, 20). Nor is he who is sometimes angry, actually irascible: but he is called irascible, who is frequently overcome by this passion. The bishop is also prohibited from being given to wine, about which it is written to Timothy: Not given to much wine. (1 Tim. 3:8). But what kind of bishop is it to see intoxicated, with his mind occupied, or to raise laughter against the gravity of his position, and to cackle with loose lips: or if, when he has remembered some little thing sad, he bursts into sobs and tears among his cups. It is a long journey to go through all the follies that drunkenness suggests. You may see some hurling drinking cups across the room, or throwing them in the countenance of their fellow guests; some tearing their clothing and wounding themselves on the bodies of others; some shouting; some nodding off; while he who drinks most is regarded as the strongest: it is even an accusation against him, that he has not drunk frequently enough when the king has called upon him to testify. They vomit in order to drink, and drink to be able to vomit. The stomach and the throat are engaged in but one business. Let it suffice to have said thus much, that according to St. Paul, intemperance lies in wine. And wherever there is gluttony or drunkenness, there debauchery reigns. Look at the belly and the genitals, and according to the character of the vices so is the order of the members. I will never consider a drunkard to be chaste, for even if he has fallen asleep in his cups, he could still have sinned through the wine. But we are filled with wonder that the Apostle should condemn intoxication in bishops or priests, when in the old law it was commanded that the priests, when they entered into the temple, should not drink wine at all; and when a lawful Nazarite is bidden to nourish his holy locks, to avoid all defilement, to abstain from wine, or anything that is made of grapes, from the husks that remain after wine has been pressed, and from every sort of strong drink which perverts a sound mind. Let every one say what he likes: I speak my own thoughts: I know what abstinence has done for me, and what harm has come of its intermission or its excess. After drunkenness, however, he warns that a person should not be a striker; as in simplicity of understanding it builds up the listener so they do not easily reach out to strike, so that the insane person does not burst out to strike another in the face. However, it is better not to say that one is a striker who is gentle and patient, who knows in time what should be spoken and what should be kept silent, and who does not hit the conscience of the weak with useless talk. For when the Apostle was forming the leader of the church, he did not forbid him from being a boxer and pancratiast (that is, an athlete) (which is also reprehensible in any plebeian or pagan), but as I said: so that the abusive and garrulous one does not lose him, who could be corrected by modesty and gentleness. The desire for shameful gain from someone who is to become a bishop should also be alien. For there are many who teach things that are not proper, for the sake of shameful gain: who destroy entire households, and think that piety is a business. But it is better, according to Solomon, to have a little with righteousness, than to have much gain with iniquity (Prov. 16:8): and a good name is to be preferred in poverty than in wealth. A bishop who desires to be an imitator of the Apostle should be content with food and clothing alone (1 Tim. 6). Those who serve at the altar should live by it (1 Cor. 9). They live, he says, but do not become rich. Hence also, money is shaken off our belt; and we have only one tunic (Matt. 10 and Mark 6): nor do we think about tomorrow. The desire for shameful gain is to think more about the future than the present. What a bishop or presbyter should not have has been taught by the Apostle’s word; but now, on the contrary, what he should have is explained. — Commentary on Titus

Jerome: That 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 69.9

John Chrysostom: Ver. 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 2

Oecumenius: For 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 TITUS

Theodore of Mopsuestia: Paul 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 TITUS

Theodore of Mopsuestia: He is not given to useless discord. — COMMENTARY ON TITUS

Theodoret of Cyrus: Here 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 TITUS

Titus 1:8

Jerome: “But [he should be] hospitable, a lover of good, chaste, just, holy, continent or abstinent, one who holds to the correct doctrine, faithful in speech, so that [he] is able to comfort [others] in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict it.” Above all, hospitality is required of a future bishop. For if everyone wishes to hear it from the Gospel: “I was a stranger and you took me in” (Matt. 25:35): how much more should a bishop, whose house should be a common inn for everyone! For a layman receiving one or two, or a few, fulfills the duty of hospitality. If a bishop does not receive all, he is inhuman. But I fear that just as the Queen of the South came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon (Matt. 12), judging the men of her own time, and the men of Nineveh, who repented at the preaching of Jonah will condemn those who disdained to hear a greater Savior than Jonah: so most people judge bishops, withdrawing themselves from the ecclesiastical rank and exercising things that do not befit a bishop; of whom I think John writes to Gaius: “Dear friend, you are faithful in whatever you do for the brothers and sisters, even though they are strangers to you. They have told the church about your love. Please send them on their way in a manner that honors God. It was for the sake of the Name that they went out receiving no help from the pagans” (3 John 5ff.). And truly, with the Holy Spirit speaking through him, [John] foretells what will happen in the churches, even then condemning those who desire to have the first place, Diotrephes, who does not receive us. Therefore, when I come, I will call attention to the works he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church. Truly, it is now evident that what was predicted [has come true]: in many cities, bishops or priests, if they see laypeople being hospitable, lovers of good, [they] envy, become angry, excommunicate, and expel them from the Church, as if it were not lawful to do what the bishop does not do: and that such laypeople should be damned by the priests. Therefore, [the priests] hold them [i.e. the laypeople] in heavy burdens, and, as if imposed on their own necks, they turn them away from good work and disturb them with various persecutions. But let the bishop be chaste, whom the Greeks call σώφρονα; and the Latin interpreter, being deceived by the ambiguity of the word, translated it as “prudent” instead of “chaste”. But if it is ordered for lay people to abstain from sexual intercourse during prayer, what should be thought of a bishop who will offer God the unstained victims daily for his own and the people’s sins? Let us turn to the books of the Kings and find priest Abimelech who did not want to give bread to David and his men until he questioned whether they were pure from women. And unless he had heard that they had been pure from work with their wives yesterday and the day before, he would not have allowed the loaves that he had previously denied. There is as much difference between the loaves of the offering and the body of Christ as there is between shadow and body, image and truth, exemplars of the future and the very things that were foreshadowed by the exemplars. Therefore, just as meekness, patience, sobriety, moderation, renunciation of gain, hospitality, and kindness must be especially present in the bishop and outstanding among all laymen, so must personal chastity and (if I may say so) priestly modesty be present, so that the mind, which will make Christ’s body, is free not only from unclean works but also from the error of the eye and thought. And the bishop also should be just and holy so that he may exercise justice among the peoples whom he presides over and give to each what he deserves, not showing partiality in judgment. The difference between laypersons and bishops in justice consists in this: a layperson can appear just in a few things, while a bishop can exercise justice in as many people as he has subjects. But sanctus, which in Greek is called ὅσιος, signifies this more: when sanctity itself is mixed with piety and refers to God. For whom we call sanctum, the Greeks call ἅγιον; but whom they call ὅσιον, we can call pious towards God. Let the bishop also be abstinent: not only (as some think) from lust and embracing his wife, but from all disturbances of the soul, so that he not be roused to anger, not be cast down by sadness, not be agitated by fear nor lifted up by excessive joy. Abstinence, moreover, has been counted among the fruits of the spirit by the Apostle. And if it is required of all, how much more from a bishop, who must bear the sins of sinners with patience and gentleness: console the fearful: sustain the weak: render no evil for evil, but overcome evil with good. Finally, let him hold fast to the faithful word which is according to doctrine, so that just as the word of God is faithful and worthy of every acceptance, so he may present himself in such a way that everything he says is considered worthy of faith, and his words are a rule of truth. Let him also be able to console those who are agitated by the turmoil of this age and to destroy weak precepts through sound doctrine. Sound doctrine is said, in distinction to weak and frail doctrine. Let him also be such that he can refute contradicting heretics or Jews and the wise of this age. And indeed, the virtues that he has placed in the bishop pertain to life. But what he says here, that he may be able to console in sound doctrine and to refute the contradicting, refers to knowledge. For if a bishop’s only holy life, it can benefit him to live so. Moreover, if he is learned in doctrine and speech, he can instruct himself and others, and not only instruct and teach his own but also strike back at adversaries, who unless they are refuted and convicted, can easily pervert the hearts of the simple. This passage is against those who think it is a sin to read scriptures and who despise those who meditate day and night on the Law of the Lord, as though they were useless talkers, not realizing that the Apostle, after the catalogue of the bishop’s conversation, likewise commanded doctrine. — Commentary on Titus

John Chrysostom: Ver. 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 2

Titus 1:9

Augustine of Hippo: 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 4.16.33

Jerome: To 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 53.3

John Chrysostom: “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 4.8

Oecumenius: holding 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 TITUS

Origen of Alexandria: When 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 3.48

Titus 1:10

Clement of Alexandria: “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 1

Ignatius of Antioch: I 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 Trallians

Jerome: For there are many who are not subject, vain talkers, and deceivers of minds: especially those who are of the circumcision, who must be indicated as silent: who overturn whole houses, teaching what they ought not, for the sake of base gain. Let him who is to be a prince of the Church have eloquence associated with integrity of life, lest his works be taciturn without speech, and let his words blush when his deeds fail: especially when they are not a few, but many: neither subject, but insolent, who do not care to say what the Psalmist says: Is not my soul subject to God (Ps. 61:1)? But let them overthrow the good seed of minds, which naturally have knowledge of God, with empty persuasion. For this, it seems to me that Paul meant when he said “deceivers”, not as the Latin interpreter simply translated “deceivers”, but “deceivers of the mind”. And indeed, without the authority of the Scriptures, their talk would not have faith, unless their perverse doctrine appeared to be confirmed by divine testimonies. These are of the circumcision of the Jews, who at that time were striving to subvert the nascent Church of Christ and to introduce legal precepts, on which Paul explains more fully both to the Romans and to the Galatians. And just a few months ago, we presented three volumes on the explanation of the Letter to the Galatians. Men of such a kind, as the Doctor of the Church, to whom the souls of the people are entrusted, ought to surpass with reason the Scriptures, and to impose silence upon them in evidence: they overthrow not merely one or few houses, but all homes with owners and families, teaching [them] about differences of foods, about the long-ago abolition of the Sabbath, about the harm of circumcision: and if they did this very thing by zeal for the faith, it might be pardoned to some extent, with the Apostle saying: I bear witness that they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (Romans 10:2). But because God is their belly, they willingly seek to make their own disciples for shameful gain, so that they may be fed by their followers as masters. But we can interpret this, which has been said for the sake of shameful gain, in another way: that we may think the Apostle used a common word, by which all heretics with their perverse teachings usually assert that they are gainers of men. When in fact it is not gain, but destruction, deceiving the souls of the deluded. On the contrary, he who has corrected his erring brother according to the Gospel, if he was converted, has gained him. For what greater gain can there be or what is more precious than if one gains a human soul? Therefore, every teacher of the Church who persuades rightly by the reason of faith in Christ is an honest gainer. And every heretic who deceives and is deceived by certain tricks of men, speaks what ought not to be spoken, for the sake of shameful gain. — Commentary on Titus

John Chrysostom: Ver. 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 2

Oecumenius: For 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 TITUS

Titus 1:11

Ambrosiaster: 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 TITUS

Augustine of Hippo: But I, pierced with such grief as I am, what can I do except speak? Or do they do such things and then say to me: “Be silent”? May the Lord preserve me from such cowardice that I should hold my peace through fear of their wrath, when he commands me through his apostle, saying that “they ought to be reproved” by the bishop for “teaching the things which they ought not.” … For when God commands that we speak and preach the word and that we refute and condemn “in season and out of season” those who “teach the things which they ought not”—as I can prove by the words of the Lord and the apostles—let no man think that I can be enjoined to silence in these matters. — LETTERS 34.4, 35.3

Titus 1:12

Athanasius of Alexandria: 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 do you preach my laws and take my covenant in your mouth?” Thus, the devil, though speaking from the Scriptures, is silenced by the Savior. The blessed Paul, though he speaks from profane writers, “The Cretans are always liars,” and ‘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.” — COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA 3.39

Athenagoras of Athens: What 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 30

Augustine of Hippo: If you were to hear, even from one who was profane, the prayer of the priest couched in 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 a false priest but not a priest at all? The apostle Paul said that certain testimony of a Cretan prophet (he knew not which) was true, though he was not reckoned among the prophets of God.… If, therefore, the apostle 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 is deceitful and perverse? Why do we not 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? — The Letters of Petilian the Donatist 2.30.69

Jerome: You 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 70.2

John Chrysostom: There 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 3

Oecumenius: One 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 TITUS

Tatian the Assyrian: Though some one says that the Cretans are liars.

Tertullian: Your 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 II

Tertullian: Comic 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 Soul

Theodore of Mopsuestia: Having 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 Titus

Theodoret of Cyrus: The 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 Titus

Titus 1:13

John Chrysostom: Ver. 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 3

Oecumenius: This 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 TITUS

Titus 1:14

John Chrysostom: Ver. 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 3

Oecumenius: not 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 TITUS

Origen of Alexandria: Let us see, however, what sort of rule of interpretation the apostle Paul taught us about these matters. Writing to the Corinthians he says in a certain passage, “For we know that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all were baptized in Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. And they drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ.” Do you see how much Paul’s teaching differs from the literal meaning? What the Jews supposed to be a crossing of the sea, Paul calls a baptism. What they supposed to be a cloud, Paul asserts is the Holy Spirit.… What then are we to do who received such instructions about interpretation from Paul, a teacher of the church? Does it not seem right that we apply this kind of rule which was delivered to us in a similar way in other passages? Or as some wish, forsaking these things which such a great apostle taught, should we turn again to “Jewish fables”? — HOMILIES ON Exodus 5.1

Origen of Alexandria: But the apostles, who were about to say, “If you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing,” and who were also about to say, “Let no one judge you in food, or in drink, or in participation of a feast day, or in new moons, or sabbaths, which are shadows of what will be,” they are prohibited from having two tunics so that they might inwardly and completely repudiate observances of this kind according to the letter of the law and not concern the disciples “with Jewish myths” and “place a yoke on them which neither they nor their fathers would have been able to bear.” But one is sufficient for them, and this one “inward.” For they do not want this tunic of the law that is external but that which comes from above. For Jesus permits them to have one, and that one is “interior.” — HOMILIES ON Leviticus 6.3

Theodoret of Cyrus: Paul 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 Titus

Titus 1:15

Abba Poemen: “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 97

Ambrosiaster: Everything created by God is good; for those who do not know this, they become impure. — Commentary on the Letter to Titus

Athanasius of Alexandria: All 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 48

Augustine of Hippo: With 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 1.33.71

Augustine of Hippo: The 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 149.3

Augustine of Hippo: But 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 208.1

Augustine of Hippo: Those 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 4.9-10

Cyprian: For, 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 LVIII

Gregory the Dialogist: 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 64

Jerome: “All things are clean to the clean, but to the unclean and unbelieving nothing is clean; instead, both their mind and their conscience are corrupted.” For he had said earlier: “For there are many rebellious people who deceive others with their empty talk and false teaching. This is especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation. They must be silenced, because they are turning whole families away from the truth by their false teaching. And they do it only for money.” So he is telling Titus to sharply rebuke them, so that their faith will be healthy and they will not waste their time in endless discussion of myths and spiritual pedigrees. This kind of talk only leads to meaningless speculations, which don’t help people live a life of faith in God. The Bible clearly states that all things are clean to those who believe in Jesus Christ and know that everything God created is good. But to those who are defiled by sin and unbelief, nothing is clean; in fact, both their mind and their conscience are corrupted. Therefore, even things that are clean by nature become unclean to them. This is not because there is anything inherently unclean or clean, but because of the kind of people who eat them. So, the clean remain clean for the clean, and the unclean become defiled for those who are defiled. Otherwise, even the unbelievers and defiled do not benefit from the bread of blessing and the Lord’s cup; for whoever eats of that bread and drinks from the cup unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon themselves (1 Cor. 11). Everything has been cleansed by the coming of Christ. We cannot partake of what He has purified. But let us consider that in handling this, we do not give occasion to that heresy which, according to the Apocalypse (Chapter 2) and even the Apostle Paul himself writing to the Corinthians, thinks that it is right to eat of things offered to idols because all things are clean to the clean (1 Cor. 8). For the Apostle did not intend to discuss those things which are sacrificed to demons, but rather those who, according to the discipline of the abolished Law, regarded some things as clean and others as unclean. For we cannot partake of the Lord’s table and the table of demons: nor can we drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons at the same time (1 Cor. 10:20-21). Therefore, it is up to us to eat clean or unclean. For if we are clean, then the creature is clean for us. But if we are unclean and faithless, then all things become common to us, whether through the heresy that dwells in our hearts or through the consciousness of sins. Moreover, if our conscience does not condemn us, and we have confidence in God’s mercy, then we will pray with our spirit and with our mind, we will sing praises with our spirit and with our mind (1 Corinthians 14), and we will be far from those of whom it is now written: “Their mind and conscience are defiled.” — Commentary on Titus

John Chrysostom: Ver. 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 3

Oecumenius: Things 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 TITUS

Severian of Gabala: God has made all things pure. If anything is unclean, the use to which it is put makes it so. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Titus 1:16

Augustine of Hippo: 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 269.4

Clement of Alexandria: 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.” — The Stromata Book 4

Gregory the Dialogist: 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.” — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 19

Gregory the Dialogist: What 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.” — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 26

Gregory the Dialogist: “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.” — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 29

Jerome: “They confess to know God, but deny Him with their deeds: abominable and disobedient, and disqualified for every good deed.” Those whose mind and conscience are defiled confess to know God, but deny Him with their deeds, according to what is said in Isaiah: This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me (Isaiah 29:13). Therefore, just as someone who honors with their lips but moves far away in heart, so anyone confessing God with their words but denying Him with his deeds is. But he who denies God with his deeds, and with a deceitful confession is rightly accursed and profane, and having no reasonable conviction of truth, he is called disobedient and incredulous. So it happens that he is disqualified for every good work: namely, that even those things which he may have done well, having been overcome by his own natural goodness, are not good, while they are corrupt by his distorted state of mind. Some think that only if someone, when captured by Gentiles during persecution, denies themselves as Christians that they would be denying God. But behold the Apostle asserts that God is denied by all perverse deeds. Christ is wisdom, justice, truth, holiness, and strength. Wisdom is denied through foolishness, justice through iniquity, truth through lies, holiness through depravity, and strength through weakness of the soul. And as often as we are overcome by vices and sins, we deny God. Conversely, as often as we do good, we confess God. And it is not to be judged that only those who denied Christ in martyrdom will be denied by the Son of God on the day of judgment, but in all works, words, and thoughts, Christ, either denied, denies or confessed, confesses. Regarding this confession, He commanded His disciples, saying, “You will 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 dedicated to Christ may confess Him. There is also a commendable denial, of which the Apostle himself says: “As we deny impiety and worldly desires, we should live chastely, justly, and piously in the present age, while awaiting the blessed hope and coming of our God and Savior” (Titus 2:12). Whoever denies this denial and wants to follow the Savior speaking these words, “Whoever wishes to come after me, let him deny himself” (Luke 9:23), stripped of his old self with its works, and putting on the new, shall follow his God. But how one is to deny oneself must be considered. The chaste denies the fornicator he once was; the wise, the foolish; the just, the unjust; the brave, the weak. In general, we deny ourselves as often as we, trampling on our former vices, cease to be what we were and begin to be what we were not before. — Commentary on Titus

John Chrysostom: Ver. 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 3

Leo the Great: Our peace also has its dangers, dearly beloved. In vain do people feel secure as a result of freedom for their faith if they do not resist the desires of vice. By the quality of works is the human heart made known, and outward actions disclose the beauty of souls. There are some, as the apostle says, who “profess to know God but deny him through their deeds.” Truly the guilt of denial is incurred when the ears have heard what is good but the conscience does not hold on to it. The frailty of the human condition easily slides into sin. — SERMONS 36.4

Oecumenius: They 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 TITUS