Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus by Saint Jerome of Stridon, Priest
Latin Text from public domain Migne Editors, Patrologiae Cursus Completus.
Translated into English using ChatGPT.
Table of Contents
Prologue
Although they are not worthy of faith, who annulled the first faith, I am speaking of Marcion and Basilides, and all heretics who tear apart the old Testament: we would still tolerate them to some extent, if at least they would contain their hands in the new Testament: and not dare to violate (as they boast) Christ, the Son of the good God, or the evangelist, or the apostles. Now, however, since they have scattered his gospel and the apostles’ epistles, and have not made themselves the apostles of Christ, but their own, I wonder how they dare to claim the name of Christians for themselves. For, to pass over the other Epistles, from which they have erased whatever seems to conflict with their own doctrine, they believed that certain undivided ones should be rejected: namely, both to Timothy, to the Hebrews, and to Titus, which we are now trying to explain. And if they were to return the reasons why the apostles did not consider them, we would try to respond to something and perhaps satisfy the reader. Now truly when they pronounce with heretic authority and say: This is Paul's epistle, this is not; let them understand that they are refuted by the authority that they themselves do not blush to pretend false. Tatianus, patriarch of the Encratites, who himself rejected some of Paul's epistles, believed that this one, especially Titus, should be pronounced by the Apostle; despising Marcion and others who agree with him on this point. Therefore, the Apostle writes, O Paula and Eustochium, concerning Nicopolis, which is situated on the Actian shore, that now the largest part of it belongs to your possession. And he writes to his disciple Titus, and his son in Christ whom he left in Crete to instruct the churches, and commanded him, that when Artemas or Tychicus arrives in Crete, he should come to Nicopolis himself. Indeed it was just, that he who had said, my concern is for all the Churches: and who, when departing from Jerusalem had founded the Gospel of Christ as far as Illyricum, should not allow the Cretans to be deserted by both him and Titus; among whom the seeds of idolatry first grew: but that he would send Artemas or Tychicus to them instead of himself and Titus, by whose doctrine and consolation they would be nurtured.
1:1
"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).
1:2-4
"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.
1:5
"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.
1:6
"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.
1:7
"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.
1:8-9
"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.
1:10-11
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.
1:12-14
"A certain one of them, their own prophet, said: 'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true. For this cause, reprove them sharply, so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of people who turn away from the truth." As for the text of the discourse and the context of the passage, what he says: "A certain one of them, their own prophet," seems to be referring to those he spoke of earlier, especially those who are of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting entire households by teaching things they should not for the sake of shameful gain. And he continues, "A certain one of them, their own prophet." However, since this hexameter verse is not found in any of the prophets who prophesied in Judah, it seems to me that it should be read in two ways: either that what he says, "A certain one of them, their own prophet," is connected with what came before, in order to correct the things that were lacking in Crete, or that it refers specifically to the Cretans. But because there are many things in between, and this seems absurd and perhaps no one will accept it, therefore, with regard to the things that are closer, it must be read differently from what came before, as follows: "For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group; they must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach, and that for the sake of dishonest gain." A certain one of them, their own prophet, said: so that what is said, "their own prophet," does not refer specifically to the Jews, and especially to those of the circumcision, but rather to many who are rebellious, full of meaningless talk and deception, who must be silenced along with those of the circumcision group, who are disrupting whole households by teaching things they should not, and who, since they were in Crete, should be believed to be Cretans. However, this couplet is said to be found in the oracles of the Cretan poet Epimenides; he called him a prophet, jokingly or allusively, meaning that Christians of such kind deserve to have prophets, just as prophets belonged to Baal and to the confusion of the Jews and to other offenses, and the scriptures mention any wicked prophets, genuinely because he wrote about oracles and responses that also foretold the future and predicted things that were to come long before. Finally, the book itself is titled Oracles, and because it seemed to promise something divine, I think the Apostle looked into it to see what the pagan divination promised, and in due time he used the couplet when he wrote to Titus, who was on Crete, in order to convict the false teachers of Crete with their own teacher. However, Paul is found to have done this not only in this place, but also in others. In the Acts of the Apostles, when he preached to the people, and in the Areopagus, which is the court of the Athenians, he argued, he says among other things: For we are his offspring, as some of your own poets have said (Acts 17), which hemistich is read in the Phaenomena Arati; which Cicero translated into Latin; and Germanicus Caesar, and recently Avienus, and many others, whom to enumerate is too long. To the Corinthians also (1 Cor. 15:33), who were themselves polished by Attic eloquence; and because of the proximity of the places, they were seasoned with the taste of Athenians, he took an iambic verse from Menander's comedy: Evil company corrupts good habits. Nor is it surprising if, for the opportunity of the time, he abuses the verses of pagan poets: for even altering some inscription of an altar, he spoke to the Athenians: "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. But the inscription on the altar was not as Paul asserted, to an unknown God, but as follows: To the Gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa; to unknown and foreign gods. But because Paul did not need many unknown gods, but only one unknown God, he used a unique expression; so that he would teach that he was their God whom the Athenians had marked with the title of the altar; and, knowing it correctly, they ought to worship him whom they were ignorant of and could not ignore. But Paul did this seldom, and as the circumstances of the place more than suitability demanded it, in the manner of bees, which are accustomed to compose honey from various flowers and to adapt the cells of their favors. Some consider this verse taken from Callimachus the Cyrenian poet, and are not entirely wrong. In his praise of Jupiter against the Cretans, who boasted about showing his tomb, he says, "The Cretans are always liars, who also built his tomb with a sacrilegious mind." But, as we said above, the whole verse was taken by the Apostle from Epimenides the poet, and Callimachus used his exordium in his poem. Or perhaps he turned the common proverb by which the Cretans were called deceitful into a meter without stealing the labor of others. Some believe that the Apostle should be blamed for having imprudently fallen; and when he rebuked false teachers, he proved that verse by saying that the Cretans were called deceitful because they had built the empty tomb of Jupiter. For they say that Epimenides or Callimachus accused the Cretans of being deceitful and dangerous beasts and lazy gluttons, because they do not feel the divine; and (even though) they create Jupiter, who reigns in heaven, buried on their own island; and this that they said is confirmed by the view of the Apostles: thus it follows that Jupiter is not dead, but alive. Therefore, it was unskillful of Paul, the destroyer of idolatry, while fighting against perverse teachers, to assert that the gods which he was attacking did exist. To this we must briefly respond that, in the case where he said "Evil company corrupts good morals," he did not immediately approve Menander's entire comedy or Aratus' book, but rather he used an opportunity provided by a verse. Similarly, in the present case, he did not confirm the entire work of Callimachus or Epimenides, whose one praises Jupiter and the other writes about oracles through one verse; rather, he only rebuked the Cretans as liars, blaming them for the vice of their people, not due to their opinion, which is praised by poets, but due to their innate ease of lying. But those who think that the whole book ought to be followed by the one who has made use of a part of the book, seem to me to admit the Apocryphal Book of Enoch, ((or of the Enochs)), concerning which Judas the Apostle gave testimony in his Epistle, among the sacred Scriptures of the Church; and many other things which the Apostle Paul spoke of in a hidden way. For we can say this by way of argument: that since he said that he worshipped the unknown God among the Athenians, whom they had written on an altar, Paul ought to follow and do those things also which were written on the altar, and those things which the Athenians were doing, since he had come to an agreement with them in part regarding the worship of an unknown God. Far be it from me to draw argument and scholastic elegance into calumny. There is no one so wicked, so much of a criminal, so much of a poisoner, who has not done something good at some time. Therefore, if I approve of one good thing of his, when I see it, and it is necessary for me to support the rest, which were bad, what is that to be blamed? If he is accused by an enemy against us and cries out, will he not speak some truth among the words of conflicts? And this too, is not always blamed by us against whom he speaks. So Callimachus and Epimenides, did not say that Jupiter is a god, and the rest that is contained in their poems, because the Cretans are deceitful; but they only spoke the truth, because they were expressing the inborn vice of the Cretans in terms of lies: because they are deceitful, they did not always speak the truth. For Jupiter would not cease to be a god even if the Cretans spoke the truth; but nevertheless, while they were silent, he who was dead would not have the name of a god. Finally, let us know that the Apostle spoke against the Cretans not by chance, and not incidentally (as they think), but carefully and watchfully, and defending himself in every way against the Cretans: This is a true testimony, he says; not the whole poem from which the testimony is taken, not the whole work: but only this testimony, this verse in which they are called liars. And certainly he who agreed only in one part of the poem, is to be believed to have refuted the rest. However, we have discussed in the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians how either the Cretans are deceitful and foolish, or the Galatians are hard-necked, or each province is represented by its own vice. And since there is nothing else we can add here, we are content with that. Therefore rebuke them sharply, he says, they are liars and evil beasts, and lazy gluttons, who deceive with falsehoods and thirst for the blood of the deceived like wild animals, and not working in silence, eat their own bread, whose god is their belly, and their glory is in their shame, and rebuke them so that they may be sound in the faith. Speak of the health of faith and what follows: that old men be sober, honorable, chaste, sound in the faith and love and patience, to whose faith the health of teachings is also called. For a time will come, he says, when they will not listen to sound doctrine. There are also speeches of health, of which he speaks in the first letter to Timothy: if anyone teaches differently and does not agree to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to the teaching that is according to piety (1 Tim. 6:3). And in the second: Holding the example of sound words that you have heard from me (2 Tim. 1:13). Those who have this health of faith and doctrine and sound words, do not heed Jewish fables and the commands of men who turn away from the truth. Let us acquiesce for a short time to the Jews, and listen patiently to their foolishness, and then we will understand what the Jewish tales are which have no authority from Scripture, nor any rational basis, but are the product of the fables and imaginations of certain people about animals and legends, of whom Isaiah prophesied, saying: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Isaiah 29:13). This is confirmed by the testimony of the Savior in the Gospel, who accuses them of giving preference to the commandments of men over the Law of God. For God said, "Honor your father and mother." They, on the other hand, say, "Whatever gift you might have received from me is Corban, that is, an offering to God" (Mark 7:11-12). Anyone who falls short of circumcision after the coming of Christ is a slave to Jewish myths and the commandments of men, who turn away from truth. For it is not the one who appears to be a Jew outwardly who is, but the one who is in secret; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. Whoever keeps the Passover, but not in the sincerity and truth of unleavened bread, so that he may purge out of his soul all the old leaven of wickedness and malice: this person attends to fables, and follows shadows, neglecting the truth. Whoever does not rise with Christ, nor seek the things that are above, but those that are below, saying, "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all perish with use, according to the commandments and doctrines of men: this person follows not good justices and not good precepts. But where is truth, and where is the spiritual law, where there are good justification, and the best of precepts is observed, and whoever does them shall live in them.
1:15