Homilies on Titus 3

One of them, a prophet of their own, said:

'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies.'

This testimony is true.

For which cause rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men that turn away from the truth.

Here there are many things to be inquired into: first, who it was that spoke this;

secondly, why on earth Paul made use of them;

thirdly, that he brought forward a testimony which is not even correct.

Come then, let us add yet other points, and so bring in the solution at the fitting moment.

For indeed, when he was discoursing with the Athenians, in the midst of his public address he says, 'To an Unknown God';

and again, 'For we are also his offspring, as certain even of your own poets have said.'

It is Epimenides, then, who spoke this, being himself a Cretan;

but what moved him to say it—it is necessary that I lay the whole matter before you.

The Cretans have a tomb of Zeus with this inscription upon it:

'Here lies Zan, whom [they call Zeus].'

On account of this inscription, then, the poet, mocking the Cretans as liars in his verses, goes on further and adds, heightening the mockery yet more:

'For indeed a tomb, O Lord, the Cretans fashioned for thee;

If, then, this testimony is true, consider how great is the danger.

For if the poet is truthful in saying that they lied when they declared Zeus dead—as the Apostle says—then great is the danger.

Attend, Beloved, with all diligence.

The poet said that the Cretans lie, they who declared that Zeus had died;

the Apostle confirmed his testimony.

Therefore, according to the Apostle, Zeus is immortal;

for 'this testimony,' he says, 'is true.'

What then shall we say? Or rather, how is this to be resolved? The Apostle did not mean this, but simply took the testimony as it stood, and in a plain sense, with reference to their lying character.

For why did he not add the line, 'For indeed a tomb, O Lord, the Cretans fashioned for thee'? So that the Apostle did not mean this, but rather that so-and-so spoke well when he said that the Cretans are liars.

But it is not from this alone that we maintain that Zeus is no god;

for it is possible, establishing it from many other quarters as well, and not from the testimony of the Cretans, to demonstrate this clearly.

In another way, it was not in this that he said they lie;

or rather it is likely that in this too they have lied;

for which reason the Apostle called them liars.

But the point in question is: why on earth does he draw his testimonies from Greek sources?

Because we put them most to shame in this way, when we bring the testimonies and the accusations from their own household, when we set over against them, as accusers, those very men whom they themselves admire.

For this reason, too, he uses elsewhere the words, 'To an Unknown God.'

For the Athenians, since they did not receive all their gods from the beginning, but at various times—and introduced certain others later, such as the rites from the Hyperboreans, such as those of Pan, such as the Lesser and the Greater Mysteries—these men, conjecturing from these things that it was likely there was yet another god also, one unknown to them, in order that they might be duly reverent toward him as well, set up an altar to him with this inscription, 'To an Unknown God,' all but declaring thereby, 'even if there be some god unknown [to us].'

He said therefore, 'Him whom you, having received beforehand, recognized, this same one I proclaim to you.'

Now the words, 'For we are also his offspring,' were spoken by Aratus concerning Zeus.

For after he had said at the outset, 'Full of Zeus are the streets, and full the sea,' he then added the words, 'For we are also his offspring,' meaning to show, I suppose, that we too have come into being from God.

How then did Paul draw what was spoken concerning Zeus over to the God of all? He did not draw what was spoken concerning Zeus over to God; rather, the things that properly belong to God, and were attributed to Zeus neither genuinely nor rightly, these he restores to God.

Since indeed the name 'God' also belongs to him alone, and is unlawfully applied to idols.

But from what source ought he to have reasoned with them? From the prophets? But they would not have believed.

Since even to the Jews he utters nothing from the Gospels, but from the prophets.

For this reason he says, 'To the Jews I became as a Jew, to those without law as without law, to those under law as under law.'

As in the case of the magi: he does not lead them by an angel, nor by a prophet, nor by an apostle, nor by an evangelist; but by what means? By a star.

For since they had their skill in these matters, he drew them from that very source.

Again, in the case of the oxen at the ark: 'If they go,' it says, 'by this way, the wrath of God is real,' just as the soothsayers had supposed.

Do the soothsayers then speak truth? Away with the thought!

Rather, he convicts and confounds them out of their own mouths.

Again, in the case of the woman with a familiar spirit.

For since Saul trusted in her, through her God caused him to hear the things that were about to overtake him.

For what reason then did Paul silence the demon that said, 'These men are servants of the most high God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation'? And for what reason does Christ also forbid the demons to speak? There indeed it was fitting.

For the signs were going forward.

Since here too there was no star, but he himself was proclaiming himself.

And the demons, moreover, were not being worshipped.

For that which spoke was not an idol, that it should be forbidden.

And Balaam too he permitted to bless, and did not hinder him.

Thus everywhere he condescends.

And why do you marvel at this? He permits opinions to be formed concerning himself that are wicked and unworthy of himself—as, for instance, that he was formerly a body, that he is visible.

To this indeed he says, 'God is spirit.'

Again, that he delights in sacrifices—which was foreign to him—and he utters words discordant with his own confession.

For nowhere does he regard his own dignity, but everywhere what is profitable for us.

For if a father does not regard his own dignity, but lisps along with his little children, calling their food and dishes and drinks not by Greek names, but by some childish and barbarous manner of speech, much more does God.

And he reproaches them condescendingly through the prophet, saying:

'Has a nation changed their gods?'

And everywhere the things in the Scriptures are a condescension, both words and deeds.

'For which cause,' he says, 'rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.'

For this reason he says it, since their disposition is bold and deceitful and unbridled.

These countless evils they themselves possess.

And when men both lie readily, and are deceitful and gluttonous and idle, there is need of a vehement and cutting word.

For such a man would not be led by gentleness.

Here he speaks not of strangers, but of his own people.

'Give the blow deeper,' he says.

For one must not deal with all in one manner, but variously and diversely, and according to the circumstances at hand.

Nowhere here does he exhort.

For just as he who strikes the reasonable and well-born man destroys and ruins him,

so he who flatters the man that needs severity corrupts him and does not suffer him to rise up again.

'That they may be sound,' he says, 'in the faith.'

This then is health: to bring in nothing spurious nor foreign.

But if those who observe distinctions of foods are not sound, but sick and weak (for 'Him that is weak in the faith,' it says, 'receive, but not to doubtful disputations'),

what would one say concerning those who fast the same fasts as they, concerning those who keep the Sabbath, concerning those who go off to places consecrated to them—I mean the place at Daphne, the cave called Matrona's, the place in Cilicia called Cronos's?

How are these sound? Wherefore they need a more vehement blow.

Why then does he not do the same in the case of the Romans? Because their characters were not such, but they happened to be nobler.

'Not giving heed,' he says, 'to Jewish fables.'

The Jewish things are fable in a twofold way: both because they are a counterfeit, and because the practice is out of season.

For when a thing ought not to come to pass, and when done it does harm, it is a fable, just as it is useless.

As then one must not be persuaded by those things, so neither by these.

For if you believe in the faith, why do you bring in other things, as though the faith were not sufficient to justify? Why do you enslave yourself and subject yourself to the law? Do you not take courage in the matter? This belongs to one who is sick and unbelieving.

For it belongs to a believing mind not to be in doubt.

'All things indeed,' he says, 'are pure to the pure.'

Do you see with reference to what the saying is spoken? 'But to the defiled,' he says, 'and unbelieving nothing is pure.'

Things then are not pure or impure according to their own nature, but according to the disposition of those who partake of them.

'But their mind also is defiled,' he says, 'and their conscience.'

'They profess to know God, but by their works they deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.'

Why then was it forbidden as impure? It was not impure by nature.

Since nothing is more impure than a fish, seeing that it even tastes of human bodies.

But it was permitted, and was reckoned to be clean.

Again, nothing is more impure than a bird.

For indeed on this account too they say that it is called a deer, because it eats serpents.

For what reason then did he forbid the swine and certain other such creatures? Not as impure, but cutting off the excess of luxury.

But if he had said this, he would not have persuaded them.

So now he restrained them by the fear of impurity.

For what, tell me, is more impure than wine, if these things must be examined? And what than water, tell me, with which above all they cleansed themselves? They would not touch the dead, and yet they were purified by means of the dead.

For that which was slain is dead, and by this they were cleansed.

Such was the instruction of children.

Does not wine derive its formation from dung? For just as the vine draws moisture from the earth, so also from the dung that lies beside it.

And altogether, if we should wish to speak precisely, all things are impure.

But nothing is unclean, if we are willing not to be over-scrupulous, but all things are clean.

God made nothing unclean.

For nothing is unclean, except sin alone.

For it touches the soul, and defiles it.

But this is a human prejudice.

But to the defiled, he says, and unbelieving, nothing is clean; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

Would you then be unclean? He who has a feeble soul defiles all things.

But if such a reasoning is sown in a man, one that inquires into the clean and the unclean, he will touch nothing at all.

For neither are these things clean—I mean fish, and the rest—according to their reasoning (For their very mind and conscience, he says, is defiled), but all things are foul.

But he did not speak thus; rather, what? He turned the whole matter back upon themselves.

For nothing is unclean, he says, but they themselves are, and their mind and their conscience.

Than these there is nothing more unclean.

They profess that they know God, but by their works they deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine.

But do not, on their account, keep silent.

Even if they do not receive it, he says, do thou thine own part.

Even if they are not persuaded, do thou exhort and counsel.

Here he assails them the more severely.

For indeed madmen also think that nothing stands still.

But this comes not from the things seen, but from the eyes that see.

Since they are unsteady and dizzy, they think the earth spins round about them.

But it does not spin round; rather it stands firm.

For the derangement belongs to their own affliction, not the affliction to the element.

When the soul is unclean, it thinks all things unclean.

So then it is not the observing of scruples that belongs to purity, but the daring of all things that belongs to purity.

For he who is pure by nature dares all things, but the defiled dare nothing.

This may be said also against Marcion.

Do you see that he sets down as the token of purity to be above all defilement, but to touch nothing as the mark of uncleanness? So also in the case of God.

That he took flesh upon him, this belongs to purity.

But if out of fear he had not taken it, this would belong to defilement.

He who does not eat the things that seem to be unclean, this man is himself unclean and weak.

Let us not then call such men clean.

These are the unclean.

But he who dares all things is pure.

This caution must be shown in regard to the things that defile the soul.

For that is uncleanness, that is defilement.

Since those too who have a corrupted mouth think the things set before them are unclean, but this is a matter of their affliction.

We ought therefore to know well the nature of things clean and unclean.

What then is unclean? Sin, wickedness, covetousness, malice.

Wash you, he says, make you clean; put away your wickednesses from your souls.

Create in me a clean heart, O God.

Come out from among them, and be ye separate, he says, and touch not the unclean thing.

Since those observances also were symbols of purifications.

For such is sin—dead and stinking.

The leper, he says, is unclean.

For indeed sin is manifold and of many forms.

And that it hints at this is plain from what follows.

For if the leprosy be throughout, and over the whole body, he is clean.

Do you see that it is the variegated and the changeable that is unclean? Again, he that has an issue is unclean in his soul.

Consider the man with an issue, him that casts away the seed.

He that is not circumcised is again unclean.

Do you see how these things are not allegory, but types? He who has not cut away, he says, the wickedness of his soul.

He that works on the Sabbath is stoned.

That is, he that is not continually devoted to God, this man perishes.

Have you seen how many kinds of uncleanness there are? The woman after childbed, he says, is unclean.

Why, tell me? Did he not himself make conception and birth? For what reason then is the woman unclean, unless he was hinting at something else?

And what is this? It bred reverence in the soul, and led it far away from fornication.

For if she that has given birth is unclean, much more she that commits fornication.

If to approach one's own wife is not entirely clean, to be joined with a stranger is much more unclean.

He that comes from a funeral, he says, is unclean.

Much more he that comes from murder and from war.

And one might find many kinds of uncleanness, if indeed it were needful to recount them all.

But these things are not now required of us.

But the whole has passed over into the soul.

For bodily things are nearer to us.

For this reason he led on from this.

For we ought not to sit beside the types, nor to keep attending upon the shadows, but to hold fast to the truth, and to lay hold of it.

Let us flee this, let us keep away from this.

If you draw near to it, he says, it will receive you.

Nothing is more unclean than covetousness.

Whence is this evident? From the very facts themselves.

For what does it not defile? The hands, the soul, the very house wherein the plundered things are laid up.

To the Jews, indeed, this seems to be nothing at all.

And yet Moses carried the bones of Joseph, and Samson drank from the jawbone of an ass and ate honey from a lion, and Elijah was fed by ravens and by a widow woman.

But tell me, if one must be scrupulous on such grounds, were not the skins of the very books themselves more polluted than all these? For they too come from dead animals.

It is not, then, the fornicator alone who is unclean, but others as well, and even more than he; the adulterer too is unclean;

yet both this one and that are unclean, not on account of the intercourse;

since, by that reasoning, he too who consorts with his own wife would be unclean;

but rather on account of the injustice and the covetousness, because he has defrauded his brother in the things most necessary.

Do you see that it is wickedness that is unclean? He that had two wives was not unclean;

and David, though he had many, was not unclean;

but when he had one unlawfully, he became unclean.

Why so? Because he did wrong, because he was covetous.

So too the fornicator is unclean, not on this account, namely the intercourse, but because of his manner of conduct, in that he wrongs the woman; and such men wrong one another by making the woman common, and by overturning the laws of nature;

for she ought to belong to one man alone.

'For male and female,' he says, 'created He them;'

and He said, 'The two shall be one flesh;'

not the many, but 'the two shall be one flesh.'

Here too, then, there is injustice, and for this reason the deed is evil.

Anger, again, when it exceeds its due measure, makes a man unclean; not on account of the wrath itself, but on account of the manner;

since here too there is this addition, 'He that is angry'—not simply, but 'without cause.'

So that everywhere the craving for more is unclean;

for the thing is born of insatiableness and of the inability to be satisfied.

Let us therefore be sober, I beseech you, and become clean with the true cleanness, that we may be counted worthy to see God, in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, and honour, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.