Thomas Aquinas Commentary Titus 1:13-16

"This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. To the pure all things are pure: but to them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. They profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." — Titus 1:13-16 (ASV)

1. Having described the character of the Cretan people, the Apostle now prescribes the remedy. He presents this in two parts:

   1. The remedy of rebuke.
   2. The reason for this remedy: all things are clean to the clean.

   Regarding the first part, he does three things:

   1. He advises Titus to rebuke them.
   2. He explains the purpose of the rebuke: that they may be sound.
   3. He shows the correct method for achieving this purpose: not giving heed.

2. He says, therefore, that the Cretans are evil beasts who should be whipped and flogged. For this reason, rebuke them sharply. As Scripture says, the reproofs of discipline are the way of life (Proverbs 6:23), and, rebuke the beasts that dwell among the marshes (Psalms 68:30).

   This advice, however, seems to contradict what is given in Timothy: rebuke, unfailing in patience (2 Timothy 4:2).

   I answer that there are two reasons for this difference. The first concerns those being rebuked. The Cretans are difficult and obstinate; consequently, they deserve to be rebuked sharply. This was not the case for the Ephesians, whose archbishop was Timothy. The second reason concerns those who rebuke. Titus was meek and mild, so he is urged to act contrary to his nature. Timothy, on the other hand, was strict, and therefore he was urged to be patient.

3. When he says, that they may be sound in the faith, he touches on the purpose of the rebuke. A person is sound when there is no decay in them, and they are sound in faith when no article of faith is incorrectly understood. The Cretans’ faith, however, was corrupted by heresy. As the Apostle writes elsewhere, but I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3). And also, if any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit (1 Timothy 6:3).

4. The path to this soundness is to avoid the errors of the Jews; hence, he says, not giving heed to Jewish fables. In the Law, there are two types of articles: those dealing with beliefs and those dealing with precepts of religion, which were to be observed in divine worship. The first he calls fables, and the second commandments of men, not of God.

   In saying this, he seems to be condemning the Old Law, as the Manicheans do. But the word fables could refer to their legends—matters above and beyond the doctrines of the Law—which are myths, as in the Talmud. For example, Paul warns Timothy not to occupy themselves with fables and endless genealogies (1 Timothy 1:4). Alternatively, it might refer to doctrine that was formerly true but is now a fable as they understand it. Thus, behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son (Isaiah 7:14) was true, but now, because they say it still remains to be fulfilled, it is a fable. Likewise, commandments of men can mean those not found in the Law of Moses but in the tradition of their fathers: for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God (Matthew 15:6).

5. But does that mean that commandments of men are to be ignored?

   I answer that they are not, so long as they do not turn one from God’s truth. That is why he continues, who turn themselves away from the truth. As Paul writes, for the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching but will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths (2 Timothy 4:4). The same idea is found in Matthew: in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men (Matthew 15:9).

   Alternatively, it could be said that the commandments in God’s Law have been changed into commands of men. When they are interpreted as signs of a truth to come, they are commandments of God. But when they are observed after our bodies are dead to the Law, they become commands of men.

6. When he says, all things are clean to the clean, he specifies the reason behind his statements. He explains how they turn from the truth and repeat fables and commands of men, which are chiefly concerned with distinguishing between foods according to the Law—a practice some false prophets said must be observed. Consequently, he shows two things:

   1. How these foods relate to those who are good.
   2. How they relate to those who are wicked, at but to them that are defiled.

7. He says, therefore, not giving heed to Jewish fables about food, because all things are clean to the clean.

   Does this mean that adultery is clean to the clean?

   I answer: no, because by the very fact that it is adultery, it is unclean. Rather, those things that are clean to the clean are things that do not defile a person in and of themselves. In this matter, Matthew says, whatever enters into the mouth does not defile a man (Matthew 15:11). Therefore, whatever enters the mouth is clean.

8. Against this, there are two objections. One is found in Leviticus: and the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof is unclean to you (Leviticus 11:7).

   I answer according to Augustine in Against Faustus: a thing is unclean either according to its nature or according to what it signifies. For example, if the word "fool" is taken merely as a sound, it is not unclean but good. But if it is taken according to its signification, it implies uncleanness because it signifies a lack of wisdom. The acts of that people were prophetic acts. Hence, a pig as such is not unclean, but only inasmuch as it signifies a person given to pleasure. But now that the reality has come, these significations cease, and people may use foods according to their nature.

9. Another objection is that in Acts, the apostles commanded believers to abstain from blood and from things strangled (Acts 15:29). Consequently, it does not seem lawful to partake of such things, and so, not all things are clean to the clean.

   I answer that some believe this commandment should be interpreted literally but in a mystical sense, so that "blood" is understood as homicide and "strangling" as the oppression of the poor. This is a good interpretation, but it is not the whole truth.

   Therefore, I say that it is literally a commandment, but we are not obliged to follow it. Some things are forbidden because they are evil, and these must simply be avoided. Other things are not evil in themselves but were forbidden for a time, and these must be observed only as long as the reason for them exists. The apostles forbade these things not because they were evil in themselves—for the Lord says the opposite in Matthew (Matthew 15:17)—but for another reason.

   The reason was that some had been converted from Judaism and some from paganism. For one people to be formed, it was necessary that one group condescend to the other. In this matter, the Jews were to be condescended to, because it was abominable to them to eat blood and anything suffocated. Therefore, to maintain peace, the apostles declared that this law was to be observed for that time.

10. When he says, but to them that are defiled, he shows how these foods are regarded by wicked people. Concerning this, he does three things:

    1. He states the principle.
    2. He assigns the reason for it, at but both their mind.
    3. He demonstrates this with a sign, at they profess that they know.

11. He says, therefore, that these foods are clean to the clean, but unclean to the defiled—that is, to those whose consciences are defiled. As it is written, whoever touches pitch will be defiled . They are also unclean to unbelievers—that is, to those whose faith is corrupt: he who is an unbeliever, acts unfaithfully (Isaiah 21:2).

    Does the unbelieving sinner make an act of charity unclean? The Apostle does not use an affirmative but a negative word. He does not say "all"; he says that nothing is clean to them. This is true because nothing is perfectly clean to them, since no act is clean unless it is directed to its proper end, whereas their acts are outside that end.

    But is anything clean to them? It seems so, although it is also true that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin (Romans 14:23).

    I answer that evil never corrupts the good altogether, for it is impossible that there not be some good in every sinner, even in devils. Therefore, when a sinner does something precisely as a sinner and unbeliever, the entire act is a sin in its root. But if he does something that springs from some good in him, such as from unformed faith or from his nature, it is not unclean. This is signified when he says, but to them that are defiled and to unbelievers—that is, insofar as they are such. For they ate contrary to conscience and erred in faith; consequently, what was clean in its very nature they made unclean, as far as they were concerned.

12. The reason for this is that the cause of their acts is unclean, namely, their depraved intellect and will. Hence he says, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled: their mind by unbelief, and their conscience by sin. As it is written, why is it, O Israel, why is it that you are in the land of your enemies, that you are growing old in a foreign country? .

13. When he says, they profess that they know God, he explains their faith with a sign. For if a person claims that their words are true and that they believe in and confess one God, this must be rejected as impossible if their actions prove otherwise.

    First, he shows the good that was in them: they profess outwardly with their lips that they know God. As the prophet says, this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me (Isaiah 29:13), and, you are near in their mouth and far from their heart (Jeremiah 12:2).

    Second, he shows their inward failing, first regarding things present, and second regarding things to come, with the word incredulous. Regarding the present, in their works they deny him. One who sins actually denies God by his actions, because a person cannot confess God without admitting His power—namely, that He should be obeyed. Hence, if they sin, they disobey and deny by their works the very things they profess with their lips.

    But you might say: whoever denies God is an unbeliever, but sinners deny God in their works; therefore, sinners are unbelievers.

    I answer that just as a person with general knowledge can err in particular cases, so a person with a general knowledge of the faith can fail in a particular action because his love is corrupted. As Paul says, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8).

14. But can they fail as far as the future is concerned? They can, because they not only deny God but are not inclined to return to Him.

    For there are three things that incline a person to return to God:

    1. God’s grace: justified by his grace as a gift (Romans 3:24).
    2. Faith: he cleansed their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9).
    3. The performance of a good work: the doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13).

    But these three ways are not open to them. The way of grace is closed because they are abominable, that is, not disposed to grace. The way of faith is closed because they are incredulous, that is, not suited for believing; as it is written, you are among believers and destroyers (Ezekiel 2:6). And third, the way of good works is closed because they are reprobate to every good work. As Jeremiah says, refuse silver they are called (Jeremiah 6:30).