Titus 1:14–16—Jewish Fables; To the Pure

Tit. 1:14. Not giving heed to Jewish fables, nor to the commandments of men who turn away from the truth.

Here is indicated the way in which one may remain sound in the faith. Unsparingly reproving will take away the desire to heed anything foreign to the faith—and the faith will remain sound in them, and they will remain sound in the faith. The faith has already been proclaimed to them and they hold it. But babblers come, inserting into the mind something foreign to the faith that nonetheless appears true; and the inexperienced, unable to discern the falsehood lurking in the babbling, begin to think that perhaps it is so. By this the faith is already shaken and its soundness is impaired. Let such a state continue; let the crooked interpretations be repeated several times; and it would be no wonder if the latter came to be regarded as more appealing than the tenets of the faith. That is the sickness. It will be prevented if one stops heeding anything foreign to the faith. Do not heed—and you will be sound in the faith. St. Chrysostom says: “Soundness consists in not introducing anything false, anything foreign.”

This foreign thing the Apostle defines as Jewish fables and the commandments of “men who turn away from the truth.” What exactly St. Paul meant by this, St. Titus and the Cretans knew clearly. For us it is difficult to guess. For there were many Jewish fables and many human errors. Yet we lose nothing by this. Both those Jewish fables and those human errors have already passed away, and we have no cause to fear them. For us there remains one apostolic commandment: to heed nothing foreign to the faith. And was it not for this very purpose that St. Paul left undefined for us—though not for those to whom he wrote—what was not to be heeded? So as to instill in us that we should in general heed nothing that we see to be incompatible with the faith, however fair it may seem?

By “Jewish fables” one should not understand the legal ordinances or the order of life under the Law, but either the false interpretation of those ordinances and their meaning, or everything subsequently invented in addition to them by the Jews themselves. Blessed Theodoret writes: “The Apostle called Jewish fables not the Law itself, but the interpretation of the Law proposed by the Jews.” Blessed Theophylact adds to this: “The holy books of the Old Testament, rightly understood, are not fables. How could they be, seeing that from them we learn the evangelical truth? But wrong interpretations and additions—those are the fables!”

But what precisely are they? Every Jewish sect had its own false interpretations and additions—the Essenes, the Sadducees, the Pharisees; and among the Jews there were also philosophical speculators and visionary mystics who invented the Kabbalah. Are not all these fables? There were also fables common to all Jews—for example, the one about the Messiah as an earthly king, and about his kingdom as sensual and worldly. And even among Christians from among the Jews there long persisted the fable about the binding necessity for all who believe in the Lord Savior of observing the legal ordinances (especially circumcision, the Sabbath, and the kinds of permitted and forbidden foods). — Which of all this St. Paul had in mind is not evident. But it is beyond doubt that something from all this entered into the teaching of the babblers who seduced the Cretans. For, as can be seen, that teaching was a mixture of heterogeneous doctrines, in which Jewish fables had their share—though we cannot say precisely which ones.

What are the commandments of “men who turn away from the truth?” They are either the same as the Jewish fables, or something distinct from them—devised by human reasoning, and specifically by pagan reasoning.

In the first case, the words “commandments of men” will be determined by what one understands under Jewish fables. Blessed Theophylact, Oecumenius, and to some extent St. Chrysostom understand by this the Jewish legal customs which, not being fables in themselves by origin and purpose, became fables when they are regarded as binding after they have lost their force. In that case they cease to be commandments of God and begin to be commandments of men. But Ambrosiaster understands by human commandments those Jewish ordinances that were subsequently added to the Law by the Jews themselves.

In the second case, the commandments of “men” will mean pagan reasonings and customs. So, in part, St. Chrysostom. The thought arises that such an understanding may be closer to the truth. For as may be seen from the course of the argument that the speculations of the babblers who seduced the Cretans were a mixture of Judaism and paganism, the Apostle—commanding them not to heed what is foreign to the faith and what may make the faith unsound—surely had in view both the Jewish and the pagan side of the seductive speculations of those people. Having denoted what was Jewish in them as Jewish fables, he most probably denoted what was pagan in them by the words “commandments of men.” This may also be confirmed by the quality ascribed to these “men”—that they turn away from the truth. For although the Jews who opposed the Gospel could rightly be regarded as turning away from the truth, the characterization fits more fully to pagans, who were entirely sunk in falsehood.

St. Chrysostom sees in the Apostle’s words a counsel not to heed certain imagined Jewish and pagan false doctrines, but Judaism and paganism as they then stood before one’s eyes. He says: “If those who observe rules concerning foods are not sound but sick—for of such the Apostle says: ‘receive him who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful matters’ (Rom. 14:1)—what shall we say of those who fast and keep the Sabbath together with the Jews, or who frequent places held sacred by pagans, for example the place at Daphne, the so-called cave of Matrona, or the place in Cilicia called Cronus? Can they be sound? Thus one must not listen to pagans or to Jews; for that is what it means not to be sound. If you hold the faith, why do you introduce something else besides it, as though the faith were insufficient for justification? Why do you subject and enslave yourself to the Law? Or do you not trust the faith? This is characteristic of a sick and unbelieving person; such a person doubts, but for a believing soul it is not fitting to doubt.”

It may be that among the Cretans there were in fact no new, mixed doctrines drawn from Judaism and paganism at all, but that the old Jewish and pagan superstitions and customs remained, to which some attached great importance and tried to keep others in them as well.

In our own time, one may see here the counsel to be on guard against falling under the influence of the Jewish and pagan spirit—understanding the first as contentment with the merely factual and outward side of life, and the second as the casting off of every yoke: for the mind, for the feelings and desires, and for external conduct.

Tit. 1:15. To the pure all things are pure; but to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, but both their mind and conscience are defiled.

Verses 15 and 16 point to certain aspects or sides of the false teaching that was circulating among the Cretans, as it were by way of example. One may connect them with the preceding as follows: how absurd this teaching is, there is no need to go on about. Take what it says about the distinction of foods—as if there were some food that by its very nature can render the one who consumes it unclean. Common sense is sufficient to know that food cannot make one either clean or unclean. Purity or impurity depends on the heart. Whoever is pure in heart—whatever food, however seemingly unclean, he may partake of—is altogether pure, and everything is pure for him; food does not make him unclean. On the contrary, whoever is impure in heart—no food, however regarded as clean, makes him clean; he remains unclean. No food makes the first unclean, and no food makes the second clean; or: for the first, all food is always clean, and for the second, all food is always unclean. The Apostle here instills the same thing that the Savior taught: that it is not what enters the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes forth from the heart (Mt. 15:11–19).

For a full understanding of these statements, one must bear in mind not the kinds of food but the act of eating or tasting itself. For one person the eating is clean because it is received with a clean heart; for another it is unclean because it is received with an unclean heart. A clean heart is one that, having detached itself from all self-indulgence, directs everything to the glory of God, even in eating and drinking; and therefore everything is clean for it. But a heart full of self-indulgence is unclean, and by that self-indulgence renders every action and movement unclean, because everything is done for the sake of self-indulgence—even what outwardly appears self-denying and directed toward God. Of such the Apostle says: “their very mind and conscience are defiled.” The mind is defiled by false notions which it accepts without reflection—through the mere pull of the heart, whether swept along by custom, or by vanity and vain reasoning. The conscience is defiled when a person acts, contrary to it, according to those false notions, or when he generally acts without heeding conscience, or acts with a doubtful conscience. Such a state is inevitable in those whose heart is full of self-indulgence and is wholly dominated by certain objects that nourish and satisfy it. In that state, one not only fails to heed the mind and conscience, but compels them to judge and determine in accordance with one’s own pleasure—leniently or crookedly—straining in every way to establish within oneself the thought that one is acting rightly, or at least tolerably, though within one hears a certain reminder that does not approve one’s conduct.

St. Chrysostom says that in the Old Testament certain foods were forbidden, but “not because they were unclean, but to better restrain the indulgence of the flesh. — God created nothing unclean; and there is nothing unclean except sin, because it touches the soul and defiles it; but everything else is considered unclean by human prejudice. — Therefore the Apostle attributed everything to the people themselves. There is nothing, he says, that is unclean, but they themselves are unclean—their mind and their conscience; there is nothing fouler than these. Here is where uncleanness lies: they themselves are not clean. — One must be discerning about what defiles the soul; that is the true uncleanness, that is the defilement; but everything else is not so. Those whose taste is corrupted think that what they receive is unclean; but this comes from their sickness. Therefore one must know thoroughly what is by nature clean and what is unclean. What then is unclean? Sin, malice, deceit, greed, wickedness. ‘Wash yourselves,’ says the Prophet, ‘make yourselves clean; put away evil from your souls’ (Is. 1:16). — Those (Old Testament) purifications were images of (true) cleansing. — Now, however, it is not this (outward thing) that is required of us, but everything is referred to the soul. What is bodily is closer to us; therefore God first turned us away from it; but now it is not so; for it was not fitting always to remain with images and hold to shadows—one must receive the truth and hold to it. Uncleanness is sin: let us flee from it, let us abstain from it. ‘If,’ says the Wise Man, ‘you draw near to it, it will bite you’ (Sir. 21:2).”

The Apostle mentioned this side of the teaching because it stood out particularly, and its absurdity is so obvious that it required no lengthy refutation. You see, he says in effect, what this point of theirs is like! But as this point is, so are all the rest. — Now look at what their teachers are like.

Tit. 1:16. They profess to know God, but deny him by their works, being abominable and disobedient and unfit for any good work.

The Apostle here instills the same thing that the Savior commanded: “Beware of false prophets… By their fruits you will know them” (Mt. 7:15–16). He is saying, in effect: if you wish to be assured that the teaching of those who deceive you is false, look at who they are and how they live. A life that does not correspond to the teaching undermines the force of that teaching, betraying in the teachers a lack of genuine conviction—and above all the fact that their teaching is not the goal and substance of their lives, but merely a means. The holy Apostles were distinguished by a thoroughly irreproachable life—pure and self-denying—and this at first did not repel people from them, and afterwards actively drew them in. Such always and everywhere must be those who hold sacred office. It is true that even teachers of the truth may stumble in the deeds of life; but it is equally certain that nothing repels people from a teaching as much as the bad life of its teachers. St. Paul’s aim in this passage was to turn people away from false teaching; and since the false teachers offered him their weak point—in the disorder of their life and conduct—he made use of it. Had this not been the case, he would not have touched on it, but would have pointed to something else in the false teachers that could expose the falseness of their teaching. He had already pointed to their sordid gain-seeking above (Tit. 1:11); and now he points to something greater—play-acting: “they profess to know God, but deny him by their works.”

This manner of expression shows that the Apostle strikes at those “who are especially of the circumcision.” Ambrosiaster writes: “although these words can apply to all heretics, the Apostle here speaks of Jews, who insisted that they alone knew the God of Abraham. — They know Him, but with their lips only, while in their deeds they deny Him, just as the Lord rebuked them: ‘if you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham’ (Jn. 8, 39).” Blessed Theodoret brings this to bear on the subject of the Apostle’s discourse thus: “they strive to show that they worship the God of all, but they act directly contrary to what is pleasing to Him. For God limited the Law to a set time; yet they did not observe the Law during that time, and when that time came to an end they cling tenaciously to the Law.”

Do not listen to them. They do not worship God. God is only on their lips, while in their heart something altogether different dwells. Blessed Jerome writes: “those whose mind and conscience are both defiled ‘profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him,’ according to the word of the prophet Isaiah: ‘these people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me’ (Is. 29, 13). Thus, as one may honor God with his lips while remaining far from Him in heart, so another may confess God in word while denying Him in deeds. But whoever denies God in deeds while confessing Him with the mouth is abominable before God; and, since he is persuaded by no arguments of truth, he is rightly called disobedient and faithless. From this also follows that he is unfit for every good work. Even the good he does when moved by natural goodness is not truly good, being defiled by the corruption of his mind. Some suppose that only that person denies God who, when seized by pagans during a time of persecution, declares that he is not a Christian. But here the Apostle affirms that God is denied by everything a person does that is perverse. Christ is wisdom, righteousness, truth, holiness, and courage. He is denied as wisdom—by folly; as righteousness—by unrighteousness; as truth—by falsehood; as holiness—by vice; as courage—by faint-heartedness. And in general, as often as we are overcome by passions and sins, so often do we deny God. Conversely, every time we do something good, we confess God. We must not think that on the Day of Judgment the Son of God will disown only those who denied Him in the time of martyrdom; but by every deed, word, and thought, Christ is either, being denied, denied, or, being confessed, confessed. Thus by every good word and deed it is testified that the soul is devoted to Christ.”