Thomas Aquinas

Having set forth the condition of the Cretan people, here he sets forth the remedy; and first he sets forth the remedy of reproof; second he assigns the reason for what has been said, at the words all things are clean. Concerning the first he does three things: first he exhorts Titus to reprove them; second he shows the end of the reproof, at the words that they may be sound; third he teaches the due manner of arriving at the end, at the words not giving heed.

He says therefore: The Cretans are evil beasts, to whom, namely, the whip and chastisement are owed. And therefore rebuke them sharply. Proverbs 6:23: the way of life is reproof. Psalm 67:31: rebuke the wild beasts of the reeds. But on the contrary, 2 Timothy 4:2: with all patience.

I answer. There is a twofold reason for this exhortation. One is on the part of those who are being reproved. For the Cretans were hard and stubborn, and therefore he commands that they be reproved sharply; but not the Ephesians, whose archbishop was Timothy. The other is on the part of those who reprove, because Titus was gentle and mild, and therefore he is led as it were to the contrary; but Timothy was rigid, and therefore he is led to patience.

Then when he says that they may be sound in the faith, he touches upon the end of the reproof. For a man is sound in whom there is no corruption. And thus he is sound in faith who has it corrupted in no respect. Now the faith of these men was being vitiated by heretics. 2 Corinthians 11:3: I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his cunning, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall away from the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 6:3: but if anyone teaches otherwise, and does not agree to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc.

The manner of arriving at soundness is if they avoid the errors of the Jews. Hence he says not giving heed to Jewish fables. For in the Law there were two kinds of teachings of the faith, namely certain ones concerning things to be believed. Likewise certain commandments of religion, which were to be kept concerning the worship of God. And the first he calls fables; the second, commandments of men, and not of God. From which it seems that he condemns the Old Testament, as the Manichees say. But what he says, fables, can be referred to their narratives, apart from the teaching of the Law, which are fabulous, such as the Talmud. 1 Timothy 1:4: that they should not give heed to fables and endless genealogies. Or the very teaching, which was once truth, is now, according to how they themselves understand it, fables; just as that saying of Isaiah 7:14: a virgin shall conceive, etc., was truth; but now, because they say that this is still to be fulfilled, it is fabulous. Likewise the commandments of men can be understood not as those which are in the Law of Moses, but the traditions of the elders, Matthew 15:2.

But is it the case that the commandments of men are not to be obeyed? I answer that they are, so long as they do not turn one away from the truth of God. And therefore he adds turning themselves away from the truth. 2 Timothy 4:4: indeed they will turn away their hearing from the truth, etc. A similar thing is found in Matthew 15:9: in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. A similar thing is said in Mark 7:7. Or it must be said that the commandments which are in the law of God have been made commandments of men. For when they are kept as a sign of a future truth, they are commandments of God; but when men wish to keep them after our body has died to the law, they are commandments of men.

Then when he says all things are clean, he shows in particular the reason for what has been said, namely how they turn themselves away from the truth, and how they speak fables, and commandments of men; which is chiefly concerning the distinction of foods according to the Law, which certain false teachers said was to be observed. And therefore first he shows how these foods stand in relation to the good; second how in relation to the evil, at the words but to the defiled.

He says therefore: not giving heed to Jewish fables about foods, because all things, namely foods, are clean to the clean. But one infers: therefore adultery is clean to the clean. I answer. It must be said that it is not: because from the very fact that it is adultery, it defiles. But those things are clean to the clean which of themselves do not defile. To this, Matthew 15:11: the things that enter into the mouth do not defile a man. Therefore everything that enters into the mouth is clean.

But there is a twofold objection. One, that it is said in Leviticus 11:7, that when some animal does not chew the cud, or does not divide the hoof, it is unclean. I answer, according to Augustine, Against Faustus. A thing is unclean either according to the nature of the thing, or according to signification: for instance if this name fool, taken in itself, insofar as it is a certain sound, is thus not unclean, but good. But if according to signification, because it signifies a lack of wisdom, and thus it has uncleanness. Now the acts of that people were prophetic acts. Hence a pig, insofar as it is a certain thing, is not unclean; but according as it signifies a man involving himself in pleasures, it is unclean. But now, with the truth having come, they cease, and men use foods according to their nature.

The other question is that in Acts 15:28 the apostles commanded that they should abstain from blood and from what is strangled; therefore it seems that it is not lawful to eat this; therefore not all things are clean to the clean. I answer. Some believe that that commandment is to be understood literally, and that it obliges even now, as among the Greeks, and also sometimes among the Latins. But others say that it is not understood according to the letter, but according to a mystery, so that by blood is understood homicide, and by what is strangled, that is, the oppression of the poor. And this is good, but it is not the whole reason for the precept; and therefore I say, that the precept is according to the letter, and yet we are not bound by it. For some things are forbidden because they are evil, and these are to be avoided absolutely. But other things, which are not evil absolutely, but for a time, and these are to be observed while the cause exists. And these the apostles forbade, not because they were evil in themselves, because the Lord says the contrary in Matthew 15:11. But the reason was, because some had been converted from among the Jews, some from among the Gentiles: and therefore, in order that one people might be made from them, it was necessary that the one should condescend to the other, so that condescension might be shown to the Jews, to whom it was abominable to eat blood and what is strangled. And therefore, in order to preserve peace, the apostles established that this was to be observed for that time.

Then when he says to the defiled, he shows how they stand in relation to the evil; and concerning this he does three things: first he shows this; second he assigns the cause, at the words but defiled; third he makes it manifest by a sign, at the words they profess that they know God.

He says therefore: these foods are clean to the clean, but unclean to the defiled, that is, to those who have a defiled conscience. Ecclesiasticus 13:1: he who touches pitch shall be defiled by it; and to unbelievers, that is, who have a bad faith. Isaiah 21:2: he who is unbelieving acts unfaithfully. But does a sinner and unbeliever make an unclean almsgiving? It must be said that the Apostle does not put forward the affirmative, but the negative. Hence he does not say, all things, but nothing is clean to them, which is true: because nothing is perfectly clean to them, because nothing is clean in acts, unless it is ordered to the due end. But these are outside the end.

But is anything clean to them? Yes. But on the contrary: because everything that is not from faith is sin. It must be said that evil never corrupts the whole good. For it is impossible that there should not be some good in any sinner whatsoever, namely of nature, even in demons: when therefore a sinner does some good insofar as he is a sinner and unbeliever, the whole is sin from the root. But if he does something from the principle of some good which he has, such as an unformed faith, or of nature, it is not unclean. And therefore he significantly says to the defiled and unbelieving, that is, insofar as they are such. For they were eating against conscience, and were erring in faith. And therefore what is clean of its own nature, they made unclean for themselves. The cause of which is, that the cause of their acts is unclean, namely the will and the intellect, which are depraved in them. Hence he says but their minds are defiled, namely through unbelief, and their conscience, namely through sin. Baruch 3:10: what is it, Israel, that you are in the land of enemies, you have grown old in a foreign land, you are defiled with the dead, etc.

Then when he says they profess, etc., he shows the faith by a sign. For if someone should say that their sayings are true, or rather that they have faith in one God and profess him, he excludes this. And first he shows the good that was in them, namely that they profess, namely with outward lips, that they know God. Isaiah 29:13: this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Jeremiah 12:2: you are near to their mouth. Second he shows the interior defect; and first as to the present; second as to the future, at the words unbelieving.

As to the present, because they deny him by their deeds. For he who sins, insofar as it is of himself, denies him by deeds: because he who professes God, professes also his power, namely that he is to be obeyed. And therefore if he does not obey, by sinning he denies by deeds, and professes with his mouth. But you say: whoever denies God is an unbeliever; sinners deny God by their deeds; therefore sinners are unbelievers. I answer. Just as one who has knowledge in the universal can err in the particular; so one who has faith in the universal is nevertheless corrupted in a particular matter of action, on account of the corruption of the affection. 1 Timothy 5:8: he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.

But how do they fail as to the future? Certainly, because they not only deny, but are indisposed to returning to God. For there are three things by which man returns to God, namely the grace of God, Romans 5:9: justified by his grace; the second is faith, Acts 15:9: purifying their hearts by faith; the third, the exercise of good work, Romans 2:13: the doers of the law shall be justified. These three he excludes from them: first grace, at the words since they are abominable, that is, not accepted unto grace. Second faith, when he says unbelieving, that is, not fit for believing. Ezekiel 2:6: the unbelieving and subverters are with you. Third the third, because to every good work reprobate, that is, to be reprobated. Jeremiah 6:30: call them reprobate silver.