Читать толкование: , Глава , стих . Толкователь — Иероним Стридонский блаженный

1.1.      Paul, a slave of God, but an apostle of Jesus Christ. In the Epistle to the Romans he began this way: “Paul a slave of Jesus Christ, called apostle.” In this one, however, he calls himself “a slave of God, but an apostle of Jesus Christ.” For if the Father and the Son are one,and the one who believes in the Son will believe also in the Father, then the apostle Paul’s slavery too should be referred equally to the Father or to the Son. But this slavery is not that of which the apostle himself says, “For you have not received a spirit of slavery again unto fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption in whom we cry: Abba, Father.”

Truly it is a noble slavery of which even David says to God, “I am your slave, the son of your maidservant.” And blessed Mary says to the angel: “Behold the maidservant of the Lord; be it done to me ac­cording to your word.” Even Moses had this slavery, of whom the Lord says to Jesus, son of Nun, “Moses my servant is dead.” And in another passage, “Moses the servant of the Lord died in the land of Moab by the word of the Lord.” For far be it from us to believe that Moses and Mary had the spirit of slavery in fear and not in the love of God.

It is no wonder that men, no matter how holy, are nevertheless called slaves in a noble sense, seeing that the Father says to the Son through Isaiah the prophet, “For you it is a great thing that you are called my boy.” In Greek this says: |ieya ooi eon tou KlhQflnai oe paiSa |iou. Now since in Greek “boy,” that is, paic, can mean both servant and son, we have looked in the Hebrew and have found that it was not written, “my son,” but “my slave,” that is, abdi. This is why the prophet Obadiah, which translates as “slave of the Lord,” was named from servitude to God.

It may trouble someone that the Lord and Savior, who is creator of the universe, is called God’s slave. He will not be troubled if he listens to the same one who speaks to the apostles, “Whoever wants to be greatest among you, let him be slave of all,” and, “The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve.” Lest he should seem to teach this in words only, he showed it by example. “For when he had taken a towel, he girded himself, filled a basin with water, and washed the dis­ciples’ feet.” And so, it is not impious to believe that he who had as­sumed the form of a slave had done those things that belong to slaves, in order that it would be said that he served the Father’s will, since he himself served his own slaves. But this slavery is that of love, through which we are commanded to serve one another mutually. And even the apostle himself, though he was free from all, made himself a slave of all. And in another passage he says, “Your slave for the sake of Christ.” He is a slave of God who is not a slave of sin. The apostle, then, who was not a slave of sin, is rightly called slave of God the Father and of Christ.

It seems to me that what he says further, “but an apostle of Jesus Christ,” is as if he had said, “commander of the praetorian guard of Augustus Caesar, master of the army of Emperor Tiberius.” For just as the judges of this world appear more noble in relation to the rulers whom they serve, and they are assigned titles from the office to which they are elevated, so also the apostle, by laying claim for himself among the Christians to the great dignity, he has first designated himself with the title of “apostle of Christ,” that he might strike awe into his readers by the very authority of the name, indicating that all who believe in Christ must be in submission to him. And besides, what we have re­corded a little bit earlier as written to the Romans, “slave of Jesus Christ,” is no different from his having said slave of wisdom, slave of justice, slave of sanctification, slave of redemption. “For Christ became for us from God the Father, wisdom, justice, sanctification, and re- demption.”

The one who had said, not by way of humility, as many think, but truly, “And if I am unskilled in speech, but not in knowledge,” the “Hebrew of Hebrews, according to the law a Pharisee,” does not un¬fold profound meanings in the Greek language. Moreover, he scarcely expresses in words what he is thinking. Therefore let us discuss each of these details, as they are written, in accordance with the sequence of thought and the composition of the realities, rather than of the words.
He says, “according to the faith of God’s chosen ones.” This refers to what is higher up, what he began with: “Paul a slave of God, but an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the faith of God’s chosen ones”;that is to say, faith of those who have not only been called, but have been chosen. In view of the variety of their works, thoughts, and words, there is a great diversity even among the chosen ones them¬selves. The one who is chosen by God does not immediately possess “faith in accordance with election,” or have the “knowledge of the truth in accordance with the faith.” And this is why the Savior said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” And the evangelist testifies that he said these things to those who indeed believed, but who did not know the truth, which they were able to attain, if they would have abided in his words. And having become free, they would have ceased being slaves.
It is asked, why does he add to what he says, “according to the faith of God’s chosen ones and the knowledge of the truth,” the words, “which is in accordance with piety.” Is there a truth recorded that is not “in piety”? And is “knowledge of the truth” now introduced to distin¬guish it from that which is “in accordance with piety”? Plainly there is truth that does not have piety: if someone knows the art of grammar, or dialectics, so that he possess the means of speaking correctly and judges with discernment between what is true and false. Geometry too and arithmetic and music have truth the knowledge of their subject matter; but that knowledge does not belong to piety.
The knowledge of piety is to know the law, to understand the prophets, to believe the gospel, not to ignore the apostles. And, on the other hand, there are many who have true knowledge of piety, but they do not automatically also possess the truth of other arts and of those that we mentioned above. This truth, therefore, the knowledge of which is “in accordance with piety” is recorded as “in the hope of eter¬nal life,” which immediately bestows the reward of immortality to him who knows himself. Apart from piety, however, the knowledge of the truth delights for the moment, but it does not possess an eternity of rewards, an eternity “which God, who does not lie, promised before the eternal ages and manifested it in his own time in Christ Jesus.”
Now to whom did he “promise beforehand,” and afterward acted to make it “manifest,” if not to his own wisdom, which was always with the Father, when he “was glad in the perfected world and rejoiced over the sons of men”? And he promised that whosoever would believe in that wisdom would possess eternal life. Before he laid the foundations of the world, before he diffused the seas, established the mountains, suspended the sky, made the land solid by driving it into a mass, God, in whom there is no lying, promised these things. It is not that he is capable of lying and is unwilling to bring forth false words, but that he who is the Father of truth has no lie in him, according to this: “But let God be true, but every man a liar.” So this is why he is called the “God who does not lie” and when he promises certain things in the prophets with an oath, this is in order that we may become more certain, that we may hope all the more that the things which were spo¬ken will happen, and by believing this with our whole mind, we will be prepared for the attainment of the things that are coming.
It does not seem off topic to glance briefly at the question: Why is it said with the voice of the apostle that God alone is true, and every man a liar. And unless I am mistaken, just as he alone is said to have immortality, though he made both angels and many rational crea¬tures to which he gave immortality, so also he alone is called true. It is not that the others are not immortal and lovers of truth, but that he  alone is by nature both immortal and true. The others, however, attain to immortality and truth as a gift from him. And it is one thing to be true, to have something by means of oneself; it is something else to be under the authority of one who gives what you possess.
But I do not think the following point should be silently passed over: How did the “God who does not lie” promise eternal life “before the eternal ages”? According to the history of Genesis the world was created by him. Through the alternation of nights and days, and also of months and years, time was created. In this cycle and circuit of the world, time passes and comes, and it will either come or it has been. This is why some philosophers do not think that time is present, but either past or future. For everything that we say, do, or think, is awaited, either while it is happening, passes by, or if it has not yet happened.Before the time of this world, then, one should believe that there was a certain eternity of the ages in which the Father was always with the Son and the Holy Spirit.
And thus I would say that God’s time alone is an entire eternity; or rather, time is incalculable, since he himself is infinite, who being prior to times transcends all time. But a thousand years of our world are not yet fulfilled, and what great prior eternities, how much time, what great beginnings of ages must one think have existed in which angels, thrones, dominions, and other powers served God! And they existed at God’s command, apart from the alternations and measure of time! And so, before all this time, which neither words dare to utter, nor mind to comprehend, nor hidden thought to reach, God the Father of his own wisdom promised that his own Word, both his own very wis¬dom itself and the life of those who would believe, would come into the world.

Pay careful attention to the text and sequence of the reading: for the eternal life that “God who does not lie promised before the eternal ages” is nothing else but the Word of God. For it says, He “manifested his word in his own time.” Therefore the eternal life that he had prom¬ised is itself his own Word, which was in the beginning with the Fa- ther. “And the Word was God,” “and the Word became flesh and dwelled among us.” But that the Word of God, that is, Christ himself, is life, is testified in another passage, which says, “I am the life.” But the life is not fleeting; it is not circumscribed by any time. On the con¬trary it is perpetual and eternal. It was manifested in the final age through the proclamation that was entrusted to Paul, doctor of the Gentiles, and teacher, in order to be proclaimed in the world and be¬come known to men, “in accordance with the command of God our Savior,” who wanted to save us by fulfilling what he had promised.

Now the apostle writes to Titus, “most dearly beloved son,” which is expressed in Greek as ynpaLU TCKVU. This cannot be rendered into Latin speech, for yvrjsLoc expresses more the idea that someone is called faithful and is one’s own and, so to speak, is legitimate or genu¬ine. There is no comparison to another. From this we understand that there were very great differences among Paul’s sons. He considered some to be ynpaiouc, that is, very genuine and united with himself and offspring of a true marriage and of free woman. But others were, so to speak, from a maidservant and from Hagar, who cannot receive an inheritance with Isaac, the son of the free woman. For the words and wisdom and teaching by which Titus was instructing the churches of
Christ made him into the apostle’s own son, and separated him from all association with others.
After this let us consider what follows: “according to the common faith.” When he speaks of “common faith,” does he mean common to all who believed in Christ or “faith common” only to himself and Titus? Now indeed what seems better to me is that the faith of the apostle Paul and of Titus was common, rather than that of all the faithful in whom faith too could not have been common, but diverse, because of the variety of minds.
But finally, notice that the prefatory part of the epistle and the greeting found in the apostle’s preface to Titus is completed with the following sort of conclusion: “Grace and peace from God the Father and from Christ Jesus our Savior.” It is either to be understood that both grace and peace are both from God the Father and from Christ Jesus, and both can be given by either one; or that grace is attributed to the Father, peace to the Son. One should not move on from here with¬out hesitation, since the apostle prayed for certain people that grace and peace would be multiplied. But now to Titus peace and grace are recorded without multiplication. Noah, a just man, who alone was preserved from the shipwreck of the world, is not said to have found in the sight of God many graces, but one grace. And Moses said to the Lord, “If I have found grace before you.” And if anywhere else grace is recorded in the name of the saints, “seek and you will find” that
they did not find graces, but grace. That merchant from the Gospel,
who had many pearls, in the end he found one precious one. Of many pearls this is the only one he buys. For it belongs to the perfect to buy one pearl and one treasure, by means of all their pearls and by trading all their other goods. But it belongs to beginners and to those who are still en route not yet to have only one, but many.

1.5a. For the sake of this matter I left you in Crete, that you might cor¬rect the things that were wanting. It belongs to apostolic dignity to lay the foundation of the church, which no one can lay down except the architect. “But there is no foundation other than Christ Jesus.” The ones who are lesser craftsmen can build the temple upon the founda¬tion. And so Paul is like a wise architect, and he strives with all effort not to boast in things done previously, but where Christ had not yet been proclaimed. After he had softened the hard hearts of the Cre¬tans for faith in Christ, and had subdued them by both words and signs, and had taught them to believe not in their native Jove, but in God the Father and in Christ, he left his disciple Titus in Crete in order to strengthen the rudimentary lessons of the nascent church and to correct anything that seemed wanting. He himself traveled on to other nations in order once again to lay down among them the foundation of Christ.
Now his words, “that you correct what is wanting,” show that they had not yet come to a complete knowledge of the truth; and although they were corrected by an apostle, nevertheless they still need correc-tion. Now everything that is corrected is imperfect. For in the Greek a preposition is attached, so that it is written epiSiopGuah. This does not express the same thing as SiopGuap, that is, “correct,” but it means, so to speak, “super-correct.” Thus he means, let the things that have been corrected by me and have not yet been treated again to the full line of truth, be corrected by you and let them receive an equal standard.
1.5b. That you should appoint priests in every city, just as I arranged for you. Let the bishops who have the authority to appoint priests in the individual cities hear by what kind of law the ranking of ecclesiasti¬cal appointments should be maintained. Let them not think that these are the apostle’s words, but Christ’s, who says to his disciples, “He who rejects you, rejects me; but he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me.” So also, “he who hears you hears me; but he who hears me hears him who sent me.” From this it is clear that those who wish to confer ecclesiastical status on someone not by merit but as a favor, having de¬spised the apostle’s law, act contrary to Christ, who in what follows has described through his apostle what sort of priest ought to be appointed in the church. Moses, God’s friend, to whom God spoke face to face,surely was able to appoint his own sons to be the successors of his rule, and to leave behind his own dignity to posterity. Instead, he selected Jesus, an outsider from a different tribe. This was so that we would know that rule among the people should not be conferred by blood ties but by manner of living. And at the present time we perceive that very many make appointments as a favor. Thus they do not look for those who can help the church the most, they do not set up pillars in the church, but those whom either they themselves like, or by whose flat¬tery they have been won over, or a man whom one of the elders has re¬quested. I better keep quiet about worse situations, those who have obtained their rank in the clergy by means of financial gifts.
Let us pay careful attention to the words of the apostle who says, “that you should appoint priests in every city, just as I arranged for you.” He discusses what sort of priest ought to be ordained in what fol-lows when he says, “If anyone is without fault, a husband of one wife,”and so on. Later he added, “For a bishop must be without fault, as a steward of God.” It is therefore the very same priest, who is a bishop, and before there existed men who are slanderers by instinct, before factions in the religion, and before it was said to the people, “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, but I am of Cephas,” the churches were gov¬erned by a common council of the priests. But after each one began to think that those whom he had baptized were his own and not Christ’s,it was decreed for the whole world that one of the priests should be elected to preside over the others, to whom the entire care of the church should pertain, and the seeds of schism would be removed.
If someone thinks that this is our opinion, but not that of the Scriptures—that bishop and priest are one, and that one is the title of age, the other of his duty—let him reread the apostle’s words to the Philippians when he says, “Paul and Timothy, slaves of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons, grace to you and peace,” and so on. Philippi is a single city in Macedonia, and at least in one city several were not able to be bish¬ops, as they are now thought. But because at that time they called the same men bishops whom they also called priests, therefore he has spo¬ken indifferently of bishops as if of priests.
This may still seem doubtful to someone unless it is proven by an-other testimony. In the Acts of the Apostles it is written that when the apostle came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and summoned the priests of that church to whom later he said among other things, “Watch your-selves, and the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit appointed you bishops to feed the church of God, which he acquired through his own blood.” And observe here very carefully how, by summoning the priests of the single city of Ephesus, later he has spoken of the same men as bishops.
If anyone wants to receive that epistle which is written in Paul’s name to the Hebrews, even there care for the church is shared equally by many. For indeed he writes to the people, “Obey your leaders, and be in subjection; for they are the ones who watch over your souls, as those who will give a reckoning. Let them not do this with sighing; for indeed this is advantageous to you.” And Peter, who received his name from the firmness of his faith, speaks in his own epistle and says, “As a fellow priest, then, I plead with the priests among you, and as a witness of Christ’s sufferings, I who am a companion also of his glory that is to be revealed in the future, tend the Lord’s flock that is among you, not as though by compulsion but voluntarily.”
These things have been said in order to show that to the men of old the same men who were the priests were also the bishops; but grad¬ually, as the seed beds of dissensions were eradicated, all solicitudewas conferred on one man. Therefore, just as the priests know that by the custom of the church they are subject to the one who was previ¬ously appointed over them, so the bishops know that they, more by custom than by the truth of the Lord’s arrangement, are greater than the priests. And they ought to rule the Church commonly, in imitation of Moses who, when he had under his authority to preside alone over the people of Israel, he chose the seventy by whom he could judge the people. Therefore let us see what sort of priest, or bishop, ought to be ordained.

 В том и другом послании повелевается, чтобы в сан как епископа, так и пресвитера (хотя у древних епископами и пресвитерами были одни и те же, поелику первое было именем достоинства, а второе – возраста), избирались единобрачные. Что действительно апостол говорит здесь о крещенных, в этом никто не сомневается. Потому, если рукоположение возможно, хотя бы рукополагаемый и не имел до крещения качеств, требуемых от епископа (потому что требуются качества настоящие, а не прошедшие): то почему же препятствует рукоположению одно имя жены, что одно и не было грехом? Ты скажешь: так как не было грехом, то и не было отпущено в крещении. Это новость: поелику не было грехом, то вменится в грех! Всякий разврат, грязь публичного смешения, нечестия, отцеубийство, кровосмешение, грехи противоестественные очищаются водою Христа: а пороки брачного сожития останутся, публичные домы будут иметь предпочтение пред спальнями?! Я не ставлю тебе в вину множество блудниц, толпы развратников, кровопролитие, помойные ямы, где валяются как свиньи во всякой скверне похотей; а ты, в укоризну мне, извлекаешь из гроба давно умершую жену, которую я взял, чтобы не делать того, что сделал ты? Пусть же язычники – эта жатва церкви, которою ежедневно наполняются наши житницы, – и оглашенные, – эти кандидаты веры, – пусть же они услышат, что до крещения они не должны жениться, не должны вступать в честные браки, но, по обычаю Скоттов и Антикотов и по республике Платона, должны иметь общих жен и общих детей; пусть они остерегаются даже употреблять слово супруга, – чтобы после того, как они уверуют во Христа, их не стали упрекать, что когда-то они имели не наложниц и блудниц, а законных жен.

First of all, then, he should be without fault. I think that in another word to Timothy this is termed “irreproachable.” It is not that he is to be without any fault merely at that time when he is to be ordained and washes away past blemishes by a new manner of life; but from that time when he was reborn in Christ, he should not be plagued by any consciousness of sin. For how can the one in charge of a church “re¬move evil from its midst,” who falls into the same sin? Or by what license can he correct the one who sins, when he tacitly responds to himself that he has perpetrated the very same things that he is cor¬recting?
And so “he who desires the episcopacy desires a noble task.”“Task,” he says, not honor, not glory. “But he ought to have a good tes¬timony with those who are outside, so that he does not fall into re-proach, and into the snare of the devil.” Now as for his words “hus¬band of one wife,” we should understand them as follows: It is not that we are to think that every monogamous man is better than the one who has been married twice; but that he is able to exhort unto monogamy and continence, who offers the example of himself in his teaching. For let there be some young man who has lost his spouse, and overcome by the necessity of the flesh has taken a second wife, whom he also imme¬diately loses. Then he lives continently. But let there be another man who was married to an older woman and made use of his wife, as the majority think happiness consists, and he never ceased from the work of the flesh. Which of the two seems better to you, chaster, more conti¬nent? Surely it is the one who was unhappy (infelix) even in the second marriage and afterward lived chastely and piously, and not the one who was not separated from his wife’s embrace in old age. Therefore let him not congratulate himself, whoever is chosen as if monogamous, that he is better than every twice-married man, since in him happiness is chosen more than will.
Certain ones think the following about this passage. It was a Judaic custom, they say, to have two or more wives, because even in the old law we read this about Abraham and Jacob. And they want this to be a command now, lest the one who is to be chosen bishop equally should have two wives at the same time. Many, more superstitiously than truly, think that likewise those ones are not to be chosen for the priest¬hood who, when they were pagans and had one wife, who was lost, after the baptism of Christ, married another. Though assuredly, if this is to be observed, those ones ought to be excluded from the episcopate who, while practicing wandering lust among prostitutes previously, having been reborn, took one wife. And it would be much more detest¬able that he has fornicated with many than to be found twice-married, since in one there is the unhappiness of marriage, in the other there is a lasciviousness that is prone to committing sin.
Montanus and those who are adherents of the schism of Nova- tus presume for themselves the name of the “purified.” They think that second marriages are to be kept from communion of the church, though the apostle, when giving this instruction about bishops and priests, assuredly relaxed it in respect to the rest. It is not because he is encouraging them to second marriages, but that he makes a conces¬sion to the necessity of the flesh. Tertullian too wrote a heretical book about monogamy, which no one who reads the apostle will fail to know is contrary to the apostle. And indeed it is under our control that a bishop or priest be without fault and have one wife. Otherwise, what follows, “having faithful children, not given to the accusation of excess, and not insubordinate,” is outside of our will.
For let it be so that parents have instructed their children well and have constantly educated them from early childhood in the Lord’s commands. If at a later time they devote themselves to excess and are overcome by vices and let go of the restraints to lust, will the fault re-dound to the parents? Will the sins of the child defile the father’s sanc-tity? If anyone educated his children well, I think that Isaac was among them. Assuredly he should be believed to have instructed his son Esau well. But Esau, a fornicator and a profane man, sold the rights of the firstborn for one meal. Samuel was also such, so that he called upon the Lord and the Lord heard him, and he obtained winter’s rain at the time of the harvest. He had sons who turned aside after greed, and they accepted financial gifts and exhibited themselves as such unjust judges that the people could not bear it and demanded a king over them in imitation of the other nations. Well then, if there were an election of priests, both Isaac, on account of Esau, and Samuel, on ac¬count of his sons, would have been deemed unworthy of the priest¬hood. And though the sins of the parents are not imputed to the children, since that pronouncement is no longer in force, “The parents ate sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge,” will the chil¬dren’s vices prejudge the parents?
And so, first of all it should be said that the name of priesthood is so holy that even the things that are placed outside of us are required of us. This is not in order that we not become bishops on account of our vices, but because we need to be hindered from taking this step on ac¬count of the incontinence of our children. For by what freedom can we correct the children of others and teach what is right, when the one who has been corrected could immediately hurl at us, “First teach your own children”? Or with what effrontery do I correct an outside forni¬cator, when my own conscience responds to me, “Disinherit then the fornicating child; cast out your children who are enslaved to the vices”? But when a bad child lives together with you in the same house, do you dare to remove the speck from the other’s eye, not seeing the beam in your own? Consequently a just man is not defiled by the vices of his children, but the apostle restricts the freedom of the ruler of the church, that he may become such a kind who is not afraid that outsiders re¬proach him for the vices of his children.
Next the following must be added because of those who grow puffed up from the episcopate and think that they have obtained not a stewardship of Christ but power to command. For they are not at once superior to all those who have not been ordained bishops. From the fact that they themselves have been chosen, let them consider them¬selves more approved; but let them understand that some have been removed from the priesthood because their children’s vices hindered them. But if the sins of the children prohibit a just man from the epis¬copacy, how much more should each one who considers himself and who knows that the “powerful suffer powerful torments” withdraw himself from what is not so much an honor as a burden. Let him not campaign to occupy the place of others who are more worthy.
Finally the following should be said, that in the Scriptures by “sons,” loyiapouc, that is, thoughts are understood; but daughters are understood as ppa£eic, that is, deeds. And he ought to be instructed now to become a bishop who has both his thoughts and deeds under his own control, and who truly believes in Christ and is not defiled by any blemish of surreptitious vices.

То есть не легко поднимает руку для удара.

***

Что священник должен избегать любостяжательности, этому научает и Самуил, свидетельствуя перед народом, что он ни у кого ничего не брал (1 Цар. 12:1-3), и нищета апостолов, которые, получая от братии средства к содержанию, хвалились, что, кроме пищи и одежды, они ничего другого не имеют и не желают (Ср. 1 Тим. 6:8).

Among stewards, then, it is sought that one be found faithful.” Let him not eat and drink with drunk¬ards and strike his male and female servants. Instead, let him await the uncertain advent of God and give food to the fellow servants at the proper time. Now the sole distinction between a household steward and the family is that a fellow slave is appointed over his fellow slaves.
And so, let the bishop and priest know that the people are not slaves, but they are fellow slaves with him. The other things that follow are recorded on our behalf. Let the bishop not be “brash,” that is, not “puffed up” and one who pleases himself, but like a good household steward, let him seek what is beneficial to the majority. “Not subject to anger.” He who is always angry is “subject to anger.” He is provoked by the light breeze of a response and of a sin, as if by the wind through the leaves. And in fact there is nothing more disgraceful than an enraged teacher, who, though he ought to be gentle and act according to what is written, “But a servant of the Lord ought not be quarrelsome, but humble toward all, a teacher, patient, instructing in gentleness those who contradict.” That one, on the other hand, clamors and shouts with a twisted expression, quivering lips, wrinkled brow, unbridled in¬sults, a countenance that alternates between pale and bright red. He does not so much lead back toward the good those who are astray, as plunge them headfirst into evil by his savageness. This is what Solo¬mon also says, “Anger destroys even wise men,” and, “A man’s anger does not work the justice of God.” But neither is he “subject to anger” who now and then becomes angry, but he is said to be “subject to anger” who frequently is overcome by this passion.
He also forbids that a bishop be “given to wine.” He writes to Tim-othy about this: “not given to much wine.” Now what sort of thing is it to see a bishop “given to wine,” so that while his senses are overrun he raises a laugh contrary to proper decorum and dignity. His lips let loose with uncontrollable laughter; or, if he suddenly remembers some¬thing sad, in the midst of his cups he breaks down in sobs and tears. It would take too long to go into detail and describe the madness that drunkenness gives rise to. You should see how some men turn their cups into missiles and hurl goblets at the face of their own dinner guests. Another rushes forth with clothes that have been torn by wounds inflicted by others; some shout, others fall asleep. The one who drinks the most is reckoned to be strongest. It is an occasion for an ac¬cusation when one who has sworn loyalty to the king has not gotten drunk frequently enough. They vomit in order to drink; they drink in order to vomit. The belly’s digestion and the throat are occupied with a single duty. Let it suffice for now to have said this, which accords with the apostle: “In wine there is excess.”
And wherever there is overabundance and drunkenness, there lust is in control. Look at the belly and the genitals, the arrangement of the members has in view the nature of the vices. I will never regard a drunken man as chaste. Even if he is lulled to sleep by the wine, never-theless he could have sinned through the wine. But are we surprised that the apostle condemned wine drinking in bishops or priests, when in the old law too it is commanded that priests, when they enter the temple to minister to God, not drink wine at all? Moreover the Naza- rene is not defiled as long as he takes care of his sacred hair, does not look upon anything dead, abstains both from wine, dried grapes, weaker drinks that usually come from grape-skins, and from all strong drinks, which distort the mind from complete soundness. Let each one say what he wants to; I speak my conscience. I know that absti¬nence, when interrupted, has harmed me, and when renewed has brought benefit.
Now after wine drinking he commands this: “he should not be a striker.” This, of course, edifies the hearer when understood literally, that he should not readily stretch forth his hand to strike; he should not burst out in a rage to punch someone else in the mouth. But it is better to say that one is “not a striker” who is gentle and patient so that he knows what should be said at the moment, what should be held in si¬lence; not to “strike” the conscience of the weak with unhelpful words. For the apostle, when forming the ruler of a church, forbids him to be a boxer and a pancratiast (which is reproached even among the com¬mon people and in pagans if it happens), but as I have said pay heed to this: let not the abusive and garrulous man ruin one whom he was able to correct with modesty and mildness.
He who will be a bishop ought to be estranged too from being a seeker after “disgraceful gain.” For there are many who teach what is not fitting for the sake of “disgraceful gain,” who subvert entire house¬holds and think that piety is profit. But according to Solomon “a mod¬est acceptance is better with justice than much produce with iniquity.”And one should rather choose a good name with poverty than an evil name with riches. A bishop who desires to be an imitator of the apos¬tle, “having food and clothing,” ought to be content with these alone.
Those who serve at the altar live from the altar. They do not live, he says, who become rich. This is why copper is shaken out of our belts, we wear only one tunic; we do not think about tomorrow. The ap¬petite for “disgraceful gain” indicates that one is thinking more about the present. Up to this point the apostle’s words have instructed what the bishop or priest should not have; now, on the other hand, he ex¬plains what he should have.

Before everything “hospitality” (hospitali- tas) is officially announced in the future bishop. For if everyone desires to hear the following from the Gospel, “I was a stranger (hospes) and you received me,” how much more should a bishop, whose home ought to be a common lodge for all! For a layman will fulfill the duty of hospitality by receiving one or two or a few strangers. A bishop is inhumane if he does not receive everyone.
But I am apprehensive that, just as the Queen of the South who came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon will judge the men of her own time; and just as the men of Nineveh who did penance at the preaching of Jonah will condemn those who scorned listening to the one who was greater than Jonah, the Savior; so in the same way very many among the people will judge the bishops who dis¬sociate themselves from their ecclesiastical rank and practice things that do not befit bishops. I think that John is writing to Gaius about them: “Beloved, you do faithfully whatever you achieve among the brothers, and you do this for strangers who gave testimony to your love before the Church, whom you do well if you send them ahead worthily of God; for they went out on behalf of his name, taking noth¬ing from the Gentiles.” And with the Holy Spirit truly speaking in him what is to come upon the churches, even then he rebukes, say¬ing, “I wrote likewise to the church, but he who desires to exercise pri¬macy among them, Diotrephes, does not receive us. Therefore when I come I will admonish his works that he is doing, detracting from us by means of evil words. And it is not enough that he does not receive the brothers himself, but he even hinders those who want to, and he expels them from the church.”
Truly, now it is to discern what has been said first, that in very many cities the bishops or priests, if they see that the laity are “hospi¬table, lovers of good things,” they envy them, they complain, they ex-communicate, they expel them from the church. They act as if it is not permitted to do what the bishop is not doing. The very fact that the laity are such is a condemnation of the priests. And so they resent them, and regard them as if they were burdens on their necks, in order to lead them away from good works, to unsettle them by various forms of per-secution.
But let the bishop be “chaste,” which the Greeks call aufpona, and the Latin translator, fooled by the ambiguity of the word, translated “prudent” instead of “chaste.” But if laymen are commanded to ab¬stain from intercourse with their wives for the sake of prayer, what is one to think of a bishop, who will daily offer intact victims for his own sins and the people’s? We should reread the books of Kingdoms and we will find that the priest Abimelech was unwilling to give any of the bread of proposition to David and his men before he had first asked whether the men were “clean from woman,” assuredly referring not to someone else’s spouse but to their own. And until he had heard that they had been free from the conjugal act since yesterday and the day before, he did not allow them the bread that he had at first denied. How great is the difference between the bread of proposition and the body of Christ? It is the difference between shadow and bodies, between image and truth, between copies of things to come and the realities themselves which were prefigured through the copies.
And so, just as gentleness, patience, sobriety, moderation, abstain-ing from profit, hospitality, too, and kindness, ought to be in a bishop in particular, and they ought to be eminent among all the laity, so also there should be in him a unique chastity and, so to speak, a priestly pu¬rity, so that he not only keeps himself from the unclean act but even from the glance of his eye and from straying in his thoughts. Let his mind be free to confect the body of Christ. The bishop should be just and holy as well, so that he is preeminent in justice among the people among whom he labors, rendering to each man what he deserves, showing no partiality in judgment. The difference between the justice of a layman and of a bishop is this, that a layman can appear just to a few people, but a bishop can practice justice among as many people as are subject to him.
Now “holy,” which in Greek is expressed by osioi, signifies more the idea of sanctity itself combined with religiousness. It is referred to God. For the one whom we call holy, the Greeks call ayion. But what they call osion we can call pious toward God.
Let the bishop also be “abstinent,” not only, as some think, from lust and from the embrace of a woman, but from all disturbances of the mind. Let him not be incited to wrath; let not sadness cause him to be dejected; let not fear scare him away; let him not be carried away by excessive gladness. Now abstinence is listed by the apostle among the fruits of the Spirit. And if it is demanded of everyone, how much more of the bishop, who ought to bear the vices of sinners with pa¬tience and gentleness: “console the faint-hearted, endure the weak,”“render to no one evil for evil,” but “overcome evil by good.”

Finally let the one who is in accordance with doctrine hold fast to “faithful speech,” that just as the word of God is faithful, and worthy of all acceptance, so also he should show himself to be such that every¬thing that he says is reckoned to be worthy of the faith and his words should be worthy of the rule of truth.
Let him also be “able to console” those who are stirred up by the storms of this world, and to destroy weak precepts by means of “sound doctrine.” Now “sound doctrine” is spoken of in distinction from feeble and weak doctrine. Let him be such too that he refutes “those who con-tradict,” heretics or Jews, and the wise of this age. Now the things that he recorded higher up in respect to the virtues of the bishop per¬tain to life; but what he says now, “So that he may be able to console in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict,” should be referred to knowledge. For if merely the life of the bishop is holy, the one living thus can bring benefit to himself. If he is further educated both in doc¬trine and speech, he can instruct himself and others; and not only in¬struct and teach his own people, but also strike back against his adver¬saries, who, unless they are refuted and overcome, can easily destroy simple hearts.
This passage opposes those who, in their personal devotion to lazi¬ness, idleness, and sleep, think that it is a sin to read the Scriptures; and who despise as “garrulous and unprofitable” those who meditate on the law of the Lord day and night. They do not notice that the apostle, after his catalogue of the bishop’s way of life, has likewise given in-struction about his doctrine as well.

He who will be a ruler of the church should have eloquence combined with in¬tegrity of life, lest the deeds without words be mute, and the words be ashamed because of the deeds that are lacking. This is especially the case since they are not few but “many” who are “not subordinate but brash,” who do not care that the Psalmist says, “Is not my soul subject to God?” who destroy by their worthless persuasion the good seed of minds that has by nature the knowledge of God. (For it seems to me that Paul thought this, since he says fpenaraTai, not as the Latin translator rendered it literally, “deceivers,” but “deceivers of minds.”)

And indeed, without the authority of the Scriptures, their garru-lousness would not be believable, if these men did not seem to cor-roborate their perverse doctrine as well by divine testimonies. They are Jews of the circumcision who at that time endeavored to destroy the nascent church of Christ and to introduce the precepts of the law. Paul develops this quite fully both in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians. And a few months ago we dictated three books in explana¬tion of the Epistle to the Galatians. A teacher of the church to whom the souls of the people have been entrusted should overcome such men by means of reasoning from the Scriptures. By the weight of testimo¬nies he should impose silence on those who overturn not one or two homes, but all homes, masters together with their families. These men teach about the differences between foods, about the already long ago abolished Sabbath, about the injury of circumcision. Would that they did this from the zeal of faith; then it could be partly forgiven, since the apostle says, “I confess, they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” But because their belly is god, for the sake of disgrace¬ful profit they want to make their own disciples, so that as teachers they may be taken care of by their adherents.
But we can interpret what has been said in another way: “for the sake of disgraceful profit.” Let us consider that the apostle has used a common saying whereby all the heretics, when they teach perverse things, customarily assert themselves as profiteers of men; though to destroy the souls of the deceived is not profit, but perdition. On the other hand, he who corrects his erring brother in accordance with the gospel, if he is converted, he has gained him. For what greater profit (lucrum) can there be, or what is more precious, than if someone gains a human soul? Every teacher of the church, therefore, who persuades by the right method to faith in Christ is an honest profiteer (lucrator). And every heretic who deceives men by certain tricks and is deceived, “speaks what is not fitting for the sake of disgraceful profit.”

In terms of the text itself and as far as it pertains to the content of the passage, what he says, “One of themselves, a prophet of their own said,” seems to refer to those of whom he said above, “es¬pecially those who are of the circumcision, whom it is necessary to restrain, who overturn entire homes, teaching what is not fitting for the sake of disgraceful profit.” Thus it follows: “one of themselves, a prophet of their own said.” But since this brief hexameter verse is not found in any of the prophets who prophesied in Judea, to me it seems that there are two ways this should be read. Thus when what he says, “one of themselves, a prophet of their own said,” is joined with what precedes, “For the sake of this matter, I left you in Crete, so that you would correct the things that were lacking,” it follows, “one of them¬selves, a prophet of their own said,” that is, one of the Cretans.
But because there are many things in between, and this seems ab-surd, and perhaps no one would receive it, therefore one should apply it in another manner with the preceding things that are nearer to it, so that we read, “For there are also many who are insubordinate, vain talkers, and deceivers of minds, but especially those who are of the cir-cumcision.” “It is necessary to restrain many who are insubordinate, vain talkers, and deceivers of minds, along with those who are of the circumcision, who overturn entire homes, teaching what is not fitting for the sake of disgraceful profit.” “One of themselves, a prophet of their own said.” Thus his words, “a prophet of their own,” refers not particularly to the Jews, and to those especially “who are of the circum-cision,” but to the “many who are disobedient and vain talkers and deceivers of minds.” Especially because they were in Crete, they must be believed to have been Cretans.
Now this brief verse is said to be found among the oracular sayings of the Cretan poet Epimenides. In the present circumstances he has either mockingly called him a prophet, namely, because such Chris¬tians deserve to have prophets like this, just as there were also prophets of Baal and prophets of confusion and others of stumbling blocks, and whatever other corrupt prophets Scripture mentions; or he has truly called him one, because he had written about oracles and re¬sponses that both predict the future itself and tell well ahead of time the things that are coming. After all, the book itself is marked on the title page “Oracles.” Because it seemed to promise something divine, for this reason I think the apostle looked into it to see what the divina¬tion of the pagans promised. And on the occasion of writing to Titus, who was in Crete, he used (abusum) this little verse in order to crush the false teachers of the Cretans by means of an author from their own island.
Now it is noticeable that Paul does this not only in this passage but also in others. For in the Acts of the Apostles, when he was assembled with the people and was involved in discussion on the Areopagus, which is the Senate Building of the Athenians, among other things he says, “Just as one of your own poets said: ‘For we are indeed his off-spring.’” This half-line is read in the Phaenomena of Aratus, which Cicero translated into the Latin language, as well as Germanicus Caesar and recently Avienus and many whom it would take too long to enumerate. He also does this in his letter to the Corinthians, who were themselves polished by Attic eloquence. And because of the proximity of locations, they are seasoned with a taste of the Athenians. There he took an iambic line from a comedy of Menander: “Bad com¬pany ruins good morals.”
It is not surprising if on occasion he makes use (abutatur) of lines from pagan poets, since he even changes some things from the inscrip-tion of an altar and says to the Athenians, “For while passing through and observing your objects of worship, I even found an altar in which it was inscribed: ‘To an unknown God.’ And so, what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.” Now the inscription of the altar was not precisely as Paul claimed: “to an unknown God,” but “to the gods of Asia and of Europe and of Africa, to the unknown and foreign gods.” But because Paul did not require several unknown gods but only one unknown God, he used the word in the singular, in order to teach that that God is his own, whom the Athenians had designated on the inscription of the altar; and that by knowing him in the right way, they ought to worship him whom they were venerating in ignorance and whom they were unable not to know. Now Paul did this seldom and as the occasion of the passage demanded, rather than from ostenta¬tion, in the manner of bees, which are accustomed to store up honey from different flowers and to fit together the little storerooms of their honeycombs.
There are those who think that this verse has been taken from the poet Callimachus of Cyrene and to some extent they are not wrong. For in fact he himself, while repeatedly writing in praise of Jove against the Cretans, who boasted that they displayed a tomb, says, “Cretans are always liars, who by their sacrilegious mind have fabricated even his tomb.” But, as we said above, the apostle took the entire verse from the poet Epimenides. And his Callimachus made use of an introduction in his poem. Or, without plagiarism of someone else’s work, he rendered into meter a common proverb in which the Cretans were called liars.
Some think that the apostle should be rebuked because he impru-dently slipped, and while accusing false teachers he approved of that little line, that the reason the Cretans are said to be liars is because they inanely built Jupiter’s tomb. For if, they say, the reason Epimenides, or Callimachus, prove that the Cretans are liars and evil beasts and idle bellies is because they do not perceive divine things; and they imagine that Jove, who reigns in heaven, is buried on their island; and that which they said is proven to be true by the apostle’s judgment; then it follows that Jupiter is not dead but alive. Unskillfully, therefore, Paul, the destroyer of idolatry, while he pleads against perverse teachers, has asserted the gods whom he was fighting against.
One should briefly respond to them as follows. Just as in what he says, “Bad company corrupts good morals,” and in this, “For we are his offspring,” he has not all at once approved of the entire comedy of Menander and book of Aratus; but he has made use of the occasion of a brief line; so also in the present passage. By one little verse he has not affirmed the whole work of Callimachus or Epimenides, one of whom sings Jove’s praises, the other who writes often of oracles; but he merely rebuked the mendacious Cretans for a vice that is characteristic of their nation. He silences them by means of an author from their own coun¬try, not on account of that opinion by which they are convicted by the poets, but on account of their inborn readiness to lie.
But those who think that someone who uses a part of a book is ob-ligated to follow the entire book seem to me to be receiving among the Scriptures of the church the apocrypha Enoch from which the apostle Jude has cited a testimony in his epistle, and the many other things that the apostle Paul has spoken about recondite matters. For by this argument we could say the following: among the Athenians he said that they worshiped the unknown God whom they pointed out to him on the altar. Paul ought to follow the other things as well that were written on that altar, and he should do the things that the Athenians were doing. For he had partly agreed with the Athenians in the worship of the unknown God. Far be it from me to drag his argument and scholarship from elegance into calumny in this way.
There is no one who is so much a murderer, so much a parricide, so much a poisoner, that he does not do something good once in a while. Well then, if I see and approve of the one good thing in such men, am I immediately burdened by the necessity to approve the other evils things that they do? If an enemy who is against us is scolded and
cries out, does he not speak some truth amidst the words of enmity and wrangling, which are not faulted absolutely, even by us against whom he is speaking? And so, both Callimachus and Epimenides have not therefore spoken truly, that Jove is a god and the remaining things that are contained in their poems, just because the Cretans are liars; but they have spoken truth only in that matter, since they have expressed a congenital vice of mendacity in the Cretans, who because they are liars have not immediately not spoken truth as well once in a while. For Ju-piter would not therefore be a god, if the Cretans spoke truth; but even with them being silent, he who was dead would not have the name of god.