Titus 1:6Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

That is, if his life is free from reproach, and if no one could accuse him of a bad life.

Listen to what Christ says: "If the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness" (Mt 6:23)?

"Having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination."

Notice what great foresight he shows also concerning children. For if a man could not teach his own children, how can he be a teacher of others?

If he could not order those whom he had with him from the beginning, whom he raised, and over whom he had authority both by law and by nature, how can he be useful to strangers?

If the father's negligence had not been great, he would not have allowed those over whom he had authority from the beginning of their life to become evil.

It is impossible, truly impossible, for one who from the beginning was raised with great diligence and surrounded with care to become evil.

For sins are not by nature such that they can be stronger than such care.

If he regarded the upbringing of children as secondary, caring only for property and not having the same concern for them, then for this reason too he is unworthy of the sacred rank.

If, where nature urged him, he had so little love, or was so senseless that he cared more for property than for children, how can he be raised to the episcopal throne and to such a degree of authority?

If he could not raise his children, he is worthy of great condemnation for sloth. If he did not try, he is worthy of great condemnation for lack of love.

Therefore, he who does not care for his own children, how will he care for those of others?

And further, the Apostle did not simply say that he should not be dissolute, but that he should not be "accused of dissipation," so that there should not even be evil rumor about him.

"Having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination." If a man has not raised his own children, how will he govern others?

It is clear that if he had first raised his children well and carefully, they would not have turned out insubordinate.

For sins are not by nature such that they can be stronger than such care.

The Apostle did not simply say, "children who are not dissolute," but even children entirely free from reproach for dissipation and free from evil suspicion.

Nor shall we count every man married once as better than one married twice. The point is that a bishop must call men to one marriage and constancy, offering himself as an example for instruction. Which of the two seems to you better, more modest, more steadfast? Surely it is the man who, widowed and in a second marriage, thereafter began to live chastely and holily. It is not the man married once who, through a whole lifetime into old age, never freed himself from a harlot's embrace.

Among those who trained their sons well, though they later proved evil, I count Isaac. He certainly instructed his son Esau in the true faith. Yet Esau, wanton and base, sold his birthright for one meal (cf. Gen 25:29-34). Samuel also was among such parents. He cried to the Lord, and the Lord heard him. At harvest time he obtained rain in winter by prayer. Yet his sons turned aside into greed (cf. 1 Sam 8:1-6).

A bishop must not multiply wealth, arrange royal banquets, or prepare pheasants over a gentle fire. No, he must first require of his own household what he intends to impress upon the people.

If he was able and did not take pains, he deserves blame for lack of love. Therefore, one who neglects his own children is unworthy to have the care of others entrusted to him. Elsewhere he also said, "If a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the Church of God?" (1 Tim 3:5).

But the Apostle Paul does not entrust the Cretan community with choosing presbyters. He entrusts this to one authorized by himself, his ordained disciple Titus, who had received a special consecration from the Apostle. The presbyters also appear as particular consecrated persons, receiving their rank through a special symbolic act of consecration by ordination. The Apostle Paul also clearly says this to another disciple and ordained minister of his, Timothy (1 Tim 5:22).

Blamelessness in a presbyter must, of course, be understood not as perfect and virginal purity, as though by a secret vow. Though it is sometimes expressed by the name of blamelessness, here it is meant more generally. It means "irreproachable and unobjectionable conduct, not only immediately before election, but throughout the whole preceding life" (Jerome).

"The husband of one wife," that is, not one married twice. But is every man married once therefore better than one married twice? "No," answers blessed Jerome. "It is said to show that one who teaches such a lesson more by his own example can more easily incline others to one marriage and continence." Saint Chrysostom says: "Why does the Apostle present such a man, that is, a married man, yet one married once? He stops the mouths of heretics who condemned marriage, showing that it is in no way blameworthy. Rather, it is so honorable that one may even ascend to the sacred throne while living in it. At the same time he reproves incontinent men by not permitting them to receive this authority after a second marriage."

"Having faithful children," that is, believing Christians, not pagans or unbelieving atheists. They are to be "not accused of fornication," in Russian, not reproached for dissipation, "or insubordinate," that is, not violent and disobedient. Although the guilt of children does not make innocent parents guilty before God, the depravity of priests' children can constrain and cut off their fathers' freedom of speech. "For with what freedom," blessed Jerome reasons about this, "can we rebuke other men's sons and teach them the right paths, when the one rebuked can answer us: first teach your own!"

All this lays great responsibility upon the children of presbyters. It should move them to guard themselves in purity, faith, and good obedience. But on the other hand, the apostolic rule also lays on the clergy an indispensable duty. They must raise their children according to the strict rules of Christian piety. "He who does not care for his own children," notes Saint Chrysostom, "how can he care for others?"

Continence was regarded as higher than marriage. A second marriage was viewed as a weakness that could never be tolerated in a servant of the divine altar.

When it was observed that the prescriptions of Holy Scripture concerning the single marriage of clergy were not being observed by some with full strictness, it became necessary to issue this prescription in legal form.

Such is this Apostolic Canon. It forbids anyone who has married a second time to enter the clergy.

From the very beginning of the Church, the prescription of this canon had great significance. Many Fathers and teachers of the Church from that time testify to this.

It was then renewed by Saint Basil the Great in his twelfth canon, and by the Council in Trullo, which cites it word for word in its third canon, as we shall see below.

The canon says "after baptism." That is, one who, as a Christian, has married twice cannot be received into the clergy.

But if someone was married once before baptism and then married a second time after baptism, this latter fact was not considered an obstacle to receiving him into the clergy.

In his interpretation of this canon, Zonaras gives the following arguments: "We believe that the divine laver of holy baptism washes away every defilement by which those baptized were defiled before baptism.

No sin committed by anyone before baptism can hinder the newly baptized from being received into the priesthood."

The canon's reminder that a first marriage before baptism need not be taken into account is explained by the time when this canon was issued.

At that time almost the whole Church consisted of the newly baptized, who had passed into Christianity either from Judaism or from paganism.

Consequently, they had lived for a long time either in Judaism or in paganism, under the corresponding conditions of the religious society from which they later came out.

The canon undoubtedly also forbids receiving into the clergy one who after baptism had a concubine, παλλακή, concubina.

Concubinage is fornication. If one who has contracted a second marriage cannot be tolerated in the clergy and must not officiate before the holy altar, still less can such a man be tolerated in the clergy.

He keeps a concubine and therefore is an open fornicator.

According to the prescription of this canon, one twice married or one who has had a concubine cannot become not only a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.

In general, he cannot hold a place among the church servers entered in the lists of the sacred order, ή όλως τού καταλόγου τού ίερατικού.

The same is said in the following eighteenth canon. In the priestly catalogues of the first times of the Church, and also later, subdeacons, readers, and singers were entered along with bishops, priests, and deacons.

These last, at any rate, must be understood among the persons of the priestly catalogue. If one takes into account the strictness of Church discipline in the first times of Christianity, it is easy to explain why the canon extended its prescriptions to these persons as well.

In later times, some of these persons, who generally bore the name church servers, ύπηρέται, were permitted to enter a second marriage.

"Thus, first, he must be blameless, ανεγκλητος. This very thing is expressed by another word in the Epistle to Timothy, I think, namely ανεπιλημπτος, irreproachable (see 1 Tim 3:2).

Not only at the time when he is chosen and appointed should he have no guilt or sin upon himself, having washed away his stains only just before this by a new conversion and repentance.

Rather, he must be such that his conscience does not gnaw at him for any sin since the time of his regeneration in Christ, that is, since baptism.

Otherwise, how will the presider of the Church be able to remove an evil man from her midst when he himself has fallen into the same vice?

Or how will he freely reproach one who sins when, secretly in his heart, he knows that he himself has allowed what he rebukes in another?" (Blessed Jerome).

"The husband of one wife," that is, not twice married. The Apostle honored marriage, since he did not set it as a barrier to receiving the rank of priesthood.

Yet he also gave no indulgence to marital pleasures, since he denied this rank to those twice married. On the one hand, continence is in view; on the other, devotion to one woman.

Both presume qualities that can serve as a guarantee that the one chosen can govern well the Church entrusted to him.

Saint Chrysostom says, "Why does the Apostle present such a man? He stops the mouths of heretics who condemned marriage, showing that this matter is not at all blameworthy.

Rather, it is so honorable that one may even ascend to the sacred throne while married. At the same time, he reproaches incontinent people, not permitting one to receive this authority after a second marriage.

Indeed, if a man has not preserved goodwill toward the wife who died, can he be a good presider? What reproach will he not incur?

You know, all of you know, that although the laws do not forbid entering a second marriage, this matter is nevertheless subject to many reproaches.

The Apostle wishes the ruler to give those subject to him no occasion for reproach."

Blessed Jerome looks here not so much at the act itself as at the inner disposition that the Apostle wished to instill by these words.

"The words 'husband of one wife' must be understood so that it does not follow that every man married once is thereby better than one married twice.

Rather, this was said to show that it is easier for one to incline others toward one marriage and continence when, in giving such a lesson, he teaches more by his own example.

Let us suppose that some young man lost his wife and, being overcome by bodily need, took another. But after soon losing her also, he resolved thereafter to live in continence from marital pleasures.

Let us take another man who had one wife until old age and never ceased bodily relations with her. Which of these two is better, more continent, and purer?

Certainly the one who, after suffering misfortune even in the second marriage, then began to live purely and holily. It is not the one who, even in old age, did not refrain from embraces with his wife.

Therefore let the one chosen for the priesthood not applaud himself because he was married only once, as though he were better than every man twice married.

In his election, fortune, namely not losing his wife, may have had more part than good free choice, namely preserving continence.

Some understand this passage as meaning that a man who has two wives at once should not be chosen as bishop. Others interpret it altogether perversely.

Montanus and the followers of Novatus's schism, who appropriated for themselves the name of continent and pure, think on the basis of this passage that second marriages are forbidden to Christians.

Yet the Apostle prescribed one marriage only for bishops and presbyters, while granting indulgence to others in this respect.

Tertullian also wrote a heretical book on monogamy. Anyone who reads the Apostle without prejudice cannot fail to see that he goes against the Apostle."

"Having faithful children, not accused of debauchery or insubordination." It is necessary that the children of the one chosen be believers and not subject to reproach for fornication, insubordination, or obstinacy.

To have one wife and to be blameless depends on a man's free choice. But children being disorderly is not always the parents' fault.

Therefore it is not wrong to add that the Apostle means here those cases in which the children are disorderly through the parents' fault, through their inability to direct them properly or through negligence in this matter.

But the Apostle did not single out these cases, because they were very rare. Perhaps it was also because, even if children are bad through no fault of the father, some shadow still falls on him.

The Apostle wants no one to see any stain on the chosen man. He wants him to be manifestly irreproachable in everything before all.

Saint Chrysostom sees here a parent who is guilty of the disorder of his children. Affirming that such a man is rightly not chosen as bishop, he explains this rule as follows.

"For," he says, "how can one who could not teach his own children be a teacher of others?

If he could not order those whom he had with him from the beginning, whom he raised, and over whom he had authority both by law and by nature, how can he be useful for those who are not his own?

If the father's carelessness had not been great, he would not have allowed those over whom he had authority from the beginning of their life to become evil.

It is impossible, truly impossible, for one who from the beginning was raised with great diligence and surrounded by care to become evil. Sins are not by nature able to be stronger than such care.

But if he counted the upbringing of children a secondary matter, caring only for property and not having proper concern for them, then for this reason also he is unworthy of the sacred rank.

If, where nature itself urged him, he had so little love or was so foolish that he cared more for property than for them, how can he be raised to the episcopal throne and to such a degree of authority?

If he could not raise his children, he deserves great condemnation for sloth. If he did not try, he deserves great condemnation for lack of love.

Therefore how can one who neglects his own children care for those of others?"

Blessed Jerome distinguishes fathers who are not guilty of their children's disorder. Nevertheless, he leaves the apostolic rule in full force.

He does this not because the children's faults make innocent parents guilty of them, but because otherwise the bishop's freedom of speech will be constrained and cut off.

He writes, "For a bishop or presbyter to be without fault and have one wife are requirements that lie within our power.

But what follows, to have faithful sons not subject to reproach for debauchery or insubordination, consists of requirements that do not lie within our power.

Therefore, if parents raised their children well and from youth taught them to keep the Lord's commandments, but they later became corrupted and gave themselves over to vice and lack of restraint, does the blame fall on the parents?

Do the sins of the son stain the holiness of the innocent father? Isaac, for example, certainly taught his son Esau every good thing.

Yet Esau proved to be both a fornicator and impious, so much so that he sold the sacred right of his firstborn status for one meal (see Gen 25).

So also Samuel, who was such that in the day of need he cried out to the Lord for Israel, and the Lord thundered with a great voice against the foreigners, the enemies of Israel, and they fell (cf. 1 Sam 7:10).

Yet Samuel had children who turned aside after greed, accepted gifts, and proved such unjust judges that, on this occasion, the people of Israel asked for a king after the example of other nations (see 1 Sam 8).

Therefore, if Isaac and Samuel had been among those chosen for the priesthood, Isaac on account of Esau and Samuel on account of his children would have had to be counted unworthy of the priesthood.

But in such a case, since the sins of parents are not imputed to children, should we not set the sins of children as a prior condemnation against parents?

How, then, shall we judge? First, it must be said that the name of the priesthood is so holy that, even if by our own deeds we are not unworthy of the episcopate, we should not be admitted to this rank because of the disorderliness of our children.

For with what freedom can we rebuke the sons of others and teach them right paths, when the one rebuked can answer us: first teach your own?

Or with what face shall I reproach a fornicator when my own conscience says to me in reply: then disinherit your fornicating son, and reject your children who give themselves to vices?

But when an unworthy son lives under the same roof with you, then by acting so, that is, by rebuking the sons of others, are you not removing the speck from another's eye while not seeing the beam in your own?

Thus the Apostle's words do not defile the righteous man because of his children's vices. They guard freedom of speech for the presider of the Church.

He should be such that he does not fear to rebuke the children of others because of the viciousness of his own."