A third witness and defender and champion of the same doctrine follows. He is indeed later, since he flourished no earlier than the eleventh century1, yet learned, and, what is chiefly important, most thoroughly versed in the theology received in the Greek and Eastern Church. This is Theophylact, who, comparing together several texts which are read in the Bible concerning the sacrifices of the law, writes these things among others2:
Τί οὖν; αἱ κατὰ νόμον θυσίαι οὐκ ἦσαν θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ; θέλημα μὲν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοῦ θελήματος σημασία διττή. Θέλει γάρ τις τόδε τι προηγουμένως, ὡς ὁ Παῦλος, θέλω πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ὡς ἐμαυτόν, τουτέστιν, ἀγάμους. Θέλει τις καὶ συγκαταβατικῶς, ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλος· βούλομαι νεωτέρας χήρας γαμεῖν· τοῦτο συγκαταβατικὸν θέλημα, ἵνα γὰρ μὴ καταστρηνιάσωσι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, διὰ τοῦτο συγκατέβη· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς προηγουμένως μὲν οὐκ ἤθελε κνίσσας καὶ αἵματα. ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἑώρα, ὡς οἱ Ἑβραῖοι θύοντες δαίμοσι, σφόδρα αὐτῶν δὴ τῶν θυσιῶν περιέχονται, συγκατέβη αὐτοῖς. ἵνα εἰς τιμὴν αὐτῷ τὴν θυσίαν προσάγωσι,
What then? Were the sacrifices according to the law not the will of God? They were indeed his will; but the signification of will is twofold. For one wills something first and chiefly, as Paul3 says: “I will all men to be as I myself am,” that is, celibate. One also wills something by condescension, as when the same Paul4 says: “I will the younger widows to marry.” This is a will proceeding from condescension. For, lest they grow wanton against Christ, he makes this concession to them. In a similar manner God did not first and chiefly will fumes and blood; but because he saw that the Hebrews offered sacrifices to demons and were vehemently occupied with those very sacrifices, he made a concession to them, that they might offer sacrifice to his honor and not to idols.
Behold, you have the division of the divine will and the origin and nature of each part well explained. You have the division, since Theophylact distributes the will into that which he calls θέλημα προηγούμενον, the first and chief will, and that which he calls θέλημα συγκαταβατικόν, the will from condescension.
You have the origin of each, for the former arises spontaneously from God himself and lacks an external cause; but the latter comes to God ἔξωθεν, from without, and derives its cause from men.
You have also the nature, since θέλημα προηγούμενον, the first will, antecedently precedes and goes before in order, while θέλημα συγκαταβατικόν, the will from condescension, follows and succeeds in order.
Footnotes
-
There have been those who wrote that Theophylact flourished in the ninth century; but Bernard de Rubeis excellently refutes them in the preliminary dissertation prefixed to the works of Theophylact, §§ I-III, and shows that he lived at the close of the eleventh century and the beginning of the twelfth. ↩
-
On the Epistle to the Hebrews, X. 8. ↩
-
I Cor. VII. 7. ↩
-
I Tim. V.14. ↩