Instead of the imperial theological formulation that became Monothelitism, the Dyothelite model of the will as a natural property works wherever we look theologically. The process of willing is mysterious for us, but we may see clearly that neither do we choose independently of our natural desires, nor do we lack the capacity to transcend them.
Being persons embedded in the array of natural properties we possess, we make choices under the influence of our beliefs, experiences, perceptions, and the Spirit of God.
We may imagine that the Son of God experienced something very close to us. Admissions Academics Students Alumni Give.
Apply to Southern Seminary Visit the Campus. Tweet Share. Download PDF. First, is Jesus fully human like we are? Possession of a created human will seems necessary for true human life, including temptation and obedience for righteousness as a man.
This leads to a second question: Was Jesus able to sin when he was tempted? A quick answer is to say no; his divine will overruled his human will so that he could not sin.
If that is right, then does Jesus possess a real human will with the capacity of free choice? Further, do free choice and temptation entail the ability to sin? It seems that we must affirm that Jesus possesses a true human will since God cannot be tempted Jas and Jesus was truly tempted Heb Accordingly, if Jesus truly possesses a human will, then could he disagree with himself his divine will? Against the prospect of a conflict in one person with two wills, some theologians ancient and contemporary have sought to ground the unity of the incarnation in a single will of the Son of God.
The definition of the will as personal or natural, more than the number of wills in Christ, is the real issue of disagreement. This formulation of the one-will view leads to another question about the Trinity: since the Son of God possesses a will because he is a person, then so do the Father and the Holy Spirit. If they are persons with distinct wills, then could they choose against each other? To preserve the unity of the incarnation by locating the will in the person, Monothelitism entails the problem of conflict in the triune God.
Opposite to Monothelitism, I will argue that the two-wills model Dyothelitism is more accurate to the biblical and theological evidence for the incarnation, and the model elucidates a consistent meaning of the will for God and for human beings. First, the incarnation provides the clearest revelation of divine and human existence, so whatever clarity or obscurity we have about Jesus is magnified in our thinking about God and humanity.
The concept of the will is not clearly revealed in the Bible, and science has not yet discerned the will empirically actually, some neuroscientists deny the capacity for free choice as a trick of the human mind 2.
When we understand what the will may be for God and human beings, we can apply that to Jesus and see how this theological model works.
The meaning of person is best applied to God and human beings in an analogical way instead of univocal or equivocal , so that the likenesses and differences are acknowledged. The analogy of divine and human personhood must be close enough for a divine person to personalize the human existence that he creates to live in.
The Son of God is a divine person who also lives as a true human person, since he is a person living in a human nature that is uniquely his own. In the case of the incarnation, God the Son is one person who possesses two natures, having added a human nature while continuing to possess his divine nature hypostatic union of each nature to the person who is owner.
Second, the term nature refers to what a person possesses as a particular mode of existence, what kind of a thing it is also true for creatures that are not persons, such as animals and insects. A nature is all the properties or, substances that are necessary for membership in a natural kind for example, one must possess a human body and soul to count as a human being.
Also uniquely, one of the Trinity assumed a second mode of existence, a human nature, and so the Son of God lives a dual life as God and as a man simultaneously. As a Dyothelite model, I will follow the definition of nature as the collection of properties that includes the will by contrast to Monothelitism that denied this, claiming the will is a personal property, hypostatic will. Third, the term will as I intend it refers both to the desires or, inclinations of attraction to particular actions, states of affairs, or objects, and the capacity to deliberate and select a desire and move the nature in action i.
The will is embedded in the nature, just as with the intellect, as a spiritual organ or, capacity for the person to perceive desires and choose among them. Hovorun observes that while the Greek tradition had been to link volition as an aspect of intellect, Christian theologians began distinguishing the will and mind for God in the fourth century countering Arius.
Desires of the will are related to beliefs, what is known to be good and evil, so some correlation to the mind or, intellect is operative for the will. Scholastic theologians disagreed about the relation of the intellect and the will: Thomists thought the intellect informed the will concerning the good to be desired; Scotists countered that the desires led the intellect in perception of the good. Freedom of choice, agency, intention, inclination, wish, deliberation, judging, consideration, inquiry, self-determination, and desire are all facets of what persons do through the will of a rational nature.
By analogy, the will is like the steering wheel for a car. The distorting effect of sin on both desires and beliefs intellect hinders the ability of a creature that is sundered from God to know and choose the good in harmony with God.
Our understanding of the will has limitations because of the dysfunction we experience in willing. Whatever the will is, damaged volition is central to the problem of humanity; renewed willing is central to the solution salvation. Perhaps it is best to recognize that we can only have a faint understanding of volition and mind as distinct operations that we use to understand the very operations in abstract.
Clear in Scripture is the reality of the will in connection with agency, desires, intellect, and emotion often collected as the heart , the inner being of a person, e. Cognition and volition are closely related and overlapped in biblical theology, philosophy, and colloquial usage because will has two senses of 1 personal causal action or decision and 2 desire, intention, or inclination.
The difference noted by Schrenk between the developing theology of volition and the NT presentation of the will should not trouble us. As with many questions that develop as implications from the Bible, Scripture holds back from providing evidence that we might want to find there, requiring the theological task. An ancient debate was necessary to expand upon the biblical starting points that are given.
Scripture reveals that God chooses in some way similar to humans, with enough correspondence that we can imagine models of the will in God and the will s in Jesus Christ. Based on this analogy, theology must systematically work with Scripture and experience to formulate a model of the will. We turn to theological categories to test and explore the Dyothelite model of the will as a natural property.
The theology of two wills in Jesus did not come easily. As in the case of some other important topics, disputes led to clarity and the establishment of orthodoxy. Strangely, the disputes in this case did not originate with the church, but with the Byzantine Emperors. Emperor Heraclius reigned suffered Visigoth conquest of Spain in the West, and Persian and Arab conquests encroaching in the East, to which losses he responded by an ecumenical theology for imperial solidarity.
Heraclius issued the Ecthesis in written by Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople as an imperial document ratified by five patriarchs, the main point being to forbid theological discussion about the numbers of activity in Christ. The Ecthesis also shifted advocacy for monenergism to assert that there was a single will in Christ and denounced two wills as going beyond even Nestorianism.
Reactions that formed Dyothelite and Monothelite arguments seemed to have followed different concerns in Christology and soteriology. Monothelites resisted the idea of two wills since they assumed a human will in Christ would mean a will that could be contrary to God and liable to sin, hence a conflict.
For Christology, even the most modest formulation that told a divine will overriding of the human will in Christ seemed to Dyothelites as going too far and diminishing the human obedience of Jesus, so the debating continued.
The imperial mandate of Monothelitism as orthodoxy did not achieve the political gains desired for Heraclius d. Maximus was recalled from exile and tried a second time in to be condemned for upholding Dyothelitism, suffering the removal of his right hand and his tongue to prevent writing or teaching the anti-imperial doctrine , and then he was returned to exile where he died that same year at age Political expedience that earlier launched Monothelitism became less attractive when the plan failed, so Emperor Constantine IV now sought union with Rome in the West by calling the Sixth Ecumenical Council in to resolve the question of the will s in Jesus Christ.
Having endured imperial intrusion into matters of doctrine, church leaders at the council declared the orthodoxy that had been articulated chiefly by Maximus the Confessor. The two parties at the Sixth Council located the will differently within human and divine existence.
Monothelites argued that the will is a capacity of the person, not the nature, so one person means one will. To say there are two wills in Jesus Christ means there are two persons the heresy of Nestorianism.
Writing to the Sixth Council from Rome, Pope Agatho charged that the claim of a single personal will in Christ implied three personal wills in the Trinity. The Sixth council directly considered the alternate proposal of one will and operation in Christ Monothelitism. As with all the ecumenical councils, political factors in the unraveling Empire motivated the circumstances of calling a formal debate.
In this case, politicians had earlier sought to heal divisions by theological formulas of unity. At the council, theological factors prevailed in a careful review and refutation of Monothelitism, and produced a consensus affirmation of Dyothelitism. Since then, Eastern and Western churches and theologians Roman Catholic and Protestant have repeatedly confirmed that consensus. One major argument used at the council for Dyothelitism is the unity of the Trinity.
If the will is a component or property of the three persons separately and individually as Monothelitism held , then that meant three wills in God, with potential conflict that undermined the oneness of God.
Instead of three wills, we can think of three mutually constitutive persons, inseparable in personal operation and sharing their existence as the one God, including one divine will.
This is mysterious, and a deeper union than what humans, who possess distinct and opposable wills, can ever experience. Only in this way, with a true, created human will like us, does Jesus fulfill humanity by a true trial of our existence Rom He is truly the firstborn of the new humanity who are just like him, body and soul. This post appeared originally at the Gospel Coalition blog.
He is most interested in the theological questions that touch on personal engagement with God. God is there, but how does God sweep us up into relationship with him existentially? These questions about sanctification, discipleship, and Christology led to McKinley's doctoral study on the temptation experience of Jesus Christ. He has continued to work on the doctrines of Christology, ecclesiology, and sanctification as part of teaching through these topics.
McKinley regularly teaches on a Christian perspective of the human body, pulling together a theology of the human body with the best learning from science about nutrition, sport, fashion, medical technology and all that helps us to live in the body God gave us. He enjoys bicycle road racing as a hobby, has worked in youth ministry and urban ministry, and is currently a member of Granda Heights Friends Church in La Mirada. Berry Bishop — November 12, Kenneth Berding — November 11, Carmen Imes — November 08, Kenneth Berding — November 04, Two wills in Jesus?
Knowledge of the Father's will is external to Christ, not internal. This is not to say that Jesus had imperfect knowledge of God's will, but rather that He had incomplete knowledge of God's will.
He was unaware of the Father's will apart from divine revelation. The number of wills in Christ becomes clear when we understand the nature of the incarnation. The incarnation is not a mere indwelling of God in a man, but God coming to be man.
To say Jesus is God existing as man and man existing as man together in union creates two personal subjects, and two centers of consciousness in Christ.
Such a confession falls into the same error inherent to Nestorianism and Adoptionism; i. God became man; God did not become a man. God's humanity was not that of a distinct human person, but was genuine human nature made personal by God Himself.
There is only one personal subject in Christ-God-not two. To say Jesus as Jesus has two wills suggests that there are two persons in Christ, one who is God and one who is man. This is impossible in light of a true incarnation of God.
Jesus is God existing as man, not God and a man existing together in one geographical locale; not a divine person and a human person coexisting side-by-side. Because Jesus is God existing as man, of necessity there can only be one personal subject in Christ, not two. God is that personal subject. Just as we are the subject of all our acts, likewise God is the subject of all Christ's acts. Yet in Christ God is not acting 5 as God, but as man. Everything Christ does He does as man because in Christ God has come to be man.
Jesus is not God willing as God, and man willing as man in conjunction with one another, but God willing as man through His human mode of existence. The only way we could conceive Christ to have two wills is if we adopt the latter, misunderstanding the incarnation to be God's assumption of a human person rather than God's assumption of human nature.
God came to exist as man by uniting human nature to His divine person, acquiring a human existence complete with all the properties inherent to human nature human soul, spirit, mind, consciousness, etc. Because He assumed a human nature and not a human person Jesus' humanity is not an individual person in itself, but is a human nature individualized hypostasized by the divine person.
To say Christ has two wills falsely assumes that His human nature is a separate human person. There can be no equivocation of a nature and a person, however. A person, however, is concrete, immaterial conscious substance, a personality; an individual who consists of a certain nature; the particularization of a generic substance. A person is the concrete conscious self, the ego, defining who it is who is of a particular substance. It should be obvious enough that natures cannot will--persons will.
The capability to will in a human way is inherent to the human nature, but the ability to actualize that will is the function of the person. It requires a personal subject to will something. The only personal subject in Christ is God. It would be impossible for Christ to have two wills for such assumes that Christ's human nature has individual personhood apart from God, able to perform the functions of a person.
When we are able to grasp the fact that there is only one personal subject in Christ, God, and that the humanity God assumed is not a person but a nature, we will understand why it is impossible for Christ 10 to have two wills, willing as God at times, as man at other times, or as God and man simultaneously. Normally there is one hypostasis for each physis.
In the case of Christ, however, there are two physeis natures for one hypostasis person. There are two distinct means of implementation for all of Christ's acts, yet only one person to actualize them. Since the natures remain distinct, the means to God's acts remain distinct, and yet because of the union of the natures in the one person all of Christ's acts are actualized by that one person, and should be considered theandric 11 acts.
The acts of Christ do not flow from His natures, but from His person. The divine person utilizes each nature to perform the functions peculiar to each, but ultimately we must confess that both natures are motivated by the one and selfsame person. We must confess that Christ's experiences have a duality of origin because of His duality of natures, but His experiences all exude forth from a single person. He could not sleep, for example, if it were not for His human nature giving Him the capacity to experience fatigue and rest.
Likewise, Christ could not will as man if it were not for His human nature giving Him the capacity to will in a human manner. The human will of Christ pertains properly to the humanity "according to its nature, but to God according to the person," 19 for in Christ the one person has become man in a personal way. God willed as man in and through His human existence, via the human properties that were His by virtue of the hypostatic union of His divine person with human nature.
Since there is only one personal subject in Christ, God is the subject of all divine and human acts and attributes. Nestorius erred in that he posited a human subject who performed human actions and a divine subject who performed divine actions in conjunction with one another. Christ's human experiences were not predicated of God, but the assumed human person.
This is a denial of a true incarnation and akin to Adoptionism. Cyril rightly understood that God became man, not that God and a man were united in one "common person," as Nestorius called it.
Jesus is one person subsisting in two natures, not two persons subsisting in two natures united in one external appearance and functional conjunction. Because God brought human nature into union with Himself, utilizing the attributes inherent to the nature to personally exist as man, God Himself can will as man in Christ without Christ being a separate human person.
Christ's will is truly human, but is not the will of a human person. The humanness of Christ's will does not necessitate that He be a separate human person, but only that He possess a genuine human nature.
When God assumed a human existence He assumed all that pertained to human existence. He came to exist as man, and therefore came to think as man, know as man, be limited as man, and yes, even will as man.
But who was willing in Christ? Was it a separate human person? It was God Himself willing in a human manner.
In Christ God was willing as man through His assumed human nature, not through a human person. One's acts will always be in accordance with their manner of existence. Human persons, for instance, exist in a human manner, and thus their acts are necessarily human. When we refer to Jesus Christ we are referring to God's human manner of existence. Seeing that God finds Himself existing as a human being in Christ, Christ's acts are necessarily human This includes the act of willing.
While we find the Father willing and the Son willing, and recognize that these wills are distinct, it would be improper to say that Christ as Christ has two wills. Because the Father and Son are not two distinct persons, but the same person in two distinct modes of existence, it is more accurate to say that the one divine person is willing in two distinct ways: as God Father , as man Son, Jesus.
The two ways in which God has come to will are not internal to Christ, however, but external between God's two modes of existence: as God Father , as man Son, Jesus. In His divine manner of existence the one divine person wills exclusively in a divine manner; in His human manner of existence the same divine person wills exclusively in human manner actualizing the human will inherit to the human nature , because in Christ God is man.
Christ does not have two wills, one of God, and one of a man, operating in Him simultaneously, but one will because Christ is one person. Because Christ is God's human manner of existence, in Christ God wills exclusively in a human way.
Jesus' acts are God's acts, but done in a human way through the attributes of the human nature. Jesus' will is God's human manner of willing. Jesus does not have two wills operating within Him. He has one will, and is only conscious of one will; i. His own human will. In no way is this a denial of the natural ability of Christ's human nature to will in a human way, but rather an affirmation that the human will inherent to the human nature could never be actualized apart from the divine person.
The divine person in Christ continues to exist beyond the incarnation in the same divine manner He always has, and in that mode of existence He continues to will exclusively as God. When we can understand that in Christ God always wills in a human manner, it becomes completely unnecessary to ask whether or not Jesus spoke according to His divine will or His human will when examining Jesus' statements.
For example, when Jesus asked the Father, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will will, but as you will" Matthew , we know He spoke such from His human will because He could speak from no other. His will was always human. Seeing that there was no divine will side-by-side His human will as a Nestorian conception would envision it , He had no option when it came to willing.
Because He was God existing as man, all of Christ's willing was human in nature. If God is the lone personal subject in Christ, and only persons will, does this deny Christ a human will?
Because God assumed human nature, He necessarily possesses all the attributes of human existence. Because God came to exist and be conscious as man in the incarnation, the will of Christ is necessarily human. God is willing as man through His human mode of existence. God's human will is rooted exclusively in His human mode of existence, while God's divine will is rooted exclusively in His divine mode of existence beyond the incarnation.
The affirmation that Christ possesses a human nature but is not a human person may sound Apollinarian to some because Jesus appears to lack something essentially human.
0コメント