What is Monothelitism? Definition and Overview Monothelitism is the theological belief that in the one Person of Jesus Christ there is only one will, even though He possesses two distinct natures: divine and human. This doctrine arose in the early centuries of Christendom as part of the broader debate over how to properly articulate the genuine humanity and full divinity of Christ. Monothelitism sought to bring unity between those who emphasized Christ’s divine nature and those who sought to protect the full reality of His human nature. Yet historically and biblically, mainstream Christian teaching concluded that Christ, though one Person, possesses two wills (divine and human), corresponding to His two natures, yet in perfect harmony and without conflict. Historical Context Monothelitism emerged in the 7th century as a proposed compromise to reconcile disputes involving the nature(s) of Christ, primarily between the Chalcedonian and various Monophysite segments within the broader Christian world. 1. Origins of the Controversy - After the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) affirmed that Christ has two natures, fully God and fully man, some Christians urged a unifying doctrine that would alleviate the tension surrounding Christ’s nature. - In the 7th century, Byzantine emperors and certain church leaders, hoping to quell ongoing disputes, posited that Christ’s two natures function with a single divine-human will, leading to the stance referred to as Monothelitism (from the Greek monos, “one,” and thelēma, “will”). 2. Key Figures - Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople was one of the most prominent proponents. - Pope Honorius I of Rome, in a series of letters, appeared sympathetic to the idea of a single will, which later brought scrutiny upon his legacy. - Opponents included figures like Maximus the Confessor, who forcefully argued for Dyothelitism (two wills in Christ). His theological and scriptural defenses greatly influenced the final resolution of the debate. 3. Condemnation at the Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680–681) - After rigorous discussion, church leaders formally condemned Monothelitism, concluding that it undermined Christ’s genuine humanity if He lacked a human will. - This council affirmed two wills—divine and human—perfectly united and working in harmony in the one Person of Jesus Christ. Theological Foundation Monothelitism touches on the delicate balance between Christ’s deity and humanity. Genuine biblical orthodoxy upholds that Christ’s human nature includes not only a body but also a rational mind and a will. 1. Biblical Evidence - Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, “Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me. Yet not My will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42). This passage reveals a distinction between the will of the Son as He endures suffering in His humanity, and the will of the Father. Affirming that Christ’s human will willingly submitted to the Father’s will supports the two-will view (Dyothelitism). - Elsewhere, Scripture notes Jesus’ obedience (Philippians 2:8), implying a human will capable of choice. Conversely, John 6:38 shows that Jesus came “not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me,” again hinting at full divine coordination, yet acknowledging a distinct personal volition integral to His humanity. 2. Philosophical and Doctrinal Implications - If Jesus had only one will, there would be a risk of diminishing or denying His fully human nature, since a proper human nature includes a human will. - If the human will of Christ is lost, the comfort and reassurance of His genuine struggles, sympathies, and full human experience (Hebrews 4:15) are reduced. 3. Role in Christological Orthodoxy - The stance that Christ has two wills—divine and human—became the universally received doctrine (commonly called Dyothelitism) among theologically orthodox churches. - This ensures that Christ’s full humanity and full divinity are confessed without compromise, in line with scriptural teaching that Christ is both “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) and one who experienced genuine human passions and volition. Relevance for Christian Doctrine The rejection of Monothelitism by the universal fellowship of believers is not a theoretical exercise in abstract theology. Instead, it protects key truths about salvation and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. 1. Salvation and Two Wills - Christ’s atonement depends on His having a real human will to submit to suffering on our behalf. As Hebrews 5:8–9 underscores, “Though He was a Son, He learned obedience from what He suffered, and having been made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” - A fully human will that willingly subject itself to death affirms that Christ’s sacrifice was truly representative of humankind, allowing Him to be the perfect mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). 2. Pastoral Comfort - Christians find comfort in Jesus’ ability to empathize with human frailty. Indeed, Scripture testifies “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses” (Hebrews 4:15). This consolation hinges on the fact that Christ experienced a real human will, temptations, and struggles. - By affirming two wills in Christ, believers maintain confidence that the Son of God deeply understands and has walked through our experiences. Patristic and Conciliar Witness Various councils, patristic writings, and manuscript evidence fortify the conclusion that Monothelitism never represented the prevailing orthodox view. 1. Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) - Though pre-dating Monothelitism’s formal emergence, Chalcedon laid the groundwork by confessing “one and the same Christ…recognized in two natures,” setting the stage for the later rejection of any notion of a single will. 2. Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680–681) - Formally denounced Monothelitism and declared as a binding statement of faith that Christ has two wills and two energies. - Affirmed that these two wills are not opposed but freely cooperate in one Person for our salvation. 3. Maximus the Confessor - Offered robust explanations that Christ, having two natures, also had two wills, which do not conflict but unite in a single Person. - Facing persecution and losing his right hand and tongue due to his unwaveringly orthodox stance, he exemplifies the seriousness with which the early church viewed this doctrinal clarity. Modern Perspectives and Considerations Debates on topics like Monothelitism often appear less visible in contemporary Christian circles; however, they continue to resonate in theological discussions tied to Christ’s identity, the nature of the incarnation, and the implications for salvation. 1. Practical Implications - Understanding the fullness of Christ’s humanity, including a human will, is essential for maintaining the core gospel message that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. - When sharing faith with others, clarity on why Christ’s full humanity and deity matter can offer a deeper understanding of His sacrifice and resurrection. 2. Manuscript Evidence and Continuity - Extant Greek and Syriac manuscripts reflect the early church’s discussions, often preserving an opposition to Monothelite tenets. Writings from church fathers such as Maximus the Confessor and later theological affirmations preserve a consistent witness to two wills in Christ. - These documents reinforce the internal consistency of biblical doctrine regarding Christ’s full humanity and full divinity, complementing archaeological and textual evidence that support Scripture’s reliability. Conclusion Monothelitism represents an attempt in church history to navigate the complexity of Christ’s two natures. While intending to unify conflicting viewpoints, it ultimately undermined core aspects of Christ’s authentic humanity. Historic Christian orthodoxy, grounded in biblical testimony, resolved that Jesus Christ, as the incarnate Son of God, possesses both a divine will and a true human will—never in competition but in perfect alignment. Such a conclusion protects the integrity of the gospel, ensuring that Jesus, fully God and fully man, consciously and willingly went to the cross for humanity’s redemption. As Philippians 2:7 proclaims, He “emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant,” demonstrating real human obedience by a fully human will. By rejecting Monothelitism, believers affirm the total reliability of Scripture’s witness to the Savior who truly identifies with humanity in every way, except sin, and in so doing guarantees the reality of salvation through His death and resurrection. |
    |