Monothelitism in Early Christian Theology Debates
Monothelitism in Early Christian Theology Debates
Monothelitism, the doctrine that Jesus Christ has only one will, emerged as a significant theological controversy in the early Christian Church, particularly during the 7th century. The controversy centered on whether Christ, being both divine and human, possessed one or two wills corresponding to his two natures [1].
The theological debate surrounding Monothelitism was deeply rooted in Christological discussions. The orthodox view, as represented by the likes of John of Damascus, affirmed that Christ has two wills, corresponding to his divine and human natures. This perspective maintained that Christ's humanity was complete with its own will, which was not in opposition to his divine will but was in harmony with it [2].
The Monothelite position, on the other hand, posited that Christ had only one will. This view was seen as a compromise between the orthodox dyothelite (two wills) position and the Monophysite (one nature) heresy. The Monothelites argued that having two wills would imply two opposing centers of action in Christ, which they believed was theologically untenable. However, their opponents saw this as a denial of Christ's full humanity, as a human will was considered an essential aspect of human nature [1].
The controversy over Monothelitism was not merely speculative; it had significant implications for understanding Christ's actions and experiences, such as his temptation and suffering. The dyothelite position allowed for a genuine human experience of temptation and struggle, as Christ's human will could be tempted, even though his divine will remained steadfast. In contrast, Monothelitism was seen as diminishing the reality of Christ's human experience [1].
The Council of Constantinople III (680-681 AD) ultimately condemned Monothelitism as a heresy, affirming the dyothelite position that Christ has two wills. This decision was based on the understanding that Christ's two natures, divine and human, were complete with their respective wills, and that the integrity of his humanity required a human will [2].
Theological traditions have generally upheld the dyothelite position as orthodox. Reformed theologians like Charles Hodge have argued that denying Christ a human will is tantamount to denying his true humanity. Similarly, Eastern Orthodox theologians like John of Damascus have emphasized the importance of affirming two wills in Christ to maintain the integrity of his human and divine natures [1, 2].
The debate over Monothelitism highlights the complexities and nuances of early Christian theological discussions. It demonstrates the careful balancing act required to articulate the mystery of Christ's person, ensuring that both his divinity and humanity are affirmed without compromise.
The historical development of the Monothelite controversy also reflects the dynamic interplay between theological formulation and the ecclesiastical context. The eventual rejection of Monothelitism at Constantinople III underscored the significance of Christ's human will in understanding his redemptive work.
Sources
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 81: the great body of the orthodox refused. The controversy turned after this specially on the question whether there is one only, or two wills in Christ. If only one, then, as the orthodox asserted, there could be but one nature, for will is one of the essential elements or faculties of a rational nature. To deny Christ a human will, was to deny that He had a human nature, or was truly a man. Besides, it precluded the possibility of his having been tempted, and therefore contradicted the 405 Scriptures, and separated Him so far from his peop”
- CCEL (Eastern Orthodox) “John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, section 49: understand the name of the subsistence, not in the sense of one kind, but as signifying the existence of two natures. For in His own person He anointed Himself; as God anointing His body with His own divinity, and as Man being anointed. For He is Himself both God and Man. And the anointing is the divinity of His humanity. For if Christ, being of one compound nature, is of like essence to the Father, then the Father also must be compound and of like essence with the flesh, which is absurd and extremely blasphemous 1968 196”