How many wills does Jesus have?

[Big_Dummy]

Scripturally and Historical Theology wise, how many wills did Jeus have?

One Divine, One Human
Only a Human will
Only a Divine will
Somehow a mix of Divine-Human will?

What do we know from historical sources? Creeds? Fathers? and Scripture?

Thanks
BD

 

[Big_Dummy]

“not my will, but thine be done” does indicate that Jesus’ will is somehow seperate from that of the Father.

 

[Bookcat]

Two

 

[DavidFilmer]

Jesus is fully human and fully divine. Thus, he possesses a human will (which is distinct to him), and he shares in the Divine will. His human will is always obedient to the Divine will.

 

[Bookcat]

475 Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but co-operate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation.110 Christ’s human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."111

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1J.HTM

 

[Little_One0307]

Hi,

2 - Divine and human Will.

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott.

Each of the two natures in Christ possessed its own natural will and its own natural mode of operation. [DE FIDE]

In spite of the real duality of the wills a moral unity subsited and subsits, because Christ’s human will is, in the most perfect fashion, in harmony with, and in free subordination to, the Divine Will.

The book goes on to list several Scriptural sources.

Refer to Sources of Catholic Dogma by Denzinger #291

God bless.

 

[MarkThompson]

According to the Council of Florence:
This, then, is the faith which the holy Roman mother church has always held, preached and taught and which she now holds, preaches, professes and teaches.
. . .
Also [the Church] believes, professes and teaches in the one lord Jesus Christ two natural principles of action which undergo no division, no change, no separation, no confusion, in accordance with the teaching of the holy fathers; and two natural wills one divine, the other human, not in opposition, but his human will subject to his divine and all powerful will.
Session 13, Bull of Union with the Syrians (1444)

 

[Joe_5859]

Yes, it is Catholic dogma that Christ had two wills: a human will and a divine will. To say otherwise is the heresy of monothelitism. As Bookcat mentioned, it was all worked out at the Third Council of Constantinople.

The Old Catholic Encyclopedia entry I linked to above will give you more background info on the issue than you could ever hope for.

 

[runningdude]

He had two wills, as others mentioned; a human and divine will.

As a true but sinless man, God the Son’s human will was incapable of wanting death, as this would be contrary to the Law of Nature. However, as God the Son is humbly obedient to God the Father in both His human and divine wills, Christ allowed Himself to be martyred. As He is God the Son, by His own grace was His human body and soul resurrected.

 

[JohnVIII]

The only point which the Fathers all agree on is that Jesus has the same number of wills as He has Natures. The monothelitism heresy says that Jesus has two natures but one will, which theory was introduced with the intention that it may be a compromise that may unite those who say Jesus has 2 wills & 2 natures with those who say that Jesus has 1 will & 1 nature. Of course it didn’t work.

The only critical belief that one must hold to be orthodox is what brother [user]MarkThompson[/user] posted:

…Also [the Church] believes, professes and teaches in the one lord Jesus Christ two natural principles of action which undergo no division, no change, no separation, no confusion, in accordance with the teaching of the holy fathers; and two natural wills one divine, the other human, not in opposition, but his human will subject to his divine and all powerful will.[/INDENT]
Session 13, Bull of Union with the Syrians (1444)

The critical part is the “no division, no change, no separation, no confusion”. Now if you say that Jesus has 2 natures you MUST define this as 2 that are not divided nor separated. Basically you must define it as 2 in 1, because if you say that there are 2 “separate” and distinct natures then you have divided that which cannot be divided.

If you say that Jesus has 1 nature then you MUST define this as one composite nature that is both True-God and True-man. Jesus is 100% God & 100% man, but this 100% and 100% adds up NOT to 200%, but to 100% still.

Now as for the will, it follows that of the nature. So either you say that there are two undivided wills or you say there is one composite will. Many people try to say that this is just two ways that define the same thing. (I don’t say that, but some do).

So, to answer the question, Jesus has one will (i.e. one composite will that is both God’s will and man’s will).

 

[jimmy]

Scripturally and Historical Theology wise, how many wills did Jeus have?

One Divine, One Human
Only a Human will
Only a Divine will
Somehow a mix of Divine-Human will?

What do we know from historical sources? Creeds? Fathers? and Scripture?

Thanks
BD

There are two wills (corresponding to the two natures), but only one willing subject (person). Will in the ancient sense doesn’t refer to a persons freedom of choice, but more so to a natural will that includes inherent desires or drives. The will of man in a sinless state would be directed toward God, but it has become corrupt through sin and ignorance.

 

[Nita]

…
So, to answer the question, Jesus has one will (i.e. one composite will that is both God’s will and man’s will).

That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
In the PERSON of Jesus there are two wills because he has 2 natures – a human nature with a human will and a a divine nature with a divine will. The two wills do not combine, they are not mixed in some way forming some sort of composite nature, as the monophysitism/miaphysitism heresy proposed.

From The Fourth General Council of Chalcedon 451 AD:
We teach that one and the same Christ, the Sonm, the Lord, the Only-Begotten is to be recognised in** two natures unmixed, untransformed** (against Monophysitism), undivided, unseparated (against Nestorianism) the difference of the natures in consequence of the unification being in no way abrogated, and the properties of each of the two natures remaining completely undisturbed.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
In the PERSON of Jesus there are two wills because he has 2 natures – a human nature with a human will and a a divine nature with a divine will. The two wills do not combine, they are not mixed in some way forming some sort of composite nature, as the monophysitism/miaphysitism heresy proposed.

From The Fourth General Council of Chalcedon 451 AD:
We teach that one and the same Christ, the Sonm, the Lord, the Only-Begotten is to be recognised in** two natures unmixed, untransformed** (against Monophysitism), undivided, unseparated (against Nestorianism) the difference of the natures in consequence of the unification being in no way abrogated, and the properties of each of the two natures remaining completely undisturbed.

This was the view that was defended by St. Maximus the Confessor, who is venerated as a Saint by both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. He also wrote the first complete biography of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Emperor Constans II, who was a Monothetelite, ordered the arrest and torture of the aged Maximus for his defense of Dyothetelitism, To prevent his defense (or “Confession”) of Christ’s double unmixed wills, his tongue was not simply cut off, but dug out of his mouth with something that resembled a sharpened ice-cream scoop, and his right hand was cut off to prevent him writing any defenses of the Faith. He was imprisoned in a fortress in what is now the Georgian Republic and died soon after. His views were vindicated by the Third Council of Constantinople and he was posthumously cleared of charges of heresy and canonized.

 

[JohnVIII]

JohnVIII;8253106:

So, to answer the question, Jesus has one will (i.e. one composite will that is both God’s will and man’s will).

That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
In the PERSON of Jesus there are two wills because he has 2 natures – a human nature with a human will and a a divine nature with a divine will. The two wills do not combine, they are not mixed in some way forming some sort of composite nature, as the monophysitism/miaphysitism heresy proposed.

From The Fourth General Council of Chalcedon 451 AD:
We teach that one and the same Christ, the Sonm, the Lord, the Only-Begotten is to be recognised in** two natures unmixed, untransformed** (against Monophysitism), undivided, unseparated (against Nestorianism) the difference of the natures in consequence of the unification being in no way abrogated, and the properties of each of the two natures remaining completely undisturbed.

There are very well learned men on this forum that will argue that the monophysitism/miaphysitism view is not a heresy but is in fact the teaching of the Catholic Church. I am not able to make this argument myself, however, one thing I will say is that the very reason that the Virgin Mary was declared to be “The Mother of God” was to show that Christ, Her Son, was both true God and true man. And, if Jesus has two natures Mary could not be called “The Mother of God”, but only the Mother of Christ, because if the two natures are separated she could only be the Mother of the human part of Christ and not the Mother of the Divine part of Christ. And, hence, more importantly, ‘God could not have become man, so that man may become God’, as St Athanasius of Alexandria said. Or, in other words, our Lord Jesus Christ could not have effected our Eternal Salvation! You see, if unity is only in the person of Christ, but not the nature of Christ, then we are not ‘new creatures in Christ’ (as the Holy Bible says), but we are only new ‘persons’ in Christ.

And, what is true of the nature is also true with regard to the will. The will corresponds to the nature not necessarily to the person.

 

[Big_Dummy]

When reading the gospels and revelation, how do we know which will he is acting on?

Does he also have two levels of knowledge, one as human (limited) like, he does not know when he will returen for sure and one divine?

 

[Nita]

There are very well learned men on this forum that will argue that the monophysitism/miaphysitism view is not a heresy but is in fact the teaching of the Catholic Church.

How can someone learned read “unmixed” and say it means “mixed”.

I am not able to make this argument myself, however, one thing I will say is that the very reason that the Virgin Mary was declared to be “The Mother of God” was to show that Christ, Her Son, was both** true God and true **man.

Absolutely correct.
Now keep in mind, the minute you** mix ** them (“true God and true man”) they become something different from before, they are changed. They no longer remain “both” (two) but are changed into one - one new form of nature.
If that were to happen, then Jesus is no longer “true God” (a person who has a true, unchanged Divine nature) and “true man” (a person who has a true, unchanged human nature).

They And, if Jesus has two natures Mary could not be called

“The Mother of God”, but only the Mother of Christ, because if the two natures are separated she could only be the Mother of the human part of Christ and not the Mother of the Divine part of Christ. And, hence, more importantly, ‘God could not have become man, so that man may become God’, as St Athanasius of Alexandria said. Or, in other words, our Lord Jesus Christ could not have effected our Eternal Salvation! You see, if unity is only in the person of Christ, but not the nature of Christ, then we are not ‘new creatures in Christ’ (as the Holy Bible says), but we are only new ‘persons’ in Christ.

And, what is true of the nature is also true with regard to the will. The will corresponds to the nature not necessarily to the person.You are equating “person” and “nature”.They are not the same thing.
(eg. All of us regular humans have the same human nature - a material body and an immaterial soul. But we are not all the same person.)

Re Mary as Mother of God.
Consider how the word “mother” is used in our human language.
When we call someone “mother”, we call them the mother of “so-and-so”, using the name that designates that particular person. We can say they are the mother of a human being, a person with a human nature. We call them “mother” even though the immaterial soul present in that person did not originate from within the mother.

eg. I am mother of Anthony; I am the mother of a person who is a human, therefore it is correct to say that I am the mother of a human.
I am the mother of a person who has only 1 nature.
Mary is the mother of Jesus; she is the mother of a Person who is God; therefore it is correct to say that she is the mother of God.

 

[Nita]

And, what is true of the nature is also true with regard to the will. The will corresponds to the nature not necessarily to the person.

Yes, the will is a constituent part of both the Divine nature and the human nature. That is why there are 2 wills present in the Divine Person of Jesus. He had 2 distinct natures and therefore 2 distinct wills.

 

[Fink]

Saint Thomas Aquinas likens our Lords human will to that of a horse, and His Divine will to that of a rider. The horse doesnt have to comply with the will of the rider; but willingly submits to the will of the rider.

Joe:
Apology if your link included this!

 

[Cristiano]

There are very well learned men on this forum that will argue that the monophysitism/miaphysitism view is not a heresy but is in fact the teaching of the Catholic Church. I am not able to make this argument myself, however, one thing I will say is that the very reason that the Virgin Mary was declared to be “The Mother of God” was to show that Christ, Her Son, was both true God and true man. And, if Jesus has two natures Mary could not be called “The Mother of God”, but only the Mother of Christ, because if the two natures are separated she could only be the Mother of the human part of Christ and not the Mother of the Divine part of Christ. And, hence, more importantly, ‘God could not have become man, so that man may become God’, as St Athanasius of Alexandria said. Or, in other words, our Lord Jesus Christ could not have effected our Eternal Salvation! You see, if unity is only in the person of Christ, but not the nature of Christ, then we are not ‘new creatures in Christ’ (as the Holy Bible says), but we are only new ‘persons’ in Christ.

And, what is true of the nature is also true with regard to the will. The will corresponds to the nature not necessarily to the person.

I think that you are confusing things here. Motherhood refers to giving birth to a person and that is independent from the fact that the person has one or two natures.

 

[Little_One0307]

When reading the gospels and revelation, how do we know which will he is acting on?

Does he also have two levels of knowledge, one as human (limited) like, he does not know when he will returen for sure and one divine?

I would recommend you getting Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Luwdwig. It has a great section on the Hypostatic Union and addressed his knowledge.

Both wills are being acted upon in the Gospel. It’s just that his human will is in subordination to HIs Divine Will.

God bless.