Monothelitism is a theological doctrine that emerged in the 7th century, proposing that Jesus Christ had two natures (divine and human) but only one will, which was divine. The term Monothelitism comes from the Greek words mono (meaning “one”) and thelema (meaning “will”). This doctrine arose as a compromise attempt to reconcile the earlier theological controversy over Christ’s nature, particularly the disputes between the supporters of the Council of Chalcedon and those who adhered to Monophysitism.

Monothelitism was ultimately condemned as a heresy by the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 AD, which affirmed the orthodox Christian position that Christ had two wills, corresponding to His two natures, fully divine and fully human.

Historical Context

Background: Christological Controversies

The early centuries of Christian history were marked by significant debates over the nature of Christ, especially how His divinity and humanity were to be understood in relation to each other. These debates led to the formulation of key doctrines and creeds that defined orthodox Christian belief.

• Council of Chalcedon (451 AD): The Council of Chalcedon established the doctrine of the hypostatic union, which asserted that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human, with two distinct natures united in one person. This became the standard orthodox position in the Christian Church.
• Monophysitism: After Chalcedon, a significant group within the Church, particularly in the Eastern regions, rejected the council’s decisions. Monophysitism, which means “one nature,” was the belief that Christ’s human nature was absorbed into His divine nature, leaving Him with only one nature. This view was considered heretical by the Chalcedonian Christians, leading to ongoing tensions within the Church.

Emergence of Monothelitism

Monothelitism emerged as a theological compromise aimed at resolving the disputes between the Chalcedonian and Monophysite factions. The idea was to find a middle ground by maintaining that Christ had two natures but only one will, which was divine. This was seen by its proponents as a way to uphold the unity of Christ’s person while accommodating the concerns of the Monophysites.

• Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople: Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople (610-638 AD), was a key figure in the development of Monothelitism. He promoted the idea as a means of achieving doctrinal unity within the Byzantine Empire, which was deeply divided by the Christological controversies.
• Emperor Heraclius (610-641 AD): Emperor Heraclius supported Monothelitism as a political and theological solution to the divisions within the empire. He issued the Ecthesis in 638 AD, an edict that officially endorsed Monothelitism as the imperial doctrine.

Opposition and Condemnation

Monothelitism faced significant opposition from various church leaders, particularly those in the West. The most notable opponent was Pope Martin I, who, along with the monk Maximus the Confessor, strongly defended the orthodox position of dyothelitism (the belief that Christ had two wills corresponding to His two natures).

• Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662 AD): Maximus was a key theological opponent of Monothelitism. He argued that if Christ did not have a human will, His humanity would be incomplete, and He would not fully share in the human experience. Maximus was eventually arrested and exiled for his opposition to Monothelitism, and he became a martyr for the cause of orthodox Christology.
• Pope Martin I (649-655 AD): Pope Martin convened the Lateran Council in 649 AD, which condemned Monothelitism and affirmed that Christ had two wills, divine and human. Martin was arrested and exiled by the Byzantine authorities, and he died in exile, becoming a martyr for the faith.
• Third Council of Constantinople (680-681 AD): The controversy was finally resolved at the Third Council of Constantinople, which definitively condemned Monothelitism as a heresy and affirmed the orthodox doctrine of dyothelitism. The council declared that Christ had two wills, divine and human, corresponding to His two natures, and that these wills operated in perfect harmony.

Theological Significance

Christ’s Two Wills: Dyothelitism

The orthodox Christian doctrine, as affirmed by the Third Council of Constantinople, is that Christ has two wills—one divine and one human—corresponding to His two natures. This doctrine is known as dyothelitism. The two wills of Christ are seen as distinct but perfectly united, working together in harmony without conflict.

• Human Will of Christ: The recognition of Christ’s human will is essential for affirming His full humanity. According to orthodox theology, if Christ lacked a human will, He would not be fully human and could not fully represent humanity in His redemptive work.
  • Hebrews 4:15 (KJV):
    

    “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

    NIV:

    “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.”

  This verse emphasizes that Christ experienced human temptation and weakness, which implies the presence of a human will that could be tempted, though it was always perfectly aligned with the divine will.

• Divine Will of Christ: The divine will of Christ is essential for affirming His full divinity. It is through His divine will that Christ accomplishes the redemptive plan of God, fully aligned with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
  • John 6:38 (KJV):
    

    “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”

    NIV:

    “For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.”

  This verse highlights Christ’s divine mission and His submission to the will of the Father, reflecting the perfect harmony between the divine wills of the Trinity.

The Hypostatic Union

The doctrine of dyothelitism is closely related to the concept of the hypostatic union, which was defined at the Council of Chalcedon. The hypostatic union refers to the union of Christ’s two natures—divine and human—in one person (hypostasis). This union is understood to be without confusion, change, division, or separation.

• Colossians 2:9 (KJV):
  

  “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

  NIV:

  “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”

  This verse underscores the fullness of both the divine and human natures in Christ, which are perfectly united in His person.

Implications for Salvation

The doctrine of dyothelitism has significant implications for the Christian understanding of salvation. It affirms that Christ fully participated in human experience, including human will, making Him the perfect mediator between God and humanity.

• 1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV):
  

  “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

  NIV:

  “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.”

  This verse emphasizes Christ’s role as mediator, which is grounded in His full participation in both divine and human nature.

Practical Implications for Worship and Life

Affirming Orthodox Christology

The condemnation of Monothelitism and the affirmation of dyothelitism underscore the importance of maintaining orthodox Christology in Christian belief and practice. Understanding and affirming the two wills of Christ helps Christians to have a more complete and accurate view of who Jesus is and what He accomplished.

• 2 John 1:9 (KJV):
  

  “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.”

  NIV:

  “Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.”

  This verse emphasizes the importance of abiding in the true doctrine of Christ, which includes a correct understanding of His nature and will.

The Role of Church Councils

The resolution of the Monothelitism controversy highlights the role of ecumenical councils in defining and defending orthodox Christian doctrine. The decisions of these councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, have been instrumental in shaping the theological foundations of the Church.

• Acts 15:28-29 (KJV):
  

  “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”

  NIV:

  “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.”

  This passage from the Council of Jerusalem reflects the early Church’s practice of discerning doctrinal issues through collective deliberation and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, a practice that continued in the later ecumenical councils.

Spiritual Reflection on Christ’s Humanity and Divinity

The doctrine of dyothelitism invites Christians to reflect on the mystery of Christ’s dual nature and how it relates to their own spiritual lives. By understanding that Christ fully shares in human experience while also being fully divine, believers can find comfort in knowing that Jesus understands their struggles and can fully redeem them.

• Hebrews 2:17-18 (KJV):
  

  “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.”

  NIV:

  “For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.”

  This passage emphasizes Christ’s identification with humanity and His ability to provide aid and comfort to those who are tempted.

Broader Thematic Connections

The Nature of Heresy and Orthodoxy

The Monothelitism controversy is an example of the broader theme of heresy and orthodoxy within Christian history. It illustrates how the Church has wrestled with complex theological issues and has sought to preserve the true teachings of the faith against deviations.

• 1 Timothy 1:3-4 (KJV):
  

  “As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.”

  NIV:

  “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.”

  This passage highlights the importance of guarding against false teachings and adhering to sound doctrine, a theme that is central to the Church’s response to heresies like Monothelitism.

The Mystery of the Incarnation

Monothelitism touches on the profound mystery of the Incarnation, where the eternal Word of God became flesh and dwelt among us. The Church’s rejection of Monothelitism in favor of dyothelitism reflects the depth and complexity of this mystery, which continues to be a source of theological reflection and spiritual inspiration.

• John 1:14 (KJV):
  

  “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

  NIV:

  “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

  This verse encapsulates the mystery of the Incarnation, where the divine Word took on human nature, fully embodying both divinity and humanity.

Legacy and Influence in Christian Doctrine

The condemnation of Monothelitism and the affirmation of dyothelitism have had a lasting impact on Christian doctrine, particularly in the area of Christology. The decisions of the Third Council of Constantinople have been upheld by both Eastern Orthodox and Western Christian traditions, shaping the way that Christians understand the person and work of Christ.

Conservative Reflection on Monothelitism

From a conservative theological perspective, the rejection of Monothelitism is seen as a necessary defense of orthodox Christology. Conservatives emphasize the importance of maintaining the Church’s traditional teachings on the nature of Christ, recognizing that deviations like Monothelitism can lead to misunderstandings about the person and work of Jesus.

Final Thoughts on God’s Love and Jesus

The controversy over Monothelitism ultimately points to the depth of God’s love in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. By affirming that Christ has both a divine and a human will, the Church upholds the truth that Jesus fully shares in our humanity while also being fully divine. This doctrine assures believers that Christ is able to fully represent them before God and that His redemptive work is complete and effective.

• Philippians 2:5-8 (KJV):
  

  “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

  NIV:

  “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!”

This passage captures the essence of the Incarnation and the humility of Christ, who fully embraced both His divine and human natures to accomplish the work of salvation.