Does Jesus Have One or Two Wills? | Reasonable Faith Video Podcast

Dr. Craig discusses the history of this fascinating question and draws some conclusions.

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[sapientum]

Have to disagree with Dr. Craig in favor of the Orthodox point of view. Here is the argument: if there was only one will (the monothelite view), then it could only be one of the two cases: a) that will was only Divine, in which case the Gethsemane prayer revealed an actual conflict _within the will of the Father_ - something which is absolutely impossible; or b) this was only the human will of a human being, in which case we must pose a follow-up question: what exactly did remain of the Divine nature in that person? and try as we may, we cannot avoid falling into Nestorianism.

[beowulf.reborn]

Christ has two wills, Human and Divine, this is why He can pray, "Not My Will, but Your Will be done" The Trinity was not divided on whether or not the cup should pass from Christ. Christ in His humanity willed for it to pass, but humbly submitted to the Will of God.

[alanrhoda]

Craig conflates the _faculty_ of will with the specific content of an act of willing. The first is that _by which_ an agent wills. The second is that which _is willed_ by an agent. Duothelitism is the correct and orthodox position because a complete instance of the divine nature requires a divine _faculty_ of will just as a complete instance of human nature requires a human _faculty_ of will. If this is not so, then we have a violation of Gregory of Nazianzus's maxim that "what is not assumed is not healed." If the Son does not assume a human will, then He does not heal the human will. It's the same problem as with Apollinarianism, except in the latter case the incarnate Son lacks a human mind. (Craig's neo-Apollinarianism is an improvement on Apollinarianism proper, but it remains heretical because the human side of Jesus lacks a human depth psychology.)

Against the charge that duothelitism entails Nestorianism, the problem is that Craig projects a modern, 19-20th century center of consciousness/agency concept of "person" onto the 4-7th century theological discussion. The former is not what Church tradition means by "person." In the context of the Nestorian controversy, "person" (prosopon) means roughly "a unique individual with a rational nature-instance." The orthodox position (against Nestorius) is that in the incarnation there is one unique individual (the divine Person of the Son) who has two complete and distinct nature-instances, one human and one divine, and therefore two distinct mental faculties, one human and one divine, and two distinct faculties of will, one human and one divine. In the context of the Trinity, the orthodox position is that there are three unique individuals (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) distinguished by their unique personal properties who share one consubstantial instance of the divine nature and therefore share _one_ divine faculty of will. In short, the faculty belongs to the nature-instance, not the "person."

[frogpaste]

How do you understand the passages that say God cannot be tempted with evil, yet Christ _was_ tempted in every way, as we are? Even Paul describes the struggle between his flesh and his spirit.

Surely the human nature of Christ was earthly and desired the things of the earth, as do we all. However, unlike our spirits, Christ's spirit is unmovable and did not give in to those desires. His flesh certainly didn't desire the cross, but Jesus' divine nature did! That's how I understand his prayer in the Garden, his flesh absolutely did not want to die and was stressed to extremes. Christ's divine nature's resolve was absolute and unwavering and brought Him to the cross.

You might say it was simply obedience to the Father, not a clash of wills. However, that supposes that the second Person of the Trinity did _not_ want to become incarnate and die. This would put two wills in God!

Rather, as a member of the Trinity, it was the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who desired Jesus' sacrifice. The only part that struggled with this was His human nature, which was earthly, but now is glorified.

[Z__K]

Persons’ seem the metaphysical ground for wills rather than natures per se, in my view.

[carterwoodrow]

This take is rather concerning for historic protestestants like myself, namely: Lutherans, Anglicans, presbyterians, confessional baltists, congregationalists, etc. How is it not that you are allowing your own personal interpretation and philosophy to trump thousands of years of church history?

[JCATG]

Amen. Thank you for this discussion, Reasonable Faith! I needed to hear that clarification from Dr. Craig about his Christological view of Neo-Apollinarianism. Though I am not totally sold on it as of now, it became much clearer than how I previously understood it.

May God bless your work even more!

[biblicaldefense]

Hello William Lane Craig,

If wills are connected to persons and not natures then does this mean that God has 3 wills? Do you consider this a problem at all? Will you go over the 3 wills view in your systematic philosophical theology book series at some point?

[simonocampo]

Andrew Loke, based on Bathrellos' work, has a compelling model and explanation of how Jesus can have two wills (human and divine) in line of dyothelitism without falling into Nestorianism. Also, see Sijuwade citing Lowe in his paper 'a cross count compositional Christology' talking about the will as a free and rational power, that in this context are exemplified by his two natures. But this does not imply two centers of consciousness, but rather ONE center of consciousness (so only ONE person) but with TWO wills (that are token powers).

[joshjeggs]

I Think the flaw comes in trying to explain will deterministically, thus you cannot deductively reason through this. This is why Calvinists think they are correct on the issue of free will. Their logic is correct when using deductive reasoning. when you use deductive reasoning on the issue of will it will always seem determined. will is the negation of determinism thus only the actions of the will can be discussed deductively /logically and not the will itself.
so what I am saying is we can only know through revelation.... if we object to will coming out of nature because everyone's nature (humanity) is the same, we fall into the same trap.
thus I will only allow scripture to dictate such a thing.

[sedmercado]

11:13
"Like Christ himself, Jesus' soul was both human and divine."

Can you clarify this please? Did WLC misspeak?

I thought WLC teaches that Jesus is a divine person or soul that took on human nature. So that while being truly human, Jesus is not merely human in the sense of being a merely human soul. He is a divine soul.

[LetsgoB]

The power of the will is natural, and necessarily follows upon the nature; but the movement or act of this power—which is also called will—is sometimes natural and necessary, e.g. with respect to beatitude; and sometimes springs from free-will and is neither necessary nor natural, as is plain from what has been stated in I-II:10:1; I-II:10:2 [Cf. I:82:2]. And yet even reason itself, which is the principle of this movement, is natural. Hence besides the Divine will it is necessary to place in Christ a human will, not merely as a natural power, or a natural movement, but even as a rational movement.

[williamgeorgepeter]

The seminaries and universities can offer PhD and other eloguent degrees never offers the Holy Spirit that only God can offer, so receiving degress and the Holy Spirit are mutually exclusive. So, there's a result of studying the scriptures and without a result studying scripture would up end like WLC or Geoffrey or John MacArthur or like NT Wright and all of these people are just an entainers, and in it there's no end.

[moose]

Sorry Dr Craig, as much as I respect your work, I think you have made an error here. Scripture, properly interpreted, does support that Jesus had a human will and divine will. Jesus prayer, that you discount, clearly demonstrates the conflict between the divine will of God and Jesus' human will. We know from other scriptures that The Trinity are united in their will and plan for creation. The will of the Godhead clearly comes from the God's nature and not the persons of the Trinity. It is only created life that has their will tied to their personhood. In Jesus prayer, he subjugates his human will to the divine will (that He shares as part of the Godhead).

[SahihChristian]

Ecumenical councils weren't perfect, hence they needed to scrutinized by the infallible word of God

[WaveFunctionCollapsed]

only thing which takes me near to Atheism is animal suffering
just watch chinas meat videos😢

[TheRoark]

It’s not that natures have will it’s that persons have wills according to their natures. The Son being a divine person has had a divine nature and will from all eternity, and assumed a human nature and will at the incarnation. This does not mean that his nature is what “has” the will. You keep saying Godfrey believes that natures have wills, when really he believes that persons have wills from their natures. No one thinks that natures themselves have wills.

[TheRoark]

Deeply disturbing display of self assuredness from Dr. Craig. It is one thing to subject an ecumenical council to scripture, but quite another to subject it to your own external philosophical system, especially one that veers towards tri theism and divine mutability by having the Son and Father have two different wills that require submission of one to the other and a change in one at the incarnation.

I pray for humility for you Dr. Craig, I really don’t think your course is wise.

[gamefan]

With all due respect for Dr. Craig a fantastic Christian apologist, I trust a lot more an ecumenical council teaching, imbued with God's authority, it's the same old problem with Sola Scripture it will always lead to the wrong conclusions, bc it was not meant to be used as the only infallible rule of faith.

It is also kind of obvious looking at Bible, Jesus is referred sometimes as Son of God, sometimes as Son of Man, it also mentions "growing in wisdom" well that is not needed for a divine nature and will, could only apply on a limited human nature and will, which support the idea of two natures and two wills.

We also see the struggles of Jesus in Gethsemane, his divine will and nature were ready, but human will and nature suffered given he, like all people wants to avoid suffering, another clear example of two natures and two wills.

The key is to differentiate between nature, substance and person. Substance, though similar to nature in referring to what constitutes a thing, also refers to the subject as well. In the case of rational substances, that would be the who of a being. Nature does not. It always refers to “what” a thing is.

Lastly arguing that Jesus talked to the Father was something outside of him is refuted by Bible itself, later on Jesus says the "Father and I are one", and I think we all agree despite being different divine persons they all have only one divine will, its not like each divine person goes their own way, making a clear distinction between his human and divine will.

Jesus however would not be a human person, the only person in Jesus is God, but would still have two will and two natures, one human and one divine, and it has to be fully human also bc otherwise redemption from sin would not be possible to be fully satisfied on our fallen human nature on cross. So it is key to ensure Jesus was fully human while still remaining fully God.

I wonder if his local protestant congregation or protestant church he belongs to also align with his views on this.

[jesusvergara]

My opinion is I look at God as one nature in three Divine Persons. God is the nature and person is the identity of God(3 persons). But in the case of Jesus Christ, it is the opposite. He is one person having two nature but one will. Being human, he is subject to the elements of the world. If Jesus has two wills, he can not be a Savior.