Maximus the Confessor
Monk and theologian who resisted the claim that Christ has only one natural will or operation, defending the full reality of His human willing and acting.
Historical context
Maximus's resistance preceded the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680–681; he died before that council. His arguments were part of a wider, costly ecclesial struggle.
Perspective note
Shared subject; this bundled record was originally written with an Orthodox-informed editorial lens.
Key points
- A complete human nature includes a human will and activity.
- The two natural wills belong to one personal subject, Jesus Christ, and are not rival persons.
Scripture
- Luke 22:42 — Christ's prayer in Gethsemane is important in the dyothelite discussion.
Primary sources
Maximus answers Pyrrhus:
Maximus argues that the one Christ wills according to both his divine and human natures.
Since Christ is God and man by nature, did he will as God and man—the same one—or only as Christ? If Christ willed primarily as God and man, then clearly he who is one and the same willed in a twofold manner, not a singular one. For if Christ is nothing other than his natures, from which and in which he exists, then manifestly, as befits his own natures—that is, as each is by nature—he, being one and the same, both willed and acted, since neither of his natures is without will or without activity. And if Christ willed and acted in a manner befitting his own natures—that is, as each is by nature—and his natures are two, then his natural wills are altogether two as well, along with the essential energies equal in number to them.
Passage context and translation
Maximus answers the inference that one Christ must have only one will. He locates divine and human willing in Christ's two complete natures while maintaining one personal subject.
Before the excerpt
Pyrrhus: Obviously, God and man together.
After the excerpt
For just as the number of the natures of one and the same Christ, when piously understood and spoken of, does not divide Christ but demonstrates that the difference of the natures is preserved even in the union