What is dyotheletism?
Dyotheletism (from the Greek dyo, "two," and thelema, "will") is the orthodox Christian doctrine that Christ possesses two distinct wills — one divine, one human — corresponding to His two natures. It stands opposed to Monothelitism, the heresy that Christ had only one will (or that His divine and human wills were so merged as to be indistinguishable).
The question arose historically out of earlier controversies about Christ's Person. William R. Hoste provides a concise overview of how these Christological heresies relate to one another:
William R. HosteThe Monophysite heresy was to explain the difficulty of the two natures in One Person; the Monothelite, that of the two wills in One Person; Nestorianism the difficulty of One Person in two natures. Any Sunday School scholar could grasp the Arian "Trinity" — God created the Son: the Son created the Spirit. But the Scriptural doctrine of the Triune God transcends man's highest thought.
In other words, Monothelitism was an attempt to simplify the mystery of Christ's Person by collapsing two wills into one, much as the Monophysites had tried to collapse two natures into one. The orthodox answer — dyotheletism — insisted that Christ's full and true humanity required a genuinely human will, distinct from (though never opposed to) the divine will.
Andrew Miller, in his Short Papers on Church History, traces the historical controversy:
Andrew MillerUnder the general name of Monophysites are comprehended the four main branches of separatists from the Eastern church, namely, the Syrian Jacobites, the Copts, the Abyssinians, and the Armenians. The originator of this numerous and powerful christian community was Eutyches, abbot of a convent of monks at Constantinople in the fifth century. The Monophysites denied the distinction of the two natures in Christ; the Monothelites, on the other hand, denied the distinction of the will, divine and human, in the blessed Lord.
The Sixth General Council, held at Constantinople in A.D. 680, formally condemned Monothelitism and upheld dyotheletism.
J.N. Darby discusses the controversy in his examination of church councils and papal authority. He recounts that Pope Honorius had endorsed Monothelitism by letter, and was subsequently condemned by the Sixth General Council:
J.N. DarbyIn the East they got a new point, on which it is surely not my purpose to dwell here: — Christ had only one will, or at any rate His divine and human will coalesced, though He had two natures. The Emperor adopted, and Pope Honorius wrote a letter approving it. However, there was a change, the Roman legates opposed it at Constantinople, and one of them, Martin, became pope; he then denounced all holders of it.
The result of the council was sweeping:
They condemn all the writings of these heretics, and their memory they anathematize — that is, deliver over to the curse of God — Theodore of Pharan, author of the mischief, Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and two of his successors; Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, Honorius, Pope of Rome, and Macarius of Antioch, and all following them.
In a separate work, Darby addresses the scriptural ground for dyotheletism — the reality of Christ's human will. He accepts "the ordinary orthodox statement of two natures in one person" and warns against those who deny Christ's genuine human personality:
Why does the blessed Lord say, "Not my will but thine?" Why does He say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" if there was no ego, no human personality?
And in an important footnote:
I am quite aware of and accept the ordinary orthodox statement of two natures in one person ... but the statements quoted in the text are really Monothelite. It shews the danger of those early discussions, for the simple faith that Jesus was God and man in one Person can be easily accepted as plain and vital truth; but the moment you deny personality in the man Christ Jesus, you run into a thousand difficulties and errors. What is really denied is Christ's individuality as a man.
F.W. Grant, writing on the Gethsemane narrative in his Numerical Bible, brings out the scriptural importance of the doctrine with great reverence:
F.W. GrantTo realize the subject of the prayer is not to solve the mystery of it. It certainly gives us to see how true, while perfect, the humanity of the Lord Jesus was. In the seventh century, the words "Not My will, but Thine be done" were used against the Monothelites to prove the distinctness of the human from the divine will in Christ. But while we recognize their competency for such purpose, it is for us to acquiesce in the Lord's own assurance that "No one knoweth the Son but the Father," and to refrain from seeking to penetrate beyond what is ours to know. The truth of His humanity, and its personality (without which it would not have been true) we may thank God for showing us in so clear a manner; and we must hold it fast as essential to the proper Christian faith. Analysis of His inscrutable nature we should not venture upon.
Dyotheletism, then, is the affirmation that the Lord Jesus Christ possessed two real and distinct wills — divine and human — united in one Person without confusion. The scriptural keystone is Christ's own prayer in Gethsemane: "Not my will, but thine be done" (Luke 22:42), which would be meaningless if there were not a genuinely human will distinct from the divine. As Grant observes, these very words were historically deployed against the Monothelites to vindicate the truth of Christ's full humanity.
The doctrine matters because it safeguards what Darby calls "the simple faith that Jesus was God and man in one Person." If Christ did not have a true human will, His humanity was not real — and if His humanity was not real, His obedience, His suffering, and His death have no genuine bearing on human redemption. Dyotheletism thus stands as a guard against every attempt to diminish the completeness of Christ's manhood, while the unity of His Person ensures that the divine and human wills were never in conflict — the human will perfectly submitted to the Father in every moment.