Some Interpretive Reflections
When Jesus became incarnate, he took on a true human nature that, as truly God, he did not have in eternity past. Paul says that the Eternal Son “emptied himself, by taking the form of a slave, by being made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7).
This incarnation was not one of subtraction. Jesus did not forego his divine nature in order to become a man, nor did he abdicate his authority and power as the Eternal God. Rather, the Son became incarnate by addition, that is, a human nature was added to his divine nature in a personal (or hypostatic) union. Notice Paul’s language; it was by taking the form of a slave that he became incarnate (emptied himself).
But why does this matter? Well, beyond the fact that it was necessary for our salvation that Jesus be both truly God and truly man in his incarnation, the incarnation, by adding a human nature, affects how we interpret Jesus’ ministry in the Gospels. Why is this the case? Because the incarnate Christ remains both truly God and truly man. Therefore, the essential properties of both natures necessarily persist during his earthly ministry.
Jesus is one person (hypostasis) and two natures (ousia), divine and human. This means that when we read the Gospels, we should expect to see Jesus exercise some attributes that properly belong to humanity, and some attributes that properly belong to divinity!
And this, in fact, is exactly what the gospels portray:
- Divine Qualities in Jesus’ Incarnation:
- Jesus knew the hidden thoughts of his Pharisaical accusers, displaying his omniscience (Matt. 12:25)
- Jesus displayed power over his creation by calming storms (Mark 4:39-41) and raising the dead (John 11)
- Jesus forgave sins (Mark 2:5), an act that can be done by God alone (Mark 2:7)
- Human Qualities in Jesus’ Incarnation:
- Jesus grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)
- Jesus became hungry (Mark 11:12)
- Jesus died on the cross (Mark 15:37)
So, it can be seen that certain attributes belong to one’s nature, like the divine nature being infinite, and human nature being finite. But notice what the Gospels do not do when attributing certain qualities to Christ. They do not delineate between the natures of Christ and those attributes that properly belong to them; rather, they simply predicate all attributes, divine or human, to the whole and singular person of Jesus Christ. The scriptures do not say that Jesus died according to his human nature, or that he forgave sins according to his divine nature, but simply that he, as a person, forgave sins, and he, as a person, died. The technical way theologians describe this is by saying that the properties of both natures are predicated of the person. Or, more simply: there is one acting subject, Jesus Christ, who acts as God and as man.
Is it, therefore, illegitimate for us to understand Jesus’ attributes according to his natures? I do not think so. Scripture says that God is omniscient (Isa. 40:28). It also says that Jesus is God (John 1:1). Simple enough, Jesus is omniscient! Yet scripture also says that the Son did not know the day or hour of the final judgment (Matt. 24:36). That ignorance is not a denial of his divinity. It could not be since, again, the incarnation does not mean Jesus ceased to be divine. Therefore, it must be understood as an expression of his genuine humanity.
It is not wrong to say that Jesus is all-knowing, on the one hand, and on the other to say that Jesus is limited in knowledge. This is because in the former instance, we speak of Christ as truly God according to his divine nature, and in the latter, we speak of Christ as truly man according to his human nature.
John Calvin says this regarding Jesus’ omnipresence, that “one and the same Christ both exceeds heaven and earth in the fullness of divinity, and is not extended everywhere according to his humanity.” Clearly, Calvin had a conception of Christological predication that spoke of the person acting according to attributes of both natures.
Crucially, none of this means that Christ is two persons or two acting agents. There is not the person of the Son over here, doing divine things, and the person of Christ over there, doing human things. That would be the ancient error of Nestorianism. Nor does it mean that the natures are blended or confused into one new divine-human hybrid nature. That would collapse into Eutychianism. Instead, scripture demands that because he became incarnate by addition, he did not lose his divine nature, but necessarily maintains both natures truly, yet distinct from each other, all the while remaining as one person.
Robert Jamieson notes this important hermeneutical rule:
“Since Christ is a single divine human who subsists in both a divine and human nature, scripture sometimes names him according to one nature and predicates of him what belongs to the other nature. Scripture describes divine prerogatives to the man Jesus, and human acts and sufferings to the divine Son. So, read scripture in a way that recognizes and reproduces this paradoxical grammar of Christological predication.”
This method of interpretation simply keeps in mind what was articulated in the definition of Chalcedon in 451: that Christ be “recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence.”
Thus, we have an interpretative framework for approaching passages that speak of Jesus’ incarnate ministry. We must always keep in mind that there is one acting person, and yet we must adequately account for the fact that this person has both divine and human natures, and thus divine and human attributes that may be exercised in a particular instance.
What About Will? Is Submission Possible?
Can we apply this hermeneutic to Christ’s attribute of will? Imperative to that are the following considerations…
Did Jesus have one will (monotheletism) or two (dyotheletism)? Or, perhaps put more precisely, is will predicated to Christ’s person or to his nature?
If will belongs to the person, then Jesus, being one person, has only one will. And since this person is the Eternal Son, then his will on earth is the same will he had in eternity past with the Father and the Spirit. If that were the case, then Christ’s submission to the will of the Father (Luke 22:42) on earth could plausibly reflect an eternal submission between the persons. The economic act of submission by the Son would be indicative of a functional act of submission within the Trinity in eternity past. There may be three divine wills, ordered in a hierarchy of authority and submission.
But, if will belongs to nature rather than person, everything changes…
Because there is only one divine nature, there could only be one divine will. A relationship of authority and submission becomes impossible, as it is difficult to substantiate the idea that one will could submit to itself. Importantly, if will is predicated on nature, it is not the case that the Father and the Son merely agree in their desires, as though they had two wills with an eternally perfect consensus. Rather, the claim is stronger: the divine will is numerically one, shared fully and identically by Father, Son, and Spirit. This, of course, would mean that Jesus, in his incarnation, had both a divine will and a human will. Hence, we could apply the interpretive framework explained above to Jesus’ submission to the Father as an attribute properly attributed to Jesus’ human nature, but acted out by him as a person.
I would argue that there are some strong reasons, historical and theological, to locate the will in nature, not in person…
Historical Reasons…
At the third council of Constantinople in 680-81, monotheletism (one will in Christ as predicated to his person) was condemned as heresy, and a two-wills view was defended. However, this council has often been sidelined in discussions of Eternal Functional Submission (EFS), and in the wise words of Stephen Wellum, “it should not be.”
As Wellum continues to note, the monothelites wanted to avoid Nestorianism and thought that by saying Christ had two wills, the necessary next step would be to say that Christ was two acting persons. However, the council decided that this view was in error, as it implied that there could be disharmony in the Trinity, and that each person would lack the fullness of the divine nature. Wellum asks, “How can the Son have the ‘fullness of deity’ (Col. 2:9) if his intellect, will, and power are distinct from that of the Father?” It was thought that the unity that the persons of the Trinity share was deeply challenged by monotheletism.
Although a more extensive treatment of this Council could (and should) be given, the decisions made here should cause modern theologians to be cautious at the very least, especially when the claims made at this Council have been historically accepted by the Reformed position. God has given the Church faithful teachers throughout its history (Eph. 4:11), and although they are not infallible, we should take heed of what insights they may have had.
Theological Reasons…
The first theological point is that it is difficult to conceive of Christ as truly human if he lacks a human will. How can he be “like his brothers in all things” (Heb. 2:17) if he is not like us in his capacity for human desires and wants (even the notion of desiring food to eat in Mark 11:12 seems to be confusing without a specifically human desire). If in his incarnation, Christ does not have an attribute that is essential to being a human, then he is not “truly” human. Just try to think of a human being without a human will; it doesn’t exactly make sense. It should follow that if Christ is truly human, then he has a human will just as all humans do! This flows from conclusions condemning the Apollonarian heresy (Christ had a human body with a divine soul), one that those on both sides of the “will” debate condemn, at least in modern times. If this is the case, it would take some philosophical stretching to explain how the will is not associated with the capacities of the soul (which is distinctly human in the case of Christ).
Second, some soteriological concerns flow from this idea. Gregory of Nazianzus says in his letter to Cledonius (101), “that which is not assumed, is not healed.” For Jesus to actually accomplish salvation, he must “render human obedience for us, which requires a human natural will.” It is on the very basis that Christ obeyed the Father’s will with a human will that his righteous obedience might be imputed to humans for our justification. At the very least, there is again some uncomfortable stretching one has to do to maintain the one will view regarding salvation.
Third, there is the question of authority. If will is predicated of the person so that the will of the Son submits to the will of the Father, then the Father has ultimate volitional authority within the Godhead. This makes God the Father’s authority necessary to his person, not nature. But surely, God has authority because he is by nature God (it would be odd to argue against this. Ps. 24:1; Ps. 103:19; Col. 1:16), which results in the odd need to posit two kinds of authority: one divine in nature and common to all Trinitarian members, and one that flows from the person and is distinct in each person. This distinction is awkward and hard to maintain biblically.
Fourthly, Scripture suggests that Jesus’s will does not always coincide with the Father’s will in the same respect. This distinction is not one of moral opposition but of natural inclination versus divine decree. This is most clearly seen in the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus prays, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42). This passage is one of the most moving scenes in the Gospels. It displays the depth of Christ’s obedience and love for the Father. Jesus does not resist the Father’s will; he faithfully submits himself to it, even when doing so entails immense suffering! There is no hint of rebellion or sin here, only perfect obedience. Yet, think about what is going on… Jesus explicitly distinguishes his will from the Father’s will. That distinction is not rhetorical. It reflects a real willing on Christ’s part, a genuine desire, expressed without sin, to avoid the cup of suffering all the while maintaining faithfulness to the Father. However, if Christ’s will in this passage is the same divine will he possesses eternally as the Son, a will predicated of his person and in harmony with the Father’s, then the prayer suggests one of two things: (1) The passage is misleading, as a divine will (Jesus’ here) cannot meaningfully ask to be spared from what it already wills. Or (2) there is a possibility that fundamental disunity took place between the persons of the Trinity itself!
With these considerations in mind, classical trinitarianism has affirmed what was decided at the third council of Constantinople, namely, that monotheletism does not make sense of the biblical witness, and that Christ has two wills, divine and human, that correspond to each of his natures. I do not necessarily think that these are the be-all and end-all cases against EFS, or even that they decisively disprove a multiplicity of wills within the Trinity. My goal has been more modest. I think that these considerations put an uncomfortable amount of tension on those who hold to any Trinitarian position that requires multiple wills in God. Of course, the idea of multiple wills in God is often denied by those who hold EFS, but I do not see how that is theologically or philosophically possible. Though I am more than open to correction.
Does Two-Will Christology Make Sense of Submission Passages in Scripture?
To finish off this post, I want to look at three key passages in the New Testament that address Christ’s submission to the Father, and see if what we have discussed in sections 1 and 2 helps us to determine if the submission is indicative of an eternal submission within the Godhead.
- John 6:38- “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”
In this passage, Jesus is explaining how he is the bread of life, the heavenly manna in whom alone we find satisfaction. He then goes on to say that all those whom the Father gives to the Son will come to him and taste that satisfaction, and those whom he receives will never be cast out (v. 37). What is the ground for this statement? Well, he will never cast out those that the Father gives him because he has come to do the very will of the Father!
So how are we to make sense of this? We know that the essential qualities of each nature remain in the incarnation. We also know that the attributes of nature are predicated of the whole person, so it really is the person, Jesus, wanting to do the will of the Father. Nevertheless, we also know that it is not illegitimate to understand the attributes of the person of Jesus according to his natures; Jesus is acting as the God-man. Further, it also seems likely that the attribute of will, although exercised by the person, is grounded in nature. So, once we put all that together, it is perfectly consistent to say that Jesus is submitting to the will of the Father according to his human nature and thus human will.
In fact, the text only describes Jesus’ submission to the Father after he had already come down from heaven and taken on a human nature. Christ became incarnate, and because he did so, he could perfectly submit his new human will to the Father for the sake of our salvation. This is perfectly consistent with what Paul says in Philippians 2:8, that Christ humbled himself by becoming a man (incarnation by addition), which in turn meant that he became “obedient,” implying he did not have this obedience beforehand, but assumed it in his incarnation. There is nothing in this text to suggest some sort of eternal relationship of authority, only an incarnational one. Praise the Lord for taking on a true human nature!
- 1 Cor. 11:3- “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”
This is quite a contested passage with many varying interpretations. My goal is not to decide which interpretation should win the day, but to apply the hermeneutical framework we’ve established, along with the likelihood that Christ has two wills: one identical to the Father’s and divine, one harmonious with the Father’s and human. However this passage is taken, it must be understood either in terms of the human nature of Christ, or in terms of a personal and thus eternal relationship between the Father and Son.
So, we know that the incarnation added a human nature to Christ, who was already divine. And we know that scripture predicates to the person of Christ, attributes from both his natures. So, if submission to authority is in view in any sense, and submission involves subjecting one’s will to another, and Christ’s divine will is numerically identical with the Father’s, then what must be in scope here is Christ in his incarnation, submitting as a human, and therefore not implying any eternal functional submission. God is the source or authority of Christ as incarnate, and Christ, as incarnate with a human will, submits to the Father. Nevertheless, it is no problem at all for scripture to attribute that submission to the whole person of Christ, even though it properly belongs to his human nature, because Christ acts as a whole person. This is recognizing the “paradoxical grammar of Christological predication.”
God is thus the head of Christ because Christ has a human nature. There is nothing in this passage that suggests that this headship extends into eternity past. The application of the hermeneutic discussed above, and the fact that two wills are present in Christ, makes consistent sense of this passage.
- 1 Cor. 15:28- “And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.”
Lastly, in this passage, Paul is describing the end that will certainly take place due to the resurrection of Christ. Christ is reigning now, and all things are being put under his feet as Lord (v. 25), until finally death itself is made subject to him (v. 26). And then, after all things are subjected to Christ, verse 28 says that Christ himself will be subjected to the Father. This passage is often used to defend the idea that Christ’s submission to the Father is an eternal reality that stretches forth into the future, which must mean that it also indicates a relationship that was present in eternity past.
The error with this conclusion, however, is that Christ did not become incarnate for the duration of his earthly ministry, or even of his mediatorial relationship with the Father in heaven, before the consummation. Rather, Jesus remains incarnate for eternity! The union of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ is not one that ever goes away, but is a union that Christ has eternally assumed for himself (Heb. 7:24-25).
The implications of this are obvious: Christ, at the consummation, is made subject to the Father according to his still present human nature! There is no implication in this text that this is indicative of a relationship in eternity past, because in eternity past, Christ did not have a human nature. God being “all in all” likely refers to the fact that God’s will “will be supreme in every quarter, and in every way.” But as long as we understand that Christ has two wills, then this will is none other than the one shared by all three members of the Trinity! And if this is so, then it follows that the human will of Christ is consummately put in subjection to the Father when he hands over the kingdom to him.
Conclusion
I do not doubt that some of these passages will be interpreted differently by those who disagree, and maybe even those who agree with my overall position. But that is not my point. My point is to show that many, indeed all the passages in scripture that seem to imply a submission of the Son to the Father, are not definitive proof for either the EFS position or the classical position. Rather, the questions of how we are to faithfully and accurately understand Christ’s two natures when scripture describes Christ, and how we are to understand will and its relation to person and nature, are imperative when coming to a conclusion about the debate. That said, when we discuss this issue, and indeed all issues, we must understand that there are faithful people on both sides, and we ought to approach this as brothers, united to our Savior, Jesus Christ.
So, to conclude, I want to offer three points concerning this discussion that I think can be mutually edifying and applicable for all those who think about the wonder and mystery of Christ’s incarnation, and the relationship between the members of the Trinity…
- We should stand in awe and reverence when thinking about our glorious God! I am always reminded of Paul’s doxology at the end of Romans 11, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be repaid to him? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.” Paul says this after he finishes a long discourse on election and God’s free and sovereign power in salvation. This leads him to worship God as he who is simply beyond our understanding. All theology should lead to doxology, but specifically when we think about who our God is, we should always be led to our knees and recognize our unworthiness to behold his wondrous mystery! Praise the Lord for all he is and all he has done!
- Christ’s incarnation was an act of humility that is impossible for our finite minds to comprehend. If the eternal Son of God entered into his creation as the most mighty emperor and king of all the nations, with all humanly imaginable wealth, he still would have condescended infinitesimally. But he did not come as a king, though he certainly deserved that and more. Rather, Jesus came, emptying himself, as a servant for his people, to live and die for them in an act of love that is incomprehensible. Brothers and sisters, if the rightful Lord of the universe could humble himself and serve, ought we not to humble ourselves and serve, following his example (Phil. 2:5-11)? In Christ, we have the standard and the ability to conform to that standard, as we are not being asked to do anything foreign to our Savior; we are being invited to walk the very path he walked before us.
- If Christ truly possesses a human will, then his obedience to the Father was not automatic or merely symbolic. It was real and human. In Gethsemane, we do not see a divine script being recited, but a faithful Son rendering obedience from the depths of genuine human anguish. This means that our salvation is not grounded in a kind of divine play-acting, but in a Savior who suffered willingly, and submitted where we resisted and sinned. Because Christ obeyed the Father as man, with a real human will, his obedience can truly be counted as ours. That gives the weary Christian solid ground to rest on: our salvation is upheld not by the strength of our will, but by the perfect obedience of Christ’s. Praise God for this great assurance we have in Christ!
Resources:
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987).
Robert Jamieson, Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022).
John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, trans. Casey Carmichael (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2020).
Stephen J. Wellum, “One Person, Two Wills,” in Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieval and Renewal of the Doctrine of the Trinity, ed. Matthew Barrett (Grand Rapids, MI: IVP Academic, 2017).
