The Natural and Gnomic Will

The following is a cleaned up transcript from the above video (starting at 25:51)…

Think of it this way: one way of understanding Jesus as the Incarnate Son of God, as Maximus says, is that in most human beings, there is the natural will. In all rational creatures, there’s the natural will, which spontaneously desires only God and chooses only God because that’s its true end. To the degree that we’re separate from God, we have a deliberative or gnomic will, the psychological will that can make errors, go in the wrong direction, and do sinful things. Jesus, according to Maximus, doesn’t have a gnomic will, not because He lacks the capacity for deliberation, but because He’s so perfectly, fully, truly one with the Father and is Himself the Son that there’s no division between who He is essentially and who He is psychologically and empirically. There’s no space of separation. Human beings are called to become like that, utterly transparent before Christ to the presence of Christ in them in the Holy Spirit. As Paul says in First Corinthians 15, God becomes all in all, not just all over all, but all in all.

Here is an expansion on what David Bentley Hart said…

1. The Natural Will in Rational Creatures

Hart begins by referencing Maximus’s concept of the natural will (Greek: thelema physikon). According to Maximus, the natural will is an inherent faculty in all rational creatures—humans, angels, and other spiritual beings—that spontaneously orients them toward their ultimate end: God. This will is not deliberative or subject to choice in the way we typically understand decision-making; it is an intrinsic, ontological drive toward the good, the true, and the beautiful, which Maximus (and Hart) identifies as God Himself. The natural will is rooted in the idea that rational creatures are created in the image of God (imago Dei), and their deepest desire, by nature, is to be united with their divine source.

Expansion: The natural will reflects Maximus’s broader metaphysical framework, where creation is inherently oriented toward God as its telos (purpose or end). This aligns with the Christian patristic tradition, particularly the Eastern emphasis on theosis (deification), where the purpose of human existence is to participate fully in the divine life. Hart emphasizes that this desire for God is not a conscious choice but a fundamental aspect of what it means to be a rational being. It’s why Augustine’s famous phrase, “Our hearts are restless till they rest in you,” resonates here (mentioned earlier in the video at 4:25–4:32). The natural will is the “restless heart” seeking its fulfillment in God.

2. The Gnomic Will and Human Separation

Hart contrasts the natural will with the gnomic will (Greek: thelema gnomikon), which Maximus describes as a deliberative or discursive mode of willing. The gnomic will arises because humans, in their fallen state, are separated from God. This separation introduces a psychological and empirical dimension to human willing, where choices are made through deliberation, often leading to errors or sin. The gnomic will is not inherently evil but is a consequence of human freedom in a state of estrangement from God, where individuals can choose against their natural end (God) due to ignorance, temptation, or misdirection.

Expansion: The concept of the gnomic will is central to Maximus’s Christology and anthropology. In Maximus’s view, the fall fractured human nature, introducing a tension between the natural will (which always desires God) and the gnomic will (which can choose otherwise). This is why humans can act against their own ultimate good, choosing lesser goods or sinful paths. Hart’s point is that the gnomic will is a temporary condition, a product of the “space of separation” between humans and God. This separation is not ontological in the sense of altering human nature’s essence but experiential, resulting from the fall and the limitations of human perception and freedom in this world.

3. Jesus and the Absence of the Gnomic Will

Hart explains that, according to Maximus, Jesus, as the Incarnate Son of God, does not possess a gnomic will. This is not because Jesus lacks the capacity for deliberation—He is fully human and thus capable of human reasoning and choice—but because His human nature is perfectly united with His divine nature. In Jesus, there is no division between who He is essentially (His divine and human natures united in the hypostatic union, as defined by Chalcedonian Christology) and who He is psychologically and empirically (His lived experience as a human being). Jesus’s human will is perfectly aligned with the divine will, so there is no need for a deliberative, gnomic process that could lead to error or sin.

Expansion: Maximus developed this idea in response to the Monothelite controversy (7th century), which debated whether Jesus had one will (divine) or two (divine and human). Maximus argued for dyothelitism—that Jesus has both a divine will and a human will, but the human will operates without the gnomic mode because it is perfectly attuned to the divine. This is critical for Maximus’s soteriology: Jesus’s perfect unity of wills demonstrates the possibility of human nature being restored to its intended state, where the natural will fully governs without the interference of a gnomic will prone to error. Hart’s reference to “no division” reflects the Chalcedonian principle of the hypostatic union, where Jesus’s two natures (divine and human) are united without confusion, change, division, or separation. In Jesus, the human will is “transparent” to the divine, embodying the goal of human deification.

4. Human Destiny: Becoming Transparent to Christ

Hart extends this Christological insight to human destiny, stating that humans are called to become like Jesus—utterly transparent to the presence of Christ within them through the Holy Spirit. This transparency means aligning the human will with the natural will’s orientation toward God, eliminating the gnomic will’s tendency to err. In this state, humans become fully united with God, participating in the divine life (theosis), where their individuality is not erased but fulfilled.

Expansion: This idea of “transparency” draws on Maximus’s theology of deification, where the human person, through grace and the work of the Holy Spirit, becomes a perfect reflection of the divine Logos (Christ). The term “transparent” suggests a state where the human self is no longer opaque or obstructive to God’s presence but allows the divine light to shine through fully. This aligns with the Eastern Christian emphasis on theosis as the fulfillment of human nature, not its annihilation. Hart’s earlier discussion in the video (around 22:24–25:00) about becoming “uncreated” clarifies that this does not mean annihilation but becoming fully united with the uncreated God, sharing in His nature while retaining personal identity. The analogy of a prism’s facets (27:33–28:24) illustrates this: each facet (individual person) remains distinct, but the light (God) shines through all, uniting them in one divine reality.

5. First Corinthians 15: God Becomes All in All

Hart concludes this section by referencing Paul’s statement in First Corinthians 15:28, where God becomes “all in all” (panta en pasin). This is the culmination of the apokatastasis (universal restoration), where all creation is reconciled to God, not merely ruled over (“all over all”) but fully indwelt by God. This underscores Hart’s broader argument in the video (e.g., 21:15–21:28, 27:26–27:33) that Christian eschatology points to universal salvation, where all rational beings are deified, becoming fully united with God’s presence.

Expansion: In First Corinthians 15, Paul describes the resurrection and the ultimate subjection of all things to Christ, who then subjects Himself to the Father, so that God may be “all in all.” For Maximus and Hart, this is not a coercive domination but a transformative union where every rational creature’s natural will is fully realized, free from the distortions of the gnomic will. This ties into Hart’s rejection of the Thomistic “two-tier” view (2:50–9:01), which posits a natural end for humans separate from the supernatural. Instead, Hart and Maximus see human nature as inherently oriented toward deification, with no ultimate separation between nature and grace. The phrase “all in all” suggests a cosmic restoration where every aspect of creation—mineral, vegetable, animal, and human (18:48–18:56)—is transfigured, participating in God’s eternal life. This is why Hart emphasizes universal salvation in That All Shall Be Saved (mentioned at 21:15–21:21), arguing it is the only logical outcome of Christian eschatology.

6. Context in the Video

This passage (around 25:57–27:33) is part of Hart’s broader discussion of deification and the rejection of a nature-supernature dichotomy. Earlier, he critiques the Thomistic view that separates natural and supernatural ends (2:50–9:01), arguing it creates a “psychotic picture of reality” (20:32) where grace is arbitrary and disconnected from human nature. He contrasts this with the Eastern patristic view, including Maximus, where nature and grace are continuous, and human destiny is to become “uncreated” by participating in God’s life (21:47–25:00). The discussion of Jesus’s will and human transparency to Christ builds on this, showing how Christ’s incarnation models the human calling to deification, where the natural will is fully realized in union with God.

7. Broader Implications

Hart’s exposition has several implications:

Christology and Anthropology: Jesus’s lack of a gnomic will demonstrates the potential for human nature to be restored to its original purpose. Humans are called to overcome the gnomic will’s errors through grace, becoming like Christ in their unity with God.
Universal Salvation: The reference to “all in all” supports Hart’s argument for universal salvation, where all rational creatures achieve this transparency, fulfilling their natural will’s desire for God.
Eastern vs. Western Theology: Hart aligns with Eastern Orthodox theology (Cappadocian Fathers, Maximus, Pseudo-Dionysius) over Western Thomistic distinctions, emphasizing a monistic metaphysics where God is the ground of all being (11:36–13:19).
Practical Spirituality: Becoming “transparent” to Christ suggests a spiritual path of aligning one’s will with God’s through prayer, contemplation, and participation in the life of the Holy Spirit, a theme resonant in Eastern Christian mysticism.

Conclusion

Hart, through Maximus, presents Jesus as the paradigm of human destiny: a being whose human will is perfectly aligned with the divine, free from the deliberative errors of the gnomic will. Humans are called to this same unity, becoming transparent to Christ’s presence within them, culminating in the eschatological vision of First Corinthians 15, where God becomes “all in all.” This reflects Hart’s broader theological project of rejecting artificial distinctions between nature and grace, advocating for a monistic metaphysics where all creation is destined for deification, supporting his case for universal salvation. The passage encapsulates a vision of human fulfillment not as annihilation but as a transformative union with God, retaining personal identity while fully participating in the divine life.

Theological Dodgeball

All theological positions are based on one’s philosophy of life, not the scriptures.

It’s like a game of Dodgeball. The team you’re on is determined by your philosophical presuppositions. The scriptures are just the balls being thrown around.

The Interpretive Method of New Testament Authors

Typological Interpretation (or Typology):

Definition: Typology involves seeing OT events, figures, or institutions as “types” (patterns or foreshadowings) that prefigure or are fulfilled by Christ, the church, or other NT realities. The NT author interprets the OT text as pointing to a greater fulfillment in Jesus or the Christian community.
Example: In Matthew 2:15, Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called my son”) originally refers to Israel’s exodus but is applied typologically to Jesus as the true Israel who recapitulates and fulfills the nation’s story.
Characteristics: Typology assumes historical correspondence and escalation, where the OT event is real but finds a deeper, often messianic, significance in the NT.

2. Pesher Interpretation:

Definition: Pesher (from Hebrew, meaning “interpretation”) is a method where OT texts are applied directly to contemporary events or figures, often with an eschatological (end-times) focus. This was common in Jewish exegesis, notably in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and is used by NT authors to show how OT prophecies are fulfilled in their time.
Example: Matthew 2:17–18 applies Jeremiah 31:15 (Rachel’s weeping) to the Bethlehem massacre, treating the OT text as prophetically fulfilled in Jesus’ era.
Characteristics: Pesher often reads OT texts as cryptic predictions that find their true meaning in the present, sometimes stretching the original context.

3. Midrashic Interpretation:

Definition: Midrash (from Hebrew, meaning “to search” or “expound”) is a Jewish interpretive method that creatively elaborates on OT texts to draw out moral, theological, or allegorical meanings. NT authors, especially Paul, use midrashic techniques to apply OT texts to new situations.
Example: In 1 Corinthians 9:9–10, Paul uses Deuteronomy 25:4 (“Do not muzzle an ox”) midrashically to argue for supporting Christian ministers, extending the law’s principle beyond its literal meaning.
Characteristics: Midrash often involves allegory, analogy, or recontextualization to make the text relevant to a new audience.

4. Allegorical Interpretation:

Definition: Allegory treats OT texts as having hidden or symbolic meanings that point to spiritual truths, often beyond the literal sense. While less common in the NT than typology, it appears in some instances, particularly in Paul’s writings.
Example: In Galatians 4:21–31, Paul allegorizes the story of Hagar and Sarah (Genesis 16–21) to represent the old and new covenants, respectively, a clear departure from the historical narrative.
Characteristics: Allegory seeks deeper, symbolic meanings, sometimes detaching from the original context.

5. Fulfillment Citation:

Definition: This term is used specifically for NT quotations introduced with phrases like “this was to fulfill” (common in Matthew) or “as it is written.” It reflects the NT authors’ belief that OT texts find their ultimate purpose or completion in Christ and the church, even if the original context was not explicitly prophetic.
Example: Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 (“the virgin shall conceive”) as fulfilled in Jesus’ virgin birth, despite its original context as a sign for King Ahaz.
Characteristics: The focus is on Christological fulfillment, often reinterpreting non-prophetic texts as messianic.

Chart of Some NT Reinterpretations of OT Passages

NT Reference	OT Source	OT Context	NT Usage	Shift in Meaning	Method
Matthew 2:15	Hosea 11:1	God’s historical deliverance of Israel from Egypt, called His “son.”	Jesus’ return from Egypt, fulfilling Israel’s role.	Historical event becomes a typological prophecy about Jesus.	Typology/Fulfillment Citation
Matthew 1:23	Isaiah 7:14	Sign for King Ahaz about a child named Immanuel, born to a young woman.	Jesus’ virgin birth, using Septuagint’s “virgin.”	Historical sign becomes a messianic prophecy.	Pesher/Fulfillment Citation
Matthew 2:17–18	Jeremiah 31:15	Rachel’s mourning for Israel’s exile, with hope for restoration.	Bethlehem infants’ massacre.	Historical lament reframed as a fulfilled tragedy.	Pesher/Fulfillment Citation
Matthew 3:3	Isaiah 40:3	Preparing a way for God’s deliverance of Israel from exile.	John the Baptist preparing for Jesus.	Exile restoration prophecy fulfilled in John’s ministry.	Pesher
John 19:36	Psalm 34:20 (possibly Exodus 12:46)	God’s protection of the righteous or Passover lamb regulations.	Jesus’ unbroken bones at crucifixion.	General protection or ritual rule becomes a specific prophecy.	Typology/Fulfillment Citation
Acts 15:16–18	Amos 9:11–12	Restoration of Israel’s kingdom, dominance over Edom.	Gentile inclusion in the church, using Septuagint’s “mankind.”	National restoration becomes universal salvation.	Pesher
Romans 9:25–26	Hosea 2:23, 1:10	Restoration of Israel after judgment, called “my people.”	Gentiles becoming God’s people through faith.	Israel’s restoration extended to Gentiles.	Midrash/Typology
Romans 10:6–8	Deuteronomy 30:12–14	Accessibility of the Torah for obedience.	“Word of faith” in Christ, accessible through faith.	Torah’s accessibility becomes salvation through Christ.	Midrash
1 Corinthians 9:9–10 / 1 Timothy 5:18	Deuteronomy 25:4	Law against muzzling an ox while treading grain.	Material support for Christian ministers.	Agricultural law reinterpreted for human laborers in ministry.	Midrash/Allegory
2 Corinthians 6:16–18	Leviticus 26:12, Ezekiel 37:27, 2 Samuel 7:14	God’s covenant presence with Israel or Davidic king.	Church as God’s temple and people, including Gentiles.	Israel/Davidic promises applied to the church.	Pesher/Midrash
Galatians 3:16	Genesis 12:7	Promise of land to Abraham’s descendants (plural).	“Offspring” as Christ, the singular heir.	Collective promise narrowed to Jesus.	Midrash/Typology
Galatians 4:21–31	Genesis 16–21	Historical narrative of Hagar and Sarah, Abraham’s sons.	Allegory of old (law) and new (faith) covenants.	Family story becomes allegory for law vs. faith.	Midrash/Allegory
Hebrews 1:5	Psalm 2:7	God’s adoption of the Davidic king at coronation.	Jesus’ eternal divine sonship.	Royal coronation becomes Christ’s divinity.	Typology/Fulfillment Citation
Hebrews 10:5–7	Psalm 40:6–8	Obedience over sacrifice in personal worship.	Jesus’ incarnation and sacrificial death.	General worship statement becomes messianic prophecy.	Midrash/Typology
1 Corinthians 15:54–55	Isaiah 25:8, Hosea 13:14	God’s future defeat of death or taunt against death.	Christ’s resurrection defeating death.	General/judgmental texts become resurrection triumph.	Pesher

Notes on the Chart

Columns:
- NT Reference: The NT passage where the OT is quoted or alluded to.
- OT Source: The specific OT verse(s) or passage(s) referenced.
- OT Context: The original meaning or historical setting of the OT text.
- NT Usage: How the NT author applies the OT text.
- Shift in Meaning: How the NT usage differs from or expands the original OT meaning.
- Interpretive Method: The primary method(s) used (typology, pesher, midrash, allegory), based on the definitions provided earlier.
Interpretive Methods:
- Typology: OT events/figures as patterns fulfilled in Christ or the church.
- Pesher: OT texts as prophecies fulfilled in the NT era.
- Midrash: Creative elaboration to draw out new theological meanings.
- Allegory: Symbolic reinterpretation, often detaching from the literal sense.
- Fulfillment Citation: OT texts seen as completed in Christ, often with “this was to fulfill” phrasing.

Eschatological Drift

Theology often adapts to historical events, which helps explain the different views on the end times (eschatology) even among early Christians. For instance, in letters written before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70, Paul never links Christ’s return (the Parousia), the resurrection, or judgment to that event. Instead, he focuses on a general, future hope for all believers (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:16), without mentioning the temple, which was still standing at the time.

In contrast, the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke), likely written after the temple was destroyed, directly connect its fall to the Parousia. They portray the temple’s destruction as a sign of coming judgment and a lead-up to Christ’s return (Mark 13:2, 24–27; Matthew 24:2, 29–31; Luke 21:6, 20–28). Even so, they still view the resurrection as a future event, hinted at through symbols like the trumpet (Matthew 24:31) and affirmed in other teachings (Mark 12:25; Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:36).

Later still, the Gospel of John (written around AD 90–100) does not mention the temple’s destruction in relation to the Parousia or resurrection. Instead, it emphasizes a more spiritual or “realized” view of Christ’s presence now, while still affirming a future bodily resurrection (John 5:24–29). This reflects a shift toward a more universal theological perspective, no longer centered on the events of AD 70.

This development—from Paul’s silence on the temple, to the Synoptics’ focus on it, to John’s move beyond it—shows how early Christian beliefs about the end times evolved in response to historical changes.

1 Maccabees and Daniel 11

Below is a comparative list of 1 Maccabees and Daniel 11…

Comparative List and Chronological Alignment

1 Maccabees Event	Daniel 11 Reference	Chronological Alignment (Approximate Dates)	Notes
Seleucid oppression begins under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (1 Macc 1:10–20): Antiochus IV becomes king (175 BCE) and plunders Jerusalem, taking temple treasures.	Dan 11:21–24: A “contemptible person” (Antiochus IV) seizes the kingdom through intrigue, plunders wealth, and distributes spoil.	c. 175–170 BCE	Both texts describe Antiochus IV’s rise and early actions. Daniel’s prophecy symbolically portrays his deceit and greed, matching 1 Maccabees’ historical account of his looting.
Antiochus IV’s religious persecution (1 Macc 1:20–64): Antiochus bans Jewish practices (c. 167 BCE), desecrates the temple with a pagan altar (“abomination of desolation”), and enforces Hellenistic worship.	Dan 11:31: “Forces from him shall profane the sanctuary… and set up the abomination that makes desolate.”	c. 167 BCE	The “abomination of desolation” in Daniel aligns with the temple desecration in 1 Maccabees, often identified as the altar to Zeus in the Jerusalem temple.
Maccabean Revolt begins (1 Macc 2:1–70): Mattathias and his sons (Judas Maccabeus) resist Seleucid oppression, sparking the revolt (c. 167–166 BCE).	Dan 11:32: “The people who know their God shall stand firm and take action.”	c. 167–166 BCE	Daniel’s reference to a faithful remnant resisting aligns with the Maccabean uprising, though Daniel is less specific about the revolt’s leaders or details.
Judas Maccabeus’ victories (1 Macc 3:1–4:35): Judas wins battles against Seleucid generals (e.g., Apollonius, Seron, Gorgias) and recaptures Jerusalem, rededicating the temple (164 BCE).	Dan 11:32–33: The faithful “shall receive a little help” and continue to resist, though some fall.	c. 166–164 BCE	The “little help” in Daniel may allude to Judas’ early successes, though the prophecy remains vague. The temple rededication (Hanukkah) is not explicitly mentioned in Daniel.
Antiochus IV’s campaigns and death (1 Macc 6:1–16): Antiochus IV campaigns in the east, falls ill, and dies (164 BCE).	Dan 11:40–45: The King of the North engages in campaigns, faces turmoil, and dies with “no one to help him.”	c. 164 BCE	Both texts describe Antiochus IV’s eastern campaigns and death, though Daniel’s account is more symbolic and debated (some see Dan 11:40–45 as future or unfulfilled prophecy).
Continued Seleucid conflicts (1 Macc 6:18–9:57): After Antiochus IV’s death, the Maccabees face ongoing wars under Antiochus V and Demetrius I, with Judas dying (160 BCE).	Dan 11:35–39: Ongoing struggles for the faithful, with some falling, until “the time of the end.”	c. 164–160 BCE	Daniel’s vague reference to continued persecution may correspond to post-Antiochus IV conflicts in 1 Maccabees, but the prophecy shifts toward an eschatological tone.
Hasmonean consolidation (1 Macc 10:1–16:24): Jonathan and Simon establish Hasmonean rule, achieving relative independence (c. 160–134 BCE).	No clear parallel in Daniel 11	c. 160–134 BCE	Daniel 11 does not clearly address the later Hasmonean period, focusing instead on earlier Seleucid conflicts or possibly an eschatological future.