In Trinitarian theologies, which nature is subservient to the Father?

In Trinitarian theology, when Jesus uttered the following words that indicate his subservience to the Father, **which nature was Jesus "accessing" / "operating in": his divine nature, or his human nature?** - [John 5:19](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205%3A19&version=ESV) : > So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. - [John 14:28](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+14%3A28&version=ESV) : > You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. - [Luke 22:41-42](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+22%3A41-42&version=ESV) : > And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” Excerpt from [Henry Bettenson's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_S._Bettenson) English translation of the AD 451 [Chalcedon Formula](http://anglicansonline.org/basics/chalcedon.html) : > ... > > and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the Godbearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, 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, not as parted or separated into two persons**, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ I borrowed the language "operate in his divine/human nature" from Eleonore Stump's explanation of [Jesus as God](https://www.closertotruth.com/interviews/58405) (min. 5:40-5:55). To me, especially from [dythelitism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyothelitism) perspective where each nature has a distinct will, it makes more sense that in the 3 verses above Jesus operated in his **human** nature, whose divine nature communicated His will, just as we discerned God's will for us. Because if Jesus was operating in his **divine** nature, in order for these 3 verses to have any *real* meaning of subservience, how can one being has two potentially conflicting wills? If there are major camps representing different answers, I'll edit this question to add a comparative-christianity tag.