EXTRACT ONE – JURGEN MOLTMAN, ‘THE SUFFERING GOD’
Impassibility = unaffected by emotion
Passibility = capable of emotion
Immutable = unchanging
Aporia = the expression of doubt. A conundrum or state of puzzlement
Divine apatheia = God’s incapacity to suffer
Pathos = a quality that evokes pity or sadness
Transcendent = outside of creation
The Council of Nicaea rightly declared, in opposition to Arius, that: God was not so changeable as his creature. This is not an
absolute statement about God, but a comparative statement. God is not subject to compulsion by what is not divine. This does
not mean, however, that God is not free to change himself or to be changed by something else. We cannot deduce from the
relative statement of Nicaea that God is unchangeable – that he is absolutely unchangeable.
God is only unchangeable in terms of the human understanding of ‘unchanging’. He is divine, so he is free to change himself or
be changed by something else, if he chooses. God is not absolutely unchangeable, only relatively unchangeable
God cannot be forced to change or suffer, but can will it if he chooses
The early Fathers insisted on God’s inability to suffer in opposition to the Syrian Monophysite heresy. An essential inability to
suffer was the only contrast to passive suffering recognized in the early Church. There is, however, a third form of suffering –
active suffering, the suffering of love, a voluntary openness to the possibility of being affected by outside influences. If God were
really incapable of suffering, he would also be as incapable of loving as the God of Aristotle, who was loved by all, but could not
love. Whoever is capable of love is also capable of suffering, because he is open to the suffering that love brings with it, although
he is always able to surmount that suffering because of love. God does not suffer, like his creature, because his being is incomplete.
He loves from the fullness of his being and suffers because of his full and free love.
Early Church fathers insisted that God is unable to suffer, since this is the only state, which is in contrast to passive suffering,
suffering forced onto God by another (non divine) being.
- The idea of God being forced to suffer is incorrect
However, there is a third form of suffering which God can experience which the early fathers did not note, or perhaps did not
realise. This is active suffering, in which God chooses to suffer. God has a ‘voluntary openness’ to suffering at the hands of outside,
non-divine, influences
- This is suffering out of love
Whoever is capable of love is also capable of suffering, because to love fully means being open to the suffering which love brings
with it
- Because God is all loving (omnibenevolent), he must also be able to suffer
God's suffering is not the same as a human being, since humans are incomplete and are in a position of being forced to suffer by
other influences
- God is a complete and perfect, meaning he loves from the fullness of his being and thus suffers because of this full and
complete love
The distinctions that have been made in theology between God’s and man’s being are externally important, but they tell us
nothing about the inner relationship between God the Father and God the Son and therefore cannot be applied to the event of
the cross which took place between God and God. Christian humanists also find this a profound aporia. In regarding Jesus as
God’s perfect man, and in taking his exemplary sinlessness as proof of his “permanently powerful consciousness of God,” they
interpret Jesus’ death as the fulfilment of his obedience or faith, not as his being abandoned by God. God’s incapacity, because
of his divine nature, to suffer (apatheia) is replaced by the unshakeable steadfastness (ataraxia) of Jesus’ consciousness of God.
The ancient teaching that God is unchangeable is thus transconsciousness of God. The ancient teaching that God is unchangeable
is thus transferred to Jesus’ “inner life”, but the aporia is not overcome. Finally, atheistic humanists who are interested in Jesus
but do not accept the existence of God find it impossible to think of Jesus as dying abandoned by God and therefore regard this
cry to God from the cross of superfluous.
,We can know nothing of the relationship between God the father and God the Son because it is not the same as human
relationships.
‘The event of the cross which took place between God and God’ - Moltmann highlights his belief in the trinity. Both God the
Father and God the Son (Jesus) are God, meaning that their relationship is inherently different between that of God and human.
Aporia = the expression of doubt
Christian Humanists attempt to solve the aporia of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son during the
crucifixion by understanding it not as a matter of divine suffering, but as a demonstration of the ataraxia (a steadfast, tranquil
state of being) of Jesus. In viewing Jesus as having an unchangeable, perfect, divine nature, they argue that he only suffered on a
human level, emptying himself of divinity and, therefore, confining suffering to the Son only and not the father
- Jesus’s death is not seen as an abandonment of God
- God’s incapacity to suffer (apatheia) because of his divine nature) is replaced by the unshakable steadfastness (ataraxia)
of Jesus’s consciousness of God
However, Moltmann notes that this theory does not overcome the aporia. If Jesus is meant to be God incarnate, and coeternal
with the Father, it does not make sense to separate the two at the moment of crucifixion.
- The cry on the cross in Mark 15:34 ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ directly shows that there is a distinct
and important moment between the Son and the Father on the cross
All Christian theologians of every period and inclination try to answer the question of Jesus’ cry from the cross and to say,
consciously or unconsciously, why God abandoned him. Atheists also attempt to answer this question in such a way that, by
depriving it of its foundation, they can easily dismiss it. But Jesus’ cry from the cross is greater than even the most convincing
Christian answer. Theologians can only point to the coming of God, who is the only answer to this question
Christians have to speak about God in the presence of Jesus’ abandonment by God on the cross, which can provide the only
complete justification of their theology. The cross is either the Christian end of all theology or it is the beginning of a specifically
Christian theology. When theologians speak about God on the cross of Christ, this inevitably becomes a trinitarian debate about
the “story of God” which is quite distinct from all monotheism, polytheism or pantheism. The central position occupied by the
crucified Christ is the specifically Christian element in the history of the world and the doctrine of the Trinity is the specifically
Christian element of the doctrine of God. Both are very closely connected. It is not the bare trinitarian formulas in the New
Testament, but the constant testimony of the cross which provides the basis for Christian faith in the Trinity. The most concise
expression of the Trinity is God’s action on the cross, in which God allowed the Son to sacrifice himself though the Spirit (B.
Steffen).
Jesus’s crucifixion can either prove that God does not exist in this world (meaning an ‘end to all Christian theology’) or proves
God’s relationship with the world and his active choice to suffer out of love (meaning ‘the beginning of a specifically Christian
theology’)
Jesus's death and God’s abandonment is the start of our understanding of God, not the final argument disproving God’s existence.
The crucifixion and the subsequent constant testimony of the cross provides the basis for Christian faith in the trinity, not the
bare trinitarian formulas
- God’s action of abandonment, allowing Jesus to sacrifice himself through the spirit, acts as expression of the Trinity,
since it exemplifies the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
It is informative to examine Paul’s statements about Jesus’ abandonment on the cross in this context. The Greek word for
“abandon” (paradidomi) has a decidedly negative connotation in the gospel stories of the passion, meaning betray, deliver, give
up and even kill. In Paul (Romans 1: 18–21), this negative meaning of paredoken is apparent in his presentation of God’s
abandonment of ungodly men. Guilt and punishment are closely connected and men who abandon God are abandoned by him
and “given” up to the way they have chosen for themselves – Jews to their law, Gentiles to the worship of their idols and both to
death.
The term paradidomi was used by Paul to describe Jesus’s abandonment on the cross, a word which generally has negative
connotations.
The term ‘paradidomi is used within the Gospels generally in a negative way, one key example being the moment where Judas
‘betrays’ Jesus, handing him over to the authorities.
, - However, this translation of paradidomi as betrayal has been questioned by scholars, with many noting that prior to its
use in the Gospels, it generally meant to hand over or give up
Paradidomi is generally a punishment, an abandoning by God, of those who have chosen to abandon God
Paul introduced a new meaning into the term paredoken when he presented Jesus’ abandonment by God not in the historical
context of his life, but in the eschatological context of faith. God “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all; will he
not also give us all things with him?” (Romans 8:32). In the historical abandonment of the crucified Christ by the Father, Paul
perceived the eschatological abandonment or “giving up” of the Son by the Father for the sake of “ungodly” men who had
abandoned and been abandoned by God. In stressing that God had given up “his own Son”, Paul extended the abandonment of
the Son to the Father, although not in the same way, as the Patripassian heretics had done, insisting that the Son’s sufferings
could be predicated on the Father. In the Pauline view, Jesus suffered death abandoned by God. The Father, on the other hand,
suffered the death of his Son in the pain of his love. The Son was “given up” by the Father and the Father suffered his
abandonment from the Son. Kazoh Kitamori has called this “the pain of God.”
Moltmann notes that within Paul paradedoken (the past tense of paradidomi) is used negatively; for example, in Romans 1:18-
21, where God is supposed to have abandoned those who did not honour him.
However, he argues that Paul equally introduces a new way of understanding paradidomi within the context of the crucifixion at
Romas 8:32, where God is declared to have ‘given up’ his own Son for those who had lost touch with God. In this way, Moltmann
argues for Paul, Jesus suffers in his death on the cross, but the father suffers from his love for the son he has given up or
abandoned
Where paradidomi, when referred to human beings, is usually understood as a punishment for turning away from God, in the
context of Jesus, it should be understood as a giving up for a greater good for the sake of those who have abandoned God, it is
not a punishment
- Perhaps this emphasises the different in God the Father’s relationship with human beings and his relationship with God
the Son
Both God the Father and God the Son suffered during the crucifixion, but in different ways
God’s wilful abandonment of Jesus highlights how God can suffer through choice
Patripassianism is the belief that God the father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three different modes or emanations of one
monadic God rather than three distinct persons within the trinity. There are no real or substantial differences between the three,
such that the identity of the Spirit or the Son is that of the Father
The death of the Son is different from this “pain of God” the Father, and for this reason it is not possible to speak, as the
Theopaschites did, of the “death of God”. If we are to understand the story of Jesus’ death abandoned by God as an event taking
place between the Father and the Son, we must speak in terms of the Trinity and leave the universal concept of God aside, at
least to begin with. In Galatians 2:20, the word paredoken appears with Christ as the subject “…the Son of God, who loved me
and gave himself for me.” According to this statement, then, it is not only the Father who gives the Son up, but the Son who gives
himself up. This indicates that Jesus’ will and that of the Father were the same at the point where Jesus was abandoned on the
cross and they were completely separated. Paul himself interpreted Christ’s being abandoned by God as love, and the same
interpretation is found in John (John 3:16). The author of 1 John regarded this event of love on the cross as the very existence of
God himself: “God is love” (1 John 4:16). This is why it was possible at a later period to speak, with reference to the cross, of
homoousia, the Son and the Father being of one substance. In the cross, Jesus and his God are in the deepest sense separated by
the Son’s abandonment by the Father, yet at the same time they are in the most intimate sense united in this abandonment or
“giving up.” This is because this “giving up” proceeds from the event of the cross that takes place between the Father who
abandons and the Son who is abandoned, and this giving up is none other than the Holy Spirit.
There is a difference between the suffering of Jesus in his death on the cross and the suffering of God in giving up of the Son.
- Moltmann argues that understanding this difference cannot come from a universal idea of God, rather, it can only be
understood in terms of the Trinity
Moltmann first notes Galatians 2:20, where paredoken is used referencing how the Son ‘gave himself up’. In this way, Moltmann
argues that the will of both the father and the son was the same. They were aware of the necessity of the giving up of Jesus’s life
on the cross and the suffering it entailed. This is why Moltmann argues that despite the Father and Son being separated by the
, abandonment on the cross, they are equally intimately united by their will to see through the ‘giving up’ on the cross, which for
Moltmann is the Holy spirit
Through Paul, it can be understood that this giving up of the Son on the cross is an act of love. This can also be seen in John, in
which the author regarded this event of love on the cross as the very existence of God himself (1 John 4:16 ‘God is love’)
- Moltmann highlights the fact that this idea can be found at various points in the New Testament to reinforce his
interpretation
It is possible to speak of the Son and the Father as being of one substance. Understanding this decisive act of giving up as
generating suffering within the father is not in opposition to the statements of the Nicene Creed that the father and Son are of
one substance (homoousia). Rather, it is possible to identify in the separation between the Son and the Father a distinct unity in
their identical acts of giving up
Any attempt to interpret the event of Jesus’ crucifixion according to the doctrine of the two natures would result in a paradox,
because of the concept of the one God and the one nature of God. On the cross, God calls to God and dies to God. Only in this
place is God “dead” and yet not dead. If all we have is the concept of one God, we are inevitably inclined to apply it to the Father
and to relate the death exclusively to the human person of Jesus, so that the cross is “emptied” of its divinity. If, on the other
hand, this concept of God is left aside, we have at once to speak of persons in the special relationship of this particular event, the
Father as the one who abandons and “gives up” the Son, and the Son who is abandoned by the Father and who gives himself up.
What proceeds from this event is the Spirit of abandonment and self-giving love who raises up abandoned men.
Moltmann contends that trying to understand the crucifixion in relation to the two natures, divine and human, of Jesus inevitably
results in a paradox, as one must try to divide up the unity of God and this means one ends up drawing counterintuitive
conclusions about the crucifixion, such as relating the death of Jesus only to his human nature
However, if one accepts that the idea of impassibility does not have to apply to God, then the abandonment can be understood
as the proceeding Holy Spirit, that in Moltmann’s words, ‘raises up abandoned men’
My interpretation of the death of Christ, then, is not as an event between God and man, but primarily as an event within the
Trinity between Jesus and his Father, an event from which the Spirit proceeds. This interpretation opens up a number of
perspectives. In the first place, it is possible to understand the crucifixion of Christ non-theistically. Secondly, the old dichotomy
between the universal nature of God and the inner triune nature of God is overcome and, thirdly, the distinction between the
immanent and the “economic” Trinity becomes superfluous. It makes it necessary to speak about the Trinity in the context of the
cross, and re-establishes it as a traditional doctrine. Seen in this light, this doctrine no longer has to be regarded as a divine
mystery which is better venerated with silent respect than investigate too closely. It can be seen as the tersest way of expressing
the story of Christ’s passion. It preserves faith from monotheism and from atheism, because it keeps it close to the crucified
Christ. It reveals the cross in God’s being and God’s being in the cross. The material principle of the trinitarian doctrine is the
cross; the formal principle of the theology of the cross is the trinitarian doctrine. The unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit can be designated as “God.” If we are to speak as Christians about God, then, we have to tell the story of Jesus as the story
of God and to proclaim it as the historical event which took place between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and which
revealed who and what God is, not only for man, but in his very existence. This also means that God’s being is historical and that
he exists in history. The “story of God” then is the story of the history of man.
The death of Christ is an event within the trinity and not between God and man
Moltmann sees a number of advantages in this interpretation of the resurrection:
It becomes possible to ‘understand the crucifixion non-theistically'
- Even if one removes the concept of God from Moltmann’s idea of the crucifixion, it isn’t primarily an exercise in divine
self-effacement or will, but rather a unique act of love in Jesus giving up his life in what he perceives as a reciprocal
giving up by God. Such an act can have meaning for both theists and non-theists
‘The old dichotomy between the universal nature of God and the inner virtue of nature of God is overcome’
- Here Moltmann notes how, typically, the paradox of the trinity is lessened when one develops an idea of the crucifixion
that does not emphasise the impassibility or unchanging aspect of oneness that ancient Greek theologians believed
was necessary
‘The distinction between the immanent and ‘economic’ Trinity becomes superfluous’
Impassibility = unaffected by emotion
Passibility = capable of emotion
Immutable = unchanging
Aporia = the expression of doubt. A conundrum or state of puzzlement
Divine apatheia = God’s incapacity to suffer
Pathos = a quality that evokes pity or sadness
Transcendent = outside of creation
The Council of Nicaea rightly declared, in opposition to Arius, that: God was not so changeable as his creature. This is not an
absolute statement about God, but a comparative statement. God is not subject to compulsion by what is not divine. This does
not mean, however, that God is not free to change himself or to be changed by something else. We cannot deduce from the
relative statement of Nicaea that God is unchangeable – that he is absolutely unchangeable.
God is only unchangeable in terms of the human understanding of ‘unchanging’. He is divine, so he is free to change himself or
be changed by something else, if he chooses. God is not absolutely unchangeable, only relatively unchangeable
God cannot be forced to change or suffer, but can will it if he chooses
The early Fathers insisted on God’s inability to suffer in opposition to the Syrian Monophysite heresy. An essential inability to
suffer was the only contrast to passive suffering recognized in the early Church. There is, however, a third form of suffering –
active suffering, the suffering of love, a voluntary openness to the possibility of being affected by outside influences. If God were
really incapable of suffering, he would also be as incapable of loving as the God of Aristotle, who was loved by all, but could not
love. Whoever is capable of love is also capable of suffering, because he is open to the suffering that love brings with it, although
he is always able to surmount that suffering because of love. God does not suffer, like his creature, because his being is incomplete.
He loves from the fullness of his being and suffers because of his full and free love.
Early Church fathers insisted that God is unable to suffer, since this is the only state, which is in contrast to passive suffering,
suffering forced onto God by another (non divine) being.
- The idea of God being forced to suffer is incorrect
However, there is a third form of suffering which God can experience which the early fathers did not note, or perhaps did not
realise. This is active suffering, in which God chooses to suffer. God has a ‘voluntary openness’ to suffering at the hands of outside,
non-divine, influences
- This is suffering out of love
Whoever is capable of love is also capable of suffering, because to love fully means being open to the suffering which love brings
with it
- Because God is all loving (omnibenevolent), he must also be able to suffer
God's suffering is not the same as a human being, since humans are incomplete and are in a position of being forced to suffer by
other influences
- God is a complete and perfect, meaning he loves from the fullness of his being and thus suffers because of this full and
complete love
The distinctions that have been made in theology between God’s and man’s being are externally important, but they tell us
nothing about the inner relationship between God the Father and God the Son and therefore cannot be applied to the event of
the cross which took place between God and God. Christian humanists also find this a profound aporia. In regarding Jesus as
God’s perfect man, and in taking his exemplary sinlessness as proof of his “permanently powerful consciousness of God,” they
interpret Jesus’ death as the fulfilment of his obedience or faith, not as his being abandoned by God. God’s incapacity, because
of his divine nature, to suffer (apatheia) is replaced by the unshakeable steadfastness (ataraxia) of Jesus’ consciousness of God.
The ancient teaching that God is unchangeable is thus transconsciousness of God. The ancient teaching that God is unchangeable
is thus transferred to Jesus’ “inner life”, but the aporia is not overcome. Finally, atheistic humanists who are interested in Jesus
but do not accept the existence of God find it impossible to think of Jesus as dying abandoned by God and therefore regard this
cry to God from the cross of superfluous.
,We can know nothing of the relationship between God the father and God the Son because it is not the same as human
relationships.
‘The event of the cross which took place between God and God’ - Moltmann highlights his belief in the trinity. Both God the
Father and God the Son (Jesus) are God, meaning that their relationship is inherently different between that of God and human.
Aporia = the expression of doubt
Christian Humanists attempt to solve the aporia of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son during the
crucifixion by understanding it not as a matter of divine suffering, but as a demonstration of the ataraxia (a steadfast, tranquil
state of being) of Jesus. In viewing Jesus as having an unchangeable, perfect, divine nature, they argue that he only suffered on a
human level, emptying himself of divinity and, therefore, confining suffering to the Son only and not the father
- Jesus’s death is not seen as an abandonment of God
- God’s incapacity to suffer (apatheia) because of his divine nature) is replaced by the unshakable steadfastness (ataraxia)
of Jesus’s consciousness of God
However, Moltmann notes that this theory does not overcome the aporia. If Jesus is meant to be God incarnate, and coeternal
with the Father, it does not make sense to separate the two at the moment of crucifixion.
- The cry on the cross in Mark 15:34 ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ directly shows that there is a distinct
and important moment between the Son and the Father on the cross
All Christian theologians of every period and inclination try to answer the question of Jesus’ cry from the cross and to say,
consciously or unconsciously, why God abandoned him. Atheists also attempt to answer this question in such a way that, by
depriving it of its foundation, they can easily dismiss it. But Jesus’ cry from the cross is greater than even the most convincing
Christian answer. Theologians can only point to the coming of God, who is the only answer to this question
Christians have to speak about God in the presence of Jesus’ abandonment by God on the cross, which can provide the only
complete justification of their theology. The cross is either the Christian end of all theology or it is the beginning of a specifically
Christian theology. When theologians speak about God on the cross of Christ, this inevitably becomes a trinitarian debate about
the “story of God” which is quite distinct from all monotheism, polytheism or pantheism. The central position occupied by the
crucified Christ is the specifically Christian element in the history of the world and the doctrine of the Trinity is the specifically
Christian element of the doctrine of God. Both are very closely connected. It is not the bare trinitarian formulas in the New
Testament, but the constant testimony of the cross which provides the basis for Christian faith in the Trinity. The most concise
expression of the Trinity is God’s action on the cross, in which God allowed the Son to sacrifice himself though the Spirit (B.
Steffen).
Jesus’s crucifixion can either prove that God does not exist in this world (meaning an ‘end to all Christian theology’) or proves
God’s relationship with the world and his active choice to suffer out of love (meaning ‘the beginning of a specifically Christian
theology’)
Jesus's death and God’s abandonment is the start of our understanding of God, not the final argument disproving God’s existence.
The crucifixion and the subsequent constant testimony of the cross provides the basis for Christian faith in the trinity, not the
bare trinitarian formulas
- God’s action of abandonment, allowing Jesus to sacrifice himself through the spirit, acts as expression of the Trinity,
since it exemplifies the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
It is informative to examine Paul’s statements about Jesus’ abandonment on the cross in this context. The Greek word for
“abandon” (paradidomi) has a decidedly negative connotation in the gospel stories of the passion, meaning betray, deliver, give
up and even kill. In Paul (Romans 1: 18–21), this negative meaning of paredoken is apparent in his presentation of God’s
abandonment of ungodly men. Guilt and punishment are closely connected and men who abandon God are abandoned by him
and “given” up to the way they have chosen for themselves – Jews to their law, Gentiles to the worship of their idols and both to
death.
The term paradidomi was used by Paul to describe Jesus’s abandonment on the cross, a word which generally has negative
connotations.
The term ‘paradidomi is used within the Gospels generally in a negative way, one key example being the moment where Judas
‘betrays’ Jesus, handing him over to the authorities.
, - However, this translation of paradidomi as betrayal has been questioned by scholars, with many noting that prior to its
use in the Gospels, it generally meant to hand over or give up
Paradidomi is generally a punishment, an abandoning by God, of those who have chosen to abandon God
Paul introduced a new meaning into the term paredoken when he presented Jesus’ abandonment by God not in the historical
context of his life, but in the eschatological context of faith. God “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all; will he
not also give us all things with him?” (Romans 8:32). In the historical abandonment of the crucified Christ by the Father, Paul
perceived the eschatological abandonment or “giving up” of the Son by the Father for the sake of “ungodly” men who had
abandoned and been abandoned by God. In stressing that God had given up “his own Son”, Paul extended the abandonment of
the Son to the Father, although not in the same way, as the Patripassian heretics had done, insisting that the Son’s sufferings
could be predicated on the Father. In the Pauline view, Jesus suffered death abandoned by God. The Father, on the other hand,
suffered the death of his Son in the pain of his love. The Son was “given up” by the Father and the Father suffered his
abandonment from the Son. Kazoh Kitamori has called this “the pain of God.”
Moltmann notes that within Paul paradedoken (the past tense of paradidomi) is used negatively; for example, in Romans 1:18-
21, where God is supposed to have abandoned those who did not honour him.
However, he argues that Paul equally introduces a new way of understanding paradidomi within the context of the crucifixion at
Romas 8:32, where God is declared to have ‘given up’ his own Son for those who had lost touch with God. In this way, Moltmann
argues for Paul, Jesus suffers in his death on the cross, but the father suffers from his love for the son he has given up or
abandoned
Where paradidomi, when referred to human beings, is usually understood as a punishment for turning away from God, in the
context of Jesus, it should be understood as a giving up for a greater good for the sake of those who have abandoned God, it is
not a punishment
- Perhaps this emphasises the different in God the Father’s relationship with human beings and his relationship with God
the Son
Both God the Father and God the Son suffered during the crucifixion, but in different ways
God’s wilful abandonment of Jesus highlights how God can suffer through choice
Patripassianism is the belief that God the father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three different modes or emanations of one
monadic God rather than three distinct persons within the trinity. There are no real or substantial differences between the three,
such that the identity of the Spirit or the Son is that of the Father
The death of the Son is different from this “pain of God” the Father, and for this reason it is not possible to speak, as the
Theopaschites did, of the “death of God”. If we are to understand the story of Jesus’ death abandoned by God as an event taking
place between the Father and the Son, we must speak in terms of the Trinity and leave the universal concept of God aside, at
least to begin with. In Galatians 2:20, the word paredoken appears with Christ as the subject “…the Son of God, who loved me
and gave himself for me.” According to this statement, then, it is not only the Father who gives the Son up, but the Son who gives
himself up. This indicates that Jesus’ will and that of the Father were the same at the point where Jesus was abandoned on the
cross and they were completely separated. Paul himself interpreted Christ’s being abandoned by God as love, and the same
interpretation is found in John (John 3:16). The author of 1 John regarded this event of love on the cross as the very existence of
God himself: “God is love” (1 John 4:16). This is why it was possible at a later period to speak, with reference to the cross, of
homoousia, the Son and the Father being of one substance. In the cross, Jesus and his God are in the deepest sense separated by
the Son’s abandonment by the Father, yet at the same time they are in the most intimate sense united in this abandonment or
“giving up.” This is because this “giving up” proceeds from the event of the cross that takes place between the Father who
abandons and the Son who is abandoned, and this giving up is none other than the Holy Spirit.
There is a difference between the suffering of Jesus in his death on the cross and the suffering of God in giving up of the Son.
- Moltmann argues that understanding this difference cannot come from a universal idea of God, rather, it can only be
understood in terms of the Trinity
Moltmann first notes Galatians 2:20, where paredoken is used referencing how the Son ‘gave himself up’. In this way, Moltmann
argues that the will of both the father and the son was the same. They were aware of the necessity of the giving up of Jesus’s life
on the cross and the suffering it entailed. This is why Moltmann argues that despite the Father and Son being separated by the
, abandonment on the cross, they are equally intimately united by their will to see through the ‘giving up’ on the cross, which for
Moltmann is the Holy spirit
Through Paul, it can be understood that this giving up of the Son on the cross is an act of love. This can also be seen in John, in
which the author regarded this event of love on the cross as the very existence of God himself (1 John 4:16 ‘God is love’)
- Moltmann highlights the fact that this idea can be found at various points in the New Testament to reinforce his
interpretation
It is possible to speak of the Son and the Father as being of one substance. Understanding this decisive act of giving up as
generating suffering within the father is not in opposition to the statements of the Nicene Creed that the father and Son are of
one substance (homoousia). Rather, it is possible to identify in the separation between the Son and the Father a distinct unity in
their identical acts of giving up
Any attempt to interpret the event of Jesus’ crucifixion according to the doctrine of the two natures would result in a paradox,
because of the concept of the one God and the one nature of God. On the cross, God calls to God and dies to God. Only in this
place is God “dead” and yet not dead. If all we have is the concept of one God, we are inevitably inclined to apply it to the Father
and to relate the death exclusively to the human person of Jesus, so that the cross is “emptied” of its divinity. If, on the other
hand, this concept of God is left aside, we have at once to speak of persons in the special relationship of this particular event, the
Father as the one who abandons and “gives up” the Son, and the Son who is abandoned by the Father and who gives himself up.
What proceeds from this event is the Spirit of abandonment and self-giving love who raises up abandoned men.
Moltmann contends that trying to understand the crucifixion in relation to the two natures, divine and human, of Jesus inevitably
results in a paradox, as one must try to divide up the unity of God and this means one ends up drawing counterintuitive
conclusions about the crucifixion, such as relating the death of Jesus only to his human nature
However, if one accepts that the idea of impassibility does not have to apply to God, then the abandonment can be understood
as the proceeding Holy Spirit, that in Moltmann’s words, ‘raises up abandoned men’
My interpretation of the death of Christ, then, is not as an event between God and man, but primarily as an event within the
Trinity between Jesus and his Father, an event from which the Spirit proceeds. This interpretation opens up a number of
perspectives. In the first place, it is possible to understand the crucifixion of Christ non-theistically. Secondly, the old dichotomy
between the universal nature of God and the inner triune nature of God is overcome and, thirdly, the distinction between the
immanent and the “economic” Trinity becomes superfluous. It makes it necessary to speak about the Trinity in the context of the
cross, and re-establishes it as a traditional doctrine. Seen in this light, this doctrine no longer has to be regarded as a divine
mystery which is better venerated with silent respect than investigate too closely. It can be seen as the tersest way of expressing
the story of Christ’s passion. It preserves faith from monotheism and from atheism, because it keeps it close to the crucified
Christ. It reveals the cross in God’s being and God’s being in the cross. The material principle of the trinitarian doctrine is the
cross; the formal principle of the theology of the cross is the trinitarian doctrine. The unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit can be designated as “God.” If we are to speak as Christians about God, then, we have to tell the story of Jesus as the story
of God and to proclaim it as the historical event which took place between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and which
revealed who and what God is, not only for man, but in his very existence. This also means that God’s being is historical and that
he exists in history. The “story of God” then is the story of the history of man.
The death of Christ is an event within the trinity and not between God and man
Moltmann sees a number of advantages in this interpretation of the resurrection:
It becomes possible to ‘understand the crucifixion non-theistically'
- Even if one removes the concept of God from Moltmann’s idea of the crucifixion, it isn’t primarily an exercise in divine
self-effacement or will, but rather a unique act of love in Jesus giving up his life in what he perceives as a reciprocal
giving up by God. Such an act can have meaning for both theists and non-theists
‘The old dichotomy between the universal nature of God and the inner virtue of nature of God is overcome’
- Here Moltmann notes how, typically, the paradox of the trinity is lessened when one develops an idea of the crucifixion
that does not emphasise the impassibility or unchanging aspect of oneness that ancient Greek theologians believed
was necessary
‘The distinction between the immanent and ‘economic’ Trinity becomes superfluous’
