Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology
144Extract 1: Jurgen Moltman, ‘The Suffering of God’ (1995).
Taken from: The Christian Theology Reader, edit ed by Alist er E Mc Grat h
(Blac kwell, 2nd edition, 2001), Chapter 3.30, pp 218-221^
T he Counc il of Nic aea right ly dec lared, in opposition to Arius, that: God was not so
c hangeable as his c reature. This is not an absolute statement about God, but a
comparative statement. God is not subjec t to c ompulsion by what is not divine. T his
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 unc hangeable – that he is absolutely unc hangeable.
T he early Fat hers insist ed on God’s inabilit y t o suffer in opposit ion t o t he
Syrian Monophysite heresy. An essent ial inabilit y t o suffer was t he only c ont rast t o
passive suffering rec ognized in the early Churc h. T here is, however, a t hird form of
suffering – ac tive suffering, the suffering of love, a voluntary openness to the
possibility of being affected by outside influences. If God were really inc apable of
suffering, he would als o be as incapable of loving as the God of Aristotle, who was
loved by all, but c ould not love. Whoever is c apable of love is also c apable of
suffering, bec ause he is open to the suffering that love brings with it, although he is
always able to surmount that suffering bec ause of love. God does not suffer, like
his creature, because his being is incomplete. He loves from t he fullness of his
being and suffers bec ause of his full and free love.
The distinc tions 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 c annot 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 perfec t man, and in taking
his exemplary sinlessness as proof of his “permanently powerful c onsc iousness of
God,” they interpret Jesus’ death as the fulfilment of his obedienc e or faith, not as
his being abandoned by God. God’s inc apac ity, bec ause of his divine nature, to
suffer (apatheia) is replaced by the unshakeable steadfastness (ataraxia) of Jesus’
consciousness of God. The anc ient teac hing that God is unc hangeable is thus trans-
consciousness of God. The anc ient teac hing that God is unc hangeable is thus
transferred to Jesus’ “inner life”, but the aporia is not overcome. Finally, at heist ic
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.
All Christ ian t heologians of every period and inc linat ion t ry to answer the
question of Jesus’ c ry from the c ross and to say, c onsc iously or unc onsc iously, why
God abandoned him. Atheists also attempt to answer this question in suc h a way
t hat , by depriving it of it s foundat ion, t hey c an easily dismiss it. But Jesus’ c ry from
the c ross is greater than even the most c onvinc ing Christian answer. T heologians
c an only point to the c oming of God, who is the only answer to this question.
Christians have to speak about God in the presenc e of Jesus’ abandonment by
God on the c ross, whic h c an provide t he only c omplet e just ific at ion of t heir
theology. T he c ross is eit her t he Christ ian end of all t heology or it is t he beginning
of a spec ific ally Christ ian t heology. When theologians speak about God on the c ross
of Christ , t his inevitably becomes a trinitarian debate about the “story of God”