1,275
23
Essay, 3 pages (700 words)

Moltmann the cross at mark 15:34 as evidence

Moltmann makes two main moves to combat this tradition. First, he argues that Christ and God the Father suffered in Crucifixion. All thisis grounded by a dialectal, epistemological method, where God is revealed inHis diametric opposite: the crucified Christ. ‘ It is the dialectical knowledgeof God’ which ‘ first brings Heaven down to earth of those abandoned by God.'(1974, 28). Moltmann takes his point of departure from the Scriptural reference’God is Love’ (1 Jn.

4: 18) (1974, 227). For Moltmann, a God who cannot suffer, isalso one who cannot love. He argues that love presupposes relational involvement, which by definition means one cannot be completely detached from another. Butthis is precisely what an Impassible God is – one ‘ so completely insensitive, Hecannot be affected or shaken by anything.’ (1974, 222).

Christ, as Son of God, demonstratedsuch love through the Crucifixion (244). However, his greatest suffering wasnot down to the Jews, the Law, the Romans or politics – but with respect to Godthe Father. Moltmann points to Jesus’ cry on the cross at Mark 15: 34 asevidence the Father abandons the Son. As such, Jesus represents the sufferinggodless and godforsaken: ‘ God becomes man in Jesus…in his death on the cross, heenters into the situation of Man’s godforsakness.’ (1974, ). And in this way, ‘ Christsuffers with us and Chris suffers for us’. (1980, 50). The Father also sharesin this suffering – though in a different way to the Son’s experience (1974, 203).

Although the Son suffers through abandonment; the Father only sufferscompassionately – in terms of ‘ grief of the death of the Son.’ The Father is not exempt from Christs’ suffering because of Moltmann’ssecond major move. This involves a readjustment of the lens with which we view theCrucifixion. Rather than seeing the event in soteriological terms, in what Goddoes for us – we must consider what the event reveals about the Triune God.

Moltmann’s’Passibilist’ argument is underpinned by constructing an integrated, Trinitarianframework in which to understand the Crucifixion. Picking up from Rahner, Moltmann undercuts any distinction between Immanent Trinity (God who is), and EconomicTrinity (God which acts). In other words, whoGod is, is revealed in what God hasdone (240). Any understanding of God which does not take this Trinitarian frameworkinto account is a ‘ weakly Christianised monotheism’ (236), The same goes forthe Crucifixion. It is not a one-way process: where the Father, as the subject, sends the Son, who stands as the passive object. Instead, the Son activelywilled to deliver himself, and crucifixion was not forced upon him: ‘ it is notjust Father who delivers Jesus to die godforsaken…but the Son who gives himselfup’ (243).

The Cross is therefore an act of both Father and Son, whichexpresses their Trinitarian relations. Thus, Moltmann writes about the Triuneunity at the Cross, and again his dialectical method pierces through: ‘ preciselyat the point of the Father and Son’s deepest separation…they are most inwardlyone in their surrender.’ (1974, 244). In this way, we can only talk of thecross with reference to Trinity, and can only talk of the Trinity withreference to the cross. It is a ‘ Trinitarian event between the Son and Father'(245).  This explains why the Fatherparticipates in the suffering of the cross, because of the relational unity ofthe Trinity, which is expressed in this act, and every act of God.

Moltmann’s account raises more questions than it solves. Itis important to realise what is at stake, if we accept Moltmann’s arguments. Firstof all, it means a deviation from Scriptural testimonies to the Crucifixion, interms of the role of Father and Holy Spirit.

Klaas Runia makes the point thatthe idea of a ‘ crucified’ God is clearly not consistent with scripture. 1Although Moltmann makes much of the Crucifixion being an act of the Trinity, Biblical record certainly does not see it as an event within the Godhead. Moreover, for an account which does make so much of this integrated Trinitarian Theology, Moltmann has a severely underweight pneumatology. Although he writes that to ‘ understandwhat happened between Jesus and his Father on the cross, it is necessary totalk in Trinitarian terms’,  he then goeson to talking about the Father and Son exclusively: ‘ The Son suffers dying, theFather the death of the Son’/’the Fatherless of the Son is matched by theSonlessness of the Father.

‘ (1974, 243). Indeed, Moltmann himself acknowledgesthis weakness; he comments retrospectively on ‘ The Crucified God’ : ‘ I did notget further than seeing a binity of God the Father and Jesus the Son of God.'(1991, 174)1

Thank's for Your Vote!
Moltmann the cross at mark 15:34 as evidence. Page 1
Moltmann the cross at mark 15:34 as evidence. Page 2
Moltmann the cross at mark 15:34 as evidence. Page 3
Moltmann the cross at mark 15:34 as evidence. Page 4

This work, titled "Moltmann the cross at mark 15:34 as evidence" was written and willingly shared by a fellow student. This sample can be utilized as a research and reference resource to aid in the writing of your own work. Any use of the work that does not include an appropriate citation is banned.

If you are the owner of this work and don’t want it to be published on AssignBuster, request its removal.

Request Removal
Cite this Essay

References

AssignBuster. (2022) 'Moltmann the cross at mark 15:34 as evidence'. 28 September.

Reference

AssignBuster. (2022, September 28). Moltmann the cross at mark 15:34 as evidence. Retrieved from https://assignbuster.com/moltmann-the-cross-at-mark-1534-as-evidence/

References

AssignBuster. 2022. "Moltmann the cross at mark 15:34 as evidence." September 28, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/moltmann-the-cross-at-mark-1534-as-evidence/.

1. AssignBuster. "Moltmann the cross at mark 15:34 as evidence." September 28, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/moltmann-the-cross-at-mark-1534-as-evidence/.


Bibliography


AssignBuster. "Moltmann the cross at mark 15:34 as evidence." September 28, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/moltmann-the-cross-at-mark-1534-as-evidence/.

Work Cited

"Moltmann the cross at mark 15:34 as evidence." AssignBuster, 28 Sept. 2022, assignbuster.com/moltmann-the-cross-at-mark-1534-as-evidence/.

Get in Touch

Please, let us know if you have any ideas on improving Moltmann the cross at mark 15:34 as evidence, or our service. We will be happy to hear what you think: [email protected]