What do you think?
Rate this book
Systematic Contributions to Theology #1
The Trinity and the Kingdom of God : The Doctrine of God
Paperback. Very good.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1980
59 people are currently reading
502 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
September 2, 2020
Quite possibly my favorite theological work I’ve read so far. The breakthroughs I had while reading this book are unparalleled in my theological journey. It may top Bonhoeffer’s Ethics (it complements, grounds, and expands it in ways) as an all-time favorite. This is Moltmann’s best of his earliest four works, the one that is most accessible (for a seminary grad), and the one where it is clearest to me that Moltmann wrote it prayerfully, in worship to this Triune God he so carefully and brilliantly articulates. I understand why some may disagree with him in parts (so do I, but in minor points), yet every point Moltmann makes about the nature of the Trinity finds its correlate in either answering previously stalemate theological questions or in the life of a Christian living into the kingdom of God. What a brilliant mind. More than perhaps any other book at this level of scholarship, The Trinity and the Kingdom has compelled me to praise God over and over and over again.
March 2, 2019
Most Christians know the trinitarian formula: God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But Moltmann emphasizes the importance of viewing God not just as the "Father", but as the Father *of the Son*; Christ not just as Son, but as *the Father's Son*; and Spirit not merely as bond of their love but co-equal person with its own granted activity in the Godhead. In short, he returns to the significance of the *perichoretic* union of the Godhead (as it was first propounded by Church Father Tertullian and Maximos the Confessor) rather than just the substantial union (which medieval scholasticism emphasized to some detriment). Viewing God as merely an absolute subject or a supreme substance, in JM's view, ultimately depersonalizes this affected Father, affected Son, affected Spirit in its complex unity, and JM is (I think) again correct that one is better off interpreting God's nature by starting with the trinity--the threeness--rather than with the unity--the oneness. Starting with the One, as has been pointed out through centuries of Christian dialogue, leads more readily to violent misunderstandings of God's character (i.e., the angry monotheistic monarch) that leave God distant, apathetic and unfeeling, if not just terrifying. Some quotes here demonstrate the power of this trinitarian corrective, which is really just a recovery of Christian tradition that leans more on the Eastern Fathers:
"Where the theological perception of God and history is concerned, there will be a modern discovery of trinitarian thinking when there is at the same time a fundamental change in modern reason--a change from lordship to fellowship, from conquest to participation, from production to receptivity. The new theological penetration of the trinitarian history of God ought also to free the reason that has been made operational--free it for receptive perception of its Other, free it for participation in that Other. Trinitarian thinking should prepare the way for a liberating and healing concern for the reality that has been destroyed." (p. 9)
The significance of contemplation, of wonder in the life of the believing practitioner, is lost when the Godhead is left as a sameness-in-Himself--just a moral idea or a higher substance--and not a fellowship of unified persons. Contemplating the triune relationship of the Godhead is a way of combating the more meritocratic, capitalistic social doctrine of the day which often unhelpfully views knowledge not as a gateway to experiencing others, but as a way of possessing (power over) others. God can be more easily objectified and grasped as a sameness, a singular idea, than as a diversity-in-Himself (AKA, a triunity), which is not necessarily a danger to God, but a danger to ourselves. As JM says, "The reduction of faith to practice has not enriched faith; it has impoverished it. It has let practice itself become a matter of law and compulsion. If we are to be freed *for* practice--not from it!--it is important for meditation, contemplation and doxology to be rediscovered." (p. 8)
I'll end on some beautiful notes from the rest of the book:
"God is love. That means God is self-giving. It means he exists for us: on the cross. To put it in trinitarian terms--the Father lets his Son sacrifice himself through the Spirit. 'The Father is crucifying love, the Son is crucified love, and the Holy Spirit is the unvanquishable power of the cross. The cross is at the center of the Trinity. This is brought out by tradition, when it takes up the Book of Revelation's image of 'the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world' (Rev. 5:12). Before the world was, the sacrifice was already in God."
"What the love of God is--the love 'from which nothing can separate us' (Rom. 8:39)--becomes event on the cross and is experienced under the cross. The Father who sends his Son through all the abyss and hells of God-forsakenness, of the divine curse and final judgment, is, in his Son, everywhere with those who are his own; he has become universally present. In giving up the Son he gives up 'everything' and 'nothing' can separate us from him. This is the beginning of the language of the kingdom of God, in which 'God will be all in all'. Anybody who perceives God's presence and love in the God-forsakenness of the crucified Son, sees God in all things, just as, once having faced the experience of death, a person feels the living character of everything in a hitherto undreamed of way." (p. 82-83)
"The creation of the world... is a moment of the deepest mystery in the relation between God the Father and God the Son.' Creation is a part of the eternal love affair between the Father and the Son. It springs from the Father's love for the Son and is redeemed by the answering love of the Son for the Father. Creation exists because the eternal love communicates himself creatively to his Other. It exists because the eternal love seeks fellowship and desires response in freedom. That is why we have indeed to see the history of creation as *the tragedy of divine love*, but must view the history of redemption as *the feast of divine joy*." (p. 59)
".. the tragedy of human history is God's own tragedy too. God desires the freedom of his image on earth, and yet cannot force freedom on him; he can only create it and preserve it through the suffering of his eternal love." (p. 42)
"The sole omnipotence which God possesses is the almighty power of suffering love. It is this that he reveals in Christ. What was Christ's essential power? It was love, which was perfected through voluntary suffering; it was love, which died in meekness and humility on the cross and so redeemed the world. This is the essence of the divine sovereignty." (p. 31)
"The expression 'experience of God' therefore does not only mean our experience of God; it also means God's experience with us. (...) God suffers with us--God suffers from us--God suffers for us." (p. 4)
There was also a rather lovely meditation on creation: something like, "Through Christ the Son, The Father saw the world."
In sum: this book holds a lot of thoughtful material on the subject (the bibliography is a great resource) and is worth the read. Some possible issues of process theology, open theism, and filioque come up quite naturally from time to time, but these are probably better adjudicated in light of Moltmann's holistic corpus, which I have not read.
"Where the theological perception of God and history is concerned, there will be a modern discovery of trinitarian thinking when there is at the same time a fundamental change in modern reason--a change from lordship to fellowship, from conquest to participation, from production to receptivity. The new theological penetration of the trinitarian history of God ought also to free the reason that has been made operational--free it for receptive perception of its Other, free it for participation in that Other. Trinitarian thinking should prepare the way for a liberating and healing concern for the reality that has been destroyed." (p. 9)
The significance of contemplation, of wonder in the life of the believing practitioner, is lost when the Godhead is left as a sameness-in-Himself--just a moral idea or a higher substance--and not a fellowship of unified persons. Contemplating the triune relationship of the Godhead is a way of combating the more meritocratic, capitalistic social doctrine of the day which often unhelpfully views knowledge not as a gateway to experiencing others, but as a way of possessing (power over) others. God can be more easily objectified and grasped as a sameness, a singular idea, than as a diversity-in-Himself (AKA, a triunity), which is not necessarily a danger to God, but a danger to ourselves. As JM says, "The reduction of faith to practice has not enriched faith; it has impoverished it. It has let practice itself become a matter of law and compulsion. If we are to be freed *for* practice--not from it!--it is important for meditation, contemplation and doxology to be rediscovered." (p. 8)
I'll end on some beautiful notes from the rest of the book:
"God is love. That means God is self-giving. It means he exists for us: on the cross. To put it in trinitarian terms--the Father lets his Son sacrifice himself through the Spirit. 'The Father is crucifying love, the Son is crucified love, and the Holy Spirit is the unvanquishable power of the cross. The cross is at the center of the Trinity. This is brought out by tradition, when it takes up the Book of Revelation's image of 'the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world' (Rev. 5:12). Before the world was, the sacrifice was already in God."
"What the love of God is--the love 'from which nothing can separate us' (Rom. 8:39)--becomes event on the cross and is experienced under the cross. The Father who sends his Son through all the abyss and hells of God-forsakenness, of the divine curse and final judgment, is, in his Son, everywhere with those who are his own; he has become universally present. In giving up the Son he gives up 'everything' and 'nothing' can separate us from him. This is the beginning of the language of the kingdom of God, in which 'God will be all in all'. Anybody who perceives God's presence and love in the God-forsakenness of the crucified Son, sees God in all things, just as, once having faced the experience of death, a person feels the living character of everything in a hitherto undreamed of way." (p. 82-83)
"The creation of the world... is a moment of the deepest mystery in the relation between God the Father and God the Son.' Creation is a part of the eternal love affair between the Father and the Son. It springs from the Father's love for the Son and is redeemed by the answering love of the Son for the Father. Creation exists because the eternal love communicates himself creatively to his Other. It exists because the eternal love seeks fellowship and desires response in freedom. That is why we have indeed to see the history of creation as *the tragedy of divine love*, but must view the history of redemption as *the feast of divine joy*." (p. 59)
".. the tragedy of human history is God's own tragedy too. God desires the freedom of his image on earth, and yet cannot force freedom on him; he can only create it and preserve it through the suffering of his eternal love." (p. 42)
"The sole omnipotence which God possesses is the almighty power of suffering love. It is this that he reveals in Christ. What was Christ's essential power? It was love, which was perfected through voluntary suffering; it was love, which died in meekness and humility on the cross and so redeemed the world. This is the essence of the divine sovereignty." (p. 31)
"The expression 'experience of God' therefore does not only mean our experience of God; it also means God's experience with us. (...) God suffers with us--God suffers from us--God suffers for us." (p. 4)
There was also a rather lovely meditation on creation: something like, "Through Christ the Son, The Father saw the world."
In sum: this book holds a lot of thoughtful material on the subject (the bibliography is a great resource) and is worth the read. Some possible issues of process theology, open theism, and filioque come up quite naturally from time to time, but these are probably better adjudicated in light of Moltmann's holistic corpus, which I have not read.
March 17, 2024
Surprisingly found myself a huge fan of Moltmann and the WORK it required me to do to read and understand his work. Would love to find myself reading his other books that kind of lead up to this one, time and energy permitting!
“An immovable and apathetic God cannot be understood as the foundation of human freedom. An absolutist sovereign in heaven does not inspire liberty on earth. Only the passionate God, the God who suffers by virtue of his passion for people, calls the freedom of men and women to life. He gives human freedom its divine room for living. The triune God, who realizes the kingdom of his glory in a history of creation, liberation, and glorification, wants human freedom, justifies human freedom and unceasingly makes men and women free for freedom. Trinitarian theology is directed towards the justification of a comprehensive, many-dimensioned doctrine of freedom” (218).
“An immovable and apathetic God cannot be understood as the foundation of human freedom. An absolutist sovereign in heaven does not inspire liberty on earth. Only the passionate God, the God who suffers by virtue of his passion for people, calls the freedom of men and women to life. He gives human freedom its divine room for living. The triune God, who realizes the kingdom of his glory in a history of creation, liberation, and glorification, wants human freedom, justifies human freedom and unceasingly makes men and women free for freedom. Trinitarian theology is directed towards the justification of a comprehensive, many-dimensioned doctrine of freedom” (218).
July 5, 2023
Probably a top 10 theology book for me. Superb.
November 25, 2013
Jurgen Moltmann offers an eclectic approach to Trinitarian theology: examine the nature of the Trinity through the cipher of the Suffering God—and his project is largely a failure. He begins the narrative with what one assumes is his earlier argument on divine possibility. At this point J.M. jettisons the historic Christian teaching on the topic. While I understand his wanting to take the problem of evil and suffering seriously, it appears he sells the farm in the process. Further, it is not clear how he can avoid Slavoj Zizek’s critique that divine possibility leads to the death of God (Zizek, Monstrosity, 260ff).
Ironically, his discussion on the Trinity in church history is quite good (the irony is that he largely rejects or modifies these formulations). I really like how he identifies the “kingdom” with “the kingdom of the Father.” We approach God first as Father, not first as Lord or Creator. If God is seen primarily as “Lord” or “Creator,” and we accept the premise that God is eternal, then God is thus eternally Lord or Creator. This means he must be Lord and Creator over something or someone. Ergo, Origen’s heresy (and John Piper’s).
Unfortunately, J.M. completely negates that crucial point at the end of the book in his chapter on political monotheism. By that phrase he means any system that reduces God to “the One.” Aside from bad terminology, J.M. actually has a point. He gives a decent critique of Islam and some forms of medieval Trinitarianism. (Ironically it also functions as a critique of Judaism, but since J.M. is a Zionist, he doesn’t apply the critique). His real enemy, though, is patriarchy. J.M. rejects the idea that someone can have any form of priority over someone else (unless, presumably, it is women over men. No doubt that is acceptable). His proposal is some form of democractic egalitarianism in the Trinity.
In response to this, though, we must ask how his above argument does not contradict both the definition of Fatherhood and his earlier argument for the Kingdom of the Father? By anyone’s definition Father means the cause (at least on some level) of the Son (of course, I don’t mean cause in a temporal fashion; just logical). J.M.’s model is simply incoherent.
He has a good take on the Filioque (though, it should be strongly noted, J.M. rejects any form of Eastern Orthodox Trinitarianism; see his earlier reticence about Father and “cause”). He notes that positing the Son as a co-cause of the Spirit alongside the Father mutes the hypostatic characteristics of both Father and Son. Likewise, positing the Son as a separate cause is polytheism. J.M. argues, therefore, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father of the Son and even from the aesthetic form of the Son (admittedly, it’s difficult to know what he means by that last phrase).
Conclusion:
This book is important in one respect: it signaled the birth of the “social Trinitarian” movement. One suspects, though, that J.M.’s version of social trinitarianism is actually fueled by an agenda for radical egalitarianism.
Ironically, his discussion on the Trinity in church history is quite good (the irony is that he largely rejects or modifies these formulations). I really like how he identifies the “kingdom” with “the kingdom of the Father.” We approach God first as Father, not first as Lord or Creator. If God is seen primarily as “Lord” or “Creator,” and we accept the premise that God is eternal, then God is thus eternally Lord or Creator. This means he must be Lord and Creator over something or someone. Ergo, Origen’s heresy (and John Piper’s).
Unfortunately, J.M. completely negates that crucial point at the end of the book in his chapter on political monotheism. By that phrase he means any system that reduces God to “the One.” Aside from bad terminology, J.M. actually has a point. He gives a decent critique of Islam and some forms of medieval Trinitarianism. (Ironically it also functions as a critique of Judaism, but since J.M. is a Zionist, he doesn’t apply the critique). His real enemy, though, is patriarchy. J.M. rejects the idea that someone can have any form of priority over someone else (unless, presumably, it is women over men. No doubt that is acceptable). His proposal is some form of democractic egalitarianism in the Trinity.
In response to this, though, we must ask how his above argument does not contradict both the definition of Fatherhood and his earlier argument for the Kingdom of the Father? By anyone’s definition Father means the cause (at least on some level) of the Son (of course, I don’t mean cause in a temporal fashion; just logical). J.M.’s model is simply incoherent.
He has a good take on the Filioque (though, it should be strongly noted, J.M. rejects any form of Eastern Orthodox Trinitarianism; see his earlier reticence about Father and “cause”). He notes that positing the Son as a co-cause of the Spirit alongside the Father mutes the hypostatic characteristics of both Father and Son. Likewise, positing the Son as a separate cause is polytheism. J.M. argues, therefore, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father of the Son and even from the aesthetic form of the Son (admittedly, it’s difficult to know what he means by that last phrase).
Conclusion:
This book is important in one respect: it signaled the birth of the “social Trinitarian” movement. One suspects, though, that J.M.’s version of social trinitarianism is actually fueled by an agenda for radical egalitarianism.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 4, 2025
Thanks to Moltmann systematics had to spend 20 years fighting for orthodox trinitarianism and showing it is out of line with the creeds and fathers. Also now the Mormons think we agree on the trinity so that’s a problem. Give him 2 stars cause I’m nice.
December 3, 2024
This book gets 5 stars just because it is the first modern theology book I’ve read that feels like it genuinely engages with the Trinity in interesting, constructive, and creative ways. Moltmann’s dialogue partners are diverse: Kabbalistic zimzum creation paradigms, monarchy and patriarchy in political and ecclesial contexts, Hegel and Marx in the concept of political and social ‘freedom’, Joachim of Fiore (interpreted non-linearly through the lens of strata of freedom), gender and community, theological debates between Eastern and Western churches around the filioque…there’s a lot in there.
I was a bit disappointed in some of the exegesis of part III, but Moltmann’s instincts and conclusions were always grounded and insightful, and he seems to consistently focus on the important issues and draw insightful conclusions. Anyone who can footnote Whitehead’s Process and Reality as an aside, and who can admit that the Eastern churches were right in their rejection of the filioque while also delving into why having the Father be the sole origin of Spirit and Son disrupts the fundamental relations of the Trinity, deserves serious consideration.
I was a bit disappointed in some of the exegesis of part III, but Moltmann’s instincts and conclusions were always grounded and insightful, and he seems to consistently focus on the important issues and draw insightful conclusions. Anyone who can footnote Whitehead’s Process and Reality as an aside, and who can admit that the Eastern churches were right in their rejection of the filioque while also delving into why having the Father be the sole origin of Spirit and Son disrupts the fundamental relations of the Trinity, deserves serious consideration.
July 18, 2025
ყველას ვურჩევ ამ წიგნის წაკითხვას, თუმცა სამების შესახებ ამ სოციალური მოძრვრების კრიტიკის ფონზე და არა - მის გარეშე. გულრწფელი თუ ვიქნები, სამი ცნობიერებისა თუ აქტის ცენტრის დაშვებისა თუ დაფუძნების მცდელობა რომ არ იყოს ამ წიგნის მთავარი მიზანი, ჩემი ერთ-ერთი საყვარელი საღვთისმეტყველო ნაშრომი იქნებოდა, მაგრამ სამწუხაროდ ასე არ არის. ძალიან საინტერესოა მოლტმანის თეოლოგიაში აღმოსავლური და დასავლური სწავლების სინთეზი. თითქმის ყველაფერი ძალიან კარგია, მაგრამ რა ვქნა, სამებაში მყოფობის გვარების შესახებ სწავლების მოდალიზმზე და საბელიანიზმზე დაყვანა და რედუცირება, უბრალოდ, არასწორია. კარლ ბართი ბევრად ჯობს (კარლ რანერთან და სხვებთან ერთად) ამ თვალსაზრისით მოლტმანს, რადგან ტრადიციულ სწავლებასთან უფრო ახლოსაა, უბრალოდ, შეუძლებელია და არასწორია ერთი ხელის მოსმით მოლტმანის ყველა აზრის მოშორება. იგივეა, წყალს ბავშვიც გადააყოლო. ნათელია, რომ მოლტმანს ძალიან ბევრის შეთავაზება შეუძლია ქრისტიანული ღვთისმეტყველებისთვის, თუმცა არა ამ სამი სუბიექტის თუ სამი ცნობიერებისა და აქტის ცენტრის დაშვებით.
June 14, 2013
One of my favorite books ever is Moltmann's The Crucified God. This work influenced me greatly in regards to God and the cross, the amazing beauty of the incarnation. I also enjoyed his first, classic, work Theology of Hope. That said, both these books were quite difficult.
The Trinity and the Kingdom is not easy, but it seems less difficult than those other two. In some ways, Moltmann's conclusions in those previous works (and probably others) serve as a background to this work. Yet this work could easily be read alone, and I would almost suggest starting here if you are new to Moltmann. He offers a fantastic exposition of God as Trinity. As always, Moltmann shows how this theology is not just some esoteric irrelevant to real life idea, but how it directly plays out in the world. Highly recommended.
The Trinity and the Kingdom is not easy, but it seems less difficult than those other two. In some ways, Moltmann's conclusions in those previous works (and probably others) serve as a background to this work. Yet this work could easily be read alone, and I would almost suggest starting here if you are new to Moltmann. He offers a fantastic exposition of God as Trinity. As always, Moltmann shows how this theology is not just some esoteric irrelevant to real life idea, but how it directly plays out in the world. Highly recommended.
May 18, 2010
This book gets off to a slow start, but is well worth the time in the end. Moltmann comes to some breathtaking and fantastic conclusions concerning the relationship between the trinity and political theology. I don't appreciate his unfair critique of Barth and his doctrine of the trinity.
July 3, 2021
Upon second reading:
Quarantine-Book #25:
I just finished "The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God," by Jurgen Moltmann.
This is my second time through this work. Two years make a huge difference in comprehension. This is the first time I have read a work of theology (or almost any book) twice. Thanks to David Timothy Larymore for pointing me back to Moltmann.
"If a person once feels the infinite passion of God's love which finds expression here, then he understands the mystery of the triune God. God suffers with us - God suffers from us - God suffers for us: the is the experience of God that reveals the triune God," p 4.
Where historically theology has began with the unity of God and then introduced the Trinitarian "persons" (thus causing a double divine unity: the unity of God and the union of the persons) Moltmann--in what appears as an Eastern Orthodox approach--will begin with the persons--this highlighting the "social trinity"--and then speak to their unity.
"This trinitarian hermeneutics [social trinity] leads us to think in terms of relationships and community...." p 19.
Social trinity is established in relationships. Classical theology was not "built" for this. Platonism was the mold the Greeks later tried to shove God. This begs the question of what is God's relationship to Jesus in redemption if God feels no pain?
"If God is incapable of suffering, then--if we are to be consistent--Christ's passion can only be viewed as a human tragedy," p 22.
"To submerge the self mystically in the dying torments of the crucified Jesus would mean giving the torments eternal validity if the submergence were not bound up with the hidden, inner, joyful exaltation over the risen and transfiguration Christ. A theology of the cross without the resurrection is hell itself," pp 41-42.
Mt. 11:27 shows that the Son reveals the Father but deeper in that like is known by like (not lesser). I believe this amplifies not just the trinitarian relationship from Father to Son but Jesus' mediator role from Him to us.
"At this stage in the history of the Son the Trinity means:
--the Father sends the Son through the Spirit.
--the Son comes from the Father in the power of the Spirit.
--the Spirit brings people into fellowship of the Son with the Father," p 75.
"The incarnation of the Son is more than merely a means to an end. Christology is more than the presupposition for soteriology," p 115.
Moltmann states that the Son would have become man even if mankind had remained sinless. This speaks less to anthropology and more to God's desire to be with His creation. This also points to Moltmann's panentheistic approach, I believe. Cur Deus Homo?--to be with man. "...in intention the incarnate precedes the creation of the world," p 117.
Strict monotheism threatens faith in Christ: "Christ must receded into a series of prophets, giving way to the one God, or he must disappear into the one God as one of his manifestations. [...] Strict monotheism obliges us to think of God without Christ, and consequently to think of Christ without God as well [...] The intention and consequences of the doctrine of the Trinity is not only the deification of Christ; it is even more the Christianization of the concept of God. God can not be comprehended without Christ and Christ can not be understood without God." p 131-132.
Moltmann is suggesting that the best and most accurate way to explain the trinity is socially as opposed to psychologically (Augustine). This approach amplifies the three persons-in-relation rather than the one God (at this point I would point up to the quote from p 131-132). The persons-in-relation are not caught up--as we seem to be--in individualism and hyper-personalism; the inner-relation of God is perichoretic (perichoresis from the Eastern Church..."interpenetration").
Moltmann made this really take a bite--if I may summarize--with political theology. He and I are vastly different (a)politically but him saying that one emulates the model of God they serve and that if you serve a single sovereign then you will resemble/submit to that politically; if you serve a God of Triunity they you will reflect/work with that politically, etc.
#Moltmann #JurgenMoltmann #Trinity #TrinityAndKingdom #ReadEveryTwoYears #Perichoresis #SocialTrinity #Kenosis
Quarantine-Book #25:
I just finished "The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God," by Jurgen Moltmann.
This is my second time through this work. Two years make a huge difference in comprehension. This is the first time I have read a work of theology (or almost any book) twice. Thanks to David Timothy Larymore for pointing me back to Moltmann.
"If a person once feels the infinite passion of God's love which finds expression here, then he understands the mystery of the triune God. God suffers with us - God suffers from us - God suffers for us: the is the experience of God that reveals the triune God," p 4.
Where historically theology has began with the unity of God and then introduced the Trinitarian "persons" (thus causing a double divine unity: the unity of God and the union of the persons) Moltmann--in what appears as an Eastern Orthodox approach--will begin with the persons--this highlighting the "social trinity"--and then speak to their unity.
"This trinitarian hermeneutics [social trinity] leads us to think in terms of relationships and community...." p 19.
Social trinity is established in relationships. Classical theology was not "built" for this. Platonism was the mold the Greeks later tried to shove God. This begs the question of what is God's relationship to Jesus in redemption if God feels no pain?
"If God is incapable of suffering, then--if we are to be consistent--Christ's passion can only be viewed as a human tragedy," p 22.
"To submerge the self mystically in the dying torments of the crucified Jesus would mean giving the torments eternal validity if the submergence were not bound up with the hidden, inner, joyful exaltation over the risen and transfiguration Christ. A theology of the cross without the resurrection is hell itself," pp 41-42.
Mt. 11:27 shows that the Son reveals the Father but deeper in that like is known by like (not lesser). I believe this amplifies not just the trinitarian relationship from Father to Son but Jesus' mediator role from Him to us.
"At this stage in the history of the Son the Trinity means:
--the Father sends the Son through the Spirit.
--the Son comes from the Father in the power of the Spirit.
--the Spirit brings people into fellowship of the Son with the Father," p 75.
"The incarnation of the Son is more than merely a means to an end. Christology is more than the presupposition for soteriology," p 115.
Moltmann states that the Son would have become man even if mankind had remained sinless. This speaks less to anthropology and more to God's desire to be with His creation. This also points to Moltmann's panentheistic approach, I believe. Cur Deus Homo?--to be with man. "...in intention the incarnate precedes the creation of the world," p 117.
Strict monotheism threatens faith in Christ: "Christ must receded into a series of prophets, giving way to the one God, or he must disappear into the one God as one of his manifestations. [...] Strict monotheism obliges us to think of God without Christ, and consequently to think of Christ without God as well [...] The intention and consequences of the doctrine of the Trinity is not only the deification of Christ; it is even more the Christianization of the concept of God. God can not be comprehended without Christ and Christ can not be understood without God." p 131-132.
Moltmann is suggesting that the best and most accurate way to explain the trinity is socially as opposed to psychologically (Augustine). This approach amplifies the three persons-in-relation rather than the one God (at this point I would point up to the quote from p 131-132). The persons-in-relation are not caught up--as we seem to be--in individualism and hyper-personalism; the inner-relation of God is perichoretic (perichoresis from the Eastern Church..."interpenetration").
Moltmann made this really take a bite--if I may summarize--with political theology. He and I are vastly different (a)politically but him saying that one emulates the model of God they serve and that if you serve a single sovereign then you will resemble/submit to that politically; if you serve a God of Triunity they you will reflect/work with that politically, etc.
#Moltmann #JurgenMoltmann #Trinity #TrinityAndKingdom #ReadEveryTwoYears #Perichoresis #SocialTrinity #Kenosis
July 25, 2017
Moltmann provides the most helpful and easiest-to-comprehend explanation of the Christian Trinity that I have ever read. He helpfully frames the necessity of understanding God as longing for relationship, a community in the heart of the very being of God. Moltmann rejects both the un-biblical notion of God as a pseudo-Greek static being, and the post-Enlightenment view of God as the ultimate personalized individual. Instead, he uses biblical references and clear and logical thinking to demonstrate the importance of God’s vital existence as passionate love for the Other and its ethical implications for Christian living. Far from being and abstract and unnecessary logical experiment, God’s existence as Trinity calls us to be in loving connection with other humans, the world, and with God in Christ.
There are myriad concepts and quotes to pull out of this book, but two in particular struck me as useful and innovative. First, Moltmann repeatedly insists that all discussion of God must include Christ and the Spirit in a Trinitarian framework. That is, we cannot start with God as an unmoved mover or primal cause; we know God through Christ, and we cannot say anything about God that we would not say about Christ. Moltmann puts it this way in his chapter “The Mystery of the Trinity”: “Strict monotheism obliges us to think of God without Christ, and consequently to think of Christ without God as well. The questions whether God exists and how one can be a Christian then become two unrelated questions. But if on the other hand Trinitarian dogma maintains the unity of essence between Christ and God, then not only is Christ understood in divine terms; God is also understood in Christian ones. The intention and consequence of the doctrine of the Trinity is not only the deification of Christ; it is even more the Christianization of the concept of God. God cannot be comprehended without Christ, and Christ cannot be understood without God.” (131-2)
To do otherwise reinforces patriarchal oppression or makes God an abstract idea with whom we do not need to engage.
Secondly, Moltmann (ahead of his time in many respects) challenges the latter patriarchy through biblical exegesis and passionate care for the poor. If God is working through Christ and the Holy Spirit to save the world, we are responsible as adopted children to engage in that same salvific work. Picturing God as the monotheistic conqueror on the throne directly contradicts the relational passion of Trinitarian faith. Moltmann provocatively puts it this way: “If the Son proceeded from the Father alone, then this has to be conceived of both as a begetting and a birth. And this means a radical transformation of the Father image; a father who both begats and bears his son is not merely a father in the male sense. He is a motherly father too. He is no longer defined in unisexual, patriarchal terms but – if we allow for the metaphor of language – bisexually or transexually….Whatever may be said about God’s gynecology according to this explanation, the point of these bisexual statements about the Trinitarian Father is the radical rejection of monotheism, which is always patriarchal.” (165)
Moltmann is generally quite readable but takes some time to wade through given the careful construction of his thought. Give yourself plenty of time to engage this text and you will come out understanding the Trinity in ways you probably thought impossible. Recommended especially for pastors and theological graduate school students, as well as professional theologians who didn’t (like myself) have all this Trinity stuff quite worked out.
There are myriad concepts and quotes to pull out of this book, but two in particular struck me as useful and innovative. First, Moltmann repeatedly insists that all discussion of God must include Christ and the Spirit in a Trinitarian framework. That is, we cannot start with God as an unmoved mover or primal cause; we know God through Christ, and we cannot say anything about God that we would not say about Christ. Moltmann puts it this way in his chapter “The Mystery of the Trinity”: “Strict monotheism obliges us to think of God without Christ, and consequently to think of Christ without God as well. The questions whether God exists and how one can be a Christian then become two unrelated questions. But if on the other hand Trinitarian dogma maintains the unity of essence between Christ and God, then not only is Christ understood in divine terms; God is also understood in Christian ones. The intention and consequence of the doctrine of the Trinity is not only the deification of Christ; it is even more the Christianization of the concept of God. God cannot be comprehended without Christ, and Christ cannot be understood without God.” (131-2)
To do otherwise reinforces patriarchal oppression or makes God an abstract idea with whom we do not need to engage.
Secondly, Moltmann (ahead of his time in many respects) challenges the latter patriarchy through biblical exegesis and passionate care for the poor. If God is working through Christ and the Holy Spirit to save the world, we are responsible as adopted children to engage in that same salvific work. Picturing God as the monotheistic conqueror on the throne directly contradicts the relational passion of Trinitarian faith. Moltmann provocatively puts it this way: “If the Son proceeded from the Father alone, then this has to be conceived of both as a begetting and a birth. And this means a radical transformation of the Father image; a father who both begats and bears his son is not merely a father in the male sense. He is a motherly father too. He is no longer defined in unisexual, patriarchal terms but – if we allow for the metaphor of language – bisexually or transexually….Whatever may be said about God’s gynecology according to this explanation, the point of these bisexual statements about the Trinitarian Father is the radical rejection of monotheism, which is always patriarchal.” (165)
Moltmann is generally quite readable but takes some time to wade through given the careful construction of his thought. Give yourself plenty of time to engage this text and you will come out understanding the Trinity in ways you probably thought impossible. Recommended especially for pastors and theological graduate school students, as well as professional theologians who didn’t (like myself) have all this Trinity stuff quite worked out.
August 26, 2025
Eine ausgzichente Beschreibung von der Trinitätslehre. Er folgt der historischen Entwicklung des Lehrs, bringt auch sein eigenes Verständnis dazu mit wunderbarer Wirkung.
Am Ende zusammenfasst er die Trinitätlehre mit einer Erklärung von dem Reich Gottes, der ist nicht oft geknüpft mit der Trinitätslehre. Der Begriff Reich mag er nicht, nicht nur wegen der historischen Benutzung dieses Begriffs in der Geschichte Deutschlands. Viel mehr bevorzugt er den Begriff Herrschaft Gottes. Er baut an die mittelalterliche Idee von Fiore von der drei Herrschaften: der Vater, der Sohn und der Heiligen Geist. Mit dieser Erklärung kommt er zu der Idee, dass die Herrschaft ist der Herrschaft dem Vater, nicht der Allmächtigen. Diesen Zusammenschuss ist der Gipfel seiner Trinitätslehre, die um die innerliche Beziehung Gottes geht. Man fängt mit dem gekreuzter Sohn an und erklärt die Trinität davon. Das führt zu der Idee, dass die Herrschaft dem Vater, eine Herrschaft von Freiheit ist, nicht eine von Zwang und Notwendigkeit.
Einsichtsvoll Auslegung der Trinitätslehre, besonderes, wenn man es zusammen mit der Idee von Milbank von der Ontologie der Gnade und Freiheit im Gegenteil der Ontologie von Gewalt zieht. Die Trinitätslehre, wie ausgepackt von Moltmann, hat ganz tolle Ereignisse und Wirkungen. Man sieht ganz klar, warum er, zusammen mit Pannenberg, der Haupttheologe des spät zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts ist.
Am Ende zusammenfasst er die Trinitätlehre mit einer Erklärung von dem Reich Gottes, der ist nicht oft geknüpft mit der Trinitätslehre. Der Begriff Reich mag er nicht, nicht nur wegen der historischen Benutzung dieses Begriffs in der Geschichte Deutschlands. Viel mehr bevorzugt er den Begriff Herrschaft Gottes. Er baut an die mittelalterliche Idee von Fiore von der drei Herrschaften: der Vater, der Sohn und der Heiligen Geist. Mit dieser Erklärung kommt er zu der Idee, dass die Herrschaft ist der Herrschaft dem Vater, nicht der Allmächtigen. Diesen Zusammenschuss ist der Gipfel seiner Trinitätslehre, die um die innerliche Beziehung Gottes geht. Man fängt mit dem gekreuzter Sohn an und erklärt die Trinität davon. Das führt zu der Idee, dass die Herrschaft dem Vater, eine Herrschaft von Freiheit ist, nicht eine von Zwang und Notwendigkeit.
Einsichtsvoll Auslegung der Trinitätslehre, besonderes, wenn man es zusammen mit der Idee von Milbank von der Ontologie der Gnade und Freiheit im Gegenteil der Ontologie von Gewalt zieht. Die Trinitätslehre, wie ausgepackt von Moltmann, hat ganz tolle Ereignisse und Wirkungen. Man sieht ganz klar, warum er, zusammen mit Pannenberg, der Haupttheologe des spät zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts ist.
March 21, 2012
Moltmann's engagement with Trinitarian theology is highly thought-provoking. One thing I greatly appreciated was his insistence that, following the biblical writers, we must begin by talking about the threeness of God and then move toward oneness. In line with this, I think he successfully demonstrated the inadequacy of some western formulations of the trinity that consider it sufficient to say that the different persons all share the same 'divine substance,' as though this were all that mattered. (In my mind, this can tend toward tri-theism even more than Moltmann's 'social' model of the Trinity, since it doesn't lay enough stress on the mutual indwelling of the persons in one another - they are simply three beings that hold a certain attribute in common.) Perhaps the most engaging portion of the book is in its discussion of 'the passion of God,' i.e. the question of how the triune God of Christian confession relates to the problem of evil and suffering in the world. In keeping with his strong theology of the cross (best exemplified in his masterpiece, "The Crucified God"), Moltmann insists that we regard suffering love as intrinsic to the very identity of God, such that a creation in which the Son did not offer himself up to death would be inconceivable.
With reference to the title, Moltmann's book is 'heavy' on trinity and 'light' - extremely light - on kingdom. He doesn't even attempt sufficiently to ground his ideas within the ancient biblical concept of the kingdom of God; he simply uses the term as though it manifestly means what he thinks it does (which it manifestly doesn't, at least not if he intends to mean by it something like what the biblical writers of the second temple period meant by it). His general inattentiveness to the biblical text and ancient historical context at this point (as at others) is hampered further by his modern allergy to any hint of hierarchy whatsoever, which in my mind yields a skewed conception of the kingdom of God that demands we sweep large portions of the biblical text - both in the gospels and in the epistles, as well as vast swathes of the Old Testament - under the rug. In tracing the connections between a monarchical monotheism and human systems of oppression, he throws the baby out with the bathwater, assuming that the problem is with the notion of power and authority per se and not in our human perversion of them in disobedience to the good authority of a loving God. The great hope of the biblical writers seems to be that God would be acknowledged as king on earth as in heaven, and that his will would be done and the knowledge of him would be perfected; only the Reign of God, on earth as in heaven, could yield true creaturely freedom. (This latter point, in fairness, is something Moltmann recognizes - he acknowledges that true 'freedom' entails not only an openness of decision but specifically a willingness for the Good.)
Moltmann's ideal, however, leaves us with a God who is not a king but a friend (as though the two were mutually exclusive!). His argument depends on a softening of the biblical concepts of fatherhood and sonship, as well as a total ignoring of the idea of headship, such that he emerges with a totally egalitarian reading of the Trinity that seems to leave little room for Paul's affirmation, precisely on the point of authority and submission, that "the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3) and that the Son to whom all things have been subjected will himself be subjected to the Father in the age to come such that the God to whom all is subjected will at last be "all in all" (1 Cor 15:27-28). Where God's status as "all in all" for Moltmann entails something like Christian panentheism, for Paul it clearly means exactly what Moltmann, despite using his phrase, does not want it to mean - namely, that the entire created order is, at last, fully in unmediated submission to its Creator King. In the final analysis, Moltmann emerges with a picture of the age to come that, while interesting and certainly appealing to modern western liberal democrats, does not appear to resemble clearly the biblical picture of God become king in Jesus of Nazareth, and implementing his rule through the Holy Spirit.
Moltmann thus escapes a heterodox subordinationism, but ends up denying any form of hierarchy whatsoever within the Godhead in the process. The biblical witness speaks strongly otherwise; this needn't equate to hierarchical systems within the church as he fears, moreover, since 'monarchical monotheism' (as Moltmann calls it) is precisely the thing that is meant to keep hierarchical relationships in check (as with slaves and masters) because both slave and master, both husband and wife, both parent and child, and both Jew as the gospel's first recipient and Gentile as equal second are in every case equally answerable to the very same Lord and God over all. Slaves and masters alike have a Master in heaven; husbands and wives are all alike under the headship of the same Bridegroom; parents and children, Jews and Gentiles, are all alike the children of one heavenly Father. When God is all in all, there can be no oppression because this is not how he rules the world; domination between God's creatures suggests a lack of subjection to God the king, not a genuine recognition of him as such.
At this point, though, I've strayed more into philosophical differences with Moltmann than with anything wrong with the book. Apart from the imbalance between his discussion of the Trinity and of the Kingdom (with a particular dearth of textual engagement when it comes to the latter), this book is an excellent, engaging inquiry into perhaps the greatest mystery of the Christian faith, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the topic. If you are looking to delve into Moltmann for the first time, however, a better place to start would be "The Crucified God."
With reference to the title, Moltmann's book is 'heavy' on trinity and 'light' - extremely light - on kingdom. He doesn't even attempt sufficiently to ground his ideas within the ancient biblical concept of the kingdom of God; he simply uses the term as though it manifestly means what he thinks it does (which it manifestly doesn't, at least not if he intends to mean by it something like what the biblical writers of the second temple period meant by it). His general inattentiveness to the biblical text and ancient historical context at this point (as at others) is hampered further by his modern allergy to any hint of hierarchy whatsoever, which in my mind yields a skewed conception of the kingdom of God that demands we sweep large portions of the biblical text - both in the gospels and in the epistles, as well as vast swathes of the Old Testament - under the rug. In tracing the connections between a monarchical monotheism and human systems of oppression, he throws the baby out with the bathwater, assuming that the problem is with the notion of power and authority per se and not in our human perversion of them in disobedience to the good authority of a loving God. The great hope of the biblical writers seems to be that God would be acknowledged as king on earth as in heaven, and that his will would be done and the knowledge of him would be perfected; only the Reign of God, on earth as in heaven, could yield true creaturely freedom. (This latter point, in fairness, is something Moltmann recognizes - he acknowledges that true 'freedom' entails not only an openness of decision but specifically a willingness for the Good.)
Moltmann's ideal, however, leaves us with a God who is not a king but a friend (as though the two were mutually exclusive!). His argument depends on a softening of the biblical concepts of fatherhood and sonship, as well as a total ignoring of the idea of headship, such that he emerges with a totally egalitarian reading of the Trinity that seems to leave little room for Paul's affirmation, precisely on the point of authority and submission, that "the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3) and that the Son to whom all things have been subjected will himself be subjected to the Father in the age to come such that the God to whom all is subjected will at last be "all in all" (1 Cor 15:27-28). Where God's status as "all in all" for Moltmann entails something like Christian panentheism, for Paul it clearly means exactly what Moltmann, despite using his phrase, does not want it to mean - namely, that the entire created order is, at last, fully in unmediated submission to its Creator King. In the final analysis, Moltmann emerges with a picture of the age to come that, while interesting and certainly appealing to modern western liberal democrats, does not appear to resemble clearly the biblical picture of God become king in Jesus of Nazareth, and implementing his rule through the Holy Spirit.
Moltmann thus escapes a heterodox subordinationism, but ends up denying any form of hierarchy whatsoever within the Godhead in the process. The biblical witness speaks strongly otherwise; this needn't equate to hierarchical systems within the church as he fears, moreover, since 'monarchical monotheism' (as Moltmann calls it) is precisely the thing that is meant to keep hierarchical relationships in check (as with slaves and masters) because both slave and master, both husband and wife, both parent and child, and both Jew as the gospel's first recipient and Gentile as equal second are in every case equally answerable to the very same Lord and God over all. Slaves and masters alike have a Master in heaven; husbands and wives are all alike under the headship of the same Bridegroom; parents and children, Jews and Gentiles, are all alike the children of one heavenly Father. When God is all in all, there can be no oppression because this is not how he rules the world; domination between God's creatures suggests a lack of subjection to God the king, not a genuine recognition of him as such.
At this point, though, I've strayed more into philosophical differences with Moltmann than with anything wrong with the book. Apart from the imbalance between his discussion of the Trinity and of the Kingdom (with a particular dearth of textual engagement when it comes to the latter), this book is an excellent, engaging inquiry into perhaps the greatest mystery of the Christian faith, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the topic. If you are looking to delve into Moltmann for the first time, however, a better place to start would be "The Crucified God."
June 18, 2020
I first encountered the work of Jurgen Moltmann almost 20 years ago and his contributions to systematic theology continue to be one of the formative influences on my theological thought. This initial volume of his contributions to systematic theology as I reread it is probably one of the places where a more social conception rather than an individualistic conception of the impact of the kingdom of God took root. Several key concepts in this volume which are developed throughout the remainder of the contributions. This continues to enflesh Moltmann's hopeful theology and I'll end with a quote from near the end of the work: "Freedom in the light of hope is the creative passion for the possible." Moltmann's hope-filled examination of the interaction of the Trinitarian God and the world deals with a wide range of Christian thinkers but ultimately does it in an engaging fashion that should promote dialogue.
January 27, 2020
Although I come from a Christian tradition that doesn't set great store by the doctrine of the Trinity, Moltmann presents a vision of the Trinity that I could sign up to. I particularly appreciated his treatment of Joachim di Fiore, which helps me better understand his later 'The Coming of God'. A passion for liberation runs throughout, which is why I love his theology so much.
May 18, 2022
Exegetically unconstrained speculative philosophy masquerading as serious theology.
In the wise words of Karl Barth, “Jürgen, your God seems to me to be rather a pauper.” Moltmann denies God’s immutability and his omnipotence and denies any authority in God. This is easily the worst theology book I have ever read. The only reason Moltmann is popular is that his works are essentially the definition of political correctness at the expense of scriptural interpretation.
In the wise words of Karl Barth, “Jürgen, your God seems to me to be rather a pauper.” Moltmann denies God’s immutability and his omnipotence and denies any authority in God. This is easily the worst theology book I have ever read. The only reason Moltmann is popular is that his works are essentially the definition of political correctness at the expense of scriptural interpretation.
July 21, 2022
This is a very important work that puts forth the idea of a social Trinity (as opposed to a monarchical one) that also draws forth its implications. It definitely offers a new vision of how to think of God and the Church...even the whole human family...in terms that foster community and friendship. This one will stay with me for quite some time!
June 11, 2018
This is so dense, but there are quotable lines on nearly every page. It is brilliant.
December 26, 2019
3.5 stars
January 3, 2020
Fantástico
October 6, 2020
Moltmann's criticism against Barth and Rahner is bold and provocative. However, his doctrine of the Trinity is fairly robust and convincing.
March 9, 2022
Sadly, not up to the quality of his previous trilogy (Theology of Hope, The Crucified God, The Church in the Power of the Spirit), of which many of the major points are repeated here.
July 6, 2007
This book by Moltmann really re-conceptualizes the idea of the Trinity. It makes the doctrine relevant again to a world in search of a variety of ways to experience God. Moltmann writes, "Here, thinking in relationships and communities is developed out of the doctrine of the Trinity, and is brought to bear on the relation of men and women to God, to other people and to mankind as a whole, as well as on their fellowship with the whole creation" (19). Good stuff.
November 29, 2012
Stimulating volume (as was his _Crucified God_)... the whole notion of a suffering God, etc. Smacks too much of a "social Trinity" model. Too much inconsistency and incoherence for my simple mind... Good discussion and summaries of historical models and issues, yet he seems to toss them out for his own axes that he grinds... _Crucified God_ was better, but in general, I am not persuaded that Moltmann is all that he is made out to be.
October 28, 2013
I'm not really sure what to make of this book. Moltmann has some very intriguing ideas about the Trinity as a genuine community of persons and the deficiencies of what he calls "Christian monotheism," but I'm not sure how well-supported they are. He often seems to be making assertions without detailed argument to support them, so they're hard to evaluate. In general, I'm skeptical of "social" accounts of the Trinity, but this probably merits a re-read at some point.
June 27, 2012
Moltmann's treatment of God's choice to suffer because of His love is amazing, though his arguments for panentheism, claim that God HAD to create, and egalitarianism seem lacking. Wonderful treatment of eternal generation though. Seems to go on a bit at times, but if nothing else the second and fifth chapters are worth buying the book.
January 23, 2008
Some concepts were difficult for me to understand, but the chapter on the passion of God was wonderful. Moltmann stretches my understanding of who/what the Trinity is, and what those implications are for human beings and the world. I will need to reread it in order to better understand.
June 24, 2015
After reading a lot from Moltmann over the past year, this book stands out as one of his best. Might even be my favorite!
April 10, 2016
Moltmann is pivotal to my theology.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews