In McGrath (The Christian Theology Reader, 4.20), Luther contends that unless we are to commit the error of Nestorius and obscure Christ`s deity in favor of his humanity, whatever we predicate of Christ`s human nature must also be predicated of his divine nature (and vice versa). The attributes of humanity and divinity are communicated one to the other in the Incarnation. So for instance, if we say that Jesus walked down the road, we say that God walked down the road.
To some extent, Luther was simply continuing the logic of the early church, reflected in Cyril of Alexandria`s debate with Nestorius (see The Christian Theology Reader, 4.13). Mary is not just the bearer of a human being, but in Jesus she bore God (she is theotokos). Similarly for Luther, the Jews did not just crucify Jesus of Nazareth, but in him they crucified God.
But with this particular deduction - that in Christ God suffered and died - Luther drew a more definite conclusion about God than much of the tradition was willing to draw. Cyril himself restricted God`s experience of suffering and death to the human nature of Jesus. Even he refused to say that God died, because he believed that by definition "God" cannot suffer (he is "impassible") or die (he is unchanging, "immutable").
Still, many modern theologians think Luther was on to something with his "theology of the cross", that is, his effort to understand God in terms of Jesus` death on Calvary. (You read about this for the last class in Jürgen Moltmann [3.30]). Based on this, respond to the following questions: