Secrets of Moltmann's Tacit Tradition - Via Covenant Theology To Promise The

BRILL Journal o f Reformed Theology 4 (2010) 208-239 brill.
nl/j]
Secrets ofM oltm ann’s ^ c ‫؛‬tTrad‫؛‬ti©n:

Via Covenant Theology to Promise Theology
Meine Veldman*
Faculté G é o lo g ie Évangélique, M ontréal
m eine73@ yahoo.com
Abstract
This article takes a genetic approach examining M oltmann’s early post-Reformation studies in
Moyse Amyraut, Petrus Ramus, ]acob Brocard and Johann Coccejus as the secrets to the tacit
tradition o f his theology of hope. 1 contend that the gold he struck in these studies is a historical
impulse and legitimization o f his own turn to the horizon of the empirical and the historical.
However, with respect to the dross, M oltmann critically notes that with the post-Reformation
covenant theologians the word o f God got entangled in a ‘system’ of hope because of their
symbolic-prophetic approach to Scripture. In place of their symbolic-prophetic exegesis he
substitutes a promise-exegesis as a way ofpointing to God’s relationship to this world and to the
hum an beings in it. He thus replaces the theme o f a restless history, and a restless soul, with the
restless promise ofwhich God is the author, the originator and the fulfiller. In this way M oltmann
found a way beyond post-reformation covenant theology and Barth’s dialectical theology,
culminating in his Theology ofHope.
Keywords
post-Reformation theology, covenant, M oltmann’s tacit tradition, prophetic-exegesis, promise-
exegesis, theology of hope
Introduction
In this article I will trace the beginnings n f M nltm ann’s thenlngy o f hope by
drawing special attention to his studies o f post-Reformation covenant theolo-
gians. I will seek to uncover the genesis o fM o ltm an n ’s own theology o f hope
* Dr. M. Veldman teaches Reformed systematic theology at the Faculté Théologie Évangé-
lique, Montréal. He lives in Québec with his wife and family where he is also involved to pro-
m o r o French Christian education. He is member o f the Reformed Church of America.
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/156973110X542187

M. Veldman/Journal ofReformed Theology 4 (2010) 208-239 209
in cnnnectinn w ith covenantal theology— a connection, which has largely1

gone unnoticed in M oltm ann studies. Significant is M oltm ann’s own allusion
to it.2
I will begin to uncover this genesis by looking at an excerpt o f his disserta-
tion, “?rädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” and end with
a closer look at M oltm ann’s historical study, “}acob Brocard als Vorläufer der
^ ic h -G o tte s -^ e o lo g ie und der symbolischen-prophetischen Schriftausle-
gung des Johann Coccejus.”3 By taking a genetic historic approach, and
attem pting to understand the origin o f the theology o f hope o f M oltm ann,
I am taking up the gauntlet which M oltm ann him self has thrown down by
calling his historical studies the “secrets o f my tacit tradition.”^
Taking M oltm ann at his own word when he says that in these early stud-
ies— especially his dissertation research— he “struck gold,”5 I will attem pt to
see w hat that m ined gold m ight have m eant for his own development. I will
also suggest how this gold gets m olded into his theology, and how he gives it
form, especially in his own theology o f hope as an im portant structural
change.
1 I found one direct study on it o f a few pages: j. Steven O ’Malley, “The Role of Pietism in
foe G eology o ^ r g e n M oltmann,” The Asbury Theological Journal 48:1 (Spring 1993), 121-
127.
2 Moltmann, in foreword to A.J. Conyers, God, Hope, History: Jürgen Moltmann and the
Christian Concept o f History (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988), viii-ix.
3 None ٠۴ these historical studies were translated into English, therefore all translations are
my own.
4 He states, “My early studies of Reformation and P ‫ ه‬st-Reformati‫ ه‬n theology (1952-1960)
brought me to a third way [neither the foermchical way ٠۴ power in political theology, nor the
anarchic way but] to the federalist way. The federalist theology came to its high point [after
having been initiated by Heinrich Bullinger and Caspar Olevian] forough fohannes Coccejus in
the seventeenth century. There is a tacit covenant between these covenant theologians in religion
and the federalists in pHitical philosophy (Althusius) that 1 also attempted to follow. Caspar
Olevian began his theology with the recognition ٠۴ foe importance ٠۴ foe Trinityas covenant,
with regard to the creation, integrity, and glorification ٠۴ foe world. 1 have taken this up in my
“social Trinity” doctrine. Coccejus saw the salvation history that the Bible testifies to as the
history ٠۴ God’s covenant, with the goal ٠۴ revealing the kingdom ٠۴ glory at the end. 1 have
taken this up in my “the ‫ ه‬l‫ ه‬gy ٠۴ ta p e .” ... “N w that 1 have revealed these secrets of my tacit
tradition, it seems to me that the dialogue has been opened that Dr. Conyers wants to make
public through this book.” [Moltmann in A.J. Conyers, God, Hope, History: Jürgen Moltmann
and the Christian Concept o f History (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988), viii-ix.]
5 Jürgen Moltmann, Experiences in Theology: Ways and Forms o f Christian Theology Trans.
Margaret Kohl (M inneaptas: Fmtress Press, 2000), 89. Mfotmann tontinues: “1 distovered the
reformed ‘prophetic exegesis’ (which Oscar Cullmann later called ‘the exegesis ٠۴ salvation
history’), and found my way to Reformed federal theology through the work ofjohann Coccejus,
and to federal politics through Johann Althius.”
210 M. Veldman / Journal o f Reformed Theology 4 (2010) 208-239
M y assertion is that M oltm ann replaced the prophtic-exegetical footing of

the covenant theologians o f the seventeenth century with his own promise-
exegetical approach o f Scripture and contem porary context^ ending up with a
covenantal theology not grounded in a continuity o f history and experience,
but in the triune G od o f history and experience. In the process o f exposing this
substitution I hope to lay bare the ‘secrets’ o f M oltm ann’s tacit tradition. I will
dem onstrate that w ith these early studies in post-Reformation covenant theo-
logians he found a way to go beyond dialectical theology, especially the theol-
ogy o f Karl Barth. In these early studies he found the historical legitimization
for his own turn to experience and a more historical and political interpreta-
tion o f G od’s Trinitarian relation to the world, to history and to the hum an
being.
The Approach of this Article

In terms o f approach and methodology, it is my position that one cannot but
take one’s point o f departure from a particular theological text, from which
vantage point one in turn judges the facts and the results o f the investigation.
In my case, that vantage point will primarily be M oltm ann’s own texts and
their biblio-historical standpoint. In other words, the approach o f this article
intends to focus, first, on the particular rather than on a general or so-called seien-
tifie (objective) vantage point. Historiographically speaking this approach could be
categorized as nominalist.’
^ i s approach is purposely chosen following the comments o f the great
medieval and Reformation scholar and historian Heiko O berm an, who termed
him self a nom inalist historian.7 O berm an expresses a similar approach in the
6 The meaning o f ‘prophetic-exegeticaf (see also note 5) and ‘promise-exegetical,’ will

hopefully become clear in my analysis o f M oltmann’s interpretation and application ofw hat he
found useful for his own theology o f hope in post-reformation covenantal theology and its
sources. The former, according to M oltmann is anchored in a prophetic approach to the
Scriptures, whereas the latter is rooted in a promissory exegesis and application of the Word
o f God.
7 Heiko Oberman, The Impact o f the Reformation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 4 ‫) وول‬, viii-ix.
Here one should not confuse nominalist philosophy, which denies the existence ofan independent
reality ofw hat universal terms refer to, with the methodology of the nominalist-historian. The
latter refers to a particular approach o fa study ofhistoric texts and historic personalities. It takes
as its point of departure the research o f individual texts and of individual personalities, rather
than seeking to prejudge the historical particular material by way of preconceived constructs or
ideas.
M. Veldman/Journal ofReformed Theology 4 (2010) 208-239 ^‫لل‬
context o f w riting on the precursers o f the Reformation in his book Forerun-

ners ofthe Reformation: The Shape o f Late Medieval Thoughts As such it can be
seen in contrast to the idea and impulse o f some historical theologians who are
intent on searching for causal or conceptual links o f dogmatic or historical
continuity or discontinuity.9 ^ i s latter approach tends to turn foe way o f
interpreting thoughts, things, and people into a school— a. school in which all
foose w h o are in fois school are able to understand and handle foe same tools
o f learning or foe same categories o f thought and so are enabled to place these
thoughts, persons, or things in an orderly m anner wifo sufficient dialectical
nuance (continuity/discontinuity) in more or less foe same way (method),
^ i s is essentially a scholastic approach to foe history o f foeology and
dogmatics.
I prefer to study and remain focused on individual texts seeking to expose
direct genetic and structural changes o f approach and content o f ideas within
foe development o f a particular author in question— and his or her particular
understanding o f and take on other a u th o rs -w h e th e r from foe past or pres-
ent. ^ i s is not to deny historical connections, but it does mean attem pting to
avoid foe imposition o f preconceived categories or to seek to ‘glue’ thoughts
and movements together.
8 Oberman, forerunners ofthe Reformation: The Shape ofLate Medieval Thought (Cambridge:
James & Clarke, 2002). Here Oberman expresses his own opinion on the task o f a historian:
“We do not feel that it should be the task ofthe historian ofideas to establish causal connections
in the historical succession o f these ideas.... Accordingly, the standard for a Forerunner cannot
be that he caused’ the Reformation in one aspect or another, for example by exercising direct or
indirect influence on Luther; the study ofthe Forerunner is determined rather by the wish to give
Reformation thought its proper historical context.... Thus the use ofthe category o f Forerunners
does not function to establish the nature ofthe cause, but to describe the structure ofthe change. ”
Oberman, forerunners ofthe Reformation: The Shape ofLate Medieval Thought (Cambridge: James
‫ ج‬Clarke, 2002), 38-39.
9 See for example W.J. van Asselt, et al., Inleiding in de Gereformeerde Scholastiek (Zoetermeer.
Boekencentrum, 1998). In this work Van Asselt and F. L. Rouwendal seek to present and defend
their historical-theological approach in terms of a “positive hi^rical-theological approach in
terms of a “positive continuity theory” in comparison and contrast with other theories which
argue for a so-called “negative continuity theory,” or a theory which sees more discontinuity
between what happened after the Reformation and the Reformers themselves. See W.J. van
Asselt, et al., Inleiding in de Gereformeerde Scholastiek (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1998),
25-29.
212 M. Veldman/Journal ofReformed Theology 4 (2010) 208-239
The Historieal Studies: Summary and Analysis
Moyse Am yraut and the School ofSaumur: Predestination and Salvation History
Suggested by his advisur O tto Weber, M oltm ann says o f his subject for the
dissertation that he “struck gold” when he began working on Moyse Amyraut.
He writes, “However, I soon struck gold, and became increasingly interested
in that unknow n period between the late Reformation and foe early
E nlightenm ent.”^ A lthough he nowhere explicitly states what this gold was
that he struck, I nonetheless would like to carefully suggest what that gold
m ight have been and how it provided M oltm ann wifo some them atic empha-
ses detectable in his own foeology o f hope. To do so I will analyze M oltm ann’s
article on Moyse Amyraut.
Moyse Amyraut (1596-1664) inherited foe chair o f foeology at foe Hugue-
not Academy o f Saumur. Especially after Amyraut, this school generally
became known for its alleged universalist hypothesis.١١ In a footnote Molt-
m ann him self asserts that “Am yraut is fundamentally orthodox and he only
apparently taught an universalistic understanding o f grace.”^ w h a t then is
unique about foe shape and content o f A m yraut’s predestination and Heilsge-
schichte understanding? Eor M oltm ann what is unique and im portant is Amy-
raut’s understanding o f history in light o f foe workings o f God.
M oltm an n foaw s foe attention to foe context o f foe Saumur School and its
inception, which includes Amyraut as an em inent theological-political phe-
n o m en o n T Am yraut argues for foe sovereignty o f foe King who is an image
o f G od s majesty and sovereignty.^ In his understanding o f foe relations of
God, foe state, foe people and foe Church, M oltm ann sees Amyraut moving
towards a worldly political orientation o f foeology w ithin a general framework
ofR eform ed foeology. In fois move, a connection between G od and foe state
is being expressed: a tangibility o f foe rule o f G od through foe rule o f foe
Sovereign, and thus a more fo o rical-p olitical understanding o f G od in
10 Moltmann, Experiences in Theology, 89.

11 Moltmann, Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut, 270. M oltmann
quotes E. Hirsch as saying that beside the school o f Coccejus, Saumur theology is “die
bedeutendste dogmatische Neubilding an der Grenze der Orthodoxie.” Moltmann, “Prä-
destination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 270-271.
12 Moltmann, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 270.
14 God has “in der Souveränität der Kbnige ein porträt seiner Majestätgegeben.” Moltmann,
“Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 273.
M. Veldman /Journal o f Reformed Theology 4 (2010) 208-239 213
relation to the world. M oltm annn notes that in the Sovereignty o f the king,
the im m anent as well as the economic attributes o f G od are manifested.^ G od
is not the G od o fth e decretum absolutum, that is, a removed and pre-eminently
dogmatically understood G od as in Beza,^ but G od is imaged in the rule o f
the Sovereign as a philanthropic and gracious G o d .^ ^ i s understanding
inherently brings w ith it a more empirical-historical apprehension o f G od as
well, which finally would lead to a philosophical theodicy like the one found
in the thought ofL eibniz.^
A m yraut’s federal-theology was founded on his teacher Cam eron’s federal
understanding o fth e relationship between G od and the hum an being. Conse-
quently, he reasons from the essence o f G od shown ad extra in a foedus hypo-
theticum in which G od handles w ith the hum an being as wise philanthrope.^
In Cam eron and in Amyraut G od becomes the moral persuader, the educator
o f hum ankind.^ ^ i s G od acts by his W ord in which He shows his wisdom
accomm odated to hum an understanding. Being both moral persuader and
aco m m o d ato r, in fact, drives the m(^mpfrve-historical way o f G od with
hum an beings.21
^ r o u g h o u t all these theological observations, M oltm ann shows how Cam-
eron finally acknowledges only a covenant o f grace. He eliminates the distinc-
tion b e ^ e e n law and gospel. He does this from the point o f view o f G od’s
dealing w ith His children in terms o f a hypothetical universal offer o f grace.
O nly faith or unbelief makes the difference in regards to this universal offer o f
grace. Historical-redemptively speaking, the law is overhauled and antiquated
by the gospel. A m yraut’s “hypothetical universalism,” is grounded on this: the
doctrine o fth e universal predestination for salvation.22
15 .. bezeichnet sowohl die immanenten als auch die bkonomischen Eigenschaften Gottes.”
Moltmann, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 274.
16 cf. Moltmann, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 274.
17 Moltmann, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 275. M oltmann
writes later, “For Moyse Amyraut, the image o f God shines more brightly in the king than in
other people, because God impresses on the king the character of his own majesty.” M oltmann,
Trinity and the Kingdom (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1981), 196. In this work,
M oltmann includes Amyraut under his discussion of political monotheism.
18 “Der letzte Dogmatiker auf dem Fehrstuhl Cameron in Saumur, entwickelte das
heilsgeschichtliche System Amyrauts weiter bis zum rationalistischen Determinismus, bis zu eine
Philosophie der ê o d ize e, die an Feibniz vorausdenken läßt” Moltmann, “Prädestination und
Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 274.
19Moltmann, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 278.
22Moltmann, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 28Í-282.
Furthermore, the fact that Cam eron speaks o f a hypothetical universalism

o f grace is grounded in his historical-redemptive orientation o f G ods revela-
tion towards hum ankind. We can only know G od a posteriori. Predestination
and election are only known from their effects in this world. G od cannot he
known nor speculated about according to G ods intentions, Deus adintra, but
only h icric^-red em p tiv ely , ad extra, ^ e re fo re , there is no absolute decree
but only decrees relatively acknowledged and understood as historically
worked out by G od self.23
W hat all this stands opposed to— and we shall see that this is also indicative
o f M oltm ann’s own stance— is orthodox Calvinism represented at that time by
the successor to Calvin in Geneva, ^ e o d o r e Beza. According the school of
Beza these historically relative notions vis-à-vis G od made G od into a chimera
and contradict the fundam ental dogma o fth e im m utability o fG od. t r o u g h -
out his article we see M oltm ann highlighting this opposition even as Molt-
m ann him self will plead for a doctrine o f G ods historicity and possibility,
that is conceived through and by foe cross as foe ultimate expression o f G ods
covenant love.^
Following in Cam eron’s footsteps, A m yraut’s federal foeology thus broke
through traditionalism and orthodoxy. W ifo Cameron, he continued to reject
Aristotelian scholastic or systematic reductions o f Calvins thoughts as those
represented by foe school o f Beza. Instead, Amyraut espoused Calvin’s hum an-
istic side. In fois spirit Am yraut wrote a foeology o f Heilsgeschichte in foe spirit
o f Cameron, thus continuing foe hypothetic thought-form and even expand-
ing upon it.25
M oltm ann’s own observation is that Amyraut vacillated between Arminian-
ism and orthodox Calvinism. It would be mo m uch to expound here on all
such nuances. Yet what M oltm ann claims is that wifo Amyraut one finds a
revelational-empiricism that marks his theological method. M oltm ann calls
this approach ،،Heilsgeschichtlicher Aposteriorismusd26 In his predestination
doctrine Am yraut works not from foe perspective o f an unchanging G od and
His will established from eternity known in time, but only from a perspective

24 Moltmann, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 285. M oltmann
writes in his later work, “The more the covenant is taken seriously as the revelation ofG od, the
more profoundly one can understand the historicity of God and history in God.” Jürgen
Moltmann, The Crucified Cod. The Cross o f Christ as the Foundation and the Criticism ofchristian
Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 271 ,(993 ‫ل‬. See also 267-278.
25 Moltmann, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte hei Moyse Amyraut,” 285.
26 Moltmann, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte hei Moyse Amyraut,” 287.
o f the effects o f G od in history. The council o f predestination is not first o f all

or above all about intention, but it is the last historical form o f G ods gracious
will.27
In addition, M oltm ann notes that the m (^mptive-historical relativizing o f
the im m anent Trinity is typical o f any theology o f Heilsgeschichte in which
G od deals ،hypothetically’ and conditionally’ as Trinity w ith history and
hum an kind, even if G od is considered in control o f the conditions.2‫ ؟‬The
essence o fG o d , G od adintra, m ust retreat in favor o f G od as revealed adextra.
The economy o f the Trinity in history for the salvation o fG o d ’s people becomes
absorbingly im portant.2‫؟‬
‫ه‬ main point o f emphasis to be highlighted for our purposes is M olt-
m ann’s bringing to the surface the heilsgeschichtliche m ethod o f Cam eron and
Am yraut as the seventeenth century alternative to orthodox Calvinism as
espoused by Beza o f Ceneva and D o r t.‫ه‬ apriori doctrine o f predestination
o f orthodox Calvinism is relativized and ‘historicized’ by an a posteriori doc-
trine o f grace and election. The im m anent Trinity is relativized and ‘histori-
cized’ in and w irf a theory o f how knowledge is appropriated, ^ i s occurs
w irf reference to rfe order o f salvation history when understood as a lively
exchange relation between G od and rfe hum an being and conditioned by rfe
economic Trinity. G od as moral persuader and a c o m m o d ato r in philan-
thropic ways has become rfyporfetically relative’ in terms ofrevelation. Finally,
because o f all this, M oltm ann acknowledges that thereby Amyraut prepared
rfe way for rfe Enlightenm ent, ^ i s happened by rfe “bracketing and relativ-
izing o f rfe gospel by rfe enigmatic wisdom’ o f rfe historical-redemptive
education o fh u m an k in d .’”30 It comes down to a historical system o f rfe wis-
dom o fG o d (٠Sapientia Dei), and finally opened ،‘rfe door for rfe religious-

29 Moltmann, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 289. In Amyraut’s
theology o f Heilsgeschichte, traditional contraries between nature and grace, the individual and
the cosmic, are lh^ricH ly-redem ptively relativized in the context of the covenant of grace,
cf. Moltmann, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 295. Eternity is
relativized historically with the predestination ofhum an beings on the basis of faith, or no faith.
‘Allein die fides is causa salutis2 Moltmann, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse
Amyraut,” 296. This is qualified by, “er kann das Heil keinem anderen geben als dem, der in actu
glaubt, und er erwählt nur den, dessen Glauben er vor hersieht.” Moltmann, “Prädestination
und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 299. In this a lively exchange relation between God
and the reaction o f hum an beings is articulated.
216 M. Veldman / Journal o f Reformed Theology 4 (2010) 208-239
philosophical enlightenm ent and for the redemptive-historical-biblicistic

speculations o f pietism.”31
If M oltm ann says he struck gold, what did he mine? His critique clearly
shows the dross: the school o f Saumar was a preparation for foe enlightenm ent
thinking o f rational subjectivism and pied^c-biblicistic subjectivism. It fos-
tered in foe end foe subjective systems o f thought and pietism inherently akin
to m odernism .
At the same time, however, M oltm ann notes over and over again that the
Saumur School represented an alternative to orthodox Calvinism as expressed
by Beza and D ort (1618), which promulgated a conception o f G od as Aristo-
telian and despotic. The Saumur school, and in particular Amyraut, was fun-
damentally historic in its conception o f revelation along foe lines o f a foeology
o f heilsgeschichte. Thereby it re-formed foe doctrine o f G od from an immanen-
tistic to a more economic understanding o f his dealings wifo foe world and
foe hum an being, ^ i s was corroborated by foe political-theological under-
tones and intentions o f these theologians. Also, in foe process they eliminated
foe distinction b e ^ e e n law and gospel on foe basis o f an universal grace
h y p o th e sis-w h ic h in turn became foe basis for a lively exchange o f reaction
between G od and foe hum an being who either believes, or not. Predestination
and law were historically-redemptively \'softened’ on the slip o f a universal grace
hypothesis as conditioned by the economic Trinity.
W hen one considers all these themes it m ust be striking that, even though
M oltm ann distances him self from foe outcome and perhaps content o f foe
Amyraut school, foe shift from an Aristotelian orthodoxy to an historical and
experiential approach o f perceiving and appropriating revelation is not alto-
gether distant from M oltm ann’s own experiential and historical approach.
Also his own doctrine o fG o d is thematically reminiscent o f Am yraut’s empha-
sis on foe economic Trinity. To be sure, M oltm ann has a m uch less positive’
understanding o f revelation and foe hum an being. Yet foe more pressing
acknowledgment o f history over against foe Aristotelian and/or too determin-
istic Calvinistic O rthodoxy— in conjunction wifo foe emphasis on federalism
and on G od in and for h is to ry -w ill resurface again in his own theology,
although thoroughly transformed. Finally, M oltm ann’s foeology is also politi-
cally oriented, despising despotism and favoring philanthropy wifo an empha-
sis on foe gospel (promise) before foe law.32
31 ^ l t m a n n , “Prädestinat^n und Heilsgeschichte bei Mnyse Amyraut,” 303.

32 ‘A nd it cnuld well be the ‘promise in the form o f gospel’ [which] brings to light once more
the original meaning of the law as heing the injunctions that are bound up with the promise.”
M. Veldman /Journal o f Reformed Theology 4 (2010) 208-239 217
Petrus Ramus: The M an Behind Historical Methodology
A nother historical study considered im portant was also a by-product o f his

dissertation: an article w ritten in 1957, “Z ur Bedeutung des ?etrus Ramus für
Bhilosophie und G eo lo g ie im Calvinismus.”‫ ^؛‬In academic circles this study
has become known as the “Ramus Hypothesis.”^ It advances a particular
interpretation o f the significance o f Petrus Ramus and his m ethodology for
the history o f protestant theology specifically that o f the seventeenth century.
It brings to light an im portant shift in orientation and expression o f theology
and practice, and points to its instrum entality for federal theology and Puri-
tanism (Calvinistic Empiricism), Calvinistic hum anism (Arminius, Amyraut),
and Calvinistic ‘proto-pietism’ (Perkins and Amesius).35
M ^tm ann, Theology o f Hope, 124. M oltmann clearly is following G. Von Rad and his Old
Testament theology. See Moltmann, Theology ofHope, 125-133.
33 Moltmann, “Zur Bedeutung des Petrus Ramus für Philosophie und G eologie im
Calvinismus. Zeitschriftfür Kirchengeschichte 68 (1318 -295 ‫و‬, . (57
34 Van Asselt comments, “According to Moltmann, the Heidelberg school, led by Olevianus
and especially Ursinus, combined their federal theology with the Ramistic method, thus forming
an anti-Aristotelian opposition against the Calvinism that had come to the fore in the work of
Calvin’s successor Beza.” William ]. VanAsselt, The Federal Theology ofjohannes Coccejus ( 1603-
1669). Trans. Raymond A. Blacketer (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 330. See also, “M oltmann emphasizes
the influence of Petrus Ramus upon philosophy and theology in Calvinism: the a priori way of
thinking that proceeded from the eternal counsel and will o f God was transcended. God’s will
can only he determined a posteriori from the acts of God described in Scripture. M oltmann
maintains that Ramus’ rejection ofthe speculative, metaphysical use oftheology is parallel to the
perspective o f the Scripture in its notion o f the covenant. Methodologically, this entails that
theology goes to work inductively and empirically, and arrives at its conclusions through an
analysis of Scripture. One should seek the center in Scripture, rather than in some philosophical-
dogmatic principles. G eology is no longer directed toward the production and establishment of
dogmas, but toward the practice o f the Christian life. For Ramus, theology is “Doctrina bene
vivendi,” a practical science that teaches people about piety and their relationship to God.”
William j. V m Asselt, The Federal Theology, 75. V m Asselt is critical ofM oltm ann’s hypothesis
saying that the latter “exaggerates the differences between Ramist theology and the previous
theological tradition, which also emphasized the practical and piety-oriented nature oftheology”
William j. VanAsselt, The Federal Theology, 75.
35 Moltmann, “Zur Bedeutung des Fetrus Ramus für Fhilosophie und G eologie im
Calvinismus.” 8 ‫ ﻟﻮ‬. For other im portant works on Ramus and Ramus’ influence see, Charles
Tzaunt Waddington, Ramus {Pierre de la Ramée) Sa Vie, Ses Écrits et Ses Opinions (Faris: Librairie
de Ch. Meyrueis et Cie, Éditeurs, 1855); R, Hooykaas, Humanisme, Science et Réforme Pierre de
La Ramée ( 1515-1572) (Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1958); James Veazie Skalnik, Ramus and Reform:
University and Church at the End ofthe Renaissance, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies Volume
LX (Kirksville Missouri: Truman State University Fress, 2002); Howard Hotson, Commonplace
Learning Ramism and its German Ramifications 1543- 1630; Oxford Warburg Studies (Oxford:
Oxford University Fress, 2007).
W ith this study un Ramus, M oltm ann reaches back to the origin o f the
shift in orientatiun noted in his studies on Amyraut. In this article M ultm ann
investigates how this shift was initiated and sustained, and finally appropriated
by empirical Calvinism’ (puritanism and pietism) and federal theology.
In this article, M ultm ann emphasizes and highlights the opposition which
existed between Ramus and the Ramists on the one hand, and Theodore Beza
and the Cenevan orthodox Calvinists on the other. More precisely, he high-
lights the opposition between the inductive, experiential, and histurical meth-
odology o f Ramus and the Ramists, and Beza’s deductive Aristutelianism
influenced by M elanchtun.^ In principle it could be perceived as an oppusi-
tiun between two, uverly one-sided concentrations on themes both present in
Calvin’s own th o u g h t.^
According to Ramus, Aristotle denied the creatiun o f the world, the immor-
tality o f the suul and taught that the blessedness o f hum ankind was nothing
but directed to this life in terms o f a realization u f its putentialities. Aristutle
taught some kind o f panpsychism’, which was virtually atheistic. The Roman
Cathulic Church, through Thomas Aquinas, hid this atheism behind ecclesio
logical traditionalism. Em ancipating him self from Aristutle, Ramus broke
through the authurity o f tradition as well. M ultm ann notes that with Ramus
there is a turn to an unsystematic empirical puint o f departure. ‫ص؛‬
In summary, Ramus proposed a new empirical-pragmatic philosophy o f life
(“empiristisch-pragmatische Lebensphilosophie”), emphasizing the immortal-
ity o f the soul as foundational for his m ethod, his philosophy o f life and the
art o f living well towards G od (“bene vivendi, ars Deo vivendi”).39
According to M oltm ann, Ramus theological epistemology becomes the
impetus, in contrast to Beza’s dogmatic apriori thinking, for a “heilsgeschicht-
36 M ohm ann, “Zur Bedeutung des Petrus Ramus für Philosophie und G eologie im
Calvinismos/’ 295.
37 M oltmann expresses the shape and the result of this shift and controversy saying, “Die
ramistische Lebensanschauung war ausgesprochen Laientheologie [lay-theology] und hat die
Immanistischen Laienbewegungen in dem Maße zunehmend heeinflußt, wie die Aversion gegen
die von Ramisten sog. [so-called] “lehensfremde” Scholastik der Genfer Orthodoxie wuchs;”
Moltmann, “Zur B edeutung...” 297. Because o f these elements of lay theology, and the turn to
an inductive approach, offering no metaphysics, M oltmann judges its influence on the same page
as a not mffmportant “paving-the-way-for-Enlightenment-thinking.” This was a theme which he
highlighted in his article on Amyraut as well.
38 Moltmann, “Z ur Bedeutung.. . . ” 298-300. M oltmann puts Ramus in a category with
Pascal, Ham ann, and Kierkegaard: all in the tradition ofthe “Akratische Denkweise” Moltmann,
“Zur B edeutung...” 300.
39 Moltmann, “Z ur B edeutung.. .,” 300, 303.
M. Veldman/Journal ofReformed Theology 4 (2010) 208-239 ^‫و ل‬
licher Aposteriorismus.”40 In terms o f the doctrine o f G od and his revelation,

a significant epistemological shift to the economic Trinity takes place already
in Ramus. M oltm ann remarks that precisely this epistemological shift later
supports A m yrauts “Trinitätshistorik neuer A rt”^ as I have highlighted from
M oltm ann’s article about his dissertation. By going back into history to the
theology o f Ramus, M oltm ann thus lays bare the root for Am yrauts as well as
later salvation-historical Kingdom o f G od theologies o f the seventeenth
century.
W hat we observe here is that M oltm ann establishes and exposes his own
reading o f the history o f Christian theology, which will be im portant for his
own theology and the task he sees him self working out for the contem porary
scene. Over and over again he notes— and I do not think unsympathetically—
the empirical-methodological turn o f Ramus in the context o f his dislike o f a
kind o f scholasticism expressed in a priori thinking from the im m utability o f
G ods will and being. I believe that w ith these studies M oltm ann finds a his-
torical point o f contact for his own experiential-exegetical approach to the
hum an being, history, and the world. He finds a point o f contact for his own
historically oriented theology. Even so, there are other lines that can be
drawn.
The empirical bend o f Ramus’ art o f thinking had further implications for
the organization o f power structures, for example in the church. Together with
the elements o f lay theology and an emphasis on personal experience a demo-
cratic principle slowly began to evolve. Over against Beza’s “pastor aristocracy”
Ramus advocated a democratic church organization.^ Ramus, “again and
again cham pioned a democratic church o f laity and fought Beza’s pastor-
aristocratic concept o f the church as despotic and tyrannical.”^ M oltm ann
points out that this found further expression in the school o f Saum ur.^ Eor
Beza, however, this called forth memories o f ‘anarchic enthusiasm .‫م‬
40 Moltmann, “Zur B edeutung.. 3 0 4 .

41 Moltmann, “Zur B edeutung...” 305.
42 Moltmann, “Zur Bedeutung...” 306.
44 “Noch bei John Cameron, dem Ramisten und Begründer der philanthropischen Calvinismus
der schule von Saumur, findet sich derselbe Vorwurf gegen die Intoleranz des Cenfers, womit
nicht nur dessen persönliche Art, sondern auch die von ihm angestrebte ffirchenverfassung
gemeint ist. Bei Cameron und den Saumurern kam bei Ramus und Morellius verurteilte
“Demokratismus” wieder zum Vorschein und wurde hier zu einer Vorform aufklärerischer
Toleranz und Cewissensfreiheit.” Moltmann, “Zur B edeutung.. . ” 313.
In summary, in this historical study M oltm ann forwards the so-called

،Ram us-Hypothesis.’ According to him, it was Ramus who was instrum ental
in bringing about an empirical, inductive, a posteriori approach to revelation
and foe doctrine o f God. He sought to articulate foe art o f diving unto G od.’
H e thereby broke wifo foe a priori, objective, dogmatic and Aristotelian
approach o f foe Geneva school o f Beza and can be seen as foe herald o f a pref-
erence for a av ation-historically oriented theological epistemology in which
foe economic Trinity is emphasized, w h a t this empirical thrust m eant for foe
church was an impetus for democracy over against hierarchy, i.e. pastor aris-
tocracy.’ Indirectly, Ramus became foe herald o f federal foeology, Calvinistic
hum anism , Calvinistic pietism (?erkins and Amesius) and Calvinistic empiri-
cism (puritanism).
‫ه‬ themes highlighted in M oltm ann’s earlier historical study on Amyraut,
retnrn here to their roots in a more focused and concentrated manner. N ot
least im portant is that M oltm ann sees in Ramus a watershed figure in foe his-
tory o f ?rotestantism for federal foeology, which will find its ultimate articula-
tion in Coccejus. Finally, federal foeology, as already incipient in Ramus and
Amyraut, stands at foe beginning o f a new arrangement o f power structures in
foe form o f democracy.
M oltm ann, throughout this article also expresses his criticism o f Ramus
and foe implications o f his m ethodology as it paved foe way to Enlightenm ent
thought and foe turn to foe subject. It finally expressed itself in rationalism
and pietism .^
W hat needs to be emphasized is that M oltm ann him self cannot be regarded
as a pietist, or a theological rationalist. Yet, in spite o f his criticism there exists
46 Walter j. O ng describes what happened under the influence of Ramus and whom he
influenced, as follows. “W ith Ramus, the voice goes out of this world. The loci communes, Ramus
says, repeating Agricola’s injunction, are to be worked hard, but the reason, he adds, is that they
provide, not richness or vocal abundance, but arguments which can be hooked or ‘glued’ onto
questions... Ramus’... order in dialectic is, as has been seen, radically visualist and diagrammatic
in conceptualization, so the transfer of decorum from rhetoric to dialectic and its subsequent
volatilization h e re...is, in effect, an elimination o f the vocal and personalist in favor of the
diagrammatic within the concept o f accommodation or adaptation itself. O ut of this operation
emerges Ramist ‘objects,’ voiceless and by that very fact depersonalized, ‘a close, naked, natural
way of speaking,’ as near the ‘mathematical’ as possible” Ong, Ramus’ Method and the Decay o f
Dialogue (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), 212-13. The thesis of this writing, which
interprets Ramus as a scholastic-humanist and draws lines ofinfluence ofRam us to, for example,
Alsted, William Ames, and Harvard itself (see page 197), in large measure corroborates
M oltmann’s observation that, indeed, Ramus stood at the fore front of the rationalistic and
pietistic tendencies of the 17th century and beyond.
M. Veldman/Journal ofReformed Theology 4 (2010) 208-239 22 ‫ل‬
an ambiguous relationship between M oltm anns own thought and the histor-
ical-experiential impetus o f Ramus’ thought, which culminated precisely in a
concentration on the e o n o m ic Trinity, and unfolding salvation-history in the
context o f covenantal thinking. Could it be that here M oltm ann found his-
torical legitimacy for a turn to history and experience? A nd not only that, but
more substantially, did he find support w ith these theologians for a legitimate
break w ith a priori thinking which in turn fostered a lay theology and demo-
cratic principles o f organization? It indeed is my suspicion that in these two
studies M oltm ann found a way o f reading the history o f Christian thought
that supplied him with them atic and substantial elements that can be observed
in his own theology: the importance o f being historical and experiential,
because likewise ultimately God is. That does not take away his criticism, but
in a way grounds it.
A nd thus, in spite o f his critique, M oltm ann winnows out the useful, mines
the gold, while acknowledging the dross. This, o f course, is not new fo r any
theologian, as it demonstrates a certain eclecticism, but the point is that in these
historical studies we can trace how it occurred in M oltmanns own development
and thereby place him more squarely in the stream ofWestern theology by having
more clearly unearthed his 'secret tacit tradition. ’
Thus far I have highlighted especially three key themes: history, experience
and a more pronounced shift to the economic Trinity in line with the Ramus
hypothesis. In Am yraut all these themes are substantially present, giving way
to a more heilgeschichtlicher understanding o f revelation. According to M olt-
m ann, Ramus can be thought o f as the initial articulator o f such an experien-
tial-historical m ethodology^ or Christian pragmatic-life philosophy, which
provided for the break-through o f a dynamic a posteriori theological thought
and thereby paved the way for lay theology and democratic principles o f
organization.
Keeping these observations in m ind we need to turn— more specifically—
to M oltm ann’s own adm ittance o f being influenced by Coccejus and his cov-
enant thought and his kingdom theology, which M oltm ann took up in his
theology o f hope. H ow was Coccejus part o f his ‘secret tacit tradition?’
47 “Ever since the fundamental methndical a b ro a c h to man’s experience of the world by

Petrus Ramus and René Descartes and its success in the natural sciences, every effort has been
directed towards applying a methodical treatment also to the experiences of history and to the
process ٠۴ acquiring knowledge o f history.” M oltmann. Theology o f Hope: On the Ground and
Implications ofa Christian Eschatology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 238 ,( ‫ ووول‬.
Johann Coccejus: Theologian of Covenant ‫س‬

the Kingdom of ôd,
Moltmanns Secret Tacit Tradition for His Theology of Hope
As I m entioned previously, M oltm ann can hardly he considered a pietist, or an
enlightenm ent rationalist himself, nonetheless there exists an ambiguous rela-
tionship between him and the covenant theology o f the pietistic tradition.
Steven O ’Mally, in an article entitled, “?ietist Influences in the Eschatological
Thought o f }ohn Wesley and }ürgen M oltm ann, ” notes
M oltm anns thought is substantially influenced by his use o f eschatological m otifs that
were transm itted by the Pietists. This influence is especially apparent in his interest in
the renow ned medieval interpreter o f the Apocalypse, Joachim o f Fiore (1131-1202),
and in the continuation o f Joachite rnotifs in the sym bolic-prophetic school o f the
Pietists exegesis th at culm inated in Bengel. M oltm ann’s interest in these m otifs, seen
first in an im portant group o f historical essays from the 1950s, emerges from his sym-
pathetic though critical study o f a wide range o f church and radical pietists, ...M o lt-
m ann traces its reappearance in the left w ing o f the R eform ation, and in the later
representatives o f the federalist (covenant) school o f R hineland and W ürttem burg
Pietism. W ith this school, the sym bolic-prophetic exegetical m ode finally had enabled
m illennial thought to be represented w ithin rather than outside the m ainline state
church traditions.48
Having turned to these historical studies o fth e 1950’s m entioned by O ’Mally,

my own interest in understanding M oltm ann genetically’ is also to sift the
sympathetic from the critical and so trace the lines o f thought and impact o f
his secret tacit tradition. I observe that the sympathy o f M oltm ann towards
Ramus’ turn to the experiential, historical, and even democratic approach is
more fully expressed when M oltm ann moves past Amyraut to the seventeenth
century covenantal theology o f Coccejus. As M oltm ann admits himself, here
he finds the more substantial seeds for his own theology o f hope.
I believe Coccejus’ covenant theology provided M oltm ann with an internal
dynamic that indirectly informs his own relational (covenantal) experiential,
historical, kingdom o f G od theology, w h ile not appropriating the symbolic-
prophetic exegesis o f Scripture, in relation to Coccejus and the seventeenth
century theology o f this pietistic tradition M oltm ann substitutes his own
48 j. Steven O ’Malley, “Pietist Influences in the Eschatnlngical Thought o fjo h n Wesley and
Jürgen Moltmann, ” 134-135.
M. Veldman/Journal ofReformed Theology 4 (2010) 208-239
promissory exegetical approach,^ while retaining its experiential, historical-

relational, and kingdom o f G od dynamism.
In a little work called, Die Gemeinde im Horizont der Herrschaft Christi:
Neue Perspektiven in der Protestantischen Theologie,5° M oltm ann advocates that
in dre m editation upon, and in the concentration on the W ord o f the Bible—
which is what preaching is about— m ust at the same time occur an exegesis o f
the hearers— not o fth e m odern person as such, but o f the hum an beings who
are spoken to and purposed for foe image o f God. As his indirect critique o f
foe pietists in general, and o f Coccejus in particular, he warns that in fois
endeavor foe preaching should not retreat into an hum an intim ate sphere, nor
should be directed to foe lonely individuals piety o f heart. Instead, for foe
purpose o f G od and his Kingdom, an emphasis should be placed on foe call-
ing o f foe whole person to put w hat is heard into practice. The preaching
should not find its grounding and point o f contact in feeling or observation
but in “die praktische Teilnahme an solcher [social, cultural, and political]
Arbeit, verstanden als R uf zum Reich, würde das Christsein ausmachen.”^
M oltm ann thus calls for political preaching.’ “W enn heute um die ‘politschen
49 His own promissory exegetical approach is rooted in another discovery, namely Ernst
Blochs Principle ofHope. See Moltmann, Experiences in Theology, 92-93. In this article, however,
I will concentrate on what M oltmann gleans from Coccejus and what he rejects. Im portant to
note as well is that around the same time (in the same year 1959) M oltmann published another
writing, a little book called Die Gemeinde im Horizont der Herrschaft Christi: Neue Perspektiven
in der Protestantischen Theologie (see next footnote). In this little book there is no m ention of
Coccejus directly, but a hinted correction on his exegesis certainly points to his critical
appropriation ofthis school. In this writing M oltmann seems to rely heavily on Bonhoeffer, over
against Barths mtnscendental subjectivity. See Moltmann, Theology 0J Hope (Minneapolis:
Fortress Fress, 1993), 50-58. In Die Gemeinde M oltmann articulates in short a biblical-exegesis
that takes the hum an horizon more serious with Bonhoeffer’s question in mind, “Wer ist Christus
für uns heute eigentlich?” and Van Ruler’s query “Zu welchem zweck, zu welchem Ziel ist
Christus in unsere Welt gekom m en?-W as will C ott m it Christus und seiner Fredigt von uns
heute?” Jürgen Moltmann, Die Gemeinde, 7. This shows that his more serious om m unication
partners were Barth, Bonhoeffer, and the Dutch theologian A.A van Ruler. Yet, 1 intent to
uncover that Coccejus nevertheless functioned in the background as provider o f important
themes, which were then translated into his own programmatic theology ofhope. Most chroniclers
ofMoltmanns theology have missed this dimension. Moltmann ¿¡oes not only study Coccejus to reject
him unsympathetically, hut did appropriate him creatively, albeit critically.
50 Moltmann, Die Gemeinde im Horizont der Herrschaft Christi; Neue Perspektiven in der
Protestantischen Theologie (Germany: Neukirchener Verlag der Buchhandlung des Frziehungs-
Vereins NeuKirchen Kreis Moers, 1959).
51 Moltmann, Die Gemeinde, 32. cf. 31, 7: “the practical participation in s u c h ...work,
understood as a Kingdom call, would configure the being of Christ.”
Predigt’ gerungen wird, so handelt es dabei nur um einen ersten Versuch, sich
tastend in eine neue Landschaft des Menschlichen zu begeben.”^
Both the article on Coccejus and this little book Die Gemeinde, were writ-
ten at approximately the same time, albeit that in the former M oltm ann is the
critical historian, while in the latter he articulates his own thought up to that
point. A bout the latter work M oltm ann him self writes, ،،I sum m ed up what
was exercising me theologically at that time in a short book on ،The Com m u-
nity o f Christ in the C ontext o f C hrist’s Rule. New Perspectives in Protestant
G e o lo g y ’... When I read this again today‫ إ‬le a n see that here all the themes ofm y
later theology are really already sounded: the eschatological horizon ofhistory in
the Kingdom o f God; faithfulness to the earth; new partnerships for the
church in the world; and ‘the narrow wideness o f the cross.’ ” ‫ص‬I shall return
to M oltm ann’s replacement o fth e prophetic-exegetical approach w ith his own
promissory-exegetical approach after I first will consider M oltm ann’s sympa-
thetic interpretation o f Coccejus as critical historical theologian.
In the study, Gesichtstheologie undpietische Menschenbild bei Johann Coccejus
und Theodor UndereyckJ4 a more narrow concentration takes place on the how
o f G od’s relation to history.55 In this article M oltm ann concentrates on how
this relationship works itself out in history through revelation, that is, in terms
o ^ m b o lic -p ro p h e tic exegesis, in relation to the hum an being. At the same
time this study will leave its traces in M oltm ann’s own theology and approach
52 Moltmann, Die Gemeinde, 31. “W hen we nowadays struggle with ‘political preaching,’ it is
only a first attem pt to tentatively enter a new humanitarian landscape.”
53 Moltmann, Experiences in Theology, 91 (my emphasis).
54 Moltmann, “Gesichtstheologie und pietische Memchenbild bei Johann Coccejus und
F e o d o r Undereyck,” Evangelische Theologie Monatsschrift, 1360 -343 , ‫ و‬5 ‫ و‬. One can see this
article as a fruit of M oltmann’s habilitationsschrift, Christoph Pezel (1539-1604) und der
Calvinismus in Bremen (Bremen: Hospitum Ecclesiae. Forsch, z. bremischen Kirchengesichte 2,
1958 ) .‫ ذ‬connection is that Fezel in 1595 as Calvinist came to Bremen and influenced the city
with his Calvinism. Coccejus was born in Bremen in 1603. At the time M oltmann wrote this
article he was pastor in Bremen!
55 W.J. Van Asselt writes that it is “especially his prophetic exegesis, which separates him from
orthodoxy. Farticularly his attempt to make a connection between the story ofthe Scriptures and
the contemporary history can be considered as a new phenomenon in the field o f exegesis.”
Furthermore, Vm Asselt asserts that, “exegesis and dogmatics stood expressly in the service of
eschatology. [The] newness ofCoccejus lies in his attem pt to construct a bridge between the old
and the (upcoming) new, between orthodoxy’ and ‘modernity.’ The result which he has delivered
through the re-onstruction of Reformed Theology lies in the tremendous bow o f tension
wherewith he attempted to keep God and history together.” Vm Asselt, Johannes Coccejus Portret
van een Zeventiende-eeuws Theoloogop Oude en Nieuwe Wegen (Heerenveen: Uitgeverij J.J. Groen
en Zoon, 1997), 184, 185, 279 (my translation).
by finding a way to go beyond Bartb, wbile staying close to a kerygmatic the-

ology as was espoused by Barth. I will return to this in the latter part o f this
article. Here let me refer to Charles M cCoy who also has observed, “I am
convinced that M oltm ann, by delving more deeply into the Reformed tradi-
tion o f covenant thought, has gone beyond Karl Barth in developing theology
and ethics rooted in biblical eschatology, centered in the crucified and risen
}esus Christ, focused upon the process o f liberation at work in the world, and
global in concern and hope.”^
Returning to M oltm ann’s specific article: in it he is both sympathetic and
critical o f Coccejus. His own theology, also being concerned with the how of
G ods relation to the world through history in the context o f covenant, can
certainly be seen to be attached to the same concern o f f^cceju s’ covenant
theology. Yet for M oltm ann the how gets ultimately filled in differently.^
The title o fth e study combines Gesichtstheologie znápietisches Menschenbild,
which represent for M oltm ann the poles o fth e dialectic o fth e larger relation
o f G od and the world through history. ‫ه‬ adjective ‘pietistic’ indicates M olt-
m anns critique just as he concludes in this article that Coccejus and F e o d o r
Undereyck ultimately still seem to subscribe to a theology o f glory and not a
theology o f the cross. N otw ithstanding this critique— and herein lies the
am biguity w ithin M oltm ann’s theology itse lf-M o ltm a n n ’s basic themes: cov-
enant. Trinity, the importance o fth e history o f revelation, and the Kingdom
o f God, can be seen as having been adopted by M oltm ann. ‫ه‬ question as to
56 Charles s. McC©y in Love: the Foundation o f Hope, Theology o f Jürgen Moltmann and
Elizabeth Moltmann-Wendel. Eds. Frederic B. Burnham, Charles McCny, M. Dnuglas Meeks
(San Franciscn: Harper and Row Fublishers, 1988), 98. McCoy who himself wrote a dissertation
on Coccejus (Yale University, 1956) and whose work became familiar to M oltmann is one ofthe
few who acknowledges M oltmann’s indebtedness to Coccejus and covenant thought. He writes,
“Upon his study of this reformed federalism, M oltmann develops his significant insights into the
character of creation and history. Eschatology is not an addendum to history but rather its very
nature from start to finish and in every present.” McCoy, in Love: the Foundation ofHope, 99.
bike Van Asselt, he agrees that what M oltmann highlights as discovered in his study on Coccejus,
namely Coccejus’ definition ofth e covenant as “nothing else than a divine declaration about the
way to receive the love of God and to enjoy community with G o d ., .which is the highest good
for humanity,” became an im portant new focus (quoted in McCoy, “G od’s Faithfulness:
Federalism and the Future of Geology,” 99). Van Asselt asserts, “Jürgen M oltmann was one of
the first to stress the importance ofthis amicitia [friendship] concept in Cocceius’ theology.” Vm
Asselt, The Federal Theology, 311.
57 M oltmann agrees with Rosenstock'Huessy that the theology of progressive revelation never
succeeded in ‘overcoming modernity,’ even though that certainly could be seen as its historic
attempt. See M oltmann. Theology ofHope, 75 and note V m Asselt’s historic appraisal ofCoccejus’
theology above.
how M oltm ann can thread this line o f thought in his own development— by
in the end replacing an understanding o f G od in G ods relationship to this
world by way o f symbolic-prophetic exegesis w ith his own promissory-exegesis
or ،hope-exegesis’— is the burden o f this article.
Some Important Thematics Contrasted

For M oltm ann death and its experience are problematic themes, ^ i s comes
out o f his personal experiences o f war and concentration cam p.^ M oltm ann’s
existential and theological-philosophical context is informed by the experience
o f nihilism and those who articulated it. w h e n M oltm ann speaks o f the expe-
rience o fw ar and hope or o f love and freedom, he speaks from the experience
o f a shattered world o f positivism, liberal bourgeois theology and war culture.
Turning to theology as he came out o f the war he experienced the tension
between restoration and renewal. As a pastor in Bremen, where he wrote the
historical studies under scrutiny in this paper, he lived w ith this tension as he
delved into the past. The implicit question seems to have been what to retain
and what to dismiss o f the old w orld’ . He desired to give an answer to it with
his promissory exegesis and the category o f hope by way o fth e theology o f the
cross. ‫و و‬W hat is to be observed is that in the recounting o f his life story there
is no m ention o f guilt or sin in the face o f a holy G od and o f G od’s will
expressed in law, but primarily a recounting o f a near death experience and the
58 He writes, “At the end ofju ly 1943, as an air force auxiliary, 1 experienced the destructinn
nf my hnme tnwn Ham burg through the RAF’s ‘Operatinn Gomorrah’, and barely survived the
fire storm in which 40,000 people burnt to death. The friend standing beside me was blown to
pieces by the bomb, which left me unscathed. 1 come from a secular family, but that night 1 cried
to God for the first time “My God, where are you?” And the question ‘W hy am I alive and not
dead like the rest?’ has haunted me ever since. [In the prisoner camp] I searched for some
certainty in life, for 1 had lost m ine.... 1 needed what the Heidelberg Catechism calls ‘comfort
in life and death’, and through the chance reading o f the Bible, I found that comfort in the
Christ who in His passion became my brother in need, and through his resurrection from the
dead awakened me too to a living hope” Moltmann, Experiences in Theology, 3-4.
59 See M. Douglas Meeks, Origins ofthe Theology ofHope (Fhiladelphia: Fortress Fress, 1974),
ix-xiv. By that time M oltmann was already influenced by Hans foachim Iwand. Meeks says: “If
we are looking for the single most im portant source for what is new and unique in M oltmann’s
theology, it is undoubtedly the thought of Hans Joachim Iwand. The whole of M oltmann’s
theology of hope is cast by the temper o f Iwand’s theology.” M. Douglas Meeks. Origins, 30. It
was Iwand who gave theological impetus and form to the thematic problematic o f death rather
than sin. “In distinction to a narrow concept o f justification focusing on sin or to an exclusive
concept of sanctification focusing on social and political evil, Iwand stressed death as the basic
dehumanizing power from which one must be saved.” see M. Douglas Meeks. Origins, 34.
meaningless n f life. This informs his theology as a whole, to the point o f de-
valuing the biblical themes o f holiness and righteousness.
In contrast, for federal th e o lo g y -a t least in its biblical theological frame-
w o r k - th e them atic problem atic is sin, and the experience o f it in the face of
the laws threat and promise. Covenant theology does not give credence to
death being the fundam ental them atic problem atic.^
Because M oltm ann proceeds from the more ‘objective’ reality o fth e experi-
ence o f death, and its concom itant experience o fth e absence or death o f C od,^
he is bound to reject the Coccejan pietistic-subjectivity o f individual guilt,
obedience and experience o f God. That forms the basis o f his critique o f Coc-
cejus’ Gesichtstheologie undpietistischen Menschenbild.
Moltmann’s Study ©n C©ccejus‫ ؛‬Critique and p©int ©fC©ntact

Coccejus’ covenant Geology as historically structured w ithin the grand sweep
o f creation to Kingdom o f God, was not new notes M oltm ann in this histori-
cal study, w h a t is unique is that Coccejus expressed “for the time a great,
unifying system,” which is worked out federally and historically.^ He thereby
sums up all previous federal theology in his own system.
The question M oltm ann poses is, “W hat is Coccejus’ organizing principle?”
L· it the covenant or the kingdom o f God? According to M oltm ann, the latter
is merely a formal principle in the theology o f Coccejus. Instead he draws the
attention to Coccejus’ definition o f covenant as central to the material content
and organization o f his thought.
For Coccejus covenant is “a divine declaration o f the m anner in which
G od’s love and fellowship w ith G od are to be acquired.”^ w h e n Coccejus
applies this definition o f covenant relating to God, the idea and reality of
friendship w ith G od (،amicitia Dei) and life in com m union with his/her Cre-
ator, comes to the surface. “ ‫ه‬ covenant is the way which G od has revealed
60 C©ccejus perceived ©fa c©venant ©fw©rks within the framew©rk ©flaw. The initial ‘c©ntent’
o fth e covenant o f God with humans was ©bedience ©ut ©f l©ve. Death was and is n©t primary,
but law and ©bedience are. T© the law was attached a promise and a threat. See Van Asselt, The
Federal Theology, 37-40.
61 See M. D©uglas Meeks. Origins ofthe Theology o f Hope, 30-38.
62 M©ltmann, “Gesichtsthe©l©gie und pietische Menschenbild bei J©hann Cnccejus und
Theodor Undereyck,” Evangelische Theologie Monatsschrift; 343 , ‫ ول‬5‫ و‬.
63 M©ltmann, Gesichtsthe©l©gie, 346.
M. Veldman / Journal o f Reformed Theology 4 (2010) 208-239
to come into his com m union, which depicts the highest good (summum
bonurri) for the hum an being.”64
The further uniqueness o f Coccejus’ federal theology is that he does not see
and experience this relationship analytically or strictly dogmatically, but fills it
w ith the acô w led g em en t and experience o f an intim ate faith-love relation-
ship w ith God. “The hum an will desires the true goodness (bonum verum) in
which he can rest, and that for him is nowhere ehe but in G od.”65 Here M olt-
m ann sees Coccejus connecting creation and G od through covenant byw ay o f
G ods dealings w ith hum ankind in love, which answer the most fundamental
desire o f both G od and the hum an being.66
W hat is f^cceju s’ organizing, material principle? M oltm ann notes, “Der
bund is die Koinzidenz der Agape Gottes zum M enschen und des menschli-
chen Eros zu G o tt” (The covenant is the coincidence o f G ods agape for
hum anity and hum anity’s eros for G od).67 ^ i s is the principle that informs
the content o f Coccejus’ understanding o f alvation-history. It is the córrela-
tion o f the seeking hum an being and the finding God, that expresses itself
fundam entally in love, and rests in the m eeting o f the two in the history o fth e
covenant. The ground m o d ^ f Coccejus’ understanding o f history is nothing
but “the augustinian neo-platonic: “ Cor inquietum donee requiescat in te” (the
restless heart finding rest in C o d ) ‫ م‬The covenant o f works and o f grace, and
the Kingdom o f God, are the formal principles o f this inner grounding motif,
which is the amicitia del as the expression o fth e love o f God, which finds and
answers the yearning hum an being.
Eurthermore, M oltm ann notes expressly that Coccejus connects this yearn-
ing (Sehnsucht) not first w ith the fall, but with creation. Coccejus had a
dynamic-historical understanding o f the image o f G od o f which the initial
creation is the beginning. Hereby Coccejus makes salvation history part and
64 M Htm ann, Gesichtstheologie, 345.

65 Moltmann, Gesichtstheologie, 345. W ith this he breaks through the Orthodoxy ob Beza
with a turn to experience and history as inaugurated by Ramus as finally disseminated to Co-
ccejus through Ames. “So durchbricht er das übliche Denken reformierter Orthodoxie m it
V orstellingen,...Er verarbeitet damit den mystischen und voluntaristischen Glaubensbegriff
seines Lehrers W ilhelm Amesius aus Franeker in föderaltheologischer Manier” M oltmann,
Gesichtstheologie, 345.
66 covenant is not only the expression ob the free love of Cod, but at the same time
expression and fulfillment ob the creaturely yearning of hum anity for the summun bonum, in
which he rests and finds eternal life, for in that, the fear ob death is overcome.” M oltmann,
Cesichtstheologie, 346.
67 Moltmann, Gesichtstheologie, 346.
parcel c f the criginal creation. W ith this, M oltm ann claims, Coccejus makes
covenant-history ،the inner ground o f creation.’691 believe it is here that M olt-
m ann finds a point o f contact for his own emphasis on the historicity o f the
word o f G od and creation.
In the ccntext ofhis own time and the key influential writers we have ncted
abcve, M oltm ann finds in Coccejus and the ethers discussed a histérica‫ ؛‬point
o f ccntact that enables him to gc beyond Barth, and the whcle dialectical
theology o fhis time. Karl Barth remained caught in what M cltm ann describes
as his “transcendental subjectivity”— c f which Bultm ann was the existential
anthropological ccunterpart. Both operated from a negaticn o f the historical
in a dialectic way, w ith the result that revelaticn became a-historical. Ifit cculd
still be term ed historical it w culd be in a highly qualified way, either from the
standpcint o f the nature o f faith (Bultmann), or from the nature c f revelaticn
(Barth).70
The salvation-historical understanding o f revelation o f the covenant theolo-
gians provides another option. At the least it preserves “the question o f the
eschatological future outlook which the Christian revelation holds for a world
involved in history.”7*M oltm ann thus finds a point o f contact here for his own
experiential turn to history and G od w ithin the framework o f Reformed-
covenantal thought. O ne could say that Barth’s a-historical understanding of
the W ord o f G od finds here its historical grounding, ^ i s is what M oltm ann
appropriates from these studies, along w ith the themes o f covenant and Trin-
ity. The how he rejects. However, before turning to M oltm ann’s explicit cri-
tique o f Coccejus let us first explore some further possible points o f contact.
M oltm ann notes that seeing covenant-history as inner ground o f creation
brings w ith it a Christological m om ent o f kenosis. Christ as the fundam ental
expression o f G od’s covenant o f grace w ith creation— and as such the
69 M ^tm ann, Gesichtstheologie, 347.

70 Moltmann, Theology o f Hope, 54-68.
71 M oltmann continues: “That is to say, all the themes ofthe eschatology ofsalvation h is to r y -
such as the mission to the nations, the discussion o fth e future o f Israel, the future of world
history, o f creation and the b o d y -a re proper themes o fc h ristian eschatology as such, only they
can not be conceived in the traditional terms ofsalvation history. The decisive question is, whether
revelation is the illuminating interpretation o f an existing, obscure life process in history, or whether
revelation itself originates drives and directs the process ofhistory; whether consequently, ‫ ﻛﻢ‬Barth has
asked, revelation is apredicate ofhistory, or whether history has to be understood as apredicate ofthe
eschatological revelation and to be experienced, expected and obediently willed as such.” M oltmann,
Theology ofHope, 75-76 (emphasis mine).
inner-ground o f creation— is from the beginning the ،kenosis o f G od.’72 And

this has further implications.
According to M oltm ann, Coccejus couples his historical-dynamic interpre-
tation o f the image o f G od in creation, the yearning for com m union and
perfection in God, w ith the understanding o f what time is. The original
incompleteness asks for completeness in the process o f time, o f history. G od as
unchangeable and complete is the object. But as such, M oltm ann says, G od is
the object o f hope.^
It is remarkable that w ith Coccejus, M oltm ann sees the principle o f hope
already in creation. A nd we need only to go one step further, connect cove-
nant-history as the inner-ground o f creation with the kenosis o f G od stretch-
ing across history to arrive at the kenotic history o f G od with creation, as
exemplified in the cross.
W hat has the fall brought about for Coccejus? M oltm ann notes that the fall
initiates the necessity of a different relationship w ith God, i.e. one o f faith. The
development for the fulfillment o f the promise for likeness— that is the fulfill-
m ent o f the image o f C o d - i s now inaugurated by the gift o f faith as the
beginning’ o f this development. Election, reconciliation and justification
stand in service o f sanctification, i.e. the development o f obtaining the likeness
after the image o f God. In that process there are steps. The acknowledgement
o f the realization o f such steps brings w ith it an understanding o f the hum an
being as an independent personality, which in turn is the beginning o f
the rationalistic-pietistic understanding o f the hum an that lies behind the
E nlightenm ent.^
M oltm ann asks the question, “what purpose has Christ then?” Understood
in the same historic dynamic understanding o fth e image o f God, Christ is the
fulfillment o f Cen 3:15 as ‫ ﺀ ث‬image o f G od in the flesh, and the fulfillment
o f its likeness. Eor faith, Gen 3:15 and its fulfillment by Christ means recon-
ciliation. Gen 1:26 (likeness) and its fulfillment means sanctification. M olt-
m ann claims that here a new pietistic subjectivity is released. Besides Christ
for us (pro-nobis) here enters the thought o f Christ in us, the new likeness of
72 “Die Kenosis Gottes wird auf the ganze Geschichte ausgeweitet.” Moltmann, Gesichts-
theologie. 348.
73 “Der mensch ist dagegen nicht fertig, sondern gleichsam auf hoffnung hin geschaffen”
Moltmann, Gesichtstheologie, 348. To it M oltmann adds, “Es ist erstaunlich, daß Coccejus bei
dieser Mutäbiliteit der Kreatur nicht den Sündenfall, sondern an die größere Herrlichkeit des
ewige Lebens denkt. M it der guten, aber unvollkommenen Schöpfung ist auch der Zeit gegeben”
Moltmann, Gesichtstheologie, 348.
74 Moltmann, Gesichtstheologie, 349-350.
M. Veldman/Journal ofReformed Theology 4 (2010) 208-239 2‫ل و‬
G od in the hum an being. At the same time justification o f sinners becomes

primarily a prelude, ^ i s sidestepping o f the forensic doctrine o f justification
also leads to a renewed interest in the Osianderian thesis o f the essential righ-
teousness o f G od.’ All this finally manifests itself in individualistic pietistic
subjectivism and sectarianism /‫؟‬
In spite o f what I have noted as points o f contact and them atic correspon-
dences w ith his own theology in development, M oltm ann’s final analysis and
critique is that Coccejus’ theology and other Ramist pietists like Ames and
Undereycks end up in subjectivism and finally sectarianism. ‫ه‬ pietistic prac-
titioners, more and more drawn toward being sanctified in the likeness o f the
image o f God, began to gather w ith likem inded individuals in conventicles.
The agape o f G od as it answers the eros o f the hum an being in covenant with
God, in finding expression in the amicitia Dei finally remains w ithin the
bounds o f an Aristotelian friendship doctrine, that is, the love for the like-
m inded. A n d this isfinally not the kenotic self-sacrificial love displayed on the cross
by God in Christy as Luther understood it and M oltmann advocates. The latter
،‘love is not a love for the highest good, not a love desirous for infinite enjoy-
m ent and eternal rest, but com municating, giving and so creating love for
unworthy, nasty hum an beings and ones who deserve nothing.”^
According to M oltm ann, Coccejus’ Gesichtstheologie in connection with his
Menschenbildes still a theology o f glory, anthropologically centered in a pietism
akin to rationalistic intellectualism, and thus ultimately the seed that would
germinate into the Enlightenm ent, ^ i s anthropocentric how o f G od’s con-
nection to history, the hum an being and the W orld, is what M oltm ann rejects,
^ i s material principle, in the context o f Coccejus’ formal principles o f cove-
nant and the Kingdom o f God, is w hat M oltm ann sees as dross among the
gold. It is still too m uch tied to the ،old theology,’ which paved the way to the
enlightenm ent and was essentially one w ith it in its pietism. A nd it finally did
so because this pietistic theology o f history grounded in a dynamic under-
standing o f the image o f G od and its fulfillment in history by Christ for and
in hum an beings, absorbed history itself into a “system ofhope” (J.A. Bengel) / ‫إل‬
That means, it subsumed history and the W ord in its fulfillment under and
into a developmental and evolutionary system under the auspices o f a

77 Moltmann, Theology ofHopey 71.
symbolic-prophetic exegesis, a presumable plan o f salvation/‫ ؟‬It is this sym-

bolic-prophetic exegesis, which ultimately informs Coccejus covenant theol-
ogy, and gives it its wrong’ turn to the anthropocentric.
Having come to this point o f seeing the symbolic-prophetic exegetical
school as ultimately at the back o f even Coccejus’ anthropological centrism o f
G od’s historical and experiential relation to the W orld, let me finally turn to
the last significant historical study o f M oltm ann in which he specifically goes
behind Coccejus and even Amyraut. He examines not the beginning o f the
turn to a historical methodology, but surveys the inception o f the symbolic-
prophetic exegetical school by]acob Brocard, i.e. to an approach to Scripture
in the context o f the experience o ftim e and history, ^ i s will, finally, allow me
the occasion to arrive at a comparative analysis o f M oltm ann’s replacement of
the prophetic exegesis w ith his own promissory exegesis whereby he sought to
retain the gold o f the federal tradition while removing its dross, moving for-
ward w ith his own theological program .’
Jac©b Brocard: The Man Behind the Symboiic-Pr©phetic Bxegesis

of Covenant Geology
A bout this study M oltm ann him self says that “}acob Brocardus showed me
the link between the mediaeval eschatology of]oachim o f Fiore and the mod-
ern theology o f the Kingdom, which is indebted to Coccejus.”79 In the study,
“}acob Brocard als Vorläufer der ^ ic ^ G o tte s - ^ e o lo g ie und der Symbol-
ischen-prophetischen Schrift auslegung des }ohannes Coccejus,”9‫ ؟‬M oltm ann
historically traces the symbolic-prophetic interpretation o f Scripture, which
was at the back o f Coccejus’ covenant theology and other Ramist’ federalists.
In it he unearths more clearly the roots o f symbolic-prophetic exegesis.
The deeper question, which informs my investigation into the genesis o f
M oltm ann’s thought, is “How is the Kingdom o f G od and its manifestation,
historically and experientially, related to the W ord o f G od and the Church?”
78 “The revelation o f Christ [as image and likeness of Cod] is thus placed under the head o f a
history of revelation, whose progressiveness is expressed in the idea o fthe developing ofsalvation
stage by stage according to a previously fixed plan of salvation. This theology o fth e “plan” of
saving history has many strilcing parallels with the scientific deism of the seventeenth and
eighteenth century and is in every sense a religious product o fth e enlightenment.” M oltmann,
Theology ofHope, 70.
7‫ و‬Moltmann, Experiences in Theology, 89.
80 Moltmann, “j. Brocard als Vorläufer der îcl^G ottes-äTeologie” Zeitschrift für
Kirchengesichte, 71 (I960): ‫ ﻟﻞ‬0‫م‬
H ow is that in the end so for M oltm ann in as m uch as he distinguishes him self
from the Ram ist’ federalists, including Coccejus, while retaining valuable
insights?
Brocard, as inceptor o f the ym bolic-prophetic exegesis o f Scripture accord-
ing to M oltm ann, became centrally interested in the future o f the C hurch and
the Kingdom o f G od.81 The purpose o f prophecy became for him an under-
standing o f the godly universal reign on earth in light o f the approaching end
and the approaching disintegration. ‫ه‬ Bible became a book for interpreting
when these things would take place.
Brocard stands w ith this chiliastic symbolic exegesis b e ^ e e n }oachim de
Fiore and the seventeenth century protestant federal theologians, especially
Coccejus.82 For Brocard the gospel o f the Kingdom is universal and, “This
gospel o f the coming o f the universal kingdom o f God, is for him the sum of
Scriptures, and the secret tenor o f world history to which all political and
Church events are ‘tuned.’...H is exegesis o f Scripture understands itself in
this way as “prophetic” (so) that for her the vision o f an entire harm ony
b e ^ e e n Scripture and world events is laid as foundation.”^
We saw that M oltm ann located the problem with Coccejus pietistic cove-
nant theology as being his ultim ate individual anthropocentrism , the restless-
ness o fth e heart finding rest in God. M oltm ann rejected this material principle
o f Coccejus’ covenant theology. He, however, retained the formal principles of
covenant and Kingdom o f God. W ith Brocard, M oltm ann uncovers another
im portant thematic. He discovers a notion that is more oriented, not to the
anthropocentric, but to historic dimension itself.
Brocard’s prophetic-exegesis does not appeal to a particular anthropological
locus, first and foremost, but to history. In Theology ofHope M oltm ann notes
that this “new historic understanding o f revelation... called to life a feeling for
81 ^ l t m a n n , j. Brocard ais Verläufer, 113. “The cem binatien e f Church and kingdom
became the foundatien e fh is theology” , idem, 113.
82 Moltmann, j. Brocard als Vorläufer, 114.
83 Moltmann, j. Brocard als Vorläufer, 118. M oltmann notes that instead o f the Roman
Cathelic cerrelatien between Scripture and traditien, with Brocard one finds a cerrelatien
between Scripture and w erld history. N ot the Scripture by itself, but the prophetic opening and
application of the Scripture is understood by Brocard as the actual purpose and meaning of
revelation. Moltmann, j. Brocard als Vorläufer, 11‫ و‬. M oltmann calls this hermeneutic a ‘neo-
Pl^N c-m y stical understanding ofthe W ord’, which he deems the forerunner ofthe typological,
allegorical and prophetic exegesis o f Coccejus and his school, (pg. 127). ‫ آآل‬€ intention thereby is
to ‘gain the right perspective and grasping o fth e ways and face of God in history,’ (pg. 127). It
becomes a ‘prophetic theology,’ not a promise theology, or theology of hope.
history.”84 A prophecy as worked out in Brocard and others o f the salvation-

history school, appeals to G od’s plan o f salvation in and for foe World, ^ i s
plan o f salvation is somehow discernable by prophecy. It— including foe Bible
itself understood as prophetic’— is essentially subject to “operations o f divine
providence, [or] laws o f history.”8 ‫؟ه‬ interpreter seeks foe fulfillment o f these
laws o f history by appealing to prophecy. G od as foe provider is supposedly
working according to these laws o f history to which foe interpreter gains par-
ticular access.
In his critique o f this symbolic-prophetic exegesis, as he sees it inform foe
exegesis and foeology o f Coccejus, M oltm ann captures foe critique he had o f
Coccejus’ material principle, ?rophecy understood as such (as wifo Brocard)
has no influence, finally, on future events. It actually mostly influences foe
“subjective attitudes o f the people who believe in h .”^ In fois way, symbolic-
prophetic exegesis, even though it claims to be mostly historically oriented,
reverts back to a fulfillment o f foe self. It is a fulfillment o f the self not as inner
subjectivity, but as one who knows him, or herself bound by certain laws o f
history, by a system o f hope.’ It is self-referential on account o f a systematiza-
tion o f history itself, according to prophecy and its interpretation.
M oltm ann’s clearest critique ofth is is when he says that in a system o f hope’
or a prophetic exegesis/theology, “revelation became a predicate o f history, and
foistory’ was turned deistically into a substitute for G od.”^ ^ i s is so because
foe concentration became foe ‘signs o f foe times’ which spoke to foe “eschato-
logical progressiveness o f salvation history, not from foe cross and foe resurrec-
tion, but from an apocalyptic view o f foe corruption o f the C hurch and foe
decay o f foe world, or from an optim istic view o f progress o f culture and
know ledge.. . ’٠
The prophetic-exegesis o f Brocard, which M oltm ann finds standing behind
Coccejus’ covenantal Kingdom o f G od foeology, also stands at foe beginning
o f Enlightenm ent rationalism. Brocard wifo his symbolic-prophetic exegetical
framework for G od’s relation to foe world (history o f salvation), and Coccejus
wifo his material principle o f foe amicitia Dei, coupled wifo his historic and
(^nraic-progressive understanding o f foe imago dei (sanctification at foe
84 ^ ltm a n n . Theology o f Hope, 70.

87 Moltmann, Theology o f Hope, 71.
expense o f justification)89 can finally fie seen as parallel to rationalism and to a

focus on a history o f progress, respectively.99
Finally, the difference b e ^ e e n symbolic-prophetic exegesis (as it stood at
the birth o f the pietism expressed in Coccejus’ covenant-kingdom o f God
th e o lo g y -w h ic h indeed carried all the right themes such as “mission to the
nations, the discussion o f the future o f Israel, the future o f the world history,
creation and the body”9* - ) and promise exegesis’ becomes clear. It is to be
observed in how it answers to the decisive question whether “ ‘revelation’ is the
illum inating interpretation o f an existing, obscure life process in history, or
whether revelation itself originates, drives and directs the process o f history... ”92‫أ‬
Symbolic-prophetic exegesis answers yes to the former with all its implica-
tions, promise-exegesis answers yes to the latter assertion, ^ u s this is the same
as what is also M oltm ann’s answer is to seventeenth century prophetic-cove-
nant theology: “ God promises, but does not prophesy.”93
From FrophecyTo Promise

W ith his shift to promise as answer to the symbolic-prophetic school o f exe-
gesis and covenant theology, M oltm ann has cut short the historical continuity
o f revelation, as found in history itself, (system o f hope) and as found in the
material principle o f Coccejus’ anthropocentric concentration o f the fulfill-
m ent o f revelation in history, namely that o f the longing (.Sehnsucht) o f the
hum an heart after God; the fulfillment o f G od’s image in and for the hum an
being. W ith this shift to promise-exegesis, retaining the same them atic and the
formal principles o f federal theology, covenant and kingdom o f G od theology
and its turn to experience, history, and the e o n o m ic Trinity, M oltm ann places
the historical continuity o f revelation w ith the triune G od Himself.
M oltm ann says, “A promise is a speech-act, which is authenticated by the
person who promises. It is performative, not interpretative [as in prophecy] ‫م”ﻫﻮ‬
In Scripture it is G od who promises. A nd it is in this way that M oltm ann
89 See M H tm ann’s critique u f Cuccejus abuve.

90 In a footnote ^ l t m a n n makes allusion to the similarities between the pietist Bengel and
the rationalist Lessing. See Moltmann, Theology o f Hope, 70-71, fn 1. Previously we noted that
M oltmann sees Ramus and Descartes as parallel inceptors o f the same methodical turn to
experience and history.
93 Moltmann, Experiences in Theology, 96 (my emphasis).
retains the connection to covenant. For when G od promises, that promise

comes in the form o f a covenant, or an oath, to which G od has vowed to he
faithful, “h is the divine promise (Gen 12.1-3) which leads to G ods covenant
w ith A braham ... The transference o fth e promise into the covenant makes the
promise unwaveringly and unbreakably God's oath (Gen. 22.16: ،By myself
I have s w o rn ...’‫ ؛‬D eut. 7.8: ‘sworn to your fa th e rs...’) and makes it
perm anent.”‫؟؟‬
M oltm ann begins thus not w ith prophecy, but w ith promise, which is the
carrier o f the covenant, o f history itself. A nd this is also how he interprets the
Sinai event. “The primal form o f the real covenant is the covenant on Sinai,
which runs: Ί will be your G od and you shall be my people.’ ”96
Beginning w ith promise is precisely what breaks through any natural or
historical, or anthropological continuity. It safeguards the freedom o f G od and
the freedom o fth e people. “It appeals to the will to keep the covenant precepts
in freedom, not to the natural affiliations o f people, race, region or nation.”^
For in ffie case o fth e Israelites it was G od ffie liberator, ffie Sovereign one who
was their God. All things were dependent on God, and G od’s faithfulness.
A nd as such also ffie promise coming from ffiis Promiser who is eternal and
free was not ffie same as prophecy, which could be fulfilled and in principle
done away with. Promise, as tied to ffie covenant, is never in that sense ful-
filled, “for it bears w ithin itself its own ‘fulfillment’ in ffie fullness o f G od’s
presence.”9‫ ؟‬A nd so, history and all that is in history is continually dependent
on ffie faithfulness o f G od to G od’s own promises. Prophecy was tied to his-
tory in its development, (Ifrocard-Bengel) or absorbed’ by hum ans in their
development and fulfillment (Coccejus). Promise actually determines history
and ffie inhabitant in time. It throws open history itself to ffie potential o f ffie
promise, ^ i s is so because it “means ffie opening up o f a history o f the ere-
ative G od for w hom creation out o f nothing and new creation from ffie dead
is possible.”‫؟؟‬
Prophecy sought continuity wiffi history, and continuity o f G od’s covenant
fulfillment o f hum an longing, cor inquietum (restless heart— Coccejus’ mate-
rial principle o f covenant). Opposed to this, promise presupposes a contradic-
tion wiffi history and ffie hum an state o f affairs.

‫ وو‬Moltmann, Experiences in Theology, 99.
We have seen M nltm ann expressing his critique o f Coccejus and the pietist
tradition following him and others in the seventeenth century in terms o f the
love o f G od displayed on the cross; a creative love as opposed to Aristotelian
love which seeks its own likeness. The same can he applied in terms ofprom ise
as opposed to prophecy. The material principle o f M oltm ann’s covenant theol-
ogy as the basis for his Theology ofH ope is the contradiction o f promise and
reality as “determ ined by the crucifixion on Golgotha o f the bearer o f the
promise by the imperial powers, and by his raising from the dead through the
G od o fh o p e.”100
To put it plainly, M oltm ann replaces what he sees as Coccejus’ material
principle, the cor inquietum lQl w ith his own material principle o f covenant
theology, th t promissio inquieta. The latter precedes all, even the restless heart.
“The historic and history-m aking corinquietum o fm an arises from th zpromis-
sio inquieta, and clings to it and is dependent on it. The resurrection o f Christ
goes on being a promissio inquieta until it finds rest in the resurrection o f the
dead and a totality o f new being.”^ ^ i s spells out the move from prophecy
to promise, from the covenant theology o f federal theology ofw hich Coccejus
is the m ost representative example to M oltm ann’s own covenant theology.
In this move from prophecy to promise M oltm ann shows that he is both
sympathetic to and critical o ^ t - R e f o r m a t i o n covenant theology. He is sym-
pathetic in taking over the formal principles o f Coccejus’ theology o f covenant
and Kingdom o f God, and its turn to history and hum an experience, as based
on Ramus’ methodology. However, he is critical, replacing the restless heart
w ith the restless promise as attached to God, as Triune God, who makes his-
tory by his faithfulness, to which the hum an being clings.
C o n c lu s io n
I hope that by this genetic approach to M oltm ann’s theology o f hope, I have
laid bare at least some secrets o f his tacit tradition.‫ه‬ gold that he struck in
these studies is, I believe, a historical impulse and legitimization o f his own
turn to the more empirical and historical. Ramus stands in the historic back-
ground o f this turn. W ith him M oltm ann discovered an anti-scholasticism,
100 Moltmann, Experiences in Theology, 100-101. “The theology o f saving history does indeed
perceive the process of promises and events, but not the contradiction in which the promise
stands to reality, and hence not the unmaslcing of the godless world in the cross of Christ.”
Moltmann, Theology ofHope, 226.
101 And by implication M oltmann is here also denying Augustine who articulated this at the
beginning o f his confession.
102 Moltmann, Theology ofHope, 1 6 ‫ و‬.
which was historically and experientially oriented. Coccejus sums up the cov-
enantal turn to history in the context o f the discussion o f the Kingdom of
G od’s glory. By studying these theologians M oltm ann becomes more inti-
mately aware o f a re-definition o f G od’s relationship to the world and its his-
tory in terms o f a narrower focus on the economic Trinity which already
started w ith Cam eron and Amyraut. It was through them that the abstract,
scholastic notions o f G od found their early relativization in the turn to speech
about G od in terms o f covenant, and kingdom o fG od. Coccejus fills this turn
w ith a pietistic, anthropocentric content, according to M oltm ann.
M oltm ann reveals that behind all this lies the symbolic-prophetic approach
to Scripture itself, in which the word o fG o d gets finally entangled in a system
o f hope. W hether you perceive this system historically as in a discovery o f a
plan o f salvation, or anthropologically as in the soul finding rest in God, M olt-
m ann is equally critical o f both. In place o f the symbolic-prophetic exegesis
and its perceived negative implications, historically and anthropologically, he
substitutes his promise-exegesis as the way o f pointing to G od and G od’s rela-
tionship to this world and the hum an beings in it. He replaces the restless
history, and the restless heart w ith the restless promise o f which G od is the
author and fulfiller.
M oltm ann takes this tradition and turns it as it were in its focus and direc-
tion towards the Triune God. He severs the notions o f covenant and Kingdom
from a historical and anthropological continuity perceived from below, and
transposes them into a continuity perceived from above, namely, from God
the Triune O n e . That does not mean that M oltm ann follows Barth and his
view o fth e W ord o fG o d , w hom he sees as caught’ in a transcendental subjec-
tivity. Instead, in line w ith these studies, M oltm ann retains the historical, and
the experiential in his focus on covenant and Kingdom o f G od’s glory.
History and the Triune God is M oltm ann’s historical comparative study
between his own views and Karl Barth’s w ith regard to creation, covenant, and
glory. He argues explicitly that Barth should have learned from seventeenth
century covenant theology what he him self learned. He sees Barth as dénigrât-
ing creation by merely calling it the external base o fth e covenant, as only the
‘sanctioning’ o f G od’s history w ith hum ankind and it’s beginning. Covenant
as the ‘internal basis’ o f creation, is perceived too statically in the theology of
Barth. Barth, in his exclusive relating o f the covenant to hum an beings ends
up, according to M oltm ann, as having not only a static, but anthropocentric
doctrine o f creation!103
103 ^ l t m a n n . History and the Triune God. (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 128-129.
In opposition to Barth, M oltm ann writes, “G od’s covenant in history can-

not already he called the in tern al base’ o f creation. We can give this name
only to the coming kingdom o f G od’s glory which his covenant in history
promises and guarantees.”^ If Barth would have taken more notice o f the
seventeenth century, and appropriated its turn to experience and history in
the context o f the covenant, “he would have been struck by the way in which
he differed from tra d itio n ... For Coccejus, creation is not just a work o f God
which makes the covenant possible but is itself a covenant w ith God, the cov-
enant o f creation.’’^ ‫ ^ ؟‬i s M oltm ann learned from Coccejus, thereby break-
ing through Barth’s dialectical theology. He took Coccejus’ formal
principles— covenant and Kingdom o f G od’s g lo r y - a n d related them expe-
rientially and historically to his own promise-exegesis. ،‘For foe history of
G od’s covenant in Christ wifo hum an beings is full o f promise, intent and
openness towards its consum m ation in foe kingdom o f glory. Grace is not yet
g lo r y - a s is foe tendency in Barth— but its promise and beginning.”^
In addition, because Barth does not appropriate im portant themes o f this
tradition, he remains caught w ithin his ،transcendental subjectivity,’ and in
imm anentistic (،adintra) categories o f Trinitarian thought. The covenant theo-
logians, starting methodologically wifo R am u s,, had posited their pronounced
shift to foe e o n o m ic Trinity in foe articulation o f their covenant foeology in
opposition to foe static, un-historic orthodoxy o f Beza and his school.‫ص‬
Against such latter position M oltm ann posits his social doctrine o f foe Trinity,
for which we noted that he had found support in covenant foeology as well.
^ e re fo re , I believe that wifo these studies M oltm ann indicates foe secrets
o f his tacit tradition, as he later declared them to be. It was a way o f going
beyond Barth, transform ing bofo foe post-reformation covenant, federal foe-
ologies, and Barth’s dialectical foeology, by means o f his promise-exegesis. O u t
o fit emerged his Theology ofHope which he later rooted more folly in his ‫ ه‬-
ology o f foe Cross and which finally found a “resting place” in foe Trinity and
G od’s relationship to history, foe hum an being and foe world.
104 Moltmann, History and the Triune God, 128.

105 Moltmann, History andthe Triune God, 128. We saw this when we considered M oltmann’s
observation that Coccejus had a dynamic developmental understanding o f the image of Cod.
106 Moltmann, History and the Triune God, 12 ‫ و‬.
107 “If one takes Barth at his word, then everything has its hidden beginning in the mystery of
the imm anent Trinity. At all events, Barth’s doctrine ofthe Trinity is the blueprint of his doctrine
o f creation, which can be recognized everywhere.” Moltmann, History and the Triune God, 130.
‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.
No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.
The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.

Secrets of Moltmann's Tacit Tradition - Via Covenant Theology To Promise The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Secrets of Moltmann's Tacit Tradition - Via Covenant Theology To Promise The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BRILL Journal o f Reformed Theology 4 (2010) 208-239 brill.

Secrets ofM oltm ann’s ^ c ‫؛‬tTrad‫؛‬ti©n:

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/156973110X542187

in cnnnectinn w ith covenantal theology— a connection, which has largely1

M y assertion is that M oltm ann replaced the prophtic-exegetical footing of

The Approach of this Article

6 The meaning o f ‘prophetic-exegeticaf (see also note 5) and ‘promise-exegetical,’ will

context o f w riting on the precursers o f the Reformation in his book Forerun-

The Historieal Studies: Summary and Analysis

10 Moltmann, Experiences in Theology, 89.

Furthermore, the fact that Cam eron speaks o f a hypothetical universalism

23 Moltmann, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 285.

o f the effects o f G od in history. The council o f predestination is not first o f all

27 cf. Moltmann, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte bei Moyse Amyraut,” 288.

philosophical enlightenm ent and for the redemptive-historical-biblicistic

31 ^ l t m a n n , “Prädestinat^n und Heilsgeschichte bei Mnyse Amyraut,” 303.

Petrus Ramus: The M an Behind Historical Methodology

A nother historical study considered im portant was also a by-product o f his

licher Aposteriorismus.”40 In terms o f the doctrine o f G od and his revelation,

40 Moltmann, “Zur B edeutung.. 3 0 4 .

In summary, in this historical study M oltm ann forwards the so-called

47 “Ever since the fundamental methndical a b ro a c h to man’s experience of the world by

Johann Coccejus: Theologian of Covenant ‫س‬

Having turned to these historical studies o fth e 1950’s m entioned by O ’Mally,

promissory exegetical approach,^ while retaining its experiential, historical-

by finding a way to go beyond Bartb, wbile staying close to a kerygmatic the-

Some Important Thematics Contrasted

Moltmann’s Study ©n C©ccejus‫ ؛‬Critique and p©int ©fC©ntact

64 M Htm ann, Gesichtstheologie, 345.

69 M ^tm ann, Gesichtstheologie, 347.

inner-ground o f creation— is from the beginning the ،kenosis o f G od.’72 And

G od in the hum an being. At the same time justification o f sinners becomes

75 Moltmann, Gesichtstheologie, 351.

symbolic-prophetic exegesis, a presumable plan o f salvation/‫ ؟‬It is this sym-

Jac©b Brocard: The Man Behind the Symboiic-Pr©phetic Bxegesis

history.”84 A prophecy as worked out in Brocard and others o f the salvation-

84 ^ ltm a n n . Theology o f Hope, 70.

expense o f justification)89 can finally fie seen as parallel to rationalism and to a

From FrophecyTo Promise

89 See M H tm ann’s critique u f Cuccejus abuve.

retains the connection to covenant. For when G od promises, that promise

95 Moltmann, Experiences in Theology, 96.

In opposition to Barth, M oltm ann writes, “G od’s covenant in history can-

104 Moltmann, History and the Triune God, 128.

Copyright and Use:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

You might also like