What does it mean that "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6)? Dawson, through Origen, explores several suggestions. And a fellow student of mine at St Andrews, who successfully defended his PhD mid-December, focuses a different but related set of considerations through an "Augustinian" reading of Jer 31.

Restitutio ad Integrum: An 'Augustinian' Reading of Jeremiah 31:31–34 in Dialogue with the Christian Tradition Author: Johshua Moon ISBN: Publisher: PhD         Release: Oct 2007 Format: Hardcover         Pages: 325 My Rating:

Comments/Quotes: “In his anti-Pelagian writings, emerging at the height of his influence, Augustine put forward a reading of Jer 31:31–34 that contrasted belief and unbelief—a state of affairs deserving judgment and salvation ('Heil und Nicht-Heil'). The point at issue for Augustine’s reading was the claim by Julian of Aeclanum that the Holy Spirit was tied to the novum testamentum, and thus was absent in the vetus. In an argument that shifted the point of contrast in Jer 31:31–34, Augustine made a distinction in the use of vetus testamentum—the popular use (referring to the era or part of the Christian canon from before Christ), and the use of Scripture. In this latter the members of the vetus testamentum are distinguished form the novum in an absolute or ‘salvific’ sense—the possession of the Spirit, regardless of the era in which one lives. The contrast involved in Jer 31:31–34 was for Augustine the contrast of unbelief apart from the Spirit, and faithfulness with the Spirit. Though Augustine’s reading would remain overshadowed by uses of the contrast with reference to the mutatio sacramentorum or a similar contrast of two successive religio-historical eras, Augustine’s influence can be seen at a number of significant moments in Western theological history… In modern interpretations the discourse shifted significantly, so that many theological concerns of the previous era were distanced from the consideration of a ‘historical’ location of the oracle. But the central issue remained the same: to what is the ‘new covenant’ contrasted?” (284–285). Moon argues that the contrast is with the “broken covenant” (cf. in particular Jer 11, 7). “What is made the case in the oracles of salvation is an idyllic state—everything is made the way it always ought to have been. What we find in 31:31–34 is precisely this contrast: the universal infidelity bringing judgment is overturned in a promise of universal fidelity to Yhwh. The people of Yhwh are restored to their proper state (restitutio ad integrum), and a world is projected in which all is as it always ought to have been” (286).

Moon provides some really excellent details in his reading of the tradition, from Augustine, to Thomas, to the reformation period, through the break typified by Duhm, and on to Lohfink, Dohmen and Levin. I'm glad I took the time out to read through it today. Somebody needs to publish the thing soon!

Tags: St Andrews, Theological Exegesis