The Letter Kills?

τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει,
τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ

For the letter kills,
but the spirit causes to live.
-2 Corinthians 3:6

The verse quoted above has been the rally-call of Christians against the dangers of legalism- but is this what Paul actually means? I wrote an earlier entry reflecting on Paul’s descriptions of the old and new covenants, and why it is that he says the “ministry of death” is “glorious” (v. 7), where I stated that the Old Covenant is glorious because it brings conviction of sin. I think that verse 6, far from being an abstraction against legalism, simply states this same idea. In this post, I will try and show that meaning from this text.

Before I get to the text however, I want to say that I think legalism, when properly understood, is in fact not only dangerous, but an outright heresy. Legalism as I’m defining it is “adding something to the Gospel as a necessary action along with faith for salvation”. In other words, if a church says members of its congregation cannot drink alcohol, it is not legalism. They have every right to do that. However, if a church is saying that someone who drinks alcohol cannot be saved, then that is the essence of legalism. They are adding the rule “you cannot drink alcohol” to the Gospel as a necessity to salvation. A lot of conversations I get into about legalism is really about the first instance, rather than the second. The first example is merely an institutional rule, which one is free to follow if they want or find another church (note, I’m not saying someone should have this rule, but only that it is a institutional prerogative. This different is another topic entirely). The second example, however, seems to fall under Paul’s condemnation in Galatians 1:8-9. It also seems that most people who use 2 Corinthians 3:6 are generally using it in the context of the first example, but rarely ever the second.

That being said, what does Paul mean when he says that the letter kills? The context of the chapter brings it out more fully. Paul has been discussing the Apostles’ role as ministers of the new covenant, and is now (with verse 6 as a transition) about to discuss the contrast between the New and Old Covenants, that is, the New Covenant in Christ and the Sinaitic Covenant given to Moses. The latter part of verse 6 itself is a ground clause for verse 5 and the beginning of verse 6; we know this because the above quoted portion, which is a dependent clause, begins with the word “for.” Paul, and the other Apostles, are called to be ministers of the new covenant, which God has shown to have began by the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost- in other words, the new age has begun. The reason Paul gives for thinking this new age has begun is in the contrast between the covenants: “the letter kills, but the spirit brings to life.”

Following this contrast, as I wrote about previously, Paul says that this “ministry of death,” i.e. the old covenant or the “letter,” came about with glory. If this part of verse 6 is to be taken as a verse against legalism, a few questions arise: 1)where in the preceding or following context does the idea of legalism show up? It must be read into this verse, and 2)if Paul is talking about the law killing in a negative sense, why would his very next sentence say that it is glorious? It seems to me then, that “the letter kills” must be understood as something else.

Notice the verb used in relation to the spirit. The verb is ζῳοποιεῖ (zōopoiei), which means to “make alive, give life, bring to life.” I think this is telling, because it presupposes that the object is dead, so that it can, in fact, be made alive. The letter which kills is not a negative thing, but, in Paul’s thought, a necessary thing so that the Spirit can bring the person to life. This is in line with Pauline thought, particularly in regards to his letter to the Romans. Consider this passage from Romans 7:

“I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.” VV 10-12

Again, in context, Paul is talking about the Law of the Old Covenant. It brought death, yet it is “holy, righteous, and good.” The fact that it brings death is not a negative thing, but good in Paul’s mind. Notice, in this passage the “so then.” The term behind this translation basically shows us a result of something. The result of the Law bringing death is that we should consider it “holy, righteous, and good.” But why is this holy, righteous, and good?

Paul’s answer in Romans 7 is the same reasoning that I think 2 Corinthians 3:6 should be telling us:

“Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.” Romans 7:13

The Law is good because it shows us who we really are in light of God’s command of perfection. In other words, it brings condemnation where we would otherwise be completely ignorant. So, when Paul says that the letter kills, we can understand it in both spiritual and physical terms. Physically, it brings death, because the “wages of sin is death.” Death is the outcome of sin, and the letter points out the reality of sin. Spiritually, it brings death, because it alerts us to our condemnation. In fact, returning to 2 Corinthians 3, Paul uses a parallel phrase to “ministry of death” that brings this out:

“For if there was glory in hthe ministry of condemnation, ithe ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.” v. 9

Here, the ministry of condemnation is the same as the ministry of death (the letter), and the ministry of righteousness is the same as the ministry of the spirit (the Spirit).

So, to sum up thus far, when Paul says that the Letter kills, he is not talking of the effects of legalism (true as though that may be), but he is in fact pointing out the purpose of the Law was to bring about knowledge of our sinfulness, and our condemnation before a holy God. This is a good thing! Paul says that this knowledge is good, not bad. Why? Because in order for us to realize that we are in need of salvation, we must see ourselves for who we truly are: sinful. The spirit only brings dead people to life. Or, to put it another way, we must recognize our deadness before we want life.

As we can see, far from being an abstraction on legalism which does not seem to fit the context, Paul is actually speaking of the law in a positive way- acknowledging it as glorious. This is because it pronounces to us the condemnation we are under for sin; it points us to our “deadness.” This is good, because it then allows us to realize our need for salvation, and for the Spirit to bring us to life. Again, notice the parallel phrase Paul uses for “ministry of the spirit:” the “ministry of righteousness.” The Spirit gives us what the Law shows us we are in need of- righteousness when we are unrighteous, life when we are dead. This is the gloriousness of the new covenant, that exceeds the gloriousness of the Old. We can say with Paul that the “letter kills,” and that this is “glorious” and “holy, righteous, and good,” because we are also able to say with him that “I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” (Romans 7:7).