*3.2. The Killing Letter and the Life-Giving Spirit According to Paul in Early Christian Judaism and in the History of Reception*

Gandhi's use of 2 Cor 3:6<sup>16</sup> as a hermeneutic principle raises the following concerns in the context of this paper:


#### 3.2.1. Paul

Paul's Statement "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" connects two parts: His defence of being a minister (*diakonos*) of the new covenant (vv. 1–6) and the comparison with the *diakonia* of Moses (vv. 7–11; Duff 2015, pp. 132–35; Cover 2015; Hellholm 2008). It functions as a pivot point between the two parts. Scholars have often assumed that the life-giving Spirit refers to the "new covenant" and the "killing letter" to the "old covenant" (Thrall 2004, pp. 232–37, esp. p. 234, n. 306). However, there are strong arguments to relate it not to the covenant, but to the *diakonia* of Paul, because it points both back to the letter of recommendation for his ministry (vv. 1–3) and forward to his comparison with the *diakonia* of Moses (vv. 7–11). The antithesis letter-Spirit in this context refers to the ministry, not to the covenant (Duff 2015, pp. 132–35.169.212). Nevertheless, Paul claims to be a minister of a *new covenant*. <sup>18</sup> Previously in the Hebrew Bible, an eschatological "new covenant" (Jeremiah) and a "heart of flesh" (Ezekiel) tried to bridge the gap between divine ethical stipulation and human violation. In this "new covenant," according to Jer 38:31–33 LXX, the laws (*nomoi*) will be written in the heart by divine intervention, resulting in an "automatic" observance of the Law in a flawless reciprocity. Ez 36:26 aimed for a purification of Israel, followed by the removal of the "heart of stone" and its replacement by a "*new heart* of flesh"(*leb¯ h. ad¯ aš¯* ) and "a *new* spirit" (*rûah. h. ădaš¯ â*). With his allusions to Jer 38 LXX and Ez 36:26 in 2 Cor 3:2–3, Paul connected these two related concepts with the keyword "new." "New" in relation to covenant does not mean a fundamental contrast to the previous or abrogated one (Rüterswörden 2006), but emphasises "the dynamic movement of continuity rather than replacement" (North, Botterweck et al. 1977, *TDOT* 4, p. 240). The concept of covenant is one of continuation and renewal, of eschatological hope and concepts of realisation.<sup>19</sup> In the vision of Jeremiah, it is not the Torah which disappears, but the possibility to breach the covenant. For Paul, these prophetic visions had been realised in the death and resurrection of Christ.

In the second section (2 Cor 3:7–11), Paul describes the relationship between his own *diakonia* and that of Moses (Duff 2004, pp. 313–47). First, there is the connecting factor: in both ministries is *doxa* (glory). However, the *diakonia* of Moses is "a ministry of death," (v. 7) and of "condemnation" (v. 9), but Paul's ministry is one of the life-giving Spirit (v. 8) and righteousness (v. 9b). With a *qal va-h. omer* (from the lesser to the greater) argument, Paul claims that there is more glory in his than in Moses' *diakonia*. How is it possible that Paul connects Moses with death and condemnation? Duff makes here his second point by arguing that Moses' ministry concerned the situation of the Corinthians as gentiles. For them in their previous existence, Torah brought death.20 "Paul believed that from following the delivery of the Torah to Moses- all humanity (gentiles included!) would be accountable to its requirements" (Duff 2015, pp. 161–62).

The next step in Paul's argument is his own rewriting of Ex 34:29–35. The original narrative reports Moses' return from Sinai carrying the new tablets with a radiant face, due to the meeting with the *doxa* of God, and wearing a veil. Paul claims that this veil is taken away for the Corinthians. Through Christ, they see God with an unveiled face (2 Cor 3:18), while those who still read Moses<sup>21</sup> without turning to the *kyrios* have their faces veiled.

In summary: The letter and the spirit do not refer to the covenant, but to the *diakonia* of Moses and Paul. For Paul, the visions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel had been realised in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The ministry of death and condemnation ascribed to Moses refers to the idea that the Torah has been neglected by the gentiles because all humans, including Jews and gentiles, had to keep the commandments. Therefore, the ministry of Moses meant death and condemnation for the Corinthians in their previous life. In a bold reversal of the original function of the veil as a sign of protection, Paul describes its role as an obstacle for facing the *kyrios*, now taken away for the Corinthians.

The killing letter and the life-giving Spirit do not denote a literal interpretation of the Torah against a spiritual one. For the *pneuma* of V.6 refers back to the "*pneuma* of the living God," (V.3) "where the Spirit is not the true meaning of Scripture but a divine agency at work in human life" (Thrall 2004, pp. 234–35). The life-giving Spirit refers to Paul's ministry of Spirit and righteousness and the killing letter to Moses' ministry of condemnation in the sense of Duff's proposal above. The Torah itself, in its function to make humans aware of their actions, is holy and spiritual (*pneumatikos*), according to Paul (Rom 7:12.14; Hafemann 1995, pp. 438–44).

#### 3.2.2. Elements from the History of Reception

In the first half of the second century CE, 2 Cor 3:6 was an important text for Marcion and his dualistic teaching of the benevolent God of the Gospel and the malevolent Demiurge of the Old Testament (LXX). It was clear to him that "the letter that kills" was the Hebrew Bible, and that "the Spirit that gives life" referred to a Gospel that was originally based on Paul's antithesis (Dunn 2016, p. 115). Marcion's *Antitheses*, a list of passages from the Hebrew Bible that contradicted New Testament texts (von Harnack 1924, pp. 89–92; \*256–\*313), demonstrated his view.

Tertullian (155–220 CE)—one of the most powerful adversaries of Marcion—maintained the negative role of the Law and the positive one of the Gospel, but defended the one God of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.<sup>22</sup> At the same time however, he stated that the Torah admittedly was a bad law—and with a dangerous shift from theory to living people—the Jews needed such laws. <sup>23</sup>

From here on, the antithesis between Law and Gospel, the letter and the Spirit, as equivalent to old and new covenant, became a dominant element in reception history. Paula Fredriksen stated succinctly that in the second-century gentile setting, the older *intra*-Jewish polemic mutated into an *anti*-Jewish polemic (Fredriksen 2017b, p. 1). From here on, Christianity stood against Judaism.<sup>24</sup> It resulted in the *Contra-Iudaeos* literature (Schreckenberg 1995; Krauss and Horbury 1995; Fredriksen and Irshai 2006), with the sermons of Chrysostom (386 CE) marking an oft-quoted all-time low (Meir 2019, p. 258). Of course, 2 Cor 3:6 was not the only text that contributed to the *Contra-Iudaeos* literature, but when Paul's other antithesis *sarx* ("flesh") vs. *pneuma* (Spirit) was integrated, it became a weapon in the anti-Jewish literature as well. For Augustine, the Jews belonged to carnal Israel (1 Cor 10:18) as opposed to spiritual, life-giving Christianity.25 Supersessionism was long-time part of Christian doctrine.

The big leap from antiquity to Gandhi cannot be made without mentioning Luther's name in this context. His concept of Law vs. Gospel—based on Paul's antithesis—may have been shaped primarily by and for the conflict with the Roman-Catholic Church; it also negatively impacted the relationship between Judaism and Christianity26 and, because of its profound influence on Western culture, was open to abuse with catastrophic consequences.

Finally, in Judaism itself, the letter-Spirit antithesis plays a more important role than often assumed. Huss, criticising Gershom Sholem, defends that behind the assumed dichotomy between "spiritual, vital Kabbalah and dogmatic, petrified Halakha," a Jewish adaptation of Paul's antithesis of the killing letter and the life-giving Spirit becomes visible (Huss 2021, p. 2).

## 3.2.3. Gandhi and Paul

Was Gandhi aware of the context and the history behind his own use of 2 Cor 3:6? Probably not. If concepts of the covenant between deity and believers had emphasised the religious exclusivity for one group or another, he would surely have opposed this. On the other hand, the basic concept of a mutual, conditional covenant, with the law as a guide for the practice of human behaviour and as an answer to the love of God, may well have been attractive to him.27 However, this concept forms no substantial part of Gandhi's reflections. His studies of the Bible focused mainly on the Gospels, and his readings of Pauline texts are, whether deliberately or not, coloured by later Christian reception history, including supersessionism and an antithetic theology of Torah and Gospel.

Gandhi borrowed from Paul a mantra about the killing letter and the life-giving Spirit without knowledge of the complex reasoning behind it. The similarity between the two was their situation. Both tried to reformulate their own religious heritage in a new way by claiming that the now-defended truth was already present in the scriptures. In need of a hermeneutical key, both found it in the killing letter and the life-giving Spirit. For Gandhi, it was an instrument for free faith-based and context-bound interpretation. For Paul, it was a cornerstone in the apology of his ministry as an invitation to the Corinthians to trust his *diakonia* of the Spirit.

#### **4. Gandhi, the Killing Letter and the Life-Giving Spirit: Some Examples**

How did Gandhi use the principle of the killing letter and the life-giving Spirit? He emphasised the freedom of the interpreter to distinguish between the original meaning and the later reception. For the benefit of his audience, he tried to reconcile Vedic practices with a fitting exegesis of the Gita; for himself, this was not necessary: "The teacher of the Gita did not lay down that those who came after him should always read in it only the meaning which he himself had in mind" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 32, p. 212). Even in the case where Gandhi is aware that his reinterpretation of the animal sacrifice (*yajna*) as an offering with the mind differed from the original meaning, "we shall do no injustice to Vyasa28 by expanding the meaning of his words. Sons should enrich the legacy of their fathers," (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 32, p. 154) with Gandhi further stating "I interpret the Gita to mean that, if its central theme is *anasakti*, it also teaches *ahimsa*. Whilst we are in the flesh and tread the solid earth, we have to practise *ahimsa*. In the life beyond there is no *himsa* or *ahimsa*" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 72, p. 393).

This freedom stressed the need to live in the present, practicing *ahim. sa¯* hic et nunc, not in the life beyond. History was, for Gandhi, not the dry search for "how it really was" (Ranke); it should serve the community as an instrument for the interpretation of the present and as a guideline for the future. This reconstruction is not without facts, but the facts serve a higher aim. "Moral truth," in Gandhi's case, "was higher than historical truth" (Parekh 1989, p. 164). Gandhi demonstrated this in different ways. In some cases, e.g., the message exceeded the person and history: "if one should prove that Jesus never existed, the Sermon on the Mount would still be true." In a Christmas talk, he even stated that as long as there is no peace on earth, Christ has not been born (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 48, pp. 438–39).

#### *4.1. A Key for the Gita*

There is no doubt that the Gita was the most important source of inspiration for Gandhi (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 27, p. 435, vol. 64, pp. 74–75). The recitation of the eighteen chapters of the Gita was completed within one week during morning prayers. However, in 1936, a situation emerged in which a simple key for Hinduism and the Gita was needed. Gandhi's response was that all other scriptures could be lost, but if the first mantra of the *Isha Upanishad* remained, Hinduism would be saved (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 64, p. 259). In his own translation, the verse reads:

"1. All this that we see in this great Universe is pervaded by God. 2. Renounce it 3. and enjoy it (or: Enjoy what He gives you) 4. Do not covet anybody's wealth or possession." (*¯ı´sa v ¯ asyamida ¯ m˙* , Isha Upanishad)

From the divine pervasion of creation, the mantra derived two relationships: First, the relationship of humans to the whole creation, stating that humans should only take from it what they really need, enjoying that portion. Second, their relationship with their neighbours, in which the desire for other people's possessions should not play any role (Palaver 2021, p. 17). For Gandhi, the Gita doctrine of uttermost detachment (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 84, p. 327) was revealed, for taking more from this creation than the minimum for a living meant theft. The whole Gita was, for Gandhi, a commentary on this mantra. From this verse, Hinduism in all its diverse forms took a short credo as a practical faith-based guide for everyday life (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 64, p. 260). The very specific context for Gandhi's hermeneutical statement was the opening of the temples of Travancore to all Hindus, regardless of their origin and caste.29 For Gandhi, it was "the great wonder of modern times." However, now he had to apply his creed of the equality of

all religions to the deeply divided modalities of Hinduism itself, regardless of birth, caste or denomination. In this religious-political minefield, he claimed that the first mantra of the *Isha Upanishad* did unite all Hindus. According to Gandhi, the Gita itself could not function in this way because the Gita was "not a book that I can place before the whole of this audience. It requires a prayerful study before the *Kamadhenu* (the cow of plenty) yields the rich milk she holds in her udder" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 64, p. 258). Therefore, the mantra of the *Isha Upanishad* united all Hindus, even the *literati* and the *illiterati*. The verse attracted legendary narratives to underline its importance.30

#### *4.2. Gandhi and the Gita in 1940*

On 15 August 1940, Gandhi had an important conversation with Balasaheb Gangadhar Kher, the first chief minister of Bombay State, about questions on *ahim. sa.¯* How would Gandhi nonviolently react in the case of a foreign invasion? In his reply, Gandhi stated that he would line up a non-violent army of about 2000 men between the two combatants, describing his army allegorically with a reference to Tulsidas' Ramayan and the debate between Rama and Vibhishana on how to conquer a mighty enemy (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 72, p. 391). Gandhi concluded that in such a situation, faith would be needed, but that "the worst that can happen to us, is that we shall be crushed. Better to be crushed than to be vanquished".

The next question of Ker was about the central teaching of the Gita. Is it *anasakti (detachment)* or *ahim. sa¯*? Gandhi was sure. It must be *anasakti*. For that reason, he called his own translation and interpretation of the Gita "*Anasaktiyoga*," because *anasakti* transcends *ahim. sa¯*. To reach the state of detachment, one has to practise nonviolence. *Ahim. sa¯* is included in *anasakti*. Gandhi admitted that the author of the Gita probably did not inculcate *ahim. sa¯*, but he, Gandhi, did. Kher did not give up and quoted Arjuna, who was willing to practise *ahim. sa¯*: "Better I deem it, if my kinsmen strike, to face them weaponless, and bare my breast to shaft and spear, than answer blow with blow" (BG 1:46). Krishna, however, urged Arjuna to answer "blow with blow," and "that there is no greater good for a warrior than to fight in a righteous war" (BG 2:31). Gandhi denied that the focus in these passages was on *ahim. sa¯*. Arjuna had to decide whether he was willing to kill his own kin, because Arjuna stated: "if my *kinsmen* strike" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 72, p. 394). This was a classical debate on the use of scriptures, on meaning and drift, on the priority of concepts, but one that was overshadowed by a world war already started, a possible threat from Japan that would materialise a year later, and the question of how to act in an India still under the British Raj.

Gandhi's answers demonstrated a shift in his reading of the Gita. In 1919, he published a short allegorical interpretation of the Gita (Satyagraha Leaflet no. 18), and contested a literal reading of Krishna's advice to Arjuna to fight his kinsmen: "Now the Bhagavad Gita is not a historical work, it is a great religious book, summing up the teaching of all religions. The poet has seized the occasion of the war between the Pandavas and the Kauravas for drawing attention to the war going on in our bodies between the forces of Good (Pandavas) and the forces of Evil (Kauravas)" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 15, pp. 288–89).<sup>31</sup> The allegorical battle returned in his "Discourses on the Gita" (1926): "But here the physical battle is only an occasion for describing the battlefield of the human body. In this view the names mentioned are not of persons but of qualities which they represent. What is described is the conflict within the human body between opposing moral tendencies imagined as distinct figures (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 32, p. 96; Hutchins 2018, p. 36).

Parekh demonstrated how Gandhi could not maintain this allegorical reading of the Gita, and distinguished later between two levels. The philosophical level contained general, moral principles; the historical level applied the principles to a specific situation in time and place. Only at the second level could violence be sanctioned, under certain circumstances (Parekh 1999, p. 167). In his debate with Ker, Gandhi stated, therefore, that *anasakti* as non-attachment was the highest ideal of the Gita, attachment being the major obstacle to *moksha.* Even with his new reading of the Gita, Gandhi maintained that the Gita did not

favour violence; on the contrary, "the Gita's doctrine of *anasakti* undercut the moral and psychological basis of violence" (Parekh 1999, p. 168).

Gandhi's figurative interpretation of the most important scripture of Hinduism was already needed more than thirty years earlier in his contacts with the terrorist movement. The terrorists reinterpreted Hinduism and used the Gita too to allow violence through a literal reading. The first leader of the Indian Independence Movement and radical nationalist, Tilak (1856–1920), interpreted the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna as divine encouragement to fight one's enemies, even one's own kin. *Karma-yoga* (action), not renunciation or devotion, is the main message of the Gita according to Tilak (Mackenzie Brown 1958; Tilak 1935). To give his nonviolent *satyagraha* a scriptural base, Gandhi introduced his allegorical reading, focusing on *anasakti* as the central teaching of the Gita.
