Abstract
In E.P. Sanders’s generally positive re-examination of the religion reflected in Second Temple Jewish texts, 4 Ezra still fares badly as the ‘closest approach to legalistic works-righteousness which can be found in the Jewish literature of the period’ (Sanders 1977: 418). Bruce Longenecker criticizes 4 Ezra even more sharply as articulating a religion in which divine grace is ‘removed from the scene altogether’. This article seeks to correct such misperceptions of the place of grace in the theology and ethical imperative of 4 Ezra and of the author’s conceptions of Torah-observance as earning merit as opposed to responding to God’s grace gratefully. This leads, in turn, to a greater appreciation for the connection between receiving (and continuing in) God’s favor and making an appropriate response to God in Paul’s thought than is typically acknowledged.
Keywords
The author of 4 Ezra is often admired for his honest questioning in the face of the dissonance between the tradition he has inherited and the experience of his people in the failure of the First Jewish Revolt and the decades that followed. 1 In two major comparative treatments of this author’s and Paul’s view of the Torah and salvation, there is, however, a distinct lack of sympathy for the author’s approach and achievement. The author is admittedly rigorous in his vision for salvific commitment to, and living by, God’s law. It is neither accurate nor fair, however, to say that his is ‘a religion of individual self-righteousness’ or ‘legalistic perfectionism’, or that he represents the ‘closest approach to legalistic works-righteousness which can be found in the Jewish literature of the period’ (Sanders 1977: 409, 418). It is even more problematic to claim that the author thinks of strict Torah-observance as a means of ‘earning the right of God’s “grace” in the eschaton’ or that, in the author’s system, ‘God’s grace is removed from the scene altogether’ (Longenecker 1991: 270, 277). In the course of our examination of 4 Ezra, therefore, and prior to being able to compare his expressions with those of Paul, we will need to re-examine the accuracy of previous evaluations of this author’s theology, particularly his understanding of how the grace of God is operative in human experience.
Grace Merits Gratitude: The Rationale for Torah Observance in 4 Ezra
The author of 4 Ezra has been depicted as a theologian who has little room for ‘grace’ in his understanding of this present life and entering into the life to come. Bruce Longenecker regards the author of 4 Ezra as promoting Torah observance as ‘a type of legalism in which salvation is attained to by works of merit’ which earn God’s eschatological favor (Longenecker 1991: 270). The human problem ‘must be countered by human effort in accordance with the standard of the law’, with the result that, ‘in the eschatological age, God will (in his “mercy”) save the few who have proven themselves to be worthy of salvation by their works’ (Longenecker 1991: 270). The scare quotes around ‘mercy’ are telling: Longenecker signals his understanding that God does not show genuine mercy because the saved have measured up and earned their way into the world to come without the need for God’s mercy. The emphasis in his analysis falls on ‘earning the right of God’s “grace”’, which is the typically Protestant formulation of the straw-person opponent to salvation by grace rather than by works in some sense. 2
Longenecker contrasts the author of 4 Ezra with Paul by claiming that ‘for Paul, God’s grace is a present reality, whereas such is not the case for the author of 4 Ezra’ (1991: 270). Indeed, ‘for all intents and purposes, God’s grace is removed from the scene altogether’ for the author of 4 Ezra, since individuals must ‘forge their own salvation by works apart from a community identity’. 3 God’s ‘mercy is restricted to the bounds of the future eschatological age and is only available to those who merit his favour by their works in accordance with the law (that is, grace is available to those who have no need of it!)’ (Longenecker 1991: 271). God’s grace thus exists in 4 Ezra, according to Longenecker, only as ‘an eschatological reflex to those who have saved themselves by their works anyway’. 4
Such statements can only be made from the vantage point of a very limited (Protestant, theological) understanding of what qualifies as ‘grace’. From this vantage point, no consideration is given to the gift of life and of the provisions for this life as acts of generosity on God’s part. 5 I am reminded of how the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer acknowledges these gifts in a Eucharistic prayer: ‘We bless you for our creation, preservation, and all the blessings of this life.’ These acts of grace, the author of 4 Ezra asserts, ought to have been—and ought still to be—sufficient to merit a full-bodied response of honor and obedience from the creature. 6
This comes to expression clearly in the author’s statements about those who will perish. For the author of 4 Ezra, the punishment of those who transgress God’s law and otherwise disregard God is an issue of honor. The angel Uriel repeatedly connects the destruction of the many with the dishonor that they have shown God and God’s law, explicitly suggesting that the former repairs, in effect, the latter.
Let many perish who are now living, rather than that the law of God that is set before them be disregarded! (7.20). Then the Most High will say to the nations that have been raised from the dead, ‘Look now, and understand whom you have denied, whom you have not served, whose commandments you have despised’ (7.37). When they had opportunity to choose, they despised the Most High, and were contemptuous of his law, and abandoned his ways. Moreover, they have even trampled on his righteous ones, and said in their hearts that there is no God—though they knew well that they must die (8.55-58).
It is ‘those who have shown scorn and have not kept the way of the Most High, who have despised his law and hated those who fear God’ (7.79), those who ‘have scorned the law of the Most High’ (7.81), who will experience a foretaste of their eternal punishment for seven days following their death and enter into this punishment for eternity at the end of the age (see also 9.9-12). 7 The author conceives of the punishment of the offender essentially as the restoration of the honor of the offended. 8
The reason for the vehemence of Uriel’s complaint about the behavior of the disobedient—the reason that the dishonor is so heinous—is that this dishonor has been shown to One who has lavishly benefited humankind. God did not seek to construct an impossible path to salvation and to condemn the vast majority of humanity; 9 on the contrary, God took thought for humanity’s good, but was repaid with rank ingratitude by those who ought to have honored and obeyed God out of gratitude for God’s many graces.
The Most High did not intend that anyone should be destroyed; but those who were created have themselves defiled the name of him who made them, and have been ungrateful to him who prepared life for them now (8.59-60).
The phrase ‘those who were created’ already invokes implicitly the topic made explicit in the following clause, namely, the topic of indebtedness to God and, therefore, of the impropriety of the response they have made to God.
Those who receive favors are obliged to show gratitude to the giver, which included the duty to show respect for, and increase the honor of, the giver. It included also the duty of showing loyalty to the giver and of returning the favor in some form. The return might never equal the favor, and it might rather take the form of service and obedience rather than a gift in exchange, but it was inseparable from receiving the gift in the first place. 10 And when the gift was life itself, such as God or the gods bestowed, the obligation was immeasurable. Aristotle bears witness to this when he writes: ‘no one could ever render the gods the honor they deserve, and a person is deemed virtuous if he or she pays them all the honor he or she can’ (Nic. Eth. 8.14.1). If persevering in maintaining a response that showed gratitude and loyalty meant loss of life itself, this was merely giving back as God had given in the first place. The ‘good’ person understands and fulfills this debt to God. 11 Those who received the gift of life, but used it to dishonor their Creator through not worshiping him as he deserved and not living in the ways that pleased him, received God’s grace poorly and justly provoked God’s anger through their injustice toward him. 12
Thus the author looks forward to the day when those who have been ungrateful toward their Maker will be held accountable: As many as did not acknowledge me in their lifetime, though they received my benefits, and as many as scorned my law while they still had freedom … must in torment acknowledge it after death (4 Ezra 9.9-12, emphasis mine).
The divine anger is the flipside of the divine intent to benefit—a relationship explicitly named by Aristotle as he discussed the circumstances under which people might typically feel anger.
13
The angel Uriel dwells on God’s beneficent intent and provision at some length, as well as God’s sorrow when his beneficence did not evoke a reciprocal disposition among God’s creatures: For there was a time in this age when I was preparing for those who now exist, before the world was made for them to live in, and no one opposed me then, for no one existed; but now those who have been created in this world, which is supplied both with an unfailing table and an inexhaustible pasture, have become corrupt in their ways. So I considered my world, and saw that it was lost. I saw that my earth was in peril because of the devices of those who had come into it (9.18-20, emphases mine).
God’s provisions for humankind, however, did not stop at the physical. God did not leave human beings to grope about to find the way that might please God or to run the risk of falling by error into the way that would displease their Maker. Rather, God gave them the necessary instructions so that they might avoid punishment: For the Lord strictly commanded those who came into the world, when they came, what they should do to live, and what they should observe to avoid punishment. Nevertheless they were not obedient, and spoke against him; they devised for themselves vain thoughts, and proposed to themselves wicked frauds; they even declared that the Most High does not exist, and they ignored his ways. They scorned his law, and denied his covenants; they have been unfaithful to his statutes, and have not performed his works. That is the reason, Ezra, that empty things are for the empty, and full things are for the full (7.20-25).
The author shares the widespread Jewish conviction that the giving of the law was an act of supreme grace,
14
although he appears to think that Gentiles, too, received knowledge from God concerning the law and, thus, how to live rightly and to honor the One.
15
The angel continues by saying that: The Most High will say to the nations that have been raised from the dead, ‘Look now, and understand whom you have denied, whom you have not served, whose commandments you have despised’ (4 Ezra 7.37).
While God’s special interest in Israel is given considerable attention by ‘Ezra’, the author believes that all people have been given sufficient guidance by God in regard to how to make a fair return for the grace of life and sustenance—and thus have willfully refused to show gratitude. 16
There is, additionally, a very Qumran-like statement that shows God’s grace to be operative where individuals are able to come to the place where their hearts and practice align with God’s law: I considered my world, and saw that it was lost. I saw that my earth was in peril because of the devices of those who had come into it. And I saw and spared some with great difficulty, and saved for myself one grape out of a cluster, and one plant out of a great forest. So let the multitude perish that has been born in vain, but let my grape and my plant be saved, because with much labor I have perfected them (4 Ezra 9.20-22, emphasis mine).
While the author lays a great deal of responsibility upon the individual for responding to God with due obedience, he also shows an awareness of success in this endeavor as also being dependent upon God’s sustaining favor—and significant investment in the individual (‘with much labor’). 17 God does not remove the ‘evil heart’ from the individual, as ‘Ezra’ would wish, but God nevertheless does show mercy by working alongside the individual to defeat it.
In light of these texts, not to mention the cultural context of the author of 4 Ezra (that is, a culture in which the social logic of reciprocity is part of the individual’s socialization from childhood), 18 it seems unjust to speak of his promotion of Torah observance as merely a matter of individualistic legalism, as a means of ‘earning’ God’s grace. Rather, the author promotes close observance of the Torah as a matter of making a fitting response to the God who gave life, who fitted human beings with reason, and who gifted Israel (at least) with the law. 19 Showing respect for God through obeying God’s commandments is a response to God’s initiating grace in ‘our creation, preservation, and all the blessings of this life’, to borrow language once again from the Book of Common Prayer. 20
Grace and Forgiveness in 4 Ezra
While the author of 4 Ezra is rigorous in his view of what constitutes covenant faithfulness, it is not the case that he believes God to require perfect performance or sinlessness. God remains merciful and gracious in the theology of the book (7.132-33).
21
Sanders claims, however, that One has here the closest approach to legalistic works-righteousness which can be found in the Jewish literature of the period; for only here are the traditional characteristics of God—he freely forgives and restores sinners and maintains the covenant promises despite transgression—denied … We noted that in Qumran men, even the elect, were considered to be ‘in sin’ in the sense of being participants in human frailty, but that human frailty as such did not condemn. Means were provided for atonement of most transgressions, and the elect were not ‘lost’ despite being ‘in sin’. In IV Ezra, however, the human inability to avoid sin is considered to lead to damnation (Sanders 1977: 418).
Sanders gives the impression that God, according to 4 Ezra, allows room neither for mistakes nor for the transgressor to find mercy rather than condemnation. He claims that, according to the author, ‘it is better for transgressors to perish than for the glory of the law to be besmirched by having mercy on them’ (Sanders 1977: 416).
It is true that the author, in the voice of Uriel, is passionately concerned about upholding the honor of God, which is flouted by those who disregard God’s law: ‘Let many perish who are now living, rather than that the law of God that is set before them be disregarded!’ (4 Ezra 7.20). But the author gives no indication that God will not, therefore, be merciful to those who acknowledge God’s honor by repenting, an act by which the mortal creature renounces his or her arrogance and returns to a proper place of obedience and respect in regard to God and God’s law. 22 The assumption of both seer and angel is that God will and does have mercy on the penitent, who turn away from a course of life that enacts ingratitude toward the Creator and lawgiver and turn toward a life that is regulated by God’s commands. Uriel excludes only cheap forgiveness, which allows the recalcitrant to slide by in the judgment without restoring God’s honor. The angel justly affirms that God’s honor must be upheld in such cases.
Sanders does acknowledge that ‘the possibility of repentance is mentioned briefly by the angel (9.12; cf. 7.82), but the point is that transgressors have not repented’ (Sanders 1977: 415). This is accurate, but it misses the more essential point: underlying both passages is the fundamental conviction that repentance would be effective for restoring the sinner’s relationship with God and avoiding the grisly fate described by Uriel. 23 The souls of the ungodly are grieved after death ‘because they cannot now make a good repentance so that they may live’ (7.82, emphasis mine). Those who did not acknowledge God in their lifetime through proper reverence and obedience, though they received God’s ‘benefits, and as many as scorned my law while they still had freedom, and did not understand but despised it while an opportunity of repentance was still open to them, these must in torment acknowledge it after death’ (9.10-12, emphasis mine). The implication of both texts—and, indeed, the illocution of both locutions—is that the present moment is a God-given opportunity to make a good repentance, since there is no opportunity after death. The point is therefore not, simply, ‘that transgressors have not repented’: the point (the illocutionary force) is that one should now repent of any failures or tergiversations in regard to one’s commitment to obeying God’s commands, while the opportunity for repentance exists and the eternally disadvantageous outcome can be avoided. 24 God is thus indeed ‘gracious to those who turn in repentance to his law’ (7.133).
Sanders’s comparison of the author of 4 Ezra with the community at Qumran bears further examination, though perhaps leads to a different conclusion. The Community Rule combines an astounding rigor in regard to a Torah-regulated life with humility of spirit before the One who alone is truly righteous.
As for me, I belong to wicked humankind, to the company of unjust flesh. My iniquities, rebellions, and sins, together with the perversity of my heart, belong to the company of worms and to those who walk in darkness (1QS XI 8-9, Vermes translation).
It must be remembered that these words come from the lips of a person whose lifestyle shaped around observance of the Torah could only be described as radical. This is the community whose members, when Jesus asked the rhetorical question, ‘What person is there among you who has a sheep and, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not grab it and pull it out?’ (Mt. 12.11; compare Lk. 13.15), would have said, ‘We wouldn’t’ (CD 11.13) and ruined the moment. The author of 4 Ezra, in Ezra’s voice, gives expression to the same sense of solidarity with sinful humanity: We and our ancestors have passed our lives in ways that bring death; but it is because of us sinners that you are called merciful. For if you have desired to have pity on us, who have no works of righteousness, then you will be called merciful … For in truth there is no one among those who have been born who has not acted wickedly; among those who have existed there is no one who has not done wrong. For in this, O Lord, your righteousness and goodness will be declared, when you are merciful to those who have no store of good works (4 Ezra 8.31-32, 35-36; see also 7.46).
Like the author of the beautiful psalm that concludes the Community Rule, the author of 4 Ezra depicts even Ezra as lamenting his own complicity, along with the rest of humanity, in sin.
The angel tells him—without, however, refuting his statements that all human beings have fallen short to some extent—that he is nevertheless still among the righteous and that his humility about his standing before God (born of his awareness of his sinfulness) is a credit to him (8.48-50). We should, at the very least then, not accuse the author of promoting ‘a religion of individual self-righteousness’ (Sanders 1977: 409), since the model person whom he holds up for emulation (Ezra, the righteous scribe who restored Torah-observance in Israel) was himself devoid of a ‘self-righteous’ attitude (contrast the caricature of the Pharisee in the Lukan parable, 18.9-14). Ezra is specifically praised for his refusal to acquit himself in God’s sight: You have often compared yourself to the unrighteous. Never do so! But even in this respect you will be praiseworthy before the Most High, because you have humbled yourself, as is becoming for you, and have not considered yourself to be among the righteous. You will receive the greatest glory, for many miseries will affect those who inhabit the world in the last times, because they have walked in great pride (8.47-50).
But unless we are to judge this to be false humility, the author also shows that it is hardly the case that perfection is required—only perfect commitment and wholehearted desire to honor God by doing God’s law (under the aegis of which commitment and heartfelt devotion the inevitable failings can be forgiven). 25
Longenecker goes further than Sanders in the discounting of the grace of repentance in 4 Ezra. In his dissertation, he interprets the 70 esoteric books given alongside the public 24 (the canonical Hebrew Scriptures) in Episode VII (4 Ezra 14) as a ‘private law’ that teaches and legitimates the author of 4 Ezra’s rejection of ‘the law’s provisions for repentance of, and atonement for, transgression—an aspect which cannot be included in the law which the author wants to uphold, since, for him, transgressions themselves rule out the possibility of salvation altogether’ (Longenecker 1991: 274).
I find no evidence in the text, however, to suggest that the author rejected atonement and sacrifices as effective for dealing with transgressions (i.e., by repairing the dishonor shown to God in transgression, this dishonor being a major concern of the author). The destruction of Jerusalem would be easily enough explained by the plethora of what the author would have considered willful transgressions of the law, for which there were no provisions for atonement, and of negligent transgressions for which atonement was not made. It is not necessary to assume that he would have regarded sacrifices as ineffective per se.
The author is actually fairly quiet on the topic of sacrifices and atonement. The two times he does speak of them, however, it is positively: As for [the woman] telling you that she was barren for thirty years, the reason is that there were three thousand years in the world before any offering was offered in it. And after three thousand years Solomon built the city, and offered offerings; then it was that the barren woman bore a son (4 Ezra 10.45-46; see also 3.23-24).
The period prior to the offering of sacrifices is compared to a time of barrenness: it was only with the consecration of the Temple and the initiation of the sacrificial cult that Zion bore fruit (‘a son’). The apocalypse is conspicuously devoid of any prophetic rant against the efficacy of those sacrifices, despite the precedents the author had for this in the Hebrew Bible (and in distinction from early Christian discourse, for example, as evidenced in the sermon of Paul’s colleague, the author of Hebrews). 26
Longenecker’s support for his proposition that the author rejected the viability of repentance is even more problematic. The author gives no indication that the esoteric books are ‘private law’ without which, moreover, the 24 books (which include the ‘public law’) are ‘insufficient for salvation’ (to use admittedly Protestant language) and subject to misunderstanding. We should not assume that the author of 4 Ezra operated with the same concept of a written and an oral law as did, for example, the voices preserved in Pirke Aboth. Looking back to Sinai, he writes that God told Moses ‘many wondrous things, and showed him the secrets of the times and declared to him the end of the times. Then I commanded him, saying, “These words you shall publish openly, and these you shall keep secret”’ (14.5-6). From this, one might more naturally conclude that the secret revelations did not concern ‘law’ at all, but rather apocalyptic topics such as the author of 4 Ezra himself addresses (‘the secrets of the times’ and ‘the end of the times’), as are also summarized immediately following in 14.10-18. These esoteric books, then, would—like 4 Ezra itself—contain valuable supplements to the Torah and ‘revealed knowledge’ that facilitates ongoing commitment and obedience to the Torah (as in Stone 1990: 441). 27
The reconstitution of the written Scriptures is undertaken so that generations after ‘Ezra’ will have adequate warning, ‘that people may be able to find the path, and that those who want to live in the last days may do so’ (14.22). The illocutionary force of this within the ‘real’ world of the author and his audience is to commend the reading of, and the alignment of one’s life with, those written Scriptures, along with supplemental, esoteric texts (such as, perhaps, 4 Ezra itself). It is by no means clear, however, that the author regards the traditional Scriptures to be insufficient. The words spoken concerning the esoteric texts—that ‘in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge’ (14.47)—are probably to be heard more as a commendation of esoteric writings alongside the canonical 24 that are regarded as salvific by all parties (those included in both the ‘public’ and the ‘private’ audiences envisioned by the author) rather than as an exclusive claim over against the 24 (such that the 70 books alone contain the spring of understanding). Such a reading would be in keeping with the ‘myth of origins’ that the author creates for these texts, both exoteric and esoteric (one that rivals even the most extravagant legend created to commend the authority of the Septuagint alongside the Hebrew text as an adequate representation of the Scriptures).
Earning Grace for the Age to Come?
It remains for us to talk about ‘grace’ in the age to come. It is natural for Christian readers to focus in on the author of 4 Ezra’s use of key terms like ‘faith’ and ‘works’ in connection with what qualifies one for entrance into the age to come (or, ‘salvation’). These, of course, often appear in binary opposition in early Christian texts (e.g., Rom. 3.27-28 and Gal. 2.15-16, where Paul refers explicitly to works of the Torah; cf. Eph. 2.8-9). The author of 4 Ezra appears to vacillate between the two in his assertions of what has salvific value before God: [B]efore those who stored up treasures of faith were sealed, then I planned these things … (6.5) Do not include yourself with those who have shown scorn, or number yourself among those who are tormented. For you have a treasure of works stored up with the Most High, but it will not be shown to you until the last times (7.76-77). For the righteous, who have many works laid up with you, shall receive their reward in consequence of their own deeds (8.33). It shall be that all who will be saved and will be able to escape on account of their works, or on account of the faith by which they have believed, will survive the dangers that have been predicted, and will see my salvation in my land and within my borders, which I have sanctified for myself from the beginning (9.7-8). The one who brings the peril at that time will protect those who fall into peril, who have works and faith toward the Almighty (13.23, emphasis mine).
28
The interchangeability of these two terms suggests their interconnectedness in the author’s mind. They are not two separate, opposing paths to deliverance, but rather complementary facets of a single path. 29 ‘Trust’ toward God entails the doing of the ‘works’ that God approves; trust towards God and the doing of the law are entirely and necessarily compatible. 30 What this means, however, is again that the author of 4 Ezra is not promoting a merely legalistic version of Judaism. It is understood as a response to God’s grace and as a means of embodying trust (and/or loyalty) toward God.
God rewards those who do what is good and right. This is a truism that appears throughout the Hebrew Bible (Job 34.11; Ps. 28.4; Prov. 24.12; Isa. 59.18; Jer. 25.14), Second Temple Jewish literature (Sir. 35.24; 4 Macc. 13.13-17; 1 Enoch 1.9) and the New Testament (Mt. 25.31-46; Rom. 2.6-11; 2 Cor. 5.9-10; 1 Pet. 1.17; Rev. 20.12). From this point of view, welcoming people into the life of the age to come or life beyond death is a divine response to human behavior. We ought not, however, to leave out of this equation the fact that this salvific behavior itself is, for the author of 4 Ezra, a response to the initiating divine grace (whether the just and proper response of honoring the divine benefactor or the unjust response of failing to honor God’s name or to obey God’s rules for the life that God gave). From this perspective, welcome into the age to come is not merely ‘an eschatological reflex to human merit’, but the ongoing favor of the divine benefactor to those who have proven themselves grateful recipients of God’s grace (just as condemnation is the result of proving oneself ungrateful). 31
It is also not the case that ‘grace is available to those who have no need of it’ (Longenecker 1991: 271), since mortals who live obediently in this life are still very much in need of the eschatological grace of resurrection from the dead and the grace of life beyond death. The eschatological age itself is brought into being by an act of God’s gracious provision for the righteous. Precisely because the present age has been corrupted and cannot bring about the good things that God has promised to God’s faithful ones, God has prepared a second age in which God’s beneficence can be fully manifested as God would wish. 32 Adam’s transgression and the sins of those who have followed him have so corrupted the present world that it is now a place of trial and difficulty that must be successfully navigated, but the one who does so will arrive at the world to come, which has not been corrupted and which can contain God’s promises (4.27; 7.3-16). ‘For this reason the Most High has made not one world but two’ (7.50). The gift of life beyond death or life beyond the present age are not gifts to be taken for granted in any theological schema, and if they are granted only to those who have demonstrated their gratitude for past benefits (and thus amassed a ‘treasure of works’ or ‘treasures of faith/faithfulness’ with God), they are still gifts granted to mortals, who have no natural claim to immortality.
4 Ezra and Paul in Conversation about Grace
These observations about 4 Ezra are relevant to reading Paul in several ways, as the following pages will attempt to demonstrate. First, Paul also does not assume that God’s ‘grace’ has only to do with forgiveness of sins (‘looking the other way’ in regard to human transgressions of God’s righteous decrees for how to live the life that God gave). Second, Paul also assumes that God’s favor all but demands human response in terms of ‘actual obedience’ and not some vague loyalty, and that the failure to respond appropriately jeopardizes one’s place in God’s favor. As a corollary to this second point, one’s experience of eschatological (or post mortem) favor, the favor of life beyond death or life in the resurrection, hinges on how one responds to God’s initiating favor in the sphere of this life or this age. Third, God’s grace is indeed manifested in forgiveness, with a corresponding emphasis, then, on responding to God’s forbearance by repenting and changing one’s heart and life to align with the response God seeks from God’s (new) creations.
Paul shares with the author of 4 Ezra the conviction that God’s grace is already operative in creation, with the result that all people owe God a debt of gratitude for their enjoyment of life itself. He also shares the latter’s conviction that the majority of, if not all, people have defaulted on this obligation. In Paul this comes to expression most clearly in Rom. 1.18-26, where Paul speaks of this default leading to the deserved experience of God’s anger and punishment. First, creation itself bears ample witness to God’s ‘unseen qualities, his eternal power and divine nature’, such that all people, even those who have not received the special revelation of the law, are ‘without an excuse’ (Rom. 1.20). Despite this revelation, the majority of human beings have ‘exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for images in the likeness of moribund human beings and birds and animals and reptiles … They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and they revered and worshiped the creature in place of the Creator’ (1.23, 25). In this way, ‘they did not honor him or return thanks to him as God’ (1.21). The unstated premise here would be the commonly acknowledged conviction that God or the gods, as creators and sustainers of life, merit reverence and obedient service. 33
Paul shares the conviction that human beings have not only showed contempt for the Creator, but also for the Creator’s decrees. Gentiles had innate knowledge of this (Rom. 1.32; see also, more positively, 2.14-16), which they nevertheless suppressed. 34 Jews received the Torah as an expression of the Creator’s will for their regulation of the gift of their lives, but also brought contempt upon the Creator through disregard for God’s law (rather than enhancing God’s reputation through ordered and consistent obedience): ‘You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by transgressing the law? For “the name of God is slandered among the nations on account of you”, as it is written’ (Rom. 2.23-24, citing Isa. 52.5). While Paul has been shown to draw upon Hellenistic Jewish anti-Gentile rhetoric in Rom. 1 (such as appears also in Wis. 13.1-10; 14.12-31), it is a point of interest that Paul’s turn in Rom. 2.1, attacking a position that takes pride in election apart from due diligence in actually keeping God’s commandments, is not unique to him, but shared by other Jewish authors such as the author of 4 Ezra.
Paul also differs significantly from 4 Ezra in his assessment of God’s gracious initiatives. According to Paul, God has taken a fresh and supremely generous step toward the recalcitrant in order to make the way back for them easier to traverse, to facilitate repentance and walking in newness of life (Rom. 5.6-11), so that they might again stand in favor with God (5.5). While not relinquishing God’s righteousness or commitment to justice and to God’s own honor in the world, God has nevertheless issued a fresh and winsome invitation to people in the person, and especially in the self-giving death, of his Son to turn from their response of dishonor and ingratitude, accept the new standing in favor that is being offered, and make a fittingly grateful response with their hearts and lives. 35
Paul nevertheless shares with the author of 4 Ezra the conviction that the present age is the opportunity for repentance, and that repentance in its fullest sense is essential if one wishes to ‘be kept alive’ and ‘obtain mercy’ (4 Ezra 14.34) before God when he comes as judge.
You who judge those who continue to do such things as these and who continue to do them yourself, do you think this—that you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you despise the wealth of his goodness, forbearance, and patience, unaware that God’s goodness leads you to repentance? (Rom. 2.3-4)
While Paul’s use of words from the μετάνοια group is admittedly limited (Rom. 2.4; 2 Cor. 7.9-10; 12.21; 2 Tim. 2.25), 36 it is as incorrect to deny repentance a part in Paul’s scheme of salvation (as does Sanders) as to deny that 4 Ezra promotes repentance in the ‘here and now’ of its author (Sanders 1977: 546). Paul uses other language to speak about repentance as a major process in the lives of believers. If we think about the decision to render μετάνοια as ‘a change of heart and life’ in the recent Common English Bible translation, for example, it becomes immediately evident that ‘repentance’ thus defined is a major component of Paul’s scheme. Paul’s language of stripping off and clothing oneself afresh (Rom. 13.11-14; Col. 3.5-17), of the old self and the new self (Eph. 4.17-18, 22-24), of dying to sin and rising to newness of life (Rom. 6.1-23), of turning away from one’s former commitments and practices in favor of new ones (1 Thess. 1.9-10; 1 Cor. 6.9-11) all express the dynamic equivalent of repentance. Moreover, as we have already seen, such a change of heart and life is as essential for Paul (Rom. 8.13-14; Gal. 5.19-21; 6.7-10; 1 Cor. 6.9-11; Eph. 5.5-6) as it is for the author of 4 Ezra.
God’s new act of grace is not limited to the forgiveness of sins, though this is certainly an important component of it (as Paul expresses in Rom. 3.23-25; 4.6-8). Christ’s giving of his life on behalf of others redeems them from sin, but also, and just as importantly, secures for them the gift of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3.2-5, 13-14; 4.6-7; Rom. 8.1-11). This Spirit is the God-given solution to the problem variously spoken of as ‘Sin’ as an almost apocalyptic, external power (Rom. 7.7-24) or as the ‘flesh’ with its ‘passions and desires’ (Gal. 5.16-25), a more explicitly internal adversary to submission to God’s decrees. Paul proclaims that God has in fact made available the help for which the author of 4 Ezra cried out, with the result that the ‘evil heart’ (or Sin or the ‘passions of the flesh’) no longer poses such a challenge to faithful obedience and, thus, to the attainment of the good that God longs to give the righteous in eternity. 37
Grace must nevertheless still be met with grateful response in Paul as in 4 Ezra. God expects people not just to receive his gifts, but to make the use of, and the response to, his gifts that shows an appropriate assessment of their value—in this case, a life for a life: ‘He died on behalf of all in order that those who continue living might no longer live for themselves, but for the one who died on their behalf and was raised’ (2 Cor. 5.15; cf. also Rom. 6.4-5). This is a purpose statement—one answer, at least, to the question ‘Why did Christ die for us?’ The answer is stunning in the scope of the claim laid upon each beneficiary of this favor: so that we would live no longer for ourselves, but for him. Paul had in fact articulated something similar in Galatians, applying this conviction to himself in his statement about the results of encountering Christ’s self-giving love and placing his trust in that relationship: I died to the Torah through the Torah in order that I might live to God. I was crucified together with Christ; it’s no longer me living, but Christ living in me. The life I’m living now in the flesh, I live in faith toward the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me (Gal. 2.19-20).
Paul speaks of the Son of God who, out of love, ‘gave himself up’ for Paul; Paul speaks now of giving up the remainder of his life so as to let that same Son of God live in and through him. Only a life given back shows the giver that we have properly valued his gift to us—his death on our behalf. 38 But this very giving back to God effects the transformation of the believer’s life that allows him or her to live in a manner that is actually righteous in God’s sight, thus in a manner leading to his or her justification in the fullest sense—that is, justification as ‘acquittal’ as a result of having been ‘brought in line with God’s righteousness’. The God who ‘shows no partiality’ to Jews over Gentiles cannot then be expected to show partiality to another group just because they claim to be friends of God’s Son.
Failure to respond in a manner that appropriately values Christ’s selfless investment in the believer and the efficacy of the Spirit as an inner guide and power against sin and the flesh, on the other hand, jeopardizes one’s place in God’s favor (such that even a return to or embracing of the Torah becomes an affront to the honor and generous investment of the One who secured the Holy Spirit for his client-followers, as Paul expresses in Gal. 2.21; 5.1-6). Failure to allow God’s gift to have its full, transformative effect in the life and practice of the believer and believing community, moreover, also puts at risk one’s enjoyment of the eschatological favors of life and welcome into the kingdom of God (Gal. 5.13-14, 19-21; 6.7-9; Rom. 8.13-14).
Is ‘inheriting the kingdom of God’ (Gal. 5.21) or ‘eternal life’ (6.8) an ‘eschatological reflex’, then, on God’s part to those who have sown appropriately or ‘put to death the deeds of the flesh’ (Rom. 8.13), that is, to those who have merited salvation? No more in Paul than in 4 Ezra, for living in line with God’s righteousness is merely the human response to God’s initiating favor, the appropriate response that allows one to continue in favor to the end and, thus, to receive God’s future benefactions as well as experience his initiating and sustaining favors. In Paul, the ‘sustaining’ favor is far more pronounced than in 4 Ezra, and comes to expression wherever Paul speaks of the activity of the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, or Spirit of Christ in the lives of the believers and the believing community. Yet we remember that it is also not absent in 4 Ezra, for God is at work ‘perfecting’ those who are themselves responding well to God’s gift of life (4 Ezra 9.22).
Troels Engberg-Pedersen captures the operation of grace and response in Paul’s theology of salvation with exceptional clarity: Christ had the very specific role in the Christ event of enabling human beings to respond to the event in the way they were meant to by God. When Christ, the mediator, bent down in love and gave himself up ‘for my sake’ (2.20), that is, by his suffering (vicariously) in order to bring ‘me’ help in a situation which was negative for ‘me’ (compare 1.4 and 3.13), then ‘I’ responded in kind and through that response came to live for God and so ‘live’ (2000: 145 emphases original).
39
In Paul’s reckoning, the transformation of the believer still takes place ‘by grace’, since God’s (re-)initiating grace mediated by Jesus is responsible for provoking and even, through the gift of the Spirit, empowering and effecting the life-changing response.
For Paul, as for the author of 4 Ezra, ‘grace’ is not operative as forgiveness without repentance, acceptance by God without the human response of a change of life and realignment with God’s righteousness. 40 Paul exhibits a very similar pattern of religion in this respect. He would disagree sharply, of course, on what constitutes the focal act of grace that necessitates human response—not merely creation, and certainly not (any longer) the giving of the Torah, but the new initiative of God’s favor shown in Jesus’ self-giving death. 41 He would therefore also disagree concerning the manner of response—no longer aligning one’s heart and practices with the stipulations of the Torah, but with the leading of the Holy Spirit so that Christ can live through the disciple. They are in complete agreement, nevertheless, that a response is required, that this response involves one’s overall life and practice, and that responding poorly jeopardizes one’s ongoing experience of divine favor.
Conclusion
The idea of God’s initiating favor—God’s grace—is very much present in the author of 4 Ezra’s conception and experience of this present age and hope for the age to come. The absence of Protestant expressions of ‘grace’ as a subset of soteriology (e.g., God’s mercy towards sinners, particularly those who do not repent and change their practice) does not mean the absence of God’s grace in the present age, nor does it mean that obedience is motivated by a desire to ‘earn grace’ for the age to come. We should rather inquire concerning how the author understands God’s grace to be operative, not look for a particular expression of grace and, not finding it, conclude that grace is therefore lacking in the author’s theology.
For the author of 4 Ezra, reverence for the One God and regulation of one’s practice by Torah observance are appropriate and necessary responses to the gift of life, of being sustained in this life, and of receiving God’s instruction for how to use the life given. God is so committed to bringing further benefit to those who have shown themselves grateful that, when this age became corrupted by the fruits of ingratitude, God prepared an age to come in which his beneficence could be fully experienced by those who responded well to God’s gifts in the present age. God is merciful, in that he remains a God of second chances—those who make good use of the God-given opportunity to repent and begin to show God the honor that God’s gifts deserve will be forgiven and accepted, and avoid the punishment that awaits the recalcitrant. Without minimizing the very important points of difference noted above, it is necessary to recognize that Paul agrees with the author of 4 Ezra’s understanding of God’s grace and the importance and shape of human response to a far greater extent than scholars like Sanders and Longenecker would allow.
Footnotes
1.
Michael Stone acknowledges this in his magisterial commentary (1990: 36) as he states that ‘these problems are extremely interesting, since the author is no mean thinker and his formulations are sharp and perceptive’, and that, in fact, ‘4 Ezra’s questions are much more interesting than the answers given by the angel’. On the composition of 4 Ezra as a response to the aftermath of the First Jewish Revolt written during Domitian’s reign, see Schreiner 1981: 291-306; Stone 1990: 9-10; Collins 1998: 196; deSilva 2002: 330-32; Hogan 2007: 533;
: 6.
2.
The idea of ‘earning grace’ would indeed be entirely atypical in the ancient world, where it would be considered oxymoronic. Paul himself attests to this in his statement of what he would take to be a readily admitted premise within his argument: ‘To the person who works, the reward is not accounted as a favor (κατὰ χάριν), but as a debt (κατὰ οφείλημα)’ (Rom. 4.4). Ethicists from Aristotle (Rh. 2.7.1 [1385a16-20]) to Seneca (Ben. 1.2.3; 4.29.3) speak of grace as something initiated de facto by the generosity of the giver on the basis of the giver’s esteem for the recipient (Ben. 4.10.4; sometimes even in spite of the giver’s lack of esteem for the recipient; see Ben. 1.10.5; 7.31.2, 4), not as something initiated by another’s action or potential to act on behalf of the giver (Aristotle, Nic. Eth. 1385a35-1385b3; Seneca, Ben. 3.15.4).
3.
Longenecker 1991: 277. It is tangential to the main point, but if there is no community context for salvation—or at least, community support on the path of covenant loyalty—it is strange that the author gives so much attention to Ezra’s role in the community and on the community’s behalf (4 Ezra 5.16-20; 12.40-51; 14.13, 20-22, 27-36). He is not at all depicted as seeking ‘salvation in the private sphere’, an ascetic saving himself (contra
: 249), but rather as one who labors on behalf of a community that depends upon his leadership and guidance.
4.
Longenecker 1991: 152. See also
: 100.
5.
Or, to think about it another way, 4 Ezra is only considered in terms of fragmentary utterances that are highlighted by reason of their shared lexical or conceptual content with texts of interest in Paul. It is not considered as a coherent whole investigated on its own terms, which might change the way we perceive those parts that are highlighted as indications of ‘gracelessness’.
: 4-5) highlights the importance of proper methodology in this regard when conducting comparative studies or, all the more, when bringing two or more texts into dialogue with one another.
6.
7.
Only in regard to the last passage does Stone connect the problematic behavior with the rationale that makes it problematic, and that only indirectly in connection with a passage from Isaiah: ‘In a striking image in Isa 1:3, Israel is accused of not recognizing God, who had done them benefits’ (
: 297). This is, however, a critically important element in what makes the behavior of those who disregard God ‘wicked’ or ‘sinful’.
8.
Aulus Gellius (Attic Nights 7.14.2-4) explicitly attests to this as one purpose that punishment of an offender might fulfill: ‘It has been taught that there are three reasons for punishing crimes. One of these, which the Greeks call κόλασις or νουθεσία is the infliction of punishment for the purpose of correction and reformation, in order that one who has done wrong thoughtlessly may become more careful and scrupulous. The second is called τιμωρία … That reason for punishment exists when the dignity and prestige of the one who is sinned against must be maintained, lest the omission of punishment bring him into contempt and diminish the esteem in which he is held; and therefore they think that was given a name derived from the preservation of honour (τιμή)’.
9.
It is important to realize that, while ‘Ezra’ laments the difficulty of living in alignment with God’s Torah against the pressure of the evil heart (as in 3.4-27), and while ‘Uriel’ admits that victory requires engaging in a serious contest against this pressure (7.127-29), victory is nevertheless quite within grasp.
: 13) rightly points to the success of the nine-and-a-half tribes walking in righteousness while living in exile (13.39-45) as evidence of this.
10.
This is perhaps most clearly exhibited in Seneca’s exposition of the meaning of the figure of the ‘Three Graces’ dancing in a circle: ‘Some would have it appear that there is one for bestowing a benefit, one for receiving it, and a third for returning it; others hold that there are three classes of benefactors—those who receive benefits, those who return them, those who receive and return them at the same time … Why do the sisters hand in hand dance in a ring which returns upon itself? For the reason that a benefit passing in its course from hand to hand returns nevertheless to the giver; the beauty of the whole is destroyed if the course in anywhere broken, and it has most beauty if it is continuous and maintains an uninterrupted succession … Their faces are cheerful, as are ordinarily the faces of those who bestow or receive benefits. They are young because the memory of benefits ought not to grow old. They are maidens because benefits are pure and holy and undefiled in the eyes of all; [their robes] are transparent because benefits desire to be seen’ (Ben. 1.3.2-5; LCL, emphasis mine). Sophocles (Ajax 522) puts this more succinctly: ‘favor (χάρις) is always giving birth to favor (χάριν)’. See further Aristotle, Nic. Eth. 1163b12-15; Anaximenes, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 1421b3-1422a2; Cicero, De Officiis 1.47-48; Seneca, Ben. 2.25.3; 2.35.3-4; 3.1.1; 5.11.5; 1.4.3 (which uses the expression ‘debt of gratitude’); Dio Chrysostom, Or. 31.37. These and other texts are discussed in deSilva 2000: 109-19. In his magisterial study of the language of ‘grace’ in the Greek inscriptions, papyri, and literature of the period (and the relevance of the same for reading Paul), Harrison observes that Paul also ‘generally … endorses conventions from the honorific inscriptions that stress the obligation of the beneficiary to respond worthily of the Benefactor’ (
: 287). As a text no longer extant in Greek, 4 Ezra unfortunately lay outside of the scope of Harrison’s fine study.
11.
This is exemplified in the way that the author of 4 Maccabees portrays the reasoning of the martyrs that he celebrates: ‘Let us with all our hearts consecrate ourselves to God, who gave us our lives, and let us use our bodies as a bulwark for the law’ (13.13 NRSV); ‘Remember that it is through God that you have had a share in the world and have enjoyed life, and therefore you ought to endure any suffering for the sake of God’ (16.18-19 NRSV). Aristotle’s statement concerning the human debt to the divine seems to offer a counterpoint to the do ut des mentality that Harrison (2003: 284) elevates as the typical Greco-Roman view, against which he understands Paul to be reacting. Some notice should be given at this point to the study of ‘Gift-Giving and Friendship’ by Troels Engberg-Pedersen (2008), who rightly questions the modern philosophers’ insistence that for a gift to be a gift, it must be an entirely uninterested act on the part of the giver. His own study of Seneca’s De beneficiis leads him to the correct understanding that gift-giving in the ancient world was indeed both motivated ‘by true other-regard (acting for another person for his or her sake)’ as well as by the expectation of some form of return, however the gratitude of the recipient might manifest itself (
: 15-16). The idea of God granting the gift of existence is supremely other-centered; God’s expectation that he would receive due honor and gratitude for such a gift, or that the gift would be used for good rather than wicked and self-seeking purposes, was entirely in keeping with the noblest ideals of generosity.
12.
‘Gratitude’ is a facet of ‘justice’ in Greco-Roman ethics (see, e.g., Anaximenes, Rhet. Alex. 1421b37-1422a2; Rhet. Her. 3.3.4).
13.
‘People are angry at slights from those by whom they think they have a right to expect to be well treated; such are those on whom they have conferred or are conferring benefits … and all those whom they desire, or did desire, to benefit’ (Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.2.8; see also Dio, Oration 31, a lengthy speech on the dangers and shamefulness of insulting one’s benefactors through neglect rather than continuing to honor them). Such courses of action do not only destroy a patron’s benevolent disposition toward one; they can turn benevolence into virulent anger and the desire for revenge. See also
: 236.
14.
The author of 4 Maccabees also celebrates the Torah as an expression of God’s beneficent care and guidance, given so that people could indeed live up to their created potential and, thus, become well-pleasing to God: ‘To the mind, God gave the law’ (2.23), essentially an operator’s manual for the proper tuning and maintenance of the human being. See also 5.22-26; Sir. 24.1-24; Bar. 3.35–4.4.
15.
This may also be implied by the role of the Torah in the judgment of the nations by the Messiah figure in 4 Ezra 13.38, if Desjardins (1985: 35) is correct to see Torah as the standard according to which judgment is meted out (so also
: 547).
16.
While the author clearly has the Torah in mind when he writes of God’s ‘law’ at many points in the course of his discourse, Hogan (2007) reminds us of the essential multivalence of tôrâ in wisdom literature generally and, quite probably, within 4 Ezra itself. She herself believes the author to use this term to refer at different points ‘to the law of Moses, to Scripture generally, to a broader corpus of revealed texts, and also to a more abstract entity that is closely allied with divine wisdom, the order of creation, and “the way of the Most High”’ (
: 533). Gentiles as well as Jews ought to have access to God’s instruction, therefore, at least in these latter senses, and so ought to have known how to respond to their Creator in a manner befitting his gift of life (see especially Hogan 2007: 540-44).
17.
Compare the similar blend of rigorous commitment and dependence upon God that emerges in the hymn concluding the Community Rule: ‘As for me, my justification is with God. In His hand are the perfection of my way and the uprightness of my heart’ (1QS XI 2); ‘justification is with God and perfection of way is out of His hand’ (1QS XI 10-11).
18.
The logic of reciprocity is socially learned logic: it is imprinted through socially observed and socially practiced behavior by means of which first-century people learned about how relationships work, how the world works, what values are part of the very foundation of life together. A child notices how his parents interact with people who have helped the family in some way; he accompanies his father out into the public places and notices how others treat his father with honor, and perhaps asks why. As the child grows, he notices dedicatory inscriptions giving public honors to people who have performed some service or funded some public building everywhere in his city, and hears proclamations made that declare new honors for emperor or governor or civic patron. When he receives a favor, those closest to him stimulate his thinking about how to respond, and the importance of responding. And so on. This formative process of social education shapes that child’s thinking throughout his adult life; he will bring this knowledge into any new situation where the social dynamics appear to him to be similar.
19.
Desjardins (1985: 33-34) correctly observes that the author of 4 Ezra, in a manner consonant with rabbinic texts, holds ‘the study and application of the law’ to be ‘the best ways to counter this force’ that is exerted by the evil heart or yetzer ha-ra‘: ‘in spite of this force, man is free to act as he chooses, and … the law is there to guide him’. On the question of whether the author also believes God to have made God’s righteous requirements known to Gentiles, see the strong case made for an affirmative answer in
: 540-44.
20.
: 416) seems surprised to discover that, for the author of 4 Ezra, God requires not only ‘basic loyalty’, which is ‘not impossible for well nigh all’, but ‘actual obedience’, even though ‘perfect obedience’ is impossible for almost everyone. Would the author of 4 Ezra understand this distinction between loyalty and actual obedience? Despising, denying, and scorning God and God’s law (the author’s ‘characterization of the multitude of the wicked’) is the effect of disobedience, pure and simple. The creator God has the right to regulate the conduct of his creatures, and his creatures refuse to cooperate. Under these circumstances, ‘loyalty’ (perhaps better, ‘gratitude’ and ‘reverence for the Creator’) includes ‘obedience’ and ‘obedience’ actualizes ‘loyalty’. As for James, there is no faith/faithfulness without works.
21.
Scholars have given a great deal of attention to establishing how the actual author’s view is reflected in the text—whether in the perspective of Uriel (thus Brandenburger 1962: 27-36; Beyerle 1999: 322-25, 335-37), the somewhat preferred view (so Hogan 2007: 535); of Ezra (
: 296); or to some extent of both. I am aware that these particular verses come from Ezra’s plea rather than the angel’s response, but these essential characteristics are indeed affirmed throughout the book (e.g., by the angel) as the following discussion will show.
22.
This arrogance is explicated as the rationale for Uriel’s inflammatory pronouncement in 4 Ezra 7.20: ‘For the Lord strictly commanded those who came into the world, when they came, what they should do to live, and what they should observe to avoid punishment. Nevertheless they were not obedient, and spoke against him; they devised for themselves vain thoughts, and proposed to themselves wicked frauds; they even declared that the Most High does not exist, and they ignored his ways. They scorned his law, and denied his covenants; they have been unfaithful to his statutes, and have not performed his works’ (7.21-24). That God will accept repentance during the course of this present life or this present age is a clear sign that ‘“perfection” in law-keeping (7.89) need not be taken literally’ (Barclay 2014: 9; see also
: 171-72).
23.
Sanders is appropriately critiqued on this point by Desjardins (1985: 34 n. 28); see also
: 9.
24.
25.
4 Ezra does say that those who ‘laboriously served the Most High, and withstood danger every hour so that they might keep the law of the lawgiver perfectly’ (7.89, emphasis mine) will enjoy a foretaste of their reward for seven days following their death, and will have cause for joy that ‘they have striven with great effort to overcome the evil thought that was formed with them, so that it might not lead them astray from life into death’ (7.92). Aside from the fact that ‘perfect’ law-keeping could include attending ‘perfectly’ to the means of atonement for non-willful disobedience, we should observe that the author speaks of perfect obedience as the aim of those who have labored rather than committing himself to affirming that this was the result. He does not, that is, write: ‘and kept the law … perfectly’. So also
: 9): ‘Those who have struggled in the contest with sin (not necessarily the perfect, but at least the valiant) will receive their reward (merces, 7.35)’.
26.
See, e.g., Heb. 9.9-14; 10.1-10. The author’s mention of Timothy and desire to co-ordinate his own movements with those of Timothy (Heb. 13.23) suggest that the author, like Timothy or Titus, was part of the larger circle of Paul’s mission team. While Heb. 13.23 may have supported early efforts to establish Pauline authorship, it is implausible that the verse was introduced artificially with this aim in mind (to judge simply from its ineffectiveness to accomplish that goal). The sermon demonstrates other significant points of contact with known Pauline letters. For example, the author’s description of the experience of evangelization aligns with similar descriptions in Paul’s letters, particularly in the emphasis given to the confirmatory experience of the Holy Spirit (compare Heb. 2.3-4 with Gal. 3.2-5; 1 Cor. 2.1-5).
has conducted a close examination of the points of contact between Galatians and Hebrews, demonstrating how Pauline thought provides a primary formative matrix for the theology, OT interpretation, and even choice of diction of the author of Hebrews. Such connections further suggest that the author comes from that circle within early Christianity.
28.
To these we could add the angel’s commendation of Ezra for the virtues he has displayed: ‘Your voice has surely been heard by the Most High; for the Mighty One has seen your uprightness and has also observed the purity that you have maintained from your youth. Therefore he sent me to show you all these things, and to say to you: “Believe and do not be afraid! Do not be quick to think vain thoughts concerning the former times; then you will not act hastily in the last times”’ (6.32-34, emphasis mine).
29.
30.
The author of Jas. 2.14-26 may represent a very similar viewpoint, according to which faith and works are not unrelated or even opposing alternatives, but go hand-in-hand.
31.
Quotation from
: 278. A similar criticism might have been launched at the teaching concerning forgiveness attributed to Jesus in Mt. 6.14-15: ‘For if you forgive people their missteps, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive people, neither will your Father forgive your missteps’. Such a criticism, however, would have a similar answer as well: God has already forgiven the trespasser, but the ongoing experience of this forgiveness requires responding in a way that honors the God who forgave—in this case by not acting as though slights against oneself are of greater weight than one’s own slights against God (Mt. 23.18-35; see also the logic of Sir. 28.2-4).
32.
Burkes (2001) helpfully traces out the transformation of the concept of ‘life’ as a manifestation of the promise given in Deuteronomy to the Torah-observant, from the enjoyment of this-worldly security and prosperity to the attainment of immortality and the enjoyment of life beyond death (see especially 2001: 57-61, 68-69). The author of 4 Ezra does not entirely relinquish hope for the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to God’s faithful ones at some point in this realm, however, as the visions of chs. 12–13 suggest. Moo (2011) stresses that the author’s pessimism is focused on the corruption of the world caused by sin, not on material creation as something negative in and of itself: there are therefore ‘substantial elements of continuity between this world and the world to come’ (
:161).
33.
The expectation of ‘returning thanks’ implies some awareness of a previous gift granted. Because of this, I would disagree with
: 24) concerning a minor point in an otherwise strong study: ‘It seems, then, that the reason for God’s wrath is lack of recognition, not of a divine gift, but of the sheer divinity of God, of God’s divine majesty.’ It is God’s generosity in providing the second gift, namely the gift of reconciliation in Jesus Christ, after the first gift met without a grateful response that proves God’s nobility as a giver: ‘It is no proof of a generous mind to give a benefit and lose it; the proof of a generous mind is to lose and still to give’ (Seneca, Ben. 7.32). In his application of this Senecan concept to Paul’s description of God in Rom. 3.21-26, Engberg-Pedersen (2008: 26) gives implicit recognition to the fact that some previous benefit had, in fact, been received without gratitude.
34.
Several scholars have argued that the author of 4 Ezra subscribes to a similar view that Gentiles knew what God expected of them (perhaps as the ‘law of Nature’; Beyerle 1999: 322-25, 335-37;
: 543-44), yet refused to give God God’s due obedience.
35.
That God should give such a gift with the expectation that the recipients would respond in ways that aligned with what would be understood as a grateful response, rather than with no expectation that the gift would impact their lives in a significant way so as to establish (at last) an ongoing, mutual relationship between them and a just and holy God, is entirely in keeping with the ancient ethic of gift-giving as articulated in Aristotle and Seneca (see deSilva 2000: 104-19, 126-33, 141-51;
, especially 27-28, in regard to God in Paul).
36.
Against the sweeping tendency to regard 2 Timothy as Deutero-Pauline,
: 55-102) makes a compelling case for considering the authorship of this text separately from the question of the authorship of 1 Timothy and Titus, and for a positive reassessment of the authenticity of 2 Timothy. One might also include the reference to ‘repentance’ in Heb. 6.1 as a reminiscence by a member of the Pauline team (see note 26 above) of the foundational teaching that Paul gave to new communities of believers.
37.
Against scholars who read Gal. 5.17 as an admission of an endless stalemate (e.g., Betz 1979: 279-80; R.N. Longenecker 1990: 246; Burton 1921: 302) and Rom. 7.7-24 as the perpetual plight of the person ‘in Christ’ (e.g., Garlington 1994: ch. 5), it seems rather clear to me that Paul actually proclaims the Spirit’s victory over sin, self and the flesh, such that the person who ‘walks in step with the Spirit’ (Gal. 5.25) does, in fact, do what is just and good in God’s sight rather than being derailed in his or her attitudes and practice by the clamoring of the flesh. ‘If they will in fact let themselves be led by the spirit, they will resist any attacks by the flesh … The Christ event destroys the flesh in believers. It puts it entirely out of action, resulting instead in the completely stable and unalterable set of other-directed attitudes that constitute the fruit of the spirit’ (Engberg-Pedersen 2000: 163, 165; see also
: 115-16).
38.
Paul is not afraid to put his converts’ obligation to God even less delicately when they are behaving less than graciously: ‘You were purchased with a price, so bring honor to God with your body’ (1 Cor. 6.20). Redemption was an act of generous kindness—of grace—but being ransomed carries obligations toward the ransomer, if we appreciate the freedom that was purchased for us.
40.
I would disagree with Sanders’s definition of ‘righteousness’ in Paul: ‘To be righteous in Jewish literature means to obey the Torah and to repent of transgression, but in Paul it means to be saved by Christ. Most succinctly, righteousness in Judaism is a term which implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect; in Paul it is a transfer term’ (
: 544). Paul is very much interested in ‘righteousness’ as the result of a change of life and alignment with a particular code of ethical action (that is, being righteous). To be ‘saved by Christ’ still means to repent of transgression and to obey God, only now through the internal direction and with the ethical power provided by God’s Spirit living within the believer. This, at least, seems to be the point of large sections specifically of Paul’s letters treating the topic of justification (e.g., Gal. 5.13-6.10; Rom. 6.1-23; 8.1-17) and in his letters generally (e.g., Phil. 1.9-11). Paul’s final word on God’s justice remains Rom. 2.6-11—the good news in Christ is that God has provided the means for a fresh start with God and the means for living in such a way as the just God can pronounce ‘righteous’ at the judgment.
Far better, it seems to me, then, is Engberg-Pedersen’s statement (
: 173): ‘What [Paul] means by righteousness is this: God’s declaration (possibly in the future, cf. [Gal.] 5.5) of the positive standing of a human being vis-à-vis God himself in recognition of the fact that the Christ-believer has now actually become sinless. He has faith, of course … (3.6). But he also has the inner structure generated in his response to the Christ event, which means that he never lets himself do any acts of the type listed in the “vice” list of chapter 5. On the contrary, he constantly acts in accordance with the set of attitudes which constitute the fruit of the spirit. Thus both in relation to God and to other human beings he is not just “counted” righteous; he is righteous and will therefore also of course be declared righteous by God.’
41.
For Paul, God’s new act of favor (and his own experience of divine help) shifts the center of gravity of God’s beneficence away from the Torah to the self-giving of Jesus and the consequent reception of the Spirit (Gal. 3.10-14). The result is a new emphasis on the promise given to many nations through Abraham and on the realization of that promise through the singular ‘Seed’, namely Christ, and among all those who become one together in that Seed through baptism and through adoption by the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3.15-18, 26-28; 4.4-5; Rom. 4.13-16). It is quite distinctive to Paul that the promise of the Spirit, originally quite independent of the promise to Abraham (see passages such as Ezek. 11.19; 36.26-27; 37.1-14; Thielman 1995: 135), becomes linked to Abraham, but Paul’s interest in God’s reaching out to ‘all the nations’ elevates the promise to Abraham to prominence (the blessing of ‘all nations’ is a consistent and pronounced feature of this promise; see Gen. 12.3, 7; 13.15-16; 15.5, 18; 17.7-8, 19; 18.18; 22.17-18; 26.4; 28.14). The corollary is the bracketing of the Torah as a temporary measure in God’s purposes for Israel in the working out of God’s purposes for all nations (Gal. 3.17-25; Rom. 10.3-4;
: 143-50).
