A Canonical Interpretation of Paul’s Eulogy in Ephesians 1:3–14, with Implications for Resurrection and New Creation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author

Thanks for the opportunity to review your study. There is a lot of content and, therefore, potential. But to harness the potential, some fundamental changes are needed. My feedback below:

There are a few flaws in how the premise of the article is formulation; it reads (lines 24-30):

"This article investigates the numerous and varied ways in which Paul, the stated author in the epistle of Ephesians, writes from the conviction of a grand, all-comprehensive mission with a corresponding singular plan. The mission and plan determine God’s actions, and they should dictate how we live our calling. This plan concludes with a denouement that includes resurrection and new creation. Both the mission and the plan exist from cover to cover of the canon, remaining throughout the intervening books, and are fully planned by God prior to their inception."

a. The article does not investigate 'numerous and varied ways', rather a recycled way. 

b. How is it possible to determine Paul's conviction in terms of the so-called grand plan and mission?

c. Denouement? 

d. The certainty of the grand plan, not to even mention that resurrection and new creation conclude such a plan, is unsubstantiated. 

The utterance: "Paul’s own worldview aligns with this grand mission and plan, although it may not be as exhaustive as the canon’s mission and plan." (lines 32-33) is confusing. Do you mean to say that the first-century world and context Paul operated in aligns with a grand mission and plan as constructed in Genesis 1? If so, it undermines the value and purpose of the idea of 'worldview' at best, and at the worst, it is a wild assumption. 

In lines 33-34, you state that: "Paul’s narrative, from which he wrote Ephesians, has newly added information that Paul recently received from God and that he intends to communicate to the readers."

1. What is meant by Paul wrote Ephesians from his narrative?
2. Whatever is meant by 'his narrative', how do you determine what Paul 'recently' received from God, which you consider to be new?

The statement "The epistle’s narrative is expressly set forth within Paul’s worldview, and both his narrative and worldview are embedded within the canon’s" (lines 35-36) has no basis in fact or evidence. An explanation is required why the distinction between narrative and worldview. As well as, what canon are you referring to?

Heilig's definition of a deictic center, "the chronological point from which one refers to specific events," is far too vague and reveals generalisation tendencies. But more problematic is why would this be a key point in Paul's worldview and narrative? Can you explain and substantiate? To this end, an interpretation, aka Larsen's interpretation, is read into Ephesians 1:10-11. There is no evidence to suggest a link between Genesis 1 and Ephesians 1:10-11. The study is quilty of too many interpolations; e.g., εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν "in the administration of the fullness of time"

The statement "Paul’s narrative, envisioned while writing Ephesians, likely developed from several factors." (line 92-93) is superfluous as it states the obvious.

The second assumption contradicts the author's use and understanding of 'canon'. In this instance, he does seem to allude to the possibility of a canon of Paul's day that is different from how he/she uses the term. This being said, there was no such thing as Old Testament during Paul's time. How do you understand 'canon' and what 'canon' are you referring to?

The third assumption asserts that Paul claims to have received new insights and revelations. In relation to what and how is this determined?

The following statement: "Interestingly, in Eph 1:3 God’s act of blessing us (ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς) predates God’s original creative acts in Gen 1." (lines 126-127) is not only unsubstantiated, unsound logic, but a conflation and confusion of narrated and so-called 'real' time; you interpret Eph 1:3 and 1:4 as a 'replica' or 'reliance' of the creation account in Genesis 1, and then interprets the former as reversing the order 'blessing' before laying the foundation. What category and type of time are you working with? 

You offer no explanation on Paul's grammar even though he/she argues for 'intense' grammar, which requires a 'virtual' close reading (see line 135-136). 

You do not seem to have a clear understanding of a narratological perspective (as alluded to in line 139). You offer a perspective of two events to justify a narrative, which I do not agree with, but apart from this, a narratological approach or perspective is something entirely different. 

Why is Eph 1:4 the deictic center? (see line 140) and more precisely the foundation of the ‘world’” (πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου) as its opening ‘event,’ (line 152). This ties in with your understanding of time, whether it is narrated time or something else. 

Where precisely is the 'evil one's realm according to Ephesians? (see line 167). Do you mean heaven is God's realm and earth the 'evil one's' realm? 

The assertion "The meaning of the phrase 'the foundation of the world' would seem rather common and self-evident, referring to the beginning of time or to Genesis" (line 205-206) is problematic, because it is taken out of its literary context, it is not a good representation of the Greek, and there is no substantial evidence to support this. One cannot draw such an inference based on these three words. You, however, go a step further by zooming into the word κοσμος, as if this term represents the content of Genesis 1. 

The statement: "Since the first creation account is the deictic center of Paul’s eulogy, a continued consideration of Gen 2:1 is helpful. In the context of Gen 2:1, κόσμος is the array of all creation, rather than the stars and planet earth only." is false. Such an assertion does not reveal a responsible extrapolation, but rather an interpolation. You read into the text so that the text (Eph 1:3-14) 'confirms' your assumption, aka, a reliance on Genesis 1, or at least part thereof, and with that a so-called 'deictic center. 

The "The entire eulogy (Eph 1:3 – 14) is one sentence." is false (line 297). In addition to this, the author again alludes to the grammar without saying anything about the grammar. (see line 297-300).

Suggestions:

1. The focus should be sharper
2. Statements should be substantiated
3. Assertions supported by sound arguments

Comments on the Quality of the English Language

There are spelling and grammatical mistakes that should be rectified; formulations that can be improved. 

Author Response

Replies to Reviewer #1

• Thank you for your comments, and they helped greatly. I can only imagine the time and effort that you have put into this, and with little or no appreciation (other than me saying “thank you”). Based on both reviewers’ comments, I have conducted a major revision of the article and believe that you will find it greatly improved. As a small explanation (not excuse, just explanation), I was in the middle of moving my office while also dealing with medical issues (skin cancer treatment and then eye surgery [#9]). Sadly, my replies to your comments are going to be very basic … “I agree, and please re-read sections 2, 3, and 4.” In fact, I suspect that the easiest way forward, for you, would be to read the new revision, given the magnitude of revision that has taken place (in response to your very helpful comments … but that is your call). Also, please note that I have changed my abstract, title, and scope to the eulogy only.
• Lines 24-30:
  • Comment “a” … Agreed: and now in the new revision, I am referring to the intertextual relations of Paul’s eulogy with a grand canonical theme, which I explain in Sections 2 & 3.
  • Comment “b” … in the new revision,n I acknowledge that I will employ canonical interpretation and then will use the “divine author” to assert a grand mission that was launched at the beginning of the canon and continued to the end of the canon. Hopefully, sections 2, 3, and 4 will explain this to your satisfaction.
  • Comment “c” … this needed better clarification. By “denouement” I refer to the successful completion of the grand mission to create a home (place) for God here in creation, as portrayed in eschatological and apocalyptic texts of both testaments.
  • Comment “d” … please see the new revision in sections 3 & 4, which lead into section 5.
• Lines 32 – 33:
  • This also needed a better explanation … so please see Section 2 now.
• Lines 33-34:
  • My previous discussion about Paul’s newly received information has essentially been omitted, apart from a passing comment.
  • And by “Paul’s narrative,” this also needed a better explanation … so please see Section 4.2.
• Lines 35-36
  • Narrative/worldview … again, this needed a better explanation … so please see sections 2.2 and 3.1-2
  • Deictic Center … again, this needed a better explanation … so please see section 4.2
• “Second assumption” re canon … again, this needed better explanation … so please see section 2.2
• “Third assumption” re Paul’s new insights … again, this needed better explanation … so I have generally removed this from the paper, apart from my analysis in section 4.
  • Line 126 – 27 … again, this needed better explanation … so please see section 4, especially 4.1-2
  • What category of time? … 4, especially 4.1-2 (I do not raise an issue about time before creation; instead, I assume biblical history of time as linear and heading toward the heavens/new earth/new Jerusalem)
  • Line 139 … again, this needed better explanation … so please see section 3.1, esp n34.
• Lines 140 and 152, and 205-206
  • Again, this needed a better explanation … so please see section 4.2
• Line 167 … again, this needed a better explanation … so please see the section
• Lines 297-300
  • Again, this needed a better explanation … so please see section 4, especially 4.3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some of the language is opaque or new (placialization) and needs definitions added

Is some appropriate Oxford languages  defines  "deictic" as

Linguistics adjective adjective: deictic

1. relating to or denoting a word or expression whose meaning is dependent on the context in which it is used (such as here, you, me, that one there, or next Tuesday ).  

noun noun: deictic; plural noun: deictics

1. a deictic word or expression.     I am not sure how this helps your case.     You need to prove that there was a "master plan " Narrative, but invoking "canon"  risks anachronism.  The metanarrative needs to be shown independently of the canonical construct of the bible, which cannot be invoked when Eph. was written. Matthew Bates' work provides a non-canonical way of doing this by isolating key elements in a recurring narrative found across the literature of the NT, but not using canon. The bibliography LOOKS impressive, but not everything in it is cited in footnotes. To avoid the charge of over-inflating the bibliography, uncited entries (like Hurtado or Stuhlmacher) need to be removed. The footnotes reveal that a privileged few texts really drive your secondary literature (Heilig, for example), and the others are garnish. Your proposal will be stronger if it is based on a wider selection. If your bibliography has  informed the writing, it simply means joining the dots between text, footnote, and bibliography for a greater range of material  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

• Thank you for your comments, and they helped greatly. I can only imagine the time and effort that you have put into this, and with little or no appreciation (other than me saying “thank you”). Based on both reviewers’ comments, I have conducted a major revision of the article and believe that you will find it greatly improved. As a small explanation (not excuse, just explanation), I was in the middle of moving my office while also dealing with medical issues (skin cancer treatment and then eye surgery [#9].) Sadly, my replies to your comments are going to be very basic … “I agree, and please re-read sections 2, 3, and 4.” In fact, I suspect that the easiest way forward, for you, would be to read the new revision, given the magnitude of revision that has taken place (in response to your very helpful comments … but that is your call.)
• “Matthew Bates’ prosopological method” … again, this needed better explanation … Hopefully, sections 2.1-3 will resolve your concerns.
• “Bibliography” … again, this needed a better explanation … Hopefully, your rereading of the article will resolve your concerns.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You have been busy. Much improved- and thanks for your kind words.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer: Again, thank you for your very helpful suggestions. Hopefully, your help will shine through. I have included four files in my Zip file: 1) a revised abstract AND new title for the article; 2) a clean version of the revised article; 3) a version of the same file in track changes mode, so that you can spot the change easily ... and please note that the entire section 4.2 has been rewritten; and 4) a file with my point by point replies to your comments.

And when this is all over, I'd love to buy you a cup of coffee ora  glass of wine as my way of apologizing for the extra work that I have put you through.  Best Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf