1.7 In him* we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of wrongdoings,1 according to the riches of his grace2 8 which was more than enough for us, in all wisdom and insight, 9 making known3 to us the mystery of his will,4 according to his purpose which he put forward in him 10 in a plan for the fulfilling5 of the times,6 to unite7 all things in Christ: those in the heavens and those on the earth, in him.
__________
1τῶν παραπτωμάτων, Gen.: Objective (of ἄφεσιν, from ἀφίημι)
2τῆς χάριτος, Gen.: Attributed ("gracious riches"), Epexegetical (the riches are ambiguous, and χάριτος explains them)
3γνωρίσας, Ptc.: Substantival (related to προορίσας in 1.5; see above asterisk note)
4τοῦ θελήματος, Gen.: Attributed, Epexegetical ("the mystery of his will," where the mystery is ambiguous, and the will explains it. Q: "What kind of mystery is it?" A: "The one about what God wants.")
5τοῦ πληρώματος, Gen.: Purpose (though a different option may be better)
6τῶν καιρῶν, Gen.: Objective (of πληρώματος, from πληρόω)
7ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι, Inf.: Appositional ("the plan, namely, the plan to unite")
__________
*The phrase ἐν ᾧ appears three times throughout the beginning of Ephesians (1.7, 11, 13). It is translated as "him" instead of "whom" to avoid making vv. 3-14 an enormous run-on sentence. However, I suspect that the "whom" is part of a long string of relative clauses ["Blessed be the God who: (1.3) blessed us and (1.5) chose us beforehand; and in whom (1.7) we have redemption, (1.11) we were chosen as heirs, and (1.13) we heard the word of truth]. When I get to vv. 11 and 13, I'll just link them back to this post.
-Τῆς χάριτος at the end of v. 7 has two possibilities here: attributed and epexegetical. I don't see any significant difference between the two. If attributive, it highlights the source of the "redemption" and "forgiveness." If exegetical, it merely explains the type of riches, saying that God is rich in grace. If there is any difference, it is on whether the riches or the grace is the emphasis of the phrase (though this may be important after all).
-A similar situation happens in v. 9 with τοῦ θελήματος, though I suspect it cannot be attributive, but attributed. "Willful mystery" doesn't make much sense, does it? A "mysterious will," however, fits perfectly. The epexegetical option is clearer in fn. 4.