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

Abstract

This article utilizes canonical interpretation to reassess Paul’s eulogy in Ephesians 1:3–14 by situating it within the Bible’s overarching narrative of placemaking—from Genesis to Revelation. Rejecting purely historical-grammatical approaches, the study treats the Protestant canon as a unified literary and theological whole with both divine and human authorship. Drawing on intertextual methods, especially the work of NT Wright and David Larsen, the author frames Paul’s eulogy as a theological “mini narrative” nested within the grand canonical mission: God’s purpose to create and dwell with His family in a holy place (God’s house as God’s home with His family in God’s homeland). The article argues that this placial mission undergirds themes of election, redemption, sonship, administration, and land inheritance within the eulogy, connecting creation’s foundation with eschatological summation in Christ. The analysis incorporates spatial theory and narratology to illuminate Paul’s understanding of the world as contested territory where the church advances God’s mission. In doing so, it reveals the eulogy as a densely intertextual and theologically coherent passage that situates believers within God’s cosmic, administrative plan for new creation and divine habitation. The implication for resurrection and new creation, based on this grand canonical mission and on God’s all-encompassing master plan, is asserted as part of this unified plan.

1. Introduction

It has been said that there are three rules for success in real estate—location, location, location. One might say that there are three similar rules for success in biblical interpretation—context, context, context.

This article will employ canonical interpretation to explore the context of Paul’s eulogy in Ephesians 1:3–14.1 More particularly, the article aims to expand the context of the eulogy from historical and grammatical studies to consider intertextual relations with canonical themes, more specifically with themes associated with the grand mission of placemaking, as will be defined and discussed in greater detail below. The article will conclude with a consideration of the implications that this expansion has for the topics of resurrection and new creation in Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians.

2. The Canonical Method of Interpretation for This Article

As just stated, the article’s analysis of the eulogy in Ephesians 1:3–14 shall use canonical interpretation to expand the context. In order to provide boundaries to this analysis, the article will limit itself to the Christian Protestant canon as the literary source.2 The intent is that the article may consider forms of intertextual relations with words, themes, and actions between the eulogy and the entire canon, treating the canon as a unified piece of religious literature by a divine author, as will be clarified below. In short, the article will be open to explore canonical books both from the left (e.g., starting with Genesis) and extending to the right (e.g., continuing to Revelation) of Ephesians, again, thereby allowing the canon to be treated as a single piece of religious literature by a divine author.3 Basic to this approach is the assumption that canonical interpretation is a recognized form of biblical interpretation in the eyes of many.4 Along with the assumption of this method, there is a corollary assumption—that it is possible to ascertain sufficient authorial intention from the text (Gignilliat 2019, pp. 41–56; Bartholomew 2015, pp. 399–422; 1998, pp. 110–12; Bates 2012, pp. 50n168, 170).

While being a recognized method of interpretation, the article will not assume that every reader of this journal is familiar with it. Consequently, a brief statement is in order. In canonical interpretation one assumes two authors for every text—one divine and the other human (Vanhoozer 2024; Gignilliat 2019). This is the perspective that the canon itself invites its readers to hold,5 including the readers of Ephesians. Naturally, of course, whether this perspective by the canon itself is true is a “confession of faith.”6 Yet, since this article will employ canonical interpretation, the article shall assume the canon’s portrayal of two authors, including two authors of Ephesians, one of whom is divine. For this reason, the presence of the divine author allows a canonical reader to expand the epistle’s context beyond Paul’s limited boundaries in space and time.7 The literary boundary of Ephesians expands from Gen 1–2 to Rev 21–22.

With this assumption is the implication that intertextual relations can expand easily and dramatically. Allusions and echoes can be explored by many methods, such as Matthew Bates’ prosopological intertextuality (Bates 2012, pp. 9–182). The assumption incorporates the intertextual relations that were envisioned by Kristeva’s “mosaic of quotations” (Kristeva 1980, p. 64), such as types, figures, plans, and missions. In other words, this article will look at the intertextual relations to the left and to the right of Ephesians.

2.1. What Expansion Assumes as a Starting Point

Expansion assumes and then builds upon, rather than replaces, traditional historical and grammatical studies, including more traditional intertextual studies (Vanhoozer 2024, pp. 170–80; Stanley 2012; Porter and Stanley 2008; Seitz 2006, pp. 63–65). This means that the article builds upon studies that explore what lies behind the context of Ephesians, including studies on the man Paul, on his worldview (N. Wright 1992, 1996, 2003, 2009, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017; Hays 1989, 2005; Heilig 2024), and on the worldview of Ephesian readers.8

Expansion also assumes and builds upon the familiar in-depth grammatical analysis of the text itself, analyzing the text in its immediate textual context, in other words, analyzing the context as presented by/in the text of Ephesians. This means that this article will utilize standard commentaries on Ephesians. Moreover, the article acknowledges the general value of the reception history via “post-texts” from apostolic fathers as a means for verifying the interpretation of words by those who were closer to the original setting, unless there are extenuating circumstances as there were in the case of κόσμος.9

However, the article will not utilize frames of reference by contemporary reader groups who aim to interpret the context in front of the text, the context of modern readers themselves (Bartholomew 2015, pp. 391–422; Bates 2012, pp. 48–51). By excluding these modern readings of the context, I make no comment on them as potentially legitimate readings but rather am simply clarifying what this article will not be expanding into. Nevertheless, in an analogous manner to reading in front of the text, the article will assume a completed canon from today, centuries after Paul wrote, to look backward on the interaction of Paul with other canonical texts.

2.2. Assumptions About the Process of Canonization: Paul’s Canon vs. Today’s Canon

Since canonization was still in process during Paul’s lifetime (and would not be closed until centuries later), an acknowledgement is in order about the article’s view of the canon as it existed in Paul’s day.

When the article needs to discuss the text of the first testament in its own original context, the article will use the MT of the Hebrew Bible. However, for Paul personally, the current consensus is that he relied upon a Greek Vorlagen (LXX) of the scriptures, although it must also be acknowledged that “Paul on numerous occasions intentionally modifies his sources for a variety of reasons.”10 Consequently, for example, when discussing the first creation account of Genesis, the article will need to explore both the MT as the original wording as well as the LXX as the translation that Paul generally relied upon.

Concerning the canonization of the book of Genesis in particular, the article assumes that its status of canonization had already solidified, both as canonically authoritative and as located at the front end of the Pentateuchal collection of canonical books (Allen 2017, pp. 1–104; Allen 2020, pp. 156–92; Schmid and Schröter 2021, pp. 141–221). So, although it would not be until centuries later that the entire canon was officially collected and declared as closed, long after Paul wrote Ephesians (Bokedal 2014, p. 20), in the first century CE there was a “canon-consciousness” whereby Paul and other NT authors (and their reading communities) sensed that the “canonical process” was in progress and furthermore that Genesis was a canonically authoritative book located in the opening bookend of Paul’s Pentateuch.11

2.3. Canonical Expansion to the Left and to the Right

By saying that the article will expand “the canonical context” to the left and to the right, what exactly is meant by this? To answer that, one begins by noting a key assumption in canonical interpretation—every text has two authors, one human and the other divine (Waltke and Yu 2007, pp. 78–92). Furthermore, because of the presence of the divine author, canonical interpretation can expand beyond the historical boundaries of the human authors, such as the boundary of Paul and his original Ephesian readers. In other words, the text of Ephesians can assume the canon’s boundary because of its divine author, making the boundaries the opening bookend of the closed canon, Genesis, and continuing to its closing bookend, Revelation (Larsen 2023, p. 6n10).

By this expansion, intertextual relations abound, which, for example, are discussed by Beetham and by Porter under their discussions about quotations, allusions, echoes, and parallels between the first and second testaments (Beetham 2008, pp. 11–40; Porter 2008, pp. 29–40). But this also can expand beyond words and sentences to include types and figures, as, for example, Vanhoozer discusses (Vanhoozer 2024). In fact, one can include an entire network of intertextual conversations that existed within the cultural context at large before, during, and after Paul’s day, which Kristeva would label as part of the “mosaic of quotations.”12

As for the “canon-consciousness” that was active during Paul’s day, this canon-consciousness involved an awareness of an ongoing ‘canonical process’ that predated Paul and outlived him, culminating in the final form of each individual book and then eventually collected by the church into the final form of its closed canon.13 Then, this final form of a closed canon (as a single piece of religious literature) is what we as modern readers use to interpret the divine author’s message in Ephesians via canonical interpretation.

3. The Grand Mission of the Outer Context

(Throughout the following sections I shall refer to my earlier work from the perspective of third person for stylistic reasons.)

Concerning the canon as a unified work of religious literature, canonical theologians have been discussing how best to organize the contours of the canon as a grand story.¹⁴ Similarly, missional theologians have given great attention to this grand story.15 Likewise, narratologists have applied narrative analysis to assess this grand story (Heilig 2024; Bartholomew and Goheen 2004a, 2004b), as have philosophers such as Ricoeur (1984) and Bartholomew (2015).16 As already noted, according to their conclusions the grand story of the canon begins with Genesis’ creation accounts and continues until Revelation’s new creation.

3.1. NT Wright’s Outer Narrative

NT Wright has written repeatedly and extensively on this for over three decades, and for this reason, his oeuvre will be a reference point for Paul’s understanding of this grand story, including its application to Ephesians.17 Wright has asserted that the grand story was part of a nexus of story-praxis-questions-symbols that, when combined together, fashioned into Paul’s internal worldview (N. Wright 2013, pp. 24–36). According to Wright, Paul’s understanding of it allows Paul to address the key questions of life: “Who are we? Where are we? What is wrong? What is the solution … What time is it?” (N. Wright 2013, pp. 26–27). And then with these questions in mind, Paul explored more fully the remaining theological question about “why?” (N. Wright 2013, p. 27). This article accepts Wright’s thesis as its starting point but then clarifies it further.

Concerning the specific contours of the grand story, Wright (and others (Bates 2019, pp. 85–112; Bates and McKnight 2017; Bartholomew 2015, pp. 76–82; Bartholomew and Goheen 2004b; Bartholomew and Goheen 2004a; C. Wright 2006, 2023)) organize them chronologically,18 like Acts in a Shakespearean play (N. Wright 2013, pp. 456–537): God’s creation of the world and of humanity; the story of the fall of humanity into sin; the election of Israel; the first coming of Christ to save humanity; the Church as the expansion of God’s family; and the return of Christ and new creation.

Significantly for this article, Wright has further organized the contours of this grand story as being contextualized within the historical event of creation. For Wright God’s grand purpose for creation becomes the context, an outer framing context of the entire canon.19 Then, contextualizing the canon within this outer context, there emerges a host of inner subplots, secondary missions, and subsequent themes that relate to each other logically within this outer framing story (N. Wright 2013, pp. 475–85). For Wright, this helped Paul to the remaining parts of the theological question “why?” But does it fully answer it, or does creation’s purpose need to be further clarified?20

3.2. Larsen’s Clarification About the Grand Mission

Recently Larsen has elaborated further upon creation’s purpose, thereby further clarifying the outer mission’s answer to the question of “why.” According to Larsen, the canon’s first creation account, which presents the opening statement both for Genesis and for the whole canon, is a statement about God’s mission (missio Dei), which is a mission to make earth a livable place. According to Larsen, in Genesis One God commenced the mission by fashioning creation into an inchoate but livable place, doing so over the course of six days. On the sixth day the process culminated with the creation of humans who were/are designed (imago Dei) to continue this task by further fashioning the land of God as a more livable place (Gen 1:26–28). Then, by the end of the canon, after all subsequent complications in the grand story have been fully addressed, the glorious house of God arrives from heaven to the new earth, serving as the house of God as a new home in God’s new homeland (Rev 21–22). By the events of Rev 21–22 denouement arrives in the grand story of the canon.

Meanwhile, in between these bookends of the canon, many inner subplots emerge as the grand mission continues, thereby providing the specific context for these inner subplots (Larsen 2023, pp. 64–78). In other words, according to Larsen, the answer to “why” is—because God wants to reside here in a livable place with His family as the placemakers. The mission of making the world a place for God to live with His family thereby contextualizes the canon’s grand story, including its inner subplots and themes.

As for these inner subplots, they are very important to humans. They describe how humans nearly ruined God’s grand mission but graciously receive the benefits of salvation through allegiance (Bates 2019, pp. 85–112; Bates and McKnight 2017). Meanwhile the grand mission, as the outer context, reveals God’s ongoing commitment to live here on earth. In other words, while salvation is important to humans, the outer context reveals an aspect of equal importance, namely what is very important to God—God wants a house, home, and homeland wherein God will live with His family.

Thus, throughout the canon, according to Larsen, land and land inheritance continues to matter. People, family, and population growth matter. The land as the place of God, with its good locale and sense of place, matters to God. Public theology matters. For the grand mission to succeed, sinful people must now be saved and then trained to do good in their part of the human mission (Volf and McAnnally-Linz 2022). In short, the canon’s entire story comes out of the specific context of a grand mission to make the world into God’s place (Larsen 2023, pp. 62–82).

Furthermore, Paul, being quite familiar with the book of Genesis and its creation account, as many have already noted (Lincicum 2012, pp. 99–116), would have had occasion to assess the implications of the grand story for creation itself, as demonstrated his discussion in Rom 8:17–21 (N. Wright 2023, pp. 108–30). Furthermore, according to Paul, this originating grand mission arises within an all-encompassing plan by God (Eph 1:11), as will be discussed below. The Ephesian eulogy occurs within this canonical context.

3.3. Larsen’s Use of the Theory of Place to Analyze the Grand Mission

Larsen employs the theory of place21 to explore the mission’s “placiality.” Since the focus of the mission is on a place, namely ארץ (the direct object of the verbs in Gen 1:26–28),22 the words of Gen 1–2 must be re-read placially—swarming insects thereby signify a sound; the daytime sunlight includes the warmth on the ground that causes plants to grow and that causes sweat on the backs of human workers. Larsen’s analysis of the entire text of Gen 1–2 and Rev 21–22 unpacks this placiality, providing insight into the full placiality of the grand mission. And the net result is an insight into God’s own experience of His new place—and it was a “good” experience. It was a good locale and had a good sense of place. In fact, the final experience of God at the very end of the week was exceedingly pleasurable, it was “very good.” This level of experience becomes the framing benchmark that gives rise to Paul’s worldview, which, in turn, explains his focus on ethics, brotherly kindness, and household rules since they are part of the grand agenda.23

According to Larsen the grand mission of making ארץ into the place of God on earth is a mission that God began in Gen 1 and continues. For Paul the mission must continue despite now being conducted in contested territory. And what does this sort of placial change and contest entail? At the very least it will require creative thinking and hard work by the family of God who will be acting as God’s vice regents and are made in His image but live in a fallen and spiritually-contested territory

In other words, it is not enough to assert flatly that creation has a purpose. Creation’s purpose is specific—to change the world toward becoming more like the home and homeland of God. The humans are to manage these changes that will shape the locale and its sense of place. The world is under construction to become God’s home and homeland, despite being contested territory. Just as God’s declaration that the place of God appeared to be “very good” at the end of the sixth day (Gen 1:31), so the ongoing changes are to continue in that vein, except now by means of human work in response to the mission.

To use the title of Jonathan Z. Smith’s book (Smith 1978), Map Is Not Territory, ארץ was and is more than a map—ארץ was and is a place. In Gen 1 it was the inchoate place of God. It had a locale and a sense of place that God liked. And it still has sights, sounds, and smells, and it is a place full of human experiences. The outer context of placemaking remains still the canon’s context in Paul’s day. This is Paul’s worldview. In other words, Wright’s statement of purpose can be more specifically stated in the context of the production of the place of God (Larsen 2023, pp. 134–39).

But, when Paul considered the status of the grand mission as it existed in his day, the “very good” world of Gen 1 had changed into a very cursed and contested place. Devolution had occurred quite a long time ago (Rom 8:19–20) and was ongoing. Further, Paul now understands that the world will not be finished in terms of its placialization until Christ returns (Rom 8:21; Rev 21–22; Eph 1:10). So, for Paul and his readers, the mission must go on, even if with three steps forward and two steps back

Larsen employs the lens of human geography’s “secondspace” (Soja 1989, 1996) to see more clearly that God’s intent for placemakers includes a focus on systems and structures in the world in Gen 1–2. (Larsen 2023). Through the same lens of secondspace one can analyze Paul’s focus in Ephesians on administration, as will be discussed below.

Larsen also then uses a lens of what he labels “futurespace” to analyze how, for Paul, the vision of the future place of God should cast its shadow back in time onto the Ephesian believers’ ongoing efforts of placemaking (Larsen 2023, pp. 52–57). The shadows from the future version of God’s place are to influence the type of ethics and placial production of sense that Paul discusses with his readers. Paul imagines Christ Himself as the leader who is exercising His management of the process (Eph 1:20–22). One can also appreciate how, for Paul, the shadow from a real physical place of God in the future might explain Paul’s assurance to the believers of his day that they will receive a future inheritance, including an inheritance of land, even if slaves in their day (Eph 1:14; 6:8).

In summary, Larsen’s contribution to Wright’s grand story adds insight into the framing narrative behind Ephesians. Paul has a focus on the mission and on God’s all-encompassing plan, which then accounts for subplots in Ephesians that address human sin and the need for human transformation. God’s people must learn what the will of God is and then must aim to do their works of placemaking—fashioning the locale, challenging and impacting the evil structures and systems, and aiming to produce a counter-cultural sense that Ephesus is God’s place, despite being contested territory by evil spiritual forces. Administration over organized systems in the church and in the world needs to be addressed, especially opposing the spiritual forces of evil.

3.4. A Literary Comparison

This analysis below of Paul’s eulogy assumes the claim that the grand mission of placemaking is the expanded canonical context of Ephesians. Intertextual relations come more easily from the left and right once the emic perspective is assumed via canonical interpretation. Rather than needing to prove the basis for an intertextual relation, the article assumes them as the framing context.

The assumption about the role of an outer context, however, is not too different than literary analysis of other great literary works, such as Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings (Tolkien 1965). For example, even though Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings exists as three books (four books, if one adds The Hobbit), no matter what book and chapter, whenever Frodo moves his hand toward his pocket (which is where the ring is located), all readers know the intertextual relations to the trilogy’s grand story—the ring of power can be intoxicating and must not consume Frodo but must be destroyed in the fires of Mordor. The text itself does not need to go into greater detail each time, because the entire trilogy does that for the reader. Similarly, the entire canon does the work of providing the outer context for interpreting the divine author in the entire canon, including in Ephesians.

4. Bringing the Canonical Horizon into the Eulogy

Paul departs from his typical pattern, found in both the undisputed and disputed epistles, in which he normally begins with a prayer (of thanksgiving) immediately after the prologue. Instead, just like in 2 Cor 1:3–7, Paul first inserts a eulogy after the Ephesian prologue (Eph 1:1–2). As one commentator has interpreted this change, he inserts an extended eulogy, to “invite us to explore the passage closely,” (Cohick 2020, p. 83).

4.1. The Eulogy in Its Canonical Setting

At the beginning of the canon, in Gen 1, the divine author repeatedly blesses—blessing living creatures (ηὐλόγησεν, Gen 1:22), blessing humans at their commissioning into their human mission of placemaking (ηὐλόγησεν, 1:28) and blessing the seventh day itself after resting from all the works which God began (ηὐλόγησεν, Gen 2:3). Similarly in Ephesians, Paul remarks that God is blessed (Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς, Eph 1:3) and has already blessed us (ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς) with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies. God is blessed and has blessed humanity, both at the time of creation (Gen 1:28) and before creation via election (Eph 1:3), based on the first creation account’s mission and plan (Gen 1:26–28; Eph 1:10–14), as will be discussed below.

As Paul notes in the eulogy, throughout the canon the divine author has been disclosing and been acting according to an all-encompassing plan (Eph 1:10). Now in addition to this, Paul, the human author of Ephesians, asserts that he has his own insight into this canonical story (Johnson 2020, pp. 145–61; Heilig 2024, pp. 334–59), including asserting his own recently received information from God that pertain to aspects about the story’s inner subplots (Eph 1:9; 3:3–4, 9).

Meanwhile for Paul, the situation in the world of his day has become complicated. The world that God had created as “very good” and sacred, but that God shortly thereafter “cursed” (Gen 3:17–19) and made profane, is now a highly contested territory in which opposing systems, God’s and the devil’s, clash both in heaven and on the earth (Eph 1:10; 2:3). The city of Ephesus, for Paul, is a perfect example of this spiritual conflict (6:11, 14).24

However, Paul also notes that Jesus has assumed a position of ultimate authority over all things (Eph 1:20–21). Although currently located in the heavenly realm, Jesus is now managing the earthly church (Eph 1:22), waiting for the moment in time when the Spirit will have completed the construction of God’s temple (Eph 2:20–22). Once that completion occurs, all things in heaven and on earth will be summed up under Christ’s headship (Eph 1:10).

In this interim period Paul understands that the current situation requires an interim administration25 that involves both Christ and church leaders (Eph 4:1–16), so that the people of God might continue their missional works that God had already preplanned for them to do (Eph 2:10). Based on this, Paul exhorts his readers to walk worthy of Christ’s calling (Eph 4–6), endeavoring to create placial change by building an appropriate sense of place here in God’s world.

This is the canonical setting of the eulogy.

4.2. The Eulogy’s Deictic Center and the Canonical Horizon

The eulogy starts with “Blessed is God,” a timeless fact that leads directly into “and God has blessed us” (Paul and his readers). Paul follows this declaration with an extended clarification by means of a comparison (καθὼς, Eph 1:4). The comparison reveals the presence of a mini narrative that is guiding Paul’s thinking.26 Just like when in biblical history the canon began by describing creation, Paul’s mini narrative begins with the same beginning, as Eph 1:4 orients the reader’s thinking by offering a deictic center for Paul’s mini narrative. Election and the foundation of the world are this center—they are the temporal point from which Paul’s mini narrative orients itself.27 They are its zero-point, its deictic center.

The eulogy asserts that God’s act of electing occurred chronologically prior to the foundation of the world, πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (Eph 1:4); however, in Paul’s mini narrative, the creation week itself is likely the actual zero-point of the mini narrative, according to Heilig’s narrative analysis. In other words, meaningful events in the eulogy happen either before the foundation of the world or after it. But whether Heilig is correct—that the foundation of the world during creation week (καταβολῆς κόσμου) is the exact deictic center of Paul’s mini narrative (Heilig 2024, p. 77) versus the act of electing is its deictic center—καταβολῆς κόσμου is significantly at (or associated with) the start of Paul’s mini narrative. Why is this significant? Why would Paul start his mini narrative at this point with a reference to the canon’s opening bookend, its account of cosmogony? To answer this, the phrase calls for a closer look, especially considering the original context of Gen 1:1–2:4a.

First, consider the word καταβολή, “foundation.” While it is a common word in the LXX (for example, the foundation of the temple) and in other classical and Koine Greek texts (BDAG 2000, p. 515), the phrase “the foundation of the world” is not common. This precise phrase appears only ten times in the NT, including Paul’s use here in Eph 1:4. There is no known usage before the time of Christ, but after Christ it is used by multiple Christian authors, including several NT books—Matthew, Luke, John, Hebrews, Peter, and the author of Revelation.28 In particular, in Heb 4:3 it specifically refers to the time in biblical history when God rested on the seventh day at the end of the cosmogonic week of Genesis (Gen 2:2–3). The likely source for the phrase is Jesus Himself, which then generates these other NT references—or what Bates labels “relevant coeval texts.” (Bates 2012, p. 54). But regardless of the origin of the phrase, its referent is canonical and cosmogonic, signifying the founding event of creation in Genesis 1.

More specifically, however, consider the qualifying genitive, κόσμου. This is the word that Paul selects to signify what specific foundation that he has in mind. So, to what does the word κόσμου point—To the creation of the universe (cosmogony)? To the creation of “the earth” as a planet (geophany), or to the founding of something else?

It is significant that in the LXX κόσμος appears only once in the entire book of Genesis, including the creation accounts of Gen 1–2. After that, it occurs only four additional times in the entire Pentateuch.29 If Paul intended for “the foundation of the κόσμος” to refer to the founding of planet earth or to the founding of the entire universe, Paul might have selected from the common words in LXX as the modifier for “foundation,” such as the word “earth” (γῆ),30 or the word “creation” (κτίσις) as he selected in other epistles,31 or the word “universe” (τὰ πάντα) as he uses in Eph 1:11, or the entire merism “the heavens and earth” to signify the totality of what God created. Instead, however, he specifically selected κόσμος, a seldom used word in the Pentateuch, one that was never used in Genesis except once in Gen 2:1 where it specifically signifies something other than “the heavens and the earth.”

Although infrequently found in the Pentateuch, when used, the core concept of κόσμος both in Exodus and in Deuteronomy is “adornment,” whether being the adornment of fancy clothing worn by humans (Ex 33:5–6) or being the adornment of the brilliance of the stars in the heavens (Dt 4:19; 17:3). In other words, κόσμος would quite naturally signify the observation of an elevated quality—fancy clothing or the adornment of the sky. In other words, the basic focus of κόσμος would naturally be on the experience that an observer senses when observing a thing within its context, within its locale.32

In the case of the LXX translation of the first creation account, in Gen 2:1, κόσμος specifically does not signify the earth (הָאָֽרֶץ) nor the heaven/sky (הַשָּׁמַ֥יִם) as Gen 2:1 makes quite clear. Rather, the LXX’s word, κόσμος, focuses on a narrator’s statement about their adornment, like the underlying Hebrew word (צָבָא) (Larsen 2023, pp. 86–92).33 In other words, κόσμος is that part of three Hebrew nouns in Gen 2:1 that Paul wishes to call attention to—to the adornment of the newly fashioned, inchoate place of God. κόσμος signifies how the world of God had become a good and livable place to experience life. “The heavens and the earth and all of their beautiful adornment” (Gen 2:1/וְכָל־צְבָאָֽם [MT], πᾶς ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν [LXX]).34

The heavens and the earth began as barren, dangerous, chaotic (Gen 1:2) and then the adorning began through God’s creative fashioning. Their placiality changes and becomes fancy. To state this differently, the six days of creation are not about the creation of matter but about the creation of place (topophany)—the creation of a good and livable place of God.35 And κόσμος signifies this adornment.

Over the course of six days the world’s locale is fashioned and carefully inspected by God (Welker 1999, pp. 6–20), who is designing the adornment so that it displays “goodness” as its dominant sense of place. With each passing day, the experience of God regarding the developing placiality is “it is good (and getting better with each day).” The world is coming to display good organizational structures and systems that are good (Larsen 2023, pp. 97–133, 148–78). By the end of the first creation account, God can barely control Himself and erupts (הִנֵּה) when seeing κόσμος, exclaiming His opinion that κόσμος is “very good” (ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד). The author of Genesis refers to this as a fancy adornment, κόσμος. This is what Paul marks the deictic center of his eulogy.36

Returning to the text of the eulogy, this is the “zero-point” in Paul’s mini narrative. More than a reference to the foundation of created matter, as John stresses in John 1:1–3 or as Paul himself stresses in Col 1:16. Here Paul’s narrative and eulogy in Eph 1:3–14 focus on the foundation of God’s placial adornment.37 Starting from this deictic center, Paul’s eulogy notes that the family of God was elected prior to, and in context of, this event of adorning. One might say that the family of God was elected (Eph 1:4a) to be placemakers who will continue the project of adorning God’s world, being equipped as image bearers for this mission.

To reiterate, Paul’s eulogy is uniquely and grandly intertextual with the opening bookend of the canon, Genesis, not simply because of the reference via καταβολῆς κόσμου but also by means of the canon that provides the outer context placemaking. Eph 1:4 inserts the grand canonical mission into the eulogy, reminding canonical readers that the world is where God will live with His family, once the mission is finished, as Rev 21–22 records. Furthermore, just like God had a focus on structures and systems in the cosmogonic texts of Gen 1 Paul too will focus on an administrative system under the Human Messiah’s leadership (Eph 1:10). In short, Paul’s deictic center, πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, aligns with and calls upon the canon’s grand outer context (N. Wright 2013, vol. 1, pp. 3–177, 456–537, vol. 2, pp. 1043–127; Larsen 2023, pp. 49–78; Heilig 2024, pp. 310–59).

Continuing the canonical horizon in the eulogy, the original placiality of God’s “adornment” (Gen 1:3–31) quickly became contested territory (Gen 3) in Paul’s mini narrative, introducing complications for humans and for creation that needed to be fixed.38 These complications account for the eulogy’s (and the epistle’s) focus upon the need for enhanced administrative rule over this contested adornment. This, in turn, accounts for the eulogy’s focus on the placializing work of God’s saints by means of works that God has preplanned for them (Eph 2:10) to do acting under the direction of Perfect Human Messiah (Eph 1:10).

Before concluding this section on the canonical horizon in the deictic center of Paul’s mini narrative, the canonical horizon also accounts for Paul’s comments on the logical relationships of the grand canonical mission with the inner subplots in Paul’s mini narrative In Paul’s mini narrative there are two main events—the creation of God’s placial world (Eph 1:4) and the summation of all things under a common administrator at the end of the ages (Eph 1:10). Both events relate to the grand canonical mission to fashion the world into being the home and homeland of God. In between these two events are several inner subplots within the eulogy: for example, election to holy blamelessness (1:4); sonship (1:5); redemption and forgiveness (1:7); and (land) inheritance (1;14). These inner events assume that complications have arisen that are contextualized within the grand canonical mission and that are determined by God’s one grand plan of God, τὴν βουλὴν [articular and singular], (Eph 1:11). Paul’s assumption is that everything/everywhere was, is and will always be governed by the resolve of God to fulfill this grand mission39 as God works all things according to His pleasure.40

4.3. The Details of the Eulogy’s Text in Their Local and Canonical Context

Throughout the eulogy the grammar is forcing readers to exercise careful attentiveness to the text (Arnold 2010, p. 72; Hoehner 2002, p. 159; Witherington 2007, pp. 228–29). This style of composition, whether intentional by Paul or not, creates grammatical unity through complexity by means of focused attention. Logic flows amidst participial clauses and prepositional phrases, amidst choices of nouns and qualifying adjectives.41 As the divine and human authors speak, praise is directed to the brilliance of this mission and its underlying all-encompassing plan.

In terms of the eulogy’s local context, readers naturally view their city of Ephesus as a place, which means they will read the eulogy through a placial lens. According to Luke’s portrayal Ephesus, the city is full of magic and occult, which alerts Luke’s readers to the fact that a certain sense of place hangs over the neighborhood—Ephesus is where spiritually evil forces from the famous temple of Artemis have left their placial mark (Arnold 2010, pp. 29–36; Hoehner 2002, pp. 78–89). According to placial theory, magic and occult as words are referents to objects and concepts based around the experience of place in Ephesus that emanates a sense of evil (inter alia). The sense of is part of the experience of being there (“Dasein”). So, in Paul’s eulogy, Paul addresses comments in light of the evil structures and systems that are now working actively within the local neighborhoods. Ephesus is where the sons of disobedience are actively fashioning a sense of place (Eph 2:2). Placial theory insists that such descriptions of Ephesus must be interpreted colorfully, with senses attuned to the words, and vividly, while the sense of conflict provides the background of Paul’s eulogy.

Concerning the temporal endpoints of Paul’s mini narrative, Paul’s two primary events for his mini narrative are election before creation and the final consummation of all things. These twin towers connect temporally and meaningfully with each other,42 and in so doing, they contextualize the inner subplots (e.g., redemption) and inner missional objectives (e.g., holy blamelessness and inheritance) in between these twin towers. In the eulogy this meaningful connection appears between the reader’s own election, the founding of the world, the consummation of all things, and doing the will of God (Eph 1:9, 11; 5:17; 6:6) via missionally preplanned works that believers are now called to perform (Eph 2:10). In other words, election and placemaking provide the context for the reader to view their life within the inner subplots and objectives.

In terms of the eulogy’s canonical context, Paul’s mini narrative begins with cosmogony and concludes with a perfect administration of everything. The final administration is perfect and will occur in the fullness of time, as the inner subplots and objectives are tied together. The inner subplots and objectives reveal the logic of redemption as all complications to the grand mission from the beginning of the canon are resolved. The plan will require redeemed people from the interim who will be administrators in a system of governance within God’s church now and eventually around the world.43 At the base of Paul’s thinking seems to be the logic of administration and organization, given the size of the world in light of the grand mission and its all-encompassing plan (Eph 1:11) (Larsen 2023, pp. 79–139).

Furthermore, this logic about administration of the world’s system also explains the importance of land inheritance in the future (so that each human will have his/her own plot within the homeland of God’s place).44 It explains the logic of rules and regulations of placiality that is suitable for the fullness of times (Eph 1:10),45 including governance over all realms of heaven and earth (Eph 1:10b).46 Meanwhile, cosmologically speaking, the execution of the human mission must continue.47

4.4. Expanding the Canonical Themes in the Eulogy into the Rest of Ephesians

As has been noted, in the opening creation account, God commissioned humankind to perform a grand mission, namely, to be fruitful (have a family), multiply (increase in number), fill the world (with people), and rule and exercise dominion over the placiality of the adornment. The mission expects humans to continue the transformation of God’s place (Gen 1:26–28), which God had begun in Gen 1. Furthermore, God blessed humankind (Gen 1:28) to enable them to achieve success in the performance of this mission.

The eulogy is situated within this canonical context. In the eulogy God chooses His people even before God Himself completed the adornment on the sixth day, and God resolved at that time that they were to be holy and blameless before Him (Eph 1:4b). God’s resolve included the decision that humans would be family via sonship (Eph 1:5). In love He resolved all of this so that God’s grace would be glorious (Eph 1:5–6).

After Eph 1:6, Paul’s deictic center moves forward in time to envision a season when Christ would redeem the humans by His Own blood (Eph 1:7), becoming part of the gospel of salvation (Eph 1:13). Furthermore, Paul’s narrative has a third temporal point when Christ will sum up all things (Eph 1:10). All this planning, of course, requires a system of administration, especially one that is appropriate for the fullness of time (Eph 1:11). This is a time when humans, like those of Paul’s day, will receive a portion in the homeland of God (Eph 1:11). God will make “the all” (τὰ πάντα), everything/everywhere in heaven and earth,48 happen according to His massively all-encompassing plan (Eph 1:11), resulting in the praise of God’s glory (Eph 1:12).

Paul’s understanding, even though not exhaustive as opposed to the all-knowing understanding of the divine author who planned the masterplan, has been given some new information, having previously been a mystery (Eph 1:8–9; 3:3–4, 9; 5:32; 6:19) according to the eulogy (Eph 1:8–9). The overall objective, according to Paul’s understanding, is for God to fashion an administrative system suitable for new creation (εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν). Just as God had originally envisioned humans to be administrators over the ongoing placialization of creation (Genesis 1:26–28), God now reveals a subplot that involves human, and the subplot reveals God’s resolve for humans to be holy and blameless. God’s personal resolve undergirds all the parts of the masterplan and its subplots (Eph 1;1, 5, 9, 11), including the resolve to provide the Perfect Human Messiah as the key to this summation of all things in the heavens and earth (Eph 1:9b–10).

To reassure readers about God’s resolve behind this plan, Paul makes two assertions. The first assertion is that God has predestined this plan to take place. All elected (Eph 1:4) will end up as God’s eternal possession (Eph 1:11–13), based on the plan, counsel, and resolve of God (Eph 1:11). The second assertion is that all whom God elected to be holy and blameless (Eph 1:4) are currently secured by the promised Holy Spirit as “earnest money” (Eph 1:13) and are under the care of Christ until presented as holy and blameless (Eph 5:27). The guarantee of the Spirit and the care of Christ are parts of Paul’s narrative. And in the eulogy’s concluding words, Paul refers to inheritance, which certainly includes land inheritance. Land inheritance is critical to placialization of the locale and its sense of place, as humans received assigned territories for the administration of future systems and structures.

To summarize the canonical themes in the eulogy, in the opening bookend of the canon, the human mission (Gen 1:26–28) called for humans to fill the earth’s locales, which required multiplication of humans. In addition, humans were called to rule administratively as placemakers and caretakers of God’s homeland (Larsen 2023, pp. 134–39). From Genesis and throughout the OT, humans have been assigned specific portions of locale for administrative management. In the closing bookend of the canon, humans are still being envisioned as managing the land (Rev 21:24). Meanwhile, humans, such as Paul’s readers, are to be engaged in this missional work of placemaking, despite living in contested territory (Eph 2:10). Thus, the canonical expansion of inheritance (Eph 1:14) includes land inheritance. This is the standard usage of κληρονομία in the LXX, Koine, and NT—the guarantee is about land and physical possessions. This assurance would be especially meaningful and motivating for slaves and the poor (Eph 5:5; Matt 5:5). This aspect of land inheritance is also a logical component in Paul’s mini narrative, grounded in the canonical context and guaranteed by the plan of God.

5. Implications for Resurrection and New Creation

As noted by other contributors to this Special Issue (e.g., Covington 2025, pp. 5–16), the epistle emphasizes inaugurated eschatology more than the future apocalyptic events of new creation and physical resurrection. For example, a reader quickly notices an emphasis on the saint’s current calling (Eph 1:11, 18; 4:1, 4), an emphasis on the saints being presently seated with Christ (Eph 2:2), and an emphasis about the readers as the new man (Eph 2:15). Yet also as has been noted in other articles in this Special Issue, the epistle also occasionally demonstrates a belief in the future-looking elements that focus on a literal (future) bodily resurrection and new creation.

In Paul’s eulogy (Eph 1:3–14), however, the emphasis is less about either aspect of eschatology but rather emphasizing all-encompassing nature of the grand mission and plan, and this, of course, incorporates all inner subplots that will eventually be an administrative system under the leadership of the Messiah. Consequently, for the purpose of this Special Issue, it is fair to say that the eulogy does not explicitly focus on the future apocalyptic events of new creation and physical bodily resurrection.

But by implication, Paul’s mini narrative, which is based on the grand canonical mission of placemaking and the corresponding all-comprehensive plan that includes God’s house, home, and homeland, it sconcludes chronologically climaxes with a finalizing, future summation about an administrative order under the directorship of the human Messiah (Eph 1:10) and with an assurance of land inheritance (Eph1:14). These intertextual relations are further contextualized, when one reads Luke’s recounting of Paul’s message to the Ephesian elders—Paul reminded them that he had already delivered to them the entirety of the details of this all-encompassing plan (πᾶσαν τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, Acts 20:27). Given Paul’s earlier written testimony in other (non-disputed) epistles, such as in 1 Thessalonians 4–5 and 1 Corinthians 15,49 a reader can safely connect the surrounding dots in the intertextual “mosaic of quotations,” filling in the dots about physical resurrection and new creation.

In short, when reading canonically, Paul’s eulogy reveals a mini narrative that spans from creation to new creation. From this canonical perspective Paul talks to God’s human placemakers, who will work actively both in this age and in the age to come.