Hi Eric.
Per you question, it seems to me that the chiastic structure itself may give insight as to the product of Paul's thought.
Rom 1.1-7
A> KLHTOS APOSTOLOS (1.1b)
B> EIS EUANGELLION THEOU (1.1c)
C> PERI TOU HIOU AUTOU (1.2-3)
C'> TOU ORISTHENTOS HIOU THEOU (1.4)
B'> EIS UPAKHN PISTEOOS (1.5B)
A'> KLHTOIS HAGIOIS (1.7)
Therefore EIS EUANGELLION THEOU and EIS UPAKHN PISTEOOS are rhetorically synonomous concepts
The structure in the opening is consistent with the theological doxology at the end of the letter. (Although the contents of chapter 16 have been called into question regarding Pauline authorship, the doxology - 16.25-27 - has not).
Rom 16.25-27
A> Too him (16.25a)
B> My Gospel (16.25b)
C> The kerygma of Jeus (16.25b)
C'> The revelation of th mystery (16.25)
B'> The obedience of/from faith (16.26c)
A'> To God (16.27)
It seems that a chiastic reading of "eis" in Ro 1.6 **and** Ro 16.26c are synonomous and lend lend creedence to an understanding of *Purpose* of Paul and God's work rather than result.
Both share EIS UPAKHN PISTEOOS
-- Harry Staiti a0003192@mail.airmail.net http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2587/post-lib.htmlTo subscribe to the Post-Liberal Theology Discussion List 1. Send a message to: hub@xc.org. 2. In the body of the message type: subscribe post-liberal-theology