In our study of Rom. 1.16–4.25, we have asked some fundamental questions and developed new exegetical attitudes and techniques. We now review these and consider the significance of their outcomes.

Rom. 1.16–4.25 – A new basic conception in continuity with the old

In chapter 2, we argued that the basic conception guiding mainstream exegesis of Rom. 1.16–4.25 is inadequate and needs to be replaced. We proposed testing the hypothesis that Paul was trying to do something other than give a justification account but the justification theology was important for whatever that was. We suggested further that if this hypothesis is correct, we could expect our conception of the passage to change in two major stages. In the first, we should see the passage as a justification account influenced by the different issue. In the second, we should have a new basic conception arising from a new understanding of Paul's intention. The changes resulting from study of the law questions could represent the first stage.

We have found that Paul was dealing with the question of how God could be seen to be righteous if he justified believers on the basis of their faith without reference to the Jew-Gentile distinction. He did this not as one giving an account, even a polemical account, of justification, but as one preaching the gospel to believers for whom this was a major practical issue.