4 - The basis for separating presuppositions from intended address

Summary

The two-step exegesis outlined in chapter 3 deals first with what Paul intended to say to the Romans (teleological exposition) and then with two theological presuppositions of what he was intending to say (causal exposition). We do this because it serves our interests and the integrity of Paul's text better than exegesis answering the single question, What does this text mean?

Our interests are commitment to taking the text seriously as the kind of human document it is, a letter from Paul to the believers in Rome, and concern to understand Paul's thought, his theology. We saw in chapter 3 that they would be completely congruent only if Paul intended to give an account of his thought. Thus, treating the text in a single discussion based on the implied question, What does this text mean? will probably make us blur together the answers to the two questions, leaving both unclear. It will also entail the risk of reading Paul's intended communication through our interest in his theology, thereby making Paul in our own image.

These factors would apply to any contemporary exegesis of any Pauline text. In this study of Rom. 1.16–4.25, there is another. We are seeking a new understanding of the text as a whole, so we have a particular responsibility to define our questions clearly and to deal separately with them, without ignoring the interconnections.