This study opened with the observation that references to sin as a power in Paul's letters are to be found within the context of his discussion about the social question of the relationship between Jewish and Gentile believers in the church. While Augustine recognised this, the theological need to counter Pelagianism resulted in a reading of Paul's letters that neglected the socio-historical setting of Paul's sin language in favour of developing an anthropology that stressed the radical sinfulness of the individual. With the Enlightenment came a fresh recognition of the importance of the Jew–Gentile question, but this insight did not lead to an analysis of Paul's sin language within that context. Instead, the recognition that Paul was not concerned with formulating a doctrine of original sin opened the door to a more optimistic view of human nature, and responsibility for the traditional emphasis on human sinfulness was placed at Augustine's door.

In the twentieth century, Bultmann's attempt to recover a Lutheran theology of sin that was relevant to individuals in a secular society was effectively challenged in the 1970s. Bultmann had interpreted Paul's letters using the existential question about the authenticity of our existence as a hermeneutical bridge, but Stendahl argued that this approach was anachronistic, on the grounds that such personal introspection could be traced no further back than Augustine: Paul was concerned with the social question of Jewish–Gentile relations, not with the individual's search for a gracious God.