According to this article, a shift has occurred in how justification is viewed. The rise of the so-called New Perspective on Paul led to justification being viewed more in corporate terms. What is the place of the individual in Paul's view of justification? Hassler believes that the case that Paul was not really interested in “inner tensions of individual souls and consciences” has been overstated.
Seifrid wants to regard Romans 10 as providing an interpretive key to the gospel Paul proclaimed. He further wants to make use of this chapter in Romans to assess the vision of N. T. Wright on justification. He offers exegetical remarks on Romans 10:1-21, which he then uses to make critical remarks about what he understands Wright is teaching about justification.
Thielman is convinced that if one is to understand how justification functions in Paul's writings, one needs to understand how the righteousness language functions in Romans 1:17. He argues in this article that part of the reason for the volatile interpretive history of this verse is that the phrase is polyvalent. He further argues that the "righteousness of God” has three meanings in Romans 1:17.