This dissertation answers the following: "Why did Paul describe Jesus as hilasterion?" Throughout it, I have examined the questions of the "what" versus the "why": "What is the meaning of hilasterion (hilasterion)" versus "why has the death of Christ been metaphorised as hilasterion." Notwithstanding the uniformity among theologians that the meaning (the "what") of the text should occupy centre space, the enquiries of both Bible translators and Pauline scholars have yielded different meanings as far as iA.cronpwv is concerned. The question "why" shifts the project's focus from the meaning of the text to the performativity, which entails asking different questions. As a result, I have problematised "propitiation," "expiation" and "mercy-seat" as interpretational models for hilasterion, because these theological models neglect the rhetorical situation which leads to a misunderstanding of hilasterion. Consequently, applying the three-pronged rhetorical approaches to my text has enabled me to move the discussion away from a purely textual, away from the harmonization of "ideas," away from a traditional theological paradigm thinking only in terms of soteriology and the salvific to a paradigm where the rhetorical, to where the social-cultural and the religiopolitical contexts has been taken into consideration. Dispositio has acted as the foreground for impartiality that facilitated the accommodation of the non-Jews in the Abrahamic family which is hilasterion's performativity. I have argued that apostrophe in service of stasis theory had numerous Jewish fundamentals redefined, without which the notion of hilasterion would not have made sense. I have demonstrated how patron versus client relationship emerged in the depiction of hilasterion as a gift from God, evidence of his righteousness, and how riposte operated in dislodging the non-Jews from their social position and relocating them within the nation of God. The metaphorisation of Jesus' death and his portrayal as hilasterion had a number of tasks. It normalised a situation, it brought about an alternative situation into existence, it endorsed social solidarity, it brought about a different genealogy into effect, it sanctioned the construction of a "new and superior race," and ulitmatley it produced inclusivity of the non-Jews into the Jewish family since Jesus tremendously had high values then extreme value was assigned to the non-Jews. Thus, I have problematised decontextualised theologising, easy theologising (as "propitiation," "expiation," and " mercy-seat"), in order to demonstrate that a socio-rhetorical appraisal of hilasterion requires theologians to rethink the categories they operate with. / New Testament / M. Th. (New Testament)

This dissertation answers the following: "Why did Paul describe Jesus as hilasterion?" Throughout it, I have examined the questions of the "what" versus the "why": "What is the meaning of hilasterion (hilasterion)" versus "why has the death of Christ been metaphorised as hilasterion." Notwithstanding the uniformity among theologians that the meaning (the "what") of the text should occupy centre space, the enquiries of both Bible translators and Pauline scholars have yielded different meanings as far as iA.cronpwv is concerned. The question "why" shifts the project's focus from the meaning of the text to the performativity, which entails asking different questions. As a result, I have problematised "propitiation," "expiation" and "mercy-seat" as interpretational models for hilasterion, because these theological models neglect the rhetorical situation which leads to a misunderstanding of hilasterion. Consequently, applying the three-pronged rhetorical approaches to my text has enabled me to move the discussion away from a purely textual, away from the harmonization of "ideas," away from a traditional theological paradigm thinking only in terms of soteriology and the salvific to a paradigm where the rhetorical, to where the social-cultural and the religiopolitical contexts has been taken into consideration. Dispositio has acted as the foreground for impartiality that facilitated the accommodation of the non-Jews in the Abrahamic family which is hilasterion's performativity. I have argued that apostrophe in service of stasis theory had numerous Jewish fundamentals redefined, without which the notion of hilasterion would not have made sense. I have demonstrated how patron versus client relationship emerged in the depiction of hilasterion as a gift from God, evidence of his righteousness, and how riposte operated in dislodging the non-Jews from their social position and relocating them within the nation of God. The metaphorisation of Jesus' death and his portrayal as hilasterion had a number of tasks. It normalised a situation, it brought about an alternative situation into existence, it endorsed social solidarity, it brought about a different genealogy into effect, it sanctioned the construction of a "new and superior race," and ulitmatley it produced inclusivity of the non-Jews into the Jewish family since Jesus tremendously had high values then extreme value was assigned to the non-Jews. Thus, I have problematised decontextualised theologising, easy theologising (as "propitiation," "expiation," and " mercy-seat"), in order to demonstrate that a socio-rhetorical appraisal of hilasterion requires theologians to rethink the categories they operate with. / New Testament / M. Th. (New Testament)

Text in German / An drei Stellen im Römerbrief verweist Paulus auf die Vergangenheit Israels: auf Abraham in Röm 4,1–25, auf Abrahams Nachkommen, Mose und Pharao in Röm 9,6–18 und auf Elija in Röm 11,1–10. Gegenstand der Untersuchung ist die Bedeutung dieser Verweise auf die Vergangenheit Israels für die Argumentation des Römerbriefs. Nach der Analyse der rhetorischen Situation und der Einordnung der relevanten Stellen in die rhetorische Makrostruktur des Briefs werden alttestamentlicher Kontext und frühjüdische Rezeption der rezipierten Ereignisse untersucht. Auf diesem Hintergrund werden die drei Passagen detailliert betrachtet, indem der Argumentationsgang untersucht und die mögliche rhetorische Wirkung auf die Adressaten aus sechs unterschiedlichen Perspektiven analysiert wird: mit hoher Schriftkenntnis, mit geringer Schriftkenntnis, aus jüdischer, nichtjüdischer, christlicher und stadtrömischer Perspektive. Auf diese Weise können unterschiedliche Aspekte der leserseitigen Rezeption differenziert wahrgenommen werden, bevor sie zu einem Gesamtbild zusammengeführt werden. / New Testament

Text in German / An drei Stellen im Römerbrief verweist Paulus auf die Vergangenheit Israels: auf Abraham in Röm 4,1–25, auf Abrahams Nachkommen, Mose und Pharao in Röm 9,6–18 und auf Elija in Röm 11,1–10. Gegenstand der Untersuchung ist die Bedeutung dieser Verweise auf die Vergangenheit Israels für die Argumentation des Römerbriefs. Nach der Analyse der rhetorischen Situation und der Einordnung der relevanten Stellen in die rhetorische Makrostruktur des Briefs werden alttestamentlicher Kontext und frühjüdische Rezeption der rezipierten Ereignisse untersucht. Auf diesem Hintergrund werden die drei Passagen detailliert betrachtet, indem der Argumentationsgang untersucht und die mögliche rhetorische Wirkung auf die Adressaten aus sechs unterschiedlichen Perspektiven analysiert wird: mit hoher Schriftkenntnis, mit geringer Schriftkenntnis, aus jüdischer, nichtjüdischer, christlicher und stadtrömischer Perspektive. Auf diese Weise können unterschiedliche Aspekte der leserseitigen Rezeption differenziert wahrgenommen werden, bevor sie zu einem Gesamtbild zusammengeführt werden. / New Testament