Text in German with summaries in German and English / Die Kreuzestheologie erlebt seit Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts eine anhaltende Renaissance. Die vorgelegten Beiträge gehen zwar von gemeinsamen Wurzeln aus, verzweigen sich jedoch in vielfältige, teilweise disparate Entwürfe. Deshalb ist neu zu fragen, was Kreuzestheologie ist. Die Antwort wird in sieben Schriften des Corpus Paulinum gesucht, welche auf ihren kreuzestheologischen Gehalt befragt werden. Dabei zeigt sich trotz unterschiedlich häufiger Verwendung der kreuzestheologischen Begriffe durchwegs die entscheidende Bedeutung des Kreuzes Jesu in den theologischen Grundlinien. Kreuzesaussagen erscheinen immer im Zusammenhang mit den zentralen Thesen der paulinischen Briefe. Der exegetische Befund führt zum Schluss, dass bei der paulinischen Kreuzestheologie von einem theologischen Ansatz zu sprechen ist, der zurecht umfassenden und kritischen Anspruch auf christliche Theologie und kirchliche Praxis erhebt. / The “theology of the cross” has seen a remarkable come-back since the beginning of 20th century. While the various contributions share similar roots, they differ widely in their approaches and constructions. Therefore, the simple question regarding the nature of a theology of the cross has to be raised again. This study seeks answers in seven writings of the Corpus Paulinum, which will be examined for their use of references to Jesus’ death on the cross. Although these letters differ significantly in their use of crossrelated terminology, they consistently testify to the crucial significance of the cross of Jesus in their theological paradigm. Statements about the cross are always an essential ingredient in the argumentation of these letters. The exegetical survey leads to the conclusion that Pauline theology of the cross is an all-encompassing and critical approach and principle for Christian theology and ecclesial practice. / New Testament / M. Th. (New Testament)

One of the central issues of early Christianity was the identity of Jesus Christ. Paul and other early Christians discussed this question within the framework of traditional Jewish monotheism and used the language of deity to describe Christ. This thesis explores how and why they integrated the two concepts of monotheism and the deity of Jesus. As a window into this process, it particularly examines Paul’s discourse in 2 Cor 3:16–4:6, employing grammatical-historical exegesis with insights from rhetorical criticism and Oneness Pentecostal Christology. We consider three fundamental questions: (1) What does the exalted language concerning Christ in this text represent? (2) How did Paul reconcile the deification of Jesus with his monotheistic heritage? (3) Why did Paul deify Jesus? What interests were served, and what were the practical consequences? The conclusion is that early Christians, prior to and including Paul, worshiped Jesus within a Jewish monotheistic context and not as a result of Hellenization. They viewed Jesus as the revelation of the one God, not as a second deity or a different personage. Although they reinterpreted their core beliefs in light of Jesus, they did not see their worship of Jesus as violating their core beliefs. The evidence from Paul’s Corinthian correspondence does not require an explicit binitarian or trinitarian model, but it reveals that many early Christians viewed God as both transcendent and immanent and worshiped Jesus as the God of Israel manifested in human identity. We identify four significant socio-rhetorical factors in the monotheistic deification of Jesus: (1) In a context of rapid social change it enabled Christians to combine Hebrew monotheism with Greek longing for universals, thereby claiming both traditional heritage and Christocentric distinctiveness. (2) It gave them a unique social identity and cohesiveness. (3) It affirmed their soteriological experiences, beliefs, and outreach. (4) It positioned the movement to attract all people, moving the new faith beyond Jewish ethnicity and traditional boundary markers so that it became a universal monotheism with a missiological focus. The socio-rhetorically constructed identity of Jesus Christ defined the identity of the early Christians. The result was a distinctively Christian faith. / New Testament / D. Th. (New Testament)

The thesis, entitled “From Self-Praise to Self-Boasting: Paul’s Unmasking of the Conflicting Rhetorico-Linguistic Phenomena in 1 Corinthians,” examines the rhetorical conventions of “boasting” and self-praise among those vying for social status and honor within the Greco-Roman world. While the terminological options for “boasting” and self-praise frequently overlap, a survey of these conventions demonstrates that the ancients possessed a categorical distinction between “boasting” and self-praise, which oftentimes conflicted with Paul’s distinction. Clear examples of this conflict appear in 1 Cor 1:10-4:21; 5:1-13; 9:1-27; 13:1-13; and 15:30-32, where Paul addresses the Corinthians’ overestimation of wisdom and eloquence, redirects the Corinthians’ attention away from loyalties to specific leaders to loyalty to Christ, redefines the standards by which the Corinthians should view themselves and their leaders, counters the Corinthians’ tendency to engage in anthropocentric “boasting,” and affirms his own apostolic ministry. It is the Corinthian community’s inability to grasp the application of theocentric “boasting” which leads Paul to address certain aspects and values of secular Corinth that have penetrated the Corinthian community. Thus, operating from an eschatological perspective, Paul critiques both the Corinthians’ attitudes and the Greco-Roman cultural values upon which their attitudes are based. Through irony, self-presentation, imitation, differentiating between theocentric and anthropocentric “boasting,” and distinguishing between personality and gospel rhetoric, Paul challenges the secular notions of social status, power, wisdom, leadership, and patronage and exhorts the Corinthians to focus their attention on their relationship with the Lord rather than on improving their social status or on increasing their honor.

One of the central issues of early Christianity was the identity of Jesus Christ. Paul and other early Christians discussed this question within the framework of traditional Jewish monotheism and used the language of deity to describe Christ. This thesis explores how and why they integrated the two concepts of monotheism and the deity of Jesus. As a window into this process, it particularly examines Paul’s discourse in 2 Cor 3:16–4:6, employing grammatical-historical exegesis with insights from rhetorical criticism and Oneness Pentecostal Christology. We consider three fundamental questions: (1) What does the exalted language concerning Christ in this text represent? (2) How did Paul reconcile the deification of Jesus with his monotheistic heritage? (3) Why did Paul deify Jesus? What interests were served, and what were the practical consequences? The conclusion is that early Christians, prior to and including Paul, worshiped Jesus within a Jewish monotheistic context and not as a result of Hellenization. They viewed Jesus as the revelation of the one God, not as a second deity or a different personage. Although they reinterpreted their core beliefs in light of Jesus, they did not see their worship of Jesus as violating their core beliefs. The evidence from Paul’s Corinthian correspondence does not require an explicit binitarian or trinitarian model, but it reveals that many early Christians viewed God as both transcendent and immanent and worshiped Jesus as the God of Israel manifested in human identity. We identify four significant socio-rhetorical factors in the monotheistic deification of Jesus: (1) In a context of rapid social change it enabled Christians to combine Hebrew monotheism with Greek longing for universals, thereby claiming both traditional heritage and Christocentric distinctiveness. (2) It gave them a unique social identity and cohesiveness. (3) It affirmed their soteriological experiences, beliefs, and outreach. (4) It positioned the movement to attract all people, moving the new faith beyond Jewish ethnicity and traditional boundary markers so that it became a universal monotheism with a missiological focus. The socio-rhetorically constructed identity of Jesus Christ defined the identity of the early Christians. The result was a distinctively Christian faith. / New Testament / D. Th. (New Testament)

Cette thèse porte sur l’usage du terme σήμερον (« aujourd’hui ») en Luc-Actes (vingt-deux occurrences), dans la correspondance paulinienne (Romains 11.8 ; 2 Corinthiens 3.14, 15) et dans l’épître aux Hébreux (1.5 ; 3.7, 13, 15 ; 4.7 [à deux reprises] ; 5.5 ; 13.8). Elle accorde une importance particulière à la possibilité de l’influence de l’ « aujourd’hui » du Deutéronome dans le Nouveau Testament. Deux hypothèses principales sont au cœur de cette étude. D’une part, celle de la thématisation, dans le Deutéronome comme dans les trois corpus néotestamentaires envisagés, du mot « aujourd’hui » : dans chaque cas, ce terme acquiert le statut de thème théologique à part entière. En effet, ses divers emplois démontrent un travail de réflexion sur « l’aujourd’hui ». D’autre part, celle d’une influence deutéronomique commune : les trois écrivains néotestamentaires sont conscients des attaches théologiques de l’aujourd’hui deutéronomique. Ils transposent volontairement et diversement ce motif vétérotestamentaire à la lumière de l’événement Jésus-Christ. En fin d’enquête, on constate que l’aujourd’hui lucanien, l’aujourd’hui paulinien et l’aujourd’hui de l’épître aux Hébreux, tout en conservant des accents qui leur sont propres, contribuent tous à mettre en valeur les mêmes concepts théologiques clés, parmi lesquels figurent l’accomplissement de l’Écriture, l’eschatologie en cours de réalisation, l’avènement du salut, l’annonce de la bonne nouvelle et la proclamation de la parole de Dieu. / This dissertation examines the use of the term σήμερον (“today”) in Luke-Acts (22 occurrences), the Pauline letters (Romans 11:8; 2 Corinthians 3:14, 15) and the Epistle to the Hebrews (1:5; 3:7, 13, 15; 4:7 [twice]); 5:5; 13:8). It gives special attention to the possible influence of the Deuteronomic “today” in the New Testament. Two main hypotheses are at the heart of this study. First, the word “today,” in Deuteronomy as well as the three New Testament corpora under consideration, becomes a theological theme of its own. In effect, it is argued that its various occurrences reveal the presence of reflective work on “the today.” Second, in the minds of the three New Testament authors who give attention to this motif, there seems to be an awareness of certain theological associations that are bound up with the Deuteronomic “today.” In diverse manners, they intentionally transpose this Old Testament motif in the light of the Christ event. By the end of this investigation, it becomes apparent that Luke’s today, Paul’s today and the today of the Epistle to the Hebrews, while each possessing unique characteristics, all contribute to emphasize the same key theological concepts, such as the fulfillment of Scripture, an inaugurated and progressively realized eschatology, the coming of salvation, the heralding of the good news and the proclaiming of God’s Word.

Today, some twelve million immigrants are unlawfully present in the United States. What response to this situation does Christian theology suggest for these immigrants and those who receive them? To this question about the status of immigrants before the law, the theological literature lacks an understanding of how federal U.S. immigration law developed, and it lacks a robust theological account of the governance of immigration. To fill this gap, the thesis presents three stages in the formation of the laws that designate some immigrants as aliens unlawfully present or illegal aliens, drawing out the moral argumentation in each phase and responding with moral theology. In the first stage, non-citizens were called aliens in U.S. law. In response to the argument that aliens exist as a consequence of natural law, Christian teaching indicates that immigrants are not alien either in creation or for the church. In the second stage, the authority of the federal government to exclude and expel aliens was established, leaving those who do not comply to be designated illegal aliens. To the claim that the federal government has unlimited sovereignty over immigration, interpretations of the Christian Scriptures respond that divine sovereignty limits and directs civil authority over immigration. In the third stage, legal reforms that were intended to end discrimination between countries allowed millions from countries neighboring the U.S. to become illegal aliens. These reforms turn out to be unjust on philosophical grounds and unneighborly on theological grounds. While federal law classes many as aliens unlawfully present in the United States, Christian political theology indicates that immigrants are not alien, the government of immigration is limited by divine judgment, and nationals of neighboring countries deserve special regard.

This thesis is a work of Christian theology. Its purpose is twofold: firstly to develop an adequate understanding of reconciliation at the level of peoples and nations; and secondly to make a practical contribution to resolving the problems in Australia for the welfare of all the peoples, and of the land itself. The history of the relationships between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Australia has left many problems, and no matter what the non-Indigenous people try to do, the Indigenous peoples of Australia continue to experience themselves as being in a state of siege. Trying to understand what is happening, and what can be done to resolve the problems for the peoples of Australia and the land, have been the implicit drivers for the theological development in this thesis. This thesis argues that the present generation in any trans-generational dispute is likely to continue to sin in ways that are shaped by the sins of the past, which explains why Indigenous peoples in Australia find themselves in a stage of siege, even when the non-Indigenous peoples are trying to pursue policies which they believe are for the welfare of all. The only way to resolve this is for the peoples of Australia to seek reconciliation. In particular, the non-Indigenous peoples need to repent, both of their own sins, and the sins of their forebears. Reconciliation processes have become part of the international political landscape. However, there are real concerns about the justice of pursuing reconciliation. An important part of the theological development of this thesis is therefore to show that pursuing reconciliation establishes justice. It is shown that the nature of justice, and of repentance, can only be established by pursuing reconciliation. Reconciliation is possible because God has made it possible, and is working in the world to bring reconciliation. Because land is an essential part of Indigenous identity in Australia, the history of land in court cases and legislation in Australia over the past half century forms an important case study in this work. It is shown that, although there was significant repentance within the non-Indigenous legal system in Australia, the degree of repentance available through that legal system is inherently limited, and so a more radical approach is needed in order to seek reconciliation in Australia. A final chapter considers what the non-Indigenous people of Australia need to do in order to repent.