Seit langem beschäftigt die Auslegungsgeschichte die Frage, was Paulus meint, wenn er in Röm 3,25 den Christus Jesus als ἱλαστήριον bezeichnet. Hilasterion – ein substantiviertes Neutrum, das außerhalb der jüdisch-christlichen Literatur kaum belegt ist – wird in der LXX zumeist als terminus technicus für hebräisch kapporaet gebraucht, die goldene Abdeckung der Bundeslade. Ob Paulus in Röm 3,25 auf die kapporaet Bezug nimmt, ist allerdings umstritten. Ganz wörtlich wäre hilasterion mit „das Sühnende“ zu übertragen. Weil die substantivierten Neutra auf -terion meist einen lokalen Bezug haben (bspw. bouleuterion = Ort der Ratsversammlung), ließe sich hilasterion auch im Sinne von ‚Sühneort‘ oder ‚Sühnemal‘ verstehen. Einigkeit herrscht jedenfalls darin, dass hilasterion als Schlüsselbegriff zum Verständnis von Röm 3,25 zu betrachten ist. Doch was er genau bedeutet und ob dem Begriff eine sühnetheologische Bedeutung abzugewinnen ist, darüber gehen die Meinungen auseinander¹.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att bättre förstå på vilket sätt Paulus använder sig av begrepp från offerkulten som metaforer och hur vi kan anta att dessa uppfattades av människor under Paulus samtid. Genom att tillämpa konceptuell metaforteori på Paulus användning av offerspråk i Rom 12:1 och 15:16 där Paulus talar om etisk livsföring respektive sin egen mission och därefter konceptuell blandteori på texten i Rom 3:25 där Paulus talar om Jesus död, försöker jag visa på den retoriska funktion som Paulus offerspråk har när det kombineras med metaforer från de tre helt andra domäner/områden som Paulus använder sig av i Rom 3:25. Jag försöker förstå vilka känslor och associationer som användningen av dessa meta-forer från fyra olika och på den tiden välkända områden/domäner tillsammans kan ha väckt hos Paulus läsare/åhörare.Min slutsats är att Paulus användning av metaforik från de fyra olika domänerna (offerkult, martyrskap, rättsväsendet, slaveri/fångenskap) kan ha väckt en känsla av frihet och befrielse hos de tidigkristna (hedningar och judar). Paulus användning av offermetaforer i kombination med andra metaforer i Rom 3:25 kan ha förmedlat att Gud genom Jesus död visar att alla som följer Jesus (liv, död och uppståndelse) är fria från dom och synd, fria från krav på laggärningar, jämställda och kan leva ett rättfärdigt liv i gemenskap. Inte för att Gud behöver eller kräver något offer utan som en möjlighet att börja ett nytt rättfärdigt liv i enlighet med Guds vilja. En känsla kan ha väckts om att vara fri från synd, skuld, straff och förtryck. En känsla av frihet som innebar ett nytt sätt för människor att vara mot varandra i gemenskap där alla vill arbeta tillsammans för en bättre värld, en värld som bygger på allas lika värde, ett etiskt förhållningssätt och med Jesus som förebild. Paulus förklarar i Rom 3:25 hur Gud visar sin rättfärdighet, det handlar inte längre om laggärningar utan om Jesu Kristi efterföljelse.

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)