The Doctrine of Salvation in the First Letter of Peter. By MARTIN WILLIAMS.

Abstract

T his monograph, the revised version of the author’s Ph.D. dissertation that was accepted at the University of Otago (superviser: P. Trebilco), combines a classical fine-tuned exegetical analysis of particular passages with what some might consider to be a rather unusual look at reception history based on theological considerations. The work consists of eight chapters divided over three parts that deal with methodology. Part I (ch. 1): a ‘theological-critical’ exegesis; Part II: a ‘literal sense’ exegesis (chs. 2–6: five topics or aspects of salvation as this is addressed in the Letter: election, atonement, the metaphor of rebirth to denote salvation, the futuristic aspect of salvation, and the presentation of salvation as victory and vindication); and Part III: ‘intercatholic [ sic ] conversation’ (chs. 7–8: picking up on the first two items of the previous part). While the contents of the middle part are probably easily imagined, a word of explanation may be needed for the two other parts. The first one offers a long reflection on what the author proposes to call ‘a theological-critical exegesis’. This method is first described in a negative and somewhat ambiguous way as being the opposite of ‘(merely) “historical-critical” or even “historical-grammatical” exegesis (though it is no less than these)’ (p. 11). The difference with the historical-focused methods is then said to be with the goal that it is aimed at: ‘For the theological exegete, the goal of interpretation is to hear the word of God and to behold the glory of God in Scripture and to be transformed by it’ (p. 11). How this happens and what it brings about is then further illustrated in the third part, in which the author proposes to start ‘a conversation between 1 Peter and the different faith/theological traditions’ (i.e. of the Reformed churches), as he formulates it (p. 35). While granting that there is more to biblical exegesis than reconstructing the past (of a text and of the situation it addresses), I can imagine that this description may sound rather disturbing to many biblical scholars. Moreover, the author’s musings on the relation between New Testament studies and systematic theology, on why he is promoting such an approach, and on a hermeneutics that makes ‘literal sense’ exegesis subservient to ‘intercatholic conversation’ (all very much influenced by K. Barth and K. Vanhoozer) may not suffice to take away the impression that (a specific tradition of) systematic theology has taken over from exegesis, or the suspicion that the latter is largely directed by the former. Actually, there is quite some proof in this book that the reservations I have just formulated are fully on target.