What do you think?
Rate this book
Mere Christian Hermeneutics: Transfiguring What It Means to Read the Bible Theologically
How can we read the text of Scripture well, rightly, and faithfully? Theologian Kevin J. Vanhoozer believes the two greatest challenges in developing a theory of interpretation are, first, the de facto variety of actual interpretations of the Bible and, second, the plurality of reading cultures--denominational, disciplinary, historical, and global interpretive communities--each with its own preferred frame of reference. A cynical observer might say that the one thing Christians have never agreed on is how to interpret the Bible, or even on the meaning of the "literal sense."
In response, Vanhoozer offers Mere Christian Hermeneutics. The allusion to C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity is no accident. A "mere" Christian hermeneutic--that is, principles for reading the Bible as Scripture everywhere, at all times, and by all Christians--represents both a challenge and a promise. With this book, Vanhoozer seeks to fulfill the promise without degenerating into a bland ecumenical tolerance of conflicting opinions. Rather, he turns to the accounts of Jesus' transfiguration, a key moment in the broader economy of God's revelation, to suggest that spiritual or "figural" interpretation is not a denial or distortion of the literal sense but, rather, its glorification. He calls both church and academy to develop reading cultures that enable and sustain the kind of unity and the kind of diversity that "mere Christian hermeneutics" calls for and encourages.
In response, Vanhoozer offers Mere Christian Hermeneutics. The allusion to C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity is no accident. A "mere" Christian hermeneutic--that is, principles for reading the Bible as Scripture everywhere, at all times, and by all Christians--represents both a challenge and a promise. With this book, Vanhoozer seeks to fulfill the promise without degenerating into a bland ecumenical tolerance of conflicting opinions. Rather, he turns to the accounts of Jesus' transfiguration, a key moment in the broader economy of God's revelation, to suggest that spiritual or "figural" interpretation is not a denial or distortion of the literal sense but, rather, its glorification. He calls both church and academy to develop reading cultures that enable and sustain the kind of unity and the kind of diversity that "mere Christian hermeneutics" calls for and encourages.
440 pages, Kindle Edition
Published October 1, 2024
166 people are currently reading
886 people want to read
About the author
Kevin J. Vanhoozer
68 books189 followersKevin J. Vanhoozer is currently Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. From 1990-98 he was Senior Lecturer in Theology and Religious Studies at New College, University of Edinburgh. Vanhoozer received a BA from Westmont College, an M.Div from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, England having studied under Nicholas Lash.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews
October 2, 2024
Literally illuminating!
December 14, 2025
Wow. I’m pretty much speechless—but certainly seeing more clearly! It may have taken me six months to ascend the mountain of biblical interpretation with Vanhoozer as a guide, but it was a delight and a joy along the way. Through his guidance—and that of many others, both ancient and modern—I have a much clearer vision of biblical interpretation, and its tasks have been illuminated and enlightened for me. Vanhoozer’s Mere Christian Hermeneutics has certainly transfigured what it means, in my mind, to read the Bible theologically. This book is a gift to the church, and one that I envision returning to frequently for many decades to come. Interpreters of Scripture, take up and read!
December 4, 2024
This is an excellent and illuminating read on how the Bible is a transfigural (and therefore transformational) read when read in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit of Christ the Son, sent by the Father to make sons out of needy sinners.
January 16, 2025
I did it! I ascended the biblical/theological/historical/philosophical/interpretive mount that is Mere Christian Hermeneutics. It's not a trek for the faint of heart. But the experience and the view are well worth it.
I have deep respect and appreciation for what Vanhoozer has done here. All the subtle and not so subtle references to C. S. Lewis, Jane Austen, and Star Wars were also appreciated.
This should be required reading for pastors, biblical scholars, theologians, and every person who desires to rightly read and be transformed by the Word of God. You can bet I'll be strongly encouraging my students to read and wrestle with it.
**Further thoughts that are specific after time to process and discuss with others**
What I personally found most helpful in MCH was:
1. The emphasis on being answerable to Scripture, that as God's Word, reading is not "just" an academic practice, but something that should transform us.
2. Discussion of reading cultures and frame of references, both modern and historical, that shape how we approach and interpret Scripture.
3. The emphasis on biblical exegesis needing theology, and theology needing biblical exegesis.
4. The call/invitation to learn from hermeneutical methods outside of our own, even as we might disagree. We still have things to learn from one another.
What I'm still struggling to understand:
1. How to apply the transfigural hermeneutics approach Vanhoozer proposes and what impact it would have on a mere Christian hermeneutic where the rubber meets the road. For example, I don't know how to apply this framework to the hermeneutical debate on how to interpret/apply NT passages on the roles of men and women in the church and home. And I wonder if it would have any impact on church life and practice. Hopefully, it'd at the very least cultivate some charity and humility in the two camps and maybe bring some unity under Christ.
2. I don't fully understand how the transfiguration is THE hermeneutical key.
I have deep respect and appreciation for what Vanhoozer has done here. All the subtle and not so subtle references to C. S. Lewis, Jane Austen, and Star Wars were also appreciated.
This should be required reading for pastors, biblical scholars, theologians, and every person who desires to rightly read and be transformed by the Word of God. You can bet I'll be strongly encouraging my students to read and wrestle with it.
**Further thoughts that are specific after time to process and discuss with others**
What I personally found most helpful in MCH was:
1. The emphasis on being answerable to Scripture, that as God's Word, reading is not "just" an academic practice, but something that should transform us.
2. Discussion of reading cultures and frame of references, both modern and historical, that shape how we approach and interpret Scripture.
3. The emphasis on biblical exegesis needing theology, and theology needing biblical exegesis.
4. The call/invitation to learn from hermeneutical methods outside of our own, even as we might disagree. We still have things to learn from one another.
What I'm still struggling to understand:
1. How to apply the transfigural hermeneutics approach Vanhoozer proposes and what impact it would have on a mere Christian hermeneutic where the rubber meets the road. For example, I don't know how to apply this framework to the hermeneutical debate on how to interpret/apply NT passages on the roles of men and women in the church and home. And I wonder if it would have any impact on church life and practice. Hopefully, it'd at the very least cultivate some charity and humility in the two camps and maybe bring some unity under Christ.
2. I don't fully understand how the transfiguration is THE hermeneutical key.
November 9, 2024
A real triumph. Book review at CT forthcoming.
November 27, 2024
Stupendous.
February 25, 2025
Phenomenal.
January 22, 2025
Worthy of all the hype. Vanhoozer’s writing is captivating, but the ideas he’s writing about are glorious.
Vanhooz clarifies a lot of concepts, including a lengthy discussion of what exactly the “literal sense” is, in this volume and puts words to what many preachers intuitively do in preaching Christ from all of Scripture.
“To transfigure biblical interpretation is to sense the spiritual excellency of the literal sense.”
Vanhooz clarifies a lot of concepts, including a lengthy discussion of what exactly the “literal sense” is, in this volume and puts words to what many preachers intuitively do in preaching Christ from all of Scripture.
“To transfigure biblical interpretation is to sense the spiritual excellency of the literal sense.”
September 4, 2025
Fantastic! There is where I've landed on this. Vanhoozer has thought it through like ten more steps than me. I think he's bang on and I'm both stoked and not surprised this book has won awards. ✌️
"The literal meaning of Scripture is the meaning of the letter, viewed as a human-divine authorial discourse when read in canonical context with an eschatological frame of reference."
"The literal meaning of Scripture is the meaning of the letter, viewed as a human-divine authorial discourse when read in canonical context with an eschatological frame of reference."
April 22, 2025
Much of this book is excellent. The strongest element is probably the survey of the literature itself. It's hard not to finish the book thinking that Vanhoozer has read nearly everything on the subject of hermeneutics. His analysis of all the different hermeneutical camps and approaches is immensely helpful, and he represents each view fairly rather than engaging in straw men. I also greatly resonated with many of his emphases, including the role of systematic/historical theology in the task of interpretation, the importance of reading the OT with a Christological/eschatological perspective, and the cultivation of spiritual growth and virtue as necessary for proper reading of Scripture.
So why only three stars? While many of these individual themes and insights are great, I don't think Vanhoozer ultimately succeeds in charting out a "mere Christian hermeneutic." In Lewis's book Mere Christianity (from which the title of Vanhoozer's book is clearly drawn), Lewis describes his task as a "hallway"; that is, because he's only covering the basics (the beliefs virtually all Christians can agree on), his summary of Christianity is not meant to be a stopping point but instead a place from which seekers can go on to decide on a particular form/denomination of Christianity (a "room"). But Vanhoozer's project is different. Rather than a hallway, it feels like he's attempting to build a room big enough to encompass all the various hermeneutical camps he covers. This leads to two unfortunate results. First, he defines terms like "transfigural reading," "frame of reference," and "literal meaning" so broadly that they become somewhat ambiguous and unhelpful. Second, it leaves the reader wondering whether professing Christians who don't entirely agree with his approach are outside the boundaries of Christian interpretation. For example, is a dispensational interpreter who restricts meaning to the human author's conscious intent thus committing the hermeneutical equivalent of heresy? I doubt Vanhoozer would affirm that, but by virtue of calling his approach a "mere" Christian hermeneutic, that would seem to be the implication.
At the end of the day, while I enjoyed this book and benefitted from it, I'm just not really sure whether it moves the conversation forward at all. I was hoping the book would lay out a good starting point on which the various hermeneutical camps could agree and from which they could then form their particular arguments and views. Instead, it feels like the articulation of yet another camp - one that is perhaps broader and more inclusive than the others, but also less clear and precise and therefore less helpful.
So why only three stars? While many of these individual themes and insights are great, I don't think Vanhoozer ultimately succeeds in charting out a "mere Christian hermeneutic." In Lewis's book Mere Christianity (from which the title of Vanhoozer's book is clearly drawn), Lewis describes his task as a "hallway"; that is, because he's only covering the basics (the beliefs virtually all Christians can agree on), his summary of Christianity is not meant to be a stopping point but instead a place from which seekers can go on to decide on a particular form/denomination of Christianity (a "room"). But Vanhoozer's project is different. Rather than a hallway, it feels like he's attempting to build a room big enough to encompass all the various hermeneutical camps he covers. This leads to two unfortunate results. First, he defines terms like "transfigural reading," "frame of reference," and "literal meaning" so broadly that they become somewhat ambiguous and unhelpful. Second, it leaves the reader wondering whether professing Christians who don't entirely agree with his approach are outside the boundaries of Christian interpretation. For example, is a dispensational interpreter who restricts meaning to the human author's conscious intent thus committing the hermeneutical equivalent of heresy? I doubt Vanhoozer would affirm that, but by virtue of calling his approach a "mere" Christian hermeneutic, that would seem to be the implication.
At the end of the day, while I enjoyed this book and benefitted from it, I'm just not really sure whether it moves the conversation forward at all. I was hoping the book would lay out a good starting point on which the various hermeneutical camps could agree and from which they could then form their particular arguments and views. Instead, it feels like the articulation of yet another camp - one that is perhaps broader and more inclusive than the others, but also less clear and precise and therefore less helpful.
March 13, 2025
Challenging, creative, widely read, beautifully written, and always thoughtful, this book finds Kevin Vanhoozer mounting a humble, honest attempt at a via media between differing interpretive camps—between biblical scholars and theologians, and the modern and pre-modern hermeneutical approaches they allegedly represent—in an effort to bridge the perceived divide between a literal and a spiritual interpretation of Scripture. Vanhoozer's efforts are as ambitious as they are noble, and the end result is a work that gives readers much to chew on and revisit.
Overall, I thought that this book started off firing on all cylinders, sagged a bit in the middle, but concluded on a strong note. Vanhoozer's discussion of reading cultures and his historical analysis of the lay of the land was excellent. However, his constructive proposal for a transfigural—or grammatical-eschatological—reading of Scripture that follows the grain of the biblical text in its canonical context for the christological referent, while conceptually compelling, lacked the clarity and concreteness that I would have liked to have seen in order to be completely convinced. In theory, I would say I agree with this proposed understanding of the literal meaning. However, I remain hung up on two primary points: (1) Vanhoozer's commitment to distinguishing between the human and divine authorial intent of the Scriptures, such "that canonical intent just is the intent of the divine author, which is not identical with, or circumscribed by, that of the human author" (182n168); and (2) Vanhoozer's deficient portrayal of typology.
In agreement with scholars such as Jim Hamilton and Ardel Caneday (the former of whom Vanhoozer interacts with quite minimally, the latter of whom Vanhoozer does not interact with at all), I would contend that when we see types as author-intended structures that are organically embedded in the progressive revelation of Scripture, then there's no need to distinguish between human and divine authorial intent. This understanding of typology as a product of revelation then implies that to read a text within its canonical context—that is, according to Scripture's own typological-covenantal substructures—is not to move beyond the human author to the divine author. Rather, it is to read the typological patterns that the divinely-inspired human authors themselves wrote in the Scriptures—patterns which earlier authors like Moses laid a foundation for, and which later authors like David and the prophets picked up on and developed. By so doing, we are able to get to the christological/eschatological referent that Vanhoozer has in mind—yet in a natural way that does not draw a sharp line between human and divine authorial intent.
Perhaps a second (and slower) read through of Mere Christian Hermeneutics might help ease some of these hang ups and give me a clearer understanding of Vanhoozer's central argument? For the time being, however, I am happy to give this a very solid 4/5 stars.
Overall, I thought that this book started off firing on all cylinders, sagged a bit in the middle, but concluded on a strong note. Vanhoozer's discussion of reading cultures and his historical analysis of the lay of the land was excellent. However, his constructive proposal for a transfigural—or grammatical-eschatological—reading of Scripture that follows the grain of the biblical text in its canonical context for the christological referent, while conceptually compelling, lacked the clarity and concreteness that I would have liked to have seen in order to be completely convinced. In theory, I would say I agree with this proposed understanding of the literal meaning. However, I remain hung up on two primary points: (1) Vanhoozer's commitment to distinguishing between the human and divine authorial intent of the Scriptures, such "that canonical intent just is the intent of the divine author, which is not identical with, or circumscribed by, that of the human author" (182n168); and (2) Vanhoozer's deficient portrayal of typology.
In agreement with scholars such as Jim Hamilton and Ardel Caneday (the former of whom Vanhoozer interacts with quite minimally, the latter of whom Vanhoozer does not interact with at all), I would contend that when we see types as author-intended structures that are organically embedded in the progressive revelation of Scripture, then there's no need to distinguish between human and divine authorial intent. This understanding of typology as a product of revelation then implies that to read a text within its canonical context—that is, according to Scripture's own typological-covenantal substructures—is not to move beyond the human author to the divine author. Rather, it is to read the typological patterns that the divinely-inspired human authors themselves wrote in the Scriptures—patterns which earlier authors like Moses laid a foundation for, and which later authors like David and the prophets picked up on and developed. By so doing, we are able to get to the christological/eschatological referent that Vanhoozer has in mind—yet in a natural way that does not draw a sharp line between human and divine authorial intent.
Perhaps a second (and slower) read through of Mere Christian Hermeneutics might help ease some of these hang ups and give me a clearer understanding of Vanhoozer's central argument? For the time being, however, I am happy to give this a very solid 4/5 stars.
January 1, 2025
A review in keeping with Vanhoozer's light motif: Brilliant.
Transfigural reading fills up what (I think) is lacking in Provan's "seriously literal" and Boersma's sacramental exegesis. Vanhoozer also offers a few helpful cautions to the increasingly faddish Christian Platonism crowd, while managing to also incorporate some of its best elements and theological insights. Judicious, theological, and, as Vanhoozer ever aims to be, biblical.
"This is the ultimate blessing of reading with a mere Christian hermeneutic: basking before the glory of the Lord and, by so keeping company with him, becoming ever more like him. Reading the Bible as the two-testament Christian Scripture is thus a thoroughly theological affair, a means of coming to know God as he shines forth in Christ through the Spirit to cultivate godliness, which is to say, Christlikeness." (354)
Transfigural reading fills up what (I think) is lacking in Provan's "seriously literal" and Boersma's sacramental exegesis. Vanhoozer also offers a few helpful cautions to the increasingly faddish Christian Platonism crowd, while managing to also incorporate some of its best elements and theological insights. Judicious, theological, and, as Vanhoozer ever aims to be, biblical.
"This is the ultimate blessing of reading with a mere Christian hermeneutic: basking before the glory of the Lord and, by so keeping company with him, becoming ever more like him. Reading the Bible as the two-testament Christian Scripture is thus a thoroughly theological affair, a means of coming to know God as he shines forth in Christ through the Spirit to cultivate godliness, which is to say, Christlikeness." (354)
June 25, 2025
5/5! Vanhoozer calls for a unification of theologians, historians, systematicians, and exegetes. He calls them to put aside their interpretive differences and rally around a mere Christian understanding of the literal sense of Scripture. Much of modern exegesis has united around and employed a grammatical-historical exegesis and found the meaning of the text in the intent of the author. This approach is faithful in one sense but in another sense, it can lead us astray in our interpretation. Seeking authorial intent through historical-grammatical exegesis leads us astray when we take on an “immanent frame of reference” and content ourselves with the intention of the text’s human author writing to their historical audience. This is not wrong but this fails because it is incomplete. “Such a reader gets the grammar but not the glory.” (253)
Rather, readers must read Scripture understanding that Scripture has both a human and a divine author. We must recognize that Scripture is God’s word spoken through the instrument of humanity. The reader must allow Scripture to take him where God’s pre-final words are meant to lead. That is, “the light/knowledge of God that shines forth in Christ through the Spirit.” Therefore, Vanhoozer encourages readers to prefer a “grammatical-eschatological exegesis”(gold!) that seeks the “literal sense” both in the intent of the divine author and in the “the way the words go.” Absolutely wonderful resource!
One criticism: Vanhoozer spends a lot of time on the history of interpretation. He sees exploring the history of various exegetical methods/perspectives as essential. And it is to some extent for this kind of book. But I would say only a portion of the history he offers in this book is essential for making a successful argument.
Rather, readers must read Scripture understanding that Scripture has both a human and a divine author. We must recognize that Scripture is God’s word spoken through the instrument of humanity. The reader must allow Scripture to take him where God’s pre-final words are meant to lead. That is, “the light/knowledge of God that shines forth in Christ through the Spirit.” Therefore, Vanhoozer encourages readers to prefer a “grammatical-eschatological exegesis”(gold!) that seeks the “literal sense” both in the intent of the divine author and in the “the way the words go.” Absolutely wonderful resource!
One criticism: Vanhoozer spends a lot of time on the history of interpretation. He sees exploring the history of various exegetical methods/perspectives as essential. And it is to some extent for this kind of book. But I would say only a portion of the history he offers in this book is essential for making a successful argument.
May 4, 2025
This is a must-read book! I wish I had this during my days in Bible college and seminary. If nothing else, it offers an important counterbalance to the typical biblical studies approach to hermeneutics.
I give it 5 stars because of its importance, its depth and thoroughness, and because of what it meant to me. That said, it is not a perfect book (if such a thing even could exist). I wish it were a little more practically-applied, and at times it was repetitive. However, whatever faults there may be with the book are overshadowed by its brilliance and its work for the Church.
Quick, simple summary as though I was trying to explain this to someone new to these concepts:
1. Historical background only takes into account a particular set of "frames of reference". Knowing who the historical audience is good and helpful, but we shouldn't forget that this was also written by God, for the Church, for all eternity. That should influence how we interpret the Scriptures as well.
2. Jesus himself said the Scriptures were all about him (referencing what we consider the Old Testament today). Seeing Jesus there, then, shouldn't come as a surprise.
3. The Transfiguration points us to how we should understand Scripture. The transfiguration of Jesus is presented as a model for how spiritual or "figural" interpretation can enhance understanding of the literal text.
Any pastor/theologian/seminary student needs to read this, and the sooner the better! May this book push the Academy and the Church closer together!
I give it 5 stars because of its importance, its depth and thoroughness, and because of what it meant to me. That said, it is not a perfect book (if such a thing even could exist). I wish it were a little more practically-applied, and at times it was repetitive. However, whatever faults there may be with the book are overshadowed by its brilliance and its work for the Church.
Quick, simple summary as though I was trying to explain this to someone new to these concepts:
1. Historical background only takes into account a particular set of "frames of reference". Knowing who the historical audience is good and helpful, but we shouldn't forget that this was also written by God, for the Church, for all eternity. That should influence how we interpret the Scriptures as well.
2. Jesus himself said the Scriptures were all about him (referencing what we consider the Old Testament today). Seeing Jesus there, then, shouldn't come as a surprise.
3. The Transfiguration points us to how we should understand Scripture. The transfiguration of Jesus is presented as a model for how spiritual or "figural" interpretation can enhance understanding of the literal text.
Any pastor/theologian/seminary student needs to read this, and the sooner the better! May this book push the Academy and the Church closer together!
October 2, 2025
Vanhoozer inspired by Gregory of Nyssa says that biblical interpretation is like climbing a mountain. I agree and I have been hiking pretty hard for the last 5 years to reach the mountain top, yet I am not there and may never get there but this book got me a lot closer.
Hermeneutics is such an important discipline for a pastor, not to be taken lightly. Vanhoozer does well to explain a grammatical-eschatological frame of reference when interpreting the Scriptures. He calls it reading the Bible “transfigurally” drawing heavily upon the account of the transfiguration. The abiding rule within this type of interpretation is “choose the reading that most glorified God and that most promotes the light of Christ in the life of the reader.”
Vanhoozer’s treatment of “letter” and “spirit” was also very helpful. He doesn’t just do away with the “letter” and skip right to the “spirit” like an allegorical approach might. For example he says “the New Testaments transfigural interpretation of the Old Testament does not distort but, rather, glorifies the literal meaning, extolling the letter by intensifying the brightness.” We read the Old Testament with an unveiled face turned towards Christ.
Really enjoyed this, but again I come away with more hiking to do. I am content however to pitch a tent and rest for a little bit with gratitude for the journey thus far.
Hermeneutics is such an important discipline for a pastor, not to be taken lightly. Vanhoozer does well to explain a grammatical-eschatological frame of reference when interpreting the Scriptures. He calls it reading the Bible “transfigurally” drawing heavily upon the account of the transfiguration. The abiding rule within this type of interpretation is “choose the reading that most glorified God and that most promotes the light of Christ in the life of the reader.”
Vanhoozer’s treatment of “letter” and “spirit” was also very helpful. He doesn’t just do away with the “letter” and skip right to the “spirit” like an allegorical approach might. For example he says “the New Testaments transfigural interpretation of the Old Testament does not distort but, rather, glorifies the literal meaning, extolling the letter by intensifying the brightness.” We read the Old Testament with an unveiled face turned towards Christ.
Really enjoyed this, but again I come away with more hiking to do. I am content however to pitch a tent and rest for a little bit with gratitude for the journey thus far.
September 2, 2025
What a significant and compelling accomplishment of hermeneutical scholarship! This was a mind-opening read that put some pieces together for me that I have sensed/felt but have been unable to articulate or formalize on multiple fronts (senses of Scripture, patristic exegesis, literal vs literalistic distinction, the motif of light/revelation/the mind/Christ). The thought that stuck with me throughout: this is the treatment of biblical reading as theological enterprise that I have been looking for. This and Jamieson and Wittman's "Biblical Reasoning" have quickly become two favorites. I plan to reread this...and soon.
December 29, 2024
An absolute achievement. I read it in preparation for the Hermeneutics college course I’m professoring next semester but found myself just tearing through it for pure pleasure. I would recommend this for anyone with an even cursory passion for biblical interpretation.
January 11, 2025
There are too many things to say! Just read the book.
April 16, 2025
My book of the year thus far!
I will never read scripture in the same way again!
I will walk up the mountain to be transfigured as I read Christ’s Glory in Holy writ!
Highly recommended, particularly for those in ministry!
I will never read scripture in the same way again!
I will walk up the mountain to be transfigured as I read Christ’s Glory in Holy writ!
Highly recommended, particularly for those in ministry!
November 27, 2024
Vanhoozer is often labeled as someone dealing with hermeneutics. But the more I read him, he also is making profound anthropological claims. Do creatures owe their creator their attention? If so, they should listen to God's speech. Is the Bible God's speech? If so, then we should listen to it. But what are we to hear there?
Vanhoozer tackles that last question very well in this book as he seeks to reconcile the exegetes and the theologians to friendship once more. Yes, let us look at the beam of light. But let us also immerse ourselves in the light of Scripture and look along it until, with faith, hope, and love, we make out the source of all light; the glory of God revealed in the face of Christ.
I pray this book bears fruit in establishing better reading habits and I was personally challenged by the distinctions between grammatical-historical and grammatical-eschatological frames of reference. That will be something to reflect on.
Warning: you will not like this book if you want a manual of how to read God's word. You will love it if you want the kinds of commitments Christians should make in their posture towards Scripture and what the "literal" sense of a text is.
"He is dumber than dumb who pays such close attention to the colors of the picture that he ignores the subject depicted."
Vanhoozer tackles that last question very well in this book as he seeks to reconcile the exegetes and the theologians to friendship once more. Yes, let us look at the beam of light. But let us also immerse ourselves in the light of Scripture and look along it until, with faith, hope, and love, we make out the source of all light; the glory of God revealed in the face of Christ.
I pray this book bears fruit in establishing better reading habits and I was personally challenged by the distinctions between grammatical-historical and grammatical-eschatological frames of reference. That will be something to reflect on.
Warning: you will not like this book if you want a manual of how to read God's word. You will love it if you want the kinds of commitments Christians should make in their posture towards Scripture and what the "literal" sense of a text is.
"He is dumber than dumb who pays such close attention to the colors of the picture that he ignores the subject depicted."
March 9, 2025
Ok so here’s the thing…he’s probably right. The essential claim is that the single hermeneutical approach that has been affirmed and practiced by all Christians everywhere is that of reading all scripture with the ultimate goal of beholding Jesus.
That was a pretty simple point right? Well apparently it needed a TON of big words and far more pages than I would have devoted to it. He starts out by essentially promising his thesis can bridge the divide between biblical studies and systematic theology. We’re all thinking “biblical theology” right? Nope it’s basically just cannon criticism. That doesn’t mean anything to you, disregard and read on.
He starts out so strong before he sets out in part two to “rescue the literal sense.” But after countless circular discussions, I wound up lost and befuddled. Now he may have been making a great point and it was just lost on me, but this was my experience with part two. He does this thing where he develops a new definition for a commonly misunderstood or vague term and then proceeds to flip back and forth between using the typical understanding and his new one.
One of the biggest missteps is to over promise and under deliver, and there was a point about 3/4 of the way through where I was about to give this book a 3 star review, but then he turned it around. My advice, read the introduction through chapter 3 and then skip ahead to chs. 8-9. You’ll save a lot of time and essentially get the same point.
Big idea: super good. The road to get there: less good?
That was a pretty simple point right? Well apparently it needed a TON of big words and far more pages than I would have devoted to it. He starts out by essentially promising his thesis can bridge the divide between biblical studies and systematic theology. We’re all thinking “biblical theology” right? Nope it’s basically just cannon criticism. That doesn’t mean anything to you, disregard and read on.
He starts out so strong before he sets out in part two to “rescue the literal sense.” But after countless circular discussions, I wound up lost and befuddled. Now he may have been making a great point and it was just lost on me, but this was my experience with part two. He does this thing where he develops a new definition for a commonly misunderstood or vague term and then proceeds to flip back and forth between using the typical understanding and his new one.
One of the biggest missteps is to over promise and under deliver, and there was a point about 3/4 of the way through where I was about to give this book a 3 star review, but then he turned it around. My advice, read the introduction through chapter 3 and then skip ahead to chs. 8-9. You’ll save a lot of time and essentially get the same point.
Big idea: super good. The road to get there: less good?
April 3, 2025
This book is worth coming back to. It offers practical guidance without imposing a rigid hermeneutical formula. It’s charitable to various traditions and helped me grow in my understanding of what it means to read the whole Bible theologically as a Christian.
“Jesus’ physical body is to his glorification what the written letter is to its spiritual sense.“
“Transfigural interpretation does not change, but rather glorifies, the original meaning. The transfiguration does not change Jesus into something he was not, but rather lets the disciples see what was there all along under the veil of his humanity“
The concept of transfigural interpretation helps us understand how spiritual reading reveals Christ's presence throughout Scripture—not by imposing new meanings or abandoning the text’s literal meaning, but by illuminating what was always there. Just as Christ's divine glory was veiled yet present in his human form, the spiritual or theological meaning of Scripture lies within its literal sense, awaiting glorification through the Spirit's illumination. This is when we behold the glory of the Lord (2 Cor 3:18).
“Jesus’ physical body is to his glorification what the written letter is to its spiritual sense.“
“Transfigural interpretation does not change, but rather glorifies, the original meaning. The transfiguration does not change Jesus into something he was not, but rather lets the disciples see what was there all along under the veil of his humanity“
The concept of transfigural interpretation helps us understand how spiritual reading reveals Christ's presence throughout Scripture—not by imposing new meanings or abandoning the text’s literal meaning, but by illuminating what was always there. Just as Christ's divine glory was veiled yet present in his human form, the spiritual or theological meaning of Scripture lies within its literal sense, awaiting glorification through the Spirit's illumination. This is when we behold the glory of the Lord (2 Cor 3:18).
April 16, 2025
Vanhoozer takes Biblical Scholars and Theologians leaps and bounds together towards the goal of seeing the light of Christ shining through the Scriptures.
(Full review coming in the Journal of Classical Theology)
(Full review coming in the Journal of Classical Theology)
April 21, 2025
Vanhoozer agrees with historic voices such as Aquinas in the focusing on the literal sense of Scripture. But what counts as "literal"? Is Paul not sticking to the literal sense of the Old Testament when he references Sarah and Hagar in Gal 4:24, or when he wrote "the Rock was Christ" in 1 Cor 10:4? Vanhoozer defines the literal sense as "the meaning of the human-divine authorial discourse when read in canonical context and viewed through an eschatological frame of reference" (chs 5-6). He, drawing an analogy with the Transfiguration at Mount Tabor, advocates for "read[ing] transfigurally" (which explains the choice of a 14th century icon of the transfiguration from a monastery as the book cover) – that is, "to discern the glory of the letter" (ch 7) and "to read for the grammatical-eschatological sense of the letter, a theologically extended literality" (i.e. "attends to the divine authorial communicative intent as discerned in canonical context") (ch 5). This is not to say that that such reading allows one to discard the letter and go on allegorical spiels (in effect changing the meaning of the text) – on the contrary, transfigural reading ""magnifies" literal meaning" by aiming for "the "how much more" glorious referent of the letter that is the light of Christ. It is a form of grammatical exegesis with eschatological expectations" (ch 7). Vanhoozer also dedicates two chapters to showing how the mere Christian hermeneutic he is proposing applies to the Transfiguration narrative in chapter 8, and tracing a theology of light in chapter 9 (which I do not summarise here for lack of space). He also touches briefly on interpretation of Song of Songs and whether it is appropriate to interpret it beyond love poetry, and describing Christ's love for the church and the church's desire for union with Christ in chapter 10.
if you're like me, this all sounds uncomfortable – to not cling to the express words of the text and go no further sounds like an odd (, even improper,) way to read Scripture. Why this unease? Vanhoozer diagnoses that it is because of differing reading cultures. Everyone reads in an interpretive community, and our cultural context, which is in large part shaped by the Enlightenment, affects our reading culture, which clashes with other reading cultures (ch 1–2). Vanhoozer thus submits that the way forwrad is to "retrieve a contextual catholicity and catholic contextuality—the breadth of Christian readers across time and space—while simultaneously acknowledging the primacy of the canonical context. Mere Christian interpreters must strive to become the kind of readers who listen to what other readers who inhabit different contexts than one’s own have heard in the Scriptures" (ch 9). This is where reading figures from church history (for catholicity over time) and authors from different communities (eg. McCaulley's Reading While Black) (for catholicity over space) become important.
How, then, do we judge the rightness of an interpretation? When we are fixed in our reading cultures, one can easily judge an interpretation based on how closely it fits with the culture's preferred method of reading. Vanhoozer proposes otherwise: that an interpretation's rightness is judged "not on the basis of the critical method it employs, but on what kind of theological reading, reading culture, and reader it produces." (ch 10) This keeps in mind the motive of reading Scripture – for a blessing (much like Jacob wrestling with God (ch 9)) – and the nature of Scripture and its God-given purpose: for training competent citizens of heaven and become wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15-17) (ch 1). To Vanhoozer's mind, therefore, "exegesis appears to be less about reconstructing the original historical situation and more about restoring the original Adamic vocation: “Scripture is instrumental in restoring human life to its proper form.” The chief purpose of reading the Bible theologically is to learn Christ—which involves much more than learning about Christ." (ch 10)
I thought this book was a very good read, more so in critiquing the reading cultures, habits, and methods that are common and popular today, as compared to building up a hermeneutical framework. I think Vanhoozer is spot on that we are often oblivious what kinds of hermeneutical waters we are swimming in, and we take for granted that a certain method of reading is the 'right' method. If I had to nitpick, I would have preferred Vanhoozer demonstrate the "transfigural" reading of more passages to make his thesis clearer, but I suppose that would have substantially extended the book. Perhaps in a second edition?
Overall, highly recommended for anyone from the bible study leader applying a method he/she was taught to the theological student/pastor thinking about hermeneutics as a discipline.
if you're like me, this all sounds uncomfortable – to not cling to the express words of the text and go no further sounds like an odd (, even improper,) way to read Scripture. Why this unease? Vanhoozer diagnoses that it is because of differing reading cultures. Everyone reads in an interpretive community, and our cultural context, which is in large part shaped by the Enlightenment, affects our reading culture, which clashes with other reading cultures (ch 1–2). Vanhoozer thus submits that the way forwrad is to "retrieve a contextual catholicity and catholic contextuality—the breadth of Christian readers across time and space—while simultaneously acknowledging the primacy of the canonical context. Mere Christian interpreters must strive to become the kind of readers who listen to what other readers who inhabit different contexts than one’s own have heard in the Scriptures" (ch 9). This is where reading figures from church history (for catholicity over time) and authors from different communities (eg. McCaulley's Reading While Black) (for catholicity over space) become important.
How, then, do we judge the rightness of an interpretation? When we are fixed in our reading cultures, one can easily judge an interpretation based on how closely it fits with the culture's preferred method of reading. Vanhoozer proposes otherwise: that an interpretation's rightness is judged "not on the basis of the critical method it employs, but on what kind of theological reading, reading culture, and reader it produces." (ch 10) This keeps in mind the motive of reading Scripture – for a blessing (much like Jacob wrestling with God (ch 9)) – and the nature of Scripture and its God-given purpose: for training competent citizens of heaven and become wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15-17) (ch 1). To Vanhoozer's mind, therefore, "exegesis appears to be less about reconstructing the original historical situation and more about restoring the original Adamic vocation: “Scripture is instrumental in restoring human life to its proper form.” The chief purpose of reading the Bible theologically is to learn Christ—which involves much more than learning about Christ." (ch 10)
I thought this book was a very good read, more so in critiquing the reading cultures, habits, and methods that are common and popular today, as compared to building up a hermeneutical framework. I think Vanhoozer is spot on that we are often oblivious what kinds of hermeneutical waters we are swimming in, and we take for granted that a certain method of reading is the 'right' method. If I had to nitpick, I would have preferred Vanhoozer demonstrate the "transfigural" reading of more passages to make his thesis clearer, but I suppose that would have substantially extended the book. Perhaps in a second edition?
Overall, highly recommended for anyone from the bible study leader applying a method he/she was taught to the theological student/pastor thinking about hermeneutics as a discipline.
September 15, 2025
enlightening, illuminating, brilliant
pt1: discussion on reading cultures, divisions caused by frames of reference, unhelpful separation of biblical study and systematic theology, survey of historical reading cultures (interesting, balanced discussion of origen), and emphasis on the need for focus on the types of readers a reading cultures produces
pt2: ascent #1, vanhoozers lengthy (~90 pages) effort to define the literal sense (sensus literalis); reading this way required multiple frames of reference + canonical context (not just the historical-grammatical); “To read the Bible as divine discourse…is to follow the way the divinely directed words run from one figure to another through redemptive history (hence "trans-figural") to what they are ultimately about—their fully-figured christological referent”
pt3: ascent #2, focuses on the “light of christ” exploring this theme/motif/analogy from genesis (let there be light) to the gospels (mainly the transfiguration) to peter/pauls interpretations of transfiguration and moses’ veiling; “Jesus' transfiguration displays, rather than distorts, who he is. Transfigural interpretation, anal-ogously, neither distorts nor changes the literal sense but, instead, like Jesus transfiguration, magnifies and glorifies the body of the text, enabling readers to discern therein the light of Christ (shorthand for what God makes known)”; ends by touching on how this type of reading should “transfigure the reader” as they wrestle with the text
great conclusion that helpfully summarizes the dense, extended argument(s) vanhoozer had been making throughout. ends with appeal to the church as the most important reading culture.
mere christian hermeneutics should be,
- ESCHATALOGICAL (or grammatical-eschatalogical): not just end of history, but “Gods presence and activity in the midst of history”; this combines “grammatical interest in the way the words go (literal sense) with an eschatological interest in that to which they ultimately refer (Christological subject matter)”
- CHRISTOSCOPIC: vanhoozers choice when deciding between christocentric, christotelic, christophanic, etc; as framed by Oecolampadius, emphasizes interpretation that views the bible’s ultimate aim/scope to be communicating christ: it “does not look for Christ in every detail of Scripture (in contrast to some forms of Christocentric preaching); rather, it situates every passage in relation to the overarching story of Christ…”
- TRANS-FIGURAL & CANONICAL: “reading that follows the way the biblical words run across or beyond (trans-) figures to the realities those figures foreshadow and anticipate”; this reading takes into account the divine authorship of the canon of scripture which allows vanhoozer to claim that God “does not change [words’] sense…. rather, he makes them run further”
- TRANSFIGURAL: reading attentive to Christ's centrality in the economy of light; reading that discerns the glory of Christ in the letter of the text; also, reading that consciously adopts Jesus' transfiguration as its frame of reference
- TRANSFIGURING: when we (the reader) wrestle with the text and the light of day dawns, the goal is to “behold” what paul describes as “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:6); this beholding transforms us and we are beholden to “reflect” the light of Christ
some of the things i appreciated about vanhoozer was (1) he is extremely well read and tried to be as gracious an interpreter of his interlocutors as possible and (2) the way that he was able to pull in concepts not directly related to hermeneutics and apply the principles derived from those readings in creative ways to his area of study (e.g., repurposing Charles Taylor’s “social imaginary”)
pt1: discussion on reading cultures, divisions caused by frames of reference, unhelpful separation of biblical study and systematic theology, survey of historical reading cultures (interesting, balanced discussion of origen), and emphasis on the need for focus on the types of readers a reading cultures produces
pt2: ascent #1, vanhoozers lengthy (~90 pages) effort to define the literal sense (sensus literalis); reading this way required multiple frames of reference + canonical context (not just the historical-grammatical); “To read the Bible as divine discourse…is to follow the way the divinely directed words run from one figure to another through redemptive history (hence "trans-figural") to what they are ultimately about—their fully-figured christological referent”
pt3: ascent #2, focuses on the “light of christ” exploring this theme/motif/analogy from genesis (let there be light) to the gospels (mainly the transfiguration) to peter/pauls interpretations of transfiguration and moses’ veiling; “Jesus' transfiguration displays, rather than distorts, who he is. Transfigural interpretation, anal-ogously, neither distorts nor changes the literal sense but, instead, like Jesus transfiguration, magnifies and glorifies the body of the text, enabling readers to discern therein the light of Christ (shorthand for what God makes known)”; ends by touching on how this type of reading should “transfigure the reader” as they wrestle with the text
great conclusion that helpfully summarizes the dense, extended argument(s) vanhoozer had been making throughout. ends with appeal to the church as the most important reading culture.
mere christian hermeneutics should be,
- ESCHATALOGICAL (or grammatical-eschatalogical): not just end of history, but “Gods presence and activity in the midst of history”; this combines “grammatical interest in the way the words go (literal sense) with an eschatological interest in that to which they ultimately refer (Christological subject matter)”
- CHRISTOSCOPIC: vanhoozers choice when deciding between christocentric, christotelic, christophanic, etc; as framed by Oecolampadius, emphasizes interpretation that views the bible’s ultimate aim/scope to be communicating christ: it “does not look for Christ in every detail of Scripture (in contrast to some forms of Christocentric preaching); rather, it situates every passage in relation to the overarching story of Christ…”
- TRANS-FIGURAL & CANONICAL: “reading that follows the way the biblical words run across or beyond (trans-) figures to the realities those figures foreshadow and anticipate”; this reading takes into account the divine authorship of the canon of scripture which allows vanhoozer to claim that God “does not change [words’] sense…. rather, he makes them run further”
- TRANSFIGURAL: reading attentive to Christ's centrality in the economy of light; reading that discerns the glory of Christ in the letter of the text; also, reading that consciously adopts Jesus' transfiguration as its frame of reference
- TRANSFIGURING: when we (the reader) wrestle with the text and the light of day dawns, the goal is to “behold” what paul describes as “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:6); this beholding transforms us and we are beholden to “reflect” the light of Christ
some of the things i appreciated about vanhoozer was (1) he is extremely well read and tried to be as gracious an interpreter of his interlocutors as possible and (2) the way that he was able to pull in concepts not directly related to hermeneutics and apply the principles derived from those readings in creative ways to his area of study (e.g., repurposing Charles Taylor’s “social imaginary”)
March 3, 2025
4.5 ⭐️
Mere Christian Hermenuetics is a weighty, important book. There are so many ideas here that I will be thinking about for a long time. It definitely lived up to the hype it received at the end of last year.
My favorite concept by far is how Vanhoozer helps us to see Scripture as an integral part of God’s economy of light. I do believe this will change how I see and meditate on Holy Scripture. Gods uncreated light illuminating Christ in the Bible, which transforms the beholder to reflect the light of the glory of God back to him. That’s big.
I think the overarching theory of creating a Mere Christian Hermeneutic has largely worked. However, I still find it a little bit nebulous and hard to know exactly how to practice it in all situations. I think Vanhoozer would acknowledge this because it isn’t a step by step process per se. I would love to see more examples of how he would use this for other biblical texts than the few he worked through in the book.
I am also left with a big question about the use of tools provided to us from General Revelation. Vanhoozer spends some time dealing with frames of reference while reading. He points out how using something like Plato’s philosophical system as a frame of reference isn’t wise. But, we see the Apostle John doing something similar to this when he adopts the philosophical concept of the Logos and interprets Christ through that frame. So it is hard to see why these things are off the table completely when interpreting Scripture.
Anyway, my complaints are small in comparison to the massive work Vanhoozer has done in pushing for a unifying hermeneutic for all Christians. I am grateful for having read this book, and truly believe it will change the way I approach God and behold his marvelous light found within Holy Scripture.
Mere Christian Hermenuetics is a weighty, important book. There are so many ideas here that I will be thinking about for a long time. It definitely lived up to the hype it received at the end of last year.
My favorite concept by far is how Vanhoozer helps us to see Scripture as an integral part of God’s economy of light. I do believe this will change how I see and meditate on Holy Scripture. Gods uncreated light illuminating Christ in the Bible, which transforms the beholder to reflect the light of the glory of God back to him. That’s big.
I think the overarching theory of creating a Mere Christian Hermeneutic has largely worked. However, I still find it a little bit nebulous and hard to know exactly how to practice it in all situations. I think Vanhoozer would acknowledge this because it isn’t a step by step process per se. I would love to see more examples of how he would use this for other biblical texts than the few he worked through in the book.
I am also left with a big question about the use of tools provided to us from General Revelation. Vanhoozer spends some time dealing with frames of reference while reading. He points out how using something like Plato’s philosophical system as a frame of reference isn’t wise. But, we see the Apostle John doing something similar to this when he adopts the philosophical concept of the Logos and interprets Christ through that frame. So it is hard to see why these things are off the table completely when interpreting Scripture.
Anyway, my complaints are small in comparison to the massive work Vanhoozer has done in pushing for a unifying hermeneutic for all Christians. I am grateful for having read this book, and truly believe it will change the way I approach God and behold his marvelous light found within Holy Scripture.
February 27, 2025
There were a lot of positive things about this book! There were also a few things that made it difficult to read and even harder to recommend. It’s basically very large and repetitive. You have to hear him talk around something for a very long time before he makes his point. The point is usually very good, but usually there’s a lot of unnecessary writing between good points.
The other thing is that his audience is still difficult for me to discern. He is going for a mere Christian hermeneutic, and really tries even to incorporate Catholic readings. He does this against literalistic readings, which can be good, but he clearly privileges the allegorical while trying to bring a theoretically evangelical audience into that frame of reference.
I think he does a really good job of redefining what it means to read the Bible literally but not in a way that’s literalistic. I think other books of his may be more helpful in getting this if someone is interested though, this one would be more for someone trying to accomplish the title for some reason, establishing a mere Christian hermeneutic. I think he may do so in the end, but it ends up just including everyone from evangelical to Catholic in a Beeson-type circle, but looping in a broad group is not the same thing as forming a Christian universal hermeneutic.
Not sure if I would recommend. It feels like many people found it one of the most helpful theological books of the year, but I found it burdensome and it’s aims slightly odd.
The other thing is that his audience is still difficult for me to discern. He is going for a mere Christian hermeneutic, and really tries even to incorporate Catholic readings. He does this against literalistic readings, which can be good, but he clearly privileges the allegorical while trying to bring a theoretically evangelical audience into that frame of reference.
I think he does a really good job of redefining what it means to read the Bible literally but not in a way that’s literalistic. I think other books of his may be more helpful in getting this if someone is interested though, this one would be more for someone trying to accomplish the title for some reason, establishing a mere Christian hermeneutic. I think he may do so in the end, but it ends up just including everyone from evangelical to Catholic in a Beeson-type circle, but looping in a broad group is not the same thing as forming a Christian universal hermeneutic.
Not sure if I would recommend. It feels like many people found it one of the most helpful theological books of the year, but I found it burdensome and it’s aims slightly odd.
January 11, 2025
This is one of the finest works on hermeneutics to come out in decades. It is not an easy read and I would put this in the intermediate to advanced level of books on the topic. But it is a must read for any preacher/teacher or Christian who wants to learn more about hermeneutics. For a beginner I would suggest something like How To Read the Bible for All it's Worth by Fee and Stuart.
Vanhoozer's basic thesis is that "Mere Hermeneutics" is to read the Bible in a trans-figurative way using the mount of transfiguration as a reference where Jesus did not transform - but was transfigured in a way that the disciples could see his true Glory. Readers of Scripture must avoid the excesses of medieval allegory and typology which untether Scripture from the language, grammar, culture, author's intent, audience, place in the canon etc. Likewise Scripture must not be treated as merely a dead book to be clinically analyzed using the grammatical-historical method.
It's not that the text has a hidden, coded message only for the elite, nor a deeper meaning that is found regardless of the grammar, language, context, literal meaning etc. Rather that the deeper meaning IS the literal meaning. As Christ's glory was revealed in the Transfiguration, so too does Christ shine forth from the literal text itself.
Highest possible recommendation for this excellent work!
Vanhoozer's basic thesis is that "Mere Hermeneutics" is to read the Bible in a trans-figurative way using the mount of transfiguration as a reference where Jesus did not transform - but was transfigured in a way that the disciples could see his true Glory. Readers of Scripture must avoid the excesses of medieval allegory and typology which untether Scripture from the language, grammar, culture, author's intent, audience, place in the canon etc. Likewise Scripture must not be treated as merely a dead book to be clinically analyzed using the grammatical-historical method.
It's not that the text has a hidden, coded message only for the elite, nor a deeper meaning that is found regardless of the grammar, language, context, literal meaning etc. Rather that the deeper meaning IS the literal meaning. As Christ's glory was revealed in the Transfiguration, so too does Christ shine forth from the literal text itself.
Highest possible recommendation for this excellent work!
February 6, 2025
For me, this is a work of vital importance and leads us onto the balcony of real bible study, where there's plenty of fresh air and a magnificent view.
Dr Vanhoozer showcases a stunning panorama before taking us on a guided tour of Biblical hermeneutics across the millennia, by way of many of the peaks and troughs of church history - from the apostles to the church fathers, to the middle ages, and modernity.
His own panoramic reading sees much more of Christ and His good creation than the literalist or the deconstructionist in their darkened caverns. He gives each era their dues and looks at the pros and cons across time, and within each time.
The central emphasis of seeing the literal giving glory to other readings really resonated with me and reminded me of the more integrative writings of Sri Aurobindo or Bede Griffiths. I would apply that not just to the Bible, but God's other great book: The book of nature.
For an in-depth interview with the author, please see here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4Q1o...
Dr Vanhoozer showcases a stunning panorama before taking us on a guided tour of Biblical hermeneutics across the millennia, by way of many of the peaks and troughs of church history - from the apostles to the church fathers, to the middle ages, and modernity.
His own panoramic reading sees much more of Christ and His good creation than the literalist or the deconstructionist in their darkened caverns. He gives each era their dues and looks at the pros and cons across time, and within each time.
The central emphasis of seeing the literal giving glory to other readings really resonated with me and reminded me of the more integrative writings of Sri Aurobindo or Bede Griffiths. I would apply that not just to the Bible, but God's other great book: The book of nature.
For an in-depth interview with the author, please see here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4Q1o...
November 30, 2025
The central thesis of this book is not particularly clear and the book is not well enough organized to clarify the point of the book. Additionally, who are the people misunderstanding mere Christian hermeneutics and who led them astray? Why are these people not being helped and refuted respectively? Much could/should have been said about dispensationalism’s resistance to reading Scripture typologically, but essentially nothing was mentioned. Additionally, if such a person were to read the book, the accommodation of those who read the Bible through the lens of Critical Theory will likely only drive such readers further away from any proposals of the book including the legitimate ideas. This was probably the least enjoyable read of the year for me given the length and lack of helpful content.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews