Review: Mere Christian Hermeneutics: Transfiguring What It Means To Read The Bible Theologically By Kevin J. Vanhoozer

by on March 5, 2026 | 1 Comment

How do we understand the Bible? And should Christians not all agree about how to do so? Given Scripture’s clarity, we might think the answer is an obvious yes! The church’s history, however, tells a different story. The transition from the medieval period to the Reformation saw a reevaluation of the fourfold sense of Scripture, although that transition is likely more complicated than often acknowledged. In the modern period, the methods for biblical interpretation—called hermeneutics—have been even more contested. The “literal sense” has been understood in drastically different ways, with multiple implications for Scripture’s theological significance.

In the twenty-first century, Kevin Vanhoozer has established himself as a foremost expert in issues of hermeneutics. This book is his climactic case for how to come theologically to the text of Scripture to understand its meaning and significance. Likely to be Vanhoozer’s magnum opus, this work is a forceful case for reading Holy Scripture in light of divine authorship for the benefit of the church.

Vanhoozer builds his case from the ground up by starting with considerations about “frame of reference.” All of us read from a certain vantage point historically, personally, and in light of the values of the community in which we find ourselves. Vanhoozer has great experience with engaging postmodernity, and his careful parsing of the concerns raised in that movement without imbibing the relativism that easily results is on solid display here. He shows that the church is a God-ordained frame of reference, as is our historical vantage point since the Son became incarnate.

The rest of the book tackles issues in how to build this frame of reference and apply it to understanding Scripture. He takes his main point of departure from Christ’s transfiguration as an event that not only informs us about Christ’s identity but also points to considerations for how to interpret Scripture.

Specifically, the transfiguration requires a balanced approach to understand well its significance for Christ’s identity regarding his two natures. Foremost, his transfiguration did not change who he is but revealed a deeper truth about his identity than had been previously apparent. It was an eschatological inbreaking of Christ’s divine identity in light of his coming exaltation.

Vanhoozer’s point is that hermeneutics should take a similar approach to the text of Scripture. Reading Scripture theologically—specifically, reading the Old Testament as being about Christ—does not change what Scripture already was. It does, however, add a legitimate frame of reference that exposes something deeper that was already true but not readily apparent about Scripture’s meaning.

This approach amounts to a Christian reading of the Bible in light of fulfillment in Christ and with a view to further eschatological fulfillment in light of what Christ has already done. It helps us to take seriously Scripture’s meaning, the original author’s intent, and why the apostles rightly saw new depth in what God had already revealed. In this sense, Vanhoozer does not propose anything like an allegorical reading, which he shows has always been detached and separate from anything in the text that coheres with the author’s original intent. On the other hand, God, as the divine author, can mean something deeper by the text of Scripture than would have been fully perceived, even as the text was situated within what the original author understood.

Before noting some valuable points, I register one complaint. Vanhoozer develops his hermeneutical strategy in terms of the two categories of “the economy of light” and “transfigural reading.” These two metaphors are certainly grounded specific themes in Scripture. At the same time, they become metaphors for certain reading patterns.

My concern is that the metaphors become too overbaked, so that they obscure the reading strategy itself. Vanhoozer has to spend a lot of time developing both metaphors. He exegetes issues within the theme of light. He also even invokes French etymology as it bounces into English for the word transfiguration. When so much space and effort have to be spent developing the metaphor for the metaphor to have any concrete payoff, I begin to wonder if the metaphor is worth it.

Vanhoozer’s trend is to develop his major points in terms of a uniting metaphor for his book. The strategy is fair enough and can add a lot of personal resonance to a powerful idea. In this case, the metaphors may have driven the ideas more than clarifying them. In this regard, the book is more about principles and “sensibilities” than any concrete reading strategies. Although principles and sensibilities are needed and useful, we also must have ways to make sure that they have real payoff in concrete application to interpreting Scripture.

Nevertheless, this book is a clarion call to read Scripture with the kind of depth that befits God’s inspired Word. Vanhoozer provides a robust case for why a theological approach to Scripture is demanded by what Scripture itself is. For those who would insist on an exclusively grammatical-historical approach to hermeneutics, this book provides a grounded rationale for why believing the traditional view of what Scripture is demands a deeper approach to its meaning than simply what the original author could have always directly perceived. It will challenge some and fortify others and is well worth considering as a manifesto for reading Scripture as a book all about the Lord Jesus Christ.

©Harrison Perkins. All Rights Reserved.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Mere Christian Hermeneutics: Transfiguring What It Means to Read the Bible Theologically  (Zondervan Academic, 2024).

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


One comment

  1. Thanks, Harrison, for the review. I finished “Mere Christian Hermeneutics” a few weeks ago, and agree with the assessment. I agree also that Vanhoozer’s use of metaphor works better as an analogy, rather than an essential quality of Scripture. The same tendency can be found in his book, “The Drama of Doctrine.” One has to navigate through various signposts of theater (the church), the author/playwright (God), and actors (believers), in order to engage biblical and theological matters.

    I get that he writes for an audience of which includes progressives of the Christian faith, who are deeply suspicious of evangelical scholarship. At times I wonder if he plays too much to that audience. Nevertheless, I’ve learned and valued greatly his works.

    Reply ↓

Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.