In light of the great value I found in Vanhoozer’s earlier work, especially his Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), it was with a sense of anticipation that I began reading this volume which seeks to integrate the historical exegesis of Scripture with the theological.

Early on in this book we are assured (à la Gadamer) that the method we use in reading determines the interpretation of what we read (p. 4). For Vanhoozer this must include belief that God exists and speaks through the Scriptures. The Spirit preserves the meaning of Scripture while revoicing, reactivating, and resituating the Scriptures for a new context.

Vanhoozer begins by noting that the Bible is the final arbiter of truth about God and other matters. According to Augustine the purpose of Christian doctrine is discipleship and the goal of interpretation is community formation (p. 39). According to Vanhoozer, the first key to orienting a correct interpretation of the Bible is, “never confuse the Creator with anything creaturely” (p. 43). Exegesis must by situated in a greater context where the more complete meaning of Scripture can be understood properly.  

In this history of interpretation, the reading culture became an important aspect of the approach and result. Whether that reading culture was in the monastery or in the academy, it had a profound impact on the meaning and application of the biblical text. While the monastery saw the Scriptures in the context of prayer, the academy sought to identify and address contradictions that might challenge faith. Vanhoozer uses the terms of the literal and the spiritual interpretations. The literal sense incorporates the historical and grammatical aspects of exegesis. The spiritual sense builds on the literal sense but it does not violate it or erase it. Beginning in the eighteenth century an academic view became dominant that viewed the Bible as a human product. There was no connection with the divine and no allegory.

Old Testament prophets could understand the sense of their prophecies but not the referent.  When the Son of God comes into the world as a kind of ultimate referent, he also points to the end of the age, that is to say, giving his work an eschatological significance. Many different reading cultures emerge with different interpretations of this understanding. Vanhoozer notes the appeal of Irenaeus to the rule of faith as a guide for the interpretation of the Bible. The spiritual sense becomes the eschatological fulfillment of the literal-historical sense. As the reader focuses on each, both are deepened in value and meaning. 

Vanhoozer turns to the psalms and his favorite exegetes on them. He especially agrees with the canonical approach as a means to discover the way that the words run, i.e., their meaning in the much larger literary and spiritual sense.  While these are true and helpful, there is a more profound understanding. If the gospels teach us about what Jesus said and did, the Psalms (as Jesus’ prayerbook and hymnbook) give us an understanding of what he thought and felt (Hess, The Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017) p. 451). Turning to Genesis 1, the creation of light as divine, uncreated light, rather than the light of the sun, moon, and stars created several days later, leads to Vanhoozer’s observation that we are children of light (Eph. 5:8; 1 Thess. 1:5) and that we must understand the Bible as God’s work “in the economy of light.” 

This leads to the revelation of God’s light in Scripture and especially in the Transfiguration. There the Old Testament Law and the Prophets reflect that light that Jesus now reveals. The shining of Jesus’ face manifests the uncreated light of the Trinity.  The appearance of Moses (the Law) and Elijah (the Prophets) demonstrate the coming of a new order as they remind us of previous mountain top experiences. Therefore, the correct interpretation should be led not only by historical and grammatical methods (always necessary); but we should also “Choose the reading that most glorifies God and that most promotes the light of Christ in the life of the reader” (p. 270).

Key to interpretation for Vamhoozer is the Transfiguration. There God’s actions and Words confirm that Jesus is the vice regent appointed by God in Psalm 2 (p. 282). The identity of Moses’ shining face appears already in Exod. 34:29-35. There it gives evidence of God’s ongoing presence and forgiveness among his people. The veiling and unveiling of the face of images is already present in the West Semitic culture of ancient Emar, contemporary with Moses (cf. R. Hess, “What is the significance of Moses’ shining face and veil in the ancient Near Eastern context and in later Christian interpretation?”). As Vanhoozer notes it also anticipates the veil of the temple curtain in this context of hiding the divine glory from Israel’s eyes. And the veil imagery and exodus is taken up by Paul in 2 Cor. 3:6 where he identifies as the new eschatological counterpart to Moses (p. 293). Paul mediates a new covenant. Commenting on 2 Cor. 3:18 (NIV: And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit) Vanhoozer writes, “When Christians read the Old Testament, they, like Moses, behold something that transforms them” (p. 346).

As Vanhoozer turns to consider Paul’s use of this veil imagery and Exodus text in 2 Cor. 3:6, he finds Paul “as mediator of a new, supercharged covenant,” and follows Hafemann in seeing Paul’s self-understanding as that of a new eschatological counterpart to Moses (p. 293). Hafemann sees the hiding in Exodus as a means of protection for a sinful people so that they are not harmed by the glory of the LORD (p. 298). Turning to the Transfiguration and its picture, Vanhoozer finds that “Moses’ glory was but a reflection of the God who is light itself, whereas the light on Jesus’ face came from within” (p. 300). A veil separates sinners and the glory of the letter of the law that could kill (Melanchthon). However, despite its power, it does not fulfill the Spirit’s purpose for life. This life giving potency becomes Paul’s more glorious ministry with unveiled face (2 Cor. 3:16). Yet the veil still hides the truth from the Jewish readers of the Old Testament (p. 303).  The veil is removed by Christ at conversion allowing for the Old Testament to be literally in Christ’s light. The glory of Christ was always there but veiled. The Old Testament refers directly to the Son as a Christophany. Christ is the literal agent; the Rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Christ was always there but in the gospels seen by Moses in the blazing light of the Transfiguration (p. 308, referring to Bucer).  This Transfiguration represents the shift from the old age (“letter”) to the new age (“spirit”) through the illumination of the Old Testament’s literal sense.  In other words, the Transfiguration changes the first heaven and earth, as well as those who witness it on the mountain. 

We do the text its greatest justice when we read it “with all the saints” and interpret it spiritually. In this matter Vanhoozer advocates a close canonical reading that follows the text and allows it to transform us.

The book provides much of insight and value. We can close the book at this point having received the blessing and guidance necessary for a more fully integrated hermeneutic. Unfortunately, it is Vanhoozer’s largely borrowed interpretation of the Song of Songs at the end of the work where things become problematic. I will not go into detail here. A few interpretive examples will suffice. Contrary to the book’s claims, the text of Song 1:9 has no allusions to the exodus. Reference to the female horse is unique here in all of Scripture. It emphasizes her beauty, nobility, and value; not anything to do with the exodus of Israel (Hess, Song of Songs, [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005], pp. 63-64). The images of frankincense and myrrh in 4:6, as in 1:13 and 3:6, remind the boy of the girl in terms of sensual imagery, not cultic sacrifice (p. 137). The bride does not “stand for” Israel (or the Church). There is no connection made. This is unlike Ezek. 37:11 where the dry bones explicitly stand for Israel, or Eccl. 12:1 where the connection is made between the word pictures (vv. 2-7) and old age. Nothing so explicit is in the Song. If the girl was Israel (or God’s people) and the boy was God or Christ, when did Israel awaken (or arouse!) God as in 8:5?  How does that picture fit? 

With this quibble, I return to an overall appreciation of the work and its goal. Vanhoozer has achieved his presentation of an interpretation that embraces the historical and grammatical underpinnings of the Reformation. All who believe that the divine Author’s intent for Scripture can be sought and found, will find here the blazing fire and light of the Spirit that can permeate and transform the words of the text and the life of the reader into the image of Christ.

Richard S. Hess, PhD
Distinguished Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages
Denver Seminary
July 2025