Kevin Vanhoozer's ten thesis

Here are the ten thesis of Kevin Vanhoozer mentioned in a post yesterday.


1. The nature and function of the Bible are insufficiently grasped unless and until we see the Bible as an element in the economy of triune discourse.

2. An appreciation of the theological nature of the Bible entails a rejection of a methodological atheism that treats the texts as having a “natural history” only.

3. The message of the Bible is “finally” about the loving power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16), the definitive or final gospel Word of God that comes to brightest light in the word’s final form.

4. Because God acts in space-time (of Israel, Jesus Christ, and the church), theological interpretation requires thick descriptions that plumb the height and depth of history, not only its length.

5. Theological interpreters view the historical events recounted in Scripture as ingredients in a unified story ordered by an economy of triune providence.

6. The Old Testament testifies to the same drama of redemption as the New, hence the church rightly reads both Testaments together, two parts of a single authoritative script.

7. The Spirit who speaks with magisterial authority in the Scripture speaks with ministerial authority in church tradition.

8. In an era marked by the conflict of interpretations, there is good reason provisionally to acknowledge the superiority of catholic interpretation.

9. The end of biblical interpretation is not simply communication - the sharing of information - but communion, a sharing in the light, life, and love of God.

10. The church is that community where good habits of theological interpretation are best formed and where the fruit of these habits are best exhibited.

I really liked this quote from Vanhoozer towards the end of the paper:
"Seminary faculties need the courage to be evangelically Protestant for the sake of forming theological interpreters of Scripture able to preach and minister the word. The preacher is a “man on a wire,” whose sermons must walk the tightrope between Scripture and the contemporary situation. I believe that we should preparing our best students for this gospel ministry. The pastor-theologian, I submit, should be evangelicalism’s default public intellectual, with preaching the preferred public mode of theological interpretation of Scripture."

The Bible and Theological Interpretation

Mike Bird has a very helpful post on theological interpreation of Scripture in which he copies ten thesis from Kevin Vanhoozer, read it here.

Well worth reading and reflecting upon.

Textual Quirks

I'm really enjoying this book. Chapter 2 is on Quirks, those aspects of narrative texts that crop up again and again and you need to watch out for them.

On the author, "We want, when reading narrative, to get into the narrator's own head, to know how he looks upon the matters he describes, or - what is the same for me, how God looks upon those matters." (p. 12)

I am grateful for this reminder of the overlap between the human author and the Divine author, when using the best tools we have to understand literature, we remember to submit to God the author.

Some quirks: reticence (a narrative author doesn't always tell us what the point is), eavesdropping (a narrative author will sometimes tell us information the characters in the events narrated don't know).

Selectivity (a narrative author doesn't always tell us everything we want to know). "You are dying of curiosity and the narrator answers none of your questions. Hence they must not be that important!" (p. 15) It is a sign of great pride to imagine that our concerns are greater in importance than those of the author of Scripture. I've heard too many good sermons go bad when a preacher begins to imagine (read - make up) details that are not given in the text. This is not a complaint about extra-biblical historical background, but about the imposition of psychological and/or emotional motives upon biblical characters where there is no evidence in the text for this. Since God is the author, his concerns should become our concerns, and if God doesn't tell us we don't need to know.

I like what Dale writes about surprise, "Sometimes we may be so familiar with the flow of a biblical story that we fail to be surprised when we should. We need to cultivate a 'first-time-reader' frame of mind." (p. 19)

In biblical narrative emphasis is achieved by repetition. Let me make the point this way:

"For a man solemnly to undertake the interpretation of any portion of Scripture without invocation of God, to be taught and instructed by his Spirit, is a high provocation of him; now shall I expect the discovery of truth from any one who thus proudly engages in a work so much above his ability." (from John Owen on p. 1 - see my earlier post!!)

There are other quirks in chapter 2, but buy the book - it's well worth it.

I can't finish without one final quote.

"But this tension (in Ex 2:1-10) is not some mere literary device; it is a theological primer. It tells us that sometimes Yahweh's providence is a heart-stoping providence. In fact, it tells us something important about God - he is not boring; he is able to keep you interested. He may perplex you; he may even drive you to despair; he may keep you on the edge of your seat far longer than you want - but no one who knows him will ever call the God of the Bible boring." (p. 28-29)

On a Friday morning, may those of us called to preach by this God on Sunday be excited by the great big God of the Bible.

Approaching Preaching

I found this book at Keswick, and already am glad that I did. Dale Ralph Davis was speaking on the first week, check out the programmes on clayton.tv

This is a book on preaching, or perphas a book on Old Testament narratives in preparation for preaching. In chapter 1 Dale writes on an approach to preaching.

Quoting John Owen, "For a man solemnly to undertake the interpretation of any portion of Scripture without invocation of God, to be taught and instructed by his Spirit, is a high provocation of him; now shall I expect the discovery of truth from any one who thus proudly engages in a work so much above his ability." (p. 1)

I found this a humbling reminder of my human weakness, a great challenge to any professional pride in handling Scripture. A call to prayer and dependance upon God is surely the only way to approach preaching.

Later on, "In facing Scripture one must take account of two realities: Spirit and text. This fact forces me to one of my operating presuppositions: God has given his word in the form of literature, part of which is narrative; I should therefore use all available tools for understanding literature. So I seek the Spirit's aid and use an approach suited to the form of his word." (p. 3)

What a great operating presupposition! Let's try to understand God's word starting from the form in which he has given us his word - literature, narrative. This leads to some obvious questions.

Why? What is the authors intention?

"Now all this concern with a writer's intention is terribly out of step. I call it 'dinosaur hermeneutics'. Reader-response criticism is more the current rage; it only wants to answer, 'How does this text affect me?' There is no precise or correct meaning but only meanings which arise from within the reader. I admit my preoccupatin with a writer's intention is dated. And I really don't care. It's hard to get away from the suspicion that someone meant to mean something with a text. Sooner or later folks will recognize that - again." (p. 4-5)

Yes, yes, yes! Words consciously and deliberately placed in sentences, in paragraphs, in narratives mean something. I do not construct a meaning by imposing my meaning upon a text - that is textual abuse. Submission to Scripture begins with a sustained seeking of the purpose of the text, the intention of the author.

Dale then comments on: (ii) How? What is the Structure of the text? (iii) What? What is the actual content of the text? Before coming to So what?

"We need to hear some loving mockery behind us, crying, 'So what? What difference does all this study make for anyone? Why should I want to pay any attention to this?' If we are constantly 'berated' that way, it will make us far better interpreters." (p. 7)

We have not preached, we have not studied a portion of Scripture until and unless we have answered this 'So what?' question. The authors intention must connect with my life. The structure and content of the passage must bear down upon me and land on Monday morning.

What a simple and straighforward approach to understanding Scripture in preparation for preaching. Pray as though everything depended upon the Spirit (which it does) and work hard at a few simple questions as though the whole thing is depending upon your study (which it does).

May God raise up such preachers and ministers of his word in our land.

I'm re reading N T Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God. If you haven't read it then give it a try, it is well worth it.

His section on Burton L Mack (and the Question of Q) pages 35-44 is interesting as it connects with a post on reading the bible I made earlier.

Wright suggests that Mack has allowed his antipathy towards late 20th Century American Christianity colour his reading of the gospel of Mark in a major way. Mack reconstructs a Jesus who resembles a 'Cynic sage, spinning aphorisms designed to subert his hearers social and cultural worlds' (p. 37) Mack achieves this by excluding from his consideration of Jesus any material that is apocalyptic or eschatological. Well if you leave out half the gospel material no wonder you end up with a view of Jesus quite different from that presented in the gospels!

In my earler post - On Bible Reading, Sat 7 March - I was challenging that way of reading the bible which ignores passages or material which the reader doesn't like, or doesn't want to submit to. One of my Professors, the late Bob Carroll, was fond of saying 'Read the text', all of the text. If at the end of an exposition there was surplus text left lying on the table Bob would be hugely critical. (And those who knew Bob would not know him as a conservative Biblical scholar!).

We simply cannot read the parts of the bible we want to read and ignore all the rest and then claim to be scholarly, or historical, or whatever. This is not to exclude the valuable work of textual criticism which highlights for us passages we should rightly be suspicious of, e.g. the endings of Mark's gospel. What the Church has always needed is a commitment from her members to the whole word of God: to read with faith and reverence, to study with all the tools and ability God has given us, to obey in lives given to following this Jesus who is both Christ and Lord.

On bible reading

This week I’ve been reading through Romans 9 to 11. This is surely a very challenging passage of Scripture which must raise some serious questions for us about our God, our relationship to him and the text in which we read these things.

For many any thought of election is an abomination, to be rejected out of hand. However, this is something that is taught in Scripture, even if we might want to argue about what it means. At the very least we should agree that this is what the Scripture teaches.

As a result of just over 100 years of very thorough textual research we can say with something approaching 97% accuracy that the text of the New Testament is settled and well attested. It is just not reasonable to suppose that at some point the actual words of the New Testament are in doubt.

However, while not saying this, or challenging this outcome of scholarly study, there are many who without a backward glance will excise some passage of the New Testament on the grounds that they don’t like it, or it doesn’t fit in with their understanding of God.

In the Reformed tradition we have agreed to place Scripture above human reason and above human tradition. Not above the need for Spirit led interpretation, we are to study the Scriptures with all the skill and wisdom God has given us aided by his Spirit. What we have agreed is to being our study with a humble and reverent submission to Scripture. God has spoken. It is not up to us to ignore or reject God’s word on the basis that we don’t like it, or it doesn’t fit in with our understanding of God. It is up to us to remain before the Scripture until God blesses us in it.

What is needed in our churches, in our Christian living as we seek to be disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the living word of God, is a holy submission before the written word of God that it might be the light shinning in our darkness to lead us into the way of the cross.