Bible Creed

Well, I finished quite a few of the books that I had listed last month so I thought it would be appropriate to do a few book reviews. Today I want to give a raiving review to Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart’s, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. I truly found this book to be both a joy and a help. If I were to make up a list of the top 10 most important books for every Christian to read, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth would be in that top 10 list. Since the Bible is the foundation to everything having to do with Christianity there really is not a more important exercise than to learn how to read the Bible with accuracy and vibrance. A Christian’s relationship with God will suffer if he/she does not have an accurate ability with the word of God.

Although this book is not the most comprehensive work on the subject of biblical interpretation, it definitely is the most accessible, readable, and delightful. Fee and Stuart seem to have this ability to communicate complicated truths in a very simple manner. They offer many interpretive tips and discuss many common interpretive misconceptions in a down-to-earth, straightforward way.

There were a few parts of the book that jumped out at me:

1. Fee’s discussion on the Kingdom of God (pg’s 145-148) was ‘out of this world’ (no pun intended). I am still blown away by the amount of content he fit into those three small pages. His explanation of the already/not yet tension was extremely helpful. These three pages would be reason enough to buy the book.

2. Fee’s discussion on the book of Revelation (pgs. 249-264) was quite fascinating as well. He seems to take some sort of a partial-preterist view of the book of Revelation, which is quite refreshing considering the fact that you hardly ever hear a partial-preterist view of the book of Revelation, much less with exegetical insight and eloquence.

Especially good was the following quote:

“Apocalypses in general, and the Revelation in particular, seldom intend to give a detailed chronological account of the future. Their message tends to transcend this kind of concern. John’s larger concern is that, despite present appearances, God is in control of history and the church. And even though the church will experience suffering and death, it will be triumphant in Christ, who will judge his enemies and save his people. All the visions must be seen in terms of this greater concern.” (pg 257)

3. Fee and Stuart put great stress on the usefulness of the TNIV translation. They unashamedly say, “We would venture to say that the TNIV is as good a translation as you will get” (pg. 52). I am not really sure what to think of this. I see their position to a point. Their concern is that oftentimes clarity is sacrificed on the altar of accuracy. What good is the most theologically sound sermon preached in the most technical language known to man if it is preached to people who do not speak that language? The point is that it is oftentimes ‘worth it’ to risk a certain degree of accuracy for the sake of accessibility. The challenge in finding a good translation is to find one which bridges the gap between accuracy and readability.

Here is how they explain it,

“Our view is that the best theory of translation is the one that remains as faithful as possible to both the original and receptor languages, but that when something has to ‘give,’ it should be in favor of the receptor language–without losing the meaning of the original language, of course–since the very reason for translation is to make these ancient texts accessible to the English-speaking person who does not know the original languages.” (pg. 42)

Fee and Stuart also applaud the TNIV’s careful use of gender inclusive language. For example, although Paul, in Colossians 1:1, literally said, “To the saints and faithful brothers in Colossea” (Colossians 1:1; ESV), the TNIV translates Colossians 1:1 as such; “To God’s holy people in Colossae, the faithful brothers and sisters in Christ.” Some flip out over the addition of “and sisters” because they consider it a case of putting words into Paul’s mouth. However, the goal of Bible translation ought to be to carry over the original intention of the author to the receptor language. I have actually  had more than one female come up to me asking; “Jimmy, is this letter by Paul only meant for men? After all, he does only address the ‘brothers.’” I have had multiple women ask me this same genuine question. I generally point them to the TNIV’s rendering of the passage and explain to them that “brothers” was Paul’s way of referring to all the people, men and women, in the church. This, of course, does not even begin to scratch the surface of the gender inclusive language debate.

I spend a bit of time on this issue because I know that most everyone who reads my blog would take issue with Fee and Stuart at this point. I must say that I do see the validity of the reasoning behind their preference of the TNIV. Without a doubt, there will always be differences among believers when it comes to translations, and this is definitely not a hill to die upon (at least in regard to the TNIV translation–although I would fight tooth and nail to rule out using Eugene Peterson’s, The Message, as a primary translation).

4. Douglas Stuart does an excellent job at exposing many of the application-based abuses of the Old Testament. He says in a refreshingly straightforward way;

“Individual Old Testament narratives are not intended to teach moral lessons. The purpose of the various individual narratives is to tell what God did in the history of Israel, not to offer moral examples of right or wrong behavior.” (pg. 92)

He then goes on to illustrate what he is telling us not to do;

“Very often you will hear people say, ‘What can we learn from this story is that we are not do [or say] …’ But unless the biblical narrator makes that point, on what grounds do we make it?” (pg. 92)

I am sure that we have all, at the very least, heard someone else (if not ourselves–I too am guilty) come away from the David and Goliath story believing that God’s primary purpose in giving us that story is to teach us that we can ‘face the giants’ in our own lives. But this is hardly God’s primary purpose for handing this story down to us in the Bible. The David and Goliath story is more descriptive (God giving evidence of his loving and sovereign redemptive/historical plan) than prescriptive (God telling us how to live our lives). Stuart does explain that we can learn practical lessons from these Old Testament stories, but he clarifies that any lesson which can be derived from an Old Testament narrative (if the author does not connect the ethical dots for us) must be implicitly taught through what the Scriptures teach  explicitly elsewhere. He explains,

“even though the Old Testament narratives do not necessarily teach direcly, they often illustrate what is taught explicitly and categorically elsewhere. This represents an implicit kind of teaching by illustrating the corresponding explicit teachings of Scripture.” (pg. 92-93)

Conclusion

Without a doubt, I would consider this work by Fee and Stuart to be a must-read by every believer, no matter how long you have been a Christian. I would normally rate a book on a scale of 1-5 (as does amazon.com), but I hate to even attempt a rating for this book. Without a doubt, I would rate it a 5. However, this is one of those books that should not even be rated, it should be considered a must-read. This book needs no stars, it just needs to be consumed and applied by all of God’s people. And yet I must say that this book will only be as useful as it is put to practice. If you read this book and yet do not frequent the Scriptures, you will not find this book all that helpful. Before reading this book you need to ask yourself, “What is the point of reading a book that teaches me How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth?” The question should answer itself.

*Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.