Jared Moore

Fee and Stuart conclude this book detailing how to handle the Old Testament Covenant in Israel, through showing readers how to handle the Law, Prophets, Psalms, and Wisdom Literature.In order to bring this Scripture to bear on the current culture, Fee and Stuart believe Christians must be careful and meticulous for the Old Covenant is not their covenant, at least not completely (150-155).From this discussion, Fee and Stuart detail how the interpreter is to handle the book of Revelation, acknowledging the fact that this book is made up of the apocalyptic, prophecy and letter genres (232).

Analysis

Fee and Stuart seek to do Christians a great service by helping them to properly understand the Word of God in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.In this writer’s estimation, they succeeded in their endeavor.Most of this book is worthy of praise, and thus, it is only in need of a few minor critiques.

With postmodernism and empiricism gaining steam within Evangelicalism, such a work is needed.Churches within Evangelicalism often do not teach Christians how to handle the Scriptures today.Fee and Stuart are spot-on in addressing this need.This writer loves their emphasis upon context and the practical aspects of interpreting the Scriptures.They have produced a book that all laity and leadership should read.

The laity and leadership who heed these words will have a great foundation from which to form their theology exegetically from the Scriptures instead of eisogetically based on their own presuppositions and preunderstandings.This writer loves the clear, yet profound explanations; for example, this writer agrees with Fee and Stuart’s views on Bible translations.The King James Version comes from late texts, and is considered a lesser” translation due to the length of these texts from the original writings.Furthermore, the single translation that Christians study most should be directly in-between a literal and a free translation, this being referred to as the dynamic equivalent translation by Fee and Stuart.Reading several versions, a literal, dynamic, and free translation, can help readers understand the Scriptures better because translators have accomplished the work for them in some cases; and in other cases, Christians who know neither Greek nor Hebrew can see the difficulty and disagreement between translators.This further helps readers to know which texts need more investigation in order to better discern the truth.

Another example this writer appreciates is Fee and Stuart’s reference to Old Testament narratives, arguing for three levels of narratives (79-81).They detail the top level as God’s overarching plan, while the middle level centers on Israel, and the bottom level consists of individual narratives (79).This clearly will help readers understand the Old Testament narratives in context, which is a great need in Evangelicalism, especially in children’s ministry.In this writer’s estimation, few children and adults, for that matter are taught the Old Testament narratives in relation to Israel and the overarching historic redemptive plan of God.Instead, children and adults are often given a type of Veggie Tales gospel that is Christ-less and merely moral.Thus, the dominant understanding of the Old Testament narratives within Evangelicalism is largely out of context.

Furthermore, Fee and Stuart wisely encourage their readers to learn about God through narratives, but readers should neither feel obligated nor feel that they have permission to do everything people did in the Scriptures (93).Some characters in Scripture lived godly lives, while others lived ungodly lives or failed in various situations.Fee and Stuart correctly argue that narratives emphasize the faithfulness of God; and thus, should be understood in light of this truth.Narratives thus demonstrate God’s involvement in the world and illustrate His principles and calling (93).The purpose of narratives then is not personal ethics; and this area of life should therefore be largely found in the clear commands of other genres in Scripture (93).

Another positive example is Fee and Stuart’s discussion of “comparable particulars” (65).If readers are truly after the author’s original meaning, then they must apply his meaning in light of the context that holds up and determines the author’s original application.When readers’ situations are the same, then of course they apply the text to their own lives the exact same way the author intended his original hearers to apply it.According to Peter, the early church struggled with properly understanding and applying the Apostle Paul’s writings (2 Pet. 3:15-16); and the church today likewise twists the Scriptures to their own destruction.To Fee and Stuart’s praise, this emphasis on application is greatly needed.

This writer furthermore agrees with Fee and Stuart in their discussion of taking the proper interpretation of a text, and applying it to a similar situation.In interpretation, the reader must be careful to not change the sin the author speaks about, whenever applying the text to a different situation.Fee and Stuart discuss properly applying 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 as an example of this (65-66).The sin is this passage is that the Christians took their disagreement to the secular court instead of taking it to the church.Thus, the sin was not the fact that the judge was a non-Christian.So, in a similar situation, Christians need to resolve their differences themselves as opposed to taking their dispute outside the church.Since improper application is a real problem, Christians must be careful in practicing their hermeneutics so that they lead to application that the original author would agree with if he understood the interpreter’s situation.

Though this writer agrees with most of this book, there are a few minor disagreements.Fee and Stuart do make some good points in their discussion of cultural relativity; however, they leave their interpretation too open in this writer’s estimation.As far as women teaching men, this writer agrees that women can teach men due to the book of Acts agreeing with this (Aquila and Priscilla taught Apollos in Acts 18:26), but as far as pastoring or being a deacon, this seems blatantly unbiblical, rather than merely cultural (the pastoral epistles seem to clearly argue that only men can be elders and deacons).Furthermore, this writer believes that Fee and Stuart’s arguments are weak concerning this.

First, they argue that Phoebe was a deacon in Cenchrea according to Rom. 16:1.The word used to describe her basically means table waiter; it is the same word used for deacons in the pastoral epistles, but it is obscure when compared to the plain qualifications found in the epistles.One can however argue for the requirements of deacon’s wives actually being the requirements for a female deacon in 1 Tim. 3:11 due to the Greek word for wives actually meaning women, but they must answer the requirement for the deacon being the husband of one wife.Furthermore, if there was such thing as an office in the early church known as a deaconess, then why must a deacon be a one-woman-man, and yet, a deaconess’ faithfulness in marriage is not mentioned?The simple answer, which seems to be the most probable, is that this text is discussing a deacon’s wife instead of the qualifications of a deaconess.

Second, Fee and Stuart argue that Junia, not Junias which is an unknown masculine name, is named among the apostles in Rom. 16:7.In this verse, Junia or Junias is only “well known” or “well respected” among the apostles, according to the KJV, NASB, HCSB, and the ESV; this therefore is a rare translation by Fee and Stuart.They may however be referring to “kinsmen” here, but this can simply mean “fellow Christians,” “fellow Jews,” etc.Even if readers were absolutely sure only men were mentioned here, one still would not interpret kinsmen as referring to “fellow apostles” for the Apostle then says that these individuals are highly esteemed among the apostles.This final statement by the Apostle Paul then would be useless, for if they are apostles, they are obviously already esteemed by the other apostles.

Thirdly, they argue that Priscilla is referred to as Paul’s fellow worker in Romans 16:3, which is the same word Paul uses to refer to Apollos 1 Cor. 3:9. Though Fee and Stuart are correct concerning this being the same word Paul used to refer to Apollos, this word in and of itself does not communicate that Apollos was an apostle or pastor, or that every individual who co-labored with Paul was an apostle or pastor.Furthermore, in the very next verse, Rom. 16:4, the Apostle Paul also thanks the churches of the Gentiles in the same breath as thanking Priscilla and Aquila.If the Apostle Paul was making a statement concerning their titles as pastoral, then he would not have thanked all the Gentile churches as well.In order to hold Fee and Stuart’s position, one would have to argue that all the churches of the Gentiles were pastors, deacons, and/or apostles (72).

Moving on to another negative aspect, this writer believes Fee and Stuart have incorrectly interpreted the imprecatory Psalms as emotional ventilation (202).They argue that it is better to cry out one’s anger and frustration to God than to say these things to people themselves.This writer does not believe this is what is going on in these imprecatory Psalms.The imprecatory Psalms are not temper tantrums, or mean-spirited rants, or human vendettas; but rather, these Psalms indicate a jealousy for God’s holiness, and a vision for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven.This writer is concerned that Fee and Stuart handle these Psalms incorrectly, violating their own rules of hermeneutics.They at least take the imprecatory Psalms and interpret them based on other Scriptures, instead of simply allowing them to speak for themselves.God’s glory seems to be the center of these Psalms, instead of the individuals speaking; therefore, though brief, this explanation better fits the make up of the Psalms based on the evidence intrinsically presented.For example, Psalm 58 is concerned with God showing His judgment on earth in verse 11.Psalm 149 is concerned with giving praise to the Lord through His use of His children to reveal His vengeance.The list can go on and on.Furthermore, Jesus and the New Testament Scripture writers quote these imprecatory Psalms as authoritative in the New Testament.

Fee and Stuart, in this writer’s estimation, are also incorrect in their interpretation of Ecclesiastes.They argue that the author of Ecclesiastes’ goal is to tell the reader that life is meaningless, and that one should live one’s life as enjoyable as possible, for death will obliterate everything anyway (213-214).They believe that Ecclesiastes is in the Bible as a foil, as a contrast to what the rest of the Bible teaches.They also believe that the only positive sentences in Ecclesiastes are found at the end.In this writer’s estimation however, Ecclesiastes is about a quest for happiness.Solomon sought happiness in this world, only to find that it is vanity, thus pointing him to the only life of happiness, a God-pleasing life.He thus gives a way not to live arguing that it is all useless, and then an alternative way to live that is of value.Finally, Solomon is clearly positive in the last verses of the book, but a close examination shows that these positive phrases had already been mentioned in the book.[1]

Conclusion

In conclusion, Fee and Stuart succeed in their intent to write a book at the level of laity concerning how to properly handle the Scriptures in their literary context.Though they add virtually nothing new to the interpretation discussion, they have produced a great foundational book that virtually sums up many other exhaustive books on hermeneutics and application.In summary, Fee and Stuart have produced a one volume hermeneutics book that is an easy read.Due to this success, any Christian or lost person with a ninth grade education will benefit from this book.Though Fee and Stuart’s emphasis is on how to handle the Protestant Bible, this book will help anyone handle any work of literature in light of its literary context.Even those who interpret the Constitution of the United States of America would benefit from this book.Though there are some minor concerns, if Evangelicalism reads and applies this book, God will be glorified more than He is right now, as Christians learn, submit, and apply the truth instead of their own eisogetic opinions.

Incoming search terms for the article:

• how to read the Bible for all its worth
• fee and stuart genres
• Fee and Stuart
• book critique how to read the bible for all its worth
• according to Fee and stuart who has the leading role in the book of Acts
• fee and stuart why the historical context and literary context are so important to understand in properly interpreting the epistles
• fee and stuart historical and literary
• new testament narrative genre
• Paul uses epistles and literary Fee and Stuart 2003
• Know ‘protagonist’ and ‘antagonist’ in the Bible Fee and Stuart