It's interesting how so many intelligent people can make the same mistakes (i.e. "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" to be misinterpreted because the context is avoided). We Christians need to be better than that, and that's why I want to continue honing my skills in this area. My copy is marked with yellow highlighter marks, and so will yours if you read it with attention. I think every Christian--both young and old--ought to read "How to Read the Bible for all it's Worth"--it's required reading, everyone!--to keep up with the proper usage of handling God's message to His people.


Shows you how to get the most out of your Bible reading   November 30, 1999
 54 out of 64 found this review helpful

Fee is a New Testament scholar and Stuart is an Old Testament scholar. But they write in plain English. They explain how to read God's Word for information and for transformation. And they use specific Scripture passages as examples of how to interpret chapters and stories from the Bible. They also recommend purchasing dictionaries and concordances and several translations of the Bible as aids to study. And at the end of the book, they recommend good Bible commentaries to purchase for further study. It is a very satisfying and helpful volume from two seasoned, reliable Bible scholars.


Best of an underwhelming lot   June 5, 2003
 49 out of 66 found this review helpful

I've been looking for a book to use in an adult sunday school class on biblical interpretation and have read half a dozen books on the subject within the past six months, all targeting the layman. This is the best of the lot so far, but that is faint praise.

Fee and Stuart focus on the different types of literature that make up the canon and the different ways in which they must be approached. Many of their insights are very helpful and useful. Generally, the chapters written by Stuart (those dealing with the Old Testament) are markedly superior in quality to those written by Fee.

Some significant things are missing entirely. The first is any discussion of basic exegetical skills apart from application to a specific type of literature. Fee directs the reader to Sproul's Knowing Scripture and a few other books for this sort of thing. Also, any discussion of a redemptive historical approach to interpretation is missing. This is a crucial omission in that later books of the Bible develop themes and reuse imagery introduced in earlier books.

A chapter on selecting a translation is provided. Sadly, Fee is very committed to the dynamic equivalence method of translation. A student following his advice will to a large degree be held hostage to the prejudices of interpreters masquerading as translators.

Some specific comments on the books treatment of the various types of literature:

1. Epistles
Fee wisely emphasises the occasional nature of the epistles, and that the text cannot mean something that it did not mean to its original recipients. However, he makes much of cultural relativity (e.g. arguing that 2 Tim 2:11-12 are culturally relative, ignoring the context of verses 13-15). Fee is also a committed non-cessationist and rides this hobby horse till it falls over and dies. Almost every example of alleged poor exegesis is tied to cessationism.

2.Gospels
Fee offers some good advice on reading each Gospel both in the context of the parallels in the other gospels and conversely in light of its own particular audience and themes. His treatment of the Sermon on the Mount is exceptionally poor, however. On page 130, he implicitly says that the Old Testament law was capable of justifying. One hopes that this is due to sloppy phrasing.

His treatment of the parables is fairly conventional in that it treats the parables as a unified genre, which to my mind they are not. The parables in many cases are just as occasional as the epistles. The rules for interpreting them are not completely uniform (for instance, the parable of the sower comes very close to allegory, while the parables describing the Father's joy over repentant sinners in Luke 15 much more closely follow the pattern of communicating one central thought. The interpretive approach is often indicated by the question or situation that occasions the parable, and this goes overlooked.

3.Law
Stuart's treatment of the law in terms of exegesis is pretty good. He gives the student a good guide to understanding the difference between apodictic law and case law and to understanding the law in the context of the antithesis between the Israelites and the people they were to displace. He does not do so well in giving guidelines to the modern believer to apply the Law. He says for instance (p. 163) - "don't see the Old Testament law as binding on Christians in the New Covenant except where specifically renewed". As North has pointed out, this is not a sound guide, because there is no New Testament renewal of the prohibition on bestiality, for instance.

Stuart also omits any discussion of the division of the law into moral, civil, and ceremonial law. The above problem is perhaps an outgrowth of that.

4. The Prophets
This section is pretty good. Stuart points out that the prophets must be read as the enforcers (prosecutors would have been a more accurate analogy) of the covenant. This section would have been especially helped by a discussion of the redemptive-historical aspect of biblical prophecy.

5. The Psalms
This is the best chapter in the book. Stuart gives very solid advice for understanding Hebrew poetry. A couple of pages are devoted to the imprecatory psalms (e.g. Ps 137)

6. Wisdom literature
Stuart very astutely observes that the wisdom corpus of the Bible includes James, but then he ignores it. His treatment of Ecclesiastes is appalling. He suggests that the purpose of Ecclesiastes is to *contradict* the rest of the Bible, and that only two verses properly coincide with the biblical message (pg 214). This is tantamount to a denial of the infallibility of a portion of scripture. One hopes that Dr. Stuart will do a little hard work on this before the next edition.

7. Revelation
This chapter is worth skipping. Fee gives some good advice in the 5 principles he outlines, but his examples turn out to mostly be examples of how not to apply those principles.

I would recommend this book cautiously to individual readers, but I won't be using it for my class.


How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth   November 23, 2004
 48 out of 50 found this review helpful

Numbers don't tell the whole story, but the fact that _How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth_ has sold more than half a million copies and is now in its third edition should say something about its utility to neophyte Bible students. I sure could have used this book five years ago when I first began reading the Bible in order to understand it. No use crying over spilt milk though. A late arrival is better than a no-show!

The significance of co-authorship on this book is simply due to the fact that Drs. Douglas Stuart (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary) and Gordon Fee (Regent College) specialize in Old and New Testament studies respectively. If the label evangelical has any meaning left today, then Stuart and Fee fall under that rubric. This is implicitly evident from their stance on the nature of Scripture (2003, pp. 21-3), which they affirm as God's word spoken through human words in history.

The title of the book leaves little ambiguity as to what it is; it's a how-to book on understanding the Bible. Surely anyone with an inkling of interest in the Bible has experienced the inherent difficulty in understanding the Bible. Stuart and Fee work to minimize this - both the experience and the associated frustration.

_How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth_ is written with the layperson in mind. At every turn, Stuart and Fee make sure and define their terms, thus making for an informative yet pleasurable read. They deal with every major section of Scripture such as the Pentateuch, the Prophets, the Wisdom Literature, the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Revelation. The approach taken to each section is more or less the same. The focus is first on exegesis and then on hermeneutics. Exegesis has to do with the "then and there," of the Bible's content. Hermeneutics, as Stuart and Fee use the term, has to do with the "here and now," of the Bible's message. Stuart and Fee explain their dual approach at the outset:

...we have two tasks: First, our task is to find out what the text originally meant; this is called exegesis. Second, we must learn to hear that same meaning in the variety of new or different context of our own day; we call this second task hermeneutics. In its classical usage, the term "hermeneutics" covers both tasks, but in this book we consistently use it only in this narrower sense. (2003, p. 15)

One of the keywords in _How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth_ is guidelines. In their book, Stuart and Fee are not setting out to promulgate a partisan approach to understanding the Bible that requires specialized assumptions within evangelicalism. Instead, they come across as having a genuine concern for the beginning Bible student and seek to point him or her in the right direction with general guidelines. They freely admit on more than one occasion that they do not expect every reader to agree with their particular take on a given point.

As someone with a couple years of serious Bible study under my belt, I think it is worth pointing out a couple of chapters, which I found immensely helpful: (1) Acts: The Question of Historical Precedent, (2) The Parables: Do You Get the Point?, and (3) The Law(s): Covenant Stipulations for Israel. The chapter on historical precedent put into words something that I have been ruminating over for some time now, that is, the caveat that a practice as described in a narrative is not ipso facto normative and, therefore, binding. The chapter on parables forever settled an issue that I was confused about, namely, the nature of Jesus' parables. They may be semi-allegorical at times, but never pure allegory. Lastly, the chapter on the Law is so informative! Stuart gives the big picture of the Old Testament in such a helpful way.

I'm sure there are many helpful books out there on how to read the Bible in a fruitful way. All I will say here is that, provided you are a conservative Christians, you won't go wrong with this book. (I consider that an understatement, by the way.) There is a lot of content to be digested, however. Commit yourself to read this book a few times over.

PS: If you haven't a clue what commentary to purchase when studying one of the books of the Bible, you'll find the appendix handy. A list of recommended commentaries is offered on every single book of the Bible.


Good Goal, Poor Outcome   April 21, 2006
 41 out of 60 found this review helpful

Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart's goal is to provide a book that bridges the gap between the scholar and the layperson. This book is broken down in thirteen chapters. Fee, the New Testament scholars of the two, wrote chapters 1-4, 6-8, and 13, while Stuart, the Old Testament scholar, wrote chapters 5 and 9-12. Chapter 1 deals with the need to interpret, chapter 2 deals with choosing a translation, and chapters 3-13 deal with principles for interpreting the different genres of biblical literature.
Fee and Stuart write with an admirable goal. They are successful in writing on the lay level. Their langue is clear and easy to read. The strong point of the book is the constant reminder from the authors that context, both historical and literary, is crucial to proper interpretation. While Fee encourages using outside help to understand the historical context, he also stresses that reading the whole book through at one time is most helpful in understanding the purpose. Stuart's chapter on interpreting Old Testament contains a wealth of information. His reminder that God is the focus and not people is much needed today.
There are several areas of weakness. One is a contradiction in the purpose of the book and Fee's reason for recommending a translation. The idea of the book is people can interpret the Word of God for themselves. The contradiction is seen in Fee's discussion of 1 Corinthians 7:36. Fee admits that the KJV is the most literal translation but criticizes it because it does not make the meaning of "virgin" clear. The NASB supplies "daughter" to clarify virgin which Fee says may not be right. The NIV supplies "that he is engaged to." Fee says the NIV is best (29). What is actually best it to teach the student how to read the context and interpret virgin for himself instead of depending on the interpretation of the translator. In the context the NASB seems to be the best interpretation, but the point of the book is to learn how to interpret the Bible. The literal translation is best.
Fee breaks the rule of context in pushing what seems to be his agenda for women preachers when interpreting 1 Timothy 2. He says if it means women cannot preach or have authority over men, then it must also mean they cannot write a book or teach in colleges where men might be. The context, however, is that of a local church. He argues that it is purly cultural, but the context suggest otherwise because Paul basis his argument on Adam and Eve. So, Paul's argument transcends many cultures and goes to God's creative order.
While there are a few good points there are a many areas of weakness. The definition of hermeneutics as "seeking the contemporary relevance of ancient texts" (25) divorces exegesis from hermeneutics. A classic understanding of hermeneutics defines it as the science and art of biblical interpretation. This definition would include exegesis as a part of the hermeneutical process. According to the definition given by Fee hermeneutics becomes a part of the process of application. Fee writes, "the only proper control for hermeneutics is to be found in the original intent of the biblical text" (26). Properly understood hermeneutics is what provides the control to make sure the interpreter arrives at the original intent of the biblical text.
Fee also says that baptism by immersion which occurs in Acts is only descriptive and cannot support immersion as the proper mode but speaking in tonges in Acts is normative. Stuart says the law ended when John the Baptist began to preach (153), but Jesus came to fulfill the law. It did not end until Jesus fulfilled it which included His life and death.
Fee says a dynamic equivalence is the best translation without providing any argumentation for this conclusion (36). This does not fit well if one believes in verbal plenary inspiration.
The authors approach to prophetic literature is another area of concern. Stuart claims it is best "to see their prophecies fulfilled" since so little, according to him, is Messianic or future. Fee appears to lean toward a preterits view at times. For instance he thinks Revelation 13-14 is probably already fulfilled.
While this book has some good points, the bad points are too many to recommend this book to a lay person. There are other, better books, on this subject with fewer weaknesses (ex., Understanding and Applying the Bible by Robertson McQuilkin and Basic Bible Interpretation by Roy B. Zuck and Donald Campbell).