I've read a lot, and I mean a LOT of books on preaching and Bible interpretation. This one, while by no means bad, simply doesn't seem to know what it wants to be.
The title would hint that this book aims to bring the complex and oft-confusing world of biblical exegesis down to an easily understood, basic level; maybe something well suited for a layman teaching Sunday School. In fact, one of the endorsements on the back specifically says the book would be "understandable by the average layperson." Yet, after reading the whole thing, I was stuck by how many complex ideas and concepts populate these pages. 10 different structural patterns, 25 figures of speech, 9 different ways to apply the Bible, and more extended lists (often with minute, subjective differences that could easily be simplified into fewer, broader categories) make this feel like it was written to be quizzed out of. It feels like a technical college book; a book that loves to list what something is or should be, yet rarely tells you how.
For example, section 12 covers application, details nine different ways of applying the Bible, yet only offers brief hints about how to know which method to use in each text, that being perhaps the most important thing it could have taught. After all, the entire point of interpretation is to arrive at the proper application. Even if everything else is spot-on, using the wrong application method would derail the entire operation.
In short, the book is a great resource for information, (The second section, on the history of interpretation was particularly interesting) and at times offers up very helpful chapters, (Section 11, on the New Testament's use of the Old Testament) but that was overshadowed by the plodding and sometimes confusing nature of the intervening material. Because of those qualities, it feels somewhat like telling a starving person about 17 different restaurants, drawing with extensive detail their dishes and specialties, but never quite telling them how to get to any of said restaurants. Without the how, the rest feels incomplete.
The philosophy of the book primarily uses historical-grammatical hermeneutic that is somewhat Theocentric. It also promotes Premillennial Dispensationalism and holds to a light form of textual critisism. Overall, the author promotes the authority of Scripture and calls readers to interpret it as it stands, rather than bend it to traditions or the theories of men.
One of the more annoying contradictions of the books can be seen in the following quotes from page 64: "In interpreting the Bible we seek to understand what the Bible says, not the human author's "intended meaning."" Yet, that clashes with a statement only a few sentences later: "2. every biblical writing was written by someone to specific hearers or readers in a specific historical, geographical situation for a specific purpose." Then, "This relates again to the point that exegesis is to discover the original meaning of the text. In other words what were the words conveying to their original readers?" Later, in a recap on Page 6, the very first question suggested to be asked of a text is "What did the words convey in the grammar of the original hearers?" The second reads: "What was being conveyed by those words to the initial readers?"
The problem arises when one asks a single question. If interpretation demands knowing what was conveyed and intended by the text, who or what is responsible for that text? Moses' ink and quill? Paul's ballpoint pen? Peter's Sharpie? If one answers God alone, that sounds fine, but ignores the unique writing styles, logic structures, and vocabulary between each book that clearly reveal the human personalities behind it. If one answers humans alone, they contradict the clear Scriptural declaration that God inspired the Bible. The only consistent answer is to reply that we are looking for the intention conveyed and desired by the Spirit-enabled human author of the text. To separate the "text" from the "author" is to either claim the author had no influence whatsoever, or that his intentions were the opposite of God's intentions AND the grammatical interpretation of the final product, or that this "text" spontaneously generated it's own intentions. All of which are folly and wholly contradicted by the rest of the book's charges to discover the original intention as foundational to knowing its present application.
This foundation of Mr. Zuck's view on inspiration is revealed later on page 69. "When we speak of inspiration of the Bible, we do not mean that the writers were inspired but that the words themselves were inspired, that is, they were God-breathed." This however, clashes with the clear teaching of 2 Peter 1:21 which states "...but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The authors, the prophets in that case, were moved. Not the text itself. Not the pen itself. The men. Which is ironic because two paragraphs later Mr. Zuck refers to the idea that "Matthew wrote/used/said/affirmed" numerous times in a single paragraph with every indication pointing towards it being Matthew's intention, not even "The Book of Matthew" or "God through Matthew" or even "the text penned by Matthew." If Mr. Zuck truly believes that the original author's intent, and logically following, his impact on the text is irrelevant in light of "The text's" meaning, then why would he continually refer to passages as the product of that human author without any qualification?
However, the finer points of biblical inspiration are better left for another article.
Notable Chapter Thoughts:
Chapter 2 provides an amazing and all too rare glimpse at the history of biblical interpretation. Tracing the methods and ideas used by various groups down through the ages is fascinating and a wonderful addition, even if it would have profited from direct quotes rather than brief summaries.
Chapter 7's "Figures of Speech" is one of the most laborious chapters to slog through. While a discussion of metaphors and idioms is integral to understanding the intended meaning, this chapter feels far, far too lost in the details of explaining Hypocatastasis, Zeugma, Pleonasm as well as splitting hairs over with far more words than necessary. Again, this is a chapter that feels listed out and written to quiz out of.
Chapter 9 does a great job laying out guidelines for interpreting parables. These are detailed and strong, with the strange exception of page 203 seemingly saying that the sinful woman of Luke 7 who washed Jesus' feet with her tears was somehow a parable.
Chapter 10 on prophecy does a great job emphasizing the need to preach what is there, without getting fanciful or reading into the text. These guidelines would help weed out a lot of nonsense.
Chapter 11 on the New Testament use of the Old Testament was probably my favorite chapter. It examined general principles on how the NT authors referenced the OT, from changing wording to seemingly attributing wrong authors, as well as touched on how their interpretations do come from a proper reading of the OT, even when it doesn't appear so at first. This is where this book shines in clearing up a cloudy and controversial subject.
Chapter 12 on application is another rough one as I pointed out near the beginning of this review. The 9 ways to apply a passage are not only explained without a way to know which way to use, but even then, some overlap so closely, or are confusing. For example, one step asks readers to look for the principle that is in inherent and explicit in the text, which is nearly identical in practice to the first and second steps which emphasize the intent of the text. However, the very next step tells readers to apply a principle that may only be implied or extrapolated, which ten bypasses the need to discover the true meaning of the author's writings, which then renders proper interpretation completely unnecessary. He does, however, make a great case for incredibly specific application.
Overall Impressions:
It's a scattered and uneven book for sure, and one that's simply not that enjoyable to read. It's much like the cave wall in a gold mine. There is great value scattered in it, but there's also much material in your way that you must chip through and discard first. Other preaching volumes handle that material much, much better. It's probably best suited as a supplemental book in a college course where only selected readings are required.
3/5.
Buy it here on Amazon.
Comments