Aída Besançon Spencer’s The Exegetical Process offers a comprehensive, step-by-step guide to New Testament exegesis designed primarily for seminary students and undergraduate biblical studies programs. The work systematically addresses each stage of the exegetical task—from initial text selection and translation through historical-cultural analysis, grammatical-syntactical investigation, literary context, theological synthesis, and contemporary application. What distinguishes Spencer’s handbook from others in the field is its granular level of procedural detail, complete with assessment rubrics for each exegetical component, and an extensive collection of reference charts, tables, and resource lists designed to support students through every phase of research and writing.

The Exegetical Process enters a well-established field of exegetical handbooks, positioning itself alongside Gordon Fee’s now-classic New Testament Exegesis and other methodological guides that have served generations of students. Spencer, an experienced New Testament scholar and professor emerita at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, brings considerable pedagogical expertise to this task. The result is a highly structured, mechanically precise guide that will prove valuable for certain learning contexts while simultaneously raising questions about its broader applicability.

The volume’s most distinctive contribution lies precisely where Spencer intends it: in its relentlessly systematic, step-by-step approach. Unlike many exegetical handbooks that describe the interpretive process in more general terms, Spencer provides exhaustive detail at each stage, breaking down complex exegetical tasks into discrete, manageable components. For instructors seeking to demystify biblical exegesis for beginning students—particularly those lacking strong backgrounds in hermeneutics or biblical languages—this granular approach offers genuine advantages.

Most notably, Spencer includes detailed grading rubrics for each component of the exegetical process. This feature distinguishes The Exegetical Process from its competitors and addresses a genuine pedagogical need. Seminary and Bible college instructors often struggle to communicate assessment expectations clearly, and students frequently complain about the opacity of grading criteria for exegesis papers. Spencer’s rubrics provide concrete standards, specifying what constitutes exemplary, adequate, or deficient work at each stage. This transparency serves both fairness and learning outcomes, helping students understand not merely what to do but how well they should do it.

Additionally, Spencer enriches the volume with numerous reference charts, graphs, and tables that function as practical tools throughout the exegetical process. These include terminological glossaries, taxonomies of grammatical and syntactical categories, lists of ancient sources (including extrabiblical Jewish and Greco-Roman literature), curated bibliographies of contemporary scholarly resources organized by exegetical topic, and visual aids for discourse analysis and semantic mapping. These reference materials transform the handbook from mere procedural guide into a portable research companion. For students unfamiliar with the landscape of New Testament scholarship or uncertain about which lexicons, commentaries, or databases to consult, these lists provide invaluable orientation. The charts on rhetorical devices, figures of speech, and argumentative structures offer quick-reference tools that students can apply directly to their textual analysis. This apparatus represents a significant practical contribution that extends the book’s utility beyond its methodological instruction.

However, the volume’s strengths paradoxically generate its most significant limitations. Spencer’s approach is markedly idiosyncratic, reflecting her particular pedagogical preferences and methodological commitments in ways that may not translate well across different institutional contexts or learning environments. While the exegetical terrain she covers substantially overlaps with Fee’s New Testament Exegesis—textual criticism, translation, historical-cultural background, lexical-syntactical analysis, theological interpretation, and contemporary application—her specific procedures and emphases often diverge in ways that seem arbitrary rather than methodologically motivated.

The step-by-step format, while initially appealing, risks fostering a mechanical, almost formulaic approach to biblical interpretation. Exegesis is fundamentally an art as much as a science, requiring interpretive judgment, synthetic thinking, and the ability to recognize which questions matter most for a given text. Spencer’s highly structured methodology may inadvertently obscure this reality, training students to follow prescribed steps rather than develop interpretive discernment. The danger is producing students who can execute exegetical procedures competently but struggle to think like exegetes—to recognize when standard approaches require modification, when certain steps deserve more or less attention, or how the various analytical stages integrate into a coherent interpretive argument.

Moreover, Spencer’s idiosyncratic details sometimes seem to reflect personal preference rather than exegetical necessity. Experienced instructors who have developed their own effective approaches may find Spencer’s specific requirements constraining rather than helpful. The risk is that the volume’s utility becomes tied too closely to adopting Spencer’s entire system rather than serving as a flexible resource that instructors can adapt to their particular contexts and emphases.

Gordon Fee’s New Testament Exegesis remains, in this reviewer’s judgment, the more helpful resource for most contexts. Now in its third edition, Fee’s handbook has proven its staying power precisely because it avoids Spencer’s level of prescriptive detail. Fee provides a clear, comprehensive overview of the exegetical task while maintaining sufficient flexibility for instructors to adapt his approach to their particular pedagogical goals and institutional contexts. His discussion is more discursive, offering methodological rationale alongside practical guidance, helping students understand not merely how to do exegesis but why particular procedures matter.

Fee also demonstrates greater sensitivity to the diversity of New Testament genres, providing genre-specific guidance that recognizes how exegetical priorities shift when moving from gospel narrative to Pauline argumentation to apocalyptic literature. Spencer’s more uniform approach, while simpler to follow, may not adequately prepare students for the genre-sensitivity that mature exegesis requires.

Furthermore, Fee’s integration of exegetical method with broader hermeneutical reflection provides students with a more robust theological framework for their interpretive work. Spencer’s focus on procedure, while pedagogically valuable, offers less guidance on the theological and hermeneutical questions that ultimately shape how one approaches the biblical text.

This is not to suggest that The Exegetical Process lacks value. For specific contexts—particularly undergraduate Bible programs, introductory seminary courses, or institutions where students arrive with minimal interpretive training—Spencer’s detailed scaffolding and explicit assessment rubrics may prove extremely beneficial. The volume could serve effectively as a supplementary text alongside Fee or other handbooks, with instructors selectively utilizing Spencer’s rubrics and detailed guidance for particular exegetical components while drawing on other resources for broader methodological perspective.

Spencer has produced a conscientious, pedagogically motivated handbook that reflects deep teaching experience and genuine concern for student learning. Her commitment to assessment clarity addresses a real need in biblical studies education. However, the volume’s idiosyncratic character and methodologically prescriptive approach limit its broader utility. Instructors should carefully evaluate whether Spencer’s specific system aligns with their pedagogical goals and institutional context before adopting it wholesale.

For most seminary and graduate programs seeking a comprehensive, methodologically sound, and pedagogically flexible exegetical handbook, Gordon Fee’s New Testament Exegesis remains the superior choice. Spencer’s The Exegetical Process offers a valuable alternative for specific teaching contexts but seems unlikely to displace Fee as the standard reference in the field.

Reviewed by Rick Wadholm Jr

Publisher’s page: https://www.kregel.com/biblical-studies/the-exegetical-process/

Holly Beers and Craig Keener: We love the Bible, and at heart we want to understand it well and help others understand it also. That’s how we see our scholarship – as a way to serve the church. We both have our specific areas of interest and specialty, including how Craig works with ancient Greek and Latin texts which help us better understand the New Testament, and Holly studies the way that the Old Testament is incorporated into the New Testament, but we both simply love to study and teach more generally. We are both very involved in our local churches: teaching, preaching, and offering our gifts in a variety of ways.

PneumaReview.com: If they asked, what would tell this leader about your experience with the contemporary ministry of the Holy Spirit?

Beers & Keener: Both of us are Pentecostal and desire to deeply know and be led by the Spirit. We regularly practice the gifts of the Spirit both individually and in (church) community. Craig especially has traveled extensively and observed and participated in the Spirit’s work around the world. Holly teaches at a college where most students come from non-charismatic/Pentecostal backgrounds, and she regularly exposes interested students to the Spirit’s contemporary work and trains them to engage in it.

PneumaReview.com: Where did the idea for the Word & Spirit Commentary on the New Testament series originate?

Word and Spirit Commentary on the New Testament Series from Baker Academic (as of July 2025)

Beers & Keener: We noticed that there have not been very many biblical resources authored by scholars from Pentecostal/charismatic traditions. When researching for projects or preparing for classes, we had difficulty finding those voices. The need for a series like this was even more apparent because of the documented growth of Spirit-filled movements around the world. In conversations with an editor at Baker Academic we suggested this series, and Baker was happy to support us as editors and publish it.

PneumaReview.com: How were the various contributors selected?

Beers & Keener: We wanted to be intentional about including scholars from across the global Pentecostal and charismatic spectrum, so we recruited accordingly. The range of voices includes denominational Pentecostals, Reformed charismatics, charismatic Methodists, and others. They also reflect a range of cultures, including Spirit-filled voices from multiple continents.

PneumaReview.com: In what ways is the importance of the Word emphasized in these commentaries?

Beers & Keener: They are, at their core, biblical commentaries; in that sense the Word is central. They explain the best of what biblical scholars know about the original context of the books as they work through the entirety of each. They also highlight the Spirit’s inspiration of the biblical texts.

PneumaReview.com: How is the work of the Holy Spirit highlighted in these volumes?

Beers & Keener: This series focuses on how the same Spirit who inspired the text speaks and works today. Our authors “preach” their way through the texts, emphasizing how we listen alongside the ancient audiences for the Spirit’s voice in our time and contexts.

PneumaReview.com: What is the most unique aspect of this commentary series?

Beers & Keener: The authors engage the biblical text in both its ancient setting and its message for Spirit-filled Christians today. The commentaries do not separate the exegetical and application sections, as readers in Spirit-filled traditions tend to integrate and move naturally between these categories. In other words, Spirit-filled readers traditionally blend the ancient and modern horizons so as to read themselves within the continuing narrative of salvation history—that is, as part of the ongoing biblical story (not culturally but theologically/spiritually/eschatologically). Particularly distinctive of this approach, then, will be observing how God works in the biblical texts and how Christians can expect God to be working today, even if in new and/or culturally surprising ways. The commentaries are written with distinctives of the tradition(s), including testimony, a conversational style (“preaching”), and sidebars that feature connections to Spirit-filled history and interest, such as healing, exorcism, spiritual gifts, etc.

PneumaReview.com: In your opinion, is the divide in the church regarding the Word and the Spirit declining?

Beers & Keener: Yes, we see a growing interest in and commitment to keeping the Word and Spirit together. We find this to be very encouraging, and are convinced that the Spirit’s own prompting is the main reason.

PneumaReview.com: What factors are contributing to this?

Beers & Keener: Beyond the Spirit’s own initiation, it seems due to our increased global awareness and connectedness. More and more Christians have contact and even relationships with Christians from different traditions in our neighborhoods, our workplaces, and online. We hear about what the Spirit is doing around the world.

PneumaReview.com: Can you tell us about some of the forthcoming volumes and who is writing them?

Beers & Keener: This summer Craig’s co-authored volume with Robert P. Menzies on Acts will be published, and this fall Craig’s volume on 1-2 Peter and Jude will also be released. In the next couple of years you will see commentaries on 1-3 John by Jamal-Dominique Hopkins, 1-2 Timothy and Titus by Amy Anderson and Gordon Fee (revising Fee’s earlier contribution), Matthew by David Instone-Brewer, and Galatians by Roji George.

PneumaReview.com: What do you hope the lasting legacy of this commentary series will be?

Beers & Keener: Although the series naturally welcomes all readers, we especially hope to serve those who identify as Spirit-filled (broadly defined) leaders: pastors, seminarians, theology and ministry students, youth leaders, and Bible study leaders. We pray that the series testifies to the creative work and restorative goodness of the triune God.

PneumaReview.com: When will the series be complete?

Beers & Keener: The goal is 2030; at this point the date appears realistic, as authors are very excited about and committed to the series.

Craig S. Keener (PhD, Duke University) is F. M. and Ada Thompson Professor of Biblical Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. He is author of thirty-seven books, with some 1.4 million copies in circulation. The books have won fifteen national or international awards, including six in Christianity Today; together the books take up 19,000 pages. He has also authored roughly one hundred academic articles; seven booklets; and roughly two hundred popular-level articles. In 2020 Craig was president of the Evangelical Theological Society. He is ordained with the Assemblies of God. His YouTube channel is: www.youtube.com/c/CraigKeenerPhD; his blog site is www.craigkeener.com/.

Learn more about this series and series co-editor, Holly Beers:

It’s Time to Learn the Basics

Great preachers and teachers may inspire you, but the deep truths of Scripture are discovered through personal Bible study.

Is the Bible Too Spiritual to Understand?

Since the Bible is a spiritual book you may say, “What will I learn from a book that is so spiritually complex?” You will learn more than you may imagine if you are the following:

1. A born again believer (John 3:3). Whether a person is a scholar or member of the laity, he/she must have experienced the new birth in order to fully comprehend the message of the Bible.
2. A disciplined believer (2 Tim. 2: 1-4). A believer is commanded to be diligent and faithful in his/her study to become a good solider. Discipline and training prepares him/her to teach others once progress is made toward Christian maturity.
3. A willing believer (Psa. 119:30). A believer must have a desire to be trustworthy, and to please the Lord. Psalm 119:30 highlights faithfulness in keeping the ordinances of God as self-imposed criteria.

Proper Tools are Needed to Guarantee Accuracy

Image: Hannah Busing

Learn from a Study Bible. Use one having a place to jot down you own handwritten notes. Take time to ponder and reflect on what you have written in your notes. Most Study Bibles contain numerous commentary notes; but be sure to compare the Study Bible commentary with other commentaries. If you use only one Study Bible and trust only its commentary for biblical accuracy, you will never develop a deep understanding of scripture.

Learn by studying different versions to gain deeper insight. Most Bibles agree on the essentials of scripture, although caution should be exercised when using a paraphrase. Although paraphrases may help the reader to better understand the Word of God, it is wise to consult a dynamic equivalent or literal version to achieve biblical accuracy.

Learn from a Bible dictionary. No tool is more important than a Bible dictionary. It explains archaeology, customs, climates, people, dates, doctrines, herbs, politics, empires, animals, and much more.

Learn from a concordance. Some Bibles have concordances, but in most instances they are not exhaustive. However, the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance is considered one of the best. Time-tested and inexpensive, it lists every word in both the Old and New Testaments.

Learn from a commentary. Commentaries often explain the Bible verse-by-verse. Evangelical commentaries rarely disagree on major points of scripture, and these are helpful to an interpreter for gaining more knowledge.

Learn from an English dictionary. Some words used today in various English Bibles are archaic. Use a dictionary to look up the definition of hard-to-understand words.

Learn from a word dictionary of the Bible. Difficult words are strewn throughout the Bible; and in many cases the original word in an English Bible may not mean what you think it does. A popular word dictionary helpful to interpreters is Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words.

Basic Principles of Interpretation

Pray. Ask the Lord to enlighten you and give you insight.

Search for Insight. Bible reading alone will not give you insight. Insight is acquired only by studying and reflecting on various subjects, themes, people, verses, words, events, etc.

Consider the type of passage. Ask yourself: What kind of Scripture (or passage) am I studying? Is it prophetic (apocalyptic), law, parabolic, simile, psalm, instructional, wisdom (poetical), discourses, or narrative? Various types of passages will mandate different methods of interpretation. Also, the books of the Bible should be studied in context, or in light of proper interpretation. Begin by considering the background and author of each book, and to whom it is addressed, before you draw conclusions. For example, interpreting the book of Revelation requires different guidelines than those required for studying Genesis.

Examine unique words and phrases used by biblical writers. God is the author of all scripture, but men “wrote” (or recorded) as God inspired them. For example, in the Gospels we find that Mark wrote to the Roman people. Romans were fond of power and action; thus Mark’s repeated use of “straightaway” (i.e., immediately) gains the attention of a Roman audience. On the other hand, Matthew desired to appeal to Jews. In doing so, he was careful to use terms with which Jewish people were familiar; such as “Messiah,” and the “Kingdom of Heaven.” Matthew avoided the term “Kingdom of God” as often as possible so as not to inflame the passion of Jews since they were forbidden to say or write the name of God. John focuses on the universal appeal of Christ and is concerned that people everywhere “believe” in Jesus, the Son of God. John uses the term “believe” over 50 times in the Gospel he penned.

Take time to research maps and locations of certain events. Most Bible students know who Moses is, but are unable to pinpoint the locations where certain events occurred in his life. Furthermore, most Bible students do not know the places where Jesus traveled during His 3 ½ years of ministry. Nor do they know where He performed miracles and healings, gave discourses, or talked to the religious, royal, or common people.

Learn to recognize frequently used figures of speech. It’s important that you learn what is literal and what is figurative. During the time the Bible was penned by human beings, various figures of speech were used. Even in modern times we use many of figures of speech. A popular contemporary American term is “Get out of my face.” We understand this to mean “Depart,” “Go away,” or “Leave me alone.” However, it is doubtful that two thousand years from today people would understand this term. The Bible contains many such figures of speech and it’s important not to develop a literal (or systematic) theology based on these terms.

In His Grip,
Dr. Harbuck

From the February 2010 edition of The Grapevine. Used with permission.

D. H. Williams (PhD, University of Toronto) is professor of religion in patristics and historical theology at Baylor University. He is the author of Evangelicals and Tradition and Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism and editor of The Free Church and the Early Church. Tradition, Scripture, and Interpretation is the second volume in the Evangelical Ressourcement series, which is grounded in the belief that there is a wealth of theological, exegetical, and spiritual resources from the patristic era that is relevant for the Christian church today, as well as the church of the future. This series aims to help church thinkers and leaders reappropriate ancient understandings of Christian belief, amid the current resurgence in interest in the early church, and apply these ancient understandings to ministerial foci in the twenty-first century. Readers of the series will see how Scripture and the early tradition were both necessary in the formulation of orthodoxy, that there is a reciprocal relationship between the life of the church and theology, and that the liberty of the Spirit in contemporary believers must be balanced by a continuity with church tradition. If these three things are done, it seems, the Protestant church could truly be considered the church catholic (i.e., universal).

In keeping with the dictum of Wesley that ‘true, genuine Christianity [directs] us to the strongest evidence of the Christian doctrine’, this sourcebook gathers key writings from the first through sixth centuries on various topics of concern to the church that illustrate the ways in which its confessions and worship were expressed during that time. The writings are arranged thematically into nine areas, including the rule of faith, baptismal formulations and instruction, creeds, and biblical interpretation. Within each theme, the writings are arranged chronologically, which reveals how the Christian tradition has developed over time. Explanatory notes by Williams provide historical background and theological context for each reading. In what follows, I shall point out some prominent points from Williams’ text.

Williams opens the proverbial anthology with an expansive introduction, entitled ‘Origins of Christian Tradition’, that examines the close interplay between Scripture and tradition in the thinking of the early church. He asserts that the early fathers would have known nothing of the contention of sola scriptura, as it was incomprehensible to isolate the bible from the tradition of the church (he recognizes that the bible is foremost a book of the church, for what the church believed was ‘canonical’ before the bible was codified). This integral association of the bible and church tradition need not be understood as a squelching of the Spirit, however, for the Spirit is present throughout both the bible and church tradition, Williams notes (18). It could be said, then, that the bible (revelation) and tradition are two sides of the same coin. Indeed, there is a co-inherence in this symbiotic (reciprocal) relationship. Scripture could be portrayed as the anchor, whereas tradition is the interpreter (cf. 27).

Darren Sarisky received his PhD from King’s College Aberdeen, UK, and he currently holds a position as Junior Research Fellow at the University of Cambridge, UK where he also teaches Christian Doctrine. Presently, there is an upheaval over theological interpretation, with some backlash occurring against this seemingly new development. In this confusion, it is not clear what the differences and similarities are between historical and theological approaches to the Bible. In so doing, it gathers together several classical and contemporary statements of the differences and similarities between historical and theological approaches to the interpretation of the Bible. Theology, History and Biblical Interpretation is a collection of twenty seminal essays that reflect the state of historical vs. theological interests over the past two hundred years of biblical interpretation from the Enlightenment to the present day.

Sarisky realizes that there is both a theological and historical aspect to the text of the Bible, and this reader focuses on the question of which factors drive the process of reading, and especially how historical and theological coefficients combine harmoniously (at least that is the ideal scenario). There is a broad movement in the Academy today over the theological interpretation of Scripture. Systematic theologians, for example, are increasingly turning to Scripture, whereas in the past they have might have dialogued more so with other theologians or philosophers, and they are producing their own commentaries that reflect engagement with biblical exegesis. Moreover, mainstream biblical scholarship is giving greater attention to theological questions that the text under investigation raises, and a number of contemporary texts have been published that prioritize theological issues. In addition, historical scholars increasingly are focused upon the role of exegesis in past doctrinal debates. Miroslav Volf has commented that the return of biblical scholars to the theological reading of the Scriptures, and the return of systematic theologians to sustained engagement with biblical texts – in sum, the return of both to theological readings of the Bible – is the most important development in the late twentieth century. Volf’s comments are apropos to this volume. These trends raise the question immediately of what theological interpretation actually is. What is the rationale for each approach? Do the approaches conflict, or can they effectively be reconciled?

This reader encourages both students and scholars to explore these important questions by bringing together some of history’s most influential discussions of the issues as well as some of the most distinguished attempts of the contemporary era. Indeed, Sarisky indicates that a grave problem results from absolutely differentiating between the two approaches, theological and historical. A theological reading, after all is also historical by definition. Instead of polarizing theology and history, this reader seeks to approach texts with a different question in mind: how do theology and history function within the account of interpretation that the author is proposing? Sarisky notes that any account of interpretation involves some phenomenon to be interpreted, someone who is available to interpret that phenomenon, and some interaction between these first two realities.

At last! A reliable and accessible book on philosophical hermeneutics for pastors, seminarians, and Christians, who may know little about the philosophy of interpretation.

Merold Westphal is a distinguished professor of philosophy, postmodernism and ontological theology at Fordham University. In this book, he demonstrates that key lessons in the development of philosophical hermeneutics—from Frederick Schleiermacher to Hans-Georg Gadamer—can enrich Bible reading, whether studied professionally by a theologian, expounded orally by a church leader, or read devotionally by a Christian.

Underlying Westphal’s concise treatment is the argument that postmodern philosophical perspectives on hermeneutics (which some believed to be only a faddish ideology) can contribute to the churches’ quest for rightly reading and understanding Scripture. As the series editor James K.A. Smith introduces in the foreword, Westphal makes careful distinction between the “relativity of finitude” (recognizing that our interpretations are deeply affected to our finite and relative understandings) and “an absolute ‘anything goes’ relativism.”

Postmodern approaches to interpretation have led some to feel “hermeneutical despair” while the opposite extreme could be described as “hermeneutical arrogance,” those that believe pure truth can be received without mediation. Westphal’s nuanced treatment will help Christians navigate between such despair or arrogance, and because of that, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? “is a gift for the Church” (p.11).

Westphal explains there is a myth that goes like this: to read the Bible “plainly” is to read it correctly, but those that “interpret” the Bible read it incorrectly because their methods predispose them to a subjective bias. However, can a reflective reader really preserve the objectivity of the biblical message yet ignore the mediatory role and pre-understandings they brings to the text? In reality, because we are finite beings, we will not have infinite and total knowledge. Westphal shows that from Schleiermacher, a reader will approach texts with presuppositions, and often these assumptions are fed to us from our “hermeneutical circle.” We have to learn to hear the author, including their psychological state, and not just the subject. We have also to learn to see how the different context is dependent on the larger contexts. From Dilthey, we learn that rules help overcome some levels of subjectivity in our readings although many scholars remained critical about any supposed “universal validity of objective/scientific” methodology. From continental philosophers (like Heidegger, Riccoeur and Gadamer), we learn that, to a large extent we are all relativistic in our interpretations: we never interpret “out of nowhere” but from our respective “locations” (not limited geographically), and even at conversion, we read texts from a prior location of “somewhere” ideologically to another ideological position “somewhere else” (p.36). These locations are what philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer calls, “our throwness – the immersion and formation of our consciousness and pre-understandings” (p.70) and “historically-effected-consciousness” (p.74), and in which as readers, we later introduce “a fusion of horizons” (p.107) into our readings, drawing from our respective traditions and backgrounds as well as the many other horizons that interface with our interpretation (ch. 6). I will return to Westphal’s review of Gadamer shortly. From Reformed philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff’s reading of J. Austin’s speech-act theory, we learn that language is a performance subjected to moral and legal norms operating under certain circumstances, so while we may arrive at a fixed authorial meaning, we cannot necessarily conclude towards an authorial intent.

David G. Firth and Jamie A. Grant, eds., Words and the Word: Explorations in Biblical Interpretation and Literary Theory (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008), 317 pages, ISBN 9780830828982.

Prior to the post-modern period, many of the critical methodologies used in biblical studies such as redaction criticism, form criticism and source criticism were used in biblical interpretation in order to aid the critic in the interpretation of a text’s pre-history. In contrast, literary theory focuses on the final form of the text. The editors of this collection seek to expose the reader to many of the multiple methods of literary theory as they relate to biblical interpretation.

Eight essays are included in Words and the Word and they fall into two parts: First, two general articles. Grant Osborne lays out the components of narrative theory, focusing specifically on how this can be used with the Gospels. Fanie Snyman provides a “responsible” and “non-technical” approach to exegesis of Old Testament narrative (61). Both Synman’s and Osborne’s discussions are clear and comprehensive.

Part two of the book is comprised of six essays, which discuss specific literary approaches to interpretation. First, Richard Briggs offers one of the most helpful explanations on speech-act theory I have encountered, including well-defined key terminology that is necessary for comprehending this concept. Speech-act theory understands that language has the ability to govern significant aspects of human life. Briggs claims the biblical writers were very cognizant of the profound power of words (85).

Jeannine Brown’s chapter on genre criticism is characteristic of all the essays in this collection—the methodologies all aim at discovering authorial intention. Brown reminds us that even genres were tools that biblical authors employed to communicate a specific message (143).

Many literary scholars assert that at certain times in their writing authors of the Bible intentionally employed ambiguity and willfully invited “readers to enjoy and play with the text” (183). David Firth argues for this practice as his contribution to the collection of articles. In an interesting piece, Firth attempts to show how William Empson’s taxonomy of ambiguity is a useful tool in which to explore biblical narrative. While Firth’s explanation and presentation is thorough and includes plenty of examples, I remain unconvinced (but open) that any ambiguity in the text is anything but unintentional.

Jamie Grant contributes an essay on poetics. The bulk of the essay deals with the significance of editorial shaping within anthologies like Proverbs and the book of Psalms. Grant demonstrates the importance of discerning a passages’ theme based on its placement by the editor within a particular thematic section of the book. Plenty of examples help to clarify this form of analysis. His chapter also includes a section on poetic parallelism and an even smaller discussion about New Testament poetry.

Peter Phillips explores the philosophical development of rhetoric, the art of persuasion. Although his essay contains some biblical examples to demonstrate his approach, this chapter and the next are two of the more theory-laden of the collection.

The final piece on discourse analysis, written by Terrance Wardlaw, might be one of the least known of the literary approaches discussed in the book. Wardlaw’s definition of discourse analysis is “the analysis of language and its use beyond the sentence. Moreover, one may describe ‘discourse’ as a unit of speech (either oral or written) treated by interlocutors as a complete utterance” (268). Wardlaw applies his analysis to both an Old and New Testament passage in order to help illuminate this theory.

Daniel J. Treier, Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), ISBN 9780801031786.

Daniel J. Treier, associate professor of theology at Wheaton College, has written a timely and definitive introduction to the latest theological craze among evangelical theologians and scholars—the so-called “theological interpretation of scripture” movement. Although the writing is clear throughout, the book’s unrelenting polemic against historical criticism is a serious drawback. I say that in spite of the fact that it scarcely could have been written any other way: the theological interpretation movement is all about hostility towards historical criticism.

Treier refers to the approach of the theological interpretation movement as a “new, yet old, way of engaging the Bible” (p. 11). This understanding of the movement’s approach as something “new, yet old” seems to underlie much of the movement’s justifying rhetoric. For Treier, as for others, theological interpretation is both forward-looking (in that it seeks an escape from a certain malaise) and backward-looking (in that it seeks to reconnect with exegetical practices of the past). Implicit in this bifocal approach is a distrust of the historical-critical view of Scripture, a view that theological interpretation proponents associate with Enlightenment ways of thinking. Treier inscribes the forward-looking aspect of the approach in the title to the volume’s introductory chapter (which refers to postmodernism), and he inscribes the backward-looking aspect in the title of chapter one (“Recovering the Past: Imitating Precritical Interpretation”).

Treier outlines some broad hermeneutical rules for what he considers “theological” reading, mostly having to do with maintaining connections with how the church, at one point or another, has read Scripture. In this context, “church” does not seem to signify the whole church, but rather a select set of practitioners of figural reading strategies, reading Scripture through a heavy-handed appeal to the rule of faith.¹ In other words, Treier uses the term “church” mostly to signify alternatives to the historical method. This is problematic, of course, given the fact that the historical method, in contradistinction to figural reading, embodies the propositionalist understanding of truth that grounds the gospel message. Treier justifies this “churchly” hermeneutic by calling the church the “community of the Spirit”, as if the Spirit’s role within the church has been to guide its reading practices.

Given what I have just written, it is difficult to judge this book. On some levels, it works as an introduction—for example, the writing is always accessible. On other levels, however, it is a real letdown—for example, its rhetoric against historical criticism can hardly be considered fair. I therefore recommend it as an introduction to the theological interpretation movement, but not as a general guide for reading Scripture.

Reviewed by John Poirier

Notes

¹ I call this appeal to the rule of faith “heavy-handed”, because it marks a distinct departure from the intended use of the rule of faith. In place of using the rule to ensure that one’s overall interpretation of the central aspects of the faith is on target [viz. doctrinally orthodox], Treier and others use it in a special way—as a guide for how one reads up front, viz. as a warrant for reading figurally.

Part of the Rightly Understanding God’s Word series by Craig S. Keener.

As appearing in Pneuma Review Spring 2006

Take a course on biblical interpretation with New Testament scholar, Professor Craig S. Keener.

The Reader’s “Social Location”

For those of us who embrace the Bible as God’s Word, our goal is always to hear what God was saying in Scripture. Because we believe God inspired the authors, we look for that meaning first of all in what God inspired the original writers to say to their original audiences. However else a text might be applied, it is the original meaning we can be sure was correct, and that provides us the model for how to apply Scripture in our own situations today.

Some students of literature have moved away from the question of what the author meant to the question of how a reader understands a text. Although we do not emphasize that question here (our primary goal for interpreting the Bible is understanding what the author meant, because we believe the Bible’s authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit), it is an interesting question and has some relevance. Different readers understand texts in different ways, and that is often because of the cultures and traditions we start with. Being sensitive to this issue can help us better understand why people interpret texts the way they do. Sometimes it can even expose our own prejudices or ideas we simply took for granted because we assumed that everyone thought the same way.

For example, a minister in a church that practices infant baptism may read about the baptism of the jailer’s “household” (Acts 16:33) and see a proof for infant baptism here. Someone who practices only believer’s baptism will object that we do not know that the jailer’s household included infants and that they all seem to have heard and believed (16:31-32). In modern biblical debates, everyone reads chosen passages in light of other passages they believe support their viewpoint. This is not to say that we should not try to make a better case for one position than another, but simply to observe that we most naturally incline to positions we have been taught. Recognizing the history of various lines of interpretation can help us guard against bias in the way we read the Bible. Church history is a very important safeguard in helping us put our own views in broader perspective. We can recognize the background of our own views and consider how this background influences us for good or ill. We can also challenge ourselves: how “obvious” is a view of a Bible passage if no one in history ever thought of it before? (This is not to say that majority views in church history are always correct, either. Sometimes those majorities simply reflect the cultures of those Christians writing down most of the interpretations! But church history does help us be more cautious.)

Recognizing different backgrounds (“social locations”) of various interpreters can also enrich the way we read the Bible. People in different settings ask different kinds of questions than people in other circumstances do, so we can sometimes learn from people who ask different questions as long as we follow the rules of context noted above. For example, Medieval European theologians focused on what the Bible says about issues like the nature of God, Christ, salvation, and angels. These questions are legitimate (and issues like Christ and salvation are central to the New Testament and to Christianity), but a believer who is beaten every day while working as a debt slave in Pakistan will also want to hear what the Bible says about justice, about suffering, and about comfort. The questions do not contradict one another, and both may come to legitimate conclusions; the Bible is big enough to address both kinds of issues.

Part of the Rightly Understanding God’s Word series by Craig S. Keener.

As appearing in Pneuma Review Fall 2004.

Take a course on biblical interpretation with New Testament scholar, Professor Craig S. Keener.

Bible Background (Part 1 of 2)

In any communication, some matters are stated but others can be left assumed. For instance, I am writing in English, on the assumption that I and my readers both know English; if Paul wrote to the Corinthians in Greek, he could assume that they knew Greek. I assume that my readers know what a Bible is, and would be safe to assume that my readers know what a car is, what a radio is, and what pounded yam is (though Paul’s readers knew none of these things, except what the Old Testament part of the Bible was). Paul could likewise allude to specific customs his readers practiced without explaining them, because the Corinthians already knew exactly what he meant (e.g., “baptism for the dead,” 1 Cor 15:29). But for us to understand Paul’s meaning we must either know Greek or have a translation, and we must either know the culture the biblical writers shared with their audiences or have access to resources that help explain that culture. What the writer could assume as part of his meaning was as much a part of the meaning as what he had to state.

We have noted previously the importance of whole-book context, because most books of the Bible stress particular themes addressing particular issues. We should not skip from one book of the Bible to another (except where one book specifically refers back to an earlier and widely circulated one), at least not until we have figured out each passage in its own context first. But one reason particular books emphasize particular themes is that they addressed particular situations. Although people sometimes ignore such verses, many verses explicitly state particular audiences for these books—for instance, the Christians in Rome (Rom 1:7) or in Corinth (1 Cor 1:2). There are appropriate ways to apply these books to today, but first we must take seriously what these works explicitly claim to be: works addressed to specific audiences in specific times and places. In other words, before we can determine how to apply the ancient meaning today, we must understand the ancient meaning. To skip this important step in Bible interpretation is to ignore what the Bible claims for itself.