How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth

1.Fee and Stuart explain that all translations involve choices between formal equivalence (word-for-word) and functional equivalence (thought-for-thought). What are the strengths and weaknesses of each approach? Which do you tend to use, and why?

1.Fee and Stuart describe the epistles as 'occasional documents' — written to address particular occasions and crises in specific churches. Why does this description matter so much for interpretation? What happens when we forget that Paul was writing to Corinth, not directly to us?

1.Fee and Stuart acknowledge that this chapter addresses the most difficult question in epistle interpretation: how do we distinguish between what was culturally relative in Paul's day and what is transcultural and binding for all time? Why is this question unavoidable for every serious reader?

1.Fee and Stuart open with a striking claim: the Old Testament narratives were not written primarily to give us moral examples to imitate or avoid — they were written to tell the story of God's redemptive activity. How does this reframe the purpose of stories like David and Goliath or Gideon's fleece?

1.Fee and Stuart describe Acts as a 'unique genre' — it is primarily historical narrative, but it has been used by many Christians as a source of normative prescriptions for church life and practice. What is the difference between a historical precedent and a theological norm, and why does the difference matter?

1.Fee and Stuart explain that the Gospels present Jesus's life and teaching through the unique theological perspective of each evangelist. Why did the early church preserve four Gospels rather than harmonizing them into one? What is gained by having four distinct accounts?

1.Fee and Stuart explain that for much of Christian history, parables were read as extended allegories — where every detail has a hidden spiritual meaning. What went wrong with this approach, and what classic examples of allegorizing do they point to as cautionary tales?

1.Fee and Stuart argue that the Old Testament Law was a covenant document — a formal agreement between God and Israel at a specific historical moment. It was never intended as a universal moral code for all peoples in all times. How does this covenant framework change everything about how we approach the Law?

1.Fee and Stuart challenge the popular assumption that the prophets were mainly concerned with predicting the future. What was the prophets' primary role, and how does recognizing their role as 'forthtellers' (covenant prosecutors) rather than exclusively 'foretellers' reshape our reading of the prophetic books?

1.Fee and Stuart describe the Psalms as 'Israel's hymnbook and prayer book' — texts written to be sung and prayed, not primarily to be analyzed for doctrinal content. How does this description change how you read (and use) the Psalms?

1.Looking back across the whole book, what is the single most important insight you are taking away from Fee and Stuart's approach? How has your understanding of what the Bible is — and how to read it — changed since Week 1?