In the last lesson, I gave you a list of five stylistic don’ts when summarizing. Several of the same points can be reiterated for paraphrasing.
1. Do not simply rearrange the words and phrases of the original text.
There may be a key word or two that could be taken from the text, but even then, it is rare that there is not another phrase that adequately captures the correct sense. Work hard to state the text in your own words.
2. Do not write in commentary style.
That is, do maintain the same perspective as the author, using “I, we, you, they” just as he does.
The next two actually fit within the “reading in” category from the previous step:
3. Do not add your opinion or assessments.
4. Do not make present day applications.
Two final dangers assume that you have the correct interpretation, but lose the proper emphasis when putting it into your own words. You can encounter these hazards from two opposite directions: by either overstating or understating the author’s intention.
Overstating
Overstating the author’s intention is akin to reading in something that is not there, but has to do with how an idea gets expressed. One form of this is by generalizing the text and making sweeping statements that go beyond the author’s intended meaning.
Going back to the camel and a rich man passage, as an example, you may correctly get the shock of Jesus’ statement and yet overstate it by saying that no one who is wealthy can ever enter heaven. Yes, the metaphor Jesus uses paints an impossible picture. But it is also vital to discern Jesus’ (frequent) use of hyperbole—or exaggeration. Notice the disciples’ reaction to what Jesus says, “When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, ‘Who then can be saved?’” (Mt. 19:25) They acutely feel the weight of Jesus’ words. Their response was exactly what Jesus was aiming for. By his teaching, Jesus was regularly breaking molds and expectations.
But he also offers an explanation that guards against overstating the point when he responds by saying, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Mt. 19:26) In other words, Jesus says, “Yes, Peter, you are right. If salvation comes by a man’s own resources, then nobody, rich or poor has any hope; it is utterly impossible. But salvation is of God, and in him everyone has ground for hope.”
A list such as we find in 2 Peter 1:5-7 provides another example of how we might overstate the case.
For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.
—2 Peter 1:5-7 ESV
Peter clearly lays out a set of qualities that reflect genuine godliness, much like Paul does with the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5. Peter’s list suggests at least a subtle progression or development in these character qualities from one to another. A question worth asking is whether there is a necessary order presented here. Even if you answer yes to that question, you can still overstate Peter’s case by paraphrasing something like,
“Since God has provided all the resources you need to live the Christian life, you must begin your spiritual growth with a focus on developing righteous living. Once that is on its way, you are then to grow in knowledge. Once your knowledge has sufficiently increased, you are then to focus on restraining ungodly impulses…etc.”
This goes far beyond Peter’s intention and turns his exhortation into a seven-step program for spiritual growth.
Understating
Equally dangerous to overstating a paraphrase, but in the opposite direction, is understating the author’s intention. Whereas overstatement adds force to particular elements beyond what the text actually means, understatement weakens the point being communicated. Two examples demonstrate the issue.
Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.
And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.
And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.
—Mark 9:42-48 ESV
As with the passage in Matthew 19, Jesus’ words hit with full blunt force. The imagery is shocking, bloody, and sends the listener reeling, “Does he really mean that?” And that is the key question we as readers should be asking. To be sure, Jesus did not play fast and loose with his words. He is perfectly wise and chose his words deliberately.
So then, what do his words demand of us? One option we can certainly dismiss is that he is expecting people to physically gouge out offending eyes and chop off offending appendages. This would not make us any more holy or any less prone to sin. For the root of sin is in the heart. I could remove both my eyes and still find it in my heart to lust. (See the parallel passage in Matthew 5.)
And yet, though we know he did not intend his words to be taken in a strictly literal sense, we could very easily go the opposite direction and weaken his words to not much more than a stern warning: “do everything you can to avoid sin.” That paraphrase is not wrong, but it does not come close to the weight of the issue. Jesus is not merely interested in the shock value of his words. He is calling attention to something deadly serious, with eternal consequences. In other words, he is not overstating the case when he says, “It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell.” So we dare not understate it.
Or consider the following text.
He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
—Romans 8:32 ESV
A (woefully) understated paraphrase would be, “God was willing to share his Son with us, so it is reasonable to assume he is able to meet all our needs.” I will say, that was almost painful to write. If you’re not sure why—and even if you are—listen to John Piper’s brief devotional from this passage and what he refers to as “God’s Best Promise.”