This is one book that I enjoyed but, at the same time, not sure I know what to make of it. It basically a short set of essays by three scholars on interpreting the Biblical text. It's main thesis, as far as I understood it, was that if we are serious with the Bible, we will struggle in finding the meaning of what is written without forcing any of our own preconceived or 21st century models into the text. That is, we need to be fluid enough to change our theological stance whenever we discover and encounter text that challenge our own views and ways of thinking. Brueggemann notes that the "process of interpretation that precludes final settlement on almost all questions is self-evident in the Bible." Further, he contends that thr Bible, even in its final form, is "profoundly polyvalent, yielding no single exegetical outcome, but allowing layers and layers of fresh reading in which God's own life and character are deeply engaged and put at risk" (p.14-15).

Blount, in the last essay, contends basically that if the Bible is a "Living Word", it is not stagnant, meaning (as I understood it) that the understanding and values of words in the Biblical text, which existed among the first century believers in relation to their way of life, "must no longer be equally valued today." Then he hoes on to give two example of what he means: (1) slavery in America, and (2) homosexual behavior.

It is the second example that I cannot agree is not a good example of texts changing value between the first century Christians and those of today or of it having polyvalent meanings. Here his concludes because God has "created them, just as they are", they should "be treated equally and accepted faithfully together in one body of faith."

Although, I agree that a single text may have polyvalent meanings, that application of the Biblical principles may differ from one person to another on the basis of how God speaks to them through the Spirit, and that to be serious with the text is to struggle with it, yet, I cannot go so far as to say that such behavior, like homosexuality, might be what we may accept today within the community of believers although it may not have been accepted in the first century (from my perspective), goes to far in freeing the text from restrictive and biased interpretation.

As I shared before, Brueggemenn states that final settlement on "almost all questions" in the Bible is "self-evident". I would ask, what text are to be construed as being finally settled and who makes such a determination? Is Blount suggesting that the issue of homosexuality, as consitituting sin in the firts century, is no longer forbidden bahavior? Is Blount implying that one can be a practicing homosexual and a believer simultaneously?

I will say one thing for auch a short book, it is emotionally stimulating and though provoking as it lays open the the challenge to self-inquiry as to how culturally restrictive, theologically biased, and historically ignorant in matters Biblical is the reader when interpreting the Bible. ( )