Exegetical Frustrations

It’s been a while since my last post, but I’m back. And you could probably say I am back with a vengeance, because for this post, I am going to share some big beefs I have with various ways people misinterpret scripture. A lot of the time, people read certain parts of the Bible in some really inaccurate ways. In this post, I will list some of the issues that bother me the most, and hopefully get you thinking a bit. These will sound really harsh, but it’s something I’m super passionate about, and I’m in one of those moods today. So here goes:

•   Just because the word “Elohim” can be interpreted as a plural noun that does NOT mean it is a reference to the Trinity. To say that it is requires you to read beyond the clear meaning of the text, which defies one of the most fundamental principles of good hermeneutics.
  
  
  
• The “bride of Christ” metaphor pertains to the Church as a whole, NOT you personally. It is a very meaningful metaphor, and one that should be respected. So stop acting like Jesus is your boyfriend.
  
  
• I am sorry to burst your bubble, but Old Testament prophecy was not written directly for you, your country, or your church. It was intended for the nation of Israel. It has principles and promises that still apply today, but it is not intended for you personally. So stop reading it like it is.
  
  
  
• The book of Revelation is NOT a code to be cracked. It is not talking about nuclear war, the use of micro chip identification, or the certain public figures being the antichrist. This is not the plain reading of the text. Yes, there are symbols, but those would have been readily understood by the 1^st century Christian recipients of the book (originally written as a letter). They are not hidden messages that apply to specific situations.
  
  
• Dear church planter: Paul’s epistles to Timothy are not your definitive “how to guide”.
  
  
• When Christ compares the church in Laodicea to cold, hot, and lukewarm water, he is not trying to say that they need to be completely committed. He is making a reference to the waters of hot springs and cold, refreshing water from springs, as opposed to the lukewarm water of the aqueducts. He is saying that they aren’t refreshing or strengthening, and that He wants them to be that way. He is not saying that they are complacent; He is condemning them for not fulfilling their calling. So stop using this passage in sermons condemning complacency.
  
  
• The fact that Genesis says God created the earth as opposed to “earths” is not support for your defiance of any possibility of livable planets in another part of the universe. That was not an issue being addressed by the author. And it is unreasonable to try to make Genesis pertain to that debate at all. That is not the point of the book. Not that I believe in aliens or anything.
  
  
• Please don’t try to relate every passage of scripture to Jesus. It doesn’t work like that. That’s not how the Old Testament was intended to be read, and doing so is one surefire way to get messed up theology.
  
  And last, but certainly not least...
  
  
•   Song of Songs is clearly intended to be read as erotic love poetry that pertains to the sexual lives of a married couple, NOT as an allegory of Christ’s love for the Church. There is no doubt that that is what Solomon intended when he wrote the book. Furthermore, Song of Songs’ spiritual and practical value is actually degraded when it is read as an allegory.

So that’s that. There is a lot more that I could say, but I don’t want this to turn into a rant. And I hope that, despite the harshness of this list, I have helped get the wheels of your brain turning a little bit. And don’t just stop by reading my frustrations; look into it yourself. If what I have said annoys you, test it out. Look deeper into scripture. Check out some commentaries, or talk to somebody who is knowledgeable about this subject. And I promise you, it will do you a world of good.