Whenever someone ‘discovers’ a new ‘meaning’ of an ancient concept it behooves us all to be skeptical. Why? Well first of all, the very nature of scholarship is skepticism. It accepts nothing at face value but requires good substantial evidence.
Accordingly, when someone ‘uncovers’ a different understanding of a word or phrase in the Bible that, lo and behold, no one ever noticed before, it is the scholar’s duty to do more than simply nod in assent. What is the evidence? What new evidence is there for your new reading? How can we be certain that your idiosyncratic understanding isn’t mere eisegesis?
Too often, however, novelty trumps responsibility. Something ‘new’ is lauded merely because it’s new without being shown to be true.
I’m all for fresh reading if they have evidential support. But the spewings of imagination have no place in responsible or respectable biblical interpretation.