Avoiding Eisegesis in Interpretation of Descriptive Examples
Eisegesis, the practice of reading one's own interpretations into a text rather than drawing meaning from the text itself, can be a significant pitfall in biblical interpretation. This is particularly true when dealing with descriptive examples in scripture, where the text describes a situation without necessarily prescribing it as a universal rule or an ideal to be emulated.
One common area where eisegesis can occur is in understanding biblical narratives that describe human actions or societal norms. For instance, when the prophet Isaiah describes the suffering servant as "despised and forsaken by men; a man of griefs, and well acquainted with disease" [4], this is a description of the servant's experience, not an endorsement of suffering for its own sake or a command to seek out such a state. Similarly, the Old Testament often contains descriptive accounts of events or practices that are not necessarily prescriptive for all times.
Another example of avoiding eisegesis involves discerning between descriptive statements and prescriptive commands. In Romans 14:5, the apostle Paul writes, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day." The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary notes that the supplement "alike" should be omitted, as it injures the sense. Instead, the passage emphasizes that "every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" regarding such matters, indicating a call for conscientious conviction rather than a universal rule about observing days [2]. This highlights that the text describes differing practices and calls for individual conviction, rather than dictating a single, uniform approach.
Furthermore, interpreters must be careful not to impose their own understanding onto prophetic texts. The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary on 2 Peter 1:20 stresses that "no prophecy is found to be the result of 'private (the mere individual writer's uninspired) interpretation' (solution), and so origination" [3]. This means that the meaning of prophecy does not originate from the individual interpreter's subjective understanding but from its divine source. Charles Hodge also notes the complexity of prophetic teachings, stating that they require a comprehensive survey of both Old and New Testament scriptures and cannot be adequately discussed without such a broad understanding [5].
Even in wisdom literature, descriptive observations can be misinterpreted if not carefully contextualized. Ecclesiastes 7:15, for example, states, "there are righteous men who perish by their righteousness, and there are wicked men who continue long by their wickedness." The Keil & Delitzsch commentary explains that this passage warns against extremes, both in excessive righteousness and excessive wickedness, advising a balanced approach [1]. This is a descriptive observation about life's paradoxes, not an instruction to avoid righteousness.
Sources
- Ecclesiastes (Lutheran) “Keil & Delitzsch on Ecclesiastes 7:15: The first of these counsels warns against extremes, on the side of good as well as on that of evil: "All have I seen in the days of my vanity: there are righteous men who perish by their righteousness, and there are wicked men who continue long by their wickedness. Be not righteous over-much, and show not thyself wise beyond measure: why wilt thou ruin thyself? Be not wicked overmuch, and be no fool: why wilt thou die before thy time is? It is good that thou holdest thyself to the one, and also from the other withdrawest not thine hand: for he that fearet”
- Romans (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Romans 14:5: One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day--The supplement "alike" should be omitted, as injuring the sense. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind--be guided in such matters by conscientious conviction.”
- 2 Peter (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on 2 Peter 1:20: "Forasmuch as ye know this" (Pe1 1:18). first--the foremost consideration in studying the word of prophecy. Laying it down as a first principle never to be lost sight of. is--Greek, not the simple verb, to be, but to begin to be, "proves to be," "becometh." No prophecy is found to be the result of "private (the mere individual writer's uninspired) interpretation" (solution), and so origination. The Greek noun epilusis, does not mean in itself origination; but that which the sacred writer could not always fully interpret, though being the speaker o”
- Isaiah (Lutheran) “Keil & Delitzsch on Isaiah 53:3: On the contrary, the impression produced by His appearance was rather repulsive, and, to those who measured the great and noble by a merely worldly standard, contemptible. "He was despised and forsaken by men; a man of griefs, and well acquainted with disease; and like one from whom men hide their face: despised, and we esteemed Him not." All these different features are predicates of the erat that is latent in non species ei neque decor and non adspectus. Nibhzeh is introduced again palindromically at the close in Isaiah's peculiar style; consequently Martini'”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 84: § 1. Preliminary Remarks. This is a very comprehensive and very difficult subject. It is intimately allied with all the other great doctrines which fall under the head of eschatology. It has excited so much interest in all ages of the Church, that the books written upon it would of themselves make a library. The subject cannot be adequately discussed without taking a survey of all the prophetic teachings of the Scriptures both of the Old Testament and of the New. This task cannot be satisfactorily accomplished by any one who has not made ”