Interpreting Scripture Without Eisegetical Assumptions

The task of interpreting Scripture without imposing personal assumptions or biases is a challenging one, as it requires a nuanced understanding of the text within its historical, cultural, and theological contexts. The concept is rooted in biblical passages such as II Peter 1:20, which states that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation" ^[1]. This verse has been interpreted in various ways across different Christian traditions.

One key aspect of avoiding eisegetical assumptions is recognizing the importance of guidance in understanding Scripture. Adam Clarke notes that while the eunuch in Acts 8:31 required guidance to understand the Scripture, this does not imply that Scripture cannot be understood without an authorized interpreter ^[2]. Rather, it highlights the need for a proper understanding of the context and the availability of resources such as the Gospels and apostolic epistles.

The interpretation of II Peter 1:20 itself is subject to different understandings. John Gill argues that this verse is not against private judgment but rather emphasizes that prophecy is not derived from the prophet's own interpretation ^[3]. In contrast, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown suggest that the verse indicates prophecy is not the result of the writer's uninspired interpretation, emphasizing the divine origin of Scripture ^[4].

Calvin's commentary on Isaiah underscores the importance of understanding that prophetic writings are not the product of human imagination but are instead oracles of God revealed to the prophets ^[5]. This perspective is echoed in the Reformed tradition, which emphasizes the role of divine illumination in understanding Scripture.

The challenge of interpreting Scripture without eisegetical assumptions also involves being aware of the historical and cultural contexts in which the text was written. Keil & Delitzsch, in their commentary on Psalms, note the need to understand the promises of God within the context of the cross and chastisement, highlighting the complexity of interpreting biblical texts ^[6].

Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology emphasizes the comprehensive and difficult nature of understanding prophetic teachings in Scripture, requiring a thorough examination of all relevant passages ^[7]. Augustine's City of God discusses the issue of multiple interpretations of Scripture, suggesting that as long as an interpretation is in harmony with the truth found in other passages, it is not problematic ^[8].

The Catechism of the Catholic Church highlights the importance of interpreting Scripture in light of the "analogy of faith," or the coherence of the truths of faith within the whole plan of Revelation ^[9]. This approach is complemented by the recognition of multiple senses of Scripture, including literal and spiritual senses.

The Anglican tradition, as reflected in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, affirms that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation and that nothing not read therein or proved thereby should be required as an article of faith ^[10].

The Jewish tradition, as seen in the Babylonian Talmud, also engages in complex interpretations of Scripture, deriving homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses in certain contexts ^[11].

Sources

II Peter “II Peter 1:20 (Darby) — knowing this first, that [the scope of] no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation,”
Acts (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on Acts 8:31: How can I, except some man should guide me? - This is no proof that "the Scriptures cannot be understood without an authorized interpreter," as some of the papistical writers assert. How could the eunuch know any thing of the Gospel dispensation, to which this scripture referred? That dispensation had not yet been proclaimed to him; he knew nothing about Jesus. But where that dispensation has been published, where the four Gospels and the apostolic epistles are at hand, every thing relative to the salvation of the soul may be clearly apprehended by any simple, upright”
2 Peter (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on 2 Peter 1:20: Knowing this first,.... Especially, and in the first place, this is to be known, observed, and considered; that no prophecy of the Scripture, that is contained in Scripture, be it what it will, is of any private interpretation: not that this is levelled against the right of private judgment of Scripture; or to be understood as if a private believer had not a right of reading, searching, examining, and judging, and interpreting the Scriptures himself, by virtue of the unction which teacheth all things; and who, as a spiritual man, judgeth all things; otherwise, wh”
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”
CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah, Vol. 1, section 7.5: nothing contained in this book which was not made known to Isaiah by God himself. The derivation of the word, therefore, deserves attention; for we learn by it that the prophets did not speak of their own accord, or draw from their own imaginations, but that they were enlightened by God, who opened their eyes to perceive those things which otherwise they would not of themselves have been able to comprehend. Thus the inscription of Isaiah recommends to us the doctrine of this book, as containing no human reasonings, but the oracles of God, in o”
Psalms (Lutheran) “Keil & Delitzsch on Psalms 37:25: There is an old theological rule: promissiones corporales intelligendae sunt cum exceptione crucis et castigationis. Temporary forsakenness and destitution the Psalm does not deny: it is indeed even intended to meet the conflict of doubt which springs up in the minds of the God-fearing out of certain conditions and circumstances that are seemingly contradictory to the justice of God; and this it does, by contrasting that which in the end abides with that which is transitory, and in fact without the knowledge of any final decisive adjustment in a future world; ”
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 ”
Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 2: Augustine — City of God, Christian Doctrine — CHAP. 27.--ONE PASSAGE SUSCEPTIBLE OF VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS.: 38. When, again, not some one interpretation, but two or more interpretations are put upon the same words of Scripture, even though the meaning the writer intended remain undiscovered, there is no danger if it can be shown from other passages of Scripture that any of the interpretations put on the words is in harmony with the truth. And if a man in searching the Scriptures endeavors to get at the intention of the author through whom the Holy Spirit spoke, whether he succee”
Catechism of the Catholic Church (Catholic) “Catechism of the Catholic Church, 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of: 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation. The senses of Scripture 115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the”
Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (Anglican) “Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (Anglican, 1571), Section 178: Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.”
Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 128a.42:9: And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses, didn’t Rav Yosef already say: Even one who does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses throughout the entire Torah, nevertheless, derives them in Deuteronomy [ Mishne Torah ], as Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses throughout the entire Torah and he does derive them in Mishne Torah .”

Ask Your Own Question