Hermeneutics Part Three

Today we consider the second major principle in biblical hermeneutics.
Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture: This principle is often referred to as the "analogy of faith." The Bible itself says that all of its parts are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), who is not a God of disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33). Since Scripture cannot contradict itself, we are to interpret the less clear passages in light of the more clear passages. A concrete example of this is the teachings of Jesus on divorce. Mark records only that people may not divorce (Mark 10:2-12). Matthew, on the other hand, clarifies the teaching to include circumstances where the general rule may not apply (Matthew 19:3-9). It is not as though Matthew contradicts what Mark has recorded, but only that Matthew records information that Mark did not feel his readers needed to know. A contradiction would require that Mark recorded that people may not ever divorce while Matthew would have said they must divorce in all cases. Contradictions in the true sense are not present in the Bible, contrary to popular opinion. Also there is a paradigm of interpretation that informs us concerning the understanding of the parts of the Bible. The Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament. This is required for both literary and theological reasons. In a literary sense it informs the reader of qualifications or added information to something which has come before it. Scripture is one continuous revelation from God. It is a collection of sixty-six books, but they make one book. That one book is consistent throughout and tells a singular story of redemption from cover to cover. It should not surprise us to find that God told those in the Old Testament things which were to be expounded upon and added to as the times drew to a close. Hebrews tells us that God spoke many times in diverse manners before, but now, in the New Testament, He has spoken clearly through His Son (Hebrews 1:1). A literary example of what we have been discussing would be the statement "she sang before the Queen." The word "before" is somewhat ambiguous until the writer adds "on her throne," such that the full statement reads "she sang before the Queen on her throne." To appeal, therefore, to Scripture as we must, we see the message of redemption unfolding a bit at a time until all is clear in consummation. The ambiguous "offspring" (one or many?) in God's promise to Abraham (Genesis 22:18) becomes focused on Christ (Galatians 3:16). The unidentified maiden and Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 are seen to be the Virgin Mary and her Son (Matthew 1:23), and the anonymous Servant in Isaiah (42:1-4; 49:1-6; 52:13 - 53:12; 61:1, 2) is revealed as Jesus, the suffering and yet triumphant Savior (Matthew 12:18-21; Luke 24:44-49; 1 Peter 1:11). But the rule has a theological basis as well. We know that the revelation given by Christ is superior to that given before Him (Hebrews 1:10). We also know that He gave power to His apostles to speak for Him and to remember everything that He said (John 15:27; 14:26). We understand that the revelation of the Old Testament period was incomplete. John the Baptizer testified that He, the last of the Old Testament prophets, was merely preparing the way for one who was far superior to him (John 1:27). By this we understand that the newer revelation of the New Testament completes and is superior to the Old Testament. If the Old Testament appears to say one thing, and the New Testament says that it says another, the New Testament must be preferred. Scripture must interpret Scripture in all cases. The Old Testament must be thought of as the less clear text in all cases.