If you encounter a word or phrase you don’t understand, sometimes another verse of Scripture might cast light on it. However, “proof-texting” or appealing to “parallel passages” can be a dangerous game in which eisegesis quickly creeps in.
Many are surprised to learn the allegorist, Origen, held (rather loosely) to two interpretational parameters: (1) the analogy of Scripture (analogia scriptura) and (2) the rule of faith (regula fidei). Regarding the former, he advocates “‘comparing spiritual with spiritual,’ and interpreting each passage according to the usage of Scripture writers.”[1] Regarding the latter, he plainly states the teaching of the Church “alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition.”[2] Augustine (also loosely) followed suit.[3] Later, both Luther and Calvin appealed to Romans 12:6 to support the “rule of faith.” Henry Blocher’s older but excellent article traces how, for the Reformers, the “rule of faith” became synonymous with “Scripture interprets Scripture.”[4] My next article will tighten the screws further—suggesting we first employ the analogy of antecedent Scripture before consulting subsequent revelation—but for now, here is the idea: If you encounter a word or phrase you don’t understand, sometimes another verse of Scripture might cast light on it. However, “proof-texting” or appealing to “parallel passages” can be a dangerous game in which eisegesis quickly creeps in.
We need a controlled process when we appeal to other texts for clarity.
Analogy of Scripture: The Process
Try this controlled process when appealing to parallel passages or proof-texts (similar to the word study process I wrote about earlier).
- Consult clearer verses written in the same book you are studying. If a verse in Romans is unclear to us, does Paul address the same subject elsewhere in Romans?
- Consult other biblical writings by the same author. Let’s say that same verse in Romans remains unclear to us. Does Paul broach the subject with more clarity in another of his letters?
- Open-up your investigation to parallel passages written by other Scripture writers. If you are in Matthew’s Gospel, does Mark or Luke or John mention the same situation? Here, we must be careful of a host of other exegetical considerations: different author, different audience, different situation, etc. At the same time, we would be remiss to neglect consulting the whole counsel of God.
Jesus, the “Firstborn?”
Colossians 1:15 states, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” The term, “firstborn” (πρωτότοκος), created quite a stir for about 55 years between two men in church history: (1) Arian, a priest and (2) Athanasius, a deacon (who later became bishop of Alexandria). Both were located in Alexandria, Egypt in the 4th century. Their conflict was over the nature/deity of Christ, and it all came down to a single word, “firstborn.”
Arian believed Jesus was finite. To him, Jesus was the “firstborn” in this sense: He was “created” as the first act of creation. Arian (as recorded by Socrates) famously opined, “If the Father begat the Son, then He Who was begotten had a beginning.”[5] It follows that the Son is subordinate, not co-equal, with God the Father, a view known as subordinationism.
Athanasius believed Jesus was an infinite Person in the Godhead. To him, Jesus was the “firstborn” in this sense: He held supremacy in rank. In Bible times, the firstborn son was held in great honor. Athanasias believed Christ is eternal, co-equal with God, and the “firstborn” Who outranks all other created beings.
For 55 years, the debate kept going. Finally, in 325 AD, the first ecumenical church council was convened, the Nicene Council, to settle the matter. Athanasius won the day, and the doctrine of the Trinity became codified in the Nicene Creed. However, Jehovah Witnesses today still hold Arian’s heresy, which is why they deny the Trinity . . . and it all came down to one word, “firstborn.”
