Perhaps the most important principle of biblical interpretation is often called “the analogy of faith.” It may seem an odd label, especially when we see how simple and clarifying the principle is in its use. In fact, I would bet you have probably heard of this principle. It says that we interpret Scripture in light of Scripture. Of course we all think that we do that. “Oh sure, my interpretation of this verse is perfectly consistent with the rest of Scripture!” But the principle doesn’t stop there. At least it shouldn’t. A more accurate way to state the principle is really more like an inference: If all of Scripture is consistent with itself then no single text could ever contradict another. Consequently, if I ever mull over two or three ways of interpreting a passage, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the actual meaning is the one most coherent with the rest of Scripture. 

One problem that emerges is that the Bible is a very big book filled with many mysteries. “How exactly are we supposed to arrive at any firm conclusion about any passage if we have to know what the whole thing means in every part?” Hopefully we can see that this problem should never burden us. Not every part of Scripture speaks with equal clarity or relevance to the subject in question. 

An Easy Example and a Not So Easy Example

Let’s start simple.

In 1 Timothy 2:15 the Apostle was setting forth his rule about women and the teaching office of the church. In rooting the order back in the creation and fall narrative, he speaks as to one woman,

“Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

Is Paul really saying that women can be saved by bearing children? No—of course not! But how do I know that? Does it not flatly say here, “she will be saved through childbearing”? Here the analogy of faith is a means of recalling of the places that teach us that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in the merits of Christ alone. Furthermore, women are plainly included in “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23) and “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight” (Rom. 3:20). Now it is quite true that there is more to understanding the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:15. Some may see an allusion to the woman and her seed (Gen. 3:15), so that even this is pointing to Christ, while others may see something more general—e.g. a contentment in godly women with their God-given design as they are being saved. But whatever the positive meaning, the analogy of faith has cleared the way in the negative meaning. That is, we now know that it cannot mean a second way of salvation.

That was relatively simple. But the principle helps us in the difficult places as well.

For example, if I want to get more context on what Jesus means by the binding of the strongman in Matthew 12:28-29, then I don’t need to go “everywhere” to test this, but rather to those places in the Bible that speak about 1. the identity of the strongman, 2. the inauguration of Christ’s kingdom, 3. what exactly is being “plundered” from the strongman’s house, and perhaps 4. other accounts of Christ casting out demons, or even 5. other accounts of the Pharisees accusing Jesus of doing this by the devil’s power. These are the kind of passages I will want to bring to bear on the meaning of these words in Matthew. Not to say that this is a “piece of cake” now, but it definitely simplifies our field. In order to follow through, we must introduce another aspect of the principle. 

The Less Clear in Light of the More Clear

Our work with the analogy of faith doesn’t stop there. How could it? If we are truly interpreting Scripture in light of Scripture, then even narrowing down our field of “relevant context” is only one step. How exactly do those five sets of passages help interpret Matthew 12:28-29? One thing is for sure: they cannot help at all if they are not doing the interpreting, rather than the other way around. In other words, we don’t want to go looking for “supporting texts” as ones who have already made up our whole mind about what the initial passage meant. In this way, we would be imposing a total meaning on the larger set of “supporting texts” rather than expanding our vision with the larger context. Such additional texts wouldn’t be much of a “context” at all, but only the servants of our preconceived notions, dutifully saying what we already wanted them to say. 

Don’t we all do this? What is the use then? We will all have preconceived notions. All true — but not all assumptions are equal and Scripture is the test of those assumptions. Are we ready for a slightly more rigorous principle? We also interpret the less clear passages in light of the more clear.

Think back to those five sets of texts that help us with Jesus’ words in Matthew 12. Now let’s be honest about something. I am “cheating” a bit in even suggesting those five categories. Who is to say that those verses will help us at all? And who is to say that there are not other, more obvious categories? Good questions, and a good reminder. In fact those categories represented my own assumptions; but actually, I don’t think we are always “cheating” in this. Everyone will always have assumptions. Hopefully we formed those assumptions from prior study of the relevant passages and the wider doctrines of Christology and eschatology that are built with such biblical truths. 

So what exactly makes one passage “clearer” than another? Isn’t this just one more thing we might disagree about? We may. But it doesn’t follow that it is all willy nilly. One passage may be clearer than another in the following ways:

1. Either a more concise or more thorough statement of an idea.

2. An easier translation from the original language.

3. A more obvious immediate context.

4. A didactic or narrative genre (as opposed to the poetic or prophetic).

5. More frequently taught.

6. Concerning more necessary or universal realities.

7. More obviously commending godly behavior than ungodly behavior.

I offer this list not as an authoritative or exhaustive list, but as one which reasonable people can agree upon as objective marks of clarity. 

Applying the Principle

Coming back to Matthew 12:28-29, let’s take one of those five categories and see if our seven criteria for clarity ring true. We will take the second category about the inauguration of Christ’s kingdom. Why this one? Jesus says in verse 28 that, “if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Some may say that this is only speaking generically, or symbolically, or “spiritually” (whatever that might mean). So we might ask: What does the New Testament teach about the kingdom of Christ coming when Jesus came the first time? It turns out that it says a lot about it. In fact, it affirms it without qualification. 

I will only offer the following verses for the reader to study on their own: Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 2:25-36, 1 Corinthians 15:25, Ephesians 2:5-6, Colossians 3:1-3, 1 Peter 1:3-5, Philippians 3:20, Revelation 1:5-6 and 3:21. 

At the very least, these passages teach us that the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated when He ascended to the throne on high, the fulfillment of what David’s earthy throne was only the type and shadow. In some way, all who have been raised with Him now, also reign with Him now. Now is the kingdom consummated today? No, of course not. That comes when Jesus returns. And is the devil defeated in the most final sense of being cast into hell? No—again, that comes at the end. But this gives us a sense of what theologians mean by speaking of an “already” and a “not yet” with respect to the coming of the kingdom. The three passages on being raised with Christ (Eph. 2:5-6, Col. 3:1-3, 1 Pet. 1:3-5) are especially instructive when relating the timeline of the kingdom to Revelation 20 and the binding of Satan. 

When we make such a study—and we consistently use the analogy of faith—we come to a place where Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:28-29 are not speaking generically, symbolically, or merely “spiritually.” On the contrary, Jesus drove out those demons as a sign of defeating Satan in some decisive way that “plunders” the many souls of the Gentiles that were previously held in darkness beyond the borders of Israel. Naturally I have only scratched the surface of showing that, but I do hope it makes you curious. And I hope it makes you appreciate this principle.