says Terry, "are those similar passages in which the likeness or
comparison between them, if truly drawn, are as much a part of God's meaning and of His revelation—being indeed virtually contained in it,—as these statements themselves" (Bannerman, Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 587). It goes without saying that great care must be exercised in drawing such inferences from the written word. The deductions must be good, i.e., truly contained in the inspired statements from which they are ostensibly derived; and also necessary, or such as force themselves upon the mind that honestly applies itself to the interpretation of Scripture. Cf. Westminster Catechism, Art. VI.
H. Helps for the Theological Interpretation
The helps that may aid the expositor in the theological interpretation are twofold: (1) Real Parallels, or Parallels of Ideas: and (2) The Analogy of Faith, or of Scripture. Both proceed on the assumption that the Word of God is an organic unity of which all parts are mutually related, and are together subservient to the whole of God's revelation; and that, in the last analysis, the Bible is its own interpreter.
1. REAL PARALLELS, OR PARALLELS OF IDEAS. "Real parallels," says Terry, "are those similar passages in which the likeness or identity consists not in words or phrases, but in facts, subjects, sentiments, or doctrines." In their employment, the interpreter must determine, first of all, whether the passages adduced are really parallels, whether they are, not merely somewhat similar, but essentially identical. For instance, Prov. 22:2 and 29:13, though they reveal a certain similarity and are often regarded as parallels, are not true parallels. Parallels of ideas may be divided into two classes, historical and didactic parallels. To these may be added the quotations from the Old Testament in the New, which are also, in a sense, parallel passages.
a. Historical Parallels. These may be of different kinds:
(1) There are some in which a history is narrated in the same words and with the same attendant circumstances, though possibly differing slightly in matters of detail. They are valuable for mutual confirmation. Compare 1 Kings 22:29–35 with 2 Chron. 18:28–34; and Luke 22:19, 20 with 1 Cor. 11:24, 25.
(2) Again, there are passages in which the same narratives are couched in different words, and the circumstances are more detailed in one instance than in the other. In these cases, it is but natural to expect that the more circumstantial narrative will illumine the other. Compare Matt. 9:1–8 with Mark 2:1–12.
(3) Furthermore, there are narratives which are undoubtedly identical, but which occur in connections that are altogether different. They are most numerous in the Gospels. In such instances, the one most likely gives the true historical setting, and, insofar, sheds light on the other. Compare Matt. 8:2–4 with Mark 1:40–45 and Luke 5:12–16; and Matt. 11:6–19 with Luke 7:31–35.
(4) Finally, there are passages that do not duplicate a certain event, but add an additional circumstance, and are therefore, in a way, complementary. Compare Gen. 32:24–32 with Hosea 12:4, 5.
b. Didactic Parallels. Here again we meet with different kinds:
(1) There are cases in which the same subject is treated, but not in the same terms. Compare Matt. 10:37 with Luke 14:26. Many interpreters attenuate the meaning of the word "hate" used by Luke, by means of the passage found in Matthew; and appeal to Matt. 6:24 to prove that the verb "to hate" may simply mean "to love less." The correctness of this interpretation may well be doubted, however. The "spiritual sacrifices" of which Peter speaks in 1 Pet. 2:5 find a partial explanation in Rom. 12:1, which, in turn, is explained by Rom. 6:19.
(2) Then there are parallel passages that correspond in thought and expression, but of which the one has no direct connection with the preceding or following context. Thus, in Matt. 7:13, 14, the words,
"Enter ye at the strait gate …," occur without any historical setting. This is supplied, however, in Luke 13:23, 24. Compare also Matt. 7:7–11 with Luke 11:5–13.
(3) Finally, there are also parallels that occur in connections entirely different, though perhaps equally fitting. It is even possible that the occasion for the statement is not the same in both places. The same saying may have been uttered on various occasions. Compare Matt. 7:21–23 with Luke 13:25–28; and Matt. 13:16, 17 with Luke 10:23, 24.
c. Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. These are parallels in a certain sense. They deserve special mention, because many scholars in the present day do not hesitate to say that the writers of the New Testament, in quoting the Old, often proceeded very arbitrarily. Says Immer: "But far more numerous are those citations which treat the Old Testament arbitrarily, and in which either no relationship or only a very remote one, can be found between the thought of the New Testament writer and that of the original passage. We distinguish citations in which the agreement is only apparent and rests on the mere language; citations in which agreement is attained only by the pressing of a single word contrary to the sense; and finally citations in which the Old Testament passage could be drawn to the present thought only through the application of an unlimited allegorizing and typologizing" (Hermeneutics, p. 172). This statement is based on an erroneous view of the Bible as a whole, of the prophetico-typical relation of the Old Testament to the New, and of the implied sense of Scripture. The quotations in the New Testament do not all serve the same purpose.
(1) Some serve the purpose of showing that Old Testament predictions, whether direct or indirect, were fulfilled in the New Testament. This is true of all the prophetic passages that are introduced with the formula, "in order that it might be fulfilled" and of several others. Cf. Matt. 2:17, 23; 4:14, 15; John 15:25; 19:36; Heb. 1:13.