Letting Scripture Interpret Scripture

Start with a question Can a person quote the Bible accurately and still reach the wrong conclusion? Jesus’ answer is yes.

In Lesson 5, we learned the difference between drawing meaning out of the text (exegesis) and reading meaning into the text (eisegesis). But how do we actually do that? When we have two passages that seem to say different things, or when we want to connect two verses together, what are the rules? The Bible is not a collection of disconnected quotes. It is a unified, coherent revelation. And the safest way to understand it is to let it explain itself.

The wilderness test In the wilderness, the devil quoted Scripture:

The quotation was accurate. It came directly from Psalm 91. The devil didn’t misquote the words. But he completely misapplied the meaning. He ripped the verse out of its context to support a presumption.

Jesus did not respond by abandoning Scripture. He did not say, “The Bible is too confusing, let’s just love each other.” And He did not accept the application just because the words were biblical. He answered with another passage:

Notice the word again. Another passage exposed the mistake in how the first was used. Three times Jesus answered with “It is written” (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10), and He knew the text exactly.

Rule 1: Start with the context Before comparing a verse with another, ask what it means where it stands. Try it: “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” (1 Corinthians 14:33) Many people extract the first half as a general argument against anything they find confusing in life. But read the verses around it. The chapter is about order in church meetings and the exercise of spiritual gifts. The immediate context sets the boundaries of what the verse can mean. Context does not answer every question automatically, but it establishes the boundaries within which responsible interpretation must begin.

Rule 2: When Scripture explains itself, that explanation leads Sometimes the text gives its own interpretation. When it does, we must accept it rather than inventing our own symbolic dictionary.

Notice what’s established: the beasts represent kings and kingdoms. The chapter gives us the framework without us inventing our own. Another example: “The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches” (Revelation 1:20). Christ Himself gives the meaning. Anyone proposing a different meaning must account for it. So: where Scripture explains a symbol, that explanation is the controlling reference point. Where it doesn’t, we investigate carefully, and where evidence is incomplete, we say so.

Rule 3: Similar words don’t prove a connection One of the easiest mistakes in biblical study is to assume that two passages must refer to the same subject because they contain similar words or images.

Look at how Scripture uses the imagery of a lion in different settings: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8). And of Christ: “the Lion of the tribe of Juda” (Revelation 5:5).

Same image. Opposite meanings. The context decides. If we assumed every lion meant the same, the mistake wouldn’t be the Bible’s. It would be our method. A valid comparison must show why the passages are related and how together they support the conclusion. A resemblance is not a relationship. We must not build a massive doctrine on a shared word.

Rule 4: Keep the distinctions The Bible contains stories, proverbs, visions and letters. They don’t all speak the same way.

1. A proverb states a general principle in compact form.
2. A narrative may describe an event without holding every action up as an example.
3. A vision may use symbols that need explanation.
4. A letter may address a specific problem in a specific church.

Two proverbs even sit side by side that appear to disagree: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit” (Proverbs 26:4–5). The apparent contradiction is the lesson. There is a way of answering that lowers you to his level, and a way that corrects him. We have to ask how passages are related, not merely whether they share a word. We avoid two opposite mistakes: treating each verse as if it stood alone, and blending verses together as if context and purpose didn’t matter.

Rule 5: Let every passage have its say If a passage complicates my preferred conclusion, I must examine it, not skip it. And I must not use one passage to cancel another. The fool stops his ears when the truth threatens his comfort. He only reads the verses that confirm his bias. But the wise man lets the Word examine him. A doctrine must account for all the relevant statements, not just the ones that fit. This is a question we should ask of every position, the ones we agree with first of all. If we demand that another view explain every relevant verse, we must be willing to do the same for our own.

The Reader’s Checklist Before drawing a conclusion from any passage, ask:

1. What does it say? (Not what was I taught it says.)
2. Who is speaking, to whom, and why? (Context.)
3. Does the text explain itself? (Does it define a term or interpret a symbol?)
4. Is the connection real? (Or are two passages linked only by a shared word?)
5. What kind of passage is it? (Story, proverb, vision, letter.)
6. Have I accounted for every passage that bears on this? (Including the ones I’d prefer to skip.)
7. Am I applying the same standard to views I like and views I don’t?

We will return to this checklist throughout the course. It is the safeguard against the echo chamber of our own minds.