The Analogy of Faith holds that the Bible is complete, true, and unified. Thus, there is one, unified, consistent, harmonious system of faith (belief) in the Bible. That is, in negative terms, no passage of scripture, when correctly understood, will contradict another passage of scripture. If we arrive at an interpretation of a passage that contradicts a truth taught elsewhere in the scriptures, we are most likely missing information, and our interpretation is not correct.

Horne defines the Analogy of Faith:

"The constant and perpetual harmony of Scripture in the fundamental points of faith and practice deduced from those passages in which they were discussed by the inspired penmen either directly or expressly, and in clear, plain, intelligible language."

The phrase "analogy of faith" was first employed by Origen of Caesarea. Origen borrowed the words from Romans 12:6 "according to the analogy of faith."

"When Saint Paul decided that all prophecy should conform to the analogy and similitude of faith (Rom.12:6), he set a most certain rule to test every interpretation of Scripture."

Robert L Thomas sees that there are two primary degrees of Analogy of Faith:

1. The Positive: Teachings in the Bible that are clear, persistently stated and supported by Scripture so that there is no question as to meaning.

2. The General: Teachings which are not explicit declarations, but rather on the obvious scope and import of Scriptural teachings as a whole.

"Two more degrees of analogy are worth mention but are usually judged unworthy of being genuine principles of interpretation. These are deduced analogy, which is based purely on logic, and imposed analogy, which is based on a creedal position" (ibid., 45. emphasis added).

The usage of the Analogy of Faith principle can be problematic. Some have argued for the postponement of the use of analogy of faith until after the process of interpretation is completed. With the results that the Analogy will not inform an interpretation, but rather check the interpretation after it has been completed.

Grant Osborne says this about the dangers of the Analogy of Faith in interpretation:

4. The analogia fidei and progressive revelation. The “analogy of faith” or (more properly) the principle of Scripture determining Scripture is a key concept in the determination of theological meaning. Yet its relevance for biblical theology is debated. The term that describes the danger of this tool (as well as the problem of the tradition-critical or “history of religions” approaches) is Samuel Sandmel’s “parallelomania,” the tendency to apply any analogous passage (or religious situation) to define the meaning or origin of a biblical idea (1962:2-13). This also can lead to an overemphasis on the unity of biblical texts, resulting in what Carson calls an “artificial conformity” that ignores the diversity of expression and emphasis between divergent statements in the Bible.[24] Gerhard Ebeling goes so far as to claim that the analogia fidei actually undercuts a true biblical theology, since in the end “the faith” or the interpreter’s preunderstanding takes precedence over Scripture itself.[25]

Certainly the danger of our “faith” rather than Scripture controlling our interpretation is very real; however, this does not mean that we must jettison the concept altogether. In fact, we could not do so if we wanted to. One’s theological perspective is too deeply ingrained for that, and I believe that it is an aid rather than an enemy in the task of discovering meaning. Rather, we should control our theological presuppositions in two ways: change the concept to the analogia scriptura (Scripture rather than our faith as the final arbiter), and allow “community exegesis” (dialogue with the past community via commentaries and so forth and with the present communities via constant interaction) to challenge our interpretation.

A further danger is shallow harmonization, the other side of “parallelomania.” In biblical theology this is often seen, for instance, when canon criticism leads one to read later texts into earlier ones, as when one sees the Old Testament as a christological case book. Walter Kaiser calls for “the analogy of antecedent Scripture” to combat this, namely, a “diachronically conscious” hermeneutic that allows a passage to stand by itself in light of its own prehistory rather than to read back into it the future development of the theological concept (1978a:18-19). In contrast, Childs argues that the totality of canonical revelation is applicable, indeed necessary, to any given part (1970:189-91). In my opinion, the truth lies between the two options.

An example of the Analogy of Faith in interpreting

Looking at the following verse can be challenging. Depending on how your eschatology is constructed, you may interpret this verse differently.

40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

What event is this talking about? Is the man taken to judgment, or taken in the rapture?

The NET Bible's translation commentary notes the following about the passage:

There is debate among commentators and scholars over the phrase one will be taken and one left about whether one is taken for judgment or for salvation. If the imagery is patterned after the rescue of Noah from the flood, as some suggest, the ones taken are the saved (as Noah was) and those left behind are judged. The imagery, however, is not directly tied to the identification of the two groups. Its primary purpose in context is to picture the sudden, surprising separation of the righteous and the judged (i.e., condemned) at the return of the Son of Man.

• Back to Interpretation