from I Tim. 1:17, however, others see here an allusion to speculations based on the legendary history of the Patriarchs and their descendants, as, e.g., in the Apocalyptic literature.
5. The last of these five canons for
interpretations is interpret analogically. It is a safe rule to interpret an author by himself wherever possible, and a document by itself or other contemporary documents. It stands to reason that any sane writer will seek uniformity-barring changes for growth, development, or different conditions.
Again, our interpretation of Heb. 6:6 (Rom. 1:17; cf. chap. 4, might be referred to this canon) finds further help by reference to chap. 10. Surely, in four short chapters the most rhetorical writer in the New Testament would hardly contradict himself so utterly, especially since he of all the writers was appealing to a critical, possibly hostile, audience. Hence chap. 6 must be interpreted,
wherever in doubt, in harmony with the indubitable meaning of chap. 10. Further light appears by reference to the Jewish theological background. From Deut. down to IV Esdras we find a chain of references witnessing to the idea of purgation by fire, the finality of the act, and, further, it is evident that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews had not come to the fulness of the knowledge of the gospel as taught by Paul.
This last canon should be applied with caution, for progressive spirits like a Paul, a Luther, or a Wesley never hesitate to revise their opinions in the light of new evidence.[1]
- ↑ Cf. Paul's change of view on the question of the Parousia, and the changing viewpoint in Wesley's Christian Perfection.
