Is there any Biblical evidence to support the concept that Bible texts that are less clear should be explained by Bible texts that are more clear?
It has been explained to me that if two texts address the same topic and one text is plain while the other text is slightly confusing, the plain text should be used to explain the confusing text.
Is this simply a general concept or are there any proof texts which state "Thou shalt use easily understood passages to explain more complicated passages?"
No. There is nothing in the Bible that says "Thou shalt interpret the unclear in light of the clear" or anything like that.
Yes. Those who hold to this method of interpretation are leaning on a set of proof-texts. Here is the chain of logic:
The chain begins with the fundamental conviction that the Bible is the word of God. The following proof-text is often cited as the basis for this belief:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, --2 Timothy 3:16, ESV
The next link in the chain is that being the word of God, the Bible is fixed in meaning. The following proof-text is often cited as the basis for this belief:
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. --2 Peter 1:20-21
The next crucial link in the chain of reasoning is that being the word of God, and having fixed meaning, the Bible is true. The following proof-text is often cited to support this belief:
If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? --John 10:35-36
From here some basic logic can be employed: if two passages appear to be in conflict, and one is clear while the other is not, it must be assumed that since they are both true, the unclear can only have a meaning which is compatible with the clear. This limits the range of meaning the unclear could potentially have, and the end result is that you interpret the unclear in light of the clear.
This is where it gets a bit tricky (not to mention controversial.) We need to be very careful about reasoning this way, because in real life, people have theological presuppositions and frameworks through which they filter Scripture. So what often ends up happening is that two people will approach the same two passages, Person A with Theology A and Person B with Theology B. What often happens is that Person A considers the first verse "clear" and the second "unclear" while Person B considers the first "unclear" and the second "clear". Let me illustrate with a real-life example.
Many Calvinists believe that humans are 100% evil through and through ("total depravity") and therefore are unable to seek God. They would cite Romans 3:10-11 as clear support of this. Thus, God must supernaturally regenerate them by giving them His Spirit before they can seek Him. Many Arminians, on the other hand, believe that God gives His Spirit to us only after we seek and respond to Him. They would cite Acts 2:37-38 as clear support for this. To the Calvinist, Acts 2:37-38 is more unclear, and so they might try to come up with a scenario where these Israelites had already received the Spirit prior to feeling convicted, asking what to do, repenting, getting baptized, etc. On the flip side, Arminians, when confronted with Romans 3:10-11 would consider it more unclear, and would proceed to try to explain it away as an "[over]generalization", etc.
My point is, interpreting the "clear" in light of the "unclear" quickly becomes an exercise in subjectivity, as each interpreter has their own ideas about what is "clear" and what is "unclear". (In many respects I personally would consider Revelation more clear than Ecclesiastes, for example.) After seeing enough of these theological cartwheels, I prefer to just focus on doing good exegesis on each text on its own terms rather than trying to "solve" the perceived conflicts. And what I've found is that (in most cases anyway) once I've understood each passage on its own terms, through sound exegesis, the conflicts disappear.
Just for fun, consider the following exchange between Jesus and His opponents and see if you can decipher His method of reasoning. Is He challenging them to interpret the unclear in light of the clear, or the clear in light of the unclear, or both responsibly and assuming the results would mesh just fine?
Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question: “What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?” They said to Him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet”’? If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?” --Matthew 22:41-45
I have found that the best way to understand the value of this interpretation methodology is to compare interpretation of Pericopes and Biblical texts to understanding the works of William Shakespeare. The best way to understand them is to use the tools at your disposal.
One such method would be to use interpretation of other scriptures to inform how you interpret a scripture you may be scrutinizing. If you can imply usage of a given word from another context, it can inform how it should be used in the context you are scrutinizing. Probably the most greatly referred to passage regarding the interpretation of scripture with scripture would be 2 Timothy 3:16 - "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" but we needn't (and shouldn't) limit our interpretation tools just to scripture. This verse is probably the closest/most commonly referred to, but this is perhaps the closest to what you are looking for notwithstanding Cross-references.
But to fully understand scripture, we need more than just scripture. In the example of Shakespeare, Oftentimes a dictionary can be helpful. For example, there is the following exchange in Twelfth Night:
OLIVIA: By mine honour, half drunk. What is he at the gate, cousin?
SIR TOBY BELCH: A gentleman.
OLIVIA: A gentleman! what gentleman?
SIR TOBY BELCH: 'Tis a gentle man here--a plague o' these pickle-herring! How now, sot! Clown Good Sir Toby!
OLIVIA: Cousin, cousin, how have you come so early by this lethargy?
SIR TOBY BELCH: Lechery! I defy lechery. There's one at the gate.
It's a pretty funny scene, but you only get the joke if you know what lechery and lethargy mean. In this example, Olivia's cousin is drunk before noon , and she asks why is is drunk this early in the day. ("Cousin, how have you come so early by this lethargy") Earlier in the play, Sir Toby Belch has had a romantic encounter with a much younger woman. As an older man, this is very lecherous. Being as drunk as he is, he mishears Olivia and panics; thinking she has discovered his secret. He then (still being drunk) tries to ineffectively change the subject say that the man at the gate is the true lecher. Furthermore, Shakespeare (and perhaps Sir Toby) is also making but a pun on a gate latch (lech/latch). Yet, this is only funny if you understand what a lecher is and what lethargy means. While with Shakespeare you might use a dictionary, in Biblical interpretation, you would use a lexicon for this purpose.
Similarly, cultural context may be invaluable. For example, in Romeo and Juliet, you have tension between the Montagues and Capulets. If you do not understand what was happening in Verona at the time you can miss a great deal of meaning to the play and the social and political commentary it is making. The same can be true for scripture.
There are also other scholarship tools and factors which can help with interpretation. For example, one Shakespeare company began performing Shakespeare using the Original Pronunciation (OP) and a great deal of meaning and many puns/wordplays popped out which otherwise would not have appeared without knowledge of how English was actually pronounced during Shakespeare's time. Arguably, The Bible is often a literary work with more beautiful, complicated and vibrant poetry and prose than even Shakespeare's works. Even if you think that Shakespeare is better, you cannot deny that the Bible contains some of Histories greatest literary works.
Therefore, if Shakespeare is difficult to understand and it is only 400 years old and in my native tongue, then how much do we miss when we read The Bible, which is translated from its' original language and is between 2000 and 4000 years old?
If we use only Shakespeare to interpret Shakespeare and do not use scholarship and other works of history, textual criticism and linguistics, we intellectually shortchange ourselves. Doing only this would (usually) be too simplistic and reductive. This is also true when reading The Bible. Often times, using the aforementioned tools that scholarship provides will clarify and elucidate murky passages of scripture in the same way these tools clarify and elucidate the works of Shakespeare.
A basic principle of learning is that we define and understand what words mean by using other words, a dictionary. When it comes to understanding a verse or verses of the Holy Scriptures we are to use other verses of the Holy Scriptures. This is why it is of the utmost importance to know all the verses of the Holy Scriptures. There will always be two or more verses that will give us understanding of one we may be having trouble with. ALMIGHTY GOD inspired the record of HIS Holy Word so that it would interpret itself, and it does, if only we would come to know it all as HE intended for us to. ALMIGHTY GOD never intended for man to interpret HIS Holy Word, so HE inspired it in a way that when a man diligently searches HIS Holy Word, HIS Holy Word tells us what it means. HE knew that as soon as man started to interpret HIS Holy Word it would surely lose it's intended purpose and power, and would cause division and strife this is why we have over 40,000 denominations all claiming to be christian. Read HIS Holy Word, study the Greek and Hebrew definitions of every word of Holy Scripture, that is diligently seeking to know ALMIGHTY GOD, and HE will be pleased, and you will understand, and have life.
Isaiah 28:9-10
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: KJV
Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. KJV
2 Corinthians 13:1
13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. KJV
Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. KJV
Some will not like this answer, but ALMIGHTY GOD'S Holy Word said that would be so.
John 3:19-21 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. KJV
