You’ve probably heard the oft-used line that “Scripture interprets Scripture.”  This principle of hermeneutics seems to be the only principle for some people, but I would suggest it is one among many helpful principles.  It is right to say that no passage will ultimately contradict the rest of the canon, for there is a divinely inspired unity to the Bible.  However, this does not mean that we should neglect near context interpretation in favor of distant context interpretation.  What a writer means by a word or phrase should be evaluated in light of the sentence, the paragraph, the section, the book, the other books by the same writer, the other books from that time period, the other books in that “Testament” and the other books in the Bible – in that order!  Like concentric circles around the bull’s-eye, the closer the context, the more weight we should give it.  So a term used in a letter by Paul does not automatically mean the same as that term in Matthew or John or Ezekiel. 

One exception to this hierarchy of correlation would be to go to a text evidently in the thoughts of the author prior to others that may technically be “closer contexts” but were unknown to the author.  For example, when an NT writer is obviously leaning on an OT passage, that passage may be technically the most distant context, but it actually may be more helpful than another NT writer.  So I’d look more carefully at the prophet Paul is quoting than Matthew’s use of the same term.  We should correlate carefully.

Having stated that we should select cross-references in light of their actual value in interpreting our target passage, this does not mean that we need to give that information to our listeners.  We do a lot of study that does not need to be flashed from the pulpit.  Generally it is better to explain your target passage, rather than potentially confuse or overwhelm listeners with a series of different passages.  In part 2 I will give some specific guidance on cross-referencing in the pulpit.