# The Golden Rule of Interpretation



## Reformed Quest (Apr 9, 2018)

I have questions about what some persons call “The Golden Rule of Interpretation” (a.k.a The First Cardinal Rule):

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.”

I question the phrase: “makes common sense“. Isn’t this a subjective criterion because it is based on a reader’s personal context and beliefs?

I also question “seek no other sense”. Doesn’t this result in the under appreciation of symbolic language in Scripture, e.g. seven, Israel?

(Note, the complete GR quote is: Perhaps the best expression of the literal method is the one penned in 1942 by David L. Cooper, known as the “Golden Rule of Interpretation.” Cooper wrote, “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” Source: Journal of dispensational theology volume 17, number 50, page 77)

For comparison, note the Westminster Confession (WCF), Chapter 1, IX. “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”

The complete quote of the Golden Rule of Interpretation does indicate that the method takes into account the light of other passages and truths; however, it appears that is a secondary emphasis, if I am reading it correctly. Whereas, the WCF indicates that method of comparing with other Scriptures is “infallible” and therefore is a primary method.

When I have heard the Golden Rule of Interpretation, it has been by persons influenced by dispensational theology. But recently, I heard this from a Reformed person. 

Is the Golden Rule of Interpretation compatible with the WCF?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 9, 2018)

Given what has come from this so-called golden rule, one can readily answer your final question above with a resounding "No!":
http://www.biblicalresearch.info/

Either Cooper, et al., did not take the full description of this golden rule to heart, or it means something very different that its plainly stated words. This latter bit is in great evidence in Cooper's fuller treatment of this golden rule:
http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page55.html

Dispensationalism frequently touts literal readings, you know, "common sense" and what not, when it suits their views, especially when the figurative passage appears in view. For them, there is always a literal meaning underlying the figurative, as in land promises made to Israel meaning to them a restoration of Israel to Palestine. But when they run into some genuine didactic passages that disagree with their views, the appeal to analogy, metaphors, etc., ensues.

See:
https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/understanding-dispensationalists/

After all, "common sense" tells us that axe heads cannot float.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jack K (Apr 10, 2018)

I had not heard of this "Golden Rule of Interpretation." But when I saw the title you gave this thread, I started guessing what the golden rule would be. I was guessing "Scripture interprets Scripture."

Sounds like this may be a difference between a Reformed way of thinking and a dispensational one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 10, 2018)

I thought you were going to talk about context, to be honest. A text without a context is a pretext. Context helps us determine what kind of literature we are dealing with. The rule you quoted above is basically "literalistic, unless forced to another kind of interpretation." The more biblical approach is "literary, attuned to different kinds of literature." We are in trouble if we interpret apocalyptic literature with the same expectations of "literalness" as historical books. So no, I do not believe that is the golden rule of interpretation at all. I think it is a very damaging pseudo-rule that will quickly get Christians into trouble if they follow it too closely.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2018)

Reformed Quest said:


> I have questions about what some persons call “The Golden Rule of Interpretation” (a.k.a The First Cardinal Rule):
> 
> “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.”
> 
> ...


I was taught to interpret scripture by scripture, and to seek the literal meaning intended, but also being aware of how the Bible used literary genre also.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 10, 2018)

Reformed Quest said:


> When I have heard the Golden Rule of Interpretation, it has been by persons influenced by dispensational theology. But recently, I heard this from a Reformed person.



The rule does seem designed to support dispensationalist thinking. I concur that it probably got its start that way, and is not a good "golden rule." But I can also see how a Reformed person might, without much thought, latch onto the rule because it sounds like it disputes liberalism. For example, it means we must conclude that Christ truly rose from the dead.

More than once, this has been a serious sticking point when I've had discussions with dispensationalists who insist on a "literal" interpretation. When I bring up any kind of "context" rule—let Scripture interpret Scripture, pay attention to the literary genre, etc.—they see this as an attempt to apply a liberal interpretive scheme. They get very adamant about being "literal," and they actually have a good underlying reason: they fear my next step will be to declare that Jesus only figuratively rose from the dead, or some other liberal nonsense.

Many believers see only two interpretive options: the dispensationalist "literal" scheme they heard somewhere, or a liberal all-is-figurative scheme they know is dangerously wrong. It takes much patience, and respect for the parts they have right, to show them how the biblical way is different from both.


----------



## Reformed Quest (Apr 10, 2018)

Thank you everyone for the confirmation that my concerns about the Golden Rule of Interpretation are not unfounded.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See:
> https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/understanding-dispensationalists/



Thanks for directing me to this book. It has an *eye-opening* explanation of the mechanisms that trap some people in this unhelpful method of interpretation. The relevant section begins with:

“Finally, there are some psychological and social forces at work in
dispensationalist groups. These forces make it difficult for
dispensationalists to leave behind the patterns of biblical
interpretation to which they have grown accustomed."​
Dr. Poythress hits the nail right on the head. I've seen the psychological and social forces in-play that he describes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Quest (Apr 10, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> So no, I do not believe that is the golden rule of interpretation at all. I think it is a very damaging pseudo-rule that will quickly get Christians into trouble if they follow it too closely.



I will be watching how closely my friend follows this this interpretative method.
Thank you for weighing-in.


----------



## Reformed Quest (Apr 11, 2018)

Jack K said:


> Many believers see only two interpretive options: the dispensationalist "literal" scheme they heard somewhere, or a liberal all-is-figurative scheme they know is dangerously wrong. It takes much patience, and respect for the parts they have right, to show them how the biblical way is different from both.



“Only two interpretive options” ~ Either / Or fallacy 

I appreciate the encouragement to be patient.


----------



## Reformed Quest (Apr 11, 2018)

So, it’s clear that the not so golden rule can produce bad fruit. 

As far as how the GR relates to the Westminster Confession, it seems to me that if one sees the golden rule of interpretation as, “the first cardinal rule of interpretation” — that is putting the GR ahead of WCF Chapter 1, IX. “let Scripture interpret Scripture”, which the Confession says is “infallible”. Is it fair to say that is not being consistent with the WCF, or am reading the Standards too strictly?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 12, 2018)

Jack K said:


> The rule does seem designed to support dispensationalist thinking. I concur that it probably got its start that way, and is not a good "golden rule." But I can also see how a Reformed person might, without much thought, latch onto the rule because it sounds like it disputes liberalism. For example, it means we must conclude that Christ truly rose from the dead.
> 
> More than once, this has been a serious sticking point when I've had discussions with dispensationalists who insist on a "literal" interpretation. When I bring up any kind of "context" rule—let Scripture interpret Scripture, pay attention to the literary genre, etc.—they see this as an attempt to apply a liberal interpretive scheme. They get very adamant about being "literal," and they actually have a good underlying reason: they fear my next step will be to declare that Jesus only figuratively rose from the dead, or some other liberal nonsense.
> 
> Many believers see only two interpretive options: the dispensationalist "literal" scheme they heard somewhere, or a liberal all-is-figurative scheme they know is dangerously wrong. It takes much patience, and respect for the parts they have right, to show them how the biblical way is different from both.


many though think literal means to force a conclusion already held into the scriptures. my teachers gave to me that it meant to seek the understood way that it was given, as in the literary genre and type of scripture. Jesus being the door did not mean he looked like the one of my front door.


----------



## Ben Mordecai (Apr 14, 2018)

According to John Piper, the "Golden Rule of Hermeneutics" is "Do unto authors as you would have them do unto you."

This is a surprisingly useful rule without imposing wooden literalness to every text nor your own creative fancies. 

Basically, before you do anything else, stop maliciously interpreting them against what they would have wanted.


----------

