The Golden Rule Of Interpretation

[Anthony Pritchard]

THE GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION
With Explanation

By D.L. Cooper.​

D. L. Cooper is Dr. David L. Cooper (1886–1965), a respected early twentieth‑century theologian and linguist. He founded the Biblical Research Society and devoted his life to teaching the literal‑grammatical‑historical method of interpretation. He was trained in Semitic languages and earned advanced degrees in Hebrew and related fields. His work focused heavily on prophecy, Israel, and careful exegesis.

“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.”

Seek the plain, literal meaning of the Scriptures.

The sum and substance of this most important rule is that one should take every statement of the Scriptures at its face value, if possible.

The following is an analysis of the adjectives "primary," "ordinary," and "usual."

"Primary" emphasizes the original, inherent idea in the term.

"Ordinary" and "usual" are practically synonyms, especially in this definition, "usual" being employed for the sake of emphasis.

"Literal" is used to emphasize the thought that every word must first be taken literally as expressing the exact thought of the author at the time when it was used; and one is not to go beyond the literal meaning of the Scriptures unless the facts of the context indicate a deeper, hidden or symbolic meaning.

Seek the figurative meaning only when the facts demand such an interpretation.

Modernism and rationalism are the logical outgrowth of forcing a figurative meaning upon a passage that is clearly literal, or vice versa.

Study every statement of the Scriptures in context. ("A TEXT APART FROM ITS CONTEXT IS A PRETEXT.") Then study the facts of the context in the light of related passages and axiomatic fundamental truths. "... No prophecy of scripture is of private (special) interpretation" (II Peter 1:20); "The sum of thy word is truth" (Psalm 119:160).

(The Golden Rule of Interpretation is one of the most important principles governing us in our interpretation of the Scriptures. If we follow this rule, we shall never go very far wrong; but if we fail to follow it, we shall never go right.)

Everything here from D.L. Cooper - Tony

 

[JD731]

Excellent! Praise God! And let every Baptist posting on this "Baptist Theology & Bible Study" forum say Amen!

 

[kyredneck]

The sum and substance of this most important rule is that one should take every statement of the Scriptures at its face value, if possible.

'Face value', similar to Hodge's first rule:

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.

 

[JonC]

I agree, but at the same time people view the normal reading differently based on their experience or expectations (what they bring into the text).

A Methodist will see a plain reading in many passages that is different from a Presbyterian for example. This is because their theories influence what they see.

And our own worldviews affect what we see as the "plain reading". Anselm, for example, saw Scripture as clearly teaching that the Atonement was to restore God's honor that man had stolen through sin. This was because of Anselm's worldview, honor being the focus.

I think a good principle is to let Scripture interpret Scripture. God has given us His words, and all of His words stand. A "plain reading" of a passage that contradicts another passage is not correct.


There is a difference between studying Scripture and reading a Stephen King book.

 

[JonC]

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.

This^^^

Nobody - not Presbyterians, Methodists, Jehovah Witnesses, Pentecostals, Catholics... believe they are not taking the "plain reading" of Scripture.

But what the passage means is often different from the plain reading from a perspective of a modern worldview, our theological systems, and our traditions.

Think - what does the passage state (without changing it or adding to it in order to get it to fit an expectation). Do not trust what you "see" but let Scripture interpret Scripture.

If what you see as the plain reading happens to disagree with other passages then what you see is a reflection of yoyr own philosophy rather than God's actual words.

 

[kyredneck]

A "plain reading" of a passage that contradicts another passage is not correct.

…Hodge’s second rule:

2. Scripture cannot contradict scripture.

 

[JonC]

…Hodge’s second rule:

2. Scripture cannot contradict scripture.

Hodge was one smart dude.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Jesus Christ's rule for the interpretation of Scripture:
'These are they which testify of Me.' (John 5:39; c.f. v.46).

 

[Van]

THE GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION
With Explanation

By D.L. Cooper.​

D. L. Cooper is Dr. David L. Cooper (1886–1965), a respected early twentieth‑century theologian and linguist. He founded the Biblical Research Society and devoted his life to teaching the literal‑grammatical‑historical method of interpretation. He was trained in Semitic languages and earned advanced degrees in Hebrew and related fields. His work focused heavily on prophecy, Israel, and careful exegesis.

“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.”

Seek the plain, literal meaning of the Scriptures.

The sum and substance of this most important rule is that one should take every statement of the Scriptures at its face value, if possible.

The following is an analysis of the adjectives "primary," "ordinary," and "usual."

"Primary" emphasizes the original, inherent idea in the term.

"Ordinary" and "usual" are practically synonyms, especially in this definition, "usual" being employed for the sake of emphasis.

"Literal" is used to emphasize the thought that every word must first be taken literally as expressing the exact thought of the author at the time when it was used; and one is not to go beyond the literal meaning of the Scriptures unless the facts of the context indicate a deeper, hidden or symbolic meaning.

Seek the figurative meaning only when the facts demand such an interpretation.

Modernism and rationalism are the logical outgrowth of forcing a figurative meaning upon a passage that is clearly literal, or vice versa.

Study every statement of the Scriptures in context. ("A TEXT APART FROM ITS CONTEXT IS A PRETEXT.") Then study the facts of the context in the light of related passages and axiomatic fundamental truths. "... No prophecy of scripture is of private (special) interpretation" (II Peter 1:20); "The sum of thy word is truth" (Psalm 119:160).

(The Golden Rule of Interpretation is one of the most important principles governing us in our interpretation of the Scriptures. If we follow this rule, we shall never go very far wrong; but if we fail to follow it, we shall never go right.)

Everything here from D.L. Cooper - Tony

I have yet to find a person who rewrites scripture to fit his or her doctrine to deny they seek the plain meaning of the text.

No one seeks after God plainly means No one ever seeks after God, even though scripture is full of examples of people seeking after God. We all sin, and "no one seeks after God when sinning." That is Paul's point in Romans 3:11

The problem is we are blinded by our presuppositions, scripture plainly means what we believe it must mean.

The tool I use to avoid, or minimize that blind spot, is to ask the question, what is the least God is saying. This avoids expanding the scope of the statement into man-made conjecture.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

My only aim in posting Cooper’s Golden Rule was to highlight the simple starting point for all interpretation: take the words of Scripture in their ordinary sense unless the text itself requires otherwise. That principle, along with the truth that Scripture does not contradict Scripture, keeps us grounded in what God has actually said rather than in what we may assume or expect.

Different traditions may approach passages differently, but the clarity of the text does not change. Our task is always to return to the words themselves and let them speak. That is the heart of the Golden Rule of Interpretation.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

One of the reasons Cooper’s Golden Rule has served churches well is that it keeps us from shrinking or expanding a passage based on what we think it “must” mean. The plain sense is simply the ordinary sense of the words as they stand, unless the text itself gives a clear reason to limit or broaden the statement. The moment we adjust the scope because of our own expectations, we are no longer taking the words at face value.

The Golden Rule is not about finding the least God is saying, nor the most, but exactly what He is saying in the passage before us. That keeps us from rewriting Scripture to fit our doctrine and keeps our doctrine subject to Scripture.

 

[JonC]

I have yet to find a person who rewrites scripture to fit his or her doctrine to deny they seek the plain meaning of the text.

No one seeks after God plainly means No one ever seeks after God, even though scripture is full of examples of people seeking after God. We all sin, and "no one seeks after God when sinning." That is Paul's point in Romans 3:11

The problem is we are blinded by our presuppositions, scripture plainly means what we believe it must mean.

The tool I use to avoid, or minimize that blind spot, is to ask the question, what is the least God is saying. This avoids expanding the scope of the statement into man-made conjecture.

In seminary it was presented like this:

Pray. Read the passage. Write down what you think it means. Consider the differences between "us and them" (the difference in how we see the passage versus how it woukd have been understood by the immediate audience). Know what you are bringing into the reading so as to avoid it.

You and I discussed "what is the least the words are saying" with "He bore our sins". The least the words are saying is simply that He bore our sins (not "instead of us", not "our dishonoring of God", not "substitution" but "He bore our sins").

Another passage is "in the day you eat you shall surely die (literally "dying you shall die"). The least it says is on the day Adam eats of the fruit death would become certain ("certainly dying you shall die"). Most view this based on Augustine, making an assumption, rather than reading God's words to Adam about this death.

It is easy to say we should set aside our presuppositions, philosophies and theories but harder to do because they are a part of us and establish how we see things (our presuppositions dictate what we see as the "plain meaning" of a given text.

This is why I say we need to stick with the biblical text and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Many disagreements would be resolved if we would do this. We'd still disagree on some things, but they'd be a matter of God's written word rather than which theory is correct.

Imagine the Christian landscape in post- Reformation Western Christianity if people believed both "He bore our sins" and "it is not good to punish the innocent".

 

[Van]

One of the reasons Cooper’s Golden Rule has served churches well is that it keeps us from shrinking or expanding a passage based on what we think it “must” mean. The plain sense is simply the ordinary sense of the words as they stand, unless the text itself gives a clear reason to limit or broaden the statement. The moment we adjust the scope because of our own expectations, we are no longer taking the words at face value.

The Golden Rule is not about finding the least God is saying, nor the most, but exactly what He is saying in the passage before us. That keeps us from rewriting Scripture to fit our doctrine and keeps our doctrine subject to Scripture.

I disagree. People expand the scope of scripture to pour man-made conjecture into it. I could not think of an example where the plain meaning was denied and something less was read into the text. Perhaps you could provide an example.

Here are a few examples of expansion:

1 Cor. 2:14 says the natural person cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. At least one main stream doctrine declares this means the natural person cannot understand any thing from the Spirit of God. But the least the verse is saying if that the natural person cannot understand some of the things of the Spirit of God. That makes sense. Why not stick with that

James 2:5 says God chooses those "poor to the world" ... "rich in faith, and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God. Obviously the plain meaning is God chooses people who are consider "poor" according to humanities value system, but are rich in faith and love God. But what is done to the verse? People believe God chooses individuals before creation, without regard to any characteristic, so they insert "to be" rich in faith. But is that the least God must be saying? If we compare John 3:16, "everyone believing? and 2 Thessalonians 2:13, God choosing for salvation through faith in the truth, God must at least be saying He chooses people who are rich in faith.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here are a few examples of expansion:

1 Cor. 2:14 says the natural person cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. At least one main stream doctrine declares this means the natural person cannot understand any thing from the Spirit of God. But the least the verse is saying if that the natural person cannot understand some of the things of the Spirit of God. That makes sense. Why not stick with that

The verse says that the natural person cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. Why not stick with that? Why change it to mean that the natural perason can understand the things of the Spirit of God, or some of them, sometime, somehow - anything rather than taking the words at their face value? Simple answer: because taking the words at their face value fouls up your theology.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The verse says that the natural person cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. Why not stick with that? Why change it to mean that the natural perason can understand the things of the Spirit of God, or some of them, sometime, somehow - anything rather than taking the words at their face value? Simple answer: because taking the words at their face value fouls up your theology.

Martin, I am sticking with the words of the verse. The natural person cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God as a natural person. That is exactly what Paul says. What the verse does not say is that the natural person is incapable of being confronted, convicted, drawn, enlightened, or opened by God through His word and Spirit. Scripture shows that God initiates understanding by His own action, not by the natural man’s ability.

The same Bible that says the natural man cannot understand also says:

“Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). “The entrance of thy words giveth light” (Psalm 119:130). “He will reprove the world of sin” (John 16:8). “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man” (John 1:9). “Whose heart the Lord opened” (Acts 16:14).

None of these verses contradict 1 Corinthians 2:14. They explain how God overcomes the natural man’s inability. The natural man does not understand spiritual truth on his own, but God does not leave him on his own. God speaks, God convicts, God gives light, God draws, and God opens the heart. Understanding begins with God’s initiative, not man’s nature.

So I am taking the words at face value. I am also taking the rest of Scripture at face value. The natural man cannot understand spiritual truth, but God can confront him with truth, awaken him, and open his heart. That is the biblical sequence.

Thanks for your reply my Brother,

~Tony

I disagree. People expand the scope of scripture to pour man-made conjecture into it. I could not think of an example where the plain meaning was denied and something less was read into the text. Perhaps you could provide an example.

Here are a few examples of expansion:

1 Cor. 2:14 says the natural person cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. At least one main stream doctrine declares this means the natural person cannot understand any thing from the Spirit of God. But the least the verse is saying if that the natural person cannot understand some of the things of the Spirit of God. That makes sense. Why not stick with that

James 2:5 says God chooses those "poor to the world" ... "rich in faith, and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God. Obviously the plain meaning is God chooses people who are consider "poor" according to humanities value system, but are rich in faith and love God. But what is done to the verse? People believe God chooses individuals before creation, without regard to any characteristic, so they insert "to be" rich in faith. But is that the least God must be saying? If we compare John 3:16, "everyone believing? and 2 Thessalonians 2:13, God choosing for salvation through faith in the truth, God must at least be saying He chooses people who are rich in faith.

Van, I agree with you that we should avoid expanding Scripture beyond what the words actually say. But the principle cuts both ways. We must not expand the text, and we must not shrink it either. The “least the words are saying” must still include everything the words actually say, and we must let Scripture interpret Scripture.

On 1 Corinthians 2:14, the verse says the natural person cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God as natural. That is the plain meaning. What the verse does not say is that the natural person is beyond conviction, beyond drawing, beyond illumination, or beyond having his heart opened by God. Scripture shows the opposite. The Spirit reproves the world (John 16:8). Christ lights every man (John 1:9). Faith comes by hearing (Romans 10:17). The entrance of God’s word gives light (Psalm 119:130). The Lord opens the heart (Acts 16:14). None of that contradicts Paul. It explains how God overcomes the natural man’s inability. So the least the verse is saying is that the natural man cannot understand spiritual truth on his own. The rest of Scripture shows how God initiates understanding.

On James 2:5, the verse says God has chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him. That is the plain meaning. But James is not giving a decree‑from‑eternity passage. He is describing the kind of people God delights to honor. Other passages speak to the order of salvation. John 3:16 says “whosoever believeth.” Second Thessalonians 2:13 says God chooses “through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” The least these verses are saying is that faith and love matter in God’s choosing. James is not teaching unconditional election, and he is not teaching pre‑creation selection of individuals. He is simply stating that God honors those who trust Him and love Him.

So I agree with your principle. I just believe we must apply it consistently. We should not pour man‑made conjecture into the text, but we also should not remove what the rest of Scripture plainly adds. Line upon line, precept upon precept, the Bible gives a full picture when we let all the verses speak.

Yours in Him,

~Tony

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin, I am sticking with the words of the verse. The natural person cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God as a natural person.

I quite agree. What the Bible says is that we must be born anew; otherwise we will neither see nor enter the kingdom of God. It is God who must give us new birth to a living hope (1 Peter 1:3). We might think of Lydia, whose heart the Lord opened 'to heed the things spoken by Paul.' So Lydia did not open her own heart so that she might heed Paul's words. Nor did Paul's wonderful ministry open her heart. '...The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him.' On the contrary, 'Salvation is of the Lord' (Jonah 2:9; c.f. Rev. 7:10).
I don't think this is very different from what you wrote. Thank you.

 

[JonC]

The natural person cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God as a natural person.

Tony,

I'm of the opinion we must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Some will force the passahe to mean that natural man will not accept the biblical text is true.

This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind of Christ.


Recently I was discusding an Old Testament passage of God explaining His justice to the Israelites. He said that sins cannot be transferred from one person to another, He explained the basis upon which He forgives sins, explained that it is unjust to punish the innocent and that He will punish the wicked

The Israelites rejected God's own explanation of justice ("Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just."). They had used Scripture but did so to create a type of justice contrary to God so that when God declared exactly how His justice looked they rejected it.

Why? To them God's justice made God unjust. They lacked spiritual discernment (they were "natural man").