Statutory interpretation is the process by which the courts understand the law, and seek to apply it to individual cases that they come across. There are three main rules and one approach: The literal rule, the golden rule, the mischief rule, and the purposive approach.
- The literal rule
The literal rule, as the name suggests, is basically exactly what the law says is exactly what the law means. It doesn't matter if this leads to an absurd ruling, it doesn't matter if the law in question was sloppily drafted, it doesn't even matter if this leads to the greatest injustice seen in that jurisdiction since that law was ratified, what the law says goes, therefore the judge will rule accordingly.
There are advantages to the literal rule. It ensures legislative power remains with the legislative branch. It ensures the law is applied equally. However, I have already alluded to several disadvantages to it. It is potentially dangerous when the law is poorly worded, or short sighted. It may lead to absurd rulings. It may lead to injustices.
- The golden rule
The golden rule is probably the best rule a court can apply. Simply put, the golden rule states that the literal rule is applied except in cases where the outcome of such would be repugnant to the law. For example, if the literal application would allow someone to benefit from a crime, the law is not applied literally. The main case I was taught when I studied law was Re. Sigsworth. In this case, the law allowed children to inherit their parents' property if no will was left. However, Sigsworth had actually murdered his mother. Thus, it was ruled that allowing him to inherit her property would have allowed Sigsworth to benefit from a crime. This, of course, would have been repugnant to the law, and so Sigsworth was denied the right to inherit his mother's property.
This solves the problems the literal rule often causes, but has the disadvantage of allowing the courts to usurp some legislative power.
- The mischief rule
The mischief rule intends to get into the mind of the legislative body by determining the problem the legislature intended to solve by passing the law. I have forgotten the exact case, but the one I was taught was a law about prostitutes soliciting on a street corner. The prostitutes in question sought to expose a loophole in the law. Rather than soliciting on the street corner, two of them went inside and solicited from the window, and one of them went up onto a balcony. It was ruled that although they were not literally in violation of the law, they were still doing what the law intended to stop them from doing, and so they were still prosecuted.
The mischief rule has a few advantages. It potentially accounts for poor wording (or even good wording that could never hope to encompass every scenario), and helps to prevent circumvention. On the other hand, once again, it gives the courts more power than they ought to have, potentially allowing them to set a precedent for a law that never existed.
- The purposive approach
The purposive approach, similar to the mischief rule, lays aside the law, and focuses almost entirely on what the intended purpose of the law was. This approach is typically frowned upon, as much like the mischief rule, it gives the court power to circumvent the law, in a sense. The court can simply refuse to enforce a law they don't like, or enforce a purpose that was never intended to be enforced by the government.
When interpreting the Bible, all four methods of interpretation can be applied, to some degree or another. The literal rule is the most obvious method, and by far the most sturdy. However, as seen in Mark 2:27, and the passage in which it occurs (Mark 2:23-28), other methods are sometimes legitimate. Specifically, Jesus uses the purposive approach in this case. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Here, Jesus tells us the purpose for which the Sabbath was given. It was never intended as a hindrance, as the Pharisees had made out.
What's interesting is that Jesus' go to example is 1 Samuel 21:1-6, when David and his men ate the sacred bread, which was forbidden for non-priests. This was of vital importance for David, but Jesus was being scolded for a decidedly non-dire situation. The Apostles didn't need to eat the grain there and then. These were Jews, quite accustomed to fasting. Yet Jesus effectively said that His Apostles were exactly as justified for breaking the Sabbath by eating the grain as David for eating the showbread.
And so Jesus is teaching something quite remarkable here. It was especially remarkable in His day, but even today, Jesus is saying that there is a reason for every law in the Bible. You can ask why a law was given, and use the answer, assuming you are able to access it, to understand how, or even if you need to apply it to your own life.
The Bible, much like the law, is neither trivial, nor easy. In fact, the overall purpose of the Old Testament law was to show us how far of it we all fall short. It is vital to ensure we treat it wisely, and with discernment. As Paul said to Timothy, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15, emphasis mine). Don't be like a Liberal, who will look at a verse they don't like and conclude "the purpose of this law wasn't to prevent this sin". But at the same time, don't be a Pharisee, applying the literal rule so firmly that to so much as flush the toilet on Saturday would be considered worthy of punishment. Study the word, pray for guidance, check your heart.