One thing I hope every Christian, or heck, every Theist, will agree upon is that we ought to take God far more seriously than man. In every conceivable way, God is greater. He is greater in power, He is greater in wisdom and knowledge, He is greater in longevity, He is greater in dignity, He is greater in Holiness, and most important to today's article, He is greater in authority.
So, let's talk about the law for a moment. Almost every land region on the planet is governed by some kind of legal system. Places such as here in the UK, in particular, are quite well regulated, for better or for worse. In this country, we have laws, and we are expected to follow these laws to the best of our abilities.
In a moment, we will talk about how courts work, but before we get into all of that, let's just talk about every day life. As we conduct ourselves, we must often consider the legal implications of our actions. Take, for example, when you hop into your car. Even without directly thinking about it, you automatically become a legal scholar. Right away, you put on your seatbelt. Why? Because it's a £500 fine if you get caught not wearing one while driving. But now you've got it on, you're free to turn on the engine and start pushing some peddles. But not too fast! It's another £100 fine, and 3 points on your license if you get busted speeding!
You see, then, how even something as mundane as driving requires a significant amount of legal awareness. But let's suppose you've been accused of a crime, and here you sit in the courtroom. What will the judge do? In truth, the results may vary. Obviously, the first thing it depends on is whether you're guilty as charged. But how exactly to determine that is somewhat debatable. When I was a law student, this was actually my favorite subject: Statutory interpretation.
Statutory interpretation, as the name suggests, is the process of interpreting, and thereby applying the law. There are four ways to go about this. Four rules (or, more accurately, 3 rules and 1 approach) to decide how each law should be applied. There are 3 rules of interpretation applicable in the British courts: The Literal Rule, the Golden Rule, and the Mischief Rule.
The Literal Rule is fairly straightforward. It applies wooden literacy to the law: What the statute says, that is what must be done. The obvious disadvantage here is that, especially when it comes to legislation drafted by humans, this can, and very often does, lead to miscarriages of justice. An excellent example of when this happened is the case of Whitely v Chappel (1868). In this case, the defendant was charged with violation of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1851, which made it a criminal offense to impersonate "any person entitled to vote". The defendant used a dead man's vote, which is obviously a bad thing. However, he was not convicted, as the man he impersonated, given that he was dead, was not, in fact, entitled to vote. Thus, the literal rule lead to a miscarriage in justice.
The Golden Rule counteracts this flaw by applying a literal meaning only until such an outcome would be repugnant to the law. Basically, you shouldn't be able to find loopholes in the law. An example of this is the case of Adler v George (1964). In this case, the defendant was charged with violating the Official Secrets Act 1920, which made it an offence to obstruct a member of the armed forces "in the vicinity" of a prohibited place. Since the defendant was actually inside the RAF base, which was a prohibited place, the defendant attempted to argue that he wasn't technically "in the vicinity". However, it was ruled that it would be absurd for a law to apply only to the surrounding area of a place, but not inside it. Thus, the defendant's conviction was upheld.
The Mischief Rule is designed to tackle ambiguity in the law. Under this rule, the court aims to figure out what mischief Parliament is seeking to stamp out, and how they intended to do that with the law. One example of this is the case of Corkery v Carpenter (1961). In this case, the defendant was charged under the Licensing Act 1872, which made it illegal to be drunk in charge of a "carriage" on the highway. The problem was, the defendant wasn't drunk in charge of a carriage, but a bicycle. Nevertheless, his conviction was upheld, as the court ruled that Parliament was attempted to prevent drunk people being a danger to themselves and other highway users. The carriage wasn't what mattered.
For better or for worse, these 3 rules are all designed to ensure law and order is maintained in the UK. But I want you to imagine the absurdity of a defendant standing up and declaring "your honor, what right have you to judge me? I did not break the law, I broke your interpretation of the law. But the way I interpret it, I did nothing illegal." Would his argument be accepted? Would it make even the slightest bit of sense if it was? By no means! Laws exist for a reason. They are designed to be followed according to their intended meaning. Each of the 3 rules we have discussed in this article are designed precisely because the law does have a correct interpretation. We, as citizens, are required to follow it, and the job of the court is to ensure when we don't, we receive the adequate punishment.
If we, as Christians, are to take God more seriously than man, we ought to treat His laws with far more respect. In man's court, we are judged not according to our personal interpretation of the law, but by the court's. This often leads to injustice. Sinners, after all, are fallible, and evil. But God is neither of those things. Not only does He know what He knows, He knows what you know, too. He knows when you have kept His laws, and when you have broken them. And He knows when you know you have broken them. He knows the exact amount of honor you have shown to His laws, including how well you have either studied them, or avoided doing so. He knows whether you have read His laws, heard His laws, meditated on His laws, or have any knowledge of them what so ever. What that means is He not only knows how to correctly interpret His laws, but also how correctly you have.
Because let's be honest here...
...you don't need me to tell you this.
Nobody who says "the Bible is open to interpretation" actually believes it. Rather, they know what it says, and what it means when it says it. They aren't interpreting scripture differently, they're interpreting it according to what they want it to say. But those who truly believe in their interpretation do not blame scripture for being ambiguous. They defend their interpretation with reason. "Here is what the words say, here is what I think they mean, here are the reasons I hold this interpretation, and why you should too." So, hold your own feet to the fire, lest the Lord do it for you. Treat scripture as you would treat the law: Seek the correct interpretation, and follow it as closely as you can. Man may miscarry justice, but God knows how to use His divine gavel. Don't make Him bring His hammer down on you.