The Importance of Authorial Intent in Interpretation

The Nature of Scripture and the Hermeneutical Task

Introduction

The second week of this course brings us face to face with one of the most contested questions in biblical interpretation: Whose meaning matters most? Is meaning determined by the author, the text itself, or the reader? Within the Christian tradition, the conviction that Scripture is both inspired and authoritative has consistently placed weight on authorial intent — the meaning that the human (and ultimately divine) author sought to communicate.

This conviction is not simply academic. It is theological and hermeneutical. If the Bible is God’s Word through human authors, then honoring authorial intent is an act of obedience to God. Misinterpreting or ignoring that intent risks distorting God’s message. In what follows, we will define authorial intent, trace its historical development, examine competing theories of interpretation, and consider its implications for hermeneutics today.

1. Defining Authorial Intent

1.1 What Is Authorial Intent?

Authorial intent refers to the meaning that an author consciously sought to convey through a text. As E. D. Hirsch (1967) argued in Validity in Interpretation, meaning is “that which the author willed to convey by his words.” This is distinct from significance, which refers to the way that meaning may be applied in new contexts.

For biblical hermeneutics, authorial intent requires the interpreter to ask: What did the author mean in his own context? Only after this question is answered can interpreters responsibly ask what the text means for us today.

1.2 Why It Matters in Hermeneutics

Because Scripture is divinely inspired, the meaning that God intends is mediated through human authors. Respecting their intent is thus a way of honoring divine authorship. Fee and Stuart (2014) insist that “a text cannot mean what it never meant.” To assign meanings foreign to the author’s intent is to impose eisegesis — reading into the text — rather than engaging in exegesis — drawing meaning out of the text.

2. Historical Perspectives on Authorial Intent

2.1 Early Church and Patristic Approaches

The church fathers held diverse hermeneutical practices. Origen famously favored allegorical readings, sometimes moving beyond authorial intent. Augustine, while also allegorical at times, acknowledged the importance of the literal sense as the foundation of all other interpretations.

2.2 Medieval Exegesis

Medieval interpreters often employed the quadriga, the fourfold sense of Scripture (literal, allegorical, moral, anagogical). While this system elevated spiritual interpretation, it often left the author’s original meaning obscured.

2.3 The Reformation Recovery

The Reformers reasserted the primacy of authorial intent. Luther insisted that the literal sense was the true sense of Scripture, because God had chosen to reveal Himself in history and language. Calvin’s commentaries consistently emphasized the historical context and intention of the biblical writers.

2.4 Modern Developments

Enlightenment thinkers emphasized the historical and human dimension of the text, leading to the historical-critical method. While this sharpened attention to authorial intent, it sometimes divorced the human author from divine authorship, reducing Scripture to mere historical documents. Evangelical scholars, such as Warfield, Packer, and Carson, sought to hold both together: authorial intent as historically situated and divinely inspired.

3. Competing Theories of Meaning

3.1 Text-Centered Approaches

Some literary critics, such as proponents of New Criticism, argue that meaning resides in the text itself, independent of the author. The text becomes an autonomous object whose structure and form generate meaning. While this highlights the integrity of the text, it risks severing it from the communicative act of the author.

3.2 Reader-Centered Approaches

Postmodern hermeneutics often emphasizes the role of the reader in constructing meaning. Reader-response critics argue that meaning emerges in the interaction between text and reader. While this approach acknowledges diverse contexts, it risks relativizing Scripture’s authority, making meaning subjective and variable.

3.3 Author-Centered Approaches

The traditional evangelical position insists that meaning is anchored in authorial intent. As Hirsch (1967) argued, this provides stability and prevents interpretive relativism. For hermeneutics, this means that careful historical, linguistic, and literary study is essential to grasp what the authors sought to communicate.

4. Authorial Intent in Biblical Hermeneutics

4.1 The Divine-Human Dynamic

Because Scripture has both divine and human authors, authorial intent must be considered on two levels:

• The human author’s intent, shaped by context, culture, and vocabulary.

• The divine author’s intent, ensuring theological unity across the canon.

These two are not in conflict but in harmony. As Vanhoozer (2005) explains, God speaks through the communicative acts of human authors, so discerning their intent is discerning His.

4.2 Tools for Discovering Authorial Intent

• Historical context: Understanding the cultural and political background (e.g., exile in Babylon, Roman occupation).

• Literary context: Recognizing genre, structure, and rhetorical devices.

• Linguistic study: Examining original languages, word usage, and syntax.

• Canonical context: Interpreting individual texts within the larger witness of Scripture.

4.3 Guarding Against Misinterpretation

Ignoring authorial intent leads to distortions. Allegorical excess in the patristic era and radical subjectivism in modern reader-response theory both illustrate the dangers. Proper hermeneutics anchors interpretation in the intent of the inspired authors, preventing Scripture from becoming a figment molded by the interpreter’s imagination.

5. Contemporary Challenges

5.1 Pluralism and Relativism

In a pluralistic context, the claim that authorial intent governs meaning is often resisted. Critics argue that texts inevitably take on new meanings in new contexts. While applications may vary, hermeneutics insists that the author’s meaning provides the fixed point from which legitimate applications flow.

5.2 Theological Hermeneutics

Some modern theologians emphasize the role of the believing community in shaping meaning. While community is important, it must remain under the authority of Scripture’s inspired authors, not above it.

5.3 Postmodern Skepticism

Postmodern suspicion of stable meaning challenges the very notion of authorial intent. Evangelical scholars respond that denying authorial intent erodes Scripture’s authority and leaves interpretation vulnerable to cultural whims.

Conclusion

Authorial intent is not merely a hermeneutical preference; it is a theological necessity. If Scripture is both inspired and authoritative, then the meaning intended by its authors is binding upon readers today. To disregard that meaning is to disregard the God who speaks through them.

The pursuit of authorial intent therefore lies at the heart of biblical hermeneutics. It disciplines interpreters to study history, language, and culture with rigor. It safeguards Scripture’s authority against relativism. And it allows God’s Word to be heard as it was intended — as living, active, and sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb. 4:12).

For students of hermeneutics, Week 2’s emphasis is foundational. The nature of Scripture demands that we listen carefully to its authors. By honoring their intent, we honor the God who chose to reveal Himself through their words.

References

Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Carson, D. A., & Woodbridge, J. D. (Eds.). (1986). Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Fee, G. D., & Stuart, D. (2014). How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (4th ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Hirsch, E. D. (1967). Validity in Interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Packer, J. I. (1974). God Has Spoken. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Vanhoozer, K. J. (2005). The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

Warfield, B. B. (2003). The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing. (Original work published 1948)