You are here: Home › authorial intent

Tag Archives | authorial intent

The Authority of Self-Witness

By on in Theology

My reading this week made a connection between the method of interpretation and the authority of Scripture. The reason why some choose “reader response” as a hermeneutical method of scripture rather than “authorial intent” is because they do not want the authority of God’s Word on its divinely inspired terms. They want the meaning of scripture in human terms to suit personal interests.

Two Methods of Interpretation:

1. Reader Response (wrong & dangerous)
2. Authorial Intent (right & productive)

Reader response is reading the Bible to suit what you want it to say and mean. Authorial intent rests upon what the Biblical authors intended by the Spirit in terms of meaning and principles (patriarchs, kings, sages, prophets, apostles, etc.). The tension is reminiscent of making something “in your own image” vs. accepting scripture as God’s revealed and authoritative word. Even further, the Bible is authoritative only to the extent people agree with it (i.e., it is not authoritative to those engaged in Reader Response).

Key gems in our reading distill these assembled facts: Those who refuse to acknowledge the Bible’s authority will not experience spiritual transformation by the Spirit and the Word. The Bible inherently possesses authority regardless of whether or not the church or individual recognizes it. The ontological ground of the text’s authority is not the same as the epistemic acceptance of the text’s authority. God’s act of inspiration grounds the Bible’s status as God’s revelation. God speaks through the Word whether people recognize or accept its authority or not and it is for this reason that contemporary agendas will never gain control over theology.

The weight of authority comes from a source of authority by revelation as God’s self-witness (e.g., fulfillment of prophecy, miracles, promises, judgments, etc.). This stands as warranted belief in the face of a multitude of defeater claims.

There is a difference between “what it meant” and “what it means.” “What it meant” leads to “what it means” as a matter of coherent principle where implications follow the intent and not what a reader surmises. Especially to form preferred outcomes according to biases stemming from cultural contexts. Moreover, it is possible to treasure biblical principles more than the Bible itself.

Muse & Meaning

By on in Theology

There are three broad areas of thought about where the meaning of Scripture is best originated. In that meaning either comes from the author, text, or the reader of Scripture in a more effective way to understand the communicative intent of what is written in the Living Word. To develop a reliable and effective hermeneutic, Dr. Brown has developed a Scriptural communication model that evaluates the merits of each approach and ties together a coherent way of developing a personal and community-based hermeneutic that honors the intent of the Bible and our LORD.

By spending a lot of time in Dr. Brown’s book, I have developed some opinions about what is largely of interest to the personal and structured study of Scripture and its relevance.

The meaning of Scripture best lies with the author. More specifically, meaning rests with Yahweh through various authors throughout Scripture.1 As Biblical writers communicate in their local contexts, they demonstrate perlocutionary intentions to their audience. Their literary expressions go beyond a full understanding of what becomes communicated.2 Their communicative act to warn, advise, praise, inform, invite, and so forth calls for interpretation and actualization among those who would listen or read what they have to say. Regardless of verbal and literary form, meaning becomes adapted and transposed to new contexts among listeners and readers. Meaning retains its purpose and integrity as to how it becomes applicable rests with individuals and communities. 

Dr. Brown’s communication model about meaning comes with several affirmations.3 Her arguments throughout the book were summarized as having various contributing factors, one of which specifies meaning as “author-derived but textually communicated.” Subordinate to the communicative intention of Biblical authors, readers attend to Scripture by contextualization. Readers who appropriate Scripture in their local culture by interpretation and “illumination” form settled and reliable meaning for relevant use as communicated from authors of the Bible.

These affirmations that Dr. Brown wrote coincides with what I have come to understand and accept as the root and origin of meaning. Primarily because of my newly developed view about the subjective nature of reader interpretation and the limits to what autonomous texts can provide without arbitration from an author.

1. Brown, Jeannine K. Scripture as Communication: Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007, 92
2. Ibid, 114
3. Ibid, 99