Intent of the Author
Devotions for Growing Christians
Intent of the Author
1 Corinthians 5:9-10 - I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy or swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
What did the author intend to teach? If we stopped and asked ourselves that key question every time we began to interpret a passage of Scripture, we would be preserved from a lot of wild ideas that some Christians have extracted from the Bible! The first goal of interpretation for any Scripture is to determine the intended meaning of the Author. This is a fundamental principle of hermeneutics (interpretation).
The Author of all Scripture, of course, is God. But a key principle for reaching our goal is to determine, to the best of our ability, what the human author intended to teach when a particular Scripture was written. The teaching intent of the inspired human author is not different than the teaching intent of the Holy Spirit.
When we determine the answer to the question "What did the Author/author intend to teach?" we will be able to more easily resolve questions about Scriptures that, at first glance, might seem to be inconsistencies in the Bible. Asking this question will also check our natural desires to come up with self-serving ideas or “new” interpretations. It will also protect us from falling for wild and false interpretations of Holy Scripture.
Care regarding relationships
In 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 we see that the Corinthian Christians missed the intent of something Paul tried to communicate to them. Paul had written that they were not to associate with immoral people, but the Corinthian Christians missed his point. Some of them jumped to the conclusion that they were to break all ties and relationships with unbelievers, and move towards isolation - even monasticism! That was not Paul's intention at all, so he had to write to let them know that such a wild interpretation of his words was not even logical. They would literally have to leave this earth if they were required to disassociate completely with all immoral people!
Some of the Corinthian Christians had actually adopted an unbiblical lifestyle because they had neglected an important principle of interpretation. If they had paused to carefully think through what Paul was writing, they would have realized that he wasn’t teaching about associating with unbelievers - he intended to teach them to be careful about relationships with fellow believers! To keep the testimony of the early Church clean before an immoral pagan world, believers were to shun and not fellowship with people who claimed to be Christians, but were involved in sexual immorality or idolatry, or those who used shady business practices, or those who drank too much, or were greedy. In fact, relationships with non-believers were to be carefully developed, no matter what their lifestyle, so that the gospel could be communicated to them!
Sunday Collection
Failure to determine the teaching intention of the author has led to some far-out interpretations. This was not only true of the Corinthian Christians - it is true of Christians today! For example, 1 Corinthians 16:2 says, "On the first day of the week each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made." Can you believe, based on this Scripture, some Christians have actually concluded that it is more scriptural to collect money for the Lord's work on Sunday rather than on other days of the week? After all, they say, Sunday is the Lord's Day, so that's the day we should collect funds for the Lord's work. But - is that what this Scripture means?
Let's ask our key question: What did the author intend to teach? Did he intend to teach that Sunday is the only day of the week that the church should take donations? A quick glance at the context surely indicates that this was not Paul's intent! The Corinthians had promised to help the needy Christians in Jerusalem. Paul suggested that they begin giving immediately so the gift would be ready when he came, and they were to give when the church met together on the first day of the week - Sunday.
So the point Paul was making had nothing whatsoever to do with what day of the week they should receive church offerings! Paul’s intention was to urge the Christians to start a regular weekly collection as soon as possible. Any wild idea about money being more sanctified in Sunday offerings rather than in weekday collections is an uncontrolled, incorrect interpretation of 1 Corinthians 16:2.
We are preserved from a narrow legalistic interpretation in that trivial illustration by looking at the surrounding context. But many Christians don't bother to study the context! By always asking the simple question, "What did the author intend to teach?" we will be forced to look at the context. This is always important for proper interpretation, and it is especially important with Scriptures where proper interpretations are not so obvious as in the 1 Corinthians 16 example.
The Lord used this principle
The principle, "What did the author intend to teach?" was not dreamed up for academic purposes! In Matthew 5:43-48 our Lord Himself used this principle when He interpreted the Old Testament Scriptures. The Lord Jesus was instructing His listeners on the correct way to interpret Leviticus 19:18. Over the years the Jewish people had ignored the intent of the Law to "Love your neighbor as yourself." In fact, they actually used this law as an excuse to hate anyone they didn't consider to be their neighbor. And they could always find a reason for anyone they disliked not being their "neighbor"! What a twisted interpretation!
When the Lord corrected their interpretation, He told them that they had ignored what the author intended to teach. The Law's statement, "love your neighbor as yourself" was certainly wasn’t intended to mean that we can hate everyone else! The Author’s intent, of course, was to teach that we should show love to everyone with whom we have contact - even to our personal "enemies"!
If the Jewish people had asked themselves the key question, "What did the author intend to teach?" they would never have been able to blithely interpret this law as a justification for personal feuds of vendettas against anyone who was not literally their "next door neighbor." And if we would use the same principles of hermeneutics that our Lord Jesus used, we too would be protected from many of the selfish or questionable interpretations that plague the Christian community.
Date-setting
As the year 2000 approached, a rash of date-settings for the Lord's return appeared in the Christian media. They were examples of bad hermeneutics, because the intent of the author of Mark13:32 was ignored. When the would-be Last Days prophets were confronted with our Lord's statement that "no one knows that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, not the Son, but only the Father," a typical response was: "No one knows the day or the hour, but that doesn't mean we can't figure out the year and the month and the week - and even take a sanctified guess at the day and the hour!" This type of response ignored the key hermeneutical question: "What did the Author intend to teach?" When the Lord stated that "no one knows that day or hour..." did He intend to teach that we can figure out the year and the month, but not the day or the hour? Or did the Lord intend to teach that the date is unknown to any but the Father, and we should not spend our time trying to figure it out? The answer is obvious!
Eternal security
What did the Lord intend to teach in John 10:27-29? "My sheep listen to My voice; I know them and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of My Father's hand." Does this Scripture teach that believers are eternally secure? Surely that’s what the Lord Jesus intended to teach!
But some Christians don’t believe in the eternal security of the believer, and this is how they interpret that Scripture: "Your salvation is secure as long as you don't take yourself out of the Lord's hand!” These Christians agree that no one else can take you out, but they believe that you can "take yourself out" of the Father's hand! Do you think that’s what the Lord intended to teach? Did the Lord have a "jump out" exception clause in the back of His mind when He said, "no one can snatch them out of My Father's hand"? Did He intend to teach "You are eternally safe and secure in the Fathers hand!" Or did He intend to teach "You are eternally secure as long as you don't somehow fall out or jump out of the Father's hand?" If we ask the key question, "What did the Author intend to teach?" the answer is simple and easy to understand!
Employment
Paul's exhortation to the Thessalonians to "lead a quiet life, attend to your own business and work with your hands" (1 Thessalonians 4:11), has been used by some Christians as an argument for the type of work in which Christians should be involved. In their narrow view, a "trade" is more biblical than a "desk job" because tradespeople "work with their hands." But is this the teaching intention of the author? Is it the kind of employment or the fact of employment that Paul had in mind here?
A quick reading of Paul's letters to the Thessalonians reveals that some of the Christians were not working at all, and were living a lazy and undisciplined lifestyle. In 2 Thessalonians 3:11-12 Paul says , "We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy, they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus to settle down and earn the bread they eat." So we see that Paul did not intend to teach that manual labor is more "sanctified" than mental labor. Paul's teaching intention was to motivate his readers to work, and not sit around free-loading off others and stirring up trouble. The kind of job was not important - but getting a job was very important! There are lazy Christians today who need to realize and take action on the intent of the Author of 1 Thessalonians 4:11!
Titus 2:4-5 says, "...teach the young women to love their husbands and children...to be workers at home...so that no one will malign the word of God." Does this Scripture mean that women cannot have a job outside the home? What did the author intend to teach? Once again, an examination of the context indicates that Paul’ uppermost concern was the lifestyle and Christian testimony of believers. Paul was not concerned with making legalistic rules for women in general - his primary concern was godly priorities for young married women. Husband, children and home were to be the top priorities in a young married woman's life. Neither earning power in the marketplace, nor social activities in the neighborhood, were to push aside her priorities of carefully raising her young children, and managing a home that reflects Christian values.
This part of God's Word is very important for Christian families today. The Bible doesn’t intend to teach that Christian women today cannot be like Deborah (Judges 5) or Lydia (Acts 16). And the Bible’s primary intent is not to bar Christian women from working outside the home. But this Scripture clearly teaches that the priorities of young married Christian women should be husband, children and home. Family and home are not to suffer as a result of career and business interests - or even because of time spent in Christian ministry!
Notice the priorities of the very busy woman in Proverbs 31. Although she was involved in business activities and community interests, the needs of her family and home received top priority. Determining the teaching intention of the author resolves what, at first glance, may seem like a slight contradiction in Scripture.
2 Peter 3:8
2 Peter 3:8 is our final example. What was the intent of the author when he wrote, "A day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day"? Did he intend to teach his readers that every time we read the word "day" in the Bible we are to understand that it can mean "a thousand years," and every time we read "a thousand years" we can substitute the word "day"? Of course not! That would be ludicrous, and would make nonsense of most of the events recorded in Scripture. And yet some Christians ignore the intent of the author here, and try to use this Scripture as a type of Day=1000 years formula for setting End Time dates! Others use it in their attempts to justify their Day=Age progressive creation hypotheses. Talk about bad hermeneutics!
Peter did not intend to give an equation or formula for his readers to use whenever they read the words "day" or "thousand years" in the Bible. His teaching point was that, unlike us, God is not bound by time! God created time, and therefore He is above the limits of time. God can accomplish in one day what we might think would require vast amounts of time. And for God a thousand years is not a long waiting period, as it is to us. As Psalm 90:4 says, "For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."
Notice - Peter did not say "a day is a thousand years." He used the word as - "a day is as" or “like” a thousand years to God. Clearly he did not intend to equate the time periods of "day" and "a thousand years"! Individuals who use 2 Peter 3:8 to justify the idea that the “days” in the Genesis 1 Creation account are geologic ages are totally ignoring the teaching intent of the Author - God Himself!
We've seen that a basic principle of hermeneutics is to determine, to the best of our ability, the teaching intention of the Author/author of Scripture. Always remembering to ask "What did the Author/author intend to teach?" will greatly help us as we study and interpret Scripture. It will also guide us as we carefully evaluate the interpretations that others have drawn from Scripture.
- Dave Reid