Why Lexical Meaning Is Not the Same as Authorial Meaning (A Dictionary Cannot Tell Us Everything)
Imagine someone who has never read Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.
A friend gives them an excellent summary of the novel. They introduce the main characters, explain the misunderstandings, describe the relationships, and even reveal the ending.
The summary may be entirely accurate.
By the time the conversation ends, they know what happens in the novel.
Then they read Jane Austen’s own words.
The experience is very different.
They discover how Austen introduces ideas long before their significance becomes clear. They notice recurring themes and subtle clues that seemed insignificant at first. Conversations that once appeared ordinary become important later in the story. They see the characters develop, misunderstand one another, and gradually change.
They come to appreciate not simply what Jane Austen communicates, but how she communicates it.
A summary communicates conclusions.
The author communicates meaning.
Something similar happens in biblical interpretation.
A dictionary may summarise the meanings a word has carried across many different authors and periods.
Only the biblical author can show us how that word functions within the work he has written.
This is the difference between lexical meaning and authorial meaning.
What Is Lexical Meaning?
When scholars speak of lexical meaning, they simply mean the range of meanings a word is capable of bearing.
This is the work of dictionaries and lexicons.
A lexicon gathers examples from different authors, different contexts, and different periods. It examines how a word has actually been used and groups those uses into recognised senses.
A good lexicon helps us ask questions such as:
- How have different authors used this word?
- What range of meanings can it carry?
- Which meanings are common?
- Which meanings are rare?
- Has its usage changed over time?
- Does it function differently in narrative, poetry, law or argument?
These are essential questions.
Without the work of lexicographers, responsible study of the biblical languages would be greatly diminished.
But notice what the lexicon is doing.
It is describing how many different authors have used a word.
It is not yet telling us what one particular author intended to communicate in one particular passage.
A dictionary records usage.
It does not determine meaning within a specific passage.
What Is Authorial Meaning?
Authorial meaning asks a different question.
Instead of asking,
“What can this word mean?”
it asks,
“What is this author communicating by using this word here?”
That question cannot be answered by the dictionary alone.
It requires us to read the sentence.
Then the paragraph.
Then the larger argument.
Then the book as a whole.
The author may choose one ordinary meaning from the recognised lexical range.
The author may use the word metaphorically.
The author may develop its significance gradually as the argument unfolds.
The author may even use it in a way that depends upon ideas introduced much earlier in the book and only explained fully much later.
This is why reading the author matters so much.
The lexicon identifies possibilities.
The author’s communication determines which possibility is intended.
Understanding Scripture therefore requires both careful lexical study and careful reading.
The dictionary provides the range of possible meanings.
The biblical author communicates the intended meaning.
The Difference Between Possibility and Intention
The distinction between lexical meaning and authorial meaning can be illustrated by a simple example.
Consider the English word head.
A dictionary may tell us that it can refer to:
- a part of the body;
- the leader of an organisation;
- the top of something;
- the front of a queue;
- the source of a river;
- or a measure of cattle.
Each of these definitions is a recognised lexical meaning.
Yet none of them tells us what the word means in a particular sentence.
Suppose we read:
“They finally reached the head of the river.”
The author is not referring to a body part, a leader, or the front of a queue.
The sentence itself tells us which lexical possibility has been chosen.
The word does not carry every dictionary definition into the sentence at once.
Nor is the reader free to choose whichever meaning seems most attractive.
The context narrows the possibilities.
The author’s communication determines the intended meaning.
Lexical meaning tells us what a word may mean.
Authorial meaning tells us what the author means by using it here.
Why the Distinction Matters
This distinction is far more than an academic exercise.
It affects the way every passage of Scripture is interpreted.
When readers encounter a difficult Hebrew or Greek word, it is entirely appropriate to consult a dictionary or lexicon.
Indeed, every serious student of Scripture should do so.
The problem arises when the dictionary is expected to settle the interpretation.
A lexicon can identify the recognised meanings a word is capable of bearing.
It cannot determine which of those meanings the biblical author intended in a particular passage.
Only the author’s own communication can do that.
That communication is found by following the flow of the author’s thought, observing how the argument develops, and allowing later statements to clarify earlier ones.
For this reason, lexical study should always lead us back to the text.
The dictionary informs our reading.
The author directs our understanding.
An Illustration from Genesis
This principle applies as much to Genesis as to any other biblical book.
Suppose we encounter an important Hebrew word in Genesis.
A lexicon may list several recognised meanings and illustrate each from elsewhere in the Old Testament and related literature.
That information is valuable.
It helps us understand the range of meanings the word can bear.
But Moses did not write a dictionary.
He wrote a carefully constructed narrative.
As Genesis unfolds, recurring words, repeated expressions, dialogue, and narrative patterns gradually explain one another.
Ideas introduced briefly in one chapter often become clearer in the chapters that follow.
Characters appear before their full significance is revealed.
Themes develop progressively as the narrative unfolds.
Readers therefore understand Genesis, not by collecting dictionary definitions, but by following Moses’ own communication from beginning to end.
The author’s communication determines how his vocabulary functions within his work.
The Same Principle Applies to Paul
Exactly the same principle applies to Paul’s letters.
Paul certainly chooses his words carefully.
Yet he does not communicate simply by selecting vocabulary.
He communicates by developing sustained theological arguments.
A significant word or idea introduced early in a letter may not receive its fullest explanation until much later.
An opening statement may be expanded, qualified, illustrated, or balanced as the argument unfolds.
Readers who isolate individual words or verses too quickly may miss the explanation Paul himself provides later.
This is one reason Paul’s letters reward careful, repeated reading.
His arguments are cumulative.
Each section builds upon what has gone before and prepares for what follows.
To understand Paul’s meaning, readers must allow him to complete his argument before drawing final conclusions.
This is especially important when Paul appeals to Genesis.
Genesis should first be allowed to establish its own categories and communicate its own message.
Paul should then be allowed to explain how those same Scriptures function within his own theological argument.
Neither author should be interrupted before completing what he intends to communicate.
Reading Before Defining
Recognising the difference between lexical meaning and authorial meaning changes the way we approach biblical interpretation.
Instead of asking the dictionary to determine the meaning of a passage, we first allow the biblical author to speak.
We follow the flow of the narrative.
We observe the development of the argument.
We notice repetition, contrast, explanation and conclusion.
Only then do we ask how the recognised lexical possibilities of a word serve the author’s communication.
In this way, lexical study becomes an indispensable servant of interpretation rather than its master.
The dictionary provides the possibilities.
The author determines the meaning.
A Better Interpretive Order
This suggests a natural order for responsible biblical interpretation.
Each step contributes something important.
But some steps are designed to guide others.
Too often, interpreters begin with the dictionary and then attempt to fit the author’s words into one of the recognised lexical categories.
A better approach begins with the author and allows lexical study to illuminate what the author is already communicating.
The following sequence reflects that principle.
A Suggested Interpretive Order
1. Read the whole book.
Begin by understanding the work as a complete narrative, letter, prophecy or poem.
Biblical books were written to be read as complete works, not as collections of isolated verses.
2. Follow the author’s argument.
Observe how the author develops ideas, introduces themes, repeats important concepts, answers objections, and reaches conclusions.
Meaning unfolds progressively as the argument or narrative develops.
3. Study the immediate passage.
Read the surrounding paragraphs carefully before concentrating on individual words.
Context is established first by the author, not by the dictionary.
4. Examine the grammar and syntax.
Pay careful attention to how the sentences function.
Grammar explains how the author’s thought is expressed.
5. Consult the lexicon.
Identify the recognised range of meanings the word can bear.
These represent the recognised lexical possibilities available to the author.
The dictionary assists the interpretation.
It does not determine it.
6. Re-evaluate the lexical possibilities in light of the author’s communication.
Return to the passage and follow the author’s argument once more.
Consider each recognised lexical possibility in its literary, grammatical, and theological context.
Allow the author’s own communication to confirm, narrow, or eliminate the lexical possibilities identified by the lexicon.
The dictionary informs the reading.
The author determines which lexical possibility is intended.
7. Read within the whole canon.
Finally, compare Scripture with Scripture.
Allow later biblical authors to build upon earlier revelation without replacing the earlier author’s own communication.
Each biblical author contributes to the unfolding revelation of Scripture.
Each should first be allowed to complete the work God has given him.
This order does not diminish the importance of dictionaries or lexicons.
Quite the opposite.
It gives them their proper role.
Lexicons become most valuable when they help readers understand what the biblical author is communicating rather than replacing the author’s own voice.
The dictionary identifies the recognised lexical possibilities.
The biblical author communicates the intended meaning.
Why This Matters for Genesis2Paul
Every study in the Genesis2Paul project follows the same basic interpretive principle.
The goal is not to discover every meaning a word has ever carried.
Nor is it to begin with theological conclusions and work backwards into the text.
Instead, the goal is to allow each biblical author to communicate his own message before asking how that message contributes to the whole of Scripture.
That means allowing Moses to complete his argument in Genesis.
It means allowing Paul to complete his argument in his letters.
Only then do we ask how the two authors relate to one another within God’s unfolding revelation.
This approach does not diminish the importance of lexical study.
On the contrary, it depends upon careful lexical work.
Dictionaries and lexicons help us identify the recognised lexical possibilities available to the biblical author.
They therefore remain indispensable tools for faithful interpretation.
But they remain servants rather than masters.
Their task is to illuminate the author’s communication, not replace it.
When lexical study and careful reading work together, the reader is equipped to understand not merely what words can mean, but what the biblical author intended to communicate.
That is the goal of responsible interpretation.
Conclusion
Words matter.
Grammar matters.
Historical background matters.
Lexicons matter.
But none of these communicates Scripture.
The biblical authors do.
God chose to reveal his truth through authors who wrote narratives, laws, poems, prophecies, Gospels, and letters.
Each author communicates through the careful development of ideas, arguments, and themes.
For that reason, faithful interpretation begins by listening carefully to the author’s own communication.
Lexical study enriches that process.
It does not replace it.
A Foundational Interpretive Principle
Lexical study identifies the recognised possibilities.
The biblical author communicates the intended meaning.
Continue Exploring
This article has distinguished lexical meaning from authorial meaning.
The next question naturally follows.
If meaning is communicated by the biblical author, how should we interpret the relationship between earlier and later biblical writers?
Should Genesis be interpreted independently?
Should later authors control our reading of earlier ones?
Or is there a better way to honour the contribution of each inspired author within the unity of Scripture?
These questions lead naturally to the next study.
Who Should Explain Genesis?
In that article, we will explore why Genesis should first be allowed to communicate its own message before readers impose lexical studies, theological systems, historical reconstructions, or later biblical interpretations upon it. Only after Genesis has been allowed to complete its own argument are we ready to consider how the rest of Scripture builds upon its foundations. → Explore this study ←