# sensus plenior



## Preach (Feb 16, 2005)

How many meanings can a passage of Scripture have? This is a hermeneutical debate that has good people on both sides. For example, if Amos writes something, does he understand basically the meaning of what he is saying? Can a New Testament author come along and change, enhance the meaning? 

Can God intend an additional meaning to what Amos writes that Amos did not know about? Is there more than one authorial intent? Is there a clear distinction or do we draw lines of distinction?

See what I mean? If you are exegeting a passage from Jeremiah, can you look to what the New Testament says about that text? Ofcourse we can. But, can the New Testament writer give a different, fuller meaning?

I just read an article on Monergism.com under the section "hermeneutics" entitled "Divein Meaning...sensus plenior".

"In Christ",
Bobby


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 16, 2005)

> How many meanings can a passage of Scripture have?



One complete meaning. (Shifty answer, eh?)



> If Amos writes something, does he understand basically the meaning of what he is saying?



Absolutely.



> Can a New Testament author come along and change, enhance the meaning?



Enhance, or complete? Yes. Change, Absoltuely NOT.



> Can God intend an additional meaning to what Amos writes that Amos did not know about?



Fuller menaing is not different meaning.



> Is there more than one authorial intent?



That depends. Sometimes God speak through people. I don't mean this prophetically, or in the sense of a preacher. I mean, God speaks to the King of Type in Ezekiel, but He speak THROUGH the king of Tyre to refer to Satan, or to address Satan. 

Jesus speak through Peter (though addressing him) to Satan, "Get thee behind me..."



> Is there a clear distinction or do we draw lines of distinction?



Yes, there is a clear distinction.



> If you are exegeting a passage from Jeremiah...can the New Testament writer give a different, fuller meaning?



Differnt, NO. Fuller, Yes - but always in light of Christ's fulfimment. For example, the author of Hebrews is acutely aware of Jeremiah 30-34 and understands its meaning before he pens how Christ fulfills that passage. The writer of Hebrew's ideas are the same as Jeremiah's ideas.


----------



## Preach (Feb 16, 2005)

Matthew, 
Does a person's theological system (ex. Dispensational or CT) colour his view regarding this hermeneutic device? It seems that people from different stripes line up in both camps.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 16, 2005)

It should not.

This is a hermeneutical question. Hermeneutics concerns itself with the principles of proper bilical interpretation and exegesis. 

Literal, allegorical, anagogical and tropological are the four ways that various people thorugh history have set up the manner in which Scripture should be itnerpreted. 

To take a fourfold approach - as the Roman Church does following Origen - is to make the Scripture *ambiguous* at best having all these various ways of understanding.

The Reformed church has always divided proper interpretation into to categories - 

1) Simple - which contains the declaration of one thing without any other identity to it - like doctrine, precepts, and historical narrative.

2) Compound - dealing with types and prophecies.

In every case though we are to follow after the intention of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 16, 2005)

Matt,
A godly man and I were discussing typology at church tonight. I have seen typology both abused and used profitably. How should one go about appropriating it in his studies?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 16, 2005)

Identify where typology occurs. 

Make sure it is not allegory, but really typology. The NT often helps in that regard to explain the typological significance of somethign (like the bronze snake lifted up).

Utilize wisdom. Christ says the the OT speaks about Him.
But that does not mean "Ehud" is Jesus, or that the geneologies are "Jesus repeated." Instead, the writers of the NT took time to point out specific passages and ideas surrounding explicit types of Christ. Then one has to discern if a type is really a type or whether its not.

Is the "Rock" a type of Christ? The Ark? The Mercy seat?
Is the dirt in the wilderness? Is the Almond Tree Amos tended? Or the hole Gideon pressed wine in?

One has to make exegetical judgment calls that surround the text and all information we have about the text. You can never rashly or unnecessarily depart from the literal sense unless it clashes with the articfles of faith and practice (see Turretin on this in volume 1:153).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 19, 2005)

I like the term "compound" meaning. Would "multi-dimensional" be an inappropriate term?

Many examples of "deeper" meaning than the literal interpretation alone of a Scriptural passage could be adduced, but the primary example that comes to my mind is the Song of Solomon. 

It's about conjugal love obviously, and yet clearly this is a type or symbolic representation of the love between Christ and His Bride, the Church. 

Any comments on the Song of Solomon in light of this interesting discussion on sensus plenior?


----------



## Scott (Feb 22, 2005)

Bobby: The passages of scripture are often like multi-facted gems. The passage is one gem but with many different sides, each with its own beauty. 

I don't know is it is helpful to say a passage is "compound" over against having several meanings. The practical application is the same. Take Noah's ark, for example. The story has multiple levels.

First, there is the simple historical level. The event really happened as described.

Second, then is the typological level. These refer to Christ and the realities of the New Covenant. Chrysostom called these stories "prophecy by deed." 1 Peter 3:20-21, for example, reads: ". . . in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also . . ." Note that the literal event serves as platform for a symbolic (typological) meaning, Christian baptism.

Third, the story of Noah can apply at a personal moral level. It can do this in different ways. Using straightforward casuistry, one can immitate the great faith of Noah. One can also understand that the great events on a macro scale apply equally to us on a micro scale. The story of Noah is a story of the Christian life. 

Scott


----------



## Scott (Feb 22, 2005)

"But that does not mean "Ehud" is Jesus"

Ehud is definitely a type of Christ.


----------



## Scott (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is an interesting quote from Augustine on interpreting types in the narratives.




> If, therefore, I wished to rehearse all that the prophets have predicted concerning Christ, while the city of God, with its members dying and being born in constant succession, ran its course through those times, this work would extend beyond all bounds. First, because the Scripture itself, even when, in treating in order of the kings and of their deeds and the events of their reigns, it seems to be occupied in narrating as with historical diligence the affairs transacted, will be found, if the things handled by it are considered with the aid of the Spirit of God, *either more, or certainly not less, intent on foretelling things to come than on relating things past.* And who that thinks even a little about it does not know how laborious and prolix a work it would be, and how many volumes it would require to search this out by thorough investigation and demonstrate it by argument? And then, because of that which without dispute pertains to prophecy, there are so many things concerning Christ and the kingdom of heaven, which is the city of God, that to explain these a larger discussion would be necessary than the due proportion of this work admits of. Therefore I shall, if I can, so limit myself, that in carrying through this work, I may, with God's help, neither say what is superfluous nor omit what is necessary.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 22, 2005)

I've been fairly familiar with the sensus plenior debate for a while now... some fairly respected scholars hold to it (like Douglas Moo who wrote the NICNT commentary on Romans).

I haven't read all the posts here... just Matt's response, and it is what I - and most - evangelicals would affirm.

Dr. Duane Garrett (an OT prof who, this past Fall semester, came to Southern from Gordon-Conwell) touched on this subject in what, for me, was a helpful way. He put it in terms of "differing manifestations of the same reality."


----------



## Scott (Feb 22, 2005)

"See what I mean? If you are exegeting a passage from Jeremiah, can you look to what the New Testament says about that text? Ofcourse we can. But, can the New Testament writer give a different, fuller meaning?"

We must use the NT to look back at the Old. As Augustine said, the Old Testament is the New Testament conbcealed. The Old is full of riddles. Christ is hidden under prophecies, types, and shadows. To understand these riddles rightly we must take the answer - Christ - and look back on them. This is basic to historical Christian interpretation.

Let's look at a specific example that perplexes some modern commentators, Matt. 2:15. It reads: “So [Joseph] got up, took the child [Jesus] and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son .’” On the surface, it could appear that Matthew was quoting a direct prophecy of the Messiah. He is not.

Matthew’s quote refers to Hosea 11:1. Hosea 11:1-2 reads: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me.” Notice that in Hosea 11:1 the “son” being called out of Egypt is the nation of Israel, not the Messiah. Further, Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy or prediction. It is a statement of history (before the time of Hosea). It describes God’s great and mighty work of delivering Israel from the bondage and slavery to Egypt. This mighty deed was the Exodus. Matthew applies Hosea’s comment on the Exodus to Jesus, who “fulfills” it.

If we look carefully at Matthew, we will see that the life of Israel and the Exodus were a shadow of the life of Christ. Matt. 2:15 is one piece of that. Here are some other pieces:

• Israel experienced the loss of her infant children due the order of wicked Pharaoh that male infants be executed. Trying to kill Jesus, Herod ordered the death of all male infants.
• Israel crossed the Red Sea. Ex. 14. Jesus is baptized. Mat. 3:1ff. (see also 1 Cor. 10:1-2,which expressly connects the crossing of the Red Sea with baptism).
• After crossing the Red Sea, Israel enters the wilderness for 40 years of temptation. After his baptism, Jesus immediately retreats to the wilderness for 40 days and is tempted by Satan. 
• Israel’s first temptation involves Israel grumbling against God for food. Exodus 16. Jesus’ first temptation involves Satan’s challenge to have the fasting Jesus change stones into bread to satisfy His hunger. Jesus quotes Deut. 8:3, an Old Testament passage involving Israel’s first temptation: “Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.” Deut. 8:2-3.
• Israel’s second temptation involves Israel putting the Lord to the test during their wilderness journey, at Massah, where Israel grumbled for water which God later gave them out of a stone. Exodus 17. Jesus quotes Deut. 6:16, which involves Israel’s temptation at Massah: “Do not test the Lord your God as you did at Massah.”
• Israel’s third temptation involves idolatry, the golden calf. Exodus 32. Jesus’ third temptation involves idolatry: worship of Satan. Jesus quotes an Old Testament passage referencing Israel’s wilderness temptations. 
• Israel fails every test. As a consequence God’s curse fell on Israel: “. . . God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.” 1 Cor.10:5. Jesus succeeded at every test. As a consequence, God blessed Him and angels came and ministered to Him. Matt. 4:11.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jun 3, 2005)

I agree with Witius, when he said, "No one can better instruct us in the contents of the OT than Christ and His apostles." This statement is monumental. A biblical hermeneutic takes into consideration the fact that the OT cannot stand on its own - the NT makes this abundently clear. Interpreting the OT as if the NT does not exist is not biblical - i.e., it is not what the Bible itself does. This is one problem with all forms of dispensationalism. Also, Walter C. Kaiser has a view of hermeneutics that is called something like "the primacy of antecedent revelation." Only revelation given prior, in time, to the text under consideration can inform the exegete. I think this has serious problems. It appears to deny analogia fidei. It appears to "humanize" the Scriptures, discounting the fact of one, divine author and what has come to be called the "canonical" approach, which I much prefer. It is totally legitimate in the interpretive process to analyze a former passage in light of a latter one. The meaning of passages in Genesis, for instance, are often explicated in subsequent revelation. What may be latent in Genesis becomes patent in Paul. The bud is in Genesis 3:15; its fully formed flower is in the NT. Augustine was right. Subsequent revelation often makes explicit what was only implicit in antecedent revelation. In other words, once the cannon became complete, or once the OT was fulfilled by the NT, the NT becomes the basis upon which we interpret the OT. What the OT promised, the NT fulfills. We cannot know what the OT fully means without the NT. The OT by itself is an unfinished story, begging fulfillment. Or, the priority of antecedent revelation theory is bunk. Human authorial intent is not the end of exegesis, btw. How can we fully know what the human author intended? Cf. Hos. 11:1 and Mt. 2:13. All we have is what he wrote. How do we seek to understand what he wrote? We consult what the rest of the Bible says on the subject at hand - and rightly so! Why? Because the divine author takes precedent over human authorial intent. And how do we conclude what the divine author intended in a given human author's text? We consult the divine author's thoughts elsewhere - former or latter revelation. But, to make antecedent revelation, understood according to human authorial intent, to be the informing theological trump card in our exegesis is short-sighted, quasi-dispensational, and not Reformed. The key to a biblical hermeneutic is found in the NT's use of the OT. I think some form of sensus plenior is the way to go, if what one means by a fuller sense what God intended all along and what God makes clear in subsequent revelation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2005)

Great post, Rich.

I agree about Kaiser, even though I liked his work.



> Walter C. Kaiser has a view of hermeneutics that is called something like "the primacy of antecedent revelation." Only revelation given prior, in time, to the text under consideration can inform the exegete. I think this has serious problems. It appears to deny analogia fidei. It appears to "humanize" the Scriptures, discounting the fact of one, divine author and what has come to be called the "canonical" approach, which I much prefer.


I found that helpful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jun 3, 2005)

Jacob,

I should have qualified; I like much of Kaiser's stuff. It is just not Reformed, in the historical sense, as far as hermeneutics goes. He does a very admirable job of trying to unify the testaments via his promise doctrine, but it is not grounded in the CR/CW/CG.


----------



## Scott (Jun 6, 2005)

Good thoughts, Rich.


----------

