sensus plenior?

[thistle93]

Hi! Would the "sensus plenior" fuller sense hermeneutic deal in part with the way the NT authors interprets the OT prophecies? In the sense that we are to interpret the OT by the light we receive from the NT. That is helps us to see what of the OT prophecies are to be taken symbolically and what to take literal and more importantly those fulfilled in Jesus Christ and consummated in the New Heaven. Is this a legitimate hermeneutic to use, if done with care and not taken to extreme, just like issue of types in the OT? Did the Reformers/Puritans use this hermeneutic or was it primarily one done by the Roman Catholic Church? Does it relate to a Redemptive/Historical Hermeneutic? Any books you recommend on topic? Thank you!




For His Glory-
Matthew Wilson

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"sensus plenoir" is not a term that well-describes Reformed hermeneutics. The idea behind "sensus plenoir" seems to be a multi-valent concept, kind of like the ancient and medieval quadriga, which conceived the prophetic word as being from the beginning almost infinitely elastic. To get the "full sense," therefore, is to maximize a text's potential to convey religious truth.

The Reformed interpreter is interested in the mind of the Spirit at any place in Scripture. The meaning may be "rich," but it is still single. William Ames (Puritan author of The Marrow of Theology) said: "There is only one meaning for every place in Scripture. Otherwise the meaning of Scripture would not only be unclear and uncertain, but there would be no meaning at all--for anything which does not mean one thing surely means nothing." This is the basic Puritan hermeneutic.

The issue for Christological interpretation is simply this: is he in the original message all along? Wasn't he always the key to interpretation? The post-apostolic church went in two directions, hermeneutically. On the one hand, the Antiochenes were the "textual" school, the non-speculative side. On the other hand were the Alexandrines, who's efforts eventually gave the church allegorization. One of the ironies of history is that the "speculative" school dominated interpretation for over 1000 years. The Antiochenes (at least some of them) even got condemned for their punctilious literalism. And frankly, it was at least partially deserved. Because some of them were proto-rationalists.

The Alexandrines were trying (in my estimation) to continue the apostolic tradition of the Christian (Messianic) interpretation of Scripture (OT). Unfortunately, they did not have the apostle's deft handling, or their background in the Jewish faith. In fact, the leading problem in hermeneutics from the apostolic and sub-apostolic period to the Renaissance and Reformation period was the loss of the Hebrew Bible, and the loss of continuity with the OT people of God, except as mediated through the lens of Greek philosophy and Latin hegemony.

The NT does not impose a meaning on OT prophecy that was never yet present until Christ came. A Redemptive-historic hermeneutic treats the OT as a substantive witness to the coming, dying, and rising Christ all along and throughout. The apostles themselves instruct us in the task by displaying their methodology through their work. They reveal themselves to be thoroughly baptized by the OT Scriptures. So conversant are they with it, their NT lines not only show their quotations, but their unconscious adaptations of its rhythms and modes of thought.

It was for this reason, the severing of the church from its whole-cloth relation to the Hebrew world of the OT, that the church had such a confused relationship with the OT. The late-ancient and Medieval church, more informed by Greek philosophy and Gredo-Roman culture, then tended to read-back-into the OT its new modes of thought; and to imagine a "primitive" OT basic text, that the more advanced spirituality of the NT could appropriate after dispensing with the literal. Such was characteristic of Medieval Roman exegesis. But for all its failures, at least the church in its best moments was hoping to find Christ in the OT. Rationalistic readings, both ancient and modern, tend to eliminate him.

Again, I don't think the "sensus plenoir" approach is the proper one, myself. in my opinion, it is a mistake to find a binary focus in the Bible, OT and/or NT--that is, one sun around which orbits the interests of national Israel; and another sun around which orbits the interests of Christ; with these two in a kind-of interlocking gravity-well. It seems to me, the "fuller sense" approach tries to maximize the "OT relevance" of the second-sun for this age.

My preferred way of reading the OT is that it has--and only ever has had--one essential "center," that is Christ. The national entity served the purpose of bringing him into the world, and the promises that were to them are found in him as the ideal, and belong to all those who find their center in him--past, present, and future.

 

[Josiah.W]

I'm trying to work through some of these hermeneutical questions at the moment. Would advocates of "sensus plenoir" aim to distance themselves from an arbitrary allegorizing of the text and instead speak of a "fuller meaning" in light of typology? E.g, passages in the OT which applied to a Davidic king are connected with Christ in the NT. Or the temple in the OT and Jesus who says, "destroy this temple...". This means that there isn't some sort of imposing on the text, or interpreting it through an external grid.

So if we were to preach from any of these OT texts with the NT in the back of our mind, wouldn't we recognize there is a "deeper meaning" which the OT authors did not fully grasp but is made known through Christ?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

When you say:

passages in the OT which applied to a Davidic king

what is the sense of this application? Do we begin by presuming the the prophetic writer understands that he is penning revelation, and not simply making a record of a king's dates and doings? Was a "coronation hymn" like Ps.24 written to flatter David or his sons, and only later was it identified as "something special"?

Is it an inherent aspect of revelation, and attuned receivers, that they recognize revelation as soon as they hear it? I think this is true, even if it is "over our heads," or we puzzle over its deeper meanings, and pray for both insight and fulfillment of everything that I don't understand. There was history and records, official and unofficial, down through Israel's history. We don't have any of those, unless such things were incorporated into the prophet's collection. And if it was, it was for a different purpose altogether than simply recording particular facts about a person or an event or an era.

The reason for every sentence of OT revelation is to engender hope in Messiah-on-the-way. And I submit that the prophet writing it down understands that fact. "Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when he testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit from heaven--things which angels desire to look into," 1Pet.1:1-12.

In other words, it is part of the prophet's job to remind the people of God, whether high or low, that they not only have a personal responsibility to believe God's truth and obey his Word; but also that they were living a foreshadowing existence, a "typological" role as the Israel of God. Now, a person of any station--absent the prophet's vision--could no more see how he fit into the big-picture of the divine plan of redemption as it was happening, than you or I know how future histories will remember our time and place. It is a rare person who understands that history is pivoting on his decision. And usually our inflated self-perception is still wrong, no matter how "important" we are in the current world-scheme.

Does the OT only become typological, when Christ comes on the scene, when he starts "backfilling" the events and words of the OT with new spiritual significance? Are Jesus and his apostles putting an "overlay" on top of the OT records, on top of materials that were originally quite earthy and mundane, and perfectly and fully intelligible apart from the ostensible Reference Point? Or, are Jesus and the apostles making the prophetic word more sure, or confirming it, 2Pet.1:19, and showing that the typological history and kingdom are now receiving their proper interpretation?

Yes, its true that the prophetic word is presented in an "original" context, and we do ourselves a service to see it as well as we are able in that light--because that surely sets the stage for seeing the same passage in the "destination" context, the fulfillment context that is in light of the now-revealed purpose for the original setting having a setting. My point in the earlier post was to suggest that we resist the label "sensus plenoir," or full(er) sense as descriptive of a Reformed hermeneutic of any stripe. The meaning of the text never "inflated" over time. Nor is it proper, in my opinion, to speak of two "levels" of meaning, as if each one had an distinct, appropriate audience of appreciation.

Scripture is always sufficient to reveal what is important to be revealed--but this is a Holy Spirit function, not a mental/spiritual capacity function. Here's an analogy to grade school: imagine a special textbook is sufficient to reveal to the third-grader the tools he needs to do third-grade work. But he doesn't understand everything on the page. But this is a textbook that he will not outgrow, but will begin again next fall at the beginning and work through it again. The lesson plan doesn't change, but HE changes, and the book continues to shows him lessons integrated with what has gone before and what comes after. What is filling up is not the meaning of the text, but the student's mind; integration was there the whole time.

A biblical example: what did the text mean (to those experiencing, and later to their great-great grandchildren) when it relayed that the tribes were encamped in order around the Tabernacle in the wilderness? Did it merely mean that the Israelite camp got some organization and discipline imposed on a bunch of unruly scamps? Is that the first-order meaning? Did the people later living in the land hear the story as a kind of "wild-west" past history, when the settled conditions they later enjoy (with a central shrine) were formatively begun even in unsettled times? Or is this revelation, starting from the very moment its given, all about God's dwelling in the midst of his people, to forgive their sins, and protect and provide for them? This reality relates, somehow, to the Messiah who will come, and this is the core hope of the people who walk by faith, and not by sight.

The meaning of the text hasn't changed. WE, the readers/hearers, have changed; and the sum of the revelation has grown larger, and so the whole has become richer.

 

[Josiah.W]

Thanks for a great response! My only question would be concerning passages like Ex. 17:6 and Num. 20:2-. Here the "rock" is referred to as Christ in 1 Cor. 10:4. Is this an example of the Scriptures taking on a "deeper meaning", considering the original passages do not seem to anticipate Christ the Rock?

 

[py3ak]

Josiah, I can't answer as well as Bruce would be able to, but I think the right response would be to ask why those passages do not seem to anticipate Christ. Is it because the Holy Spirit didn't mean them to so anticipate him? Or is it because the anticipation of Christ always contained in them is now easier to see, in the light of additional revelation? It is not uncommon in many books for later portions to take up something that seemed just a matter of detail at the time it was first introduced, and show that it actually had profound significance. Many detective stories largely hinge on precisely this further "revelation". It was always important that there was a smell of tobacco lingering in the study, or that the second bullet could not be found, or what have you; but the fact and nature of that importance was not always apparent to everyone. To Moses and David many things held significance that might not have been apparent to Hillel or Huppim: the advantage of reading further along is that the significance becomes clearer.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

the original passages do not seem to anticipate Christ the Rock

This is precisely the point at issue. Why don't they seem to anticipate him? Or, why don't they seem to anticipate him to some interpreters?

I suggest the problem is not in the text, but in the interpreter. Paul (I submit) is reminding his readers that Christ was there, and is in those texts, and was never absent from them. So, what might be wrong with the way we are approaching those texts, that prevented us from seeing that he was there all along?

Moses was the first preacher of those texts. How did he interpret those experiences to the very people who experienced them? I'm of the mind that he interpreted them "Christologically," however weak or dim the vision of Christ was under those shadowy signs. The people as a whole were exceedingly weak in spiritual perception. This is still the infancy of the church. And like a child, Israel is ignorant, petulant, selfish, willful. There's more ungodliness in them (as a whole) than godliness. The "rod of correction" is needed to drive out the overwhelming folly of "Israel, my son."

We have a hard time understanding both the positive and negative aspects of the people of God in those days. We tend to underestimate the Messianic perceptions and hopes of the people--of the prophets especially (who had extra measures of Holy Ghost presence, far more than the typical believing Israelite whose endowment was measured in drops, not in an outpouring). We forget to study the people of those ages at both an individual and corporate level, and understand the nation as a whole is loved for the sake of the elect within her; they are like sanctification in a sinner, flecks of gold in a dunghill. There's a long way for the church to go, way back then.

Take a look at the church today. Oh yea, there's still a long, long way to go to get to perfection; and even so that result will have to wait for the end of all things. But its possible to see in the church growth in grace and knowledge of our Lord in the past few thousand years. The message hasn't changed from when we were an infant in the wilderness. But we have been imparted over that time a great deal of enhancement of our awareness and spiritual perceptions. It began with Moses, who "esteemed the reproach of Christ of greater worth than the treasures of Egypt" Heb.11:26.

 

[Josiah.W]

Thanks for all your help, I'll have to keep reading I think.