Posted on 01/18/2010 12:56:55 AM PST by Gamecock
Although it is a common sentiment today to deny that a literal, grammatical-historical hermeneutic could allow for any sensus plenior in the text of scriptures, because it would violate the principle of each text having only one meaning, the simple fact is that this understanding is based more upon a naturalistic, or literalizing hermeneutic, than the grammatical-historical hermeneutic of the Church Fathers and Reformers. But more to the point, this denial of sensus plenior is in direct contradiction to the testimony of the scriptures themselves, as to how they should be read and understood. Throughout the Old Testament, the bible gives explicit indication that the historical events and persons recorded, although they must be read “literally” as actual events in time and space, very often signify something deeper, that has to do with God's eternal design; for instance, Jacob and Esau's struggling together in the womb, although a real historical occurrence, is expressly said to indicate the future struggle of the nations of Israel and Edom (Gen. 25:22-23); and so also with many other things.
Furthermore, the New Testament teaches both by clear declaration and example that the whole Old Testament has a spiritual and Christ-centered meaning, to which all the recorded historical occurrences point (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 8:5; Luke 24:44-48; and also Gal. 4:21-31; 1 Pet. 3:20-22; Mat. 2:15; 12:39-40). Moreover, the prophecies which had to do with Israel, the tabernacle, and so on, had a deeper meaning, involving Christ and the Church, and were ultimately fulfilled according to this deeper meaning (cf. Acts 15:14-17; Heb. 8:8-13; 10:14-22; 2 Cor. 1:20); the Psalms, although they often had an immediate reference to David, still had an ultimate reference to Christ, the seed of David (cf. Mat. 13:35; John 13:18; Acts 2:25-32; Heb. 2:11-14); and so with every part of the Old Testament (e.g. Eph. 5:30-32).
Often, those who argue against any sensus plenior in scripture indicate that, to allow this deeper sense would be to open up the bible to fanciful allegorizing, according to the whims of the interpreter; but in fact, the principle of sensus plenior, or in other words, the typological understanding of every part of the Old Testament, is vastly different from fanciful allegorizing, for it is rooted in actual, concrete history, and tethered always to Christ and his redemptive work alone; these principles, which are borne out everywhere in New Testament expositions of Old Testament scriptures, will keep all interpretation from wandering astray from the truth.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and state that this will NOT be one of the colossal 4000+ posts threads :)))
LOL!
I AGREE.
:)
Given that Paul was used to Midrash Hermeneuticsshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
10
This is where the problem is, the assumption here is that one meaning is violated by having multiple senses to every verse in the Bible.
According to Church Fathers the Bible has a literal sense, a moral sense, and a spiritual sense.
Yet all of these "senses" reveal the one meaning of the Bible which is in the person of Jesus Christ. One of the earliest Church Father we know who specifically talked about the multiple senses was Origen (its too bad we do not have his hexapala)
As for the part about "fanciful allegorizing" that comes from scripture does not detract from the full meaning of Sacred Scripture simply because allegory, if it is real allegory always has to be grounded in the subject it allegorizes about.
So if the deeper meaning of Sacred Scripture is about Jesus Christ as savior, then the "allegories" that are present in scripture do not contradict belief in Jesus Christ.
Remember that the term "Allegory" does not point to or reference itself, in the sense that it has any meaning by itself, it has to remain grounded in the subject it is an "allegory" about in order that it not be meaningless gibberish.
When approaching the Bible, one has to accept that the major premise of the book was to make present Jesus Christ the Son of God to us. If we cannot start with that, then we already are taking false prejudices to scripture.
The Reformers rejected the patristic literal, moral, spiritual (and allegorical) interpretive scheme as obscuring and adding way too much gloss far and away from the center of the original meaning as intended by the original author.
From the heretic Origen’s day up even into the present day, prejudice and prudery against ancient love poetry (often by the celibate curia) made Solomon’s “Song of Songs” for example, into nothing BUT allegory about Christ and the Church. Since the Church is the bride of Christ, such allegory surely IS in accord with original meaning, but, it also surely isn’t the center of it.
Solomon was certainly writing a love poem about a real (even if idealized) flesh and blood man and wife...and that’s the center of the original meaning. Yes, on the edges we can understand how ideal marital love is somehow deeply reflective of that between Christ and the Church, still, Solomon was writing about eros, not agape—and unless that’s understood as the center of meaning of the text in historical context, all else leads to nonsense.
Preaching/teaching from the “Song of Songs” is much more appropriate when speaking about courtship and marriage, than about ecclesiology....
What I am getting at is that the sensus plenior (sense of the whole) defended in the article is a different animal than the wholesale disruptions and obscurances seen throughout the Middle Ages using the 4 fold literal/moral/spiritual/allegorical complexities of patristic interpretation. Gramatical/Historical interpretation is not the isolated out-of-context thing liberal scholars made it, but neither is a recognition of sensus plenior gift of the Holy Spirit in scripture a return to dark-ages style hermeneutics.
It is no coincidence that Luther, and other Reformers were students of Ockham, with his razor. That philosophic tool of precision and single mindedness is what philosophers of science agree made the modern world possible.
These read the Bible as individualists, in fact egotists. The Bible is to be read as a community of believers, past and present. Anything else leads to secret wisdom, gnostic tendencies.
I don’t suggest that the Historical/Grammatical hermeneutics are at odds with the central meaning of scripture, (If properly put into context), I am stating that ones hermeneutic has to be grounded in the central reality of God’s revelation of himself to us in scripture.
If we cannot get to that, then we cannot ever understand sacred scriptures.
So, I don’t intend to suggest a method that has not had the same use as it once had. I am merely using it as an example that multiple senses, can and should be used to understand sacred scripture.
Even Ockham’s Razor is not without certain elements of illogicality. And the basic presuppositions of science, as we understand them, cannot withstand its own skeptical method. You cannot prove over and over again that what is provable is provable by empiricism. You can only take it as a given that things are as they are when they are used to prove something else.
But my point is that one cannot simply take the Bible and read it objectively. The Bible is far too confrontational of basic presuppositions to be read as if it was only a work of man.
I agree with you. I’m a big believer in Anselm’s famous dictum (which I believe he got in principle from Augustine, everyone major in between, and, really scripture itself), that is the principle of “faith seeking understanding.”
“Lord I believe. Help me now to understand.” Without initial faith (which I believe is a gift of God) one simply cannot understand spiritual truth, and of course, the bible itself.
The stipulation that murder is wrong is based firstly on the very fact the no man has the right to end the life of another man. God is not a man, but became one in order to assume our humanity, and thus change its character.
The wages of sin are death, but more importantly, why have a problem with Genocide when all men will die anyway?
Is it not true that the day one is born he begins to die?
Death is actually a kind of transition. So no, murder is wrong because as men we do not have the right to take and usurp the God given life of others. That is not the same when men are all sinners in God’s eyes.
God, however, can kill men and that would be justice, as what happened when his days were numbered after the fall in the Garden of Eden.
This relates to the question of theodicy though.
Remember Romans 1:18-32, and death being a consequence falling away from God. That is a requirement for both freedom in mans actions, and justice to coincide.
Thank you for this post. It is encouraging. I am examining what I think is reproducible and verifiable sensus plenior. I need some critical eyes to view it.
The primary objection to sensus plenior is the historical free-for-all allegory. Yet even those who are opposed to sensus plenior have never been able to totally ignore it because Christ is spoken of in all the scriptures. There are few who do not see the aprons of Adam and Eve as representing man’s works. We are told there are “types” and “shadows” and God speaks in “riddles” yet there are few who address shadows and riddles.
I am using a first century hermeneutic to discern the rules that constrain the meaning of sensus plenior. Your comments are welcome here or there.
It is best to start with the about page, then the rules, then follow sequentially through the main presentation.
http://www.sensusplenior.net/?page_id=2
Thanks in advance for your kindness.
Bob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.