WILLIAM SANFORD LASOR
2. THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF SENSUS PLENIOR
The spiritual meaning of a passage of Scripture, derived by using grammatico-historical exegesis, is completely valid and provides objective controls; but it often leaves us with a basic gap between the Old and the New Testaments. Take, for example, the account of the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7:
When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your son after you, who shall come forth from your body, . . . and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
(2 Sam. 7: 12-13)
The literal meaning is clear enough: The Lord is promising David, through the prophet Nathan (see v. 4)) an eternal dynasty. Saul had been the first king of Israel, but he established no dynasty; David had supplanted Saul’s son. The Lord was assuring David that his son would succeed him and the Davidic line would continue for future generations. We could add more details from the immediate context, such as the promise that David’s son would build the “house”
(temple) which David himself had longed to build for the Lord (7:13); that even though this son sinned, he would be chastened but not supplanted (7:14, 15); and that Israel would have a permanent and peaceful dwelling place (7: 10). The spiritual truth is also clear:
the Lord is faithful to keep the promises which he made to Abraham and the patriarchs concerning the people of his covenant in provid- ing for them not only the land but also a dynastic succession that would give them rest from their enemies, hence we may trust him to keep other promises to us who are also people of his covenant.
But there are obvious flaws in a methodology that stops here. For one thing, the Davidic covenant, if we understand it only literally, was not kept; it was broken. Israel did not continue to live “in their own place, and be disturbed no more” (7: 10); the Assyrians and the Babylonians uprooted them and demolished their holy temple. The throne of David was not “made sure for ever” (7: 16); it vanished in 586 B.C., and no king of the Davidic line has ruled since then. A second fact must be faced, namely, the New Testament writers con- sidered Jesus Christ to be the “son of David” and applied to Christ the promises that had been made to David. How can this be derived from the Old Testament text if we adhere strictly to the literal mean-
THE SENSUS PLENlOR AND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 5 7 ing and its spiritual truth? It becomes obvious that, for the New Testament writers (and for Jesus), at least, the Old Testament pas- sage must have some deeper meaning.
Symbol, Allegory, and qpe. There is a great deal of confusion in the terms that are used. According to some writers, “allegory” and
“type” are the same, and others would even include sensus plenior in this category. Therefore, I shall first attempt to specify the terms that I shall use.
All language is symbolic, for words and clauses are merely sym- bolic ways of communicating. The proof of this can be seen when we translate, for the purpose of translation is to convert one set of symbols to another while conveying the same meaning. In a large sense, then, the entire Bible, like all spoken or written language, is symbolic. Obviously, this is too broad a definition to be useful.
There are certain concepts which are capable of immediate visual- ization, for example, “chair,” “red,” “she smiled,” and so on. There are other concepts that cannot be visualized, such as “God,” “tran- scendence,” “ the age to come,” and so on. To communicate such ideas, we use symbols, making use of some visualizable word or expression. The Bible is full of such symbols, and these must be recognized and treated as such in order to understand the message that is intended. For example, the account of the garden of Eden includes a tree identified as “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2: 17). We are not told what kind of tree it was -and that is unimportant. The symbolic meaning of the tree is most im- portant, for it symbolized the right of the Creator to impose a sanc- tion on the Adamic creature, to say, “This is a no-no,” while at the same time it symbolized the free choice of Adam in his God-given ability to disobey the divine command. The serpent, likewise, is symbolic of the satanic. I use the word satanic here in its literal sense, to mean that which is adverse, specifically opposed, to God’s will.
The suggestion to disobey God’s command did not originate in the Adamic pair; it came from outside. Therefore, Adam cannot blame God for making him satanic. At the same time, Adam and his wife are culpable, for they had a clear revelation of the will of God and they knowingly disobeyed. So far, we are dealing with the literal meaning by seeking to understand the significance of the symbols.
This is clearly to be distinguished from allegory, as I use the word.
In some instances, the symbol is later replaced by a reality, or will be replaced by a reality in a future age. In this case, the symbol may properly be called a “type.” The reality may be called the
“antitype” of the symbol that it replaces. One of the best illustrations of this is the tabernacle which the Israelites constructed and carried with them during the wilderness period. The tabernacle was a port- able building, an elaborate tent with decorations and furnishings.
5 8 BIBLICAL AVENUES
But it was more importantly a symbol, symbolizing the presence of the Lord. This is indicated by the names which it bore, namely,
“tent of meeting,” and mis’kan, “dwelling place.” It was also indi- cated as such by another symbolic act, namely, the visible descent of the cloud upon the completed tabernacle (Exod. 40:34-38). The tabernacle, however, was later replaced by the reality, when God became incarnate in the virgin-born child, Emmanuel (which means
“God with us”). John puts this truth in clear language, “The word became flesh and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14, lit.).25 It is even possible to carry the symbolism further, and see the Incarna- tion itself as a symbol of a greater reality; for in the Holy City of Revelation, the “tabernacle” of God is with men, and God himself, the ultimate reality, makes any further symbolic representation of himself unnecessary (Rev. 21:2-3). Since the tabernacle was a symbol that was later replaced by the reality it symbolized, it is entirely proper to speak of the tabernacle as a &pe of Christ, and the earthly incarnation of Christ as a ppe of the presence of God himself in the new Jerusalem.
This use of the word tyi6e is clearly to be distinguished from al- legory. An allegorical interpretation of the tabernacle goes into fan- ciful explanations of every color, every type of material, every piece of furniture, and sometimes results in a portrayal of Jesus Christ in such detail that the Incarnation would seem to be unnecessary. It is certainly true that some of the items used in the tabernacle cultus were in themselves symbolic of spiritual truth, and even types of realities to come. The sacrifices of bulls and goats, which (as the author of Hebrews reminds us) were not able to take away sin, were typical of the sacrifice of Christ which does take away sin. Other items may profitably be studied in similar fashion. As long as we begin with the reality that is symbolized in the text and proceed to the reality that replaces the symbol, we have controllable interpre- tation of the text. It avoids the criticism leveled against allegorizing the text, often deserved, and yields the spiritual meaning of the scriptural passage.
To speak of certain biblical persons as “types” (such as “David is a type of Christ”) seems to me to be incorrect. David did sym- bolize something, but he was not a symbol. What he symbolized was later replaced by the reality when the Messiah appeared, but David himself was not replaced; and we believe that he shall con- tinue to exist forever in the age to come. I would prefer to say that
25. Even the verb in John, ske%oo, is reminiscent of the word for “tabernacle,”
which in Greek is Sk%.
THE SENSUS /TEN/OR AND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 5 9
the Davidic office or throne was the type, and the messianic reign the antitype.2s
Senses plenior. The term sensus plemor (“the fuller meaning”) is attributed to Andrea Fernindez in an article written in 1925. The subject has been treated most fully by the Catholic scholar Ray- mond E. Brown.27 Brown defines sensus plenior as follows:
The sensusptenior is that additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a Biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation.28
Brown’s earlier presentations of the concept called forth consider- able reaction, almost entirely limited to Catholic scholars, and a study of this material is most helpful -but it lies beyond our present purpose.2s Some of the objections and clarifications will be consid- ered here; those that deal principally with implications that concern Roman Catholic but not Protestant dogma we shall disregard.
The definition raises a particularly diflicult problem by its state- ment “intended by God, but not clearly intended by the human author. ” This concept, it would seem at first glance, lies beyond grammatico-historical exegesis and therefore opens the door for sub- jective interpretation. In fact, it seems clear from the discussion that ensued that some Catholic scholars were making use of sensusplenior and the magisterial teaching of the Church to support certain Mar- ian dogmas which Protestant scholars would disclaim as nonbibli- cal. At the same time, other Catholic scholars were raising the objection that if the biblical authors did not intend to teach some- thing, it was not allowable to read that teaching into the passage.
There are a number of Old Testament passages which are used by New Testament authors in a way that seems to support the con- cept of sensus plenior. We may mention two that cause difficulty, namely, the “virgin shall conceive” passage in Isaiah (Isa. 7:14), and the “out of Egypt” passage in Hosea (Hos. 11:l). In neither case is there any indication that the author had some distant future event in mind, hence it is most difficult to conclude that the authors were speaking of Jesus Christ or even an unnamed Messiah. Isa-
26. I have dealt with this matter more fully in my article in BDPT pp. 130-32.
27. Brown, “The History and Development of the Theory of a Sensus Plenior,”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 15 (1953): 141-62; The Sensus Plenior ofsacred Scripture (S.T.D.
dissertation; Baltimore: St. Mary’s University, 1955); “The Searus Plenior in the Last Ten Years,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963): 262-85. Fr. Brown gives extensive bibliography for further study, and his words deserve careful reading.
28. Brown, The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture, p. 92.
29. Brown’s article “The Searas Plenior in the Last Ten Years” will refer the reader to the most significant reactions.
6 0 BIBLICAL AVENUES iah 7 deals with Ahaz, king of Judah, and the Syro-Ephramite co- alition of Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel. The point does not seem to be a virgin birth, but rather it lies in the sequence of events:
a young woman is pregnant and will bear a son, and before this child is old enough to know good and evil, the Lord will deal with the enemy kings (Isa. 7:1-17).3o The prophecy is dated ca. 735 B.C., and the fulfillment occurred in 732 and 722 B.C. Hosea 11: 1 (“out of Egypt I called my son”) clearly deals with the deliverance of Israel from Egypt at the time of the exodus, and the words of verse 2 obviously cannot be applied to Jesus. The author is using the re- deeming love of the Lord in contrast with the stubborn sinfulness of Israel to get across his lesson. Yet both of these passages are cited as “fulfilled” in Jesus Christ (see Matt. 1:22-23 and 2:14-15). There are other passages in the New Testament that raise similar problems concerning the use of the Old Testament.
To say that “God intended” the Old Testament passages to refer to a later fulfillment in Christ raises as many problems as it solves.
If God intended to foretell the virgin birth of Jesus, why did he do it in just this way? Until Matthew quoted Isaiah 7:14, would any Jew who carefully read Isaiah 7 have thought of the Messiah at all,
much less have understood it to teach his virgin birth? It seems that it would have made more sense for God to have included the virgin- birth prophecy in Isaiah 9 or 11, both of which are more obviously passages dealing with a future period that could be associated with the Messiah. But any attempt to suggest what God should have done or what he intended to do is presumptuous, and I am reluctant to deal with his Word in such manner.
It is more common to find modern scholars suggesting that New Testament writers, notably Matthew and Paul, were simply using methods of their day, either “rabbinic exegesis,” or simply searching for proof-texts. I find this effort no better solution, and so I return to sensusplenior, but with some concern that the definition may need to be reworded slightly.
There are passages of Scripture where there is indeed something
“deeper” or “fuller” than the literal and the spiritual meanings as they appear on the surface. This has been obvious to the people of God through the centuries, and it occurs in the Old Testament, without the need of using New Testament illustrations. There is a deep sense of the organic nature of the elect people. The call of Abram was likewise a call to all of God’s people to forsake every- thing and follow him (a spiritual sense), and the promise of blessing 30. This is in no way to be taken as a denial of the virgin-birth of Jesus, which I cordially receive, believe, and teach, since it is clearly stated in Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:3 1, 34-35.
THE SENSUS PLENIOR AND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
to all the nations of the earth through Abraham and his descendants was indeed to be fulfilled by those descendants. Yet, when Isaiah considered the glories of the future, he saw Israel (the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob) and himself as in need of redemption (see Isa. 53).31 Israel is portrayed in the Old Testament both as a redemptive agent (and hence a type of the Redeemer) and as a redeemed community (hence either a type of the church or the earlier organic portion of which the church is a later portion). At the same time, the completion of the redemptive activity of the Lord always lies beyond the Old Testament. Thus there is afullness which is never achieved in the Old Testament but which is required. There is afuller meaning of the promises of the Lord than is ever realized in the Old Testament.
Take, for example, the “protevangelium” of Genesis 3:15. This is part of the curse which God pronounced on the serpent after the Adamic couple yielded to the temptation:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your ‘seed and her seed;
he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
To suggest that this story was first told to explain why women don’t like snakes is ridiculous. But to suggest that the surface meaning, namely, that descendants (or some one descendant) of the woman would deal a mortal wound to one of the serpent’s descendants, certainly does not exhaust the implicit purpose of the story. The entire account (Gen. 3: 14- 19) contains two interwoven strands, one of which speaks of defeat, suffering, toil, and death, while the other speaks of future generations, provision of food and sustenance of life, and triumph over the satanic tempter. To suggest that the “seed”
of the “woman” who would bruise the serpent’s head is a prophecy of Mary, the Virgin Birth, and Jesus, is to get more from the text than can be gotten by grammatico-historical exegesis, spiritual interpretation, and the objective processes of scriptural scholarship.
But to see a fullness in the story, in precisely the way it is told, that can be understood when (and only when) that fullness is revealed, seems to me to be reasonable. In the seed are all the elements that will ultimately develop into the tree, its leaves, and its fruit. Yet careful analysis of that seed, even under the highest-powered mi- croscope, will not reveal those elements. So it is, I believe, with Scripture.
Or again, take the Davidic covenant, which we discussed previ- ously. It is clearly implied that the Lord is speaking of something
3 1. See my book Israel: A Biblical Kew (1976), pp. 26-28.
6 2 BIBLICAL AVENUES
more than the successor of David on the throne, for the Lord de- clares a particular, personal relationship with the “son” of David:
“I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (2 Sam. 7:14). This, of course, was the same terminology used in Israel’s relationship to the Lord, and we should not press it to mean that the successor is to be the “son of God” -but it can involve such a concept, and indeed this concept appears with reference to the king of Israel in the Psalms (e.g., Ps. 2:7; 45:6). David wanted to build a “house”
for the Lord, and in denying him this privilege, the Lord promised that David’s “son” would make him a ‘Lhouse.” But as we read the passage more carefully, we find that the term “house” means some- thing more than a building (cf. 7:2, 6, 11, 13, 16). It is something that David’s “son” would build (7: 13)) and something that the Lord himself would build (7: 11). Like the throne, the house was to be permanent, and the Lord closed the promise with the words, “Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me”
(7: 16). Certainly this demands a fuller meaning than Solomon, the Davidic dynasty, and Solomon’s temple! It requires something more than a spiritual meaning. Even the people of the Old Testament came to realize that fact, for “son of David” came to be a term for the ruler who would inaugurate the age of justice and peace. They had more difficulty with the concept of the temple, but at least Jeremiah seems to have realized that the temple’s continual existence was not guaranteed (see Jer. 7:3-15). The early church saw the ful- fillment in Jesus Christ, the “son of David,” in his kingship, even though he had been crucified (see Acts 2122-36; 4:25-28), and in something other than Solomon’s temple (see Acts 7:44-50).
To take one more example out of many that might be chosen,32 let’s look at Micah 5:2,
But you, 0 Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are little to be among the clans of Judah,?
from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days. (Mic. 5:2 [MT 5:1])
The prophecy was spoken prior to the Assyrian invasion (see 5:5).
The scattering of Israel is in view (5:7). The people are filled with fear (4:9). The prophet not only deals with their sins, but he offers some promise of deliverance (4: lo), and he offers assurance that the Davidic line will again rule Israel. Of course, he does not mention the Davidic dynasty, but the ruler comes from Bethlehem, David’s ancestral home; and the “ruler” is one “whose origin is from of old,
32. I have dealt with several others in my article in BDPT, pp. 133-35.
THE SENSUS PLENIOR AND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 6 3
from ancient days” (5:2), not one from a new dynasty. Spiritually, this verse could be applied to any time of insecurity. But in the redemptive activity of God, an ultimate defeat of the enemies of God’s people is required, along with a ruler who shall provide se- curity and sufficiency for his people (5:3-4); and this fullness of meaning is present in the prophecy.