Latin for "fuller sense/meaning." It is used in biblical interpretation to describe the 'deeper' or 'fuller' meaning that some think is intended in a Scriptural text intended by God but is not plain or intended by the human author.
One of the issues in New Testament studies is that its authors often seem to cite or allude to passages from the Old Testament and give them significance that do not seem 'natural' to the passages when read on their own. A good example of this is found in Peter's sermon to the crowd on the day of Pentecost:
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. David said about him:
"'I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
Therefore my heart is glad
and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will live in hope,
because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.'
Read on its own, surely David was simply speaking of himself in Psm 16, but Peter cites David as speaking about Jesus. Some scholars have claimed that while David's words were about himself, nonetheless, un-indented by David, the Holy Spirit had a "fuller meaning" in those words than David realized.
While this seems to make sense at first, it also raises all sorts of difficult questions, one of the most worrisom being the risk of unscrupulous preachers claiming sensus plenior to support all sorts of self-serving and heretical teachings. How do we decide when sensus plenior is, in fact, present and when it is not. When preaching, it is best to avoid the term all together. Those who do not know the concept will not be much enlightened by the short explanation you can give, while those who already know the concept will probably question your application. There is little to be gained either way. The significance of the passage you are dealing with can be explained clearly enough without a sigh about sensus plenior.
Further Reading & Resources:
☰ Douglas J. Moo, "Chapter Five. The Problem of Sensus Plenior," Hermeneutics, Authority, Canon, ed. by D.A. Carson and J.D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986).
☰ Douglas A Oss, “Canon as Context: The Function of Sensus Plenior in Evangelical Hermeneutics” in Grace Theological Journal 9.1 (1988) 105-127.
☰ Jack R. Riggs, "The 'Fuller Meaning' of Scripture: A Hermeneutical Question for Evangelicals," Grace Theological Journal 7.2 (1986): 213-27.
☰ Robert L. Thomas, "The New Testment Use of the Old Testament," The Master's Seminary Journal 13/1 (2002): 79-98.
☰ William Sanford LaSor, "Prophecy, Inspiration, and Sensus Plenior," Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978): 49-60.
☰ PB Payne, "The Fallacy of Equating Meaning with the Human Author's Intention," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20.3 (1977): 243-252.
☰ Julius Muthengi, "A Critical Analysis of Sensus Plenior," East Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology 3.2 (1984): 63-73.
©ALBERITH
210720lch