Talk:Sensus plenior

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Examples of sensus plenior[edit]

The creation of Adam and Eve[edit]

Do you want examples of sensus plenior?

For instance: An example of sod is found in Gen 2:21 where each word used has multiple meanings that can be verified with a Hebrew dictionary. 'Took" also means 'married', flesh:mankind, rib:limping or side, etc. By replacing Christ for Adam, the hidden meaning says "And God caused Christ to die and he died, and he married his limping side and redeemed mankind." The limping side of Christ would be the side with the bruised heel, and of course he married the church. These ideas contained in the double entendre would have been foreign to the author, and as such constitute plausible sensus plenior.

Just drop a note here if you think they are appropriate.

Jonah[edit]

I think the best and clearest example of Sensus plenior is the story of Jonah. Jesus said, "For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."[1] One can not argue that the writer of Jonah knew that the length of time Jonah spent on the fish would correspond to the amount of time the Messiah was dead. Well, I guess one could. Have fun trying. Stephen Bolintalk 07:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Examples[edit]

Preliminary remark: this article concerns a religious topic; although the content is pretty thin it may be useful to know about. But Wikipedia is an encylopedia of human (real) knowledge, not religious "revelation", and therefore an "example" of sensus plenior should be provided with a citation, not of course showing that the magic meaning exists -- it doesn't -- but saying what exponents of what religion have accepted as an example. The claimed "obvious" example of Jonah makes no logical sense at all: even supposing that all the events cited actually occurred historically, Jesus simply gave an analogy, that just as one thing took three days and three nights, so another would take three days and three nights. This does not imply magic knowledge on the part of the original writer of the story of Jonah. So I deleted the example, and also the reference to the list of Latin phrases, which is no more relevant than a link to an English dictionary. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

John Goldingay in Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation calls Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 a "stock example" of sensus plenior. Interestingly, he mentions Jonah in the previous page as an example of typology. I also note that this source says that sensus plenior is different to typology in that the meaning is in the words rather than the people or the event. So I think that would rule Jonah out, and I support its omission. But we should include Isaiah 7:14. StAnselm (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC) (linkified: Imaginatorium (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC))

Missing source[edit]

What is the source for the claim that 'when the Founding Fathers read Genesis 1:16 they identified deeper meaning and asked, "Since God separated the powers of light into three separate and distinct categories, could we, intern do the same with governmental powers."'?

And if 'There are several such references found in the Founding Fathers works.' where might one find such references?

5.80.64.69 (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Holy Bible (2001). English Standard Version. Wheaton Bible Society.