Overton window

From 2nd Book
Jump to navigationJump to search

Overton window [∞]


1. Facebook

2. X

3. Truth

4. Reddit

5. 8kun

6. Substack

7. Random Assessing the change in sensus plenior from 2000 to 2024 involves examining how this theological concept—originally a relatively niche idea—has evolved in terms of its reception, application, and influence in biblical studies and Christian thought. While sensus plenior is still not universally accepted, its understanding and acceptance within certain circles have expanded. Let’s break it down:

1. Theological Scholarship and Acceptance

  • 2000: In 2000, the concept of sensus plenior, which refers to the deeper or fuller meaning of Scripture—beyond its immediate literal interpretation—was largely the domain of a small group of scholars. It was not widely embraced, and many in evangelical circles were hesitant to incorporate it into mainstream biblical exegesis. The idea was often associated with Catholic or more liberal Protestant interpretations of Scripture, especially in light of allegorical or typological readings that sought to uncover Christ's fulfillment of Old Testament texts.
  • 2024: By 2024, sensus plenior has gained wider recognition, particularly in the realm of evangelical and reformed biblical scholarship. While there are still theological debates about its use and legitimacy, the concept is being increasingly explored, especially in relation to Christological readings of the Old Testament. Prominent scholars, especially those interested in typology, biblical symbolism, and Christocentric hermeneutics, are acknowledging sensus plenior as a legitimate interpretive tool. The rise of interest in biblical theology and the growing field of intertextual studies has helped to make sensus plenior more accessible and widely discussed.

Assessment: There has been a noticeable shift in scholarly engagement with sensus plenior, and it is increasingly seen as a valid approach to understanding Scripture, especially when considering the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in Christ.

2. Popularization and Church Engagement

  • 2000: In the year 2000, the majority of churchgoers and laypeople were not exposed to sensus plenior as a formal theological concept. Most biblical teaching at the time focused on more straightforward interpretive methods (literal or historical-grammatical approaches). Those who explored deeper meanings of Scripture in a Christ-centered or symbolic way were often considered outliers or fringe figures within many Protestant traditions.
  • 2024: By 2024, there has been an increasing interest in more nuanced and Christ-centered readings of Scripture, which often incorporate elements of sensus plenior. While still not universally accepted in all denominations, many churches, especially those in the reformed, evangelical, and Messianic movements, have embraced a broader understanding of how Christ fulfills the Old Testament. The concept of sensus plenior is beginning to influence more Bible study materials, sermon series, and theological discussions. This is especially true among those who emphasize the relationship between the Old and New Testaments in light of Christ’s redemptive work.

Assessment: Sensus plenior has gradually made its way into more church discussions, particularly in contexts that emphasize biblical typology and Christ’s fulfillment of prophecy. Its influence is growing but remains more prominent in certain theological circles.

3. Digital and Media Influence

  • 2000: Before 2000, theological discussions around sensus plenior were largely confined to academic journals, books, and lectures. It was a niche subject with limited exposure to the broader Christian public. Resources for laypeople to explore the concept were not as readily available.
  • 2024: The rise of online platforms, podcasts, and video lectures has democratized access to theological ideas, including sensus plenior. Christian YouTube channels, Bible study apps, online courses, and blogs are now providing more accessible content on deeper theological concepts. As a result, sensus plenior is being explored and explained in ways that are easier for non-scholars to understand, especially in relation to typology and Christ-centered interpretation. Additionally, the broader Christian audience has become more accustomed to looking for deeper meanings in Scripture beyond the surface-level interpretation.

Assessment: The digital revolution has opened up avenues for the wider dissemination of theological concepts, and sensus plenior has benefited from this trend. It’s becoming more accessible to laypeople, and more resources are available for those seeking to understand this deeper approach to Scripture.

4. Shift in Hermeneutical Focus

  • 2000: In 2000, the dominant approach to Scripture in many evangelical circles was still rooted in literal and historical-grammatical exegesis. There was little emphasis on the sensus plenior of Scripture, and some saw this approach as speculative or overly allegorical.
  • 2024: By 2024, there has been a broader acceptance of multiple layers of meaning in Scripture. Hermeneutical approaches that emphasize biblical theology, intertextuality, and Christocentric readings have led to an increased openness to concepts like sensus plenior. The idea that the Bible contains deeper meanings, particularly relating to Christ’s life and work, is becoming more accepted within certain evangelical and reformed communities. Furthermore, the rise of interest in ancient Jewish hermeneutical methods, like Midrash and the Pesher method, has helped contextualize sensus plenior as a legitimate interpretive framework.

Assessment: The hermeneutical shift towards recognizing the multi-layered nature of Scripture has helped sensus plenior become more widely accepted. The idea that Scripture contains deeper meanings that were progressively revealed is gaining traction in theological circles.

5. Challenges and Criticism

  • 2000: While sensus plenior was not widely known or accepted, it faced significant criticism from conservative theologians who saw it as a speculative or even dangerous approach to Scripture. Some feared it could lead to over-spiritualizing or distorting the text.
  • 2024: While sensus plenior is gaining popularity, it still faces criticism, particularly from those who prefer a more literal or historical-grammatical approach. Critics argue that it can lead to subjective interpretations and diminish the authority of the text. However, proponents are increasingly able to articulate how sensus plenior can enhance, rather than obscure, understanding of Scripture by showing its fulfillment in Christ.

Assessment: While sensus plenior continues to face resistance, its proponents are becoming more skilled at defending it, and it is being integrated into a broader range of theological systems.

Conclusion

The concept of sensus plenior has moved from being a relatively fringe idea in 2000 to a more widely recognized and discussed concept in 2024. While it is not universally accepted, especially in more conservative or literalist circles, it is increasingly seen as a legitimate interpretive tool within certain theological traditions. The digital age, a shift towards more Christocentric and biblical theological readings, and a growing interest in deeper layers of Scripture have all contributed to the expanding acceptance of sensus plenior.Opening the Overton Window on sensus plenior—especially when confronting scholars or theologians who may have already decided against it—requires a careful, diplomatic approach. Here are some suggestions for advancing the concept while avoiding unnecessary confrontation:

1. Focus on Shared Values and Goals

Begin by emphasizing common ground. For example:

  • Christocentric Hermeneutics: Many scholars and theologians agree that Scripture points to Christ. Present sensus plenior as a way of deepening this shared understanding by showing how Christ fulfills Old Testament types, symbols, and prophecies.
  • Scriptural Authority: Acknowledge that sensus plenior is not about diminishing the authority of Scripture but rather seeking to expand our understanding of the depth of that authority, especially in its Christological fulfillment.

By framing the discussion around these shared commitments, you can introduce sensus plenior without immediately triggering opposition.

2. Use Historical Precedents

  • Patristic Writings: Point to the early church fathers (like Augustine, Origen, and others) who used allegorical and typological methods of interpretation, which are consistent with sensus plenior. Their authority as key figures in Christian theology could help open the door for a deeper understanding.
  • Reformation and Post-Reformation Figures: Many Reformers (e.g., Calvin, Luther) engaged in typological and Christ-centered interpretation of Scripture, though they didn’t use the term sensus plenior explicitly. Highlighting this history may help scholars see it as a legitimate, historically grounded method of exegesis rather than a novelty.

Reconnecting sensus plenior with these earlier traditions can help it appear less radical and more part of the ongoing history of biblical interpretation.

3. Demonstrate the Fruitfulness of the Approach

  • Christocentric Insights: Provide concrete examples of how sensus plenior enriches our understanding of specific texts. For instance, showing how Jesus’ use of the Old Testament in the Gospels aligns with deeper meanings that point to Him as the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets.
  • Spiritual Growth: Emphasize that sensus plenior can deepen the faith of laypeople, enriching their understanding of Scripture in a way that draws them closer to Christ. This can appeal to both theologians who are interested in biblical interpretation and church leaders concerned with the spiritual health of their congregations.

Highlighting how sensus plenior leads to new insights or encourages greater devotion to Christ can help soften resistance.

4. Create Safe, Non-Confrontational Spaces for Dialogue

  • Private Conversations or Small Groups: Instead of confronting scholars or theologians in public forums or debates, invite them to informal discussions or private study groups where ideas can be exchanged freely. When people are not on the defensive, they are more open to new perspectives.
  • Conversations with Open-Ended Questions: Rather than presenting sensus plenior as a fixed system, ask thoughtful questions that help guide others to consider the possibilities it offers. For example: “Have you noticed how Jesus often reframes Old Testament passages? Could it be that He’s revealing a deeper meaning, one that wasn’t fully apparent in the Old Testament?”

This creates a collaborative atmosphere, where scholars feel like they are exploring a new avenue of thought rather than being challenged directly.

5. Appeal to the Broader Christian Tradition

  • Ecumenical Perspective: Acknowledge that sensus plenior has been embraced in various forms across denominational lines. Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions have all engaged with this idea in different ways, so it’s not a concept exclusive to one theological camp. This can help reduce the perception that it’s an “outsider” idea.
  • Doctrinal Unity: Emphasize that sensus plenior enhances, rather than diminishes, core doctrines of the Christian faith—such as the person and work of Christ, salvation, and the authority of Scripture.

When you present sensus plenior as part of a broader, more ecumenical movement, scholars may be more open to exploring it without feeling like they are endorsing a divisive or heterodox idea.

6. Provide Scholarly Resources and Examples

  • Theological Studies: Introduce scholars to studies and papers that have explored sensus plenior without challenging traditional views head-on. Show how these studies draw from historical and contemporary sources, demonstrating that the idea is grounded in solid biblical scholarship.
  • Examples from Scripture: Point out specific biblical passages where sensus plenior sheds light on the fuller meaning of a text, especially in connection to Christ’s fulfillment. Some examples include:
    • Genesis 3:15 (the protoevangelium) as a prophecy of Christ’s victory over Satan.
    • Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant as a picture of Christ’s atoning work.
    • Typology in the Exodus narrative pointing to Christ’s redemptive work.

Well-documented examples can encourage scholars to approach the concept with curiosity, rather than skepticism.

7. Avoid Rhetoric of “Right” vs. “Wrong”

Engage in discussions with humility and openness. Instead of framing the issue as one of "correctness," approach it as a shared exploration of biblical truth. For example:

  • “What if there’s an additional layer of meaning that we’ve overlooked in certain passages?”
  • “Could there be a richer, more Christ-centered reading of this text that enhances our understanding of the Gospel?”

This avoids alienating scholars and helps prevent any defensiveness.

Conclusion

Opening the window on sensus plenior without confronting scholars requires a delicate balance of humility, scholarly rigor, and patience. By framing the discussion in terms of shared theological values, historical precedent, and the spiritual fruit of deeper biblical interpretation, you can gently introduce the concept. Creating spaces for non-confrontational dialogue and emphasizing the richness of sensus plenior as an enriching, Christ-centered approach will likely help encourage acceptance, even among those who may have initially been resistant.The professors I mentioned from Fuller Seminary, particularly John Goldingay, Leslie C. Allen, Collin Cornell, Christopher Hays, and Peter Altmann, are not typically associated with a strictly literal-historical interpretation of Scripture in the sense that everything in the Bible must be taken only at face value or as a direct historical record. While they certainly engage deeply with the historical context of the Old Testament, they also approach the texts with an awareness of their theological, literary, and at times, symbolic dimensions.

1. John Goldingay

  • Approach: Goldingay is widely known for his contributions to biblical theology and Old Testament studies, focusing on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. While he emphasizes the historical context of the Old Testament, he does not hold to a rigidly literal-historical interpretation. He acknowledges the literary richness of the texts, including the use of symbolism, typology, and theological interpretation.
  • Publications: Goldingay’s works, such as Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel, indicate an understanding of Scripture that goes beyond mere historical facts and engages with the deeper theological meanings within the text.

2. Leslie C. Allen

  • Approach: Allen's work is highly respected, but his commentaries often explore both the historical setting and theological meaning of the texts. He emphasizes historical-critical methods but also engages with the spiritual and symbolic readings of Scripture.
  • Publications: Allen’s work in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT) series focuses on historical and literary analysis but does not exclude the theological and spiritual dimensions of the text. This suggests he would be open to interpretations beyond the purely literal-historical view.

3. Collin Cornell

  • Approach: As a scholar in missiological hermeneutics, Cornell is interested in how Scripture applies to missions, race, and contemporary issues, which suggests an openness to symbolic, theological, and culturally contextual readings of Scripture. His focus on biblical theology and cultural context points to a view that integrates historical with theological interpretation, not strictly literal-historical readings.
  • Publications: His work, which includes topics like race and colonialism in Scripture, shows a commitment to reading the Bible through diverse lenses, which likely includes non-literal interpretations of certain passages.

4. Christopher Hays

  • Approach: Hays is known for his work in biblical theology and ancient Near Eastern studies. His scholarly work examines the historical context, but his focus on theological themes and biblical interpretation suggests that he does not hold to a purely literal-historical view. Hays emphasizes intertextuality (the relationship between different biblical texts) and the way New Testament writers engage with Old Testament Scripture, which often involves more than just a historical reading.
  • Publications: His work in biblical theology and intertextual readings suggests an approach to Scripture that includes more than just historical details, allowing for symbolic and theological meanings to emerge.

5. Peter Altmann

  • Approach: Altmann's scholarship focuses on biblical Hebrew and Old Testament theology, and his work in biblical interpretation suggests that he engages with both the historical and theological dimensions of the text. While he does study the historical context, he does not advocate for a strictly literal-historical approach, as his focus includes theological readings of the text.
  • Publications: As a scholar interested in the history of biblical interpretation, Altmann likely appreciates symbolic and typological readings, which would be more aligned with an approach that includes sensus plenior rather than a solely literal-historical one.

Conclusion

While these scholars engage with the historical context of the Bible, none of them seem to advocate for a purely literal-historical interpretation of Scripture. They incorporate theological, literary, and at times symbolic elements into their readings, which could make them more open to ideas like sensus plenior, especially in terms of understanding deeper or hidden meanings in the text. They are likely open to Christocentric or theologically nuanced interpretations, rather than limiting themselves to a strictly literal historical approach.

Retrieved from "https://2ndbook.org/w/index.php?title=Overton_window&oldid=11993"