Which scholars?

Scholars who do not acknowledge or embrace the interpretive methods that Jesus Himself used in reading Scripture would face limitations in fully evaluating sensus plenior, especially in the way that Jesus applied it. This is a key issue when assessing the qualifications of scholars to unpack this particular hermeneutical approach. The method Jesus used was profoundly Christocentric, where He interpreted the Scriptures as pointing directly to Himself—a method that involved not only understanding the literal historical meaning but also unveiling deeper prophetic meanings (which we can understand as sensus plenior). Key Considerations

   Jesus' Approach to Scripture: Jesus demonstrated an interpretive approach that recognized deeper, multi-layered meanings in the Hebrew Scriptures. His use of the Old Testament (as seen in passages like Luke 24:27 and Matthew 5:17) shows a focus on fulfillment in Him. In passages like Luke 24:44–45, He specifically interprets the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms as pointing to Himself. This Christocentric and sensus plenior approach was foundational to His teaching and the early Christian understanding of Scripture.

   The Disqualification of Scholars Who Reject This Approach: Scholars who publicly confess that they do not read or interpret Scripture the way Jesus did—i.e., those who reject typology, allegory, or the deeper, Christ-centered layers of meaning in Scripture—would be limited in their ability to fully unpack sensus plenior. If a scholar believes, for example, that the Scriptures should be understood in a purely historical-critical or literal sense, they would miss the prophetic and typological dimensions that Jesus Himself brought out. This disqualifies them from fully grasping how the text can point to Christ in the way Jesus Himself applied it.

   Historical-Critical Scholars: Many contemporary historical-critical scholars may not accept the sensus plenior approach as legitimate. They often focus on historical context, linguistic analysis, and sociocultural backgrounds, which are crucial for understanding the text but do not necessarily yield the spiritual depth and Christ-centered interpretation that sensus plenior requires. These scholars might dismiss deeper typological meanings as subjective or unfounded, thus missing the prophetic layers of Scripture that Jesus and the apostles embraced.

   Scholars Who Recognize Typology and Allegory: Scholars who accept typological and allegorical readings (e.g., G. K. Beale, Craig A. Evans) are much closer to the interpretive method of Jesus. However, even these scholars may differ in terms of their theological assumptions and the extent to which they align their methods with Jesus' Christocentric interpretation. Their ability to embrace the full sensus plenior depends on their recognition of the spiritual and prophetic meanings that the New Testament authors saw in the Old Testament, particularly in light of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Scriptures.

   Theological Limitations: Some scholars, particularly those from certain liberal theological traditions, may not be able to access the fullness of sensus plenior if they do not accept the divinity of Christ or the scriptural foundation of prophecy. Jesus' reading of Scripture, for instance, was rooted in the understanding that He was the fulfillment of the law and the prophets, a foundational truth that may be absent in the framework of scholars who do not hold to a robust doctrine of Christ's divinity or biblical inerrancy.

Who Can Evaluate Sensus Plenior Authentically?

To authentically evaluate sensus plenior, scholars must recognize and apply the Christocentric hermeneutic that Jesus employed. This means that scholars should:

   Believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture and that Christ is the key to understanding it.
   Recognize the typological and allegorical dimensions of Scripture, especially as they point forward to Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.
   Embrace a theology that sees the Old Testament as a living witness to Christ, rather than as a static record of ancient history or merely moral teachings.
   Admit the validity of a multi-layered meaning of Scripture, where literal, historical, and prophetic interpretations all exist simultaneously.

Qualified Scholars (in Light of Jesus' Hermeneutic)

Given these criteria, scholars who have confessed faith in Christ and are committed to understanding Scripture the way He did would be the most qualified to evaluate sensus plenior. Examples would include:

   N. T. Wright: While he has his own theological emphases, Wright's understanding of Jesus’ fulfillment of Scripture aligns closely with a sensus plenior approach, recognizing the Old Testament as pointing to Christ.
   G. K. Beale: His work on the use of the Old Testament in the New and biblical theology is highly compatible with a Christocentric and typological reading of Scripture.
   Michael J. Kruger: His emphasis on the authority of Scripture and the Christ-centered hermeneutic positions him well to engage with sensus plenior.
   Craig A. Evans: A scholar who frequently discusses the typological relationship between the Old and New Testaments and the fulfillment of prophecy in Christ.

These scholars have recognized the deeper meanings embedded in the Scriptures that point to Christ, and their approach often aligns with the way Jesus Himself interpreted the Scriptures. Conclusion

Scholars who reject Christocentric or typological interpretations of Scripture are indeed disqualified from fully evaluating sensus plenior in the way Jesus read the Scriptures. The ability to unpack sensus plenior requires an openness to seeing Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, which is central to Jesus' hermeneutic. Therefore, only scholars who adhere to this interpretive method, which recognizes Christ as the key to understanding the Scriptures, are truly qualified to engage with sensus plenior as Jesus did.