Questions raised by ISPA-type citations

Thomas answers these questions before comparing his Inspired Sensus Plenior theory to other modern writers. His biggest error is that he does not even pretend to use scripture for his authority in the answers.

1. "The first one is, Can the present-day interpreter assign additional and different meanings to OT passages in imitation of the applications made by the NT writers?"

The answer is no because of the principle of single meaning. To assign additional meanings would violate that inviolable rule of grammatical-historical interpretation. --Thomas

What is the Biblical warrant to say that this rule is inviolable, when Jesus and the disciples violate it? The answer by Thomas is that if we don't know how to do it, they must have had special powers to do it. And since we don't have special powers, we cannot do it. Did the Bereans (Acts 17) have special powers to check the preaching of the apostle against the scriptures? Of course not. The teaching of the apostles had to be validated by the OT scriptures or they would not have been accepted by those who read the OT scriptures.

2. "Does not the NT’s assigning of an application based on a second meaning to an OT passage violate that principle [of a single meaning]?"

That the passage has two meanings is obvious, but only one of those meanings derives from a grammatical-historical interpretation of the OT itself. The other comes from a grammatical-historical analysis of the NT passage that cites it. The authority for the second meaning of the OT passage is not the OT; it is the NT. -Thomas

Thomas has obviously confused himself. He implies that the second meaning is not attached to the OT passage, but is imbued by the special powers of interpretation that the NT author possessed. He nullifies his whole theory if there is not a second meaning in the text itself. There is no sensus plenior at all, and the NT writers have invented meaning. He again shows his confusion in the answer to the next question:

3. "Did God know from the beginning that the OT passage had two meanings?"

The answer is obviously yes.

Thomas just finished saying that the second meaning was not there, now God knows that it is there. He goes on to explain that God knows that stuff is hidden there, but he does not intend for us to see it. Since the sensus plenior exists to reveal Christ to the world, it is a dangerous position to take, to say that God does not intend to reveal Christ to the world through his word.

4. "Why did the NT writers attach the sensus plenior meanings to OT passages?”

Thomas explains that the fact that Gentiles would be co-heirs with Jews in the kingdom was not revealed in times past, and that God called him to reveal it.

If the doctrine of the inclusion of the Jews were not contained in the OT, then it would not be a mystery. A mystery is something that is there but hidden. It would be an enigma; something which cannot be known. Paul calls it a mystery which has been revealed.

Back to Robert L. Thomas