Sensus plenior

[Michael Collum]

And God caused Christ to die and he died, and he married a certain limping side and delivered mankind.

The limping side is his fleshly nature and the same as the bruised heel and Jacob's thigh.

Hey that's cool . i know my stuff sounds allegorical . but that's cause i tend to interpret both literal and figurative at the same time . (or at least try to .. i saw Jesus speak that way a lot)

 

[Bob Jones]

Gen 2:21
And God caused Christ to die and he died, and he married a certain limping side and delivered mankind.

This is what I am finding. Every scripture contributes to a word by word narrative concerning Christ. The book of Jonah starts with "The Word came to the dove" and tells the Holy Spirit's role in the cross. How he was grieved at the cross, and later took comfort from the Son.

There is a complete second book hidden within the first. Yes I know it sounds crazy and this is why I do not wish to banter allegorical interpretations, but to get others to verify if what I am seeing is real.

You are the most talented person I have met so far with correlation. Correlation alone produces allegory because there is the element of human invention. With the rules constraining it, it is sensus plenior, I believe. And I have found that it answers the questions in the OP.

 

[Michael Collum]

Have you tried looking at the gospel genealogies as a storyteller narrative? that was sooooooooooooo much fun!

i recall one of the names said Jesus snored .

 

[Michael Collum]

i like this line of study you're doing . i think it's an answer to prayer actually . looking forward to more studies .

but a book within a book .. that's cool . i've noticed a background theme when reading the books . but haven't tried to actually flesh out the hidden message in the text beyond what some today call "rhema"

 

[Bob Jones]

The genealogy in Matthew contains the titles of Jesus hidden in riddle:

Key:
second son = second son theme, where against the traditions, the second son receives the best inheritance. The first son represents the first man (Adam) and the fleshly nature. The second son represents the second man (Christ) and the heavenly nature.
only begotten son = although the person spoken of may have had siblings, the passage with his geneology doesn't mention them. In the same way, although Melchizadek, had earthly parents, they weren't mentioned so it emphasized that he was from outside of Israel, and symbolized Christ as the high priest. The passage uses the term "begat".
unbegotten only son = although these guys were obviously begotten by their fathers, the words used to relate the genealogy have been changed. Now rather than saying "begat" as above, it says "his son was". No siblings are mentioned in the genealogy.


1 second son - son of David
2 second son - son of Abraham
3 second son - Isaac
4 second son - Jacob
5 second son - Judas
6 second son - Phares
7 second son - Esrom
8 second son - Aram
9 only begotten son - Aminadab
10 only begotten son - Naasson
11 only begotten son - Salmon
12 only begotten son - Booz
13 only begotten son - Obed
14 only begotten son -Jesse

1 David (many titles)
2 unbegotten only son - Solomon
3 unbegotten only son - Roboam
4 unbegotten only son - Abia
5 unbegotten only son - Asa
6 unbegotten only son - Josaphat
7 unbegotten only son - Joram
8 unbegotten only son - Ozias
9 unbegotten only son - Jotham
10 unbegotten only son - Achaz
11 unbegotten only son - Ezekias
12 unbegotten only son - Manasses
13 unbegotten only son - Amon
14 unbegotten only son - Josias

1 Jechonias has brethren
2 Salathiel
3 Zorobabel
4 Abiud
5 Eliakim
6 Azor
7 Sadok
8 Achim
9 Eliud
10 Eliazar
11 Matthan
12 Jacob
13 Joseph
14 Jesus

Notice that Solomon is an unbegotten only son because God adopted him.
1 Chron 22:10 He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.

 

[Michael Collum]

I noticed along that line of second sons that the evening was born first . and the morning was born second .. but God called the morning good .

oh the 14 generations like eagles wings renewing strength Isaiah 40:30-31 and all that .

 

[Bob Jones]

Matthew's Genealogy of Christ

First man:second man in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus
This theme is a sub-category of “two=dual nature”. In it, the first man is earthly, and is associated with the earth by his name, occupation, lusts, etc. The second man is the one who finds the pearl of great price and will give all for it.
Definition: 1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. We can infer that ‘son’ is synonymous with ‘man’ from the following verse:
Ge 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. That son = man is inferred from the context of the passage. In this theme there are two “things” that each must fit into the earthly:heavenly pattern. So there must be four justifications for each pattern pair: one showing the identification as the first man, one showing the first man as the earthly man: one for the second man, and one for the second man as the heavenly man. I will use an abbreviated form since there is a plethora of examples. [I loved Three Amigos].



Adam::Christ

Adam = first man Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man Homograph man:Adam [man and Adam are the same word] Context. No man is mentioned being formed prior to Adam.
Adam = earthly man 1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy:.. Gen 2:7 … of the dust of the ground, Synonym earth:dust of the ground

Christ = = second man 1Co 15:47 …the second man is the Lord. Synonym Christ:Lord

Christ = = heavenly man 1Co 15:47 … from heaven. Synonym heavenly:from heaven

Cain::Abel

Cain = first son (of Adam) Ge 4:1 …she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. Context No others mentioned previously

Cain = earthly son Ge 4:2 … but Cain was a tiller of the ground. Synonym earth:ground

Abel = second son (of Adam) Ge 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel… Context. No other mentioned between Cain and Abel

Abel = = heavenly son Mt 23:35 … from the blood of righteous Abel … Synonym heavenly:righteous

Ishmael::Isaac

Ishmael = first son (of Abraham) Ge 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. Context No others mentioned previously

Ishmael =earthly son Deduced: God had promised a son (Isaac) and Ishmael was begotten in the flesh by a handmaid

Isaac =second son Ge 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: ... Context

Isaac = =heavenly son Ge 17:19 …and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. Defined: Inheritance of the covenant is given to the heavenly son Note: Name order reversal suggesting “first shall be last and last shall be first”. Ge 25:9 And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre;

Esau::Jacob

Esau = = first son Ge 25:25 And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau. Defined: first

Esau =earthly son Gen 25:33 And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Deduced: Esau did not value the birthright

Jacob = =second son Ge 25:26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau‘s heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them. Context

Jacob =heavenly son Gen 25:33 And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Deduced: Jacob valued the birthright

Ruben::Judah

Ruben = = first son Ge 49:3 Reuben, thou art my firstborn,

Ruben **earthly son (* for hidden) Gen 30:14 And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, Hidden: While he was supposed to be harvesting wheat (heavenly harvest) he was collecting mandrakes (lustful harvest).

Judah =second son Eze 48:31 And the gates of the city shall be after the names of the tribes of Israel: three gates northward; one gate of Reuben, one gate of Judah, one gate of Levi. Context

Judah = =heavenly son Ge 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Defined by the inheritance

Zarahharez

Zarah = first son Gen 38:28 And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first.

Zarah **earthly son Hidden: Scarlet thread

Pharez =second son Gen 38: 29 And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez. Context

Pharez =heavenly son Gen 38: 29 And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez. Deduced: He usurped the inheritance

Pharez::Hezron

Pharez = = first son 1 Chron 4:1 The sons of Judah; Pharez, Hezron, and Carmi, and Hur, and Shobal. Defined

Pharez **earthly son Hidden: Pharez was a twin representative of the God-Man. See Tamar::Mary. Here he is both first and second son.

Hezron = =second son 1 Chron 4:1 The sons of Judah; Pharez, Hezron, and Carmi, and Hur, and Shobal. Defined

Hezron =heavenly son Matt 1:3And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; Deduced: He inherited the promise

Jerahmeel::Ram

Jerahmeel = first son 1Ch 2:9 The sons also of Hezron, that were born unto him; Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Chelubai. Defined

Jerahmeel =earthly son Deduced: Lost the inheritance

Ram = =second son 1Ch 2:9 The sons also of Hezron, that were born unto him; Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Chelubai. Defined

Ram =heavenly son Matt 1:3And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; Deduced: He inherited the promise

Solomon**Christ

Solomon ** first son (of David) used as a title Ecc 1:1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Hidden: This is the first place “Son of David” is used as a title, rather than as a description of relationship.

Solomon **earthly son Hidden: The book of Ecclesiastes is about the vanity of the earthly world.

Christ **second son (of David) used as a title Matt 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David,… Hidden: This is the second place “Son of David” is used as a title, rather than as a description of relationship.

Christ **heavenly son Hidden: The book of Matthew is about the Kingdom of God
And here’s the real kicker: All these “second sons” are in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus.
Matt 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Matt 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; Matt 1:3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; The only one in this sequence I didn’t list is Abraham. All of the guys surrounding Abraham were second sons, so what does your gut tell you? You’re right. The gut says he’s a second son also. Can you discover how?

 

[Bob Jones]

I noticed along that line of second sons that the evening was born first . and the morning was born second .. but God called the morning good .

This is a good observation. In typology Dark is bad and light is good. However, in sensus plenior Light is Holiness, and dark is grace. His Holiness produces our condemnation. John says "this is the condemnation, that the light came into the world." And men hide their sin in the darkness. So we have received grace BUT we are to live in Holiness because obedience is better than sacrifice.

So we came out of grace... had we not been receiving grace while we were in sin God would have destroyed us. And we come into the light.. to live Holy lives. The light is very good ;-)

 

[Michael Collum]

Another thing i remembered . that even though Reuben was the first born . the house of Ephraim got rose up a hero first . Joshua whose Jesus name is derived from . of whom it is written "that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man" (Joshua 10:14) . then Reuben/Judah was used as the genealogy . possibly because being the first born . (Hebrews 12:23) interesting correlation .

 

[Michael Collum]

This is a good observation. In typology Dark is bad and light is good. However, in sensus plenior Light is Holiness, and dark is grace. His Holiness produces our condemnation. John says "this is the condemnation, that the light came into the world." And men hide their sin in the darkness. So we have received grace BUT we are to live in Holiness because obedience is better than sacrifice.

So we came out of grace... had we not been receiving grace while we were in sin God would have destroyed us. And we come into the light.. to live Holy lives. The light is very good ;-)

i can see that sorta . to clarify is this because Jesus became sin so we might be the righteousness of God? the light shines in the darkness but the darkness no comprendé? because i remember at the end of the creation week all of creation in harmony .. even the darkness in cycle with the light . was called very pleasing in His sight . since God is good . always need to be looking at how what He made is good . or be redeemed to be turned back to good .

 

[Michael Collum]

Solomon appears not only to be a type of Christ but the antichrist . in the same way peter was told in one stride .. that you're a chip off the old block .. and on this block i'll build my church .. and in the next breath .. get back from me satan ..

where i get this is .. most prominently the only other place six hundred threescore and six appears in the bible other than the popular Daniel verse is in the account of how much "gold" the king brought in each year .

also i recall a basket representing the wickedness of Judah being carried to Babylon by two female angels with wings . .. somewhere in the prophets . Jeremiah comes to mind .. but maybe not .

 

[Bob Jones]

i can see that sorta . to clarify is this because Jesus became sin so we might be the righteousness of God

Not quite. His life was the light of the world, and the light is our condemnation. It is because he lived a sinless life in the face of the same temptations we face. He removed all our excuses and condemned us. Only then did he take our condemnation and sin upon himself, since he did not come to condemn the world. His perfect life is Cain's ordinary sacrifice. It is ordinary because we are all supposed to be offering it. But we don't. Therein is the condemnation. Jesus' perfect life was insufficient to save us, and so Cain killed Abel as together they represent Christ laying down his life for us.

 

[Bob Jones]

Solomon appears not only to be a type of Christ but the antichrist . in the same way peter was told in one stride .. that you're a chip off the old block .. and on this block i'll build my church .. and in the next breath .. get back from me satan ..

where i get this is .. most prominently the only other place six hundred threescore and six appears in the bible other than the popular Daniel verse is in the account of how much "gold" the king brought in each year .

also i recall a basket representing the wickedness of Judah being carried to Babylon by two female angels with wings . .. somewhere in the prophets . Jeremiah comes to mind .. but maybe not .

Well... lets take it a bit slower. If we mix typology and allegory with sensus plenior we will have a confusing mess. It is very rare that Satan would even be mentioned in sensus plenior, if at all. It's purpose is to reveal Christ. So In typology we have Cain as an anti-Christ, but in sensus plenior he is Christ in the flesh to whom the Father says at Gethsemane "If you do right, won't you be lifted up."

 

[Michael Collum]

Not quite. His life was the light of the world, and the light is our condemnation. It is because he lived a sinless life in the face of the same temptations we face. He removed all our excuses and condemned us. Only then did he take our condemnation and sin upon himself, since he did not come to condemn the world. His perfect life is Cain's ordinary sacrifice. It is ordinary because we are all supposed to be offering it. But we don't. Therein is the condemnation. Jesus' perfect life was insufficient to save us, and so Cain killed Abel as together they represent Christ laying down his life for us.

Hmm i think what the gospel of John says about light may add to what you said above .
John 3:18-21 (King James Version)


18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

1 Corinthians 4:5
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

The light is not condemnation to us . because once we come into Christ there is no condemnation for us . it is when we hideourselves or hide sin in our hearts as Adam did and Job recounted .. then the light is condemnation .. but only if we seek to hide as Adam and Woman not yet named .. then comes condemnation and judgment .

 

[Michael Collum]

Well... lets take it a bit slower. If we mix typology and allegory with sensus plenior we will have a confusing mess. It is very rare that Satan would even be mentioned in sensus plenior, if at all. It's purpose is to reveal Christ. So In typology we have Cain as an anti-Christ, but in sensus plenior he is Christ in the flesh to whom the Father says at Gethsemane "If you do right, won't you be lifted up."

Yes .. i should stay away from those dark sayings anyway . darkness is the opposite of light . so where there is light, darkness is implied as opposite .

Daniel 8:22-24 (King James Version)


22Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
23And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
24And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.

 

[Bob Jones]

The sensus plenior is always firmly attached to the literal words as in the Gen 2:21 example. Anything else is not sensus plenior. So as I banter about subjects like the light, they each have to have the firm scriptural proofs according to the rules.

It's not good enough to say, "That's cool"... It also has to follow the rules.

There can be good allegory. Good allegory teaches truth from scripture even when perhaps that scriptural warrant is wanting. Sensus plenior has no such luxury. Without the grunt work of the word for word, no one can distinguish it from allegory.

 

[Bob Jones]

The light is not condemnation to us . because once we come into Christ there is no condemnation for us .

This is exactly true.... But it was the Light that DID condemn us and for which he bore the penalty. NOW there is no condemnation because we "do not drink wine or strong drink" ... Wine is grace and strong drink the law which deludes us into thinking we are righteous. We are now beyond the reach of law and grace since the law has been satisfied, and where there is no law, there is no need for grace. Our sins are as far as the east is from the west.

 

[Michael Collum]

The sensus plenior is always firmly attached to the literal words as in the Gen 2:21 example. Anything else is not sensus plenior. So as I banter about subjects like the light, they each have to have the firm scriptural proofs according to the rules.

It's not good enough to say, "That's cool"... It also has to follow the rules.

There can be good allegory. Good allegory teaches truth from scripture even when perhaps that scriptural warrant is wanting. Sensus plenior has no such luxury. Without the grunt work of the word for word, no one can distinguish it from allegory.

okay . before moving on . how about metaphors being literal spiritual reality? what methodology does that fit into?

 

[Michael Collum]

This is exactly true.... But it was the Light that DID condemn us and for which he bore the penalty. NOW there is no condemnation because we "do not drink wine or strong drink" ... Wine is grace and strong drink the law which deludes us into thinking we are righteous. We are now beyond the reach of law and grace since the law has been satisfied, and where there is no law, there is no need for grace. Our sins are as far as the east is from the west.

yes . the fruit of the spirit is, love joy peace, patience kindness goodness, faithfulness gentleness and self control, against such there is no law . Amen .

 

[Bob Jones]

Yes .. i should stay away from those dark sayings anyway . darkness is the opposite of light . so where there is light, darkness is implied as opposite .

Daniel 8:22-24 (King James Version)

22Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
23And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
24And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.

NO! 'Dark sayings' is just the word for riddle. It is child's play. If we spoke Hebrew, we would understand the double entendre easily. The word 'dark' is not in the Hebrew word at all. We must come to Christ in the sensus plenior as little children playing childish games. That is part of the beauty of it. THe "king of fierce countenance" is Christ in the sensus plenior. You can't mix them.

Later I will show you that the same way that wicked Cain is used to paint a picture of Christ, even the beast of Rev 17 glorifies Him in the same way.