Commenting
on sensus plenior and Matt 2:15’s use
of Hos 11:1, Matthew Barrett wrote:
Although a text is situated at a particular
point in history, nevertheless it reaches beyond that historical parameter due
to the progressive nature of revelation. As the canon builds and God’s redemptive
story unfolds, what was before dim now shines bright. The fuller meaning
blossoms into maturity with the long-anticipated arrival of Israel’s Messiah.
That which was foreshadowed through the human author’s words is amplified as it progresses and reaches
its fulfilment in Christ, just as the divine author envisioned. The meaning of
a prophetic passage, especially if typological in nature, can be enlarged and expanded, escalating beyond the human author’s immediate
understanding due to the divine author’s knowledge, understanding and eschatological
intent.
To clarify, sensus plenior is not to advocate (as some fear) for a secret
knowledge or some mystical extra meaning that is uprooted from the text itself
or from history. As God breathes out his words in and through the human
author(s), his divine authorial intent is not circumscribed to what the human
author understands in his immediate context. God, as the divine author, can
convey a fuller meaning that will become clearer as his progressive revelation
builds and is in his timing fulfilled in redemptive history . . . Matthew’s use
of Hosea assumes the validity of sensus
plenior . . . The Divine authorial intent in Hosea 11:1 goes beyond what
Hosea understood at the time: a fuller meaning is present, though Hosea is unaware of it. It is doubtful Hosea had the Messiah in
view, but it is certain the divine author did, as Hosea spoke of God’s ‘son’.
Yet, as mentioned before, this is not an appeal to some mystical, secret
knowledge, nor does sensus plenior mean
later writers interpret earlier texts in a roughshod, proof-text manner . . . sensus
plenior is not to be divorced from the progressive nature of revelation and
history . . . [In Hos 11:1] is a father-son relationship that is bound in
love. Yahweh loves his son, Israel, the ‘apple of his eye’ (Deut. 32:10). Yet born
to Mary and Joseph is a son who is the true Israel, the one on whom all the
promises of the prophets find their hope and culmination. He is the Son on whom
the Father’s love rests.
The correspondence between these two sons in
Matthew 2 is anything but accidental: Israel was oppressed by Pharaoh in Egypt
until Yahweh called his son out of Egypt. Now the new exodus has arrived. Herod
may be the new pharaoh, forcing God’s Son into hiding, but out of Egypt Yahweh
calls his son yet again. Yet Jesus is not only the antitype to Israel but to
Moses as well. For the same son who is called out of Egypt to be a new Israel
is also a new Moses, one who ushers in a new exodus for the people of God.
Jesus’ ministry is still to come but already the exodus he inaugurates is at
hand as he lies in his mother’s arms. (Matthew Barrett, Canon, Covenant and Christology: Rethinking Jesus and the Scriptures in
Israel [New Studies in Biblical Theology 51; London: Apollos, 2020], 26-27,
110, 211; italics in original, emphasis in bold added, comment in square
brackets added for clarification)
