Sensus Plenior vs Confluence: Understanding How God Inspired Scripture

Scripture is not merely the product of human thought or literary creativity, but the divinely guided Word of God. In our study of biblical inspiration, two views are often contrasted: the idea of sensus plenior—the “fuller sense”—and the concept of confluence. While proponents of sensus plenior argue for a latent, deeper meaning in Scripture that even the human author might not have fully grasped, the confluence model asserts that God’s revelation and the human author’s message are in perfect unity. This article will summarize and examine both views, focusing on the example of Caiaphas, a text often appealed to in support of sensus plenior. I will argue that Scripture was written with a complete harmony of intent—both human and divine—and that proper exegesis must rely on the historical and grammatical context of the text.

Understanding Sensus Plenior

The Latin term sensus plenior means “fuller sense,” and it suggests that the divine message embedded in Scripture may extend beyond what the human author consciously intended. According to this view, the divine author’s mind and purpose may be so far beyond human comprehension that the “fuller” meaning is revealed only gradually through the unfolding of redemptive history. Advocates maintain that God can imbue even an inspired text with layers of meaning unknown to its human writer, thereby requiring later generations to discern additional significance from the passage.

While at first glance this concept might appear to honor the mystery and majesty of God’s revelation, it introduces a problematic disconnect. If the meaning of a text goes beyond what any human could understand through the normal channels of communication, how can we be certain about anything the Bible says? The meaning is no longer tied to any definitive rules of interpretation. Such a position risks undermining the integrity of Scripture by positing a hidden dimension that is only partially communicated.

The Confluence of Divine and Human Inspiration

In contrast to the notion of a “fuller sense” that exceeds the author’s own understanding, the confluence view holds that there is no substantial divergence between the human and divine authors of Scripture. According to this perspective, God uses the personality, experiences, and idioms of the human author as the very means through which His perfect Word is conveyed. This view finds strong support in 2 Peter 1:20–21, which states unequivocally:

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Here Peter clearly emphasizes that every prophetic utterance—and by extension every inspired word—is not a mere human outpouring but is the result of the Holy Spirit’s direct involvement. The human author, then, is not an uninformed or independent agent; rather, his words are the divinely sanctioned vehicle through which God communicates His immutable truth.

Examining the Example of Caiaphas

A frequently cited example in discussions of sensus plenior is found in John 11:49–52 (the other frequent example of sensus plenior is 1 Peter 1:10-12). In this passage, Caiaphas, the high priest, inadvertently prophesies that Jesus must die not only for the nation but also to gather the scattered children of God. Some argue that this prophecy reveals a deeper meaning that Caiaphas himself did not fully comprehend. However, a closer examination reveals significant flaws in using this incident as evidence for sensus plenior.

The Nature of the Speaker:
Caiaphas was not a believer inspired by the Holy Spirit. His statement, though prophetic in outcome, was not made with the knowledge that he was prophesying God’s Word. Unlike the apostolic writings, his words were not intended for the formation of canonical Scripture. Thus, using his utterance to argue that Scripture carries a hidden, fuller meaning conflates an inspired, Spirit-led proclamation with the words of an unbelieving, worldly figure. Caiaphas’ situation is significantly different from the canonical revelations revealed in Scripture.

The Role of Irony in John’s Narrative:
John includes the account of Caiaphas’ statement with a clear note of irony. John records the “prophecy” in a manner that underscores the perverse wisdom of human reasoning when it unwittingly aligns with God’s sovereign plan (again, quite a different from when men are penning the Word of God). When John revisits the incident in John 18:14, he reinforces the irony of the situation. Caiaphas’ attempt at pragmatic political speech ends up prefiguring the redemptive sacrifice of Christ, but this does not imply that the “fuller sense” was hidden from Caiaphas. Instead, it demonstrates how God’s providence can work through the flawed judgments of men to fulfill His purposes.

Thus, the use of Caiaphas’ statement as an example of sensus plenior is misguided. It conflates the realm of historical, non-inspired human speech with the realm of the divinely inspired Word, which is associated with God’s speech itself. God certainly has the providential prerogative to use the words of an unbeliever and make a word play. But when God reveals His communicated will to His people, that is a different kind of scenario.  

The Integrity of Scripture and the Grammatical-Historical Method

The Bible was written by men whose language, cultural context, and personal experiences shaped their writing. Yet, it is also clear that the words of Scripture are not merely human utterances—they are the inspired Word of God, free from internal contradiction. This dual nature of inspiration is best understood through what might be termed the “confluence” of divine and human intent. When the inspired writer pens a passage, his words are not accidentally aligned with God’s purpose; they are deliberately and supernaturally in sync with it.

For the believer, the key to unlocking the meaning of Scripture lies in the Grammatical-Historical Method of interpretation. This method demands that we consider the original language, cultural background, and historical context of the text. By doing so, we seek to understand what the human author intended—and by extension, what God intended. There is no hidden “fuller sense” lurking beyond the plain meaning; rather, the truth of God’s Word is transparently and consistently revealed in its original setting.

This approach upholds the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture and avoids a significant pitfall of not having confidence in the meaning of God’s Word. If we were to accept that there is a gap between the human and divine meaning of the text, then the clarity and reliability of Scripture would be compromised. Instead, the Grammatical-Historical Method assures us that every passage, even when found to be complex and difficult, communicates one unified message that God and the human author intended.

Conclusion: Unity in Divine Revelation

In sum, while the notion of sensus plenior might initially appear to enrich our understanding of Scripture by suggesting layers of meaning beyond the immediate text, it ultimately introduces unnecessary and theologically unsound complexity. Such a view opens up one to potential distortion of the plain meaning of Scripture. The biblical witness affirms that God’s revelation is clear, coherent, and complete in the words written by His inspired servants.

When we rightly interpret the Bible using the Grammatical-Historical Method, we discern that there is no substantive disconnect between the human and divine authorship of Scripture. God’s purposes are neither hidden nor ambiguous—they are fully revealed through the words that have been passed down through the ages. This understanding not only preserves the integrity of Scripture but also fortifies the believer’s confidence in the enduring, unchanging truth of God’s Word.

Photo Credit: Envato Elements