To carry thing back onto this thread, true, righteousness can refer to works, but nobody in the history of scholarship that I am aware of has ever claimed that we put on Christ’s specific works as a robe. To the contrary, although works and righteousness are through grace, they are also very much shown to be unique/intrinsic to the invididual (free will playing a part). So to put on Christ’s righteousness in your view would be tantamount to saying that we are clothing ourselves in Jesus’ works, which are only unique to Jesus.
You will have to loosen up your usage of words a bit to play the riddle game. When we refer to the cross, we do not speak solely about a chunk of wood, although we may. We may speak of the whole redemptive process of the cross even beginning with his birth.
So it is with righteousness. Righteousness is not a ‘glow in the dark’ kind of property like we think of Holiness. Holiness is a property of dedication , consecration, set aside for a purpose. But righteousness is associated with works. So to say ‘put on the garment of Christ’ is to say ‘put on the works (accomplished by Christ)’. His works are imputed to us so that it as though we never failed to perform at 100%.
The point is not to haggle over the riddle but to see Christ is the scriptures and come away with awe.
Also it is more appropriate to separate my interpretation of the sensus plenior from my observation of it.
For instance: I observe that the arks and Mary share properties in the sensus plenior. My interpretation will differ from NotWorthy’s because I see Mary as a type of Christ rather than as the ante-type of the arks. My interpretation does not affect the observation of the correlations at all.
So whether you interpret the fig leaf aprons as Adam’s works attempting to cover his sin, or as Adam’s self-righteousness attempting to cover his sin has little difference.
When we talk about the Trinity, we will see it referenced from different aspects. Father, Son and Holy Ghost, who reveal themselves to man through the Word, Works, and Life and we respond by Hearing, Seeing and Walking, or don’t respond because we are Deaf, Blind and Lame. They are the same Trinity but referenced from the aspect of Identity, Method of Revelation, Method of Responding to revelation, or not.
This is part of my issue with your proposed method of hermeneutics, is that they seem to very much revolve around a secondary constant possible meaning. I’m not knocking your idea, I have your page bookmarked and will be studying it to attempt to see exactly wear you are coming from, but I am proceeding with caution.
I would hope that you would not only proceed with caution, but that you demand explanations for anything that does not seem right either in its claims for itself or with its consistency with Christian doctrine.
I have not found a single author who has used it since the first century, though I believe I can show evidence it was used by Jesus, Apostles and early fathers.
And so you know. I did not come up with an idea and try to prove it. I started seeing Christ everywhere in the scriptures and then had to explain to myself how and why I see them. At this point I cannot separate the sensus plenior from my experience with Christ.
The only thing I ask is that you not judge it before you understand it. If it teaches another Christ, throw it out immediately and at any time. But since it is the knowledge of Christ from the New Testament that reveals them, this is impossible.
), I do feel that our white garments are referenced to good works done in Christ. Although, come to think of it, the ones used in baptisms are symbolic of the wiping away of our sins in Baptism. We are giving a clean slate, so to speak. So maybe the fathers you are thinking of are speaking of baptism. When dealing with the saints, however, it seems to always refer to their good works.