I've read about this principal in a few books on biblical interpretation  (http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page56.html),

and I've always raised an eyebrow whenever it's mentioned.

Is this principal valid, and how/when should it be used?

Grace and Peace,

Glen

I've never heard of it before. It sounds interesting. I can certainly go along with the idea that complex ideas are built upon simple ones. For example, Newton formulated laws of gravity. From those laws, complex phenomenon in the universe can be explained with pages and pages of mathematical reasoning.

For example, the first sin committed by man was choosing to disobey a direct order to refrain from eating fruit from a certain tree. You could say that because the first sin was a deliberate choice by the man and woman that any understanding of sin must be rooted in the belief that it is willful disobedience.

Still, it seems to be problematic. Is first the first book in the Bible to mention it or is it the first book chronologically? Does the Law of Moses trump the New Testament because it happened first? The story of Job took place before the crowning of Saul - Is Job's description of God more accurate than David's, a man God said was a man after his own heart?

Not only that, but this law also seems to ignore context. Nakedness is first mentioned in the garden before sin. Does that mean that being naked is basically a good thing?

I could be wrong and I could be mischaracterising what the author of the link was trying to say. To me, it sounds suspect.

the law of first mention, therefore, is of greatest importance to the Bible student can be readily seen from this brief study.

I have never heard of this teaching before and if it is true that this is of the greatest importance to me (a disciple and therefore a bible student) what does that say about all I have learned up to this point since I have never applied the 'law of first mention'? I think someone just made this up.

However... I can see how it could be helpful (not the end all - in a dogmatic kinda way) to studying the bible. The early church (in the first couple of centuries) had a similar view in that there were some gnostics teaching things in opposition to what the Christians were teaching. The Christians reasoned that since their own teachings could be traced to the disciples' writings immediately following the Apostles that they were 'much more likely' to be closer to what the Apostles had in mind than other teachings that sprang to life much much later.

I think it went something like this "Truth Precedes Error".

That being said, I noticed that the date on this outline is 1947, which precedes my birth, so I must be wrong and this 'law of first mention' must be right. or not.

Hi, my degree is in biblical studies and I'm starting seminary this fall. Calling it the "Law" of first Mention is certainly a misnomer. Nobody is getting arrested for breaking this "law." 

The principles seems fairly commonsense to me, at least to some extent. If you wanted to learn about Jesus' life you wouldn't start with what people said about him in Acts or the Epistles, you would start in the Gospels. You want to get to the original material as much as possible, because later writers (even biblical authors) will interpret this material in a certain way that might not help you with whatever you're looking for.

This "Law" seems grounded on these principles:

1. The original material is important because it sets the tone.

2. Most concepts in the Bible have a deep and rich context/backstory from earlier parts of the Bible.

3. Failing to go back to the first mentions means you're picking up the discussion halfway through.

4. It is likely that there is some extra importance given to the first mention of a topic in the Bible, intentionally or not.

You could sum it up like this: when you study a particular topic, make sure you take into account the entire context of what you're reading, including how various biblical writers from all parts of the Bible address the issue, and make sure you don't skip over parts just because they don't seem as interesting to you.

Seems fair enough to me, but my feeling is that they try to make it more formal than it should be.

By the way, there are dozens of ways or "schools" of interpreting the Bible. There are a handful of principles that are generally held to be good ideas but it isn't like there is one and only one way to approach the Bible.

-bryan

Here is another page that, I think, gives a better definition of this principal.

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:LAD-0r2X8z8J:www.xs4all.nl/~rjvelema/rve_e/lofm.pdf+%22first+mention%22+bible&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=47&gl=ca

or in pdf form

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rjvelema/rve_e/lofm.pdf

I've come to know of it from books that I have, not from the internet.

The previous link was just the first thing I found on the internet about it.

This method is not a scientific method, because it presupposed that God, in His inspiration of the bible, did something special to the first mention of words/concepts.  This is probably what makes it suspect.  It seems to be based on people noticing something unique about the first mention of something, and that makes this method kind of mystical.

For example, if your wonder what the a certain symbol might mean, look for it's first mention, and you should generally find the answer, if this principal is correct.

I'm not sure what chronology one is supposed to use in this principal.  Probably the one found in our bibles ;)

Peace,

Glen

About the Law of First Mention…

Let me preface this by saying I DON”T KNOW ANYTHING FOR SURE EXCEPT:

God is, Jesus is, and I am not the ‘I AM!’

While I continue to be an avid student of the Word, I have come to understand an even greater principle over the years as a disciple. The principle that man-made rules, such as those based in time (of which God is not a part), grammar, and syntax, really do not apply to the Lord.

I believe that faith is not based on fitting the Word of God into a foul-proof set of rules, but on having a heart for God to reveal his will through his Word and through you (or whoever) at a given time.

Luke 24:45   Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

Only God can make clear his intentions at any given moment in time. Now based on human logic the ‘law of first mention’ would seem at first mention reasonable since God is unchanging.

Hebrews 6:17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath.
James 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

However, that logic would be refuted by Jesus when he challenged the Jews on their understanding of the Sabbath. Of course it could be argued that the Jews misunderstood God from the onset. Therefore, let me pose two other vignettes that may support the negation of the ‘first mention law.’

How would we then apply this ‘law’ to the commands given in Leviticus, where Jesus has not specifically addressed it in the New Testament?

Or how about the use of the trumpet, an instrument reserved in God’s eyes as a call to battle against the enemy. Have we profaned this with the use of the instrument in the orchestra, and perhaps we are losing the battle against terrorism because we do not announce ourselves with the trumpet blast? (And this may be the case!) Will we be condemned for not having purchased lyres for our worship services too?

It is of course wise to study the Word in all of its contexts throughout the Bible, however to assume that the first mention of any topic stands paramount above the topic revisited in other generations (within the Bible) is sketchy at best. Covenants changed and so did God’s dealings with mankind over the ages (for the better). The central theme of the Word is the gospel of Jesus (from Genesis to Revelations). If there is a law that can be applied to interpreting the Bible it must originate with Jesus (his life and example). The concept of first is grounded in Jesus (Alpha & Omega); it is he who speaks in both the Old and New Testaments and again places God (the trinity) outside of time and human chronology.

Of course I realize God will correct all of this speculation when we meet him. Sure is nice to think about all of it though!

In Christ, Morris

Nice post Glen.

I am interested in hearing what more people have to say, but I think anyone that has read Paul's writings or the book of Acts is familiar with this without knowing it.  When Paul is preaching in Athens about the "Unknown" God and all the idols they have, he is using this principle to help the Athenians understand who God is.  When Paul mentions in his writings, as some of your own poets have said...  Even the Book of Hebrews quotes the Old Testament, for that matter many of the NT books and writers quote the OT.  These are using this principle.  When Acts says, "Your old men will see visions and your young men will dream dreams" quoting the book of Joel, again, this was to help the soon-to-be disciples understand what is going on and what is happening now.

I think, and one of the things about this principle is that it takes a certain amount of interpretation, that this principle can be widely used to help deepen our thought and study of the Bible.  Another way to think about this...When was the last time you heard someone preach on Compassion, or Anger, or Faith, or the "One Another" scriptures, and they list the number of times that specific word is used in a particular book, chapter, Bible.  This is a micro use of this principle, though it can be a bit narrow because we as a movement typically use the NIV translation which may translate certain words slightly different than other translations.

For example...when studying Jesus and his similarity to Melchizedek in the book of Hebrews...it helps to go to Gen 14:17-ff to read about where Abram (not yet Abraham) made sacrifices to God through the priest to the Most High God Melchizedek.  If you have done this, then you have used this principle.  Now, we can go overboard, we just need to keep things in context and realize that the bible is complicated and can be very deep.  Yet the beauty of what God created is that the Bible can also be understood on different levels and is just impacting to someone that does not yet understand these different nuances that are throughout the Word.

Anyway, that just my small $.02.  I think we need to think/question/challenge and continually grow in our walk with God.  When we question, I believe God blesses.  But, that may be a topic for another time as it raises a whole new set of questions that I didn't even mean to breech here.

YBIC.