First mention or occurrence of a subject in Scripture.

How do I find the First-Mention of an occurrence or subject in Scripture?

The Scriptures in question:
Isaiah 6:9-10 (ESV)

“The ‘law of first-mention’ is the principle in the interpretation of Scripture which states that the first mention or occurrence of a subject in Scripture establishes an unchangeable pattern, with that subject remaining unchanged in the mind of God throughout Scripture.”

If I understand the question you are asking, you might start with this as a broad means of identifying a first mention:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/

Colin said:

“The ‘law of first-mention’ is the principle in the interpretation of Scripture which states that the first mention or occurrence of a subject in Scripture establishes an unchangeable pattern, with that subject remaining unchanged in the mind of God throughout Scripture.”

Click to expand...

What are you quoting from?

Welcome to the Puritan Board, by the way!

Colin said:

How do I find the First-Mention of an occurrence or subject in Scripture?

The Scriptures in question:
Isaiah 6:9-10 (ESV)

“The ‘law of first-mention’ is the principle in the interpretation of Scripture which states that the first mention or occurrence of a subject in Scripture establishes an unchangeable pattern, with that subject remaining unchanged in the mind of God throughout Scripture.”

Colin Beattie
Mill Valley, CA.

Click to expand...

I'd be cautious about the "law of first mention". If all it means is that we need to look at the way concepts unfold in their larger Biblical context and expecting that the Old Testament lays the foundations coherently for the NT, then that's fine. Genesis is foundational for much that follows, as you would expect. But Biblical teaching is not restricted to the use of individual Greek and Hebrew words - often the same concepts are addressed by synonyms and circumlocutions. And, of course, often ideas that are dimly revealed early in the OT are revealed much more clearly later in the OT and in the New Testament. I'd rather argue for the "law of every mention": seeking to explore every place in Scripture where a word or concept is mentioned and putting all of that truth together in a systematic way. Otherwise, we are likely to overload meaning into particular words that their context will not bear.

Ask Mr. Religion said:

If I understand the question you are asking, you might start with this as a broad means of identifying a first mention:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/

Click to expand...

Thank You @Ask Mr. Religion

iainduguid said:

I'd be cautious about the "law of first mention". If all it means is that we need to look at the way concepts unfold in their larger Biblical context and expecting that the Old Testament lays the foundations coherently for the NT, then that's fine. Genesis is foundational for much that follows, as you would expect. But Biblical teaching is not restricted to the use of individual Greek and Hebrew words - often the same concepts are addressed by synonyms and circumlocutions. And, of course, often ideas that are dimly revealed early in the OT are revealed much more clearly later in the OT and in the New Testament. I'd rather argue for the "law of every mention": seeking to explore every place in Scripture where a word or concept is mentioned and putting all of that truth together in a systematic way. Otherwise, we are likely to overload meaning into particular words that their context will not bear.

Click to expand...

Well said @TylerRay

I "amened" Dr.Duguid's comment above, and add the consideration of the process of canonization. Just to think of the first five (or even six) books...

We have only a general idea of what extant materials (if any) may have formed Moses' genealogical resources for the book of Genesis. What we have is one finished product as penned by Moses and superintended by the Holy Spirit. So, it is quite contrary to good interpretive sense to regard any part of Genesis as if it were not best interpretable by the application of full awareness of the content of the whole Pentateuch.

Moses is alive until the end of Deuteronomy. We are under no obligation to think that he dropped into his text unrevised lines written by his fathers; or that he wrote successively each word of each of five books seriatim, and never revisited his text. In fact, there are evidences of later editing by some prophet or another after he is dead and the people live in the promised land. So, why would he not be editing his own writing over his lifetime? Our theory of inspiration is fully robust enough to handle that sort of activity.

In other words, while there is historical progress that we should and must attend to in the story of redemption--even within the Pentateuch, even within Genesis--we should not think for example that the sacrifices of Gen.4 are able to be fully explained by the events of the first 3chs. alone. Before we even hear of these moments that take place at the beginning of the world, WE, the people of God beginning with the Exodus generation, are freighted with an entire theology of sacrifice.

And I don't mean the system of Aaronic ceremony (as if arguing that we should read the two offerings of Abel and Cain through the lens of the meat and grain offerings of Israel--this has been done at times, and often quite poorly in my view). No, I mean that there is a much deeper theology of sacrifice already the patrimony of the Exodus generation, inherited from the days of Adam, through Abraham's reformation. So, thinking of Gen.4 as a kind of sacrificial "primitivism" is the worst kind of start to interpreting such things.

No, but we begin as would the first congregation of believers to have this material in this form. We have the whole Pentateuch as a library of data by which we begin our systematic evaluation of Gen.4 and the sacrifices offered. Our possession of the theology of sacrifice comes not by experience of habits of sacrifice, but by a complex process that introduces us to the faith of our fathers via an integrated textual apparatus. The cross-references of the Bible are intentional. This is why, for example, we ought to know faith is essential to circumcision in Genesis; when the first person to write repeatedly about the significance of heart-circumcision is Moses, the Genesis author, in the legal portions (Lev. & Deut.) of his corpus.

And as this process has been continual since the first five books (and, as Joshua was present for writing-portion of Moses' life, so not to exclude the sixth book) of divine revelation, therefore all the Bible is properly regarded as integrated into the complex. There will be value in considering the organic progress of revelation, and the chronology of it; but something might be "spelled out" for the first time in the text of a later prophet which he does not reveal for the first time; he only records it in writing for the first time. He might take such a statement as he makes for granted, as a thing believed already when he writes it.

Thank you Bruce, do you know how I can delete this entire thread/post?

Colin,

I am not seeing anything in the thread warranting its deletion. It is instructive in many ways and bears no untoward reflection upon you at all.

Your too Kind.. 4 months ago I bought a used book. (Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics by Bernard Ramm.) Instead of actually doing the work and reading this classic. I feel I tried to take a shortcut.
I shall keep this post active. Proverbs 13:4
Thank you for your time

Been some time since I have heard the name Ramm. If you do some searches of our site the name will come up, e.g.,
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-single-meaning-principle-scripture.86175/

iainduguid said:

I'd rather argue for the "law of every mention": seeking to explore every place in Scripture where a word or concept is mentioned and putting all of that truth together in a systematic way. Otherwise, we are likely to overload meaning into particular words that their context will not bear.

Click to expand...

Exactly this.

Ask Mr. Religion said:

Been some time since I have heard the name Ramm. If you do some searches of our site the name will come up, e.g.,
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-single-meaning-principle-scripture.86175/

Click to expand...

I haven't thought of Bernard Ramm (1916-1992) in years. I had to read his Protestant Biblical Interpretation in school. Thought it was not bad.

Any consensus on the best Hermeneutics book for beginners?

Pdf. Linked removed by moderators; this is a scan of a 1974 book likely in violation of US copyright law.
Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics by Bernard Ramm

Louis Berkhof was still used when I went to seminary 20+ years ago
http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/PDF Books/00050 Berkhof Principles of Biblical Interpretation..pdf
It is a very straightforward presentation; almost suffering from a bare-bones condition.

Dennis Johnson's Him We Proclaim is a bit higher level, and more of a combination book, on hermeneutics, homiletics, and theory; because it asks the important question: can we, and should we be preaching like the apostles?
https://www.amazon.com/Him-We-Proclaim-Preaching-Scriptures/dp/1596380543

Thank you Bruce