The "Law of First Mention"

Ruckman also wrote a book that basically said "www" (as in, www.something.com) is the mark of the beast; and that the anti-christ will be a black human-like person who emerges from a flying saucer that lands in the main courtyard of the Vatican.

So what was your purpose in bringing this up? Your first line correlates your apparent derogatory remarks with KJV-onlyism, which makes me assume that you're making fun of fellow Christians.

Of course, you also posted this in the Fundamental Baptists forum, which would also seem to be implying that you associate most fundamental baptists with KJV-onlyism, which is patently untrue.

Honestly, I can't really figure out why you'd post something derogatory like this, unless you were trying to inflame discord and argument between believers.

 

Ruckman didn't invent this, but it goes back to times before him (don't know who). It's an invalid principle, certainly not a "law" of interpretion." A lot of evangelicals of various stripes used to teach this.

 

And, we see it used often on this board.

 

. . .and by none less than "influential theologian" A. W. Pink LOL:

Pink's Interpretation of the Scriptures, Chap. 20

 

And it's stilll invalid every time.

 

Perhaps you're right (that I'm assuming too much). Discussing the problems with "first usage" is a valid discussion; I initially took the way you presented it as a slam towards IFBers who are KJ only (not that I am one, or am actually defending them; it's just that we've had a lot of nastiness regarding this subject in the recent past, and initially interpreted your post as the start of another round of bashing).

 

I've never heard of this concept of "law of first mention." If I'm reading it correctly it means that the first time something is mentioned in the Bible gives insight to later uses?

In the case of Beameup's post, he is saying (tongue in cheek) that since the first time that 'four and twenty' was used in scripture it referred to giants with 6 fingers and 6 toes, if one follows this law, then the 'four and twenty' elders in Revelation must also be giants with 6 fingers and 6 toes? Is that it?

 

Precisely...

Just another way to allegorize Scripture and to use it instead of reading the text with proper hermaneutical efforts applied so that it uses us.

 

Since the subject is close enough, let me ask a question. Is it typical for IFB pastors to jump around in the Bible to make their point reading one verse in the OT, jumping to the NT reading one verse and back again up to ten or more times until they make up a theory that sounds more like an Urban Legend than a Biblical truth?

If I remember, some of the news stories showing David Koresh teaching from His Bible He was an expert at knowing what verses to quote to make his point, the only problem is a pastor I know and David Koresh both use verses completely out of context.

I was given the story just yesterday that Santa Claus was Satan's immitation of Jesus because Jesus is described in the first of Revelations with white hair, etc. Of course this is the same pastor who says the 1611 was modified 7 times making it the perfect word of God since 7 is God's perfect number. No offense to those of you who are KJVO, but I have some real problems with that theology.

 

The problem with some of these IFB circles, specifically speaking of the one that you and I have discussed, is that they focus completely on topical preaching and not much on expository or narrative.

Topical preaching can be relevant and exhortational; most of the time, in those specific circles, it's more shallow and error-prone, as you can use just about any verse to justify any particular topic, instead of pulling the topic from the verse.

Typical? In those circles, yes, because they have a shallow understanding of scripture to begin with, and focus on using the bible to support doctrines instead of using the bible to find out what the doctrines are.

 

I was taught the unScriptural "law of first mention" as a child. When studying any area of thought in Scripture, I trace it back to when it is first mentioned in Scripture. This is out of a desire for a thorough understanding of the topic; not to find some hidden truth that God has not revealed from a plain reading of the text. I must agree that it is an unprincipled hermeneutic whose only purpose is to find support for eisegetical doctrine.

 

Thank you Don. I think you have hit the nail on the head. From the time I have been attending this seems to be the rule. He will also pull one verse out of proverbs making it a law we must follow rather than a book of WISE items to consider for life in general.

 

If the law of first mention is bogus, what would be the valid rule to arrive at an understanding of figures of speech that appear several times in the text. Look at all the usages and see if a common meaning is apparent? And if not, then "decoding" the phrase would seem to be adding to scripture.

 

The entire practice falls on its face once one realizes that the entire Bible was not written at one time by one author, or even in King James circa English.

Yes, the Word is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but one would have to hold to a dictation theory in order to even begin contemplating this sort of nonsense, and if that were true, then ever-so-popular KJV would not be the version that one could use, for the text would have had to be dictated in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Oh the sad state of affairs in some camps regarding biblical study. They study what they do not know and arrive at a place, according to their warped logic, that is actually against all that the Scriptures stand for.

 

I recall mentioning that...

I also recall mentioning that the only way that this first mention doctrine could be true is if the text were almost mechanically dictated, and that can be tossed out for the reasons I gave, i.e., it was not dictated into 1611 English, if it was dictated, it was over a 4500 year span of time in three continents, and by multiple human agents, some farmers, some doctors, some kings, some fishermen, some government officials, etc.

While absolutely "inspired" there are no sound biblical scholars that hold to a theory of dictation of the text, and even if they did, it would not make the argument that those in favor of first mention are making for all the reasons that I have cited.

Note that I am not against the concept of types and shadows. Not at all. They are there, but that is a far different concept than "first mention." Types and shadows are events that help, in a prophetic way, to illustrate a truth that God would later reveal in more clarity so that God's people could see that He was fulfilling a plan that He had explained in advance.

 

Nothing is "typical" of IFB preaching. I was recently at a conference where ALL of the messages were exegetical. The message I've been preaching at my supporting churches is exegetical.

This is bizzarre. I've never heard an IFB preacher preach anything remotely similar.

 

These are all IFB sites. Not putting down IFB in particular- some folks in every group will believe and preach anything.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in America/Apostasy/macys_parade.htm

http://inwhomwehaveredemption.blogspot.com/2011/11/redemption-is-in-jesus-christ-not-santa.html

http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/resource/santanti.htm

(for an eyeful see: http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/warroompaganismcults.htm)