Principal of First Mention - Biblical Interpretation

[seanflynn]

A Protestant co-worker of mine explains the meaning of many Biblical passages based on what he calls “the Principal of First Mention.” According to him, if a theme is repeated throughout the Bible, then the dominant meaning should come from the first occurrence of this theme. I assume he meant earliest chronologically, because not all Bibles put the books in the same order, right?

Anyway, it came up while talking about Revelation 12, the Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon at her feet, and a crown of 12 stars on her head. He related it back Joseph’s dream in Genesis where 11 stars, the sun, and the moon all bow to Joseph’s star. The woman isn’t the Mother of the Lord because . . . I can’t remember his exact reasoning because I was blown away by his lack of Scriptural basis for using this tool for interpretation. He had previously implied a belief in sola scriptura.

So my actual question is: Have you heard of this Principal before? Is it’s origin associated with a particular theologian or denomination? How reliable is it in finding the true meaning in God’s written Word? Any other thoughts on the matter are welcome to me as well.

 

[Little_Mary]

I’m curious too.

I’ve heard of the principle but don’t know much about it.

Isn’t there also something about being mentioned more than once before a doctrine is built around it…“two or three witnesses…”???

 

[Scoobyshme]

A Protestant co-worker of mine explains the meaning of many Biblical passages based on what he calls “the Principal of First Mention.” According to him, if a theme is repeated throughout the Bible, then the dominant meaning should come from the first occurrence of this theme. I assume he meant earliest chronologically, because not all Bibles put the books in the same order, right?

Anyway, it came up while talking about Revelation 12, the Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon at her feet, and a crown of 12 stars on her head. He related it back Joseph’s dream in Genesis where 11 stars, the sun, and the moon all bow to Joseph’s star. The woman isn’t the Mother of the Lord because . . . I can’t remember his exact reasoning because I was blown away by his lack of Scriptural basis for using this tool for interpretation. He had previously implied a belief in sola scriptura.

So my actual question is: Have you heard of this Principal before? Is it’s origin associated with a particular theologian or denomination? How reliable is it in finding the true meaning in God’s written Word? Any other thoughts on the matter are welcome to me as well.

I haven’t heard of that at all.

Catholic principles of Bible interpretation, etc., are contained in the Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum. Not a long read; can be done in one sitting, probably.

Basically, we are to read the bible using the following three principles:

1. As a totality (in context, as a whole, not in snippets out of context - a Protestant specialty)
2. In light of Sacred Tradition.
3. Using the analogy of the faith as given us by the Magisterium of the Church. (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a good start)

Now, within this, there are helpful things that assist us in proper interpretation, such as historical and linguistic elements. But, basically, everything has to be filtered through those three principles.

To hear a good series of talks on this, download the .MP3 talks by Fr. John Corapi, “Word of God” parts 1-6, from the following link:

alabamacatholicresources.com/Fr_John_Corapi.html

He says that the “Word of God” is not a book. It is not “something.” It is “Somebody,” namely, Jesus Christ!

God bless!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I have never heard of the principle, but, if it is valid, the woman must be Mary. The Woman is first mentioned in Genesis 3:14-15

14* The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

where the woman must be the mother of the Redeemer, her seed.

 

[TimothyH]

the idea seems rather arbitrary to me, and not all that logical.

*In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; (Hebrews 1:1)*If the Olt Testament was a partial revelation of divine truth and the New Testament is the fullness of divine revelation through Jesus Christ, then why should we accept an OT meaning over a NT meaning just because it came first?

Ask your Protestant friend about Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2. Man came last in Genesis 1, after the animals but man came first in Genesis 2, before the animals. Ask him to use the principal of first mention to interpret man’s creation in relation to the beasts.

-Tim-

 

[Stratiotes]

I have heard that principle before but it is an arbitrary rule without substance - as even many Protestants will argue.

From the rules of our Catholic understanding already stated by several, ‘the principle of first mention’ is invalid. In our understanding, God revealed Himself gradually with more and more details to fill in the gaps - culminating in the New Testament. An OT quote will always precede a NT quote but we can never understand the OT quote without seeing it through the lens of the incarnation. As Augustine said (paraphrase here), the old is revealed in the new and the new is hidden in the old.

If there is any principle based on first mention it is this - the later mention expounds and clarifies the first mention.

 

[TMC]

A Protestant co-worker of mine explains the meaning of many Biblical passages based on what he calls “the Principal of First Mention.” According to him, if a theme is repeated throughout the Bible, then the dominant meaning should come from the first occurrence of this theme. I assume he meant earliest chronologically, because not all Bibles put the books in the same order, right?

Anyway, it came up while talking about Revelation 12, the Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon at her feet, and a crown of 12 stars on her head. He related it back Joseph’s dream in Genesis where 11 stars, the sun, and the moon all bow to Joseph’s star. The woman isn’t the Mother of the Lord because . . . I can’t remember his exact reasoning because I was blown away by his lack of Scriptural basis for using this tool for interpretation. He had previously implied a belief in sola scriptura.

So my actual question is: Have you heard of this Principal before? Is it’s origin associated with a particular theologian or denomination? How reliable is it in finding the true meaning in God’s written Word? Any other thoughts on the matter are welcome to me as well.

I have heard that principle before but it is an arbitrary rule without substance - as even many Protestants will argue.

From the rules of our Catholic understanding already stated by several, ‘the principle of first mention’ is invalid. In our understanding, God revealed Himself gradually with more and more details to fill in the gaps - culminating in the New Testament. An OT quote will always precede a NT quote but we can never understand the OT quote without seeing it through the lens of the incarnation. As Augustine said (paraphrase here), the old is revealed in the new and the new is hidden in the old.

If there is any principle based on first mention it is this - the later mention expounds and clarifies the first mention.

I think that, like any tool, it can be helpful at times and at times it is not. Modern authors today sometimes refer to ancient themes or terms to evoke a particular meaning, and other times might use similar terms without meaning to tie their work to the older usage. Biblical authors did the same. If we can tell from context or other means that an author meant to tie the use of a term to the “First Mention” meaning, then it can be useful to investigate and apply that meaning. But that is a big “if”, and, even then, we are assuming that (1) we understand the “First Mention” properly and (2) so did the author we believe is applying it.

 

[Stratiotes]

If we can tell from context or other means that an author meant to tie the use of a term to the “First Mention” meaning, then it can be useful to investigate and apply that meaning. But that is a big “if”, and, even then, we are assuming that (1) we understand the “First Mention” properly and (2) so did the author we believe is applying it.

I agree to some extent - however, this is not often how the apostles approached the scriptures. To them, the scriptures were not simply an historical document with some meaning we could glean with a proper understanding of historical-grammatical nuances. Matthew, for instance, quotes Isaiah 7:14 as a messianic text despite the fact that the context of that verse does not give any indication that he could do so. The same is true when Peter refers to two passages of Psalms (see Acts 1:20) in the context of selecting a new bishop even though there is nothing in those Psalms to tell us they were referring to what Peter was referring. We could go on and on with examples of how the apostles clearly did not follow the historical-critical methods (which are a modern invention of course). So what was it that the apostles felt gave them the right to re-interpret scripture sometimes entirely without regard to the original context? The analogy of faith and understanding the part in light of the whole. It is a concept I fear we are losing in our quest for “scientific” methods that end up leading us away from a better understanding of the scriptures rather than toward it.