Horrible Hermeneutics - The Law of First Mention

[@andrewbelanger8241]

I appreciate all your hard work in this channel. You’ve chosen to take on a very devout group of zealots at great personal cost. I admire your dedication and courage. I pray you are sustained in proclaiming truth and your family finds blessing through what must undoubtedly be an ugly struggle in this season.

[@pastorburris]

Thank you for the prayer and encouragement.

[@ellisrowe363]

I do appreciate the definition; you are correct there is "no" hermeneutic called The Law of first mention.

[@kenwillis89]

Excellent stuff!

[@2minTheology]

Pastor,I appreciate your caution regarding the principle of first mention, especially the risks it poses when applied to English Bible translations by those not well-versed in biblical languages. However, with proper exegetical methods that consider the original Greek and Hebrew, its value shines. Modern tools have evolved beyond traditional concordances. For instance, resources like the Louw-Nida lexicon allow us to explore the nuanced senses of original words, enriching our understanding and application of this principle. By leveraging such advancements, we can navigate the complexities of biblical text more accurately, appreciating the depth of scripture with greater clarity. Nevertheless, we have to be mindful that this principle is regarding appearance of themes, concepts and/or symbols in scripture. That is why we can see that in Gen 3:21 combined with Gen 4, we can understand the sacrificial system and maybe part of the reason why the Lord was please with Abel and his offering. As particular believers, we know that the bigger part was based in Abel himself and not necessarily his sacrifice.

[@pastorburris]

You are talking exegesis - not first mention. Exegesis is proper. First mention is not. I would remind you again that even in the original languages, words’ meanings vary based on the author and the context. Some words have a wide semantic domain. Others are narrow.

[@2minTheology]

@@pastorburrisI think based on your response is that you are trying to come at this against the KJO group but they are not the only ones that use this hermeneutical principle (although they do it totally wrong) Take another example, the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6. What Does 'bēn ʾělōhîm' Truly Mean? This is the Hebrew phrase that translates this to the English word “sons of god”. Many mistakenly think this is talking about Angels. However, could it be that Genesis 4:26 is the law of first mentioned where this means… in the words of the apostle John “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.?

[@jonw881]

I think one of the easiest ways to show why the "Law" of First Mention is flawed is that whichever reference is reckoned as "first" is contingent on the ordering of the canonical books. If, as in some Hebrew Bibles, the books of the OT were arranged in a different order (Isaiah immediately after 2 Kings, Ruth after Song of Songs, etc), this redefines some definitional first mentions. In essence, the table of contents per se decides more things than it was meant to. Similar point: sticking with Genesis as the first book in canonical order, we would then need to assume that for the most part Genesis (given it's length and breadth of subject matter) is the interpretive key for the rest of Scripture, which of itself invites questions about what Scripture is about in sum. That belief would require serious theological substantiation, which inevitably (I would say) would beg the question about what Scripture fundamentally is, the nature of its authority, etc.

[@MAMoreno]

I don't know if "the Bible was not always arranged in the KJV order" would be convincing to many King James Onlyists.

[@OneHighwayWalker]

I've heard this "law" taught. I appreciate your explanation and examples. Let's stick to the truth and rightly divide the Word!

[@garyspatol395]

Gordon Fee said (as I remember) “A text cannot mean what it does not say”. If that’s true, (I believe it is) will you be explaining the necessary relationship between exegesis (observing what the text says) with Hermeneutics (interpreting what the text means)?

[@pastorburris]

The apostles were expositors and exegetes. It is the only proper way to preach.

[@classicchristianliterature]

YOU COMPROMISER! Just kidding, I couldn't resist. First time I mentioned the word hermeneutics to an IFB preacher, they looked at me like I had 3 heads. Understanding hermeneutics was a game changer for me. I would say I follow a "redemptive historical" hermeneutic (which sounds like it would be somewhat similar to the Christo-centric hermeneutic that you described).

[@pastorburris]

Look up Christotelic. Let me know if that term better describes you. I’m not saying it does. I’m am suggesting it might. Nothing wrong with that perspective.

[@classicchristianliterature]

@@pastorburris I think both Christo- “centric” and “telic” hermeneutics have their merits. I have found people mean different things by these terms however. I would be in agreement that “Christ is the heart of the Bible’s organic message (Christocentric) and that Christ is the goal of every stage of redemptive history (Christotelic)”. There is a book “Biblical Hermeneutics: 5 Views” and the article by Richard Gaffin explains the “redemptive historical” approach. I would say that the grammatical historical method really struggles with how to approach how Paul and Jesus use the Old Testament. Some will even go so far to say that they were wrong in the way they used interpreted the OT because it’s clear they weren’t using the GH hermeneutic!

[@ronjones6555]

Thank you so much for doing this series! I need it! After coming out of 30 years of Pentecostalism I need some good solid pointers on hermeneutics!

[@katrinahaney2694]

Context is imperative. The wine narrative regarding Noah was a lesson about how we need to be careful about things when we don't know what the consequences may be. Among other meanings. With melchizedek it was a shadow of Yahshua. The Melekh Tzaddik with bread and wine was a picture of the Messiah. Our Melekh (King) of Tzaddik (Righteousness) bringing us the bread of Life and the new wine of the covenant in Him. While I believe you can to some degree use a law of first mention; the contextual meaning must be foremost applied. We can compare the wine narrative of Noah more accurately with the principle of being drunk on the Spirit of the Living Elohim.

[@katrinahaney2694]

After writing this I received a realization the wine in Noah's narrative is also pointing to Messiah. He may have had wine before and it wasn't as strong. But it's symbolic of after the cleansing to new life (the flood/ the Messiah) the wine was more powerful. And the Holy Spirit in believers is more powerful than the Holy Spirit was in the old covenant. Everything points to Messiah!

[@jamest4659]

This is the first time I have heard of "First Mention". Interesting video! I have wondered about the Hebrew/Greek word "Yom". I wonder if always means a 24 hour day.

[@pastorburris]

Thank you for watching. And yes, “yom” is always used to represent a literal day.

[@andrewbelanger8241]

@@pastorburris Genesis 1:5a, 16, and 18 use "yom" particularly to refer to the part of the day that is "light" rather than encompassing the full ~24 hour period. In fact Genesis 1:5 breaks the supposed law of first mention in the same sentence as "yom" refers to both the lighted part of a day and the 24 hour period of light/dark. One could also have a field day with serpent, leaven, Egypt, and many other theologically significant terms showing how bizarre this "hermeneutic" could be rendered if slavishly held onto. I think, regarding "yom," it would be more technically accurate to say that when "yom" follows an ordinal number (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) then it is specifically and always referring to a period of light followed by darkness associated with the regular rotation of the earth relative to the sun. Just as the video's theme of "first mention" cannot govern meaning as a principle, we should be careful not to think of references for example to a "in that day" such as Isaiah 7:18ff, or the long "day" in Joshua 10 as beholden to a ~24 hour period of time.

[@michaelroots6931]

Heard that law a lot. Looking forward to more in the series. Many Believers just take for granted that what the preacher knows what he is talking about.

[@Agben35]

Missed seeing your videos, glad to see you back!

[@jamation9X]

Oh boy I cannot wait for the video about "types". As the IFB just LOVES to create a ton of them when it's convenient for them. It just feels like a sly way of getting around the literal meaning of certain verses.

[@sokoyagbemiga8412]

since u're talking about this point sir, what can you make of NASA - lifting or bearing up found in Leviticus 16. As it applies to the goat of departure which d high priest lays his hands on and confess the sins on . The goat is led into the desert. Yet on the Cross where Jesus was our sin offering propitiation we Christians says bear our sins. How and where in Leviticus 16 did the sin offering goat bear up our sins as we claim Christ did on the cross. Bearing up NASA does apply to the Cross in anyway yet we apply it. Where did Christ carry our sins into the desert? Please any response

[@jimmason5738]

A good, very helpful series. Looking forward to this.

[@michelleinshades]

Do you happen to have any history behind how this "law" came about? Are there any verses that they reference to say it is valid? If anyone knows even a little bit about English, they would know words can have multiple meanings, so I have a hard time understanding how people can believe this approach has any validity (and yet I know you are telling the truth that they do because I have heard it mentioned in arguments where people are trying to prove why a passage of scripture means something other than what it seems to mean).

[@jeremsgarage]

Brother Jonathan, I appreciate you tackling this one. I have issues with the word “hermeneutics” as the root comes from the Greek god Hermes and using a false god as a descriptor for how to interpret the Bible of the true God just seems wrong. I wish we had a better word. Another point of disagreement is with authorial intent. I am not convinced that the biblical authors were 100% on the meaning of what they were writing all the time. Those were Gods words not just theirs. I mean, do you think Zachariah understood the full meaning of every word God had him write down? What about the mysteries that the Apostle Paul pulled out of the Old Testament. Were those mysteries revealed to the original authors or to Paul? While I do think these are good principles to study, they are not hard and fast “laws.”

[@curtthegamer934]

A lot of our words in English come from pagan deities. The days of the week, the months of the year, the names of the planets, etc. Even in the Bible itself, when Daniel's three friends have their names changed to ones named after Babylonian deities, the text continues to primarily refer to them by these new names even in the narration. Sheol is referred to as "Hades" in the Septuagint and the New Testament, and originates from the pagan underworld in Greek mythology (named after the pagan god who ruled there). If God did not have a problem with things like this, then neither should we.

[@jeremsgarage]

@curtthegamer934 thanks. But you kind of lost me at the last sentence. Hades and Sheol are transliterated in modern versions not translated. I stick with my original distaste for using a pagan diety as they key to understanding the Bible. I just call it Bible interpretation. Hermes was the one who communicated the words of the gods to humanity. It's just disgusting to me that we use that word, with its roots.

[@honsville]

Ive mostly heard the law of first mention in dealing with words and their meanings. But even in the KJV this doesnt work with the word "love" for instance. Amnon loved his sister and Isaac loved Esau's meat and the Pharisees love to wear long robes...this is far from Abraham loved his son Isaac. Even people who are KJ only knows that this doesnt work in every case. Instead its probably more of a way for certain doctrines to be taught...you know....the weird stuff. :)

[@SamGarcia]

The law of first mention is based on: Isa.28 [10] For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: .... [13] But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Among other verses that talk about building a foundation. If you can't build from a previous mention or precept, then your Bible is inherently unstable, because it means that first mention does not relate to later mentions at all, meaning your Bible has different definitions for the same word in its text. Using the same word several ways in different contexts do NOT invalidate the principle. Obviously what is the same in all instances of the word is the definition. It's what unites the word "world" in all of its mentions. The 14 different ways then is the fluff of the word, and not its core definition. Obviously. That argument is like saying because one mention of "conversation" in one place is in a righteous context, and another place about the "conversation" of the wicked, which are opposite contexts, that means they don't have to do with each other. No, stupid, it's what is common between those two times is the definition, it doesn't mean they have the opposite definition.

[@pastorburris]

Mr. Garcia, what then is the rule so that one may know when to use it and when not to use it? Do you not agree that it obviously doesn’t apply to words like perfect and world and wine? You mentioned “world”; would you be willing to employ the principle of first mention for me as it pertains to world? That would be helpful.

[@josephkearns3999]

Great video Jonathan!

[@4jgarner]

I've wondered about this for a while. It *seems* like a good idea at least at first hearing it. But I am looking forward to finally having an answer to this!

[@annakimborahpa]

1. Well, if the King James Bible was good enough for the First Mentioned Study Bible, previously published as First Mentioned Nuggets In The King James Holy Bible, then that, along with a side order of Chicken McNuggets, is good enough for me under the hermeneutic of First Come, First Served. 2. Pastor Burriss at 8:35 - 9:01: "It puts every first or only mention of a word in the King James Version in bold. While that alone is not bad, the person who's put this together clings to and teaches that the Law of First Mention is a valid hermeneutic. And as you've clearly learned through the few examples I've just given, it just doesn't work. It's demonstrably false and therefore a horrible hermeneutic." Response: But if it further programs and confirms a believer's attachment to the KJV, it will have served its IFB purpose. Isn't that the point all along, but thy charity prevaileth? At least ya got this one outta the way, PB, and from now on in the series you won't have to restrain yourself from bursting out loud laughing, God help you.

[@brothermike434]

Okay Pastor. I’m a little creeped out by your visitor. I may have trouble sleeping tonight 😂😂😂

[@pastorburris]

My robot? My kids love it! 😀

[@brothermike434]

@@pastorburrisRobot?!?! I thought it was a clown and thus a fitting metaphor for the Law of First Mention. As always Pastor, great content and this time with the additional benefit of reminding me to get my glasses fixed. Blessings brother! 🤡

[@brothermike434]

@@pastorburrisRobot?!?!? I thought it was a clown and thus a fitting metaphor for the Law of First Mention. As always great content and a reminder I need to have my glasses fixed. Blessings brother 🤡

[@JC-pe5fk]

Have you gone from IFB to Reformed/Calvinist?

[@pastorburris]

I was Calvinistic when I was IFB; probably since around 1998 or 1999. There are more than you might think.

[@joestfrancois]

I would argue this concept, the law of first mention, is false because there is no univocality in the Bible. The books of the Bible were written at different times by men and maybe women of different cultures. There is no way it can be consistent and if you don't to extreme lengths with complicated explanations the different texts just don't line up. Even with complicated explanations lots of believers struggle rectifying meaning from book to book. There is not a believer that studies the Bible that does not know of a few. Good stories though, fascinating stuff. Also, your saying it makes no difference at all what a person thinks the text means to them, but that only what the writer meant to convey is another reason I like to watch your vids. Even not believing it I think that would be the important thing in the writings. What some yahoo thinks doesn't seem too important.

[@All-shall-say-Jesus-is-Lord]

This particular method as presented is wrong. However, it touches on an idea that does seem very reasonable. It's the idea that later authors reference themes and ideas that earlier authors first stated. In any book series this will happen, and it can play a big role in understanding that theme or idea and its deeper nuances.

[@pastorburris]

If you are referring to context, I’m certainly for determining a word’s intended meaning based on its usage first in its immediate context and then within the context of other uses of the particular author and only after that, how other authors use it. My example of how John uses “world” in 14 different ways in his writings is a great example. And no matter what, you cannot use the initial usage and apply it universally as the principle of first mention suggests.

[@AnthonyMarcus0115]

It's so cringeworthy when I hear a PASTOR in 2024 asserting the "law of first mention" with great scholarly authority. It's so embarrassing.

[@pastorburris]

Amen!

[@toddstevens9667]

Absolutely.

[@TheBeginningOfWisdom]

The first time I’ve heard of a principle of first mention, it was a completely different principle. It also wasn’t connected with IFB so that could be part of it. The principle I learned is that the first mention of a major theological idea or term should carry some extra weight when considered with later occurrences, not because we ignore context, but because, if we’re after original intent, we can’t assume the earlier author is using the later author’s context or meaning. In other words, don’t read later contexts backwards into the first context you find the term.

[@rodneyjackson6181]

Pastor Jonathan, I saw on Facebook adds selling First Mention Bibles. The Bible seems to be put out by a King James Onlyist named Kevin Mann who seems to have his own publishing company.

[@pastorburris]

That’s the one I mention at the end of my video. 🤦‍♂️

[@jasonzacharias2150]

✌🏻👼🏻🤟🏻

[@jasonwells5760]

The exceptions do not overthrow the principle. How about "love" in Genesis 22:2, "believed" in Genesis 15:6, "sin" in Genesis 4:7, "angel" in Genesis 16:7, "devils" in Leviticus 17:7, "salvation" in Genesis 49:18, "miracle" in Exodus 7:9, "holy" in Exodus 3:5, "hell" in Deuteronomy 32:22, and "sinners" in Genesis 13:13?

[@pastorburris]

Actually, it absolutely does. What is the standard for applying the principle? How does one know when it may be applied and when it cannot. You mentions several examples that also prove my point. Love has many meanings in the scripture. In Genesis 22 it is referring to a father’s love for a son. That is not the same as love mentioned between a man and a woman. Ammon loved his sister Tamar and raped her. I can go on. That one fails the principle. Angel is an angelic being in Genesis 16:7. Was John instructed to write to an angelic being at each of the seven churches in Asia Minor? Not at all. It is a word that simply means messenger there. That one fails. Salvation also fails. There are times when salvation applies to redemption and being made just with God. Other times, it is used to refer to a situational salvation from enemies or troubles. That one fails as well. I can do this all day. This so called principle does the death of a thousand cuts and therefore, is no principle at all.

[@jasonwells5760]

@@pastorburris It goes with out saying, at least to me, someone who compares scripture with scripture, that a particular word's definition may be clarified, extended, contrasted, or qualified. Wine is a good example. Knowing that there's distinction between old wine and new wine, the first mention of it most certainly is carried through. The warnings against [old] wine in Proverbs and Habakkuk come to mind.

[@dodo1opps]

Opinion...opinion...opinion...

[@pastorburris]

I literally refuted it by showing that it isn’t applicable. It wasn’t opinion.

[@shaccooper4828]

I think you are totally over analyzing first mentions and using a stroke way to broad to throw the entire perspective out. There are numerous examples that carry significant weight, but I feel like wasting the time because you seem convinced that there is nothing at all to any first mentions

[@pastorburris]

I’ll ask you like I asked others. Can you tell me when first mention may be used and when it cannot? What is the rule for determining such? Why are there exceptions and how is one to know when such an exception is met? A principle that may not be consistently applied is no principle at all.

[@shaccooper4828]

@@pastorburris ​​⁠I never said it was a rule. It would be absurd to say there was a rule, but in certain context, I believe first mention may have a deeper significance as a precedent. One example, I do believe the way the first sin transpired is the case for all sin that followed. I think you’re to focused on a this or that logic. Ironically, you open the video explaining how interpreting the Bible doesn’t work that way, then you don’t use the same logic when speaking of firsts. Though I don’t doubt that there may be some that takes firsts to a superstitious interpretations, I’ve never met a person who view them as literally meaning every first thing that occurs sets some type of rule. What happens to often is that some take way too one extreme or another. You’re taking the idea of firsts way too literal. Nevertheless, there are instances that seem to set as precedents. No one can declare that this is true or not but the Holy Spirit. Just because you have not gotten that out of any firsts, it doesn’t mean there’s no truth to it in any aspect.

[@pastorburris]

You did not help your cause at all either this comment. You did not defend the “principle” at all. If you cannot describe how and when to apply it consistently, it is no principle at all. It’s that simple.

[@shaccooper4828]

@@pastorburris ​​⁠ I see. You’re maybe one of those who get satisfaction from judging others’ walk, but puffing yourself up that way only exposes you.

[@shaccooper4828]

@@pastorburris i do have one question for you though. Do you also think there is no deeper meaning in certain instances when it comes to 2nd sons in the Bible? Do you not ever notice certain motifs? Motif: a distinctive feature or dominant idea in an artistic or literary composition. Dominate idea doesn’t mean only, rule or principle. It just mean that there is a theme that pops up here and there.

[@petercollins7730]

I'm sorry, but I cannot fathom how an apparently intelligent, rational adult can believe the word of the bible to be literally true. Perhaps you are using the word 'literal' in some other way, but if you follow the standard definition, the bible cannot possibly be literally true. The bible contains an enormous number of clear, patent contradictions; that violates the first law of logic. I have never heard any logical explanation for believing that the bible is literally true, which rationally addresses this point. You are welcome to try, if you wish.

[@pastorburris]

You have thrown a very generic statement against the wall. Why don’t you try me with your very best example and let’s see if I can address it.

[@petercollins7730]

@@pastorburris Fair enough. The gospels describe in detail the death of Judas, and they do it in two entirely different, entirely contradictory ways. Either, according to the writing, Judas returned his payment for betrayal to the Jewish authorities, who later bought a plot of land with it; or, Judas himself, at that time, bought a plot of land with the money. And either Judas died by hanging himself; or Judas died when he fell and his internal organs spilled out. Either of these scenarios could be reasonably claimed to be true, but if you claim one to be true, the other must, patently, be false. Either Judas bought some land with particular money, or Judas returned the money Either Judas died by hanging himself, or he died because he fell and split open. He cannot have given back the money and then bought land with the same money; he cannot have died by hanging himself and also died by falling down and splitting open. I would welcome any rational explanation of how both of these scenarios can be true.

[@pastorburris]

Sir, if this is your best, this is going to be a short conversation. Judas Iscariot (make sure to differentiate him from the other Judas) attempted to hang himself and failed, instead falling and bursting himself upon the rocks. That is not a contradiction. Subsequently, the money that Judas Iscariot returned could not be revived back by those who had paid him. It was blood money. So the property was bought as by him because the money could not be revived back. I would encourage you to seek to understand the concept of telescoping in the gospel accounts.

[@petercollins7730]

@@pastorburris I'm sorry, but that is not an answer. Your bible clearly states that Judas killed himself by hanging. You cannot make up a convenient story that directly contradicts your own, claimed literal, text. And you haven't even attempted to explain how Judas bought land with money and also, before buying the land, returned the money. In the videos of yours I have watched, you seemed to be a rational person; this explanation is not logical or feasible. I used this example, not because it was "the best" (I have no idea what "the best" contradiction would be), but because it is so clear, so patent. In two different parts of your bible, the same person died in two different ways. He also did two different, mutually-incompatible thing with a single sum of money. Your attempt at harmonization is little more than hand-waving and making black mean white and up mean down. I expected better. Telescoping cannot and does not explain clear contradictory statements. If you ignore the first law of logic, then I won't find anything you say persuasive.

[@pastorburris]

He hanged himself. That is accurate. But in three process, he fell and burst himself on the rocks. That is not a contradiction. And the text never says that Judas bought the property and then returned the money. You are conflating. I follow a literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic. I take the Bible literally and that is a clear and cogent summation of the gospel accounts. You may not like it, but I can not only exegete it, but if you wish to debate it in front of a live audience where we can cross examine one another, I can absolutely defend the clear non contradictory teaching of scripture.