The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Corithians 15:22-24, correct punctuation

Hi Guys,
It seems that the following passage has completely different meaning depending on correct punctuation
This is from King James

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
**
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.**

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Youngs literal translation has “,” instead of “:” after “every man in his own order” and “,” at the end of 23.

Many other Bible translations are similar to KJV.
What is the proper translation here ?

The “every man in his own order” colon is simply explanatory, and doesn’t change the meaning – no one thinks every man in his own order is made alive before Christ.

What translators do sometimes do, is put a comma after “Christ” before “the first fruits”, the idea being four groups.

So possible interpretational grammar (not counting clues from local or extended context):

1.) First Christ is made alive, then the firstfruits are made alive, then those who are His at His coming are made alive, then the general resurrection are made alive at the end. (Four categories.)

2.) First Christ the firstfruits is made alive, then those who are Christ’s at His coming are made alive. Then comes the end, but nothing is said there about anyone more being made alive. (Two categories.)

3.) First Christ the firstfruits is made alive, then those who are Christ’s at His coming are made alive, then the general resurrection are made alive at the end. (Three categories.)

4.) First Christ is made alive, then the firstfruits are made alive, then those who are His at His coming are made alive. Then comes the end, but nothing is said there about anyone more being made alive. (Three categories.)

I haven’t checked the Greek about clues in the technical grammar. But there is no punctuation in the original Greek (or capital and lowercase letters, or even spaces between words) so that can complicate things.

Thanks for the reply, Jason.
The “every man in his own order” colon is simply explanatory, and doesn’t change the meaning – no one thinks every man in his own order is made alive before Christ.

I didn’t mean that. What I meant is that with punctuation in such as the one in KJV (and many others) what you get by “all made alive” is actually Christ, the first fruits and those who are waiting for him.

If there is no punctuation in original Greek, than what is the proper way of understanding this “in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” phrase that is used so commonly to prove universalism?

The Greek word “ταγμα”, translated as order, as applied to the military, would be a troop, or rank, or some arrangement of soldiers.
I suggest that in general, it might better be translated as “class”.

There seems to be three classes of persons who are raised from the dead:

  1. Christ (the only one in his class, and the first to have a true resurrection, and not merely a resuscitation as, for example Lazarus, who died again).

  2. The Firstfruits. I think this would be a reference to those who were raised shortly after Christ was raised.

The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. (Matthew 27:52, 53)

  1. At his coming those who belong to Christ. When Jesus returns, the all who have belonged to Him, will be raised to life.

In I Cor 15, Paul also compares our life in this world to a grain if wheat that is sown, and the resurrection body to a full-grown wheat plant.

I have heard some teachers say that Christ, the first class, is the wheat that is sown.
Those who were raised, shortly afterward, was the first fruits of the harvest.
And those who will be raised at Christ’s coming, will be the main harvest.

Hi Paidion,

So according to what you say, “in adam all die, in Christ all shall be made alive” can’t be applied as universalist argument, because clearly there are also “enemies that will be put under Christ feet” after that.

If the classes or ranks exclude the finish or {telos}, or if the finish does not include those who shall be submitted to Christ as Christ is submitted to God, or if being submitted to Christ does not involve the kind of loyal submission of Christ to God, then of course those who are being submitted in the reign until all those not yet submitted are submitted, cannot be made alive.

But that’s a question of contextual detail, not grammar exactly.

Still, in cultural parlance, the ranks in a triumphal parade would include those being triumphed over as the finish. And grammatically they’re listed with {eita} just like those who are Christ’s in His presence are listed with {apeita}. Nor can a distinction in the two terms be used for disregarding the inclusion of the triumphed foes, because they’re described with the basic inclusive term. It’s the ones whom no one doubts who will be saved, who get the slight variant inclusive term.

“As in Adam all are dying” applies to everyone in each class (whether or not Christ counts as the Firstfruit or the Firstfruits are distinct from both Christ and those who are Christ’s in His presence), even to Christ Who voluntarily shares the death of Adam. (A super-important point among trinitarian and proto-trinitarian patristics who stressed the full humanity of Christ along with the full deity.) No one denies those enemies of Christ whom Christ reigns over, are included in the category of “as in Adam all are dying”. The dispute is over whether those enemies of Christ whom Christ must be reigning over (until they submit to Christ!) are included in the category of “in Christ shall all be made alive”.

Even then, a non-universalist could agree all will be made alive in the general resurrection. Then the dispute is over whether Christ will succeed in submitting them to Himself (although Paul says so); or whether Christ intends and achieves some kind of false submission (with lips but not with the heart) different from His loyal submission to the Father so that He does not in fact subject all things to God in Himself (although Paul says so); or whether Christ intends and achieves their true submission to Himself in communion with His loyal submission to the Father so that He does in fact subject all things to God in Himself (which Paul essentially says will happen).

But these are not arguments about punctuation criteria, but about the interpretation of ideas expressed. It doesn’t really matter whether there’s a comma or a period after “then those who are Christ’s in His presence” before “then the telos”. What matters is what the “telos” involves or includes. Consequently it matters a little whether extra words are added to the translation of {eita to telos} at the start of verse 24, since that might make it seem as though the language itself makes more of an excluded distinction about the telos than what’s printed on the page. “then those who are Christ’s in His presence. Then comes the end when…” can convey rather a different idea than “then those who are Christ’s in His presence. Then the finish when…” There is no verb, nor an implied one, in the actual Greek, which suggests the divisions all hearken back to “each in his own rank”, and thus to “all shall be made alive”.

(robin)
Some good replies here, towstt, but something just didn’t ring right …
So, I actually checked to see how Young’s was reading, and there isn’t an …“instead of” … as you suggested?

“for even as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive,
and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterterwards those who are the Christ’s, in his presence,
then – the end, when he may dliver up the reign to God, even the Father, when he may have made useless
all rule, and all authority and power --”

I often use Young’s, it’s a good translation, but I think Rotherham and Dabhar’s (“The Writ”) are better. And, if you have
the time, inclination, and the patience, you might even wrestle with the actual Greek to English (see below) …

The second line (below) is my transliteration of the Greek squiggles; I find it easier to look at …
And, there’s only one verse variant (that I’m aware of) in these three verses; that is, …παραδῷ … or … paradO …in verse 24,
and that’s just involves a parsing difference in the verb #3860 V-2AAS-3S instead of #3860 V-PAS-3S,
which as far as I can tell, still reads, almost, the same … So, I really cant see anywhere that you came up with …“instead” …?

Where DID you come up with your spurious …“instead” …???


15:22 Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται.
hOsper gar en tO adam pantes apothnEskousin houtOs kai en tO christO pantes zOopoiEthEsontai

15:23 Ἕκαστος δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι· ἀπαρχὴ χριστός, ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ.
hekastos de en tO idiO tagmati aparchE christos epeita hoi tou christou en tE parousia autou

15:24* Εἶτα τὸ τέλος, ὅταν παραδῷ τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί, ὅταν καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν.
eita to telos hotan paradO tEn basileian tO theO kai patri hotan katargEsE pasan archEn kai pasan exousian kai dunamin


I do see a few things, here, in Robert’s (Young’s) translation that could have been better presented … one man’s opinion, mine …
In verse 22 there’s that akward dative article before “the Adam,” Young’s has no method of indicating to the reader when he leaves
a word out of his reading; he should, otherwise he should have just accepted the akward and shown the reader it’s presence …
Another quibble I have with his literal reading, is that he doesn’t, apparently, have a method of indicating Greek combination words;
that is,where is says “hOsper gar en tO adam,” he reads it as “for even as in” … and the adverb hOsper is just one word; thus it would
have been better of him to have shown the reader this using, perhaps, the hyphenated “for as-even in the Adam” …

In verse 23, he starts out on the wrong foot with “and” (which is “kai”), but the actual conjunction is “de” or “yet” … “yet each [one]” …
Then Robert adds the word “proper,” but fails to show his readers that this was an editorial enhancement …interestingly, there’s also the added
“his,” which I’m guessing he must have used to represent the neuter “tO idiO” unto the [thing] {3588 T-DSN} unto an own [thing] {2398 A-DSN} …
“hekastos de en tO idiO tagmati” … “Yet each [one] in the own order”

I sort of appreciate Robert’s hyphenated attempt at rendering “aparchE christos” … first-fruit Christ … in that he shows the reader
that this noun is a combination word; however, there is no fruit or “karpos” in “aparchE” …“Yes, we have no bananas” 1922 Broadway]
Granted, it’s a difficult word, and first-fruit or firstfruit is the commonly accepted understanding, but it’s wrong, nevertheless …

Notive, too, in this verse 23, Young’s adds the verb “are” without indicating to the reader that this is yet another enhancement
(all translators are liars); all that the Greek “hoi tou christou” really says is something like …“the [ones] of the Christ” …

In verse 24, Young starts off badly, again, with “then” … which is the adverb “tote” … the actaul adverb, here, is “eita,”
which I find best fit to the English word “thereafter” …

I’m not sure about his choice of “end” for “telos” … I’m partial to reading “peros” as the English “end,” and “telos” as “finish” … but I could be mistaken?
There’s a floating definite article before “God and Father,” Robert moves it forward to “the Father,” but the syntax would have it before God, as in “the God and Father” … might this be some subtle doctrinal agenda? And where did that extra word “even” come from?

Young reads (misreads?) the conjunction “hotan” as “when” … I find that “hotan” should be read as “whenever,” and “hote” as “when” …
Verbs are hard for me, and apparently for Robert as well … that is, the verb “katargEsE” (#2673 V-AAS-3S) …“He should nullify” …
am I that far afield, that Young’s “He may have made useless” is the better reading?

I agree with Young’s “authority and power,” but is “rule” the best reading of “archEn” (0746 N-ASF) … the word sort of means “a beginning,”
but one could streach it, I guess, as the metonymy of person, to be …“a pre-eminence” … “rule” works, I guess, but strikes me as a bit lame …

And finally, it’s a mean spirited little quibble, I admit … however, Young’s is suppose to be dependable, so the adjective “pasan,” which he reads
as “all” sort of rubs my fur the wrong way … that is, “all” does, indeed, fit within this word family, but I’ve found that it only fits, properly, when this discriptive relates to plural persons and things; whereas “every” goes better with the singular …

I’ve found that this holds true with all 24 combinatons of it’s case, number, and gender:

3956 pas every [one] A-NSM.01
3956 pantos of every [one] A-GSM.02
3956 panti unto every [one] A-DSM.03
3956 panta to every [one] A-ASM.04
3956 pantes all [ones] A-NPM.05
3956 pantOn of all [ones] A-GPM.06
3956 pasi unto all [ones] A-DPM.07
3956 pasin unto all [ones] A-DPM.07
3956 pantas to all [ones] A-APM.08
3956 pasa every [one] A-NSF.09
3956 pasEs of every [one] A-GSF.10
3956 pasE unto every [one] A-DSF.11
3956 pasan to every [one] A-ASF.12
3956 pasai all [ones] A-NPF.13
3956 pasOn of all [ones] A-GPF.14
3956 pasais unto all [ones] A-DPF.15
3956 pasas to all [ones] A-APF.16
3956 pan every [thing] A-NSN.17
3956 pantos of every [thing] A-GSN.18
3956 panti unto every [thing] A-DSN.19
3956 pan to every [thing] A-ASN.20
3956 panta all [things] A-NPN.21
3956 pantOn of all [things] A-GPN.22
3956 pasin unto all [things] A-DPN.23
3956 panta to all [things] A-APN.24

patri hotan katargEsE pasan archEn kai pasan …“whenever EVERY pre-eminence’, and every authority, and power He should nullify”

Dont give up your day job, Robert!

The following is verse 23 in Young’s Literal Translation:

and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterwards those who are the Christ’s, in his presence

Young’s doesn’t have “instead of” anywhere in this verse.

~

So Robin, I’m a tad confused… Paidion has basically asked the same question you raised earlier up the page i.e., he seems to agree with you, and yet here you seem none too impressed with him – am I reading you wrong??

Robin, I have no idea why you think I’ve put you on “Ignore.” If anyone were to object to my post, I would rather expect it to be towstt. For I think I have shown that he was mistaken in thinking that Young’s Literal Translation of verse 23 contains the phrase “instead of.”

No, I don’t know how to do that. The thing that puzzles me about the spell checker is that it accepts peculiar spellings as valid. For example, it accepts “hell-lo” on my computer as a correctly spelled word.

(robin)
spell checker is horrid … never catches the more obvious mistakes, the hasty clummsy fingered spelling, but attempts to turn every Greek word into the oddest of word choices. Truth be told, I am bad a spelling, but not as bad as spell checker makes it look at times …

So you dont check your messages … right?

Spell checkers - like language translators - are a work in progress. It’s like a fine wine. It gets better with time. Take Chess and Go playing programs. At one time, they were in their infancy. Then IBM perfected one, to beat the world’s chess champion. And Google now has a computerized Go program, giving experts a run for their money. Let’s just say that with language translators and spell checkers, they still need humans - to double check things. :smiley:

That is, until big tech companies, like IBM, Microsoft and Google (or academics and government bodies) - perfect them. You will never have a “perfect” model. But it can get close - in terms of statistical accuracy. :exclamation: :slight_smile:

And if you want to stimulate the brain cells, then play a computerized game of Chinese Go or Chess :exclamation: :smiley:

How about a song, to illustrate this post’s main points :question: :laughing:

I see it as

Christ- on the 3rd day

the first-fruits- those who were raised shortly after Christ

those who are His at His coming- first resurrection

then come the end(finish/final outcome)- second resurrection all the remaining dead

ODE TO THE SPELL CHECKER
Eye halve a spelling chequer:
It came with my pea sea.
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid,
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite.
Its rare lea ever wrong.
Eye have run this poem threw it.
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

(robin)
Funny ode … but then we all get old and funny! “Dust on the bottle,” Indeed!
Sort of like that singer, have never heard of him, before …

But back to the topic … we did have one, right? …that is, towstt’s topic of verses 15:22-24;
I’ll refrain, for now, in giving you my own (total) reading of these verses, but I thought that
first presenting each of the words as units of data, we might discuss each word, before stringing
them together in some sort of readable English verse. The reason I’d like to do this, engage some of
you (includeing, of course, Paidion), is that there’s one particular word (other than the non-existent “instead of”)
one word that compleatly stumps me …“aparchE” (“ἀπαρχὴ”) …in 15:23

15:22 Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται.
hOsper gar en tO adam pantes apothnEskousin houtOs kai en tO christO pantes zOopoiEthEsontai

15:23 Ἕκαστος δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι· ἀπαρχὴ χριστός, ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ.
hekastos de en tO idiO tagmati aparchE christos epeita hoi tou christou en tE parousia autou

15:24* Εἶτα τὸ τέλος, ὅταν παραδῷ τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί, ὅταν καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν.
eita to telos hotan paradO tEn basileian tO theO kai patri hotan katargEsE pasan archEn kai pasan exousian kai dunamin

…“aparchE” (“ἀπαρχὴ”) …in 15:23, is a Greek combination word:

0575 GK0608 ap from/ away “o” dropped before words beginning with a vowel] PREP
0575 GK0608 aph from/ away “ph” sometimes before words beginning with a vowel] PREP

Plus …

0757 GK0806 archein to begin V-PAN.5721

That is (being most literal) …

0536 GK0569 aparchE a from-beginning/ a firstfruit N-NSF.09
0536 GK0569 aparchEn to a from-beginning/ to a firstfruit N-ASF.12

And, like I’d mentioned before, there AINT NO “fruit,”
nor for that matter, any “first” in this particular Greek word …"a from-beginning/ “a firstfruit” {0536 N-NSF} …

2590 GK2843 karpos a fruit N-NSM.01

4413 GK4755 prOtos a first [one] A-NSM-S.01
4413 GK4755 prOtO unto a first [one] A-DSM-S.03
4413 GK4755 prOtois unto first [ones] A-DPM-S.07
4413 GK4755 prOtE a first [one] A-NSF-S.09
4413 GK4755 prOtEs of a first [one] A-GSF-S.10
4413 GK4638 prOtE unto a first [one] A-DSF-S.11
4413 GK4755 prOtEn to a first [one] A-ASF-S.12

However, to be fair, I see that in the “Apostolic Bible Polyglot” (a very good scriptural tool for the LXX), that
this Greek word (#0536) is equated with how we read “first fruit” in the OT (Ex 22:29; 23:19; 25:2, 3; 35:5:,6; 38;24; Le 16:34; Dt 9:13; Jos 6:3, 14; Jdg 6:39; 15:3; 16:18, 29; 20::30, 31; 1Sa 3:10; 20:25; 26:8; 2Sa 3:10; 20:35; 26::8; 2Ki 6:10; 2Ch 9:21; Neh 13:20; job 33:14; 40:5; Ps 62:11; 80:35; Hag 2:6

…equated with where we read this word as “firstfruit” in the twelve or more verses in the NT, so …perhaps… we cant read it as a literal word, but more so as some Hebrew to Greek idiom (I hate these) …OR, perhaps, we’re just messed up, in both the NT and OT, and should re-visit our thinking?

I often use the Dabbar (“The Writ”) translation, and it reads this word as …“from-origin” … This appeals to me, in that it’s very literal; however, I’d like to suggest a step even farther out of bounds from our common or regulate thinkings …That is “archE” is usually read as “a beginning” …

0744 GK0792 archaia (p1/1) beginning [things] A-NPN.21
0746 GK0794 archE (1) a beginning N-NSF.09
0746 GK0794 archEs (1) of a beginning N-GSF.10

… so why couldn’t our conundrum of a word …“aparchE” … be read, as if it were a metonymy of person; that is, as “a pre-eminence” plus “from” …

0746 GK0794 archEs (2) of a pre-eminence’ *metonymy of person] N-GSF.10
0746 GK0794 archE (1) unto a beginning N-DSF.11
0746 GK0794 archEn (1) to a pre-eminence’ *metonymy of person] N-ASF.12
0746 GK0794 archai (2) pre-eminences’ *metonymy of person] N-NPF.13
0746 GK0794 archais (2) unto pre-eminences’ *metonymy of person] N-DPF.15
0746 GK0794 archas (p2) to pre-eminences’ *metonymy of person] N-APF.16

Back to the verse in question …“hekastos de en tO idiO tagmati aparchE christos” …"
Yet each [one] in the own order: [the] from Pre-eminence, [the] Christ" …

“Christ” as you know, is not His last name, bur rather one of His titles … I prefer to read this word “christos” as “Anointed,” but let’s save that for et another discussion topic … Christ is one of His titles, so couldn’t “aparchE” also be one of His titles … “the Pre-Eminence, the Christ” …

And, the combination word “from” … plus …“pre-eminence” … is just the more emphatic; that is the “ap-” for emphasis, to show that we’re not talking about just some random “pre-eminence” (metonymy of person, of origin), but rather the VERY FIRST, the VERY ONE …“THE From-Preeminence” … THE Christ

“ἀπαρχὴ” as you know is translated “first-fruits” or in this case “first-fruit.”

The First-fruits
When farmers plant a crop of say, wheat, the very first plants to mature constitute the “first-fruits.” Then comes the main harvest, and finally the gleanings. As I see it, Paul looks at the resurrection as a harvest. Jesus was the first to receive a true resurrection from the dead. “Resurrections” prior to this, e.g. Lazarus, were not really resurrections but resuscitations. There were also a number of graves opened at that time and the dead came forth. I presume they, also, were part of the first-fruits of the resurrection.

The Main Harvest
When Christ returns, the main harvest takes place. “Then those who belong to Christ at his coming”—(also in verse 23).

The Gleanings
I think that there are some who are Christians but who will not be included among those who are raised at Christ’s coming. For " Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years." (Revelation 20:6). Those who are not “blessed and holy” will be raised in the second resurrection at the end of the thousand years.

I agree. The first fruits offering was a spring offering held the Sunday after the feast of unleavened bread(blessed and holy are those…). It is a small portion of the same general harvest, offered in advance to honor God.

“Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” 1 Cor 5:18

It was a wave offering of the firsts-fruits, a handful, or a single sheaf waved in the air.

Leviticus 23:9 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you enter the land which I am going to give to you and reap its harvest, then you shall bring in the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest. 11 He shall wave the sheaf before the Lord for you to be accepted; on the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it."

I believe thats what the firstfruits in 1 Cor 15 refers to. In my opinion :slight_smile: Jesus took a handful of friends and associates with Him into the heavenly realms to intercede with Him. A small offering out of the harvest yielded up to God in thanksgiving.

I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. Ro 12

The gleanings were fruit that had fallen of the stalk, just my opinion again, these would possibly be those who, were leavened with the leaven of the Pharisees(beware the leaven…) and built a lot wood hay and stubble; Did not abide in the Vine and were withered cut off and cast into the fire, etc.(every mans works will be tested with fire, for the Day will reveal it.); or were leavened with some measure of sin that disqualified them as overcomers and participant in the first resurrection, which as a percentage of the general harvest(imo) will be small.

robin)
True … both Paidion and Eaglesway … “first fruit” does seem to be the logical reading, here; however, that’s not what the word actually says.
That is, what I’m suggesting, is that we’re “reading into” this verse, what we think it should say, rather than actually reading it for what it does say.

I know what “first fruit” was in the OT … and Christ does, indeed, fit this figure, so Paidion, I totally agree with what you’re saying about harvest fruits; and it’s being a shadow of our Lord; however, again, there is no “fruit” nor “first” in this word …

(Eaglesway)
I believe thats what the firstfruits in 1 Cor 15 refers to. In my opinion :slight_smile:
Jesus took a handful of friends and associates with Him into the heavenly realms to intercede with Him.
A small offering out of the harvest yielded up to God in thanksgiving.

(Robin)
Ummmm …You must be referenceing some other verse, because neither 1Cor 1:15 nor 2Cor says anything like you are suggesting?

But, indeed, I am truely intrigued with your idea about Jesus taking anyone with Him into the heavens to intercede with Him …
Frankly, this sounds sort of absurd … is there some doctrine that goes along with your idea?

(robin)
Alright, Eaglesway, you’ve got me searching, but I’ve yet to find any verse that comes close to what your suggest; however, I did run down the first NT instance of the word, which translators keep reading as the so-called “first fruit” … that is, Romans 8:23 “aparchEn” (#0536 noun-ASF) …

I have my own reading of the Greek, here, but let’s go with Young’s for the moment:

“And not only so, but also we ourselves, having the first-fruit of the spirit;
we also ourselves in ourselves do groan, adoption expecting - the redemption of our body;”

Ergggg… I cant stand it, there are so many things, here in Young’s, that need to be looked closer at,
but Robert Young’s is one of the better translations, so let’'s just go with it (biting our tongues) …

So then, this verse talks about our having the so-called “first-fruit of the spirit,” so we’d have to make some distinction between Christ = Firstfruit,
and our obtaining or having this so-called “first-fruit;” that is, going back to the original topic verse (1Cor 15:23), Christ is the so-called “first-fruit,”
which we are thinking (I assume) means the first wave-sheaf offering after Pentecost, and yet, here, this so-called “first-fruit” is something we believers have or are holding from or of the spirit …

Guess what I’m trying to say, point out, is that even though the harvest offerning “first fruit” of the OT seems to fit the bill as what we might want it to read in 1Cor 15:23; that is Christ = “First Fruit,” such a reading of the word doesn’t work very well in other verses; whereas, the more literal reading of …from-origin/ from-beginning … does work, in all occurrences, includeing those in the OT.

Again, there is no “fruit” nor “first” in any of the NT occurances of this word …

0536 GK0569 aparchE (5) a from-beginning/ a firstfruit N-NSF.09
0536 GK0569 aparchEn (1) to a from-beginning/ to a firstfruit N-ASF.12

The above are the six times that Paul uses the word; but it’s also found once in James 1:18, and once in Rev 14:4,
and although almost all translations read these as “firstfruit” … there’s absoultly no reason why the word can not also be read more literally… accurately.