The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Corithians 15:22-24, correct punctuation

Theology Biblical Theology
#21

Hi robin

I am not sure what basis there is for stating like its a “matter of fact” that aparche in no way means first fruits.

Romans 11:16 and 16:5; 1 Cor 16:15; Rev 14:4 as well as the verses in 1 Corinthians 15 all translated first-fruit in almost every translation. I am not a Greek scholar but comprehensive use of resources seems to indicate there is good reason for it.

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, with whom there is no change or shifting shadow. 18He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, **that we would be a kind of firstfruits ἀπαρχήν of His creation.…
**

The context must be weighed into the topic across all occurrences along with other verses that describe the same thing in principle, such as Rom 8( as you referred)

I also believe, historically, it fits. There was definitely a group of saints raised from the dead shortly after Jesus was. So in speaking about order of resurrection, they fit there.

it also fits contextually with the verses in Romans 8 which integrate with Ephesians 1:

in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, would be for the praise of His glory. 13And in Him you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, having heard and believed the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. The Spirit is the pledge of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.…

The purpose of the first fruits offering is to the praise of His glory, a portion of the harvest. Eventually the whole harvest will be to the praise of His glory

Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” Rev 5:13

Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place, and gave Him the name above all names, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.…Phil 2:9,10

Also continuing into Ephesians 2

raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10**For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
**

This also parallels James 1:17, coming full circle back to first fruits to the praise of His glory.

The purpose of this first fruits is to be a kingdom of priests

“Worthy are You to take the scroll and open its seals, because You were slain, and by Your blood You purchased for God those from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. 10You have made them into a kingdom, priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.”

And Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

This is why the whole creation groans awaiting the revelation of the sons of God… and we groan also eagerly awaiting the redemption of our bodies, so that we might begin the work of preists along side our high priest

For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. Heb 2:10

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Rom 8

The similarity of language and expression of purpose in all these verses is to consistent for me to see it any other way, but i am just sharing my view on, not trying to engender debate :slight_smile:

read this verse in the context of preisthood and temple worship.

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

It is all about acceptable offerings.

I am He that tries the reins and the hearts…let those who have ears, hear what the spirit is saying to the churches…every mans work will be tested with fire for the Day will reveal it…and His eyes were as flames of fire, and His face shone like the sun…

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Acceptable offerings to the praise of His glory, first fruits of the Spirit, a downpayment guaranteeing the redemption of the purchased possession(all mankind).

The spirit is Christ(the first-fruit)in us, we are the firstfruits of the harvest in Him…

He is firstborn from the dead, we are the firstfruits of the general harvest, to be completed at the second resurrection, many sons to glory, an inheritance with the firstborn.

As in Adam all die so also in Christ shall all be made alive, but each in his own order…

#22

(Eaglesway)
I am not sure what basis there is for stating like its a “matter of fact” that aparche in no way means first fruits.

(robin)
The fact of the matter (not my opinion) is that the word … the word, itself … does not say either “fruit” or “first”
That’s a fact.
Futhermore, there are other Greek words for “fruit” and “first” …
That’s a fact.
Black is not white …
That’s a fact.

Now then, there are idioms … words that over time, and due to cultureal influences, that
have come to “say,” or be intended to be heard or mean certain things that the word, itself, doesn’t …
That’s a fact.

“aparche” does not say, nor ever will say “fruit” and “first” … however, it’s possible that we should be hearing it as intending this …
That’s NOT a fact … it’s a conjecture, a possibility.

What is a fact, however, is that the Greek elements in this word … only say, literally say … from + beginning/ origin (or words of similar meaning)
That’s a fact

First, read what the words say, and only then build your interpretations of what they mean …
First, know the facts. It’s hard work, but it makes for a good solid foundation to build upon.

(Eaglesway)
…we are the firstfruits of the harvest in Him…
…we are the firstfruits of the general harvest …

(robin)
I’m unable to find any such verses …
Why make this stuff up, why not just read the actual words for what they actually say?

#23

What follows is every instance of “απαρχη” (Strongs 536) found in the New King James Version of the New Testament:

Romans 8:23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits <536> of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
Romans 11:16 For if the firstfruit <536> is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
Romans 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits <536> of Achaia to Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits <536> of those who have fallen asleep.
1 Corinthians 15:23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits <536>, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.
1 Corinthians 16:15 I urge you, brethren—you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits <536> of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints—
James 1:18 Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits <536> of His creatures.
Revelation 14:4 These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits <536> to God and to the Lamb.

I agree from the etymology, that the word is derived from “απο” (from) and “αρχη” (beginning). But that is what a firstfruit is. It was there from the beginning of the maturation of the crop. Do you have any suggestions as to how else the word could be translated in the passages quoted above?

#24

The purpose of translation is to represent* the thoughts of the speaker in his time*, using contemporary words that communicate the same thoughts today. Anything less is unsatisfactory, even destructive. One necessary aspect of establishing what those thoughts were is to look at the topical context across the scriptures.

Etymology alone is not enough… but that is not meant to debunk your point, other than to say if firstfruit is not the thought/word in any of those verses- what is the appropriate word?

I have supplied enough context to make a case for first fruit- at least as the intended thought, but I am always open, even excited, to learn something new, more accurate perhaps, more closely rendering the thoughts of the writer- so what word, across the topical context is more accurate?

In the transitions between etymology and morphology the thoughts connected to words change. The thoughts have crossed three, maybe four layers of translation. The meaning of the word as it should be heard TODAY cannot be established by etymology alone. Facts are set in context by the way you see them, the angle, the perspective, the depth of assembly, the order. They are not sufficient to themselves any more than knowledge is sufficient without wisdom.

Its like arguing about the detail of a stereogram without ever bluring your eyes a little in order to see the the hidden 3d image. You know you have to stare a little while before you see it. Some people just like the repeating patterns. the lines and the dots. They ability to between the lines.

Besides, I am not so much in the same frame of mind as you are. I am not stating each of these things as facts. I am saying, This is what I am getting from the types, from the related verses, from the context, etc… and the gospel definitely involves concepts that run deeper than simple facts. I gave you verses that say those things to me, as a whole. If they say something different to you, so be it :slight_smile:

#25

(robin)
That is, indeed, what first fruits are … as is Christ the wave-sheaf offering after Pentecost, but looking most carefully at all of the above verses, I see no need, no compelling “necessity” to force this word to say either “first” or “fruit” … both words of which are very well fitted to other Greek words. That is, since there are other Greek words, which are directly suited to our English “fruit” and “first,” how can one then foist these same two English words upon yet another Greek word, which says no such thing? Granted … granted … tradition says, but tradition has been proven wrong on occasion, has it not?

Again, looking very closely at the above NT verses, there is no need for us to resort to “first fruit,” when a more literal word application would … also … work. And again, granted, it might not “work” as well as “first fruit” apparently does for those raised with this doctrinal needy tradition, but another choice of a more literal word, would indeed work … would it not! And if one can bring themselves to come around to this hesitant admission, then it’s only logical that we opt for the more literal (not particularly liking it), if only because it’s more “true” to the inherent meaning of the actual word, than the mental straightjacket we’e dearly like to impose upon this straight forward word, which says something intirely different than …“unno banana” …

Eagleways goes on quite elegantly about layers of translation and current meanings and the abiltiy to see between the lines … but the simple fact of the matter, is that we are not dealing with an evolved thought here, we’re simply dealing with an accurate reading of what a word says, and in fact, doesn’t say … So, again, the etymology speaks for itself, it talks to a beginning, an origin … perhaps the “apo” or “from” element of the word is there for enhancement, an emphatic nod to this word meaning a MOST original beginning, but what the word does not do, in any manner, whatsoever, is talk to the fruit of a harvest … not in a single one of the above NT verses that Paidion has kindly provided us a reading of. Look, again, fellow truth seekers, look again at each and every one of these verses, and see if you dont perceive that a reading something along the lines of “origin” or “beginning” doesn’t work … and if it does, then ask yourself, am I reading God’s word for what it says, or am I reading into God’s word what my traditions say it should say?

#27

This would be my position… as per HCSB, MOUNCE, NET, NIV.

But even with this punctuation most would (according to the semicolon) tend to read “the firstfruits” as referring to the preceding “Christ” and not those subsequently chosen as firstfruits… my position.

As such I understand the role of the firstfruits to that which is dedicated ON BEHALF OF the whole harvest which in and of itself SANCTIFIES the Harvest… THAT was the sole role of the firstfruits. Jesus was THE first of the firstfruit and as such “the first to rise from the dead” Acts 26:23… NOTICE it does NOT SAY ‘the first to rise from DEATH’ – BUT “the dead” (pl) – the dead equates to OC Israel “dead in trespasses in sins.”

The firstfruit saints were those FIRST initial believers of the Gospel (Apostles/disciples and certain other unspecified early believers) and not necessarily all other NT believers. “We” past that period certainly are not “the firstfruit saints” – they are past and they did their job.

Again, Paul’s “the creation / the creature” of Romans 8 was ISRAEL and is no reference to our time-space universe as we know it, but rather, Israel. Thus the “earnest expectation” = OT prophetic promises. “the revealing of the sons of God” = Jesus those called with him. The creature i.e., Israel was “subjected to futility” aka the law and yet “in hope” as per Gal 3:23-24. It was through the FAITHfulness of Jesus and his firstfruit saints that the creature (Israel) was to be delivered up from “the bondage of corruption” i.e., the law, “into the glorious liberty of the children of God”. Thus was ALL Israel aka “the WHOLE creation” redeemed or saved; and that through the auspices of those containing “the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we…” (Jesus/Paul and co.) “awaiting the adoption, the redemption of our body.” Body here in the Greek is singular i.e., the ONE singular corporate (our) body of Israel… that which had been sown in corruption (law) was BEING raised in incorruption, i.e., grace. << 1Cor 15:35, 38, 42-44 is in the PRESENT TENSE i.e., the dying and the rising was a process in train and happening there and THEN in their age, not ours – it is fulfilled! Thus “the natural” speaks to the OC whereas “the spiritual” speaks to the NC; again fulfilled!

#28

Yes, that is one of the four position outlined earlier by Paidon, and may be the case.

I was holding the position that “first fruits” refers to Matthew 27

At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. 52The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.…

I dont think its a slam dunk by any means, but I dont think those folks went back into their graves, so it qualifies in the order of resurrection.

Of course I understand your view of “the creature” in Romans 8 as being the necessary perspective of your persuasion, but its quite a stretch to limit “creature” in Romans 8 to Israel.

19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation(pasa he ktisis) groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

#29

(robin)
That’s the question, but it’s not what my translation is, but what would be the the most accurate reading …
Your’s is a good start, asking the question, instead of just assuming that the traditional reading MUST be so.

So then, “fruit” and “first” are Greek-to-Englishg words that are already used elsewhere …
And in this verse there is no compelling reason to limit our mental picture to that of some harvest …
Granted, that’s a tidy little way of wrapping our minds around the verse in question, but it’s certainlhy not the only way … nor the best.

But then, it’s argued, the word “fruit” is such an apt word choice, since we’re couching our thoughts in the mental picture of some spiritual “harvest” …
Ahhh, but the more cautious reader would then retort, “What harvest?” … There’s no mention of any “harvest” here, in fact, out of the 36 times that
you find any “harvest” related word (#2325, #2336, #2327), Paul only uses it 6 times, and it always concerns recompense; that is, both physical and spiritual blessings, but nothing to do with some so-called …“harvest of salvation” …

…to the fleshly [things] we will harvest of you
…the [one] sowing sparingly, also, sparingly he will harvest; and the [one] sowing at blessing, also, at blessing he will harvest
…if-ever you should sow, to this, also, a man will harvest
…yet to the ideal [thing] we should no[t] slack doing, for being no[t] faint, unto [our] own season we will harvest
…that the [one] for’ the flesh of himself sowing, out of the flesh, to a corruption he will harvest;
…yet the [one] for’ the spirit sowing, out of the spirit, to an eonian life he will harvest

NOPE! No, “each in their own salvation harvest season” … no such verses…
but there is the more logical thought, here in 1Cor 15:23, about the timeliness, or some sequence involved in the matter;
that is, it preceeds in some order, or by some divinely pre-determined rank:
Christ, of course, FIRST, from the beginning (the orininal), and thereafter, those according to God’s choice in the matter
(remember, we’re not attempting to establish some doctrine, just come to the most accurate reading of a particular scriptural word) …

Take a close look at the context of this verse … there’s that other word, just prior to the word “aparchE” (τάγματι· ἀπαρχὴ) …
it’s the word “tagmati” {5001 N-DSN} … it means an “order” of things … that’s the context, the mental picture one should be
envisioning the very next word to be painted with … and it’s not, NOT, a picture of some “harvest time,” but rather, the idea of sequence.

“Yet each [one] in the[ir] own order: [the] Anointed, [the] From-beginning;
on-thereafter the [ones] of the Anointed, in the presence of Same” (~Robin)

#30

(davo)
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’d refrained from an immediate response, was mellowing, not ignoring you … And, Yes, you were reading things wrong, I’m very impressed, and appreciative of the help that Paidion is always willing and able to to provide this group (and at least one other forum, I’m aware of) … It was just that I’d been having some logging problens with this site, and the administrator help was not forthcoming, not as forthcoming as impatient me would have liked;
so I’d posted Paidion, asking for some possible help from his well established position here, and never did hear back from him … And then, after, this logging issue was resolved (thank you jarrad), when I could put some effort into a somewhat(?) difficult posting, the only initial comment back was from Paidion, and it appeared to totally ignore my posting, almost as if the ignoring was on purpose … it wasn’t, I dont think, but I did perceive it that way.

And then, “davo” responds … not to anything in my pithy(?) post, but only to make some comment about me being “none too impressed” with Paidion …
I like that you dont walk around, as if on egg-shells, but your timing was bad …

So Hi davo of Brisbane Australia … glad to meet you, hope we will have some good discussions, but not about doctrines, please … my main interest, is in just first getting the best possible reading of the words, the verses (my focus is Pauline), before I’d ever dare to delve into a doctrinal discussion, here.
By the way, my younger daughter, a manager at the Plaza Hotel in New York, decided to experience Australia while she could still get a youth work visa, so she quits her very lucretive and established job, and travels there … the wages, there, are very good, and the health insurance is wonderfully inexpensive … but your hunter spiders would have me standing on the table, and squilling like a little girl … not my daughter, however, she just opens the door and allows them to leave when they want …

#31

(robin)
Couple comments, but first the verse:

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

That second line (above) is my transliteration, it’s easier on my old eyes …
and what follows is a word by word (following the syntax) expansion, with some additional data:

each a [one] {1538 A-NSM} yet {1161 CONJ} in {1722 PREP} unto the [thing] {3588 T-DSN} unto an own [thing] {2398 A-DSN} unto an order {5001 N-DSN} a from-beginning/ a firstfruit {0536 N-NSF} Anointed/ Christ {5547 N-NSM} on-thereafter {1899 ADV} the [ones] {3588 T-NPM} of the [One] {3588 T-GSM} of Anointed/ of Christ {5547 N-GSM} in {1722 PREP} unto the [one] {3588 T-DSF} unto a presence {3952 N-DSF} of a same [One] {0846 P-GSM}

Comment #1: The topic word “aparchE” is singular … no bowel of so-called “fruits” here, just the one
Comment #2: You are most likely correct about this singular noun being equated with Christ, and not the plural “on-thereafter, the [ones]”
Comment #3: I appreciate your clarification about what is said elsewhere … it does not say from death, but from a plural “the dead” …
my only retort to that being, is that in most if not all the verses, which talk to this, it doesn’t actually use a noun “the dead,” but involves what
I call a stand-alone adjective, the plural discriptive, and plural definite article …“the [ones]; dead [ones]” … “first to rise from the dead [ones]” …

#32

Robin… thanks for clarifying. Some degree of ambiguity seems to be one of the vagaries of internet forums, so I thought I’d ask as I wasn’t too sure I had it right, but all good. :slight_smile:

<ἀπαρχὴ> aparchē is the actual word “firstfruit/s” – even when this word appears in the singular it STILL refers to the collective whole; not unlike the collective “body” of believers as Paul’s ‘the body of Christ’.

I wouldn’t argue with this “retort” as “dead ones” is a definite given.

#33

I’m not sure how you can say “its quite a stretch” nor have a difficulty seeing this when James, for example, in-kind using the selfsame firstfruits language describes a particular people “creatures” (creation) – Israel was God’s particular or peculiar people i.e., His creation.

The whole creation i.e., humanity, belonged to Yahweh, of which Israel was the sanctifying firstfruits.

‘The creation’ of Romans 8 is all about Israel and the fulfilment of her charter being brought to completion IN Christ and His firstfruit saints.

#34

Well, like I said, I think you need to see it that way to maintain your particular persuasion, because to me this is pretty simple…

James said “We” were begotten by the word of His truth to be a kind of first-fruits of His creatures. Paul said “we” await the redemption of our bodies. They were speaking to the members of the body of Christ in both instances, the one new man. ALL the epistles are written to the ecclesia, which is now the firstfruits by the inheritance of the FIRSTBORN. In Hebrews 12 the writer says “But you(the ecclesia) have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23** to the general assembly and church of the firstborn** who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant****, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.”

Peter said, “You were begotten from above by the incorruptible seed of the word of God unto a fervent love of the brethren(the ecclesia- (jew and gentile)”

In all these epistles they are speaking to the ecclesia, and when they are speaking about Israel, they are speaking to the One New Man because the wall of partition is removed in Christ. When Paul speaks of old covenant Israel, the fallen branches, he says THEY.

So now WE are the firstfruits( if we abide faithful) because THEY have a veil over their hearts when Moses is read, but We are with unveiled faces beholding as in a mirror(the word) the glory of the Lord and being transformed into the same image with ever increasing glory(2 Cor 3).WE have not come to a mountain that cannot be touched burning with fire, and the terrible voice, We have come to Mt. Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem. They(the sages of Israel) knew they could not be completed without us, we should know we cannot be completed with out them, but there is no higher inheritance than that of the sons of God, Jew and Gentile, in Christ Jesus, in the One New man. THEY have been cut-off so that we could be grafted in and they will all be grafted back in, but they havent yet been. So now we are the first fruits. We are the Israel of God.

The first-fruits you are speaking of, from my view, and also by most preterists,were judged in Jerusalem and done away with like a shadow before the dawn in 70AD… Only those in Christ move on.

I guess we are just persuaded differently. :slight_smile:

#35

a word about etymology and how it is not the whole ball of wax in translation.

I read through the first 5 chapters of Genesis in the Mechanical Translation, which is supposed to supply the exact ancient meanings in Hebrew words.

mechanical-translation.org/ebook.html

ancient-hebrew.org/vocabulary_definitions.html

I am enjoying some insights as I read, but…

I found this particular thing that didnt seem right to me. When translating the word good(Heb towb) as occurs often(562 times in the OT), as in, “And the Lord saw it was good”, the MT translates good as “functional”, which seems kinda ok until you follow the word through its further uses…

and the land brought grass out,
herbs making a sowing of seeds to
his kind and trees making produce
which has his seed in him to his
kind and “Elohiym [Powers]” saw
that it was functional, Gen 1:12

ok maybe :slight_smile:

and “YHWH [He exists]” of
“Elohiym [Powers]” said, though
the human had existed like one of
us/him us** to discern function(towb) and
dysfunction** and now otherwise he
will send his hand and he will take
also from the tree of the life and he
will eat and he will live to a distant
time, Gen 3:22

Really? I don’t think it was because man would kno the difference between what works and what doesnt that was of concern to Elyohim.

and you will come to your fathers
in completeness, you will be buried
with a functional gray head,Gen 15.15

" a good old age" or a “functional gray head” ? To me, the translators claim is that these are the exact hebrew words, but as with all things, that is the translators opinion. Obviously many other learned men would disagree- which doesntt make them right but…

2The woman conceived and bore a son; and when she saw that he was beautiful(towb)", she hid him for three months. Exodus 2:2

2And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a “goodly”(towb) child, she hid him three months Exodus 2:2

I don’t think she hid the baby Moses because he was functional… and

7When the men of the place asked about his wife, he said, “She is my sister,” for he was afraid to say, “my wife,” thinking, “the men of the place might kill me on account of Rebekah, for she is beautiful(towb).”

I dont think Isaac was concerned that the men would kill him and steal his wife because she was functional. gen 26:7

or earlier in the narrative

16The girl(Rebekah) was very beautiful(towb), a virgin, and no man had had relations with her; and she went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up.

It would be easier for me to understand, “and Elohyim saw that it was beautiful”, with the definition of two being good and beautiful. Than that Rebekah was “very functional, a virgin”

I am not trying to pan the translation, because I think it will provide insights and angles the average English version lacks- but since I am always running on about how etymology is not enough, and that the purpose of translation is to communicate “the thoughts of the speaker in his time in words that mean the same thing in contemporary language”, let me say it again… oops, I just did

Context is the surest way to check out translations of words. **The right word will fit appropriately across all the relevant occurrences **when someone like me, that is not a Hebrew scholar ,but has enough sense to “think I hear it as it was meant” reads it and then check it against all the other verses in which the word is used to see if it really works.

#36

(Eaglesway)
Context is the surest way to check out translations of words. The right word will fit appropriately across all the relevant occurrences when someone like me, that is not a Hebrew scholar ,but has enough sense to “think I hear it as it was meant” reads it and then check it against all the other verses in which the word is used to see if it really works.

(robin)
Are you sure, are you always checking, wheather or not you might be blindsided by some pre-concieved bent in doctrine …
That is, can a person, at least, admit that they might be limited in their thinking, by other, subtle, mental perceptions, so that, despite the logic
of those who present good logical countering ideas, that one never engages in the a process of admitting these into consideration …

That is, are you mature, enough, in your faith, to at least suspect that you dont know it all … that you just might have room for further growth?

#37

Hi everyone, I didn’t yet have chance to read and comprehend all the latest discussion developments here, but just to clarify the confusion I caused,
by “INSTEAD OF” i didn’t mean a phrase in translation, but rather “:” in several translations replaced by “,” in Youngs.
THere is no “INSTEAD OF” in the bible verse :slight_smile: Sorry for any confustion caused
I was under the impression that the other folks got my question correct when they answered it previously :slight_smile:

#38

Two things to consider here… 1) WE are reading someone else’s mail and Paul’s primary “we” was them then, not us now. 2) they were NOT waiting for “the redemption of our bodies” that is incorrect – the Greek is clearly singular and thus reads “BODY” i.e., the corporate or collective body. Example: ‘body of evidence’ etc.

Again you misread Paul, either that or straight over him. It was via Paul’s “we” (the firstfruits) that “THEY” (historic Israel) were redeemed…

The “firstfruits” or “root” was faithful Israel who sanctified the “lump” or “branch” i.e., unfaithful Israel. Even though certain of the branches were broken off, being ‘vessels of dishonour’ and thus suffered temporally (AD70) as ‘enemies for your sake’ as per “you will die in your sins” YET were THEY ultimately redeemed BECAUSE “concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.”

On that score I’m not sure you should be speaking for prêterists. THEY that clung to the OC mode of existence certainly perished in terms of being found naked in terms of covenantal covering (2Cor 5) with the demise of that world, but nonetheless like the rest of humankind WERE indeed reconciled, because… “even so THESE also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown YOU THEY also may obtain mercy.”

Eagle… this is all so much more about Israel and her covenantal restoration (resurrection) via the firstfruit saints than you realise. Paul’s ‘Israel of God’ aka his “we” were those who through obedience ushered in ‘the new creation’ aka Peter’s new world “wherein righteousness dwells.”

#39

(robin)
I misspoke when talking about when the wave-sheaf-offering occurred, rather, this korban omer of first-fruits is offered in connection with the Feast of Unleavened Bread, directly following the Passover, not after Pentecost …(see Lev 23:10-11) … which is something, of course, that foreshadows Christ.

Thus, the reasonable …assumption… that the 1Cor 15:23 verse is intended to be saying “first-fruit” when we see the Greek word “aparchE” …
And, actually, that’s a rather valid association, Christ is, indeed, THE korban omer, THE wave-sheaf-offering, THE first-fruit … so there’s no conflict involved in the idea of thinking about “first-fruit” when you read the word “aparchE,” here, in 1Cor 15:23 … for that matter, thinking about and mentally associating “wave-sheaf-offering” and “koran omer” are just as valid of concepts to envision, when reading the word, here, of “aparchE” … but only,
as long as, you ALSO acknowledge that that is NOT what the Greek word actually says … God picks His words very carefully, and uses them very righteously, His words are like pure silver, seven times refined, so when He uses the word “aparchE,” He did so very intentually, and just because it fits very nicely with the overall idea of “wave-sheaf-offing” and/ or “first-fruit” doesn’t give us license to misread the Greek word … Rather, we should read the word, as God intended it be rightfully read, as having to do with rank, ordering, and sequence … which is not to say, that God didn’t intend that we couldn’t or shouldn’t ALSO enhance our perception of the words use, here, with the additional flavoring of “korban omer” and “first-fruit” …

But again, first, we have to treat these words of pure silver, as if they are, indeed, seven times refined, and placed just so, like gems in the particular setting that God intended them … that is, first, we have to read the words, for what they actually say, so even though there’s no reason to not envision other related ideas associated with Christ, as being the first fruit korban omer, the wave-sheaf-offering following Passover … that doesn’t mean that we then have any license to purposfully misread what the actual Greek word does say …

#40

(Paidion)
I agree from the etymology, that the word is derived from “απο” (from) and “αρχη” (beginning).
But that is what a firstfruit is. It was there from the beginning of the maturation of the crop.

(robin)
And then, Paidion gave us the NKJV readings of all the verses where this word (Strong’s 0536) occured in the NT,
and ask if there were any suggestions as to “how else the word could be translated in these passages” …if not,
by using the word “firstfruit” …

To which, I replied, that there was no compelling reason, in any of these verses, where the reading had to be “firstfruit”
that is, in each and every one of the verses reading someing along the lines of “origin” or “beginning” worked just as well, if not better.

And then, I’d suggested that we were only misreading it as “firstfruit” in the NT, because that’s how in the Greek OT it was read …

“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”

And then, I’d offhandedly suggested that perhaps “firstfruit” might not even be the best reading to use, in all of these OT verses …

I’ve since, checked this out, and you know what … there isn’t any compelling reason to use “firstfruit” in ANY of either the NT or OT verses,
there is, of course, the related idea of harvests, gatherings, offerings, as such, but there’s also the idea of sequence, ordering, and rank involved,
and, honestly, the “ordering/sequence” idea dominates over the “fruits/harvesting” idea … interesting, dont you think!

Which got me to thinking even further … since the etymology and the logic of context in 1Cor 15:23 definitely supports a “sequence” reading
over a “harventing” idea, then why are people so adament that this verse must be about the beginning of the maturation of the crop; that is,
in particular, equating Christ with “firstfruit” … If the etymology and context of the verse have only to do with sequence, why not read it so?

Then it occured to me … am I wrongly insisting upon the more ligical word choice, because of some hidden agenda, perhaps even some unrecognized, subcounscious doctrinally driven pre-conception? Ummmmm … honestly, I cant ferrat out any such hidden agenda … on my part, that is!

But then, I am “Christ-centered” … everything has to do with Christ; even what little me know of God … so sequencing, in this verse, is not only
etymological, but “fits” my focus of being Christ-centered, so I guess I do have an agenda … so then, what drives others to be reading this word so
un-etymolocally? Is it because they, too, have some agenda, consciously or not, some focus that they might not even be aware of?

Ummmm … is this verse, then, about the “maturation of the crop” … or is it about Christ first?

#41

I was quoting from memory and I accept the correction, but “we” are still, individually members of the body of Christ and the Israel that rejected their Messiah will not be awakebned for the first resurrection. This my view- I am not a preterist.

They will be. it is kind of futile to argue the different views we have on the point of time. THEY(fallen branches) will be redeemed. They are not yet.

I am not speaking for preterists, I am speaking from my view of preterist assertions. And I partially agree, THEY(OT Israel) will obtain mercy, because of us, but they haven’t yet, in my view.** That goes to the OP, which is about the order of resurrection**. They will not obtain mercy until their knees have bowed and their tongues confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father, according to Phil 2:10 and 1 Cor 15:25-28.

The world in which righteousness dwells is not yet, because the stoicheon(elementary principles) have not yet been dissolved. The covenantal restoration is real and I believe in it, but only because Israel was a stage in the restoration of all things…What they will be grafted back into, is the higher order, the One new man, the ecclesia. The restoration of all things (Acts 3:19)) is the core paradigm- Israel was just a stage in the “administration of the fulness of times”(Eph 1:9,10). The ecclesia(one new man) is the following stage(as I see it)- That process is still ongoing.

So to me this is dissolving into the preterist argument about time and the ages being fulfilled already and there is not meeting of the minds to be had, so I will refrain from further discussion on that point because it is a circular argument( not so as to say “I am right and you are wrong” just to say there is no point to further circular debates of the preterist view versus other views as far as this thread is concerned- imo.)