John, thank you for sharing this with me in your comment on my article.
I agree with you that the resurrection should not be detached from the appointed times of YHWH. Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, and Shavuot provide the covenant calendar setting for Yeshua’s death, resurrection, and the outpouring in Acts 2. I especially appreciate the emphasis that resurrection belongs with First Fruits rather than with a later Easter framework.
Where I would frame it differently is on the identity of the First Fruits. I would still identify Yeshua himself as the First Fruits because Paul says directly, “Messiah has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” in 1 Corinthians 15:20, and again, “Messiah the firstfruits” in 15:23. So I would be cautious about saying the raised saints in Matthew 27 are the First Fruits instead of Yeshua.
I do think Matthew 27 may serve as a witness or sign that the harvest had begun. But in my framework, Yeshua remains the firstfruits of resurrection life, and those raised ones testify to the larger harvest his resurrection guarantees in God's plan of restoration of humanity.
I also agree that the death of Yeshua belongs in the Passover setting, while the resurrection belongs in the First Fruits setting. That distinction is important. Passover points us to deliverance through death and blood; First Fruits points us to accepted life and the beginning of the harvest. That actually strengthens the point I was making in my article: the empty tomb is not merely the aftermath of the cross. It is the beginning of new creation harvest.
So yes, I agree that First Fruits deserves more attention maybe in another article. I would simply keep Yeshua himself as the First Fruits, with Matthew 27 as a confirming sign of the harvest to come.
Again, thank you for sharing this with me. I always appreciate respectful dialogue.
I do think we mostly agree. Yes, Yeshua is the First Fruits, as Paul wrote. I am not denying that. The disagreement is the context. He is fulfilling the Feasts. The First Fruits Feast is an offering made by the High Priest. He did that. Most people never see it in the Gospels since you have to consider the stories told by different Gospel writers to see it. You also have to really know how the Feasts were kept each year when the Temple stood. Yeshua, in His role as the High Priest Forever, was making that very offering of the First Fruits of the eventual harvest of human souls. His raising that group right after His resurrection offers us hope/proof that His Gospel of the Kingdom is true, that He will raise us from the dead. Another thing that might help is: https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/have-you-considered-this-where-are
John, thank you for clarifying. I understand better now that you are not denying Yeshua as First Fruits in Paul’s language, but are emphasizing what you see as his priestly presentation of a First Fruits offering.
Where I would stand more firmly is this: I want to be careful to state what Scripture actually presents, not what can be inferred from a pattern.
In the resurrection accounts and apostolic witness, Yeshua is presented as the one whom God raised, vindicated, exalted, and appointed. Paul identifies Messiah himself as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” in 1 Corinthians 15:20, and again says, “Messiah the firstfruits” in 1 Corinthians 15:23. So I would keep Yeshua himself as the First Fruits of resurrection life.
I do think Matthew 27:52–53 is significant. The raising of the holy ones after Yeshua’s resurrection can certainly signify the first signs of the harvest breaking open. But Matthew does not say they were the First Fruits offering. It does not say Yeshua took them to heaven. It does not say they were presented before the Father. It does not identify them with the twenty-four elders in Revelation.
This presents that Yeshua is the First Fruits of the harvest, and that the raising of the holy ones after His resurrection can signigy the beginning of the harvest after the First Fruits, Yeshua Himself.
So while I understand the pattern you are drawing from the feast framework, I would not state that as what Scripture presents. I would say Scripture presents Yeshua as the First Fruits, and Matthew’s raised holy ones as a witness or sign that the resurrection harvest had begun.
That distinction matters to me because I am trying to keep the argument rooted in what the text directly says. The feast framework is valuable, and I agree that resurrection belongs within the appointed times, but I would not move beyond Paul’s identification of Messiah himself as the First Fruits.
Nice work, sadly most of Christianity prefers church teachings over the founder of the church. So many doctrines have no connection to scripture !
Most blithely believe they go to heaven when they die.
John, thank you for sharing this with me in your comment on my article.
I agree with you that the resurrection should not be detached from the appointed times of YHWH. Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, and Shavuot provide the covenant calendar setting for Yeshua’s death, resurrection, and the outpouring in Acts 2. I especially appreciate the emphasis that resurrection belongs with First Fruits rather than with a later Easter framework.
Where I would frame it differently is on the identity of the First Fruits. I would still identify Yeshua himself as the First Fruits because Paul says directly, “Messiah has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” in 1 Corinthians 15:20, and again, “Messiah the firstfruits” in 15:23. So I would be cautious about saying the raised saints in Matthew 27 are the First Fruits instead of Yeshua.
I do think Matthew 27 may serve as a witness or sign that the harvest had begun. But in my framework, Yeshua remains the firstfruits of resurrection life, and those raised ones testify to the larger harvest his resurrection guarantees in God's plan of restoration of humanity.
I also agree that the death of Yeshua belongs in the Passover setting, while the resurrection belongs in the First Fruits setting. That distinction is important. Passover points us to deliverance through death and blood; First Fruits points us to accepted life and the beginning of the harvest. That actually strengthens the point I was making in my article: the empty tomb is not merely the aftermath of the cross. It is the beginning of new creation harvest.
So yes, I agree that First Fruits deserves more attention maybe in another article. I would simply keep Yeshua himself as the First Fruits, with Matthew 27 as a confirming sign of the harvest to come.
Again, thank you for sharing this with me. I always appreciate respectful dialogue.
I do think we mostly agree. Yes, Yeshua is the First Fruits, as Paul wrote. I am not denying that. The disagreement is the context. He is fulfilling the Feasts. The First Fruits Feast is an offering made by the High Priest. He did that. Most people never see it in the Gospels since you have to consider the stories told by different Gospel writers to see it. You also have to really know how the Feasts were kept each year when the Temple stood. Yeshua, in His role as the High Priest Forever, was making that very offering of the First Fruits of the eventual harvest of human souls. His raising that group right after His resurrection offers us hope/proof that His Gospel of the Kingdom is true, that He will raise us from the dead. Another thing that might help is: https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/have-you-considered-this-where-are
John, thank you for clarifying. I understand better now that you are not denying Yeshua as First Fruits in Paul’s language, but are emphasizing what you see as his priestly presentation of a First Fruits offering.
Where I would stand more firmly is this: I want to be careful to state what Scripture actually presents, not what can be inferred from a pattern.
In the resurrection accounts and apostolic witness, Yeshua is presented as the one whom God raised, vindicated, exalted, and appointed. Paul identifies Messiah himself as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” in 1 Corinthians 15:20, and again says, “Messiah the firstfruits” in 1 Corinthians 15:23. So I would keep Yeshua himself as the First Fruits of resurrection life.
I do think Matthew 27:52–53 is significant. The raising of the holy ones after Yeshua’s resurrection can certainly signify the first signs of the harvest breaking open. But Matthew does not say they were the First Fruits offering. It does not say Yeshua took them to heaven. It does not say they were presented before the Father. It does not identify them with the twenty-four elders in Revelation.
This presents that Yeshua is the First Fruits of the harvest, and that the raising of the holy ones after His resurrection can signigy the beginning of the harvest after the First Fruits, Yeshua Himself.
So while I understand the pattern you are drawing from the feast framework, I would not state that as what Scripture presents. I would say Scripture presents Yeshua as the First Fruits, and Matthew’s raised holy ones as a witness or sign that the resurrection harvest had begun.
That distinction matters to me because I am trying to keep the argument rooted in what the text directly says. The feast framework is valuable, and I agree that resurrection belongs within the appointed times, but I would not move beyond Paul’s identification of Messiah himself as the First Fruits.
Again, wonderful dialogue, thank you!