Can we say all believers are first-fruits?

Recently I have been studying the Epistle of James, and now I have come to 1:18.I have tried to search if the language of the old testament for first-fruits is applicable to the new Testament ,which I tried to find out ,whether all born again believers are first-fruits.I have tried to refer many commentaries ,but none of them could convince me that all Christians should be first-fruits regarding Salvation, apart of the first Christians, I have struggled a lot with 2 Thessalonians 2:13. The first believers in Macedonia were the believers in the Philippines, how could they be Fritsfruits? I would be very glad to help me to understand it.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Alan Macgregor

Tes

It has always been my understanding that the first-fruits only refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. Believers are the harvest proper to come later. This would fit with the OT understanding as the first-fruits being the harbinger of the harvest, yet to come at In-gathering.

That at least is how I understand: “But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.” (1 Corinthians 15:23, ESV)

By this understanding harvest is at Christ's Second-Coming. The 2 Thessalonians passage refers to the Salvation of those who were first-generation Christians rather than referring to the Resurrection – the final in-gathering at the Second Coming.

Every blessing

Alan

Tes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575544#Comment_575544

Thank you Alan for your contribution,but if we see the following verses they seem to have different meanings according to their contexts.

Romans 8:23

1 Corinthians 15:20

1 Corinthians 15:23

1 Corinthians 16:15

James 1:18

Revelation 14:4

Romans 11:16

Romans 16:5

2 Thessalonians 2:13

Josh

Here is a quote from Fruchtenbaum's commentary on James:

3. The Position of Believers—1:18

Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Then in verse 18, the segment ends with an explanation of the position of believers: they are in the state of the new birth. Another example of these good gifts coming down is salvation or the new birth. As is true of all good gifts, the source of this gift is God: salvation came from the will of God. The word will is in the emphatic position. Whereas sin brings forth death, God willed to produce spiritual life. He chose a means by which He would do it: by the word of truth. The Greek word for brought forth is the same word used in verse15. There it brought forth death; here, God brings forth life because the Word of God brought forth life. As the Bible teaches, the gospel message that produces the new birth to them who believe is the word of truth (Rom. 10:17; 1 Cor. 4:15; 2 Thes. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:23–25). As before, the word for brought forth has the concept of birth, but here it is the new birth. This new birth results from the will of God and not the will of man. However, it is the obligation of the individual to believe and receive as a free gift the salvation offered through the Messiah. Human works done out of the human will are not part of the means of salvation.

The purpose of the readers’ new birth is that we, Jacob/James and the people he is writing to, should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. The expression, his creatures, refers to all believers. But here, he states that there is something special about the believers he is writing to in that they are the firstfruits of His creatures. His creatures are all believers who come to faith through Jesus the Messiah, but there is a segment of them whom he calls firstfruits. They are somehow distinctive. Some commentators interpret this distinction as the believers of the apostolic age, as opposed to all believers of the future centuries. However, since Jacob/James is writing specifically to Jewish believers, it is better to interpret the firstfruits as specifically referring to Jewish believers: the Jewish believers are the firstfruits of his creatures. This is similar to Hebrews 12:23 where the author described one group of New Jerusalem residents as the general assembly and church of the firstborn. The Greek word for creatures comes from the same Greek word as “creation” because the new birth is a product of God’s creative activity. It is a word that is only used three more times in the entire New Testament: 1 Timothy 4:4; Revelation 5:3; and 8:9. It emphasizes the work of regeneration, the work of the new birth. The word creatures refers to believing Jewish and Gentile humanity. They are newly created; they are a new creation. Ultimately they will be in the new creation of the New Jerusalem (Mat. 19:28; Rom. 8:19–22; Rev. 21:1). But, the enjoyment of salvation creation is something to be enjoyed right now.

The whole concept of firstfruits means the first of more to come in the future. The Jewish believers, as firstfruits, become the earnest of more to come later, both from among Jews and Gentiles. Furthermore, these Jewish believers become the earnest of a future transformation which awaits the present creation.

George Somsel

Recently I have been studying the Epistle of James, and now I have come to 1:18.I have tried to search if the language of the old testament for first-fruits is applicable to the new Testament ,which I tried to find out ,whether all born again believers are first-fruits.I have tried to refer many commentaries ,but none of them could convince me that all Christians should be first-fruits regarding Salvation, apart of the first Christians, I have struggled a lot with 2 Thessalonians 2:13. The first believers in Macedonia were the believers in the Philippines, how could they be Fritsfruits? I would be very glad to help me to understand it.

Yes and no. It depends on what passage you are reading. Some passages indicate that believers are the firstfruits

In fulfillment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

Jas 1.18

Others, however, restrict the concept of firstfruits is restricted to those chosen 144,000 Jewish believers

14 Then I looked, and there was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion! And with him were one hundred forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. ²And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps, ³and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the one hundred forty-four thousand who have been redeemed from the earth. ⁴It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins; these follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They have been redeemed from humankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb, ⁵and in their mouth no lie was found; they are blameless.

Re 14.1-5

And who are the 144,000? See Re 7.1-8. The "great multitude that no one could count" (the Church) celebrates these in Re 7.9-10

9　After this I looked, and there was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands. ¹⁰They cried out in a loud voice, saying,

"Salvation belongs to our God who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!"

The rule is context, context, context. Don't assume that the meaning is always and everywhere the same.

Tes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575602#Comment_575602

[quote user="George Somsel"]The rule is context, context, context. Don't assume that the meaning is always and everywhere the same.

[/quote]

I agree with the rule of Context.you are right George.How would you interpret the rest of the verses I have listed above particularly 2 Thessalonians 2:13 ?

Tes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575569#Comment_575569

[quote user="Josh"]

Here is a quote from Fruchtenbaum's commentary on James:

3. The Position of Believers—1:18

Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

[/quote]

Thank you Josh for pointing me out the resource. I have purchased it.My position is almost like what is in the resource,but I want to learn from others what they have to say about this matter.

Randy W. Sims

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575881#Comment_575881

Tes, You did use the March Madness discount didn't you?

http://www.logosmarchmadness.com/2014/round-1-deals/#Fruchtenbaum

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575884#Comment_575884

The firstfruits are the Remnant. Many think they are among the remnant, but are not. Mt. 7:20, 21, 22, 23. Yeishuu`a is the First of the firstfruits. He is the barley, the remant is the wheat.

I think it is fair to say that since pretty much all of those whom Yeishuu`a says He "does not know" are utterly convinced that they are "believers" (and can quote a catechism, confession, or creed word for word to prove it), the answer to the thread's title question is clearly "no".

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575897#Comment_575897

The firstfruits are the Remnant. Many think they are among the remnant, but are not. Mt. 7:20, 21, 22, 23. Yeishuu`a is the First of the firstfruits. He is the barley, the remant is the wheat.

Absolutely wrong ! There are two elements included in the concept of firstfruits: (1) The earliest (2) The best. The earliest is most generally regarded as the best, but this is not universally the case. If the earliest was disqualified by being flawed, a better portion was used.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575900#Comment_575900

Your point actually fully supports my statements, George, though you may not comprehend why.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575901#Comment_575901

Your point actually fully supports my statements, George, though you may not comprehend why.

Yes, I know that I'm so ignorant that I can't comprehend these matters. Nevertheless, my point opposes your statements.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575901#Comment_575901

Those who "are not known" are flawed and therefore disqualified. Your point matches my statement.