How Jesus' Resurrection Fulfills the Feast of Firstfruits

[@Wesstuntube]

I've always been fascinated by the idea of God fulfilling each Jewish feast and festival with major events in redemptive history. There are so many amazing parallels between the crucifixion of Jesus and the Passover lamb and so much depth that I DO think Jesus's fulfillment of the Passover in and of itself is a strong argument for the truth of Christianity. The resurrection of Jesus as the very first sign of a greater "harvest" to come is a very interesting fulfillment of the day of firstfruits, and a beautiful picture. The fulfillment of Pentecost came with another wave of harvesting as God gave His Spirit and 3,000 accepted Peter's message and were baptized. Since that time, the harvest has continued, but the final harvest of the fall fruits (represented by grapes, pomegranates, figs and olives) is still to come. I'm certain that the fall feasts where God arrives in association with trumpet blasts (Feast of Trumpets), sin is done away with and sent away (like the scapegoat on the day of Atonement), and God makes his dwelling among men (feast of Tabernacles) will all bring new fulfillment in beautiful and surprising ways as well. The whole picture leads to a sort of poetic "argument from beauty." It might not be the most rigorous argument, but it does carry some weight. The idea that God commanded the feasts and then fulfilled them, in order, in absolutely shocking ways throughout history telling a beautiful story with our collective history is powerful, even though its rhetorical strength is hard to quantify. It seems strange to me that the early Christians could have made up all of this symbolism ad-hoc, and more likely that they discovered it upon looking closely. I think it's similar to the beauty we discover in the laws of the universe at large. We didn't make the universe up - God did - and we just discover and marvel at what God has done.

[@truncated7644]

@Wes, I have been thinking about this a lot, in particular the argument from beauty and really all the ways the story of Jesus fulfills the OT. If the followers of Jesus were dismayed that he was crucified, and then for some reason came to believe he was resurrected, is there any prophecy or foreshadowing that this couldn't be applied to? What I am getting at, is that instead of a multiplicity of amazing prophetic fulfillments, this one belief has been analogized (or fulfilled) to so many sacred traditions of the Jews (sacrifices, festivals, etc.).

[@iranianskeptic]

The first thing that caught my attention about the Bible and Christ was the correspondence between the NT and the OT, while people were always talking about contradictions. You can find Jesus on all Jewish feasts, maybe even his birthday!

[@jamestrotter3162]

" The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed."- St. Augustine

[@amsterdamG2G]

Not even maybe...His birthday was around the time of Sukkoth the feast of Tabernacles....And the Word became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us. And we beheld His glory, a glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:16

[@VideoBible]

Very nice video! Thanks for making it!

[@jamiehudson3661]

Nice! Never heard that before.

[@petery6432]

That's such a cool undesigned coincidence with the Old Testament. And yeah, the fact that the Gospel authors didn't connect the dots makes the deliberate fulfillment hypothesis a lot less likely.

[@outdoor_bearp9384]

The fact that you think this is a coincidence just shows you know not the depth of the Lord

[@sjappiyah4071]

Spot on Testify !

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

Keep up the great work!

[@bride4jesus0126]

Fantastic presentation thank you so much for sharing this insight into scriptures!

[@wagesofsin623]

Nice. Thank you 🙏

[@hhstark8663]

This is interesting indeed.

[@calebjore3295]

Excellent presentation of this line of evidence.

[@globetrotter316]

Just a thought to add here that the fulfillment of the Jewish feasts was the point. Obviously the point of the writers mentioning the timing was not to confirm a "Sunday" or First Day day of worship (even on accident), but the emphasis was to prove his covenant to the Jewish people and the nations through the timing of the feasts. This is super important to emphasize that the timing was so the the Jewish people would eventually recognize Him as the Messiah, if not then, at least every year, they would be literally acting out communion at Passover as a hint to the truth! Our God is Amazing.

[@amsterdamG2G]

Jesus Himself identifies the Sabbath and the Lord's Day in Matthew 12:8, a remarkable passage. There Jesus says that the Sabbath : "The Son of man is even of the Sabbath." Now some, without really thinking it through, have told us that the Sabbath is Jewish and therefore is not for us. But Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man.” And that means all men. The Saviour Himself made the Sabbath two thousand years before there was a Jew. He gave the Sabbath along with marriage, and the Sabbath is no more Jewish than is marriage. Woman was made for man. Did you ever hear anyone say, “I can’t get married because it’s Jewish?” Did you?

[@raymondhunter2401]

Check out David Wilbur.

[@ggpt9641]

I'm glad for this video for explaining what can be the easily misunderstood book of Leviticus. But also thanks to God for this video, there is even more evidence from the Levitical passage used. The Israelites were to give of the first fruits, and Christ gave himself as the fruitfruit, and being made the High Priest according to Hebrews, would have "waved himself" as the first fruits, according to this passage. There is also further hope and evidence for the Christian that as Jesus is the firstfruit from the dead to never die again, so too is there a holiday to celebrate the fullness of wheat, represented by all the Christians who will ever be saved by Christ's first fruit status.

[@Tyl3r_B]

Wow very interesting!

[@TrueTribeEchadInChrist]

First day of the week in greek is Mia ton sabbaton meaning first or one of the sabbath. He rose on the sabbath

[@russfrancis4220]

His GUILTY sentence and DEATH could ONLY occur sometime AFTER the 13th day of the moon. Here is a secret: YASHUAH said the ONLY SIGN would be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth. The Pharasees and Sadducees knew what this meant. YASHUAH had just sealed his death sentence to be ON THE PASSOVER. The Pharasees and Sadducees KNEW that YASHUAH as HIGH PRIEST was required to WAVE THE SHEAF on the DAY AFTER FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD in the HEAVENLY TEMPLE. So if they waited until the 14th to kill HIM, it would be IMPOSSBLE FOR THIS "ONLY SIGN" to occur!!! There are only 2 days and 2 nights from PASSOVER TO WAVESHEAF! HNOW, HOW COULD YASHUAH BE THE PASSOVER LAMB on the 14th AND THEN ON THE 16th BE THE HIGH PRIEST!?!? They thought they had him! But YHWH saved HIM. YHWH provided a SUPERNATURAL SIGN by shading the earth from sunlight for 3 hours on the Passover DAY. THIS FULFILLED THE WORDS OF YASHUAH. 3 DAYS AND 3 NIGHTS.

[@2007jenbot]

Can I use this for my Sunday school class?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Sure, of course!

[@MrCheesywaffles]

Great video, concise and clear.

[@saintfrancis4395]

Thank you

[@adamcolejones]

What editing/drawing programs do you use?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Videoscribe

[@Nov_Net]

Wow you can draw really fast! Also this video is pretty interesting justbas I thought I saw all the parallels of Jesus in the old Testament

[@TestifyApologetics]

It's a program called VideoScibe. I can barely draw a stick figure.

[@simonfalk1337]

Ever heard Dr John Bergsma talk about how Jesus fulfills the year of Jubilee OT law? It's very good and similar to this video!

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'll check it out!

[@csmoviles]

💖🙏💖🙏💖🙏💖

[@GoldenRuffian]

Great video. Just some pushback on Acts 20:7 - they are already gathered on the Sabbath and since the Biblical day begins at night, they gathered together on "the first day of the week" to eat. They met most days and some set aside the Lord's day for their own observance, but no one "gave up" the Sabbath for quite some time - "officially" in the 4th century, but there were some like Marcion and other heretics who were already rejecting the Old Testament Law (Torah).

[@quicksilver7532]

😇

[@ttv_gao_mc4219]

Didn't Jesus die on Wednesday just before the sun sat, Daniel 9:26-27

[@9wheelfreerangers]

Yes He did, before the Annual Sabbath of Unleavened Bread then He was in the grave 3 full days and 3 full nights and resurrected sometime on First Fruits which began Saturday evening…which is why “by” Sunday morning, the grave was empty 🙌🏽

[@myroic]

Shalom to you, my brother in Messiah. I would like to say that part of your teaching is rooted in replacement Theology. I’m sure it is not deliberate. Let me explain…. A thorough reading of Acts as well as other supporting early documents show that the first century believers in Yeshua (Jesus) assembled everyday, not just on Sunday. The LORD’s Day is, was and forever will be the 7th day, which is Saturday, more specifically from sundown Friday evening until sundown Saturday evening. This is How The Father reckons time. Leviticus 23 lists the MOEDIM (appoint times, set times or Holy Convocations.). The FIRST of these days is the weekly Sabbath which clearly says is FOREVER (caps for emphasis, not shouting). So when John says his vision occurred on the LORD’s Day he was not speaking of Sunday, but the Sabbath which again God says is FOREVER. The beginning of Revelations states, Yeshua speaking, that He is the first and the last, beginning and the end, the One who is, was and is to come. He simply changes not. Revelations purpose is the revealing of the Jewish Messiah to the Jewish people…and then to the nations THROUGH the Jewish people. Therefore John did not have to clarify which numbered day, or what Greek day of th week because it was understood he was speaking of the Sabbath, or 7th day. Hopefully this is clear. B’rachot! (Blessings!)

[@heberfrank8664]

Why don't you believe Jesus was actually in the tomb for three days and three nights as he predicted? The last day would not have to be a full day. But a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection clearly do not include three nights. "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." --Matt 12:40

[@servantofjesuschrist8606]

Paul did meet Peter and James. So what's the atheist argument against it? Peter and James hallucinated?

[@kristudyane777]

Maybe that Paul just self-inserted himself and change scripture.

[@andrewthomas4636]

👍

[@abanoubmorcos318]

Talk about the evidence for the holy fire in Jerusalem

[@MatthewFearnley]

I like this argument, but I’m unsure how strong it is. It seems like the point is, if it had been a myth, the authors would have made more of a big deal about it. But it feels like someone could also argue: if Jesus had been resurrected on that day, the authors would again have made a big deal about it. I guess there might be some kind of hypothesis that gains plausibility due to this omission in the Gospels, but I’m not really sure what it would be. Or maybe I’m just thinking about this in the wrong way..

[@TestifyApologetics]

Sure, I get where you're coming from. Read the blog post by McLatchie in the description. The point is this, the video about Passover, Psalm 22, Isaiah 49 and such provide a prophetic cumulative case. Each piece of evidence is more likely on the hypothesis that Jesus is the Messiah than not, but some are stronger than others. Taken together they provide strong evidence but I can't really feasibly make a video like that, which is why it's a series. Also the argument isn't necessarily the Gospel authors didn't draw attention to it but rather that's just one part of me saying the narratives were not crafted deliberately to say Jesus was the firstfruits. There's also separate arguments for the reliability of the Gospels one must take into consideration and that is independent of this argument.

[@BelieveOnlyJesus]

I believe everyday is the Lord’s day (Romans 14:6) but in my American life it is typically Sunday.

[@ChrisTian-tz3eq]

Greetings! ... But "everyday" being the "Lord's Day"(?)... That's not entirely true ... While we can, and should, "worship"/(obey), God every day of the week!; ...But The Truth Is: There's Only ONE DAY a week that we are commanded to physically "rest", "convocate", and "keep holy"! ... ( .. and it's Not on the "Sun-day"! ) - Genesis 2 : 1 - 3 - Exodus 20 : 8 - 11 - Exodus 31 : 13 - 17 - Leviticus 23 : 3 - Matthew 24 : 20 - Acts 13 : 42 - 44 ... Acts 16 : 13 - Acts 17 : 2 ... Acts 18 : 4 - Revelation 14 : 7 ... Revelation 14 : 12 ... Revelation 22 : 14 (And Romans 14, in Context, is eluding to the 1st Century Jewish culture, and common practice & dispute, upon which "days" of the week to "fast" upon, and/or refrain from "certain meats" upon ? (Just one of the many man-made "traditions" out of "The Oral Law"/ The Mishna Talmud, of Judaism..and later into The Roman Church Canon, .. In which Paul conveyed it's insignificance, in whether they wanted to continue in that Jewish tradition or not!.. Either way, they were Not to Judge! ( Which is what they still did anyway! See: "The Didache", Chap 8 ) See also: Luke 18 : 11 - 12 ... Matt 9 : 14 ... Mark 2 : 18 ... Acts 10 : 30 ... Acts 14 : 23 ... 1 Corinthians 7 : 5 Matthew 15 & Mark 7 ( - Example of Jesus disputing against "The Oral Law" of The Pharisees.) ( And the extra-biblical source: "The Didache" Chapter 8 )

[@terriejohnston8801]

Slow down Brother. WHATs THE RUSH.? SHALOM....

[@truncated7644]

@Testify, Are you saying that the "first fruit" offering is a prophecy that Jesus fulfilled, or is it just a convenient analogy to describe Jesus' resurrection? If it is appropriate to compare Jesus to one particular offering, is it equally theologically valid to compare him to every other offering the Jews were commanded to make? It seems to me that Paul is cherry picking one particular offering because it used the term "first." What I mean is, even in this particular case, verses 12-13 are also part of this offering and it includes a a food and burnt offering "an aroma that is pleasing to Yahweh." That doesn't seem so analogous, nor do many of the other offerings Jews had to make.

[@randalejetmagalit1198]

Hi, sorry late comment. Even so, I'm still going to attempt to answer your Comment. Your question, is it perfectly valid to compare Jesus to every other Offering that the Jews did? Yes, actually. And that's also a very normal thing for Theologians to do. The reason for this, is that we Christians believe, that the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and the Resurrection of Jesus, was the absolute fulfillment and completion of the entire Old Testament and all of it's commands therein. As Jesus Himself said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them" (Matthew 5:17). As such, it has always been normal for Christians to compare Jesus to the Commands of the Old Testament. For as St. Augustine says, "The Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed, the New is in the Old concealed."

[@truncated7644]

@@randalejetmagalit1198 Ok, if that is your perspective. I think my observation here is that if you want to make a theological point about Jesus fulfilling this particular feast, then you need to do that for every festival and sacrifice. And if you do that, the prophetic force @Testify is trying to draw from it seems weakened.

[@amsterdamG2G]

@@randalejetmagalit1198Huh? How can the entire old testament be fulfilled while we are waiting on His 2nd coming? Heaven and earth have not passed away yet, also wolfs are still not dwelling with lambs ....

[@SugoiEnglish1]

No biblical warrant for talking about Resurrection at the end of "time." The general resurrection was to occur at the judgment which was during 67-70 CE.

[@rockzalt]

This is not so new to Messianic Jewish Christians. They tend to pick up on the Jewishness of the NT and how the annual OT high sabbaths portray the gospel.

[@thewonderingdude5600]

If I may ask, what do you think of GMS' latest video on STR on atheism? kzbin.info/www/bejne/fKTaXp-JpZilp5o

[@TestifyApologetics]

I haven't watched it but I'll give it a look.

[@otiswong2091]

First :)

[@sonoftheking1977]

Second :(

[@otiswong2091]

@@sonoftheking1977 third

[@TestifyApologetics]

4th? Can I be 4th on my own video?

[@sonoftheking1977]

@@TestifyApologetics lol we'll allow it

[@petery6432]

@@TestifyApologetics That seems weird but we'll allow it.

[@austinapologetics2023]

I was wondering about all these Old Testament connections to Jesus such as the ones you've brought up like the feast and the whale of Jonah, as well as others that people point out like the sacrifice of Isaac and Joshua's (the name is also linguistically connectable to Jesus) conquest of the ungodly nations, which sets up the kingdom of God. I was just thinking, doesn't all this kinda support the Mythicist position of scholars like Bob Price that the Jesus stories are just retellings of Old Testament stories?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Not if you can make a separate strong case for the reliability of the Gospels, which is why I've spent so much time on that topic first. Myths and legends don't contain things like undesigned coincidences between each other or outside history as the Gospels do, for just one example. Once you've eliminated human design, it's either divine design or coincidence. And it's obviously not a coincidence.

[@CMGigas1803]

Yes, the gospels appear to be intentionally constructed using Old Testament verses to show messianic fulfillment often wildly out of their original context or meaning. Paul uses this strategy as well. Also, numerous scholars have shown how Mark's gospel is heavily constructed from themes and language found in the letters of Paul. In other words, Mark's gospel is not historical but a reconstruct of Paul's theology and message. From there it appears Matthew and Luke are editing and adding their own emphasis using Mark as a basis. There are numerous scholarly sources and books documenting these occurrences throughout Paul's writings and the gospels. Therefore, it would be very difficult for someone to come away with a historical view of the gospels after reviewing the evidence.

[@TestifyApologetics]

@@CMGigas1803 ok that just ignores every positive argument I've made on this channel in favor of the Gospels.

[@CMGigas1803]

@@TestifyApologetics The case against the historicity of the gospels is very strong in my view. Again, if we study Mark, there are numerous themes or messages that are found originally in Paul’s writings. Remember, Paul never met the earthly Jesus nor was he in attendance for any of the events the gospels narrate. Paul claims that he received all of his information from the risen Jesus and not from any human authority. These themes include the secrecy of the gospel known to only those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. The downplaying or rejection of those who were initially considered most close to Jesus such as his biological family and apostles. The specific portrait of Peter as lacking faith and understanding of Jesus’ true identity and need to fulfill prophecy. For example, the parable of the sower in Mark appears to directly implicate Peter for falling away through the mention of the rocky (Peter) soil and the use of harvesting metaphors previously used by Paul. The idea of the first being the last in the kingdom to come (appointed apostles and family) and the last becoming the first (Paul and his gospel/message). In addition, Mark appears to create his idea of Jesus’s last supper from Paul’s message that he claims to have received from Jesus directly, concerning the bread as his body. Furthermore, Mark has Jesus communicate ideas concerning marriage and bodily resurrection that come from the ideas of Paul that he never attributes to Jesus. Paul’s ideas concerning the need to obey the governing rulers are also reflected in Jesus’ command to render to Caesar what is his. Paul also tells us that Peter is married which is revealed in Mark through the mention of Peter’s mother in law. If we then look at Matthew and Luke we see how they appear to utilize many of the same structures as Mark while adding their own ideas and modifications. This includes the first known mention of the virgin birth narratives, the sermon on the mount or plane, and expanded endings to include sightings of the risen Jesus. All the later gospels include the betrayal of Judas which Paul shows no evidence of knowing about as he mentions Jesus appearing to the twelve. This idea of the twelve likely also came from Paul, with Judas being a later literary device as a general betrayal of the Jewish leaders and close followers of Jesus. In short, there is no reason to believe any of the gospels are historic documents for the reasons stated and many more. I am not ignoring your positive arguments for the historicity of the gospels. I just do not find your arguments or evidence to be persuasive. Briefly, what are your top three reasons for believing the gospels to be historical? Where did these gospel accounts originate from if what I stated is not true or accurate? What evidence do we have that eyewitnesses provided any of the information or details included in the gospels? Who wrote the gospels? How do you explain the use of Old Testament verses that are not messianic in their original context or are altered and changed to fit the purpose of the gospels? There are many scholarly books describing how this occurred that you would need to refute or explain away to have a valid argument.

[@stephenrice2063]

@@CMGigas1803 Let's ignore the synoptics, then. What about John? From the traditional viewpoint, he largely skips the material already covered by the synoptics, though he also references quite a few of the same points (John the Baptizer, the feeding of the 5,000, and the events of Holy Week, for example), and the differences attest a different (but not contradictory) viewpoint. In Peter's epistles (I am aware of the controversies, just not impressed, thanks), he doesn't attack Paul's message, except to say Paul's a bit obscure, which anyone who has read Paul knows. Nor does Paul attack Peter except in Galatians, and that's an isolated incident: there's no indication that Peter's actions remained problematic. For that matter, he appeals to his acceptance by the leading Christians as a sign of his legitimacy: why should he do that if they're a pack of godless fools? He says they added nothing to his message, but that just means that his message wasn't deficient according to them. He is establishing his own credentials over against his detractors' claims. For that matter, since Paul was involved in condemning Christians, he must have heard a lot of testimony from them, and he probably could have constructed a gospel text of his own even before encountering Jesus. So even if he had supplied the basis for the synoptics (and I see no reason to think he did), his account would have been accurate.