Matthew 20:16

Matthew 20:16

Introduction

Well, this is going to be an interesting exercise! There was I, innocently continuing on in my ‘Last First and First Last’ project, when I tripped up over Isaiah 41:4, 44:6 and 48:12. These verses put the project into an entirely different context than I had been searching for. In picking up that point, I decided to have a closer look at Matthew 20:16 which is the verse that started the whole exercise. That investigation then showed me that there are two distinctly different versions of that verse. Looking into that further, I was then pointed in the direction of the whole parable told in Matthew Chapter 20. Well, that was an unexpected path to have travelled! But that turned out not to be the end of my travels by a long stretch. At the time of writing this introductory paragraph, I do not have the slightest idea where this piece of research will lead me, but I know I will find some golden nuggets on my journey through it. Amen.

Isaiah

So, let us have a look at the three verses in the Book of Isaiah that caught my attention to set off this train of research events:

4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I, Jehovah, the first, and with the last, I am he. (Isaiah 41 ASV)

6 Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God. (Isaiah 44 ASV)

12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I [am] he; I [am] the first, I also [am] the last. (Isaiah 48 KJV)

These following verses are not literally the same but do help to convey the overall meaning:

9 Remember former things of old, For I {am} Mighty, and there is none else, God -- and there is none like Me.
10 Declaring from the beginning the latter end, And from of old that which hath not been done, Saying, 'My counsel doth stand, And all My delight I do.' (Isaiah 46 YLT)

Verse 41:4 relates to all the generations of mankind from Adam to the final births prior to The Last Day. Jehovah God made them all. Verses 44:6 and 48:12 state that Jehovah is the first and last God, i.e. the one true God throughout all the generations of mankind. These verses are clearly reminiscent of the similar verses from the Book of Revelation, e.g.:

8 I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. (Revelation 1 ASV)

More on this following verse in a later section:

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (Revelation 1 KJV)

6 And he said unto me, They are come to pass. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. (Revelation 21 ASV)

13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (Revelation 22 ASV)

What is so remarkable about these verses in the context of my ‘Last First and First Last’ project? Well, that project was derived from Matthew 20:16 which I requote from my original paper:

16 So the last shall be first, and the first last. (Matthew 20 ASV)

To support my current thesis, it is worth looking at the more precisely worded parallel verses from the Gospel of Mark:

35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all. (Mark 9 KJV)

44 and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all. (Mark 10 ASV)

In the context of the parable from Matthew Chapter 20, together with the verses from Mark, we took the meaning that those men who, for their own self-aggrandisement put themselves as first, would end up last in God’s judgement. Those that were satisfied with not being first in this life, would consequently become first under His judgement. All the substitutions of ‘first’ with ‘last’ and vice versa would therefore follow a similar pattern.

The examples from Isaiah, and equally those from Revelation, are different in that they refer to God Himself. One definable difference therefore between mankind and God is that mankind can be either first OR last OR any single position in between. Jehovah is unique in comparison by being both first AND last AND all positions in between. This is no real revelation perhaps, but I found it quite revealing that this comparison, of mankind with God, should be stated so plainly and unequivocally in the scriptures. This defines a key difference between mortal mankind and the divine Father of us all.

Matthew 20:16

In the introduction to this paper, I identified that there were two distinct versions of Matthew 20:16. Let us have a look at them:

16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. (Matthew 20 KJV)

16 So the last shall be first, and the first last. (Matthew 20 ASV)

16ουτως εσονται οι εσχατοι πρωτοι και οι πρωτοι εσχατοι πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι (Matthew 20 STE)

16Οὕτως ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι. (Matthew 20 NA27)

So, we have yet another example of text being added or removed from scripture. Here the phrase ‘for many be called, but few chosen’ in the KJV translation is missing from the ASV translation. In parallel, we see this is mirrored in the various Greek texts that are available to us today. In the two examples I provide, the phrase ‘πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι’ in the Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550) is missing from the Nestle Aland’s 27th Version.

Having carried out an initial review of why this phrase has been added or omitted, the rationale is not evident to me. For once this does not obviously appear to be a trinitarian corruption. Consequently, I will need to carry out a more in-depth study into this. Let us try to throw further light on this difference in texts by having a look at this verse in the context of the whole parable of Matthew Chapter 20. Below I provide a selection of the key verses from that tale together with my commentary.

The scene is set by symbolising the Kingdom of Heaven with a housemaster hiring labourers to work in his vineyard. I have to say that I find it strange at first sight to symbolise a kingdom with a man but hopefully the rationale behind that will become clear as we progress through the parable:

1 For the kingdom of Heaven is like a man, a housemaster, who went out when [it was] early to hire workers into his vineyard. (Matthew 20 GLT)

The housemaster agreed a payment of one denarius for a day’s work with these workers and they set about their task on that basis:

2 And agreeing with the workers for a denarius [for] the day, he sent them into his vineyard. (Matthew 20 GLT)

The housemaster then goes out again and brings more workers in, to labour in his vineyard. This time, however, he does not agree a fixed sum for their day’s labour except to say that he will pay them at a fair rate. In the next few verses following this, he repeated this action by bringing in more workers, even later on in the day, again without an agreed rate for their labour except to say he would pay them fairly:

3 And going out about the third hour, he saw others standing idle in the market.
4 And he said to them, You also go into the vineyard, and I will give you whatever is just. And they went. (Matthew 20 GLT)

After the day’s work is done, the housemaster tells his foreman to pay the workers. Interestingly he wants the last called workers to get paid first. Again, we have here a Last First and First Last example. I am not certain what this means right now but I will return to this once I have been through the whole of the parable:

8 But evening having come, the Lord of the vineyard said to his manager, Call the workers and pay them the wage, beginning from the last to the first. (Matthew 20 GLT)

So, as good as his word, the workers that were employed last received the denarius that was agreed with those that had been employed first:

9 And the [ones] having come the eleventh hour each received a denarius. (Matthew 20 GLT)

Then it came to the first employed workers being paid. Despite having agreed the one denarius for payment, they complained that they should be paid more than the last-employed workers since they had spent more time working in the vineyard than the last ones:

10 And having come, the first supposed that they would receive more. And they also each received a denarius.
11 And having received [it], they murmured against the housemaster,
12 saying, These last have performed one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day. (Matthew 20 GLT)

The housemaster responded by saying that paying the first what he had promised was fair and that if he wished to pay the last ones the same that was none of their business. In a worldly business scenario, all this seems normal except that one would expect an hourly rate rather than a daily rate regardless of hours worked:

13 But answering, he said to one of them, Friend, I do not wrong you. Did you not agree to a denarius with me?
14 Take yours and go. But I desire to give to this last as also to you. (Matthew 20 GLT)

But this is a parable of Jesus not a worldly business transaction. So, we then come on to verse 16 for which I again provide the two versions.

16 So the last shall be first, and the first last. (Matthew 20 ASV)

16 So the last shall be first, and the first last; for many are called, but few chosen. (Matthew 20 GLT)

So, what is this verse and therefore this whole parable really all about? Let us look at the first common part of the verse. Recalling that the housemaster is likened to the Kingdom of God, I think we can see that the reward for the faithful ones is their salvation into the Kingdom. This reward is the same for everyone regardless as to when they see the light. So, in the context of the parable, this verse is not ostensibly about those putting themselves about in this world being the last in the Kingdom and vice versa although, taking the verse on its own, I would argue that it carries that meaning also. I think Luke conveys the same meaning as this parable by rejoicing more for those newly seeing the light (i.e. later in the day) than those already enjoying their salvation in the Kingdom:

7 I say unto you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, [more] than over ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance. (Luke 15 ASV)

For the record the official LW understanding of the Matthew 20 parable is to be found at Understanding 192 - Matthew 20: 5 Calls to work in the householder’s vineyard. The Householder left the Vineyard 5x to hire a new set of workers, a new true church. I should point out that the significantly different meaning of this parable in the True Bible Code website points out the multi-threaded, multi-dimensional nature of the scriptures as identified at The 10th Generation Bible Code. Both the official LW understanding and this JLW understanding can happily reside side-by-side as different meanings in different threads of the scriptures.

Matthew 22

But then we come on to the second half of Matthew 20:16, missing from some versions of scripture. Again, in the context of the Matthew 20 parable, I am not sure that it really fits. It seems to me that it was added for some reason afterwards. Unless I find out something specific, my view currently is that it was added superfluously perhaps to maintain some form of common ending to the two of Jesus’ parables contained in the Book of Matthew. The second of those parables is to be found at Matthew 22 which parable ends with the following verse mirroring the latter half of Matthew 20:16:

14 For many are called, but few chosen. (Matthew 22 GLT)

It seems that we will need to have a look at the context of that verse in regard to the whole of this second parable. Again, we have the symbolism of the Kingdom with a man, this time an earthly king who was arranging his son’s wedding:

2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, (Matthew 22 KJV)

He sent out his servants to invite the wedding guests but they would not attend:

3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. (Matthew 22 KJV)

After this he sent out further enticing invitations again but the guests still would not come. Instead, they went about their daily business as normal or, in extremis, slayed the king’s servants who had delivered the invitations:

4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and [my] fatlings [are] killed, and all things [are] ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of [it], and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated [them] spitefully, and slew [them]. (Matthew 22 KJV)

In an equally extreme, albeit unsurprising response, the king went about destroying the murderers:

7 But when the king heard [thereof], he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. (Matthew 22 KJV)

The king determined that those invited wedding guests were not worthy to attend so asked his servants to go and drag folk, literally off the street, to come to the marriage celebration. Notably the bad were invited alongside the good:

8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. (Matthew 22 KJV)

We next find that the wearing of a suitable wedding garment is required. If this is not met then the king (aka Kingdom of God) worryingly casts that guest down to Gehenna:

11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few [are] chosen. (Matthew 22 KJV)

So, what is this parable about, how does it differ from that of Matthew 20 and what light does it throw on the missing/added phrase of Matthew 20:16? First off, this parable relates to the King Jehovah arranging the marriage of His Son Jesus to Jesus’ new bride, the 3rd Holy Spirit made up of 144,000 1st New Covenant (1NC) Saints plus their entourage. This was put together in the 1st century in Heaven to rule over the angels. To that will be added Methuselah’s marriage to 144,000 2nd New Covenant (2NC) Kings plus their entourage to rule over those citizens saved into the Kingdom of God on the new Earth established upon the destruction of the current Earth. Check out Introduction 8 - The Structure of the Kingdom of God: New Jerusalem and the Great Crowd of Revelation 7:9 and Revelation 19:6.

As verse 14 above would have it, we see that there are many that are given this calling but many ignore or refuse the invitation as the prospective bride in this glorious wedding celebration. In this process, God had/has to throw his net far and wide to open the invitation beyond the borders of any established church to entertain those truly wishing to attend.

Adequate numbers of these turn up for the event, but then we have some who turn up inappropriately dressed for the occasion. These ones are those who thought they had a right to partake as a member of Jesus’ bride but had not brought with them the appropriate heart condition to enable their betrothal to take place. Since these ones should have known better (from their Bible knowledge) how to behave prior to the wedding, they are singled out for harsh treatment by being given a spell in Gehenna for their unholy vanity. The fine detail of the LW understanding of this parable is to be found at Understanding 931 - Matthew 22 and Luke 14: The Parables of the Marriage festivities of Jesus, which the invited ones decline, and only those who leave the city accept and partake.

Clearly verse 14 fits perfectly in that parable since we are talking here about Jesus’ Heavenly and Earthly Holy Spirits. These will be limited in numbers and not all those called will accept or ultimately be acceptable. The sense here is that many more will be called than actually end up joining either of Jesus’ holy brides. Luke gives us further insight into this meaning:

23 And one said unto him, Lord, are they few that are saved? And he said unto them,
24 Strive to enter in by the narrow door: for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able. (Luke 13 ASV)

While many commentators would take the Luke verse to mean few will be saved into the Kingdom, this is not the true meaning. On the contrary, many will be saved as evidenced in Understanding 43 - 75% Make it into the Kingdom of God and 25% do not. This verse is referring only to those entering Jesus’ bridal suite. How do we know this? Well first off, from the above verses, Jesus is likely ministering to those who may become 1NC Saints resulting from His ministry on Earth. Also, if folk genuinely have faith and wish to be saved from Gehenna, God will not refuse that desire:

3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2 KJV)

So, how does this parable compare to the tale of the workers in the vineyard of Matthew Chapter 20? They are all offered the same reward for their varied hours of service. That reward is salvation from this corrupt Earth and from a spell in Gehenna. That is the gift for all, by the grace of God, and does not come with any holy or bridal responsibilities; it is just plain old citizenship in the Kingdom of God.

So, Matthew Chapter 20 is about the salvation of the Kingdom citizens while Matthew Chapter 22 is about the appointment of Jesus’ bride, the 3rd Holy Spirit. Consequently, the phrase ‘for many are called, but few [are] chosen’ can only rightly apply to Matthew 22 and is therefore an incorrect addition to Matthew 20. Again, I think this shows that even the ancient scribes and translators did not fully understand all the detail underlying the scriptures. I pray that I am not too vain to think I know it all; I believe that the Holy Spirit has led me by the nose to the truth of the matter because I kept on asking the questions:

9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. (Luke 11 KJV)

Amen.

Revelation 1:11

OK, and now for yet another diversion, as promised above regarding Revelation 1:11. It is noteworthy that all the verses from Revelation that I have quoted above are from the ASV translation except for this one verse which I have deliberately quoted from the KJV translation. I think you will quickly see why from the versions I show below together with their Greek text equivalents:

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (Revelation 1 KJV)

11 saying, What thou seest, write in a book and send [it] to the seven churches: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamum, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (Revelation 1 ASV)

11 λεγουσης εγω ειμι το α και το ω ο πρωτος και ο εσχατος και ο βλεπεις γραψον εις βιβλιον και πεμψον ταις εκκλησιαις ταις εν ασια εις εφεσον και εις σμυρναν και εις περγαμον και εις θυατειρα και εις σαρδεις και εις φιλαδελφειαν και εις λαοδικειαν (Revelation 1 STE)

11 λεγουσης ο βλεπεις γραψον εις βιβλιον και πεμψον ταις επτα εκκλησιαις εις εφεσον και εις σμυρναν και εις περγαμον και εις θυατειρα και εις σαρδεις και εις φιλαδελφειαν και εις λαοδικειαν (Revelation 1 BYZ)

So, we see that the opening phrase ‘I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,’ from the KJV translation is missing from the ASV translation. This is also mirrored in the various Greek texts; in the two examples I provide above, we see that the Greek phrase ‘εγω ειμι το α και το ω ο πρωτος και ο εσχατος και’ is present in the Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550) but missing from the Byzantine Majority Text.

For an explanation we need to look at the KJV translation in the context of the couple of verses that follow:

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. (Revelation 1 KJV)

Well, well, what a surprise! Yet another trinitarian corruption of the scriptures. All the other examples of translations containing ‘The Alpha and The Omega’ in the Book of Revelation clearly refer to Jehovah the Father who is ‘the first and the last’. Revelation 1:11 is referring to Jesus the Son who is NOT ‘the first and the last’ but the second. Again, more text added in by the unholy Roman Catholic Church to further the priestly case of the false trinitarian myth. I cover this in a rather tangential manner in my earlier Trinity paper.

Firstfruits

In all my searching of the scriptures for this ‘Last First and First Last’ exercise, I came across numerous examples of ‘first-fruits’, ‘firstlings’, ‘firstborn’ which I have excluded from this exercise thus far, e.g.:

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offering: (Genesis 4 ASV)

14 And if you bring near a food offering of firstfruits to Jehovah, fresh ears roasted with fire, grains from a garden, you shall bring near your firstfruits for a food offering. (Leviticus 2 GLT)

33 And Jacob added: Swear to me first of all! And he proceeded to swear to him and to sell his right as firstborn to Jacob. (Genesis 25 NWT)

3 Reuben, thou [art] my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: (Genesis 49 KJV)

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Romans 8 KJV)

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept. (1 Corinthians 15 KJV)

Looking at the above examples we see that this phraseology appears in both the Old and New Testaments so represent a common thread throughout the Bible. Let us examine the meaning of these phrases in the above examples.

In Genesis 4:4 Abel brought the firstlings of his flock to sacrifice to Jehovah which pleased our God. So, in some way, ‘firstlings’ must represent the best of Abel's flock. Similarly, we have Leviticus 2:14 in which the ‘firstfruits’ of the field are brought as an offering to Jehovah.

In Genesis 25:33 Jacob asked Esau to sell him his ‘firstborn’ rights. Again, being firstborn must therefore be seen as a positive thing. This is substantiated in Genesis 49:3 in which Jacob describes Reuben, his firstborn as ‘my might, and the beginning of my strength’. So clearly the firstborn of a man would seem to be something a bit special compared with his later offspring. Perhaps this is due to a man’s being his youngest (and therefore most vigorous?) when his wife conceives his eldest child.

Let us continue with the New Testament example verses above. In Romans 8:29, Christ is described as the ‘firstborn’ of many brothers. In 1Corinthians 15:20, He is further described as the ‘firstfruits’ of those to be resurrected from the grave.

All the meanings behind the use of the phrases ‘firstlings’, ‘firstfruits’ and ‘firstborn’, in the above verses, can only be taken in a highly positive sense. Let me go back to the original object of the Last First and First Last project and that of this paper. It was based on several scriptures including that following:

35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all. (Mark 9 KJV)

The sense here is that who would be first in this system of things will be last in the next. So, being first in the current system would not be deemed to be a positive thing in God’s eyes. These verses consequently also lead to the word substitution of ‘last’ for ‘first’ and vice versa. Now whilst the phrases described above do not carry the precision of the sole word ’first’ they do, nonetheless, carry the sense of ‘firstness’. However, they do not seem capable of being transformed into the (probably fictitious) words ‘lastlings’, ‘lastfruits’ and ‘lastborn’.

So, I asked myself what is different about the qualities of these words compared to a straight-forward ‘first’? The answer proved rather easier to tease out than I had expected. In the original verses that kicked off this whole exercise, being first was the desire of a man. In the cases of ‘firstlings’, ‘firstfruits’ and ‘firstborn’, these are all related to the desire and workings of Jehovah God. These cases clearly therefore must be excluded from this exercise as I originally determined for purely linguistic reasons. Amen.

The Virgin Mary

Before I leave the subject of ‘first-born’, I could not resist yet another dig at the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). This time it is on a topic other than the trinity (or so I thought!) but nonetheless another of their travesties of changing scripture to fit their version of Christianity. Matthew 1:25 is the verse in question. Below I present a couple of examples of English translations and Greek texts with and without ‘first-born’ and ‘αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον’ included respectively:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1 KJV)

25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1 ASV)

25 και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην εως ου ετεκεν τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον και εκαλεσεν το ονομα αυτου ιησουν (Matthew 1 STE)

25 καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν· καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν. (Matthew 1 NA27)

Now a topic that I have not previously investigated is the status that the True Christian Church 1 (TCC1 aka RCC) give to the virgin Mary. I firstly found myself wondering why the RCC would even consider the necessity to believe in her holy status as a permanent virgin. Well, a swift analysis quickly reverts us back to the false doctrine of The Trinity. On that basis, Mary is not only the mother of Jesus but also the mother of God (check out this Catholic website: https://www.catholiccompany.com/content/what-the-catholic-church-teaches-about-mary). What a crock!!

The following verses prove beyond any doubt, in my mind, that Jesus had numerous blood siblings. Here He has returned to His hometown where the townsfolk knew Him and his earthly family. He is described by the townsfolk as having four named brothers and at least three sisters since the word ‘all’ is used to describe their number. So, He had at least 7 siblings. Some virgin!!!

54 And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Let us take a deeper dive into the comparison of the two versions of Matthew 1:25. An earlier verse makes it absolutely clear that Mary was a virgin at the point of conceiving Jesus:

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1 KJV)

This had been prophesied much earlier by the Prophet Isaiah:

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7 KJV)

In returning to reconsider Matthew 1:25, I am minded to look at Luke 2:7, where ‘firstborn’ appears in all English versions and Greek manuscripts as far as I can determine;

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. (Luke 2 KJV)

So, if ‘firstborn’ is the uncontested inclusion in Luke’s Gospel, why would that not also be the case in Matthew’s Gospel?

All versions of Matthew 1:25 also use the phrase ‘…and knew her not till…’ which clearly demonstrates that Joseph had carnal relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus. God is very precise with the language He uses in scriptures. If He had intended Mary to be a permanent virgin then the word ‘until’ would not have been included in the verse. Also, the expectation that Joseph did not ever have carnal relations with his wife are nothing short of laughable.

Looking into this further, we see the instructions given to Joseph by the Angel of God. Nowhere is he told not to have carnal relations with Mary. If Mary was to be a permanent virgin, I would have thought that would have been important enough to at least mention it to her husband:

20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. (Matthew 1 ASV)

So, I think I have come down once again to accuse the RCC of deliberately tampering with the scriptures. This time by causing the removal of the word ‘firstborn’ from some of the original manuscripts to convey the sense of Mary’s being a permanent virgin to support their false trinitarian doctrine. What a pity they missed out Luke’s Gospel! The RCC’s false priests would therefore, by definition, be incompetent in trying to deny God’s true Word. Amen.

Synopsis

This research is based on my ‘Last First and First Last’ project and was to take me on a mystery tour through the Bible Books of Isaiah, Matthew and Revelation.
The Book of Isaiah gives a different perspective on the ‘First, Last’ theme as it applies to Jehovah our God compared with its application to mankind.
There are two distinctly different versions of Matthew 20:16 which caused me to examine the whole of the vineyard workers parable in Matthew 20.
The main message in the Matthew 20 parable is that the reward for all faithful ones is their salvation into the Kingdom. This reward is the same for everyone regardless as to when they see the light.
The next step on this scriptural journey caused me to look at the additional text from the second half of Matthew 20:16. It seemed to me that it was added superfluously to match the ending of the parable relating to the king’s son’s wedding to be found at Matthew 22.
I reached the conclusion that the parable at Matthew 20 related to the righteous ones that will become the citizens of the Kingdom of God, whereas the parable at Matthew 22 was about the appointment of the Saints and Kings of the Kingdom.
Resulting from the previous point, the additional text of Matthew 20:16 does not fit as it does for the parable at Matthew 22. In my view, it is consequently incorrectly included in some Bible manuscripts and translations.
As a result of looking at the Book of Revelation in the ‘First, Last’ context, I discovered a textual anomaly between different manuscripts and translations of Revelation 1:11.
Once again, I determined this was yet another corruption of God’s Holy Word by the Roman Catholic Church priesthood in their quest for the false doctrine of the trinity.
I was next led to look at the terms ‘firstlings’, ‘firstfruits’ and ‘firstborn’ in the ‘Last, First’ context. These are all related to the desire and workings of Jehovah God rather than mankind and therefore should rightly be excluded from the ‘Last, First’ project.
Stemming from the previous part of this journey, I found another textual inconsistency in Matthew 1:25 with the additional word ‘firstborn’ included in some versions of the scripture. Unsurprisingly, this was due to yet another scriptural pollution c/o the RCC to try, albeit incompetently, to provide more evidence for their false trinity doctrine.

Conclusion

Well, this extensive and somewhat circuitous treasure hunt, through the scriptures, has proven to be one of the most interesting of all my time as the JLW. It has led me through various scriptural differences in the original Bible manuscripts and translations. Some of them are likely due to simple misunderstandings from some of the early scribes down to the more sinister workings of the RCC priesthood to protect their jobs by feeding false understandings to their flock. This anti-trinitarian work, on my part, now seems to be becoming one of my main missions in life, and not by my seeking it. The Holy Spirit seems to be leading me through to a full exposure of the RCC’s crimes of polluting the holy scriptures. I can only imagine that this crime against Jehovah to deny Him of His first-begotten son is something that represents, arguably, the worse sin that mankind has committed against our God. I do not think there can be much doubt as to who the whore of Revelation represents:

1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. (Revelation 17 KJV)

This will definitely prove to be a major case of ‘vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord’ (check out my Punishment and Vengeance paper). Amen.

Date of Publication: 19th February 2025

Courtesy churchofjesuschrist. org

Labourers in the Vineyard

Jewish Lords' Witness