Matthew 20:16 difference in versions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MaryTeresa2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MaryTeresa2

Guest
This week the Gospel reading Matt 20:1-16; The Laborers in the Vineyard, causes me to question the difference in the 16th verse from the NAB to the Douay-Rheims American.

DRA: 16So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.

NAB: 16Thus the last shall be first and the first shall be last.

What happened to: For many are called, but few chosen. ?

I understand the meaning of the ‘first and last’ part… but I ponder the meaning of ‘For many are called, but few chosen.’ Not that I don’t understand the sentence, but it seems important to know why it’s stated here. In this parable there is nothing about many being called or few chosen. I’d like to understand the context of that sentence and why it’s not in both versions.

If we are called, to what? If we are called and we show up but not chosen, why?

Can someone help me with this one? Much appreciated!!
 
I actually can’t find a version that include the last phrase.

I think it means that God’s grace, through His Church, is open and freely offered to all men (called) but only those who are His will come (chosen). I know that sounds Calvin but its actually Paul.

Ephesians 2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and* were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind*. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ

In other words only those who God makes alive can come to Him. This is not however unfair because, as St Augustine points out, Paul also tells us in Romans 1 that we are dead because we have first chosen to not worship God (hence we were among the sons of disobedience). And in that refusal have chosen to be dead instead of alive, But God who is rich in mercy overcomes that in us for the sake of His love and glory and makes us alive in Him. So we cannot because we will not, but God works in us through His Church to do what we won’t by grace.

God Bless
 
PS: I know this phrase comes again in Matt 22:14 and it makes more sense there, I guess I’m trying to see how it applies in Matt 20:16 and why it’s not in all versions. Maybe I’ve answered my own question to a degree… it makes sense in other places and I ‘get it’ there. Just a curiosity.🤷
 
The NAB has a similar verse at the end of the parable of the wedding feast. “Many are invited, but few are chosen” (Mt 22:14) are the last words of that parable. I don’t know if the DR has it there as well.

I recall it because it just so happens that the parable of the wedding feast was today’s Gospel reading, Thursday of the 20th week of ordinary time.

-Tim-
 
bogeydogg said:
I actually can’t find a version that include the last phrase.

I think it means that God’s grace, through His Church, is open and freely offered to all men (called) but only those who are His will come (chosen). I know that sounds Calvin but its actually Paul.

Ephesians 2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and* were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind*. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ

In other words only those who God makes alive can come to Him. This is not however unfair because, as St Augustine points out, Paul also tells us in Romans 1 that we are dead because we have first chosen to not worship God (hence we were among the sons of disobedience). And in that refusal have chosen to be dead instead of alive, But God who is rich in mercy overcomes that in us for the sake of His love and glory and makes us alive in Him. So we cannot because we will not, but God works in us through His Church to do what we won’t by grace.

God Bless
Click to expand...
Thank you for your post! BTW it’s also in the King James version. I guess I got hung up on the detail a bit. When one looks at Matt 22:14 it’s clearer. Also sorta like Jesus says “Those who have ears should hear” but of course some are listening and some are not. We can be called but not respond, hence not chosen.
I really appreciate your response! Blessing to you and peace be with you! 🙂
 
TimothyH said:
The NAB has a similar verse at the end of the parable of the wedding feast. “Many are invited, but few are chosen” (Mt 22:14) are the last words of that parable. I don’t know if the DR has it there as well.

I recall it because it just so happens that the parable of the wedding feast was today’s Gospel reading, Thursday of the 20th week of ordinary time.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Yup, I get these things in my head and I have several Bibles so I read one downstairs and the other upstairs in bed and suddenly think, hummm? Question! Then I can’t wait to sort it out!

Bless you for posting! Bugs me if the verse doesn’t match, like an entire sentence left out, I notice. 😛
 
MaryTeresa2 said:
This week the Gospel reading Matt 20:1-16; The Laborers in the Vineyard, causes me to question the difference in the 16th verse from the NAB to the Douay-Rheims American.

DRA: 16So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.

NAB: 16Thus the last shall be first and the first shall be last.

What happened to: For many are called, but few chosen. ?

I understand the meaning of the ‘first and last’ part… but I ponder the meaning of ‘For many are called, but few chosen.’ Not that I don’t understand the sentence, but it seems important to know why it’s stated here. In this parable there is nothing about many being called or few chosen. I’d like to understand the context of that sentence and why it’s not in both versions.

If we are called, to what? If we are called and we show up but not chosen, why?

Can someone help me with this one? Much appreciated!!
Click to expand...
The last part of that verse is found in Matt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

I found this explanation: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_20:16

Haydock Commentary

Matt 20:16 (DR)So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.

Few chosen: only such as have not despised their caller, but followed and believed him; for men believed not, but of their own free will. S. Aug. l. i, ad Simplic. q. ii. B. — Hence the rejection of the Jews and of negligent Christians, and the conversion of strangers, who come and take their place, by a conversion both of faith and morals. On the part of God all are called. Mat. xi. 28. Come to me all, &c. In effect, many after their call, have attained to faith and justification; but few in comparison are elected to eternal glory, because the far greater part do not obey the call, but refuse to come, whilst many of those who come fall away again; and thus very few, in comparison with those that perish, will at the last day be selected for eternal glory. T.

Not sure why the last part of this verse was eliminated from other translations. It is still in the NKJV.
 
Wow, everyone is so great coming up with the answers, I really thank you all. Actually that theme is one Jesus brings up over and over but in various forms. Considering how well the versions really do match, that line just hangs out there when it’s not in the other versions. I think it goes better with Matt 22:14. 😃 But who am I to say, tee hee!😛

God Bless You All,
Sincerely,
MT2, OSSM
 
My guess is that the Douay and KJV include the extra phrase because they were made in the 17th century when translators lacked the better manuscripts that were found since. I don’t know why the NKJV would have kept it except a reluctance to change the original KJV without a perceived need.
Interpretation I leave to others better qualified.
 
I believe the original manuscripts did not contain the second part either. One of the reasons the KJV is still trusted is that it was put together at a time when there was no political agenda, just a desire to get the Word of God into the hands of every man. It was also the one that many many thousands of believers held fast to over the centuries, so we hope that The Holy Spirit was just as active in the publishing as in the original inspiring at time of writing.

Yes there were errors, but this one is a whopper, and one wonders what was the reason for the inclusion. But i’m sort of glad it ended up there for this reason. It echoes a puzzling conclusion to a nearby parable about the wedding for the King’s Son.

In the set context of the harvest workers, all who were called were accepted. There is no account of workers being ‘not chosen’.

In the wedding parable, similarly all who were called filled the banquet hall. Only one was cast out, not seven eights of the guests.
Jesus did not say “For many are called and few are not chosen.”

My understanding has grown that the perspective between called and chosen must be clear. Then there is no conflict or puzzle.

A large organisation with many employees are filled with those who are ‘called’. Advertisements are put out, and people respond, answer the call. They may be selected but for their entire working life they remain a ‘called’ person. Even if they rise through promotions.

A ‘chosen’ person is one where the CEO’s and top level managers become aware of a talented indiviual working for a competitor or somewhere else, and they seek him out with offers. They dont want anyone else in this key position. He/She did not have to answer a general calling like the others. Such positions are fewer in number than the general workforce. Many are called but few are chosen.

The Jewish Nation were a chosen people through Abraham being sought out by God, but they did not heed the original invitation, they violently refused the second invitation.

The term highways, which the KJV faithfully renders as routes for travel to foreign lands would have been clear in its meaning to the original hearers as the third level of invitations going out to the Gentiles.

Thise attending the feast remain as the ‘called’ but are occupying a place reserved for the chosen and inorder to enjoy this priviledge must do so under the covering of a garment of righteousness provided, not of their own. Hence the King being angered by the single person appearing in his own right.

If the chosen person in our business example decided to vacate, and an ordinary worker taken from the factory floor was put in his place, he/she would not carry on in that new role like a pork chop as if they were there in their own strength. The CEO wouldnt say “go back to your workstation”, they’d be sacked and put out on the street for disgracing such a privelidge.

For us as the gentile nation called into a position reserved for the chosen, we should understand the privelidge. There is nothing more we need do than answer the call, we are accepted. The wedding parable is more of a national or church body context than a personal one and is more of an explanation of prophecy about the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

I know i am going against the grain of established commentary here but i believe we should lose the idea of called/chosen as being a 2 level selection process. It is not played out in either parable.

All who responded to the Wedding feast call got paid the wages eually to those working the fields.
 
The simple answer is that the Majority Texts did include the For many are called, but few chosen. The Critical Text (the best and assumed earliest manuscripts) did not. The ones used to translate early versions of the bible (KJV, Douay Rheims, etc) were the Majority Texts. The ones used for most of our modern versions (NIV, NET, RSV, etc) are the Critical Texts.

By using the critical text it is believed that they get rid of transcription errors by going back to the earliest copies, which are assumed to be much closer to the actual words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top