First and Last

How to cite this article:
Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “First and Last,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/28980/].

Matt. 19:30; 20:16; Mark 10:31; Luke 13:30^[1] 

וְהֲרֵי יֵשׁ אַחֲרוֹנִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ רִאשׁוֹנִים וְיֵשׁ רִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ אַחֲרוֹנִים

“Look! There are those in last place who will be put first. And there are those in first place who will be put last.”^[2] 

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of First and Last click on the link below:

Story Placement

The authors of Luke, Mark and Matthew each placed a version of First and Last at different points in their Gospels. In Luke First and Last is the final saying in a cluster consisting of Narrow Gate (Luke 13:22-24), Closed Door (Luke 13:25-27), Coming From All Directions (Luke 13:28-29) and First and Last (Luke 13:30). In Mark First and Last is appended to the end of Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark 10:31). Matthew agrees with Mark’s placement (Matt. 19:30), but also includes a version of First and Last at the end of the Generous Householder parable (Matt. 20:16).^[3] Because each of the Synoptic Gospels places First and Last in a different context, some scholars refer to it as a Wanderlogion (“wandering saying”), as though First and Last floated freely in a sea of tradition and bobbed up more or less at random in each of the Synoptic Gospels.^[4] Such a description of First and Last does not, in our view, do justice to the literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels, especially not from the point of view of Lindsey’s hypothesis. Rather than regarding First and Last as a free-floating saying, we believe the placements of First and Last in each of the Gospels were based on conscious decisions of the synoptic evangelists.

There are good reasons for supposing that the author of Luke preserved the placement of First and Last as it occurred in his source.^[5] In the first place, we can be reasonably certain that the author of Luke did not create the cluster consisting of Narrow Gate, Closed Door and Coming From All Directions. This certainty arises from two important facts: 1) Matthew’s Gospel places Narrow Gate, Closed Door and Coming From All Directions in the same sequence as in Luke (albeit with other sayings and/or narratives in between), and 2) Matthew’s Gospel places these three sayings in relatively close proximity to one another (all three appear in chapters 7 and 8 of Matthew). These combined facts suggest that the author of Matthew knew that these sayings originally belonged to a loosely related cluster, such as we find in Luke. If, as we assume, the author of Matthew did not know the Gospel of Luke, the only way the author of Matthew could have known that Narrow Gate, Closed Door and Coming From All Directions once formed a cluster is if this cluster already existed in the Anthology (Anth.), the source, according to Lindsey’s hypothesis, of all Matthew’s Double Tradition (DT) pericopae. Since it was the author of Luke who kept the cluster consisting of Narrow Gate, Closed Door and Coming From All Directions intact, and since in Luke’s Gospel First and Last belongs to this cluster, it is reasonable to hypothesize that Luke’s inclusion of First and Last in this cluster is due to the inclusion of First and Last in this cluster already in Anth. While it is possible that a later redactor (either the author of Luke or someone before him) attached First and Last to the Anth. cluster, the likelier hypothesis is that since it was the author of Matthew who broke up the cluster, it was also the author of Matthew who removed First and Last to an entirely new context. If a clear reason can be discovered why the author of Matthew might have wished to remove First and Last to a new context, then our initial hypothesis that Luke preserves Anth.’s placement of First and Last will be strengthened even further.

The author of Mark, who did not reproduce the section of Luke’s Gospel in which First and Last appears, appended the saying to the conclusion of Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, where it serves to reinforce the statement that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.^[6] Thus, those who enjoyed pride of place in society, like the rich man, will be demoted, while those who have relinquished their social status (by giving up their possessions and renouncing family ties) in order to become Jesus’ disciples will be honored. Although the Markan application of the saying is not in conflict with its true intention, Mark’s placement of First and Last is hardly original.^[7] As usual with Markan versions of pericopae, the wording of Mark’s version of First and Last also differs considerably from Luke’s.

The author of Matthew included two versions of First and Last. The first version follows Mark’s placement at the end of Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven and reproduces the wording of Mark’s version almost verbatim.^[8] The second version, which is worded similarly to Luke’s, appears at the end of the Generous Householder parable, which the author of Matthew placed immediately after Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven. By writing ὁμοία γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (“For the kingdom of heaven is like…”) at the opening of the parable (Matt. 20:1) and by writing οὕτως ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι (“In this way the last will be first and the first last”) at the parable’s close (Matt. 20:16), it is clear that the author of Matthew intended the parable to be an illustration of the First and Last saying.^[9] In other words, the author of Matthew’s placement of his two versions of First and Last is hardly indicative of a free-floating saying. On the contrary, the author of Matthew demonstrated clear forethought and intentionality by his placement of his two versions of First and Last with Generous Householder between them.^[10] 

His intentionality notwithstanding, it is clear that the author of Matthew’s placement of Generous Householder and his second version of First and Last is artificial. Generous Householder hardly illustrates the contrast between the rich man who was unwilling to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and the disciples who gave up everything in order to do so.^[11] Neither is “the last will be first and the first will be last” an apt summary of Generous Householder.^[12] At best, this saying recapitulates something that happened in the story (the latecomers are paid first, while those who labored all day are paid last [Matt. 20:8]); it does not describe what the parable is about.^[13] The message of the parable is that just as the householder was generous with his workers, paying the latecomers equal to those who came early, so God is generous toward all those who “labor” for him, whether they have done so all their lives or whether they have only lately responded to the summons to repent.^[14] The parable’s message is reminiscent of the song the ḥasidim sang in the Temple:

מה היו אומרין אשרי מי שלא חטא וכל מי שחטא ימחל ויש מהן או′ אשרי ילדותי שלא ביישה את זקנותי אילו אנשי מעשה ויש מהן שהיו אומ′ אשריך זקנתי שתכפרי על ילדותי אילו בעלי תשובה

What would they say? “Blessed is the one who has not sinned. But everyone who has sinned he [i.e., God—DNB and JNT] will forgive.” And there are some of them who say, “Blessed is my youth, because it has not shamed my old age.” These are the men of deeds. And there are some of them who would say, “Blessed are you, my old age, because you compensate for my youth.” These are the repentant. (t. Suk. 4:2; Vienna MS)

Just as in the parable the laborers who worked all day and those who only came into the vineyard at the day’s end received the same pay, so in the song of the ḥasidim both the “men of deeds” who never sinned and the repentant sinners enjoy the same state of blessedness. Both are able to rejoice in God’s goodness to them, and the “men of deeds,” who had no need of repentance, do not begrudge the repentant for sharing in their blessedness. It was this open attitude of the sin-fearing ḥasidim to repentant sinners that Jesus wished to encourage by telling the Generous Householder parable.

But the First and Last saying does not convey the parable’s message. It does not envision equal blessing for the righteous and the repentant^[15] but a reversal of fortunes in which those who were once highly honored are humbled and those who had no social status are celebrated. The only reason First and Last is attached to Generous Householder is that the author of Matthew noted the similarity between paying the workers in reverse order and the declaration “the last will be first.” Thus, while Matthew’s placement of his two versions of First and Last betrays intentionality, it does not reveal depth of insight or literary skill. Rather, the author of Matthew, in quite a superficial manner, found a way to use both versions of First and Last in the context that seemed best to him. He could not preserve the Anth. version of First and Last in its Anth. context because he himself had destroyed it by weaving the other sayings from Anth.’s cluster into the final part of the Sermon on the Mount and the pericopae that followed shortly thereafter. Therefore, the author of Matthew adopted the Markan context for both versions of First and Last and at the same time created a slot in which to insert the Generous Householder parable.^[16] 

Thus only Luke’s Gospel is likely to retain a pre-synoptic placement of First and Last. But did Luke’s pre-synoptic source preserve First and Last in its original context? Our answer is a qualified “Yes.” We believe that in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua First and Last may have been linked to Coming From All Directions.^[17] Likewise, we think that Coming From All Directions was linked to Closed Door. However, as was typical of his editorial style, the Anthologizer probably separated these sayings from the larger discourse to which they originally belonged, and Anth.’s clustering of Closed Door, Coming From All Directions and First and Last with Narrow Gate is probably not original. We believe that prior to the Anthologizer’s splitting apart of Jesus’ teaching discourses, Closed Door, Coming From All Directions and First and Last were addressed to an audience that was dismissive of Jesus’ call to right social inequities by sharing with the poor and disabled and associating with repentant sinners (i.e., practicing a radical form of tzedakah) in response to God’s mercy toward Israel. In the Great Banquet parable Jesus compared his listeners’ dismissive attitude to guests who declined an invitation to a feast. When the original guests declined, the householder invited willing guests. In Closed Door Jesus identified the reluctant guests with his audience. Having been made jealous by the arrival of the other guests, Jesus warned his audience, you will knock at the door and ask to be let in, but the householder will declare, “I never knew you.” In Coming From All Directions, Jesus drew out the lesson of the parable: people will come from far and wide to rejoice with the patriarchs in the Kingdom of Heaven, but you, who refuse to accept the invitation, will find yourselves outside. Then, in First and Last, Jesus returned to the theme of equity: there are those who, in the present, enjoy being first who will find themselves among the last, while those whom society considered last will be given priority. In other words, the righting of social imbalance was coming whether Jesus’ audience wanted it or not. They could either choose to be part of God’s redemptive activity by cheerfully sharing with their less fortunate neighbors, or their power and privilege could be stripped away, because nothing can stand in God’s way.

For an overview of this longer discourse, which we have entitled the “Banquet in the Kingdom of Heaven” complex, click here.

.

.

Click here to view the Map of the Conjectured Hebrew Life of Yeshua.

.

.

Conjectured Stages of Transmission

In the foregoing discussion we have suggested that Luke’s Gospel preserves the Anthology’s (Anth.’s) placement of First and Last. Nevertheless, we do not believe Luke’s version of First and Last was based on Anth. Rather, it appears the First Reconstructor took over Anth.’s cluster of sayings consisting of Narrow Gate, Closed Door, Coming From All Directions and First and Last and framed them as an answer to a question about the number of those who are to be saved. As we have discussed elsewhere, the First Reconstructor appears to have taken certain measures to bind Anth.’s cluster of sayings more tightly together, such as changing the two gates of Narrow Gate into a single narrow door in order to make Narrow Gate fit more comfortably with Closed Door, and by turning around the order of Coming From All Directions so as to bind it more closely to the pericope that came before it. It is because of this editorial work, which would not have been characteristic of Anth. but which involves themes dear to the heart of the First Reconstructor (for instance, the theme of salvation), that we attribute Luke’s version of First and Last to the First Reconstruction (FR).

Mark’s version of First and Last is based on Luke’s.^[18] It is often said that in Mark’s version the order of “first” and “last” is the reverse of the order found in Luke, but Mark’s grammar is actually quite ambiguous. Only if the definite article in L5 is original can we be certain that the author of Mark intended a reversal of Luke’s order. But if the textual witnesses that omit οἱ (hoi, “the”) in L5 are correct—and these include, among others, Codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus—then Mark’s version could be taken as agreeing with Luke’s. This is because word order in Greek does not determine meaning, but can simply indicate emphasis. Thus πολλοὶ δὲ ἔσονται πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι καὶ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι can either be understood as “But many firsts will be lasts, and [many] lasts [will be] firsts” (i.e., the opposite of Luke) or as “But will be firsts many lasts, and [will be] lasts [many] firsts” (i.e., in agreement with Luke).^[19] If, however, the definite article in L5 is original, then only the first sense is possible, “But many firsts will be lasts, and the lasts [will be] firsts.”

Yet two external considerations cast the definite article in L5 into doubt. First, since the presence of the definite article in L5 removes ambiguity, we can easily imagine a well-intentioned scribe inserting it. And if that well-meaning scribe knew the version of First and Last in Matt. 20:16, which includes definite articles, then he might even have believed that he was restoring something that had dropped out of Mark. Second, Matthew’s version of First and Last that is parallel to Mark’s (Matt. 19:30) is identical to Mark’s version in every respect except the omission of οἱ in L5. It could be, as some scholars have suggested, that the author of Matthew omitted οἱ in order to achieve better symmetry,^[20] but a more obvious explanation is that the author of Matthew did not find the definite article in his text of Mark. Moreover, the author of Matthew’s use of Generous Householder as an illustration of Matt. 19:30 (∥ Mark 10:31), in which the last are paid first, and his reiteration in Matt. 20:16 that in this way the last will be first and the first will be last, indicates that he understood Matt. 19:30 (∥ Mark 10:31) as agreeing, not contrasting, with Matt. 20:16. Thus the way the author of Matthew interpreted Mark 10:31 indicates that οἱ was not present in his text. In our view, therefore, the author of Mark did not reverse Luke’s order, he simply made the saying ambiguous so as to make the reversals described in the saying inherent in the very grammar in which he recorded it. Mark’s version of First and Last is polyvalent, intentionally ambiguous. The author of Matthew, reading Mark’s version of First and Last through the lens of the version he found in Anth., flattened the meaning, so that while in Mark both interpretations of the saying are valid, in Matthew only the interpretation that agrees with Matt. 20:16 is correct.

Throughout our discussion we have assumed that while Matt. 19:30 is based on Mark 10:31, the version of First and Last recorded in Matt. 20:16 is based on Anth. Some scholars, however, deny that the author of Matthew relied on a second source for the version in Matt. 20:16. These scholars attribute all the differences between Matt. 19:30 (∥ Mark 10:31) and Matt. 20:16 to Matthean redaction.^[21] But there are strong reasons to suppose that the author of Matthew did rely on a non-Markan source for his second version of First and Last. One reason is the similarity of Matt. 20:16 to Luke 13:30, which is best explained if both versions stemmed from Anth. (in Luke’s case via FR).^[22] Another reason is that the version of First and Last in Matt. 20:16 not only indicates how the author of Matthew understood Mark 10:31, it actually governed how he understood it. That was why the author of Matthew thought the detail in Generous Householder of paying the latecomers first confirmed, rather than contradicted, Mark 10:31. We therefore believe that Matt. 20:16 is based on Anth.,^[23] but that does not preclude the possibility that Mark 10:31 influenced Matt. 20:16 in various ways or that the author of Matthew redacted Anth.’s version of First and Last when he attached it to the end of Generous Householder.^[24] 

In addition to the Synoptic versions of First and Last, versions of this saying are also attested in the Gospel of Thomas and the Epistle of Barnabas. The Coptic version of Thomas reads:

For many who are first shall become last and they shall become a single one. (Gos. Thom. §4 [ed. Guillaumont, 4-5])

But a Greek fragment of Thomas preserved in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri reads:

…ὅτι πολλοὶ ἔσονται π[ρῶτοι ἔσχατοι καὶ] | οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι καὶ […]

…because many f[irsts] will be [lasts and] | the lasts firsts, and…. (P. Oxy. 654, 25-26)^[25] 

This fragment of Thomas adheres closely to Mark 10:31 ∥ Matt. 19:30.^[26] The definite article attached to ἔσχατοι could either be interpreted as evidence that Mark’s definite article in L5 is original, or it may indicate that the author of Thomas worked from a text of Mark that included this scribal addition.

The Epistle of Barnabas quotes a dominical saying that might be considered a version of First and Last:^[27] 

λέγει δὲ κύριος· Ἰδού, ποιῶ τὰ ἔσχατα ὡς τὰ πρῶτα

But the Lord says, “Behold! I make the last as the first.” (Ep. Barn. 6:13)

This quotation appears in a discussion about how Christians are the promised new creation, and it is not clear that the “Lord” to whom the saying is attributed ought to be identified with Jesus, or whether the “Lord” is to be understood as God speaking through the prophets. Even if Jesus is the speaker, it is possible that pseudo-Barnabas conflated First and Last with a saying attributed to Jesus in the book of Revelation in which he says: ἰδοὺ καινὰ ποιῶ πάντα (“Behold! I make all things new”; Rev. 21:5).

Crucial Issues

1. Who are the “last ones” and who are the “first ones” referred to in this saying?

Comment

L1 οὕτως (Matt. 20:16). As we noted in the Story Placement discussion above, the use of οὕτως (houtōs, “in this way”) at the opening of Matthew’s second version of First and Last was a means by which the author of Matthew attempted to show how the Generous Householder parable illustrates the First and Last saying. Since the connection to Generous Householder is artificial, it follows that the connecting word οὕτως is redactional too.^[28] This reasoning is confirmed by the fact that οὕτως + “will be” occurs more frequently in Matthew than in the Gospels of Mark or Luke, and often in clearly redactional contexts.^[29] 

καὶ ἰδοὺ (GR). The Hebraic phrase καὶ ἰδού (kai idou, “And behold!”) in Luke’s version of First and Last probably preserves the wording of Anth.^[30] The First Reconstructor and the author of Luke had a tendency to eliminate ἰδού (idou, “Behold!”) when it occurred in their sources,^[31] so it is unlikely that either of them added this interjection.

וְהֲרֵי (HR). On reconstructing ἰδού (idou, “Behold!”) with הֲרֵי (h^arē, “Behold!”), see Preparations for Eating Passover Lamb, Comment to L22.

L2 πολλοὶ δὲ (Mark 10:31). In our reconstructions of Anth.’s versions of Narrow Gate and Coming From All Directions we regarded πολλοί (polloi, “many”) as one of the catchwords that caused the Anthologizer to lump these pericopae together in the same cluster.^[32] It is possible, therefore, that πολλοί also occurred in Anth.’s version of First and Last. On the other hand, πολλοί makes the saying’s parallelism less balanced, and unless we are to adopt the Markan version of First and Last as a whole for our reconstruction, there is no good way to incorporate πολλοί into GR. We suspect, therefore, that the author of Mark added πολλοί to First and Last as he paraphrased Luke’s version, which states, “there are last ones who will be first ones, and there are first ones who will be last ones.” Luke’s version of the saying is not absolute (not all last ones will be first, and not all first ones will be last),^[33] and neither is Mark’s, but the author of Mark wanted to emphasize that, while the saying may not be universally true, it would be generally applicable. It is even possible that the author of Mark picked up πολλοί from Luke’s version of Narrow Gate (Luke 13:24), the first saying in the cluster to which First and Last in Luke belongs.

The author of Matthew adopted Mark’s wording for the version of First and Last in Matt. 19:30.

L3 ἔσονται πρῶτοι (Mark 10:31). Whether or not the author of Mark intended to reverse the sequence of the Lukan saying (see the Conjectured Stages of Transmission discussion above), he certainly reversed the word order of πρῶτοι (“firsts”) and ἔσχατοι (“lasts”) vis-à-vis Luke. The author of Mark also simplified the saying by replacing Luke’s εἰσίν (eisin, “there are”) with ἔσονται (esontai, “will be”), which he moved up from L4.

The author of Matthew accepted Mark’s wording in Matt. 19:30.

ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι (Matt. 20:16). The version of First and Last in Matt. 20:16 reveals influence from both the Markan and Anth. versions of the saying. Like Anth., Matt. 20:16 not only mentions the promotion of the “last ones” before the demotion of the “first ones,” the word order ἔσχατοι→πρῶτοι is the same as Luke’s. On the other hand, as in Mark 10:31, the author of Matthew replaced εἰσίν (eisin, “there are”) with ἔσονται (esontai, “will be”), which he moved up from L4. Unlike either Luke or Mark, the author of Matthew added definite articles to “lasts” (L3) and “firsts” (L5). The author of Matthew may have been absolutizing the saying, but perhaps he simply meant “the lasts” to refer back to the latecomers in the Generous Householder parable and for “the firsts” to refer back to the early arrivals.^[34] 

εἰσὶν ἔσχατοι (GR). Since Luke’s wording in L3 reverts easily to Hebrew and is free of obvious signs of Lukan or FR redaction, we have adopted Luke’s wording for GR.

יֵשׁ אַחֲרוֹנִים (HR). In LXX the verb εἶναι (einai, “to be”) typically occurs as the translation of הָיָה (hāyāh, “be”),^[35] however Hebrew did not use participial forms of הָיָה equivalent to the present tense. Either a pronoun served to imply the “to be” verb or יֵשׁ (yēsh, “there is/are”) would be used. Accordingly, we find that the LXX translators rendered יֵשׁ more often as εἶναι than as any other verb.^[36] 

We have already cited an example of יֵשׁ in a Mishnaic Hebrew source:

ויש מהן או′ אשרי ילדותי שלא ביישה את זקנותי אילו אנשי מעשה ויש מהן שהיו אומ′ אשריך זקנתי שתכפרי על ילדותי אילו בעלי תשובה

And there are [וְיֵשׁ] some of them [i.e., the ḥasidim—DNB and JNT] who say, “Blessed is my youth, because it has not shamed my old age.” These are the men of deeds. And there are [וְיֵשׁ] some of them who would say, “Blessed are you, my old age, because you compensate for my youth.” These are the repentant. (t. Suk. 4:2; Vienna MS)

In LXX ἔσχατος (eschatos, “last”) usually occurs as the translation of אַחֲרוֹן (’aḥ^arōn, “last”) or אַחֲרִית (’aḥ^arit, “end”).^[37] Likewise, the LXX translators rendered most instances of אַחֲרוֹן as ἔσχατος.^[38] 

L4 ἔσχατοι (Mark 10:31). As noted in Comment to L3, the author of Mark reversed Luke’s word order (ἔσχατοι→πρῶτοι) to πρῶτοι→ἔσχατοι, even if in doing so he did not intend to change Luke’s sequence of thought. We also noted in Comment to L3 that the author of Mark moved up Luke’s ἔσονται (“[they] will be”) to take the place of Luke’s εἰσίν (“there are”). This rearrangement allowed the author of Mark to eliminate Luke’s relative pronoun οἵ (hoi, “who”).

In Matt. 19:30 the author of Matthew adopted Mark’s wording.

οἳ ἔσονται πρῶτοι (GR). Since it reverts easily to Hebrew, we have adopted Luke’s wording for GR.

שֶׁיִּהְיוּ רִאשׁוֹנִים (HR). On reconstructing ὅς (hos, “who,” “which,” “that”) with -שֶׁ (she-, “who,” “which,” “that”), see Hidden Treasure and Priceless Pearl, Comment to L5.

On reconstructing εἶναι (einai, “to be”) with הָיָה (hāyāh, “be”), see Call of Levi, Comment to L30.

In the Tosefta’s account of the song the ḥasidim sang in the Temple we encountered an example of הָיָה + שֶׁ- + יֵשׁ such as we have in HR:

ויש מהן שהיו אומ′ אשריך זקנתי שתכפרי על ילדותי אילו בעלי תשובה

And there are [וְיֵשׁ] some of them who [-שֶׁ] would [הָיוּ] say, “Blessed are you, my old age, because you compensate for my youth.” These are the repentant. (t. Suk. 4:2; Vienna MS)

In LXX πρῶτος (prōtos, “first”) typically occurs as the translation of רִאשׁוֹן (ri’shōn, “first”),^[39] and the LXX translators usually rendered רִאשׁוֹן as πρῶτος.^[40] 

The pair רִאשׁוֹן (“first”) and אַחֲרוֹן (“last”) is common in the Hebrew Scriptures.^[41] This pairing also occurs in rabbinic sources.^[42] The following examples are illustrative:

גָּדוֹל יִהְיֶה כְּבוֹד הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה הָאַחֲרוֹן מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן

The glory of this last [הָאַחֲרוֹן] house will be greater than the first [הָרִאשׁוֹן]. (Hag. 2:9)

διότι μεγάλη ἔσται ἡ δόξα τοῦ οἴκου τούτου ἡ ἐσχάτη ὑπὲρ τὴν πρώτην

For the glory of this last [ἡ ἐσχάτη] house will be greater than the first [τὴν πρώτην]. (Hag. 2:9)

In this example from Haggai we have not a reversal of fortunes, but the exultation of the last over the first is similar to our saying.

אֵין זִכְרוֹן לָרִאשֹׁנִים וְגַם לָאַחֲרֹנִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לֹא־יִהְיֶה לָהֶם זִכָּרוֹן עִם שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לָאַחֲרֹנָה׃

There is no remembrance of the first ones [לָרִאשֹׁנִים], and even of the last ones [לָאַחֲרֹנִים] who will be, there will be no remembrance with those who will be afterward. (Eccl. 1:11)

οὐκ ἔστιν μνήμη τοῖς πρώτοις, καί γε τοῖς ἐσχάτοις γενομένοις οὐκ ἔσται αὐτοῖς μνήμη μετὰ τῶν γενησομένων εἰς τὴν ἐσχάτην

There is no remembrance of the first ones [τοῖς πρώτοις], and even of the last ones [τοῖς ἐσχάτοις] who will be, there will not be a remembrance with the ones being at the end. (Eccl. 1:11)

In this example from Ecclesiastes the adjectives אַחֲרוֹן and רִאשׁוֹן / ἔσχατος and πρῶτος act as substantives, as they do in First and Last.

הֶחָכָם…אוֹמֵ′ עַל רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן וְעַל אַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן

The wise person…speaks about the first things first, and about the last things last…. (m. Avot 5:7)

In this example from the Mishnah first and last are regarded as being in their proper place, whereas First and Last anticipates a reversal of the unjust status quo.

Examples such as these demonstrate that רִאשׁוֹן is the best option for HR.

L5 καὶ οἱ ἔσχατοι (Mark 10:31). As we discussed in the Conjectured Stages of Transmission section above, it is doubtful whether the definite article οἱ (hoi, “the”), which is included in Codex Vaticanus, belongs to the original text of Mark. Matthew’s parallel in Matt. 19:30, which in all other respects is identical to Mark, lacks the definite article, and it seems that the author of Matthew interpreted Mark 10:31 in a way that would only be possible if the article was not present. Moreover, the inclusion of the definite article makes for a strangely lopsided saying in which many who are first will be last, but all who are last will be first. It could be that a scribe inserted the definite article at the only point possible in the Markan form of the saying in order to clarify Mark’s grammar.

Once again, the author of Mark reversed Luke’s word order, this time from πρῶτοι→ἔσχατοι to ἔσχατοι→πρῶτοι, but unless the definite article is original, it is not certain that the author of Mark intended to change Luke’s sequence of thought.

In L3 the author of Mark eliminated Luke’s εἰσίν (eisin, “there are”) by moving ἔσονται into its place. Here in L5 the author of Mark dispensed with a “to be” verb altogether by making the entire saying a single sentence.

καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι (Matt. 20:16). In Matt. 20:16 the author of Matthew agrees with Luke’s πρῶτοι→ἔσχατοι word order, but, like Mark 10:31, Matt. 20:16 omits a “to be” verb. Unlike either Luke or what was probably the original text of Mark, the author of Matthew added a definite article in L5.

καὶ εἰσὶν πρῶτοι (GR). Luke’s wording in L5 reverts easily to Hebrew and makes for a perfectly balanced parallelism with the first half of the saying. We have therefore adopted Luke’s reading for GR.

וְיֵשׁ רִאשׁוֹנִים (HR). On reconstructing εἶναι (einai, “to be”) with יֵשׁ (yēsh, “there is/are”), see above, Comment to L3.

On reconstructing πρῶτος (prōtos, “first”) with רִאשׁוֹן (ri’shōn, “first”), see above, Comment to L4.

L6 οἳ ἔσονται ἔσχατοι (GR). Once again, it is Luke’s wording that both reverts easily to Hebrew and offers a perfectly balanced parallelism, two factors that recommend the adoption of Luke’s wording for GR.

שֶׁיִּהְיוּ אַחֲרוֹנִים (HR). On reconstructing ὅς (hos, “which,” “that”) with -שֶׁ (she-, “which,” “that”), and on reconstructing εἶναι (einai, “to be”) with הָיָה (hāyāh, “be”), see above, Comment to L4.

On reconstructing ἔσχατος (eschatos, “last”) with אַחֲרוֹן (’aḥ^arōn, “last”), see above, Comment to L3.

Redaction Analysis

For such a short and simple saying, the versions of First and Last in the Synoptic Gospels show surprising diversity. On the other hand, six words always remain constant—ἔσχατοι ἔσονται πρῶτοι καὶ πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι (“lasts will be firsts and firsts lasts”)—though not in the same order. The constant elements safeguard the essential meaning of the saying: there will be a reversal of the current social, political, economic and religious order.

Luke’s Version^[43] 

First and Last
Luke		Anthology
Total Words:	13	Total Words:	13
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	13	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	13
% Identical to Anth.:	100.00	% of Anth. in Luke:	100.00
Click here for details.

Despite stemming from FR, we believe Luke’s version of First and Last preserves Anth.’s wording exactly. The saying is so short and uncomplicated that neither the First Reconstructor nor the author of Luke perceived a need to change the wording of their respective sources.

Mark’s Version^[44] 

First and Last
Mark		Anthology
Total Words:	8 [9]	Total Words:	13
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	6	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	6
% Identical to Anth.:	75.00 [66.67]	% of Anth. in Mark:	46.15
Click here for details.

Mark’s version of First and Last strips the saying down to its essentials. The ambiguity of the grammar, a sort of verbal palindrome with its “first-lasts and last-firsts,” itself illustrates the reversals the saying foretells. The introduction of πολλοί (polloi, “many”) at the beginning of the saying may hint that the author of Mark knew the Lukan context of this saying. Attaching the saying to the end of Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven correctly applies the reversals of social, religious and economic status the saying foretells to a concrete situation.

Matthew’s Versions^[45] 

First and Last
Matthew (Mark)		Anthology
Total Words:	8	Total Words:	13
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	6	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	6
% Identical to Anth.:	75.00	% of Anth. in Matt.:	46.15
Click here for details.

First and Last
Matthew (Anth.)		Anthology
Total Words:	9	Total Words:	13
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	6	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	6
% Identical to Anth.:	66.67	% of Anth. in Matt.:	46.15
Click here for details.

The first version of First and Last in Matthew (Matt. 19:30) is identical to Mark’s and appears in the same context at the end of Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven.

The second version of First and Last in Matthew (Matt. 20:16) appears at the end of the Generous Householder parable (in which the latecomers are paid before the early arrivals), which the author of Matthew introduces immediately after his first version of First and Last. Clearly the author of Matthew sandwiched the parable between the two versions of First and Last because he regarded the parable as (or intended the parable to be) an illustration or enactment of the saying. The author of Matthew’s literary efforts to bring the two versions of First and Last together and to illustrate them with a parable have led to his second version of First and Last being the most contrived of the synoptic versions of this saying. The author of Matthew added οὕτως (houtōs, “in this way”) in L1 to make his point, and he added definite articles in L3 and L5 to avoid grammatical ambiguity. Overall, however, Matthew’s second version of First and Last resembles the concise Markan version of the saying; it contains no more of Anth.’s wording than the Markan version. And yet in one respect Anth.’s version dominated the author of Matthew’s understanding and contextualization of First and Last. The sequence of Anth.’s version of the saying is clear: the last will be first, and the first will be last. The clarity of Anth.’s version determined how the author of Matthew interpreted the Markan version of the saying as illustrated by the Generous Householder parable, in which the last take precedence over the first. Were it not for Anth.’s influence on Matthew’s understanding of the saying, we might have suspected that the First Reconstructor had turned First and Last inside out, just as he did with Coming From All Directions.

Results of This Research

1. Who are the “last ones” and who are the “first ones” referred to in this saying? In each of the versions of First and Last the “last” refers to the socially, economically and religiously disadvantaged, while the “first” refers to the socially, economically and religiously privileged. In Luke the social, economic and religious privilege is expressed in the false assumption that the “first” have a right to hobnob with the patriarchs at a sumptuous banquet. In Mark the social, economic and religious privileges belong to the rich man who had kept all the commandments from his youth and yet declined to give up his inherited privileges in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. In Matthew’s second version of First and Last the economic and social privileges belong to the early arrivals who expect to be paid more because of their socially respectable position of having gainful employment. The latecoming workers are at the disadvantage, as are the disciples who gave up everything to follow Jesus in the Markan version, and in the Lukan version the disadvantaged are those who must come from far and wide to the spiritual and religious center of Judaism to join the patriarchs in the Kingdom of God.

In its original setting we believe the “first” referred to Jesus’ skeptical audience, who scoffed at the idea that the blessings God had conferred upon them required them to share their wealth and their dignity with the poor and the disabled and other social and religious outcasts. The “last,” meanwhile, referred to those very members of society to whom Jesus ministered, the “lost sheep of the House of Israel.” The care taken of the weakest and most defenseless members of society would be the catalyst for the redemption of Israel, humankind and the whole of creation.^[46] 

Jesus’ teaching on the reversal of fortunes for those who refuse to respond to the divine call for social justice is not quite as radical as some modern audiences might assume. We find something similar in the teachings of the rabbinic sages. For instance, there is a rabbinic discussion concerning how to reconcile two verses in Proverbs, one claiming that what the rich and poor have in common is that the Lord enlightens the eyes of both (Prov. 29:13), and another verse claiming that what the rich and poor have in common is that the Lord is maker of them all (Prov. 22:2):

עני שפשט ידו לבעל הבית ובעל הבית רוצה ליתן לו מאיר עיני שניהם יי אבל עני שפשט ידו לבעל הבית ובעל הבית אינו רוצה ליתן לו עושה כלם יי מי שעשה לזה עני סופו לעשותו עשיר ומי שעשה לזה עשיר סופו לעשותו עני

A poor person who stretched out his hand to the householder and the householder is willing to give to him: [to this situation applies the verse] the Lord enlightens the eyes of both [Prov. 29:13]. But a poor person who stretches out his hand to the householder and the householder is not willing to give to him: [to this situation applies the verse] the Lord is maker of them all [Prov. 22:2]. The One who made this one poor will in the end make him rich, and the One who made this one rich will in the end make him poor. (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishamel, Amalek §4 [ed. Lauterbach, 2:288])

Conclusion

In First and Last Jesus predicted the upsetting of the injustices inherent in the status quo that would come about as a result of the inbreaking of the Kingdom of Heaven.

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

Notes

1. For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
2. This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source. ↩
3. See Bundy, 370 §268. ↩
4. See Theissen, Gospels, 4; Davies-Allison, 3:60; Snodgrass, 371. Cf. Fleddermann, 690. ↩
5. See LHNS, 131 §165, 148 §190; David Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus (Bern: Peter Lang, 1981), 68; François Bovon, “Tracing the Trajectory of Luke 13,22-20 Back to Q: A Study in Lukan Redaction,” in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson (ed. Jon Ma. Asgeirsson, Kristin de Troyer, and Marvin W. Meyer; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 285-294, esp. 290-291. ↩
6. Cf. Snodgrass, 371. ↩
7. Cf. Bundy, 403 §311. ↩
8. See Bovon, 2:309. ↩
9. See Kilpatrick, 88; Jeremias, Parables, 35; Gundry, Matt., 395, 398; Luz, 2:535-536. Cf. LHNS, 148 §190. ↩
10. Pace Snodgrass (362), who seems to have overlooked the trouble the author of Matthew took to integrate Generous Householder into its present context. ↩
11. Cf. McNeile, 285; Jeremias, Parables, 34. ↩
12. See C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (rev. ed.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, [1935] 1961), 94; Manson, Sayings, 220; Jeremias, Parables, 37; Albright-Mann, 235; Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 68; Funk-Hoover, 225; Vermes, Authentic, 146. ↩
13. See Manson, Sayings, 220; Bundy, 404-405 §312; Schweizer, 395; Funk-Hoover, 225; Luz, 2:526, 536. ↩
14. Cf. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 94-95. ↩
15. Cf. McNeile, 285; Bundy, 404-405 §312; Jeremias, Parables, 36; Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 68; Luz, 2:536. ↩
16. Cf. Bundy, 404-405 §312. ↩
17. Cf. Snodgrass, 371. ↩
18. Followers of the Two-source Hypothesis typically say that Luke’s version of First and Last is based on Q and that the author of Luke omitted the version he found in Mark. Cf. Streeter, 280; Bundy, 370 §268; Marshall, 568; Bovon, 2:309. But the number of doublets in Luke shows that the author of Luke was not averse to duplicate sayings. From the perspective of Lindsey’s hypothesis, the author of Luke could not have omitted Mark’s version because Mark is based on Luke. ↩
19. Cf. A. B. Bruce, 252. ↩
20. Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:60. ↩
21. See Manson, Sayings, 220; Gundry, Matt., 398. Fleddermann (690) mentions other scholars who share this opinion. ↩
22. Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:67. ↩
23. Numerous scholars do attribute Matt. 20:16 to Q. See Streeter, 279; Bundy, 404 §312; Marshall, 568; Bovon, 2:309; Fleddermann, 690. ↩
24. Cf. Kilpatrick, 88. ↩
25. Text according to Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, eds. and trans., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part IV (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1904), 8. ↩
26. Cf. Bovon, 3:309-310. ↩
27. See McNeile, 283. ↩
28. Cf. Gundry, Matt., 398; Fleddermann, 691. ↩
29. Cf. Jeremias, Parables, 35 n. 38. The table below shows all of the instances of οὕτως + “will be” in Matthew and the synoptic parallels (if any):

    Matt. 12:40 DT = Luke 11:30 Sign-Seeking Generation Matt. 12:45 DT (cf. Luke 11:26) Impure Spirit’s Return Matt. 13:40 U Darnel Among the Wheat Matt. 13:49 U Bad Fish Among the Good Matt. 20:16 U First and Last Matt. 20:26 TT (cf. Mark 10:43; Luke 22:26) Greatness in the Kingdom of Heaven Matt. 24:27 DT = Luke 17:24 Like Lightning Matt. 24:37 DT = Luke 17:26 Days of the Son of Man Matt. 24:39 DT (cf. Luke 17:30) Days of the Son of Man Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

    The examples of οὕτως + “will be” in Matthew that have agreement from Luke clearly stem from Anth., but in Darnel Among the Wheat and Bad Fish Among the Good οὕτως + “will be” is redactional. Both of these instances appear in the allegorical interpretations of the parables. In Matt. 12:45 the author of Matthew attempted to transform Impure Spirit’s Return into a parable by using οὕτως + “will be” as a sort of application formula. The same usage is what we find in the Matt. 20:16 version of First and Last. ↩

30. Cf. LHNS, 131 §165. Pace Plummer (Luke, 348), Marshall (568) and Fleddermann (691), who regarded καὶ ἰδού in Luke 13:30 as redactional. ↩
31. On the omission or replacement of ἰδού by the author of Luke (or the First Reconstructor before him), see Friend in Need, Comment to L6. ↩
32. See Coming From All Directions, Comment to L10. ↩
33. Cf. Fitzmyer, 2:1027; Funk-Hoover, 348. ↩
34. Cf. Gundry, Matt., 398. ↩
35. See Call of Levi, Comment to L30. ↩
36. See Dos Santos, 87. ↩
37. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:558. ↩
38. See Dos Santos, 7. ↩
39. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1235-1236. ↩
40. See Dos Santos, 188. ↩
41. Examples of the pairing of רִאשׁוֹן and אַחֲרוֹן are found in Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12; Hag. 2:9; Ruth 3:10; Eccl. 1:11; Dan. 11:29; 1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 16:11; 20:34; 25:26; 26:22; 28:26; 35:27. ↩
42. Examples of the pairing of רִאשׁוֹן and אַחֲרוֹן in the Mishnah are found in m. Taan. 1:2; m. Yev. 10:3, 4; m. Git. 6:2; m. Avot 5:7; m. Zev. 12:6; m. Neg. 13:12. ↩

43. First and Last
    Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
    καὶ ἰδοὺ εἰσὶν ἔσχατοι οἳ ἔσονται πρῶτοι καὶ εἰσὶν πρῶτοι οἳ ἔσονται ἔσχατοι		καὶ ἰδοὺ εἰσὶν ἔσχατοι οἳ ἔσονται πρῶτοι καὶ εἰσὶν πρῶτοι οἳ ἔσονται ἔσχατοι
    Total Words:	13	Total Words:	13
    Total Words Identical to Anth.:	13	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	13
    Percentage Identical to Anth.:	100.00%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	100.00%

     ↩

44. First and Last
    Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
    πολλοὶ δὲ ἔσονται πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι καὶ [οἱ] ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι		καὶ ἰδοὺ εἰσὶν ἔσχατοι οἳ ἔσονται πρῶτοι καὶ εἰσὶν πρῶτοι οἳ ἔσονται ἔσχατοι
    Total Words:	8 [9]	Total Words:	13
    Total Words Identical to Anth.:	6	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	6
    Percentage Identical to Anth.:	75.00 [66.67]%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	46.15%

     ↩

45. First and Last
    Matthew’s Markan Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
    πολλοὶ δὲ ἔσονται πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι καὶ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι		καὶ ἰδοὺ εἰσὶν ἔσχατοι οἳ ἔσονται πρῶτοι καὶ εἰσὶν πρῶτοι οἳ ἔσονται ἔσχατοι
    Total Words:	8	Total Words:	13
    Total Words Identical to Anth.:	6	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	6
    Percentage Identical to Anth.:	75.00%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	46.15%

    .

    First and Last
    Matthew’s Anth. Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
    οὕτως ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι		καὶ ἰδοὺ εἰσὶν ἔσχατοι οἳ ἔσονται πρῶτοι καὶ εἰσὶν πρῶτοι οἳ ἔσονται ἔσχατοι
    Total Words:	9	Total Words:	13
    Total Words Identical to Anth.:	6	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	6
    Percentage Identical to Anth.:	66.67%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	46.15%

     ↩

46. Cf. Culpepper, 375. ↩