I’ve always understood that the “little flock” referred to in Luke 12:32 represents the 144,000 kingdom heirs. Likewise, I’ve never before questioned that the “other sheep” mentioned in John 10:16 represent Christians with an earthly hope. I’ve used the term “great crowd of other sheep” without realizing that it doesn’t occur anywhere in the Bible. I’ve even debated what the difference between the “great crowd” and the “other sheep” is. Answer: The other sheep are all Christians with an earthly hope, while the great crowd are those of the other sheep who go through Armageddon alive.
Recently, I was asked to prove this belief from scripture. That turned out to be quite a challenge. Try it yourself. Assume you’re talking to someone you meet in the territory and using the NWT, try to prove these beliefs.
Exactly! Quite a surprise, isn’t it?
Now I’m not saying we’re wrong about this yet. But taking an unbiased look at things, I cannot find a solid basis for these teachings.
If one goes to the Watchtower Index – 1930 to 1985, one finds only one WT reference in all that time for a discussion on “little flock”. (w80 7/15 17-22, 24-26) “Other sheep” provides only two discussion references for the same time period. (w84 2/15 15-20; w80 7/15 22-28) What I find unusual about this dearth of information is that the doctrine originated with Judge Rutherford back in an article titled “His Kindness” (w34 8/15 p. 244) which falls within the scope of this index. So why isn’t that reference to be found?
The revelation that not all Christians go to heaven and that the other sheep correspond to an earthly class was a major turning point for us as a people. Rutherford based this belief on some supposed parallel between the Christian congregation of our day and the Israelite arrangement of the cities of refuge, comparing the high priest to a high priestly class comprised of the anointed. We abandoned this speculative relationship many decades ago, but have kept the conclusion derived from it. It seems very odd that the current belief is based on a foundation long since abandoned, leaving the doctrine in place like some empty, unsupported shell.
We are talking about our salvation here, our hope, the thing we envision to keep us strong, the thing we strive toward and reach out for. This is no minor doctrine. One would conclude therefore that it would be clearly stated in Scripture, right?
We are not saying at this point that the little flock does not refer to the anointed, the 144,000. Nor are we saying that the other sheep does not refer to a class of Christian with an earthly hope. What we are saying is that we can find no way to support either understanding using the Bible.
The little flock is only referred to once in scripture at Luke 12:32. There is nothing in the context to indicate he was referring to a class of Christians numbering 144,000 who would rule in heaven. Was he talking to his immediate disciples of the time, who were indeed a little flock? The context supports that. Was he talking to all true Christians? The parable of the sheep and the goats treats the world as his flock comprised of two types of animals. True Christians are a little flock when compared with the world. You see, it can be understood in more than one way, but can we prove scripturally that one interpretation is better than another?
Similarly, the other sheep are only referenced once in the Bible, at John 10:16. The context doesn’t point to two different hopes, two destinations. If we wish to view the fold he is referring to as the existing Jewish Christians of the time and the other sheep yet to appear as gentile Christians, we can. There is nothing in the context stopping us from that conclusion.
Again, we can draw whatever inference we wish from these two isolated verses, but we cannot prove any particular interpretation from scripture. We are left only with speculation.
If any readers have further insights into this quandary, please comment
Good day All, I browsed through the comments and saw that there were comments that reflected my understanding of the meaning of the passages referenced, but lacking the sharp focus that I would have wished for, thus I was moved to submit the comment below. I’m not citing all the relevant scriptures because I’m confident that most reading the comments will be thoroughly familiar with the scriptures that I will be alluding to. When Jesus stated the he had other sheep not of this fold, he meant that there would be those who would come to him and become spirit… Read more »
The little flock the remnants of the tribes of Israel after being sifted and winnowed who believe Jesus was their Messiah. The rest of us are gentiles saved maybe? Any thoughts?
Who are the Other Sheep? “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.” —John 10:16 The words uttered at John 10:16 has greater significance for the “Great Crowd” than they realise. Knowing who the “OtherSheep” are will draw those of the “Great Crowd” closer to their mediator Jesus, and their heavenly father Jehovah God. When considering John 10:16 was Jesus foretelling a future event approximately 2000 years in advance, the appearance of two distinct groups? One group… Read more »
[…] There are not two classes today, the heavenly class and those of the earthly class also called “other sheep” at John 10:16. […]
[…] The Bible doesn’t teach that the Little Flock are a subset of Christians who are differentiated from the rest because they alone go to heaven; nor does it teach that the Other Sheep are only Christians with an earthly hope. (See post: Who’s Who? (Little Flock/Other Sheep […]
[…] while the “other sheep” at John 10:16 refers to another group with an earthly hope. (See Who’s Who? (Little Flock/Other Sheep) Of course, this in itself doesn’t disprove the teaching of a two-tier reward system for […]
[…] a group of Christians with the hope of living on a paradise earth. For an alternate view, see “Who’s Who? (Little Flock/Other Sheep)”) The article […]
Hello Meleti Vivlon,
I see that my last comment was censored by the moderator of this site.
Was not to your liking?
Truth will come about, regardless of how much censoring goes on.
Anyway, I guess it is time to stop posting on this site and so I take my leave and wish you all the best. I will not post here again, unless invited to do so.
As I mentioned in my previous comment and as is stipulated in our policy, this site is not a place for human philosophy, but for hard core Bible research. (Col. 2:8) You, of course, have freedom of speech. We all do. What none of us has is the right to be heard. That is a privilege extended by the listener to the speaker. An acceptable form of censorship is that of the listener turning a deaf ear. Those of us who participate in this forum have chosen not to listen to human philosophy or those who would discount the Bible… Read more »
To get back on topic, the new covenant doesn’t include any who have an earthly hope,one of the conditions laid down is for a kingdom,it’s not presumption to say that Jesus meant the heavenly kingdom,not a pet tiger and a house on the lake,if such a hope exsists then it’s still to be revealed along with the covenanted arrangement to dispense said paradise. Tied in with that is that the only ressurection that’s detailed is a heavenly one,basically the whole of 1Cor 15 which harmonises perfectly with Luk 20, a part of scripture that the GB has made a complete… Read more »
Tienes razón hermano meleti, aunque estamos alejados de la organización esto no debería alejarnos de la palabra de Jehová ni de nuestro señor y amo,Jesús. Es triste que muchos llegan a estar tan decepcionados de todos los años de mentiras dentro de la organización que aceptan filosofías humanas e incluso llegan al ateísmo; a mi me pasó; pero tuve el privilegio de conocer a muchos hermanos en Internet que encausaron mi camino y fortalecieron mi fe. Tu meleti eres uno de ellos .Gracias y ten paciencia que tal vez Tony recapacite…Está en ese proceso .tu sabes que la organización ha… Read more »
How do we determine what is truth?
The “Spirit of Truth” of course.
That is why we were sent the “Spirit of Truth” to help us discern what is truth, from various writings such as in the Bible and ancient history and philosophy and science etc.
What, do you suppose that all “truth” is contained within the Bible?
What do we need the “Spirit of Truth” for then?
🙂
Tony,
The Bible is the accurate Word of God, but there are many interpreters and many interpretations. That is why we need the Spirit of Truth.
Apollos
With respect… If, “In the beginning, The Word was with God, and The Word was a god…” (John 1:1)and, “He is the image of God… the Firstborn of all creation… all things were created through Him and for Him.”… etc etc…? (Colossians 1:16/17) Then, “The Word”, was co-creator with God – “The Word was a god…” Michael is never referred to as a god… only, “The Archangel,” and, “…ONE of the foremost princeS…” – plural. And as for Jude 9, I’m sure The Word, as co-creator, and therefore the creator of the being who rebelled, would have had no problem… Read more »
Hi saraybach54Pauline, of course you are assuming that all the Bible is correct as being translated correctly over a period of time and also directly inspired by God. I have a different point of view as I do not believe the entire Bible to be directly inspired by God, rather that certain writings as of the prophets and Gospel writers were receiving inspiration from God in some of their writings. You know, the apostles were not correct in everything, and neither were the prophets as they were all imperfect men that were a product of their times and limited understanding… Read more »
Tony, this forum is for Jehovah’s Witnesses who accept the entire Bible as God’s inspired word. Since you do not believe this to be the case, this is probably not the forum for you. Any field of study has to start from some premise, and our premise for Bible research is that all scripture is inspired of God. If we try to research and draw life-altering conclusions while also believing that some parts of the Bible are not inspired, we are building on sand. How do we determine what parts are false and what are true? We’ll be like the… Read more »
To Meleti, Yes you are quite right, that Jesus is not the God to be worshiped as he never advocated at all any worship of himself. Always did he point us to his Heavenly Father. I was simply saying that Jesus was a God in his own right, being a creator himself who is an image of his Heavenly Father. I do not believe that Jesus is part of the trinity, neither he nor any of his apostles supported that fact. And we know from the scriptures that Jesus is in fact referred to as Michael, both in the book… Read more »
I don’t think that we can say with certainty that we “know” Jesus is Michael. There are certainly arguments in pro of this belief, but there are also unresolved questions that arise if we hold to it. For instance, why is Michael referred to as “one” of the foremost princes? Surely the role of the Word is unique. There are other issues as well, that permit us to consider Michael as separate from Jesus without diminishing our view of Jesus nor the role he plays in any way.
But this is a topic for another post.
[…] bit of a discussion has sprung up about the nature of heaven under Meleti’s recent article on Other Sheep/Great Crowd, I thought I’d pose a question that has recently come to my […]
The “other sheep” of John 10:16 are most logically and consistently the gentile Christians who would later be brought into the fold. This is in complete harmony with the Bible teaching that Jesus was originally sent forth to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 10:6; Matt 15:24), and that in context he was talking to his “little flock” of Jewish followers. The events recording in Acts bear testimony to the truthfulness of Jesus’ words at John 10:16, starting with the conversion of Cornelius and his family. To read John 10:16 as subtly alluding to two hopes for… Read more »
I concur that the “other sheep” Jesus spoke about is most reasonably a reference to gentiles joining his flock in the future. This is plain to see when you consider that Jesus spoke of himself being sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. (Matthew 15:24) This statement shows that the sheep he currently had was exclusively Israelite sheep and would logically mean that the “other sheep not of this fold” would be gentiles soon to come in. Jesus brought the gentiles in by his death. (Ephesians 2:11-18) Do you remember the occasion in the same book of John when… Read more »
Hi Jude Those are interesting suggestions. I have previously considered the idea that the 144,000 and the Great Crowd are th same, but I had to dismiss it because the Great Crowd come out of the great tribulation, so if they are the same then the broader “bride of Christ” including all true Christians that had previously died would not be described by the 144,000. In Rev 14 it seems that the entire body is being referred to here. Therefore my thought is to turn around your second suggestion and actually view the great crowd a subset of the 144,000.… Read more »
That’s an interesting take on it. I have noticed in recent readings that the term firstfruits (used of the 144,000 at Revelation 14) is also used elsewhere in the Greek scriptures to refer to the “twelve tribes” and to specific Christians. I’m not sure if that is significant in terms of helping us to see that the 144,000 may refer to a special subset of anointed Christians. Perhaps a sampling of especially faithful Christians of Jewish ancestry from each of the twelve tribes in harmony with God’s promise to Abraham. See Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:15; James 1:1,18 It is… Read more »
No Steve, those on the earth at the end of the 1000 years are not those of the resurrected ones. The scripture in Revelation does not say that. It simply refers to the Holy ones (or Saints) who will be alive at that time period. I will quote the scripture here for all to read. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one having part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they… Read more »
Are you suggesting that all the verses in the Bible that speak of a resurrection refer only to a heavenly resurrection?
Meleti,
I would argue along with Steve that the resurrection will be a “heavenly” on yes, but it will be a heavenly life on the new earth.
Something does not need to be in Heaven to be “heavenly.” Case in point, those who “tasted the heavenly gift” in Heb. 6:4 did not got to heaven to experience that gift.
All of Abraham’s seed are those who belong to Christ (Gal. 3:29) and will be “heir of the world” (Rom. 4:13) along with Abraham.
Meleti,
Yes, it will be a “heavenly resurrection,” but it will be a resurrection to eternal life in the new earth. Remember, one does not have to go to heaven to experience something “heavenly.” (Heb. 6:4)
Also, Scripture gives confirmation that eternal life will be on the new earth for Abraham and his seed, for they will inherit the world (Rom. 4:13), which includes all who belong to Christ (Gal. 3:29)
Anonymous, Please note that it is the “holy” who receive the first resurrected and it is the “holy” who are surrounded. Are you suggesting there are two groups of holy ones? Where does the Bible teach this? In context there is no room for this distinction. Are there grape vines planted in heaven, or just wine itself? Never once does the Bible mention such a thing. But the Bible teaches that Jesus will return. Acts 3:20 and that he may send forth the Christ appointed for ?YOU, Jesus,21whom heaven, indeed, must hold within itself until the times of restoration of… Read more »
“Are there grape vines planted in heaven, or just wine itself? Never once does the Bible mention such a thing.”
Steve – In truth the Bible does not say too much at all about the “nature” of heaven. How could we possibly rule out anything specific? To do so seems like we just accept an ethereal spirit concept in which nothing actually happens except for non-tangible things. Where does the Bible actually limit what can be possible in heaven?
Apollos
Apollos,
That is a fair point, but I’m suggesting this is significant as merely a part of the evidence. Wine is a substance partaken of on earth for certain, and numerous texts such as in Acts 3 and elsewhere speak of Jesus leaving heaven and returning to earth.
As Jesus is also of Abraham’s seed the earth is his promised inheritance.
Steve
To Steve, there were and is always holy ones here on the earth at any given time period as there will be at the end of the dispensation era of 1000 years. As for those who speak about a “new earth”, I do believe that they are on the right track as long as they do not believe that the “new earth” is this planet that we are now living on. That is not to say that at some time in the future that our earth will not become a paradise and human lives will be extended quite considerably. I… Read more »
Tony
Would you mind explaining why you think Isaiah 9:6 provides a description of the Messiah and not a single, compound name?
What is the house of Jesus’ Father? Is it his kingdom? His church? Are you certain he is referring to heaven here? Why would a place need to be prepared in heaven for them? But the kingdom would require as much, as would the church.
Steve
Steve, i am not sure what you mean by “compound name”, I’m assuming you mean all the titles that is applying to Jesus as recorded in the scriptures. When it comes to actually understanding what the “Kingdom of God” and the Kingdom of Heaven is in reality we do need to read the various phrases that Jesus used about the Kingdom while he was on the earth as a human. Things like “the Kingdom of the heavens” is like a mustard grain or like a dragnet, etc. The Jewish nation as a whole believed in the Kingdom as prophesied being… Read more »
I just realized that I did not answer you question, properly. We know that the prophet Isaiah was referring to the messiah because of the following verse which I will quote here. Isaiah 9 7 There is no end to the increase of His government and of peace on the throne of David, and on His kingdom, to order it, and to sustain it with justice and with righteousness, from now and forever. [litv] The Jewish nation believed that the messiah would be sitting on Davids throne. But this is a misconception, as Jesus is actually sitting on his own… Read more »
Unfortunately, this discussion thread is getting off topic. Introducing the idea that Jesus is God is a centuries-old debate. This topic has been covered extensively in our publications and the members of this forum concur that Jesus is not God, nor should we be worshipping him, the translation of the King James notwithstanding. While the English word “worship” had several shades of meaning when Tyndale crafted his version and these continued to be part of the vernacular when King James commissioned an update, all but one of those meanings has died out in modern English. The sole meaning we’re left… Read more »
Tony,
I don’t think anyone is denying a spiritual aspect of the kingdom, but it will quite literally come to earth.
Please again consider the Abrahamic covenant. What did it promise? First , to inherit the land of Canaan, and then the whole earth. Now, when Abraham was promised this, was the idea that they would rule over the land from a remote location, or would they dwell in it? The latter, of course. Unless you are to suggest that this covenant is no longer in effect, the same is true for the future.
Steve
Tony,
What I mean is this: the text says “his name will be called,” and what follows is that one name. I see no reason to interpret this as a description of the Messiah, but his single name, an actual description of the God who sent him.
Steve
Good someone who is a thinker and starting to see the real facts, that is there is absolutely no scriptural basis to prove that the other sheep have an earthly hope except while they are living.
While you are at it, try and scripturally prove that there will be a resurrection back on to the earth.
Tony, Of course they have an earthly hope, for they are Abraham’s seed. The center of the Abrahamic covenant is inheriting the earth! It begins with the land of Canaan, which is promised “forever” (Gen. 13:13-15) and will expand to cover the entire earth (Gen. 22:17; Psa. 2:8) All will dwell on the earth who are Abraham’s seed, for it is the inheritance of both his physical and spiritual seed (ROM. 4:13-17). Revelation 20 shows those of the first resurrection upon the earth. They were raised to life and after the thousand years they are encircled by the wicked, which… Read more »
If you start in verse one of Luke 12 and read throughout you will find Jesus addressing both a great multitude and his immediate disciples. In context, the little flock is that small group of disciples relative to the multitude of people present.
John 10 is in context a bit ambiguous, however the parallel with Paul’s parable of the two becoming one man and the dividing wall is remarkably similar, suggesting Jesus also had in mind Jews and gentiles.
Steve
I forgot to mention the text of Paul’s parable, which is Ephesians 2.
I was thinking on this when readed that chapter in my daily Bible reading. Jesus said (after speaking about the importance of not center our lives in meterial things): “seek continually his KINGDOM, and these things will be added to YOU.” and inmediatly he said: “Have no fear, little flock, because YOUR Father has approved of giving YOU the KINGDOM.” For me it’s clear that the “little flock” are those who seek first the kingdom, and include us all. Comparing order of ideas of Luke 10 with the ideas of Matthew chapter 6 and 7, I even see the posibility… Read more »