144,000 and Great Crowd Chart

The purpose of the chart is to show that everything that is said of the symbolic, non-literal 144,000 is also said of the the great crowd (click to enlarge):

That the same things are said of the 144,000 and the great crowd suggests they are one and the same, which I will argue in more depth in my upcoming paper (section on Revelation is almost done and will be posted soon).

Here is also a Word (2010) document that I wrote in Spanish containing the same information and a little extra. Hopefully these charts prove helpful to some of you!

 

Section 3 of ‘Two Hopes Theology’ Paper

3.0  The Society on Luke 12:32

Commenting on Luke 12 the Society writes,

After warning the crowds about covetousness, and cautioning his disciples about giving undue attention to material things, Jesus encourages: “Have no fear, little flock, because your Father has approved of giving you the kingdom.” He thus reveals that only a relatively small number (later identified as 144,000) will be in the heavenly Kingdom. The majority of the ones who receive eternal life will be earthly subjects of the Kingdom.[1]

Jesus was speaking to his disciples, and he called them a “little flock.” He was also speaking to those to whom Jehovah would ‘give the kingdom.’ Compared with the vast crowds that would accept Jesus in later times, this group were indeed few in number. They were also considered precious because they were chosen for a remarkable future, to be used in royal service. Their Father, the Great Shepherd, Jehovah, calls the little flock with a view to their receiving a heavenly inheritance in connection with Christ’s Messianic Kingdom.[2]

For the Society, Luke 12:32 teaches “that only a relatively small number will be in the heavenly Kingdom,” while the majority of other Christians “will be earthly subjects” of it. Therein, the Society finds support of their two hopes doctrine: only a little flock inherits the heavenly kingdom, while the rest of believers are subjects of that kingdom.

3.1 Critique

Our critique will be twofold: we will evaluate why Jesus spoke concerning his disciples as a “little flock” in 3.2, but in this section we will highlight a significant point that the Society seems to have overlooked. Nowhere in Luke 12 does Jesus ever do as the Society says, namely, never does he “reveal that only a relatively small number will be in the heavenly Kingdom.” Let us consider Luke 12:32 anew:

“Have no fear, little flock, because YOUR Father has approved of giving YOU the kingdom.”

The only thing Jesus says is that the “little flock” will receive the kingdom, but never does he say only the “little flock” will. Let us use an analogy:

1. Come here, little dog, because your owner will give you a doggy biscuit.
2. Come here, little dog, because your owner will only give you a doggy biscuit.

Example one is similar to what Luke 12:32 states: the identified party will receive a reward. Our example does not limit the reward to them; rather, it simply states that they will receive it. Example two, however, is what Luke 12:32 should say if what the Society says is correct. In example two, the reward is indeed limited to a specific party, namely, the “little dog.” However, Luke 12:32 does not reflect example two, but example one.

3.2  Exposition of Luke 12

Like any other text, Luke 12:32 has to be read and interpreted in context. At the start of chapter 12 Luke reports, “the crowd had gathered together in so many thousands that they were stepping upon one another,” but Jesus ‘started out by first speaking to his disciples.’ (1:1) From the outset we see Luke distinguishes between the ‘crowd of thousands’ and Jesus’ “disciples,” not only in terms of address but in manner of speech. Indeed, it seems that Jesus spoke to ‘his friends’ (12:4) from verse 1 through verse 12 and it is only until verse 13 that “a certain one of the crowd” inquired Jesus about his brother’s inheritance. Thus from verse 15 until verse 21 Jesus was speaking “to them,” that is, to the “so many thousands” that were before him. It is only until verse 22 that Jesus begins to once again speak “to his disciples.” This continues until verse 41 when Peter inquires Jesus about the parable of verses 39-40. Hence it remains clear through context that Jesus’ reference to his “disciples,” his “friends,” as a “little flock” is in contrast to “the crowd” of “so many thousands” that were before him. (12:1) In fact, this is confirmed from Peter’s question to Jesus in verse 41 when he asks, “Lord, are you saying this illustration to us or also to all?” Peter makes a differentiation between the “us” and the “all,” that is, between the small group of disciples and the so many thousands in the crowd.

Through context it becomes clear that Jesus was not limiting the inheritance of the kingdom to only a “little flock.” Rather, it becomes apparent that when Jesus addresses his disciples as a “little flock” it is in contrast to the so many thousands in attendance. Given our findings it becomes mind-boggling that the Society can write,

It was not intended that great masses of mankind be included in this administrative body. Thus, Jesus referred to it as a “little flock.” (Luke 12:32) In the original language used in this part of the Bible, the word “little” (mi‧kros′) is the opposite of great (me′gas), and its use at Luke 12:32 refers to quantity or fewness in number. Hence, membership in “the kingdom of the heavens” does not allow for an unlimited number. To illustrate: If you were asked to pour a little water into a glass, you would make sure that it did not overflow. So, too, the “little flock” cannot be made up of overflowing numbers of people. God’s Kingdom has a set (“little”) number of corulers with Christ. The exact number of these rulers, 144,000, was revealed to the apostle John. (Revelation 14:1, 4)^[3]

It is true that in the original languages “little” means “the opposite of great,” but as we have demonstrated, the “flock” is “little” as opposed to the “great” number of persons in the crowd. It is the Society’s failure to understand “little flock” in context that leads them to say “membership in ‘the kingdom of the heavens’ does not allow for an unlimited number.’” Yet, nowhere within the context of Luke 12 or elsewhere is “membership in the kingdom” said to be limited. No such limitation is present in Jesus’ teaching.

3.3  Conclusion

Jesus’ reference to his “friends” (12:4) as a “little flock,” in context, is in differentiation to the “so many thousands” (12:1) that were present when Jesus gave his discourse. Jesus did not limit membership in the kingdom, he simply stated that his “friends” were going to receive it, whom were at that time, comparatively speaking, a “little flock” in the midst of “so many thousands.”

---

[1] “Jesus’ Life and Ministry–Keep Ready!,” the Watchtower, October 1, 1988, p. 8.

[2] “Have No Fear Little Flock,” the Watchtower, February 15, 1995, pp. 18-19.

[3] “The Bible’s Viewpoint—Who Go to Heaven?” Awake!, January 1^st, 1995, p. 27.

 

Section 2 of ‘Two Hopes Theology’ Paper

2.0  The Society on John 10

In 1980 the Society published their official stance on John 10 in the July 15^th, 1980, Watchtower, under the title, “The ‘Fine Shepherd’ and the ‘Little Flock.’” In this article they reasoned that the sheepfold described in John 10:1-5 represented not the Law Covenant, but the Abrahamic Covenant. They came about this conclusion when they reasoned that Jesus was not introduced to the Law Covenant by John the Baptist because Jesus had in fact (already) been born under the Law of Moses (Galatians 4:4-5). Thus, whatever the “sheepfold” in John 10:1-5 represented, it must have been earlier than the Law Covenant because it was John the Baptist as the “doorkeeper” who lets Jesus in.

So when John the Baptist admits Jesus into the figurative “sheepfold” of the Abrahamic Covenant,

He was the true shepherd, and he came looking, not for Jews or other humans in general, but for those who would respond to the opportunity to become with him part of the composite ‘seed of Abraham’ through whom blessing would come to all nations. The majority of the natural Jews rejected him, but a remnant of the fleshly Jews did accept him. These were the “sheep” that listened to his voice. So, when he called “his own sheep by name,” they responded, and he led them out to pasturage.[1]

John 10:7-10, according to this 1980 Watchtower, presents “Jesus [as] the figurative ‘door’ to those sheeplike followers of his who are made part with him of the ‘seed of Abraham.’ So they are in the “sheepfold” of the Abrahamic Covenant arrangement.”[2] Of note is that the Society understood the “sheep” of John 10:1-10 as “a remnant of fleshly Jews” that “did accept” Jesus and subsequently became “part of the composite ‘seed of Abraham.’” However, such interpretation did not last long.

Four years after having published the above cited article, the Society changed views concerning John 10, which view as far as I’m aware, remains the Society’s current position, today. This time around rather than identifying the sheepfold of John 10:1-5 as the Abrahamic Covenant, they reasoned that such sheepfold was actually the Law Covenant, an interpretation that four years earlier they had rejected. They reasoned that since Jesus was “born under the law” (Gal 4:4-5), he must have been a figurative sheep under the Supreme Shepherd, Jehovah.[3] In distancing themselves away from their former interpretation they wrote:

The former explanation of the sheepfold as being the Abrahamic covenant was based on the view that John chapter 10 mentioned directly only one fold, and if that were so, then the Abrahamic covenant would be its logical meaning. However, further study of this chapter showed that Jesus actually spoke of more than one sheepfold. Thus, as we will see, an adjustment in explanation proved fitting.[4]

It was the identification of “more than one sheepfold” that led the Society to make “an adjustment” of their interpretation of John 10. In this 1984 article it is the Society’s view that Jesus, prior to being baptized, was one of the sheep of the Mosaic Law Covenant. It is only after John the Baptist baptized Jesus in the Jordan River as the “doorkeeper,” that he came to the lost sheep of Israel as the “fine shepherd,” thus John opening up the door to him.

John 10:7-10, then, was understood differently. Whereas in John 10:1-5 Jesus was let into the sheepfold by the “doorkeeper,” in John 10:7-10 Jesus is himself the door. What this means for the Society is that Jesus is the “door” to the new sheepfold, the new covenant, where in verses 1-5 Jesus is let in by another. So here the Society sees two different sheepfolds: (1) The sheepfold that Jesus gains access to by means of the door and (2) the sheepfold to which Jesus himself is the door. Given the Society’s new take on John 10, they reasoned that since John 10:7-10 represents the new covenant, John 10:16’s “other sheep” must be a group of sheep that Jesus owns but which are not members or participants in the new covenant. Herein, the Society finds a basis for their two class arrangement of Christians.

2.1   Critique

In the Society’s interpretation of John 10 we see what we have discussed above and warned about in section 1.2. Apart from the Society’s underlying hermeneutic of finding “prophetic types” in the New Testament, I see no exegetical or conceptual basis for trying to find a further (deeper) meaning to Jesus’ discussion of “sheepfolds,” especially when it involves defining them in terms of New and Law covenants. As a basic rule of hermeneutics, when one is determining whether or not a particular image or character in the Bible is a “prophetic type” or typological in nature, it must be explicitly defined by the Bible writers or speakers themselves, otherwise we are left with doubts over whether such a prophetic type is in the Bible or just in our imagination. What this means for the Society and their interpretation is that their take on John 10 cannot be substantiated as it stands. They would have to prove that the sheepfolds mentioned in John 10 by Jesus really do in fact represent the Mosaic Law and New Covenants according to the Bible writers themselves (or in this case, Jesus), and is not merely a product of the Society’s imagination. Asked in form of a question: what is the basis for identifying the sheepfolds in John 10 as covenant arrangements? When and until the Society supplies an adequate answer to that question, their proposal cannot be accepted as it stands.

A further objection may be levied against the Society’s understanding of John 10. The Society is anachronistically including Gentiles into what they believe is the “new covenant” fold in John 10:7-10. According to Jesus, he was first and only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 15:24) It would not be until after his death that Gentiles would be included or grafted into the New Covenant. (Matthew 28:18-19) Thus in John 10:7-10 where according to the Society Jesus is introducing a “new covenant” fold, this would only include Jews, for it was only to them that Jesus came during his earthly ministry. Therefore the proposed “new covenant” fold can only include fleshly Jews. It is only by reading the later historical developments of the early Church back in John 10 that one can arrive at the Society’s proposed interpretation. But quite simply, it does not work for the reasons listed above.

It should be kept in mind that Jesus spoke John 10 while he was still alive, active in his earthly ministry. Since he was only actively calling Jews to be his sheep, it follows that the fold he was introducing in John 10:7-10 could only be fleshly Jews. Oddly enough, I find agreement with the Society’s previous view that they had espoused in their earlier 1980 article, identifying the “sheep” as “Jews.” (See 2.0 above)

1.2   To Whom is John 10 Addressed?

Before we can properly understand what it is that is going on in John 10, we must first establish to whom Jesus directed his speech. That is, we must identify who his audience is using the best textual and literary evidence available to us. For this we must turn back to chapter 9. After Jesus heals the blind man, this man is interrogated by the Pharisees. (9:15-17) The Pharisees cannot accept that Jesus healed the blind man because a man from God would not violate the Sabbath. Yet, the blind man responds to the Pharisees by telling them that God does not listen to sinners, so the only natural conclusion that can be drawn is that Jesus must be “from God” since he performed a powerful work on his behalf. (9:30-33) Naturally, the Pharisees do not fancy the blind man’s reply so they kick him out of the synagogue. When Jesus hears about the blind man’s expulsion, he says the following:

“For [this] judgment I came into this world: that those not seeing might see and those seeing might become blind.” (verse 39)

It is in this verse that Jesus turns his healing of the blind man into a symbol: those who think they are saved, or who think they “see,” are actually blind because they reject God’s Messiah; and those who acknowledge they are blind, will “see,” that is, will recognize Jesus as Messiah. It is in this context that the Pharisees ask, “’We are not blind also, are we?’” (9:40) Jesus replies, “If YOU were blind, YOU would have no sin. But now YOU say, ‘We see.’ YOUR sin remains.” (9:41) Though chapter 9 ends with verse 41 in our modern chapter and verse divisions, Jesus’ speech actually goes uninterrupted into chapter 10 without transition. This suggests that the audience remains the same and is further supported by the fact that the double amen in John never begins a new discourse.

2.3  Background to Sheep and Shepherd Imagery

Let us now briefly discuss some of the imagery Jesus employs in John 10 before actually discussing John 10 itself. The shepherd metaphor employed by Jesus primarily concerns the intimate care and sacrificial protection Jesus gives to the sheep as their leader. However, one cannot divorce the regal connotation associated with this same metaphor. By the time of Jesus there was already a precedent for associating regal and royal significance to shepherd imagery. For example, on commenting on Ancient Near East (ANE) cultures Jeffrey Jay Niehaus writes,

Sen-Usert I (1991-1961 B. C.) says that Amon “appointed me shepherd of this land.” Amen-hotep III (1398-1381 is “the good shepherd, vigilant for all people, whom the maker thereof has placed under his authority.” Seti I (1302-1290) is “Son of Re, Seti merneptah, the good shepherd…the father and mother of all.” Pharaonic iconography portrayed the same theme by placing a shepherd’s crook in the Pharaoh’s hand.[5]

This shepherd metaphor was just as common in Egypt as it was in Rome and Greece. For example, in Homeric literature Agamemnon, son of a king in Greek Mythology, is regularly referred to as the “shepherd,” “shepherd of the host,” and the “shepherd of his people.”[6] The same or at least similar regal connotation expressed by the shepherd imagery in ANE and in Greco-Roman cultures was expressed in the biblical tradition. For instance, God himself was known as Israel’s Shepherd (Ps 23:1; 28:9; 77:20; 78:52; 80:1; Isa 40:11; Ezek 34:11-31) and his chosen people as his “sheep” (Ps 74:1; 79:13; 100:3; Ezek 34:31). The references in John 10:3-4 to the shepherd who leads his own sheep out and goes in front of them may be an allusion to Numbers 27:15-18. The possibility of this is enhanced when one realizes that Moses was praying to Jehovah God for a future figure that would lead God’s people and bring them in, so that God’s people would “not be like sheep without a shepherd.” Historically this was Joshua (Gr. “Jesus”), but it may be the case that Numbers 27 may be a possible typological passage alluding to Jesus. (Num 27:17; cf Matt 9:36)

In John 10:7-9 Jesus describes himself as “the gate for the sheep.” The background for this metaphor seems to be Psalm 118:20 where it states, “This is the gate of Jehovah through which the righteous may enter.” The possibility of Psalm 118 as the background for Jesus’ metaphor is enhanced when one notices that Psalm 118 is also used in John 12:13. The statement at 10:8 where “all who have come before me were thieves and robbers,” seems to be an allusion to Ezekiel 34, but particularly verses 2-4, where the “shepherds of Israel only take care of themselves” but “do not take care of the flock.”

Further mention and use of this sheep-shepherd imagery is found in Isaiah 49:9-10 concerning Israel’s final restoration and deliverance from the nations. (Ezek 34:12-15; cf Pss of Sol 17:40) The abundant life that Jesus offers his sheep harks back to Ezekiel who envisions pasture and abundant life for God’s people (Ezek 34:12-15, 25-31). Jesus as the “good shepherd” recalls God as the true shepherd in contrast to unfaithful shepherds who are subject to God’s judgment (Jer 23: 1-4; Ezekiel 34; Zechariah 11:4-17). Jesus further elaborating on his role as the “good shepherd” states that he will lay down his life for the sheep. (John 10:11) The Messiah’s self-sacrifice is hinted by Isaiah 53, particularly, verse 12.

Jesus’ mention of “other sheep” at John 10:16 is perhaps a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of God incorporating the Gentiles among God’s people. (cf John 11:51-52; 17:20) In particular, Isaiah 56:8 comes to mind (with my underlining and bolding):

The utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, who is collecting together the dispersed ones of Israel, is: “I shall collect together to him others besides those already collected together of his.”

Jesus’ statement of “there will be one flock, one shepherd” seems to be an allusion to Ezekiel 34:23. The idea that “one flock” would be led by one shepherd is a metaphor for God’s united people under his care. Though the Old Testament primarily had in view the gathering in of the diaspora Jews, John 10:16 refers to the gathering of Jews and Gentiles under the “good shepherd,” Jesus Christ. (cf. Eph 2:11-22; and for Old Testament background: Isa 56:8; Ezek 37:15-28; Mic 2:12)

2.4  Exposition of John 10

Verses 1-2:

“Most truly I say to YOU, He that does not enter into the sheepfold through the door but climbs up some other place, that one is a thief and a plunderer. But he that enters through the door is shepherd of the sheep.

In context, Jesus is still primarily speaking to the Pharisees from his uninterrupted speech proceeding from 9:40-41 (see 2.2 above). Thus it is not a coincidence that in a context where Jesus reveals himself as the “Son of Man” and as coming into the world to bring “judgment,” (9:35-39) that he describes the Pharisees as ‘thieves and plunderers’ while simultaneously alluding purposefully to the prophecies of Ezekiel 34 and Jeremiah 23 where God would judge Israel’s unfaithful shepherds. Jesus is in effect saying, ‘You do not see that I am the shepherd from God because you are blind. You Pharisees are the unfaithful shepherds that fulfill the Old Testament prophecies and expectations, while I am the “good shepherd” that regathers God’s people. The sheep are mine, not yours. God gave them to me.” This is pressed further when the one who enters through the “door” is the rightful shepherd. That is, “door” imagery serves the purpose of identification, for it distinguishes the shepherd from the thieves.

Verses 3-5:

The doorkeeper opens to this one, and the sheep listen to his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has got all his own out, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. A stranger they will by no means follow but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.”

Jesus in continuing the sheep-shepherd metaphor speaks of the “doorkeeper” opening up to the real “shepherd” who knows “his own sheep by name.” The “doorkeeper” may not be an historical figure but a literary character in Jesus’ “figure of speech.” (John 10:6) However, it may also be the case that the “doorkeeper” is John the Baptist, for he was the one that baptized Jesus in preparation of his earthly ministry, prior to his calling the sheep and so recognized him as Messiah, the rightful shepherd. (John 1:29-35) However, any identification of the “doorkeeper” with an historical figure is highly questionable when it is clear that John 10:1-5 is a “figure of speech.” (10:6)

After the shepherd calls out his sheep “and leads them out,” “he goes before them” while his “sheep follow him, because they know his voice.” Jesus’ sheep will not follow strangers because they do not know their voice so they “will flee” from anyone who tries to steal them. Moreover, these sheep are Jesus’ “own” because the Father gave them to him and so naturally, they know their shepherd likewise. (John 1:10-11; 10:29)

Verse 6:

Jesus spoke this comparison to them; but they did not know what the things meant that he was speaking to them.

After Jesus speaks what he said in John 10:1-5, John offers a comment: Jesus’ audience did not understand the “figure of speech” or “comparison.” As we will see, the Pharisees and the other Jews in the audience did not understand the paroimia because they are not his sheep. (10:26) Indeed, the Pharisees could not understand Jesus’ illustration in verses 1-5 precisely because they did not accept Jesus as the Messiah, which is essential for grasping Jesus’ metaphors for they are told from that perspective. How could the Pharisees understand the Messianic imagery Jesus employed when they themselves were standing there rejecting the Messiah himself?

Verse 7a:

“Therefore Jesus said again…”

It is vital that we properly understand this short but critical phrase. Jesus is going to explain “again” what he meant in verses 1-5 because his audience did not understand the paroimia. That Jesus is explicating what he meant in verses 1-5 in 10:7ff is supported by Jesus’ switch from third person talk (“he,” “him,” “his”) to first person (“I am..,” “me”). He becomes more explicit in his speech for his audience to finally understand who he is, even after they saw him cure a blind man! Further substantiation that Jesus is continuing the same discussion but in different terms in 10:7ff is that Jesus begins his speech with a double amen. In John, the double amen never introduces a new discourse but highlights the importance of what is to follow.

Verse 7b:

“Most truly I say to YOU, I am the door of the sheep.

Jesus introduces himself as the “door of the sheep” whereas in the earlier verses he came in through the door. How can Jesus both come in through the door and be the door? It is a play on metaphors. Since we know that verses 7ff are an explanation of the paroimia by Jesus, then what follows from verse 7 is Jesus’ application of the same imagery of verses 1-5. In other words, through Jesus’ explanations in verses 7 and following, we are told how we should treat the imagery of the paroimia of verses 1-5, namely, as figurative (and, thus, also speaks against a literal, historical identification of the “doorkeeper”). Thus John 10:7ff gives us textual and literary parameter from which we can understand the imagery of 10:1-5. What this also means for our purposes, and especially as a critique on the Society’s position, is that hermeneutically speaking, 10:1-5 cannot be viewed in any new figurative way apart from 10:7ff because it is disallowed by Jesus’ application of the same imagery.[7]

Verse 8:

All those that have come in place of me are thieves and plunderers; but the sheep have not listened to them.

In a sweeping statement Jesus says “all those that have come in place of me are thieves and plunderers.” These “thieves and plunderers” are those that claimed to be shepherds but who really proved to be unfaithful.

Verse 9:

I am the door; whoever enters through me will be saved, and he will go in and out and find pasturage.

Jesus’ sheep will ‘enter through the door,’ that is, through Jesus and “be saved” or “find pasturage.” The allusion to going “in and out” seems to be recalling Numbers 27 as we discussed in 2.3 above.

Verses 10-15:

The thief does not come unless it is to steal and slay and destroy. I have come that they might have life and might have it in abundance. I am the fine shepherd; the fine shepherd surrenders his soul in behalf of the sheep. The hired man, who is no shepherd and to whom the sheep do not belong as his own, beholds the wolf coming and abandons the sheep and flees—and the wolf snatches them and scatters them— because he is a hired man and does not care for the sheep. I am the fine shepherd, and I know my sheep and my sheep know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I surrender my soul in behalf of the sheep.

Jesus points out that the thief does not come to give ‘life in abundance’ but to “steal,” “slay,” and “destroy.” In contrast, Jesus as the “good shepherd” comes to give life in abundance. This recalls Ezekiel 34 as we noted above. Unlike the thief, Jesus is willing to “surrender [his] soul in behalf of the sheep.” But not only for his Jewish sheep but for all those whom he is yet to call. (cf John 10:16; 11:51-52)

Verse 16:

“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.

Who, then, are Jesus’ “other sheep”? These sheep must be ones “not of this fold,” which fold, I will here argue, are believing fleshly Jews. In the above cited 1980 Watchtower article, we highlighted how the Society understood the sheep of John 10:1-10 to be “fleshly Jews.” I will here defend this contention. In Matthew 15:24 Jesus states,

I was not sent forth to any but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Jesus explicitly and unambiguously states that during his earthly ministry he came to nobody else but to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Naturally, only fleshly Jews could make up his sheepfold! That the “flock” is based on the Jews is confirmed and supported by the following:  Jesus “came to his own home, but his own people did not take him in” (1:11); “Even I did not know him, but the reason why I came baptizing in water was that he might be made manifest to Israel” (1:31);  “Nathanael answered him: ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel’” (1:49); “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation originates with the Jews” (4:22); “Jesus himself, however, bore witness that in his own homeland a prophet has no honor.” (4:44) Moreover, it is clear that when Jesus dialoged about the Kingdom, life eternal, ethics, and salvation, it was primarily with and for the benefit of the Jews.

We are also told in John 10:17-18 that Jesus would die not only for the first sheepfold but also for his “other sheep,” which is why the Father “loves” him. Thus John 10:16-18 is similar in import to John 11:52, where the evangelist points out that Jesus’ death would not be for the nation of Israel only but also “in order to gather into one the scattered children of God.” These passages are similar, too, to John 12:32:

And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw men of all sorts to me.”

Jesus prophetically stated that if he were to be “lifted up from the earth,” that is, hung on the tree, he would “draw men of all sorts to” him. This is remarkably similar to John 10:16-18 and 11:52 where Jesus’ death would not only be for his first sheepfold, who are contextually Jews due to the nature of his earthly ministry, but also for his “other sheep” whom are “men of all sorts.”  Since the shepherd’s death would result in the drawing of all sorts of men to Jesus, John 10:16 is thus historically fixed in a context where the expectations are of a uniting of two kinds of “sheep” into “one flock.”

In Old Testament terms, Jesus is the Davidic Shepherd of Ezekiel 34 who is going to ‘bring out his sheep from the nations and collect them together.’ (34:13) He is the means by which Jehovah will ‘collect together others’ outside of the fold of Israel. (Isaiah 56:8) In John 10:1-18 Jesus is in effect saying, “You religious leaders of Israel are not the shepherds from God. I am the shepherd of God and unless you are my sheep you will not be saved. I will die for my sheep and gather two kinds into one flock.” He was saying something very similar to what he said in John 8: simply because one is a fleshly Jew does not guarantee God’s approval. God’s approval is now based on the acceptance of Jesus as Messiah, not on ethnicity.

Historically speaking, we can point to a time in the earlier Church when Jesus’ two kinds of sheep truly became “one flock”:

Therefore keep bearing in mind that formerly YOU were people of the nations as to flesh; “uncircumcision” YOU were called by that which is called “circumcision” made in the flesh with hands— that YOU were at that particular time without Christ, alienated from the state of Israel and strangers to the covenants of the promise, and YOU had no hope and were without God in the world. But now in union with Christ Jesus YOU who were once far off have come to be near by the blood of the Christ. For he is our peace, he who made the two parties one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off. By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, that he might create the two peoples in union with himself into one new man and make peace; and that he might fully reconcile both peoples in one body to God through the torture stake, because he had killed off the enmity by means of himself. And he came and declared the good news of peace to YOU, the ones far off, and peace to those near, because through him we, both peoples, have the approach to the Father by one spirit. (Ephesians 2:11-18)

All the critical elements of John 10:16 are found in Ephesians 2, but using different analogies. The Jewish believers (sheep) and Gentile believers (other sheep) heard the Good News (voice of the shepherd, Jesus), and through hearing it, the two peoples were made into one body (one flock), under their head (one shepherd), Jesus Christ. This interpretation of John 10 and Ephesians 2 is completely harmonious with the rest of the Bible. From the earliest times Jehovah had promised Abraham that he would gather all nations into one people under his Messiah. This is clearly seen beginning in Genesis 12:3, throughout the prophets Isaiah (19:23-25) and Amos (9:11) and right into the New Testament. (Acts 15:15-18; Galatians 3:8)

2.5  The Society “Objects” to Gentile Interpretation

The Society is well-aware of the Gentile interpretation of the “other sheep” proposed in this paper. In the February 1^st, 1995, issue of the Watchtower on pages 10-11 they wrote:

Christendom’s commentators generally take the view that these other sheep are Gentile Christians and that those in the sheepfold referred to earlier are Jewish, those who were under the Law covenant, and that both groups go to heaven…Furthermore, those who view the other sheep as Gentile Christians who will be rewarded with heavenly life are failing to take into account an important aspect of God’s purpose. When Jehovah created the first humans and put them in the garden of Eden, he made it clear that his purpose was that the earth be populated, that all of it be a paradise, and that its human caretakers enjoy life forever—on the condition that they respect and obey their Creator.

As a basis for rejecting the Gentile interpretation of the “other sheep,” the Society appeals to their two hopes theology (see 1.2b above), in effect saying: “If the other sheep go to heaven, what about those that live on earth?” The astute reader will observe the Society’s circular reasoning.[8] Yet, what is so interesting and in some ways quite shocking, is that the Society nowhere in their entire 1995 article provides an actual argument against the interpretation put forth herein, though they took the time to highlight it. That the Society provided no real argumentation against the Gentile interpretation shows that they are well aware of the interpretive issues involved.[9]

2.6  Conclusion

We have argued above that the best evidence supports the idea that the “fold” is ethnic Jews and the “other sheep,” non-Jews. We also argued that Jesus’ usage of shepherd imagery in John 10 is an allusion not only to regal and royal imagery, but to the very Old Testament prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Micah themselves. These prophecies picture an eschatological Davidic shepherd that would come in the name of Jehovah to gather Jew and non-Jew together. He would come to judge Israel’s unfaithful shepherds and reclaim God’s mistreated sheep. Once this shepherd-king had come to judge the unfaithful shepherds, he would unite both Jew and Gentile into “one flock” under “one shepherd.” This Davidic shepherd-king proved to be Jesus Christ that through his sacrificial death brought Jew and Gentile together at last. (Compare John 10:16-18; 11:51-52; 12:32 with Ephesians 2:11-22)

---

[1] “The ‘Fine Shepherd’ and the ‘Little Flock,’” the Watchtower, July 15, 1980, page 20, par. 14.

[2] Ibid., p. 21, par. 19.

[3] “The Fine Shepherd and ‘This Fold’ of His,” the Watchtower, February 15, 1984, pages 10-11.

[4] Ibid.

[5] J. J. Niehaus Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2008), p. 39.

[6] Odyssey, IV, 521; Iliad, III, 179. Et al.

[7] Just in case this paragraph seems a bit convoluted, I offer this simplification of the point: If John 10:7ff is an explanation of the “figure of speech” of verses 1-5 (which it unambiguously is), then the imagery and language Jesus uses in verses 1-5 must be understood in light of Jesus’ own application of them. Further, if 7 and following explains verses 1-5, then the same subject is demanded. It then follows that there are not two sheepfolds but only one, for 7ff explains 1-5; and if 7-10 “explains” 1-5, then the same subject is obviously demanded and a brand new application is hermeneutically disallowed. Thus it is impossible for 2 sheepfolds to be in view here.

[8] On the Society’s circular reasoning in rejection of the Gentile interpretation of John 10:16, consider  what Raymond Franz, a former member of the Watchtower Society’s ecclesiastical governing committee, relates:

In one Governing Body session, this topic came up for discussion and I mentioned that I had heard several persons express themselves in line with the comment just quoted [namely, that the “other sheep” are gentiles]. After some discussion, the motion at the close was to hold to the traditional position. During the discussion, Ted Jaracz gave a notable example of circular reasoning by asking ‘where the earthly class would appear in the parable if this expression did not apply to them?’ Just before the vote was called for, member Leo Greenless said, “Doesn’t it seem that we should at least allow for the possibility of the text’s applying to the Gentiles? In Search of Christian Freedom (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2007), p. 466.

[9] It seems that not only is the Watchtower Society aware of the ‘Gentile interpretation,’ but so are their apologists. Hal Flemings, for example, states in an online article,

Yes, the passage at John 10:16 is usually understood by non-Witnesses to be discussing Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians rather than a new heavens class and a new earth class. In a way, the material seems open to either interpretation or application. If the former view is correct it would seem to correspond with Paul’s discussion at Ephesians 2:11-22. If the latter view is correct, it would certainly correspond with the arguments we have presented above. But, however John 10:16 is to be understood, it does not remove the clear evidence of a Christian earthly class and Christian heavenly class. (Last accessed 12/21/11: http://jehovah.to/exe/general/earth.htm )

Indeed, even Flemings when defending the Society’s interpretation is forced to admit that “the material seems open to either interpretation” and that if it does in fact refer to the Gentiles (which we have argued above that it does) then this ‘corresponds with Paul’s discussion at Ephesians 2:11-22.’

 

Section 1 of ‘Two Hopes Theology’ Paper

[NOTE: I'm going to begin posting sections of my paper; once all the sections have been posted, I will upload it as a PDF document under the "Papers" tab]

1.0  Introduction

Many ministries, support groups, and laypersons are aware of the Christology espoused by Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. They are also aware of the Witness understanding of the nature of hell and in their belief about the human soul. However, fewer people are aware of the Society’s teaching that there exists two hopes for Christians: a heavenly calling (Hebrews 3:1) and an earthly one (Matthew 5:5). At a surface level this may not sound too problematic as the Bible does use heavenly language in some circumstances and earthly or terrestrial at other times. Yet, it is when one scratches beneath the surface that one realizes the grand significance these “hopes” have within Witness theology. It is believed that Christians with a heavenly calling are the only participants in the New Covenant and the only ones to experience a new birth. Christians with an earthly calling or hope are neither in the New Covenant nor born again.[1]

Many texts are cited in support of the Witness understanding of the two class arrangement, many of which will be discussed in this paper. These texts include John 10:16, Luke 12:32, Revelation 7:4, 9 and 14, Romans 8:23, et al. In addition to discussing the eschatological hope for the Christian believer as it relates to the Witness two class arrangement, this paper will also discuss the Christians’ hope in light of the New Testament. We will argue that the Christians’ hope is not heaven, as is popularly taught today, but the New Earth where God’s Kingdom will finally be established. But before we begin our examination of the two class arrangement, it would be most beneficial to see how and when this doctrine began to take its shape.

1.1  A Bit of History[2]

During the time of Charles Taze Russell the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society taught there were two hopes for mankind, yet Russell’s teaching then is different than the Society’s teaching today. C. T. Russell, the Watchtower Society’s first president, taught all Christians had the hope of going to heaven, and to a large extent this same teaching was espoused until ca. 1935. Everyone else before the time of Christ, taught Russell, would live on earth, including Old Testament saints. This, of course, means that many of the texts that Jehovah’s Witnesses appeal to today had a different meaning and significance back then. For example, though Revelation 7:9 today is believed to speak about Christians with an earthly calling, C. T. Russell and his Bible Students believed this group to be Christians who also expected a life in heaven but who did not “manifest true zeal for the Lord’s cause,” thus forfeiting their opportunity to rule in heaven but nonetheless be “before the throne” in heaven.[3] John 10:16, too, was interpreted distinctly by Russell and his Bible Students than how the Society today understands it. Russell believed the “other sheep” of John 10 were “obedient ones” during the Millennial age who would “prove to be the Lord’s ‘other sheep.’”[4] Thus, the “other sheep” were a group of future (not present) believers.

It was not until about the 1930’s when the Society’s teachings began to more or less reflect their current form. This began approximately in 1932 when Joseph Rutherford, the Society’s second president, published his third book in the series, Vindication. On pages 77 and following he explained that Jehonadab prefigured “the ‘sheep’ class that favor God’s anointed people, because they know that the anointed of the Lord are doing the Lord’s work.”[5] Rutherford, too, changed Russell’s teaching on Revelation 7:9. Whereas Russell saw the “great crowd” as Christians with a heavenly calling who forfeited their right to rule (but who nonetheless attended heaven), Rutherford identified the “great crowd” as Jehonadabs, that is, as a secondary group of Christians. Indeed, it is with the teachings of Joseph Rutherford that the second class of Christians emerged and forever shaped Jehovah’s Witness theology.

1.2   (a) Underlying Hermeneutic & (b) Presuppositions

(a)    Why did Judge Joseph Rutherford identify the “great crowd” of Revelation as Jehonadabs and further, why did he view Jehonadab as a foreshadowing of a certain class of Christians? It is because the Watchtower Society applies a unique hermeneutic when it comes to interpreting the Old Testament in light of the New. They themselves put it this way (with my underlining),

Another thing that has given rise to questions is the use by Jehovah’s witnesses of parallels or prophetic types, applying these to circumstances and to groups or classes of people today. Many people who read the Bible view its accounts all as simply history, but when they begin to study with Jehovah’s witnesses a readjustment of viewpoint takes place as they see that there is more to the accounts than history.[6]

As a basis for their treating historical accounts in the Old Testament as “prophetic types” they cite the Apostle Paul at Romans 15:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:11. Yet, rather than these texts supporting “prophetic types” for present or future identification of figures or events in our times, the texts actually seem to speak of God knowing ahead of time what events in Israel’s history would be worth recording for use as future examples and warnings.[7] There is certainly a vast difference in understanding historical events in Israel’s history as warnings and examples and in understanding them as “prophetic types” or “parallels.”

Thus when identifying whether a certain event or historical sequence in the OT is typological, we must make sure that such prophetic type is “in the Bible and not merely in our imagination.” For example, Psalm 22 may be viewed as typological or a prophetic parallel. Here David speaks of being mocked, having his bones out of joint, being surrounded by dogs, etc. David’s suffering in Psalm 22 is a “type of the suffering of the Christ.” The lynchpin identifying this as a type is the connection between Psalm 22 and Jesus’ utterance in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34; and perhaps more clearly, “John explicitly states that as the Roman soldiers cast lots for Jesus’ clothes, they fulfilled Psalm 22:18.”[8]  An OT passage or event cannot be confirmed to be typological or a “prophetic type” unless the New Testament explicitly identifies it as such. So when Judge Rutherford declared that Jehonadab was a type or a foreshadowing of the Christians helping out the anointed remnant in his day, he would have needed to point to a New Testament text that made this connection explicit.  Thus we have identified a hole in the Society’s hermeneutic: many of their “prophetic types” are not mentioned explicitly in the New Testament.

(b)   There is also one additional consideration that is of note: the Society often argues from the standpoint of their being a limited heavenly class of Christians in their explaining their two class arrangement.[9] This should be kept in mind when we later interact with their literature, as it is a notable example of begging the question.

---

[1] This distinction between Jesus’ ‘earthly sheep’ and ‘celestial sheep’ is made explicit in the April 1, 2003, Watchtower, on page 5: “What, though, about all those followers of Jesus who are not in the new covenant? These are the Lord’s “other sheep,” who look forward, not to ruling with Christ in heaven, but to enjoying eternal life on a paradise earth.”

[2] A thorough and comprehensive historical survey of the development and origin of the Society’s two class distinction is beyond the scope of this paper.

[3] Jehovah’s Witnesses Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1993), p. 161.

[4] Ibid., 163.

[5] Joseph Rutherford Vindication Book Three (Brooklyn: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1932), pp. 77-78.

[6] “God Readjusts the Thinking of His People,” the Watchtower, August 15, 1972, p. 502.

[7] The Society seems to acknowledge this when they state: “So, rather than cause many of these events to happen, Jehovah God simply let many situations develop according to their natural course and then caused the writers to record what God knew would be of value in the future.” See the Watchtower, March 1, 1975, p. 145, par. 15.

[8] J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005) 2nd, p. 196.

[9] It should be noted that the Society’s presuppositional reading of much of the biblical material is extremely circular, for they believe the New Testament was written for the heavenly class primarily with only casual reference to the earthly class. See, for example, United in Christian Worship, p. 111, par 4. The problem is, of course, that a heavenly class would have to be proven to exist first and an earthly class second. In other words, for the Society’s claims about the New Testament to be true they would have to first prove them from the New Testament itself, which cannot truly be done without begging the question in the first place!

 

Update & Paper on ‘Two Class Theology’

I regularly receive emails and comments on past postings about my position and stance in relation to the Witness doctrine of the Kingdom. At this point my replies and answers and the questions I’m receiving are becoming redundant and repetitive. So, hopefully, I’ll be answering all these questions and providing answers to them in an upcoming paper. I hope that this will be my last statement on the issue, that is, unless a Witness (or someone with a similar theology) cares to engage the arguments presented therein in a meaningful and substantial way, then I’ll consider responding back.

The original plan was to do a detailed historical survey of the development of the Society’s two class system, but this proved to be wishful thinking as the amount of literature the Watchtower Society has produced since its founding is far too voluminous for 1 person to survey, that is, unless I spent a year or more reading through their first 50 or so years worth of primary literature. At the moment this is something I don’t feel compelled to do and something that I feel is no longer necessary. What matters in our current day, ultimately, is the current, present form of the doctrine not its development– though I’m sure much can be learned from its historical origin(s). So the plan as of my posting this post is to interact with the newest literature produced by the Society that contains their official discussion of the current, present two class system. The reason for interacting with the Society’s printed (and so distributed) material is because these are the only official statements of authoritative doctrine the Society has produced. While I could use statements and arguments that Witnesses have left in comments throughout this blog or use material from the debate I had on this very subject, I find the best route to go is with what is officially taught in the Society’s printed material.

If you are not a Witness or (have been) associated in some capacity with them, then this study will not be for you. In fact, the concepts and texts discussed may seem strange and perhaps a bit odd. Phrases like “other sheep” and “great crowd” may not mean much or anything at all to you unless you are familiar or in some capacity, acquainted with Witness teachings. However, these phrases and concepts actually do mean a lot to those that put much in them; in particular, to the 7 or more million persons whom believe in and affirm a two class division of Christians.

Once this paper is finished it will be uploaded under the “Papers” tab above. And since I’m on tabs, I’ll take the opportunity to mention that I will be adding two more tabs to this blog. One will be titled, “B. W. C.” which stands for Books Worth Considering. In this tab will only be books that I’ve actually read and which I would recommend to others. The other tab will be titled, “T. W. R.” This stands for Texts Worth Remembering, where I will share texts that I would consider to be important theologically and historically for the Christian faith. This tab was inspired by Gary Habermas’ ‘minimal facts’ method and it’s sort of the idea behind it.

I should also mention that I will not be active on this blog until the paper is completed, uploaded, and posted. Until then, I will still be reachable by email.

 

“When He Brings His Firstborn into the World”

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” (Hebrews 1:6 ESV)

There are many problematic interpretative issues in Hebrews 1:6. For example, what does the “again” refer to? Does it refer to another ‘bringing into the world’ (second coming?) or is “again” simply introducing another quotation? And where is this quotation taken from, Deuteronomy in the LXX or Psalm 97? Then there is the issue of what oikumene means in this text (cf Heb 2:5).

Be that as it may, “Firstborn” seems to be much easier to understand. “Firstborn” in this context seems to be defined in relation to what is said in Hebrews 1:2:

in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Regardless of how else or in which other senses (if any) Jesus may or may not be firstborn, in Hebrews 1 he has the rights of a firstborn because he was “appointed the heir of all things.” That is, he did not have firstborn rights until “he was appointed” as one. That Jesus was appointed as firstborn within the context of Hebrews 1 and 2 is made clear not only from verse 2 but from the string of quotations in Hebrews 1, perhaps most notably Hebrews 1:5,

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?

Jesus was here begotten as God’s S/son and God became his Father. The context seems to be of kingship, where Israel’s king became God’s S/son and God became the king’s Father. If this is correct, namely, that Jesus became “firstborn” once he was appointed heir of “all things” upon and/or at his coronation, then the question that follows is quite naturally: whom did he replace as firstborn?

It seems Hebrews 2 has the answer to that question. In Hebrews 2 Jesus is the ideal man (Adam), the one whom fulfills Psalm 8:5 and man’s (Adam’s) ultimate position in relation to Jehovah God’s creation:

You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.” Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. (Heb 2:7-8 ESV)

If any of the above is correct, the “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 needs to be reconsidered.

[NOTE: I can't seem to get WordPress to cooperate with me on the last quotation]

 

Beale on the (Non-literal) Millennium

And I quote:

That this is not a literal chronological number is apparent from: (1) the consistently figurative use of numbers elsewhere in the book, (2) the figurative nature of much of the immediate context (“chain,” “abyss,” “dragon,” “serpent,” “locked,” “sealed,” “beast”), (3) the predominantly figurative tone of the entire book (so 1:1), (4) the figurative use of “1,000” in the OT, and (5) the use in Jewish and early Christian writings of “1,000” years as a figure for the eternal blessing of the redeemed (see further below for the last two points).

The overall analysis of vv 1–6 supports a figurative meaning. 1,000 is the third power of ten, and, if figurative here, might represent a long era and, at least, would signify an ideal epoch. If the suffering saints endure their brief trials of “ten days” (2:10), they will receive the reward of a millennial reign. The intensifying of ten to a thousand together with the lengthening of days to years might suggest that present momentary affliction results in greater glory even in the intermediate state prior to eternal glory. (Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, p. 995)

 

1 Chronicles 17

(1 Chronicles 17:11-14, NWT) “‘“And it must occur that when your days have come to the full [for you] to go [to be] with your forefathers, I shall certainly raise up your seed after you that will come to be one of your sons, and I shall indeed firmly establish his kingship. He is the one that will build me a house, and I shall certainly establish his throne firmly to time indefinite. I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son; and my loving-kindness I shall not remove from him the way I removed it from the one that happened to be prior to you. And I will cause him to stand in my house and in my kingship to time indefinite, and his throne will itself become one lasting to time indefinite.”’”

Nathan told David that Jehovah would raise up one of David’s sons to establish his kingdom. This son would build Jehovah’s “house” and this son would be God’s son and God would be his Father. Later on in 1 Chronicles 28:5 of Solomon it is said,

and out of all my sons (for many are the sons whom Jehovah has given me) he then chose Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingship of Jehovah over Israel.

Solomon sat “upon the throne of the kingship of Jehovah.”

At the outset, this appears to mean anyone who was king over Israel would be both Son of God and ruler over God’s kingdom. “Son of God” in this context, then, appears to mean God’s appointed ruler over his kingdom. It neither refers to a divine being or to a preexistent person. It is a political term associated with “kingdom”-language.

 

Barron Responds to James White

 

Deity of Christ: James White on the Dividing Line

After the James White-Patrick Navas debate over at Christ Date’s Theopologetic podcast, David Barron from ScripturalTruths shared some of his thoughts and comments online for those interested. Now it seems that James White has taken the time (2 hours!) to respond to Barron’s comments over at his Dividing Line podcast.

I’m sure there’ll be more dialogue to come…