little flock

by peacefulpete 27 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  Just a comment for the new ones here. The Wt has attatched great doctrinal significance to the words "little flock" in Luke 12:32. What however does the context tell us the author was intending? Luke 12 opens with a crowd of curious people gathering and trampling each other and Jesus turns to his 12, his friends and disciples, and addresses them with private counsel. (1-12) Then a man in the crowd insists upon voicing his concern to which jesus gives a parable by way of answer(13-21) Then Jesus specifically turns back to his 12 and continues to give parable and council (22-40) In verse 41 Peter is unsure if he meant for the last parable to be heard by them alone or the whole crowd.

  Anyway verse 32 is very clearly addressed to the close friends as opposed to the hypocritical (54)disorderly mob that has come to see a miracle or something. No "prophecy" or cryptic symbolism, just Jesus addressing his small group of friends (little flock) who were contrasted with the hug crowd of curiosity seekers.
• 

  Narkissos

  Yes it's one of the most shameless examples of out-of-context use of one verse by the WT:

  He said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? If then you are not able to do so small a thing as that, why do you worry about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you--you of little faith! And do not keep striving for what you are to eat and what you are to drink, and do not keep worrying. For it is the nations of the world that strive after all these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, strive for his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.
  "Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

  It's amazing that all the exhortations in the context are supposed to be valid to everybody, except one sentence -- or actually two words, which become a doctrinal unit by typographic capitalisation ("Little Flock") as somebody remarked a few days ago.
• 

  hmike

  Are you saying that the WT considers only their members the "little flock?" How do they justify that conclusion?
• 

  Dutchy Elle

  Hi hmike,

  The WT-Society (in fact the "Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses" who use the Watchtower-Society as a printer of their ideas) conciders the so called "with the Holy Spirit anointed ones", also called (in their theology) the 144,000, as the little flock. There are only left at this time about 8,600 (also according to their statistics) of these "anointed ones", the so called "remnant" of the 144,000 or "little flock".

  The members of the WTS are only about 500 people (they have the "privilege" to vote the president and members of the board of the Society) , and the JW have (according to their statistics) about 6,500,000 active members.

  In their idea the 144,000 (spiritual Israelites) are "a little flock" compared to the "great crowd" of non-anointed Jehovah's Witnesses (based on their interpretation of Revelation 7).

  Greetings,

  Dutchy Elle
• 

  hmike

  Thanks Dutchy,

  That's quite a stretch. Where did that interpretation come from? I don't understand how it's justified.
• 

  peacefulpete

  It is just another example of interpreting the book through a lens and seeing confirmation of your beliefs. When they polished the two destiny doctrine under Rutherford, this verse, taken out of context, seemed naturally made for this interpretation. However reading it without that preconception it says nothing of the sort.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Hi hmike

  That's quite a stretch. Where did that interpretation come from? I don't understand how it's justified.

  Russell's interpretation of Luke 12:32 as well as other scriptures is down to the 'dispensational premillenniallist' way of understanding the Bible. Included in that view is the belief that historical and narrative passages in the Bible are symbolic of another truth in a future dispensation or period of new revelation by God.

  So, to Luke 12:32. The Jewish dispensation - Jesus was speaking to a large crowd of unbelieving or undecided Jews (nominal Israel). His faithful disciples (also Jews) were few - a little flock (real Israel). Bringing those types forward to the Gospel Age, the Christian dispensation, Russell saw a similar dichotomy between the world of nominal Spiritual Israel (nominal Christians) - of which there were many - and a 'little flock' of real Spiritual Israel (genuine Christians).

  I hope I've described Russell's idea correctly.

  These are his words:

  Volume 2 - The Time is at Hand STUDY VII THE PARALLEL DISPENSATIONS ... While we will not in this chapter or volume enter into a detailed examination of the typical features of God's dealings with Israel, as set forth in the Tabernacle, and Temple, and ordinances and sacrifices, etc., we do now invite close attention to some of the marked and prominent outlines of correspondency between the Jewish and Christian dispensations as type and antitype; for all that the Christian Church actually experiences and accomplishes, the Jewish Church prefigured. And many of these features of correspondency are parallel not only in character, but also in their relative time of occurrence. Even in their national history, and in the history of many particular individuals of that nation, we find correspondencies marked by the Scriptures. ... In both cases there have been a Nominal Israel and a Real Israel, in God's estimation, though to men they have appeared as one; the nominal and the real not being clearly distinguishable until the end or harvest time of their respective ages, when the truth then due and brought to light accomplishes the separation, and makes manifest which are of the real and which of the merely nominal Israel. Of the fleshly house Paul said, "They are not all Israel which are [nominally] of Israel" (Rom. 9:6); and our Lord recognized the same fact when of Nathaniel he said, "Behold an Israelite indeed , in whom is no guile," and also when in the time of harvest he separated the real from the nominal, and called the former valuable wheat, and the latter mere chaff-- though, comparatively, the wheat was only a handful, and the chaff included nearly all of that nation. In a similar proportion, and under a similar figure, the nominal and the real members of Spiritual Israel of the Gospel age are pointed out; and their separation, too, is in the time of harvest-- in the end of the Gospel age. Then only the wheat--a comparatively small number, a "little flock"--will be separated from the masses of nominal Spiritual Israel, while the great majority, being tares and not real wheat, will be rejected as unworthy of the chief favor to which they were called, and will not be counted among the Lord's jewels. Rom. 9:27; 11:5; Luke 12:32; Matt. 3:12; 13:24-40

  http://www.ctrussell.us/members/egrabner/ctrussell/ctrussell.nsf/22284ee7f683acc9862566bd000b278c/2cf51b631faae08a8625645200830145!OpenDocument
• 

  Narkissos

  AnnOMaly,

  What Russell probably didn't imagine is that his own brand of "genuine Christians" would be eventually separated into two classes, one of them only being identified as the little flock.
• 

  mjl

  I guess Russell wasn't aware of the "New Light" policy.....
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Hi Narkissos

  What Russell probably didn't imagine is that his own brand of "genuine Christians" would be eventually separated into two classes, one of them only being identified as the little flock.

  LOL.

  I was under the impression that the secondary heavenly class were neglectful Christians who would never be of the 'royal house' sharing rulership with Jesus. They could serve in the 'royal house' but were not 'royalty' - even though they were 'spirit-begotten.' I thought that it was only the 144k who made up the 'real spiritual Israel' according to the BSs. As far as I'm aware, they never considered the 'great crowd' as 'real Israel.' I could be wrong ...