little flock

by peacefulpete 27 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hmike

  The traditional interpretation of the Greek word mikros, translated "little," seems to be of small quantity. This certainly would be true if you connected it with the teaching of Jesus about the wide and narrow gates. While it still would be valid to consider the "little flock" to be a small group relative to the whole, I think mikros should be used here as a qualitative term rather than a quantitative one.

  In Acts 8:10, Luke uses mikros in "to whom they all gave heed, from the least [mikros] to the greatest..."

  Hebrews 8:11?"And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying 'Know the Lord', for all shall know me, from the least [mikros] to the greatest."

  Consider that although the "good news" Jesus proclaimed was directed to all people, it was especially appealing to the poor, the crippled, and to those who did demeaning and what were considered to be despicable things to survive?the rejects of society. These people not only struggled economically and physically, they also suffered from what we would call "low self-esteem." They knew they were outcasts with no hope of ever improving their station in life. Also, many would have felt themselves abandoned by God, maybe because of sins they or even their parents or grandparents committed. Even those who were better off in society often saw themselves distant from God when they compared themselves to the religious leaders. Although some would have been bitter, resentful, or jealous, many simply resigned themselves to their life situation with a humility befitting the humble position society had assigned them, even though they may have yearned for something better. For these people, the good news of the kingdom was that "You are acceptable to God, and your time of relief is coming."

  In Matthew 18, when the disciples argue over who is the greatest, Jesus calls a child over and tells them that unless they become like children, they cannot enter the kingdom. He goes on to state that the humility of the child is the key quality. Later, in Matt. 19:14, he says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to those like the children (meaning the humble). To me, this is an important connection, for in Luke, he said the Father was pleased to give the kingdom to the little flock.

  Finally, looking at Matt. 18:12-14, Jesus tells of the one sheep that runs off from the flock, and the owner goes looking for it and finds it. In v. 14, he ends the story with "Even so, it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, than one of these little [mikros] ones should perish. In the parallel passage, Luke 15:3-7, he ends the story with "...likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner who repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."

  So, it looks to me that mikros, in this context, refers to a state of humbleness, of denial of self-importance. For some, this was fairly easy because it was part of their daily lives. For others?the wealthy, the powerful, the privileged, those held in high regard by others, or those who simply were proud?they had to set that aside and become like the disadvantaged, at least in attitude. Many could not, however. The people who came to John the Baptist to publicly confess sins, repent, and be baptized for forgiveness were the ones whom Jesus could minister to. The proud, elitist religious leaders did not recognize and respond to the call of God. The requirement of humility?of recognizing one's fallen, sinful, inadequate state, and the need for God's mercy?as a condition for entry into the kingdom, appears throughout the Gospels and in the NT letters.

  I propose that "littleness" is a quality common to all the flock. That way, there is no problem of a flock within a flock. Either one is in the flock (kingdom) or is not.
• 

  Narkissos

  Interesting idea hmike.

  On the other hand, such Q-sayings reflect a radical itinerant, Cynic-like community deliberately choosing poverty and a low social status (as the context shows); and this can only be the call of the chosen few. But this kind of salvation always implies another, that of the (more) wealthy (and worldly) people who will support the "holy" radicals. In sum any "narrow way" (he who doesn't give up all he has cannot be my disciple) calls for a "broader way" (if anyone gives you a glass of water he will not lose his reward). That's about what Robert M. Price, referring to Buddhism, calls the "Hinayana" vs. "Mahayana Gospel" (in The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man).
• 

  hmike

  Hi Narkissos,

  Although some throughout Christian history have voluntarily chosen poverty, the intent of teaching was for people not to be attached to material things. It has more to do with attitude?not loving the world or things in it. Nothing should stand in the way of commitment. That doesn't necessarily mean actually getting rid of possessions, but for some, they feel that's what it takes.

  It's like someone on a diet. If you can maintain your diet with treats in the house, there's no problem with the treats. If you can't, then you may have to get rid of the treats. But, of course, the problem isn't actually with the presence of treats, it's with the individual on the diet, and it can be dealt with another way. In some cases, it's just easier to remove the physical object.
• 

  peacefulpete

  IMO while "little" has multiple uses, quanitative and qualitative as you said, it's context here next to "flock" seems to be simplest understood to be contrasting the two groups differing in size.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Hi Justin, all

  Did Russell consider the Great Multitude to be part of spiritual Israel? Based on the article "The Great Multitude" in the March 1916 Watch Tower (Reprint No. 5846), I would say Yes. That article includes both classes in "the Church" - and the Church or congregation is spiritual Israel.

  That is interesting. Yes, both classes are 'spiritual .' That's confirmed in the ZG (1918) which discusses Revelation and Ezekiel.

  This is how the classes are summarized:

  ZG (1918) p.100-106 [Rev. 7], 224, 225 [Ezek. 40-48]

  Heavenly classes :

  ?Little flock? = Priests, Bride, divine nature, in Most Holy

  ?Great Multitude? = Levites, serve in inner court, lower spirit nature like angels, virgin companions

  Earthly classes :

  Perfect human nature - Jewish ?ancient worthies/princes' and 'servants of the city? or ?sons of the ancient worthies'

  Humans who progress to perfection over the 1000 years ? resurrected Hebrews and resurrected non-Hebrew ?strangers'

  It looks like the secondary spiritual class was gradually edged further and further away from the inner sanctum after Russell died. Notice what V-III says on p. 204 - talking about Ezek. 40 and the outer court of the temple:

  "It was seven steps above the outside, but was lower than the pavement of the inner court (I-H), which is utilized by the royal priesthood. This picture shows the position of the 'great multitude'. Ever and anon someone advances the conclusion that the 'great multitude' will not be a spiritual class. The prophecy of Ezekiel shows that such conclusion is erroneous. The fact that their position is seven steps higher than the outside shows that they must be made spirit creatures."

  So the 'great multitude' was no longer in the inner court. That was exclusively the domain of the priestly class, the 'little flock.' Of course, the 'great multitude' was eventually thrown out into the Gentile outer courts and had to stay there until the recent Questions from Readers revised it and moved them a courtyard in again.

  What I also find intriguing (from what I?m picking up as I go along) is the similarity between this BS/JW ?classes of Christian? idea and 2 nd century Gnosticism ? especially the ideas of Valentinius. He believed that mankind was divided into 3 groups:

  The ?pneumatics,? pre-determined, spiritual, enlightened elect Christians who would immediately reach perfection at death;

  The ?psychics? who were orthodox or ordinary faithful Christians who didn?t have the advanced spiritual advancement of the elect and tended to work for their salvation ? a lesser salvation than the elect;

  The ?hylics? who were the materialists, the heathen, soulless and animalistic with no hope of salvation.

  There?s some similarity with Manichaeism too ? another Gnostic sect. However they mixed in elements of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism with Hellenistic Christianity. They had a two-tier system ? the elect and the hearers. The elect were very strict and led ascetic lives. They were full-time missionaries and were successful in propogating their religion. The hearers financed the work of the elect and were allowed to lead a relatively normal life.

  Any of this sound familiar? There really is nothing new under the sun!
• 

  peacefulpete

  Thanks Ann. that is why the Rutherford "revelation" that the so called 'great crowd' and the 'other sheep' were the same group was new. They had previously interpreted the "other sheep" of John as ancient worthies et. al. that would be resurrected as I recall. A gradual consolidation of power and prestige was taking place, deliberate or not.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  I guess it's an early example of 'simplification.'
• 

  Narkissos

  Ann,

  Thanks for the research and insight; quite interesting indeed.

  hmike,

  I think your "spiritual" reading of the Gospel passages about poverty and giving up all one's belongings reflects a later, facilitating, interpretation, which actually takes their edge off. As Gerd Theissen and others have shown, there is a good case for ascribing those texts to a movement of "radical itinerant" Christians who took them literally (cf. the mission orders in Luke 9:1ff//; 10:1ff, or the requisites of discipleship in Luke 9:57ff//; 14:25ff// for instance). Even the famous saying "wherever your treasure is, there your heart will be" which immediately follows the "little flock" sentence in Luke is strictly materialistic in structure and is not to be read the other way around ("as long as your heart is with God your treasure is in heaven"). This also transpires in the story of the rich young man (the way of "perfection") and the camel comparison which follows (Luke 18:18ff//).

  But as I have said, this narrow way makes room for a broader one, that of the "worldly supporters" who will not lose their reward even for the smallest things they do. This broad way might also be echoed in the judgment parable of Matthew 25 about helping Jesus' brethren (i.e. the radicals?).

  As for the connection between those "two ways" and the relative superiority of the former (for the chosen few), one might think of the sequel of the rich young man / camel pericopes:

  Then Peter said in reply, "Look, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?" Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.

  Of course this has little to do with the Pauline or Johannine conceptions and Christian life, which promote only one way and one kind of salvation (not exactly the same though).