ARE AMERICAN INDIANS THE "OTHER SHEEP" OF JOHN 10:16?

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:16)

Twelftree calls this “a puzzling statement.”

Borchert says, “The fourth segment of this mashal [parable or figure of speech], particularly v. 16, has been the subject of considerable scholarly and ecclesiastical debate.”

And finally, Culpepper states, “The identity of the scattered and the form and time of the gathering all are unclear and hotly debated.”

Where there are obscure verses in Scripture, it is not surprising to find that the LDS Church leaps in to fill the gaps. Regarding the interpretation given by them, Borchert rightly says, “It certainly is a stretch in logic to suppose with the Mormons that Jesus was here referring to the North American and Indian ancestors on the western side of the Atlantic Ocean. Such an idea has to be read into the text and not interpreted from the text.”

With the above bit of exegesis excluded from discussion, what are the more viable possibilities for interpretation. Culpepper lays out five possibilities:

1. The drawing together of Jewish and Gentile believers

2. Present and future believers

3. Johannine and non-Johannine Christians

4. Jews of the dispersion

5. Jewish Christians scattered by their exclusion from the synagogues

Possibility #3 presupposes that John made up these words to put into Jesus' mouth due to the later divide between two distinct camps in the early church: followers of John and followers of Paul. Most evangelical Christians would reject that suggestion.

I have not read anyone except Culpepper himself who subscribes to the last given explanation. However, his reasoning is plausible in that this passage in John directly follows the story of the blind man being healed. In that account the possibility of excluding Jewish Christians from the synagogue is mentioned (see John 9:22)

The remaining interpretations all have their champions, but the majority seem to favor Possibility #1. Here are some representative comments:

Borchert: “The context must instead refer to a situation in the time of Jesus and the early church. Robinson argues for two groups of Jews, those in Israel and those of the diaspora outside of Israel. Martyn goes in the opposite direction arguing that the verse represents the Christian diaspora of the late first century. The latter view makes the meaning irrelevant to the time of Jesus. The former view makes a little more sense...The alternative possibility is that the first group refers to the Jews who followed Jesus and who already were being viewed as part of the fold...the other group would then logically seem to refer to the Gentiles who would come thereafter into the flock.”

R. Brown: A plausible solution is that the Church came only slowly to understand the import of these figurative sayings of Jesus pertaining to the Gentiles.”

Guthrie: “If the other sheep are Gentiles as differentiated from the Jewish fold, this is an important witness to the universalism of Jesus. The distinction between fold here and flock in the next sentence shows the variety which exists within the people of God. There are many folds, but one flock.”

Kostenberger feels it probably refers to the Gentiles in light of the many OT passages predicting that the Messiah would gather them in.

Morris: “It is difficult to interpret 'not of this fold' other than as indicating those who are not to be found within Judaism. The words look to the world-wide scope of the gospel...The other sheep are not to remain distinct from the existing sheep, as though there were to be a Jewish church and a separate Gentile church.”

To complicate the issue further, most commentators refer to two other passages in John's Gospel which they claim to contain parallel teachings. The problems are: (1) these may or may not be true parallels and (2) these passages in themselves are not exactly crystal clear in their meaning. Thus:

John 11:52

Borchert feels that Caiaphas' statement here was intended by him to refer to all the Jews, scattered or not, whereas John interpreted it to mean Jesus' death on behalf of all mankind.

R. Brown says that “the dispersed children of God are the Gentiles destined to believe in Jesus.”

Twelftree points to the similar imagery in this verse which suggests that the Gentiles are being referred to in 10:16 instead of the dispersed Jews.

Kostenberger says that this verse refers to both Jews and Gentiles.

Morris feels that although Caiaphas' words refer to the Jews of the Dispersion, John applies them to Gentile Christians.

Culpepper says this verse “must be interpreted in relation to a people of God composed of both Jews and Gentiles.

John 17:20-23

The New Oxford Annotated Bible says that 10:16 refers to Gentiles. They cross-reference 17:20-23 which, however, is not that specific.

Twelftree says that heretical Christians are being referred to in both 11:52 and 17:20-23, and therefore it is also an alternative understanding of 10:16 as well.

Kostenberger is probably closer to the mark in feeling that 17:20-23 refers to those who will believe through the testimony of Jesus' immediate followers. Morris, Borchert, Culpepper, and Brown agree with this assessment. Brown adds that it refers to “a divine selection, but this is not on an ethnic basis.”

The most reasonable conclusion regarding these somewhat related passages is that they indicate an active ministry to both Jews and Gentiles to be carried out after Jesus was resurrected.