PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP (LUKE 15:4-7)

For a very short parable and one that is quite famous besides, this passage presents more than its share of interpretive problems. I will attempt to briefly address each one of them below.

What is the relationship of this passage to Matthew 18:12-14?

The parable itself is basically the same in both Luke and Matthew's versions. However, the contexts are quite different in each case. Matthew's parable was addressed to Jesus' followers who obviously did not value the “little ones” (i.e. 'children') among them very highly. By contrast, in the case of Luke 15 this parable, as well as the following two companion parables, are addressed to the Pharisees who are highly critical of Jesus eating and drinking with known sinners.

Marshall says regarding Luke 15, “The parable of the lost sheep is also found in Mt. 18:12-14, but there it serves as an object lesson to the members of the church to care for the weaker members of the flock of God.” In addition, “The emphasis here [Matt. 18] is on the worth of each individual, while in Lk. 15:1-7 it is on the joy over the repentant. The sayings were probably given on different occasions.” (Nixon)

Thus, Marshall rightly (in my mind) concludes, “The differences between the Lucan and Matthaean forms are sufficiently great to make it unlikely that both Evangelists are directly dependent upon the same source...There is no reason why Jesus himself should not have used the same basic parable more than once and for different purposes.” Similarly, Snodgrass says, “That there is so little verbal agreement between the two accounts suggests that we are dealing with two independent and equally valid traditions.”

But those into source criticism tend to look for which version is the “authentic” one and which one has copied from it. Thus, Bultmann feels that Matthew's form of the parable is the original one which Luke has redacted. Conversely, Jeremias says that Luke's form is the more primitive of the two. Ellis agrees with that assessment and feels that Matthew altered the parable in order to give a different setting and application.

Finally, I should point out that there is actually a third version of this parable. It is located in the apocryphal, but early, Gospel of Thomas 107 and concludes with the words: “After he had exerted himself, he said to the sheep, I love you more than the ninety-nine. That was because it was the largest sheep.” No one seriously takes this version as the original one.

Did the shepherd totally abandon the other sheep?

Craddock asks the logical question: “But how is one to assess the search by a shepherd who leaves ninety-nine in the wilderness? Either the shepherd is foolish or the shepherd loves the lost sheep and will risk everything, including his own life, until he finds it.”

However, Marshall states that “it is obviously presupposed that the sheep are left in the care of a helper (cf. John 10:2).”

But Fitzmyer says that “it is really missing the point of the parable to ask whether a shepherd would actually have left the other sheep in the desert – i.e. would have left such dumb animals alone, unattended.”

Finally, Snodgrass warns, “Valid interpretations should not focus on the ninety-nine at all” since that is not the main thrust of the parable. And that caution applies to the last question below as well.

Is anyone so righteous that they don't need to repent?

“The more troublesome part of the discussion of repentance is the reference in Luke 15:7 to the ninety-nine righteous who do not need repentance. (Snodgrass)

Ellis lays out the three main ways of taking the word “righteous” in v. 7:

    1. “in the Old Testament sense (cf. 1:6)”

According to this understanding, it refers to those who are blameless concerning the commandments and ordinances laid down in the law.

    2. “in fellowship with God and, therefore, without need of an initial act of repentance”

As Snodgrass says, “'Righteous' does not mean sinless. It merely refers to those in good standing before God.” Thus, Seebass explains: “righteousness in the OT is not a matter of actions conforming to a given set of absolute standards [as in #1 above], but of behaviour which is in keeping with the two-way relationship between God and man.”

    3. “an ad hominem argument assuming the Pharisees' claim of righteousness”

“If by the ninety-nine are meant the Scribes and the Pharisees, then the conclusion is ironic – i.e. over ninety-nine allegedly upright persons.” (Fitzmyer) Thus, Jesus is sarcastically comparing the sinners with “you totally spotless people who, of course, have absolutely no need to repent of anything, do you?”

J.A. Martin says, “The ninety-nine righteous persons refer to the Pharisees who thought themselves righteous and therefore in no need to repent.” J.K. Brown agrees when he calls 15:7 a parody – “the delusion of those oblivious to their need.”

For a dissenting view: “Since theologically it is assumed that no such people exist and since the Gospels imply that Pharisees do need to repent, this statement is often taken as irony, exaggeration, or sarcasm. I do not think that this is the solution to the text.....Yet Luke 13:3 warns that all must repent or perish.” (Snodgrass)

    4. Fitzmyer adds yet another possibility, i.e. “But it may be a typically Lucan way of exaggerating God's joy at a repentant sinner. Cf. Ezek 18:33.”

Who is rejoicing?

The Greek only says that the rejoicing will be in heaven. Thus, Fitzmyer feels that it can be “among God's angels (as in v. 10) or on the part of God himself, if the phrase is meant as a substitute for the divine name.” He tends to opt for the latter understanding. Marshall agrees and says “'Joy in heaven' and 'before the angels of God' are both circumlocutions for saying that God Himself rejoices.”

Why aren't they rejoicing as much over the righteous ones?

The literal Greek at this point reads as follows: “I tell you that thus joy in heaven will be over one sinner repenting than over ninety-nine who have no need of repentance.” Note that the word “more” is missing, but most translations supply it rather than the alternative “instead of.” As Marshall says, “God is, after all, also pleased with the righteous (1:6).”

Luce: “It is not that the shepherd does not value the ninety-nine, but the recovery of the lost one excites in him a peculiar emotion.”

Seebass: “Lk. does not deny that there is joy in heaven over the righteous, but the greatest joy is over those who turn from sin. For the wonderful thing about Jesus is that by his word he makes new life possible for men who are so depraved and sinful as to suffer social and religious ostracism.”

As a point of contrast, Kistemaker notes, “The religious rulers of that and the following century spoke more about God's joy over the destruction of the unrighteous than over their salvation.” And Marshall quotes from one of those documents.

There is one final wrinkle in attempting to understand this passage that Snodgrass points out: “The early church most often understood the shepherd's going to find the sheep as a reference to the incarnation to recover lost humanity, with the ninety-nine understood as the angels.” Although this explanation is not taken seriously today, one must admit that it does eliminate the difficulty regarding the righteous who have no need for repentance as well as providing a very apt picture of Jesus' leaving his heavenly position in order to save lost humanity.