Thoughts and Summary: The Parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:1-7)

Thoughts and Summary: The Parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:1-7)

Luke’s Gospel

A big and apparent theme throughout the Gospel of Luke is the emphasis of Jesus’ care for the poor and marginalized. This is illustrated by the author in a number of ways but is strongly connected with Jesus mission in the Nazareth Manifesto where he reads from the Scroll of Isaiah and declares:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
    because he has anointed me
        to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
    and recovery of sight to the blind,
        to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour. Luke 4:14-19

In Luke’s Gospel this text functions has a programmatic function- It anticipates later themes. It’s placed near the start of the gospel because the author intends to develop the theme. Further, the author is intentionally connecting Jesus’ missional purpose and ministry to caring for the lost and poor. Brendan Byrne notes that the Nazarene Manifesto “establishes once and for all that the heart of Jesus’ message is the good news of acceptance, the invitation to all to come and be drawn into the hospitality of God.”

With this in mind we take a look at ‘The Parable of the Lost Sheep’.

Some Context

Matthew too, tells the story of the lost sheep in his gospel- but in a somewhat different context. Matthew’s telling of the story appears in the context of pastoral concerns, ecclesiology and church discipline- with the implication that leaders of church communities need to care for all their flock. But the author of Luke makes an effort to frame the story as reflecting Christ’s love for the marginalized. It seems he does this in two ways.

First, in the immediate context, Luke introduces the story with the Pharisees criticizing Jesus for his association with the marginalized (the sinners and tax collectors.) It is in this context Jesus tells the story. Secondly, this story is followed by two other stories concerned Jesus’ care for the lost and marginalized in the story of the lost coin and the lost son.

Why do Matthew and Luke have differences in how they report the story being told? The usual sorts of options are available when dealing with source criticism. Maybe Jesus told the story more than once and in different contexts so Matthew and Luke tell recalling two different occurrences (it shouldn't be surprising to us that Jesus might have told a parable more than once over the time of his ministry.) Perhaps the authors of Matthew and Luke have heard parable as part of the oral tradition and adapt it to their retelling of the Gospel. Perhaps Matthew and Luke simply edited it from the hypothetical ‘Q’ source. Many options stand.

The Story

The story is relatively simple but takes a sneaky subject change from the audience to the character of the parable- “Suppose one of you have a hundred sheep...Does he not leave the ninety-nine...” Jesus is getting into the heads of the listeners.  Verse 1-3 sets the scene with the tax collectors and sinners gathering around Jesus and the Pharisees muttering. Verse 4-6 tells the story. A man leaves his 99 sheep to seek and bring home one that is lost. When he finds it joyfully carries it home and calls his friends and neighbours to rejoice with him in celebration of the finding of the lost sheep. Verse 7 then offers and interpretation of the verse. “In the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent”.

This story, as do many in Luke, reverses the expectations of the reader and audience and places high value in what others (such as the Pharisees) would place little value in.  Jesus is presented as one who not only cares for the lowly, but also goes on a journey to actively seek them out and restore them, all the while rejoicing joyfully. Here Jesus is extending the table beyond what his listeners were expecting- he is showing that he is will to go to great lengths for the lost and frowned upon. Whatever you think Jesus’ limits are, where ever you think Jesus would be going too far or too low- he will always exceed it.

On an entirely pragmatic level this story almost doesn't make sense. 99 in a higher number than 1. Surely it would be better to play it safe and look after the 99 and just let the one go. But Jesus can’t. There is something about the lost and helpless that magnetizes Jesus to them. He has a disposition towards them. He can’t help it. It even goes against reason. Obviously this is a reflection of God’s heart also. It is the heavenly council that rejoices in the sinner finding salvation. Whoever the “righteous” who “do not need to repent” are, they should join with Jesus in the rejoicing of the lost being found ( I see parallels with the story of the prodigal son).

Additional points

·         The parable seems to focus on the saving actions of the Shepherd saving the sheep, while the explanation focus’ on the idea of repentance. Do these two themes match up? Joel Green argues that Jesus simply assumes that the lost sheep are restored by both the efforts of the Shepherd and the repentance of the sinners. A conclusion that seems fair.

·         A lot of effort has been put into understanding the situation of the flock of sheep. Did the Shepherd own all the sheep? Part ownership (with the friends and neighbours) is not out of the question in the Middle Eastern context. Were the sheep safe? The story tells us they were in the “open country” (a better translation than wilderness) which could be considered a safe place for sheep and perhaps the sheep had someone else looking after them. Even further, who are the sheep meant to represent? Perhaps the Pharisees? That option seems unlikely because of the final comment that they “do not need to repent”. Perhaps genuinely righteous people? But then again, this story is being told to the Pharisees.

·         Where the reader hears that the tax collectors and sinners “were gathering’ to Jesus the Greek can be treated a few ways. It could mean they were gathering at the time of the story or it could mean that they had been gathering throughout Jesus’ ministry.

Thoughts and Summary: The Parable of the Two Builders (Luke 6:46-49)

Thoughts and Summary:  The Parable of the Two Builders (Luke 6:46-49)

By definition, one cannot call Jesus “Lord” without also obeying him. Acknowledging his authority therefore means ordering life according to his aims and commitments- John Carroll

I can think of no story of Jesus that has been more robbed by clichéd, christianese and Sunday-school interpretations than ‘The Parable of the Two Builders’. You probably already know the story. One builds his house on sand, the other on rock, a storm comes along and the house made on sand falls and is ruined. It’s the Christian version of the three little pigs. But a lot is lost on this text (especially to adults) because of the simplistic and basic teaching of “Jesus is the rock on which we should build.” It’s not a bad interpretation; it’s not extremely thorough or nuanced either. Hopefully some of the following insights will bring it home a bit more. I should say, I am looking at Luke’s version that doesn’t talk of 'sand vs rock' but instead 'foundation vs no foundation', but the same principles apply, as will become clear.

It’s not long so it’s worth a read through.

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you? ⁴⁷ I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, hears my words, and acts on them. ⁴⁸ That one is like a man building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the river burst against that house but could not shake it, because it had been well built. ⁴⁹ But the one who hears and does not act is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the river burst against it, immediately it fell, and great was the ruin of that house.”

Literary context

We should notice where this passage takes place. In Matthews Gospel it takes place just after the ‘Sermon on the Mount’. And in the passage I am looking at, right after the ‘Sermon on the Plain.’ So what has Jesus just taught, that he is so eager to have his followers practice?

Things like:

Love your enemies

Do not judge, Forgive

Be humble, not self righteous

Serve God not money

Do to others as you would have done to you

So Jesus teaches these things and pretty much says “don’t just hear, but practice these things I have taught.” These are the teachings Jesus has in mind.

Rock Bottom

In the Middle East, it is common practice to dig down till you hit bedrock to build the foundations of your house on. This way, when a flood or storm inevitably comes your house will remain stable. Alternatively, you could not dig down and instead build upon the ground (soil/sand). Why would you not dig down? Because in Israel they only build in the summer (it’s hot). Also without modern building tools and vehicles, building takes a long time. So really the decision is between a long hard summer working on a stable house on a sure foundation of rock or a less hard summer with the opposite outcome. The second man doesn’t do the job out of both laziness (he doesn’t want to dig through the deep soil to the rock) and apathy (he knows the risks in his actions, but chooses to ignore them).

Anyway, winter comes, river breaks, house fails, contestant #2 loses. Jesus uses this parable to call for a response to his words. It’s not enough to just hear Jesus’ words, but they also need to be practiced. The Second man in the parable was presented by Jesus as someone who heard but didn’t practice. The consequences were disastrous. The one who has taken the time to build his house on a foundation is the one who has listened to Jesus’ teachings and follows the path of wisdom, while the other hears but ignores thus follows the path of folly (proverbial wisdom). One life brings fruit, the other destruction.

This parable is about me (and probably you).

The man who built his house on rock is presented as the one who responded to Jesus and acted in accordance with his teachings. It would be easy to say “well, obviously the one who is hearing and not doing is not a Christian.” But not so. At the start of the parable, Jesus comments “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do what I tell you?” This parable is aimed at people who have heard Jesus’ message, may have even responded to it -exclaiming “Lord, Lord” yet don’t practice the things Jesus commands. Joel Green notes on this that “In this instance, ‘Lord’ is a term of great respect; those who use it would thus be designating Jesus as their patron, the one to whom they owe allegiance.” Well maybe then this is aimed at the Pharisees? Probably not though. At this stage, as Joel Green notes, Lk 6:1-11 makes it highly unlikely that the Pharisees would be addressing Jesus as Lord.

 I can’t help but feel as though this is aimed at none other than me. Another, hypocritical, judgemental, dogmatic Christian who says “yes!” but in my actions I say “Sort of/no!” The ECB notes “Jesus’ emphasis on hearing and also acting on his teaching reinforces the observation that this ethic is not passive: one must do it.”

Additional Points

·         The storm hits both houses. Christians do not have divine protection from trails in life, rather are called to trust in something bigger- a stronger foundation, and to persevere.

·         Following on this what is the storm even meant to represent? Trails in life or perhaps judgement (eschatological)?