(Now all the tax-collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. And the
Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, ‘This fellow welcomes sinners and
eats with them.’ So he told them this parable:) ‘Which one of you, having a hundred
sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go
after the one that is lost until he finds it? When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders
and rejoices. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors,
saying to them, “Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.” Just so, I tell
you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine
righteous people who need no repentance.” (Luke 15:1-7.)

We have little cultural references at our disposal to understand the full significance of this parable. Most of us do not live in an agrarian society, we do not know much about sheep and shepherding customs, and we do not see the world through the cultural filters of honor-and-shame, patronage, clientage, and servanthood. To make matters worse, we are separated from the original audience of this parable by over 2,000 years of culture and economic, technological, academic, political, and religious globalization. We are as culturally distant from first century Palestine as the United States is geographically distant from the Holy Land. Let me then say a few words about how a first-century Palestinian would have understood this parable.

The parable of the Lost Sheep begins with a scandalous, provocative and, perhaps, even offensive statement about the Pharisees, the group to which the parable is addressed. Jesus states, “Which one of you, having a hundred sheep..?” (v. 4). This statement implies that the Pharisees are shepherds. This assertion alone would have caused the Pharisees to be offended. “Shepherds were generally despised and disparaged in NT times by the upper classes of society, especially in Pharisaic circles, and they were regarded with some apprehension also by the common peasants, who often competed with them for the scarce resources of available land.”¹ This strong and problematic beginning to the parable “can be understood as an indirect and yet very powerful attack on the Pharisaic attitudes toward proscribed professions.”² Even though the economy of entire towns depended on the work of these proscribed professions, the religious authorities and righteous Jews of the day have deep prejudices against them. In short, shepherds are considered unclean by rabbinic law and for this reason they are avoided by all but the lowest classes in society. This view may derive from the Old Testament and Jewish commentaries on the Old Testament, at least in part. For now, let us just say that by applying the title of shepherds to the Pharisees Jesus makes a “culturally and theologically conditioned decision of some significance.”³ 

That a shepherd would leave ninety-nine sheep behind in the wilderness to go after the one that is lost convinced me earlier in my life that I was the one the Good Shepherd wanted. I was more important than anyone else. He would be willing to leave dozens behind to fend for themselves to come and search for me. This spiritualized reading of this passage fails to see significant cultural elements in the parable. The first detail to notice is the sheer number of sheep. Sheep owners who had these many sheep would be considered wealthy and as such could probably afford to hire a shepherd to do the socially stigmatizing job. Most likely, the shepherd in this story is not the owner of the sheep, which is not to say that he did not have a stake in the business. It was customary in Palestine for families to join herds under the care of several hired shepherds. It is also entirely possible that this shepherd owned a few of the sheep, but certainly not all of them. In either case, Jesus makes it clear that the shepherd is responsible for the loss. We see this in the way the loss of the sheep is described. The text clearly says that the shepherd loses the sheep, it does not say that the sheep “got lost” or “wandered off.” He lost it!

Even though we must not assume negligence by the shepherd, losing a communal animal could ruin the reputation of a shepherd in an honor-and-shame based culture. Even if it is in the nature of sheep to wander off, the shepherd “clearly is responsible and hence liable for the disappearance of this particular animal and would have to make payment or restitution if it were hurt or he could not find it again. This would not be an easy thing to do for a relatively poor herdsman.”⁴ If he owns a few of these sheep, the shepherd may have to restore the communal sheep with one of his own. To avoid this, he must look for the sheep “until he finds it” (v. 4.) The wilderness is often a dangerous place, and the shepherd may meet with wild animals, dangerous cliffs, and thieves, but he knows he must find the lost sheep.

The Apocryphal gospel of Thomas explains why the shepherd leaves the ninety-nine in the dessert and searches for the one that “went astray.” The lost sheep was the “largest.” When the shepherd finds it, he exclaims, “I love thee more than the ninety-nine.”⁵ Thomas clearly associates the lost sheep with Israel, the beloved nation of God. In the gospel of Luke, however, there is no mention of the size of the animal and there is no association of the lost sheep with the nation. The lost sheep are the “tax collectors and sinners” of verse 1. Their “value” or “weight” in the community has no bearing on the decision of the shepherd to look for them.

The issue of the ninety-nine sheep left behind is seen by some as a deliberate rhetorical devise. “In other words, this apparent recklessness of the shepherd is meant to emphasize his love for the lost sheep. A love that risks losing ninety-nine to gain one.”⁶ There is a more plausible explanation: A herd this large would have required several hired shepherds to care for it. “I have never seen in Syria, Palestine or Mesopotamia a flock attended by a single person. Two, and even three shepherds are commonly employed. When one sheep is lost and the shepherd goes to seek it, the other shepherd takes the flock home.”⁷ By the time of the shepherd’s successful return, the entire community already knows about the incident and rejoices at the restoration of the property to the community, and the shepherd’s safe return. Obviously, an under-shepherd has already reported the story to the community. This interpretation makes more cultural sense than the idea of abandoning some to rescue one. This will be significant for the theology of the parable as we will see. 

In summary for this week, we might say with Bailey that culturally speaking the shepherd most likely does not own the sheep or only owns a few of them. It is not unusual for a shepherd to leave an under-shepherd to take the herd home, so he may look for a stray sheep. Losing a communal sheep can cause severe financial hardships to a poor shepherd, who will be expected to make restitution for the lost sheep. In addition, the loss of the sheep will result in great shame to the shepherd and his family. To vindicate his and his family’s honor, and to avoid any financial hardship, the shepherd must seek the sheep until found. The avoidance of loss of property, loss of honor, and loss of life (the shepherd’s) results in personal and communal rejoicing. This joy of restoration will have deep theological implications as we will see in next week’s blog.

May the Good Shepherd continue to bless you,

Fr. Roman+

¹ Wendland, Ernst R. “Finding Some Lost Aspects of Meaning in Christ’s Parables of the Lost-and Found (Luke 15).” Trinity Journal 17, (1996): 37.
² Baily, Kenneth. Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Combined Edition. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 143
³ Ibid
⁴ Wendland, Ibid, 38
⁵ Gospel of Thomas, Logion 107, as quoted in Petersen, William L. “The Parable of the Lost Sheep in the Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics,” Novum Testamentum, XXIII, 2 (1981): 129.
⁶ Palmer, E. F. Laughter in Heaven: And Other Surprising Truths in the Parables of Jesus. (Waco: Word,1987), 25.
⁷ Levison, as quoted by Bailey, Ibid, 149