Luke 15 –

“1 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, ‘This man welcomes sinners and eats with them. 3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 ‘Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, “Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.” 7 I tell you that 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.'”

As I read this passage this morning, one element stood out to me.

“Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?”

Something that peeves me when listening to someone make an argument – whether in discussion, discourse, a sermon, or a lecture – is using a preliminary or intermediate statement they assume everyone agrees is fact and then continue building their case on top of that statement. If someone doesn’t agree with that fact, they will probably not agree with your resulting conclusion and will probably stop listening altogether.

(Or maybe that’s just me.)

In this passage, Jesus presents a story and makes a statement on which He builds the rest of the point.

Except maybe there’s an underlying current here I’d never noticed before.

He’s talking directly to “Pharisees and teachers of the law.” Men who probably didn’t know much about shepherding. And certainly wouldn’t have firsthand experience or memory from which to draw and understand Jesus’s point. Shepherding would have been a blue collar profession. Probably looked down upon. Probably not something these men would ever even pretend to understand.

Then Jesus makes a claim He continues past without further illumination or support – if the owner of 100 sheep was out in the “open country” with his flock and noticed one missing, wouldn’t he leave the group and go searching for the one that was lost?

Hold on.

Not that His audience would be able to relate anyway, but as I think about that, savvy, well-to-do men who (for some God-forsaken reason) happened to be actually out with their flock instead of sitting in their nice houses and offices having hired a shepherd to do their flock-tending probably wouldn’t immediately leave the group and go looking for the one. They would cut their losses. They would know that leaving their investment’s critical mass to go wandering around in the desert looking for a lost cause and putting not only themselves but their entire flock in substantial danger would of course not be the smart thing to do. They would cut their losses and leave the one to its fate.

So why did Jesus tell the story like this? Why did He seemingly make a foolhardy assumption, alienate His audience, make Himself look like a poor presenter, and miss out on a chance to deliver a more Pharisee-appropriate parable that might have actually resonated with them?

I don’t know. It seems He was intentionally leaving the rich powerful people in the proverbial dust a lot though, so I’m not surprised.

This is going to stick with me. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.

-LS