Today's Gospel presents the famous story of a shepherd who has one hundred sheep. One of the sheep goes astray. So he leaves the remaining ninety-nine in the desert and goes off to seek for the lost sheep. It's not surprising that in nearly two thousand years there have been many different interpretations of this parable. In patristic writers, a common interpretation is that the shepherd is God the Son, who leaves heaven, becomes incarnate, and seeks out the lost sheep; that is, the whole human race, lifts it up on his shoulders in his resurrection, and carries it back to heaven in his own glorified humanity. (Here's one example from Ambrose; check out Origen and Hilary sometime, I'd give references but I'm busy)
We live in a less metaphysical age and don't often hear that sort of explanation from the pulpit. In our day, you are likely to hear what we might call a more psychological interpretation, aimed at helping us understand the depth of God's love. In this interpretation, God is a crazy lover. He does things that don't make a lick of sense. This understanding hinges on the idea that any shepherd who lost just one sheep out of a hundred would be nuts to leave the other ninety-nine alone while he goes off to search for one lost sheep (who is probably stupid to boot). It would be crazy to do that because the shepherd risks losing his entire flock. Better to lose one sheep and still have ninety-nine than to lose all one hundred of them and be left with nothing. So, in this view, when Jesus asks the Pharisees and scribes, "What man among you having a hundred sheep and losing one of them would not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after the lost one until he finds it?" the logical answer is, "No one."
I think that interpretation is wrong, and here are two reasons why.
First reason: read the entire Gospel passage. Jesus follows up his question "What man among you" with another example: "Or what woman having ten coins and losing one would not light a lamp and sweep the house, searching carefully until she finds it?" The logical answer to this question is, "every one." The woman's actions are perfectly rational. She has a small house, she knows she lost one coin, it has to be here someplace, she works methodically from one end of the house to another until she finds the coin. We have all done something similar after misplacing our car keys or wallet. Is Jesus really saying that the shepherd is crazy and the woman is sane? I don't think so. Does he contrast the shepherd and the woman, or present them as parallel cases? I think he presents them as parallel cases.
Both the shepherd and the woman have the same problem: incompleteness. I had something. Now I have less. I had ten coins, now I have only nine, my collection of coins is incomplete. I had a hundred sheep, now I have only ninety-nine, my flock is incomplete. I will not rest until my original count of sheep or coins is complete. When what had been lost is restored, there will be great rejoicing, and everyone will be invited to share in my joy.
Second reason: what prompted the parable? The objection of the Pharisees and scribes, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them." In Jesus' view, the Pharisees and scribes are the ninety-nine sheep. They are in no danger if the shepherd leaves them alone for a bit while he spends time with the lost sheep -- the tax collectors and sinners-- because they are obeying God's Law. The lost sheep needs more attention.
God is not crazy. As a Mexican woman once told me, "Dios es una persona bien ordenada." We are crazy when we stray from God's path of righteousness. We are equally crazy when we fail to understand that God's flock is not complete while there are still children of Adam who do not hear the voice of the Shepherd calling them to eternal life.
