Over-interpreting Jesus

Introduction

I want to look at two passages that I believe are over-interpreted by many evangelicals: the parable of the lost sheep (Mt. 18:12-14//Lk. 15:3-7) and the saying on not calling the righteous but sinners (Mk. 2:15-17//Mt. 9:9-13//Lk. 5:29-32). I claim that evangelicals over-interpret these passages when they claim that Jesus denies that there are righteous ones and that Jesus is really only using “righteous” as code for “self-righteous”.

The Passages

Lost/Stray Sheep
The parable is basically the same in both Matthew and Luke. A man has 100 sheep and 1 is lost or strays. Would not the man leave the 99 and search for the 1 and then rejoice when it is found? The interlocutor is supposed to say “yes” and this affirmative proves the lesson Jesus intends to make. But what lesson is that? The contexts in both Matthew and Luke clarify the situation.

Luke: Jesus explains the parable by noting that there is more joy in heaven over 1 sinner who repents then over the 99 righteous who have no need to repent. Since the audience is the Scribes and Pharisees who are grumbling about Jesus welcoming and eating with sinners, the lesson is that the Pharisees and the Scribes ought to be happy that the “sinners” are receiving divine grace in the same way that the 1 sheep received grace over the 99. However, the standard evangelical gloss is to claim that since the Pharisees and Scribes represent the 99 sheep and since they are really unrighteous hypocrites, this shows that Jesus’ use of the word “righteous” is only code for “self-righteous”.

My problem with the standard evangelical gloss is that granting that Jesus wanted to show the Pharisees and Scribes that they ought to have a loving heart for those who are lost (tax-collectors and sinners), and even granting that he wanted them to identify with the 99 who are righteous (even though Jesus thinks they are unrighteous), this does not mean that Jesus in the parable thought the sheep represented the unrighteous or that the righteousness that is ascribed to the 99 is impossible. If Jesus thought those represented by the 99 in the parable were just as lost as those represented by the lost sheep, then the grace shown the lost sheep would not stand out and this would under-mind the parable to some extent.

Luke certainly thinks that persons can be described as righteous. In the beginning of gospel, Luke describes Zechariah, Elizabeth and Simeon as “righteous”. Jesus also describes person as righteous (14: 14, see also 16:10). Also, the context in the gospel of Matthew seems to rule out the interpretation of the 99 as truly unrighteous.

Matthew: the context in Matthew does not involve the Pharisees or Scribes which gives the lesson of the parable a different twist but the same basic flavor. Jesus’ point in Matthew seems to be directed against possible haughty church leaders whom Jesus does not want to mimic the Pharisees. However, in this case, there is not the same tug to claim that the church leaders, or whomever, are the 99 who claim to have not wandered but truly have. Sure, they may be haughty and that should be guarded against but in the parable, the sheep really haven’t wandered. Also, Jesus calls persons righteous: 13:16, 23:35, 25:46—said even after 25:37 where “righteous” may be code for “self-righteous”.

Call the Sinners, not the Righteous

All the synoptic gospels contain this saying with minor variations (Luke records “to repentance”). The context also involves the Pharisees and Scribes and so when Jesus says I have come not to call the righteous but sinners, it is again assumed on the standard evangelical reading that the Pharisees and Scribes are the “healthy” or “strong” who claim to not be ill but truly are.

The same basic retort to this gloss can be made as with the lost sheep. There is no reason to assume in the parable that all are really ill. The point seems to be that like the lost sheep those who receive more divine assistance need it the most. The saying’s point I think would be dulled if all were ill for then Jesus would have to justify why he is associating more with the sinners and tax collectors.

Prodigal Son

I think the same logic applies to the prodigal son. When the older son is mad and resentful at the treatment of the younger son, and even perhaps does not have the relationship with his father that he ought to have, and even if the Pharisees and Scribes are meant to relate to the older son, this does not mean that the older son is no better off the younger son. Again, I think the point is that the older son ought to be more loving toward his younger son and perhaps even his father, but he still is the one who was always with his father. The point of the grace shown the younger son would be dulled if the older son was in the same boat as the younger son.

Conclusion
The passages in question simply do not justify the claim that Jesus did not think that anyone could be attributed righteousness.