How does the contrast appear between the scowling scribes and Pharisees and the Christ they condemned, misinterpreting his mission, and putting upon his words the worst possible construction? The Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost. A lost sheep never finds its way back to the fold of itself. If it is not sought for and saved by the watchful shepherd, it wanders until it perishes. What a representation of the Saviour is this! Unless Jesus, the Good Shepherd, had come to seek and to save the wandering, we should have perished. The Pharisees had taught that none but the Jewish nation would be saved, and they treated all other nationalities with contempt. But Jesus attracted the attention of those that the Pharisees despised, and he treated them with consideration and courtesy. Because he did this, the Pharisees sought to bring a charge against him, and destroy his influence.

Hvordan viser modsætningen sig mellem de vrede skriftkloge og farisæere og så Kristus som de fordømte, fejlfortolkede hans mission, og brugte de værst tænkelige ord om? Menneskesønnen kom for at opsøge og frelse det fortabte. Et forvildet får finder aldrig på egen hånd vejen tilbage til folden. Hvis det ikke opsøges og reddes af den årvågne hyrde, strejfer det om, indtil det forgår. Hvilket billede på Frelseren i denne beretning! Hvis ikke Jesus, Den gode Hyrde, var kommet for at opsøge og redde de vildfarne, var vi omkommet. Farisæerne lærte, at ingen andre end jøderne ville blive frelst, og derfor behandlede de alle andre nationale grupper med foragt. Men Jesus fangede opmærksomheden hos dem, som farisæerne ringeagtede. Han behandlede dem hensynsfuldt og høfligt. Fordi han gjorde dette, forsøgte farisæerne at føre anklage imod ham, og ødelægge hans indflydelse.