The National tribune., 1889-04-11
SUNDAY MEDITATION.


SUBJECT: THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF
GoD's CoMMANDMENTs.
l. Data.
Besides the account given by ST. Mark is that
by st. Matthew. 90 :3l-40.) One gets great
additional help if he first reads critically the
synoptic reports Both st. Matthew and ST.
Mark wrote. probably, at Rome in about the
year A. d. SO. 1t is quite supposable that ST.
Mark acted as aulanuensis for st. Peter. Hence
we have reason to believe that the two writers
of our lesson were actually present at the scene
which they report The interval between the
discussion and its record was 81 years.
2 Time.
The date of the lesson is Wednesday, March,
49, A. d. %, or 1860 years ago. in the lth year
of the life of Christ and the fourth of his min
istry. 1t was two days prior to the crucifxion.
The Commandments to which reference was
made were written in the year 2513 A. NJ, or
1851 B. c., or ], 4S0 years before they were thus
discussed by Christ and the scribe.
s. Place.
We find ourselves in Asia, Palestine, Judea,
jerusalem on Mt. Moriah, in the Temple, and
in the Court of the Women. (St. Matt, 81 49,
That court was square, 135 cubit5 or 2464 feet,
each way internally. 1t was entered on the
east by the Gate Beautiful. The western gate
was named Nicanor. 1t was named the Court
of the Women because women were admitted
held many conversations there. The Com
mandments were issued at Mt Sinai, or about
250 miles southwest of Jerusalem.
4. Form of Address.
The lesson is quite after the Socratic order,
being by question and answer, corresponding
with the catechetic style. This method of in-
struction is interesting, causes both sides to
take part, is truly educational in the sense of
drawing out the ideas of persons. 1t was quite
70 nf ,ipcr hryO Sayri =
is seen in operation in well-conducted Bible
or Sunday school.
5. Parties to the Dialog.
We have q sort of debate, the disputants be-
ing Christ and representative scribe. st.
Matthew calls the scribe a lawyer. 20: 49,
The scribes were largely the spokesmen of the
Jews. They were thoroughly familiar with
the Bible (Old Testament). They were law
yers in the fact they studied aud taught the
Mosaic laws and customs. 1t was very fit one of
said class lead off in discussion on question
relating TO the law. We know nothing of this
particular scribe further than we learn in this
lesson. 1t is plain he did not act as an indi-
vidual alone, but in the interest of class, to
wit, the Pharisees.
6. Hearers
| We cannot suppose Christ and the scribe
alone. st. Matt (22: 81 shows the Pharisees had
! heard ofthe logical and theological discontinue
ofthe Sadducees. Ifsuch success of Christ were
| allowed he would become famous aud influen-
| tial. (See st. Matt, p :33.) So they rallied.
| All could not speak. Hence they elected
representative, scribe or lawyer, as spokes-
man. But we can easily imagine the crowd of
| Pharisees followed the scribe to see what effect
| his question would have on Christ. 1t may be
| that some of the Sadducees still fingered near
and heard the discussion. st. Mark, 12 %, i'm
plies their presence. ChristS Disciples were
also listeners. (See ST. Matt, 81: 20; 23:1.
Z. Subject Of Discussion.
| The matter under debate was the relative i'm
| portance of tho Commandments. The refer
ence is not simply to the Decalog, but to the
| entire system of the Mosaic law. In the mar
rover aud commoner sense only the 10 Com
mandments would be understood, but in those
| days the word Commandments embraced the
whole field of law, ceremonial, moral and even
| traditional.
8. Occasion.
| The Pharisees were set against Christ, and
were jealous at any triumph which he might
| achieve. The Sadducees were also his opponents.
Though Pharisees and Sadducees hated each
| other, they yet could join in defeating COM
| mon antagonist The PhariseeS Yonld have
rejoiced If Christ had been worsted by the
Sadducees. Attempt had been made in very
| insidious manner by the Sadducees to involve
| him in theologic dispute. As q body they did
not believe in the doctrine of the resurrection.
| {St Matt, %: 23.) Going TO Christ and speak
ing as though accepting the fact of the resurrec-
ton of the dead, they put to him sort of theO-
| logic conundrum. He so ingeniously handles
| the matter as TO give his opponents no advan-
| tage (See st. Matt, % % 80; ST. Luke, 20:
| 49, There was so much antagonism between
the Pharisees and Sadducees that news of any
| thing of harm to the one spread TO the other
| The Pharisees heard of the dalectic routing of
| the SadduceeS, and came at once to the rescue.
| They held a conference in which, while they
rejoiced over the defeat of the Sadducees, they
| decided that something must be done to put
| down Christ.
8. Object of the Question.
| Was it the purpose of the scribe or lawyer to
get Christ into trouble? He was one ofthe Phari-
sees, a body who opposed Jesus all through his
ministry. (See, g., st. Matt, 10: 8; % 10, 10;
| st. Mark, 1872; 1918; st. Luke. 20: 90
! We may suppose he sympathized with his party,
and have reason to concur with most biblical
critics in the belief the object of the scribe
vicious. Among many others the following so
| think: Chrysostom, rheophylact, Bloomfield,
| Clarke (Adam), Barnes, Lange, James Strong,
| s. T. d. The question was one that greatly di-
! yided the Pharsees Hence however Christ
might answer, it was likely he would become a
| partisan, those siding with him whose opinion
| conceded with his and the rest Directing to
| him. The PhariSees were at such enmity with
Christ they would rejoice to get from him any
sentiment which they could use to damage him.
10. The Dialog.
The interlocutors are Christ and certain
| scribe representing the PhaIisees. The scribe
| originated the discussion. 1t would seem the
| Pharisees held a conference Immediately on
hearing that the Sadducees had been put to
| silence. est. Matt, %: 81 1t is evident the
scribe who was spokesman was present at the
debate between Christ and the SadduceeS (St.
Mark, 2:28.) Perhaps he stepped one side,
drawing near him several Pharisees and hit
| ting on another method of attack. He may
have been the one through whom the Phari-
sees of st. Matt, %: "a, heard of the defeat of
the Sadducees.
The question put to Christ by the scribe was
this: Master, which is the great Command
ment in the law?" (St. Matthew's account,
verse SO. Compare st. Mark, 12:2S.) We are
not to understand that the lawyer referred SO
much to the Deealog exclusively. The Com
mandments of the Jews were very numerous.
This fact increased the difficulty of determine
| ing which one outranked the rest. The Tai
mud said there are 2lS positive commands and
365 negative ones-total 613. The 800 prohibit
tions were said to correspond to the number of
days in each year, and the 2i5 commands agree
| with the number of the parts of the human
body. A good many said the duty of circum-