called in verse 34, "a doctor of the law", and was undoubtedly a scribe. His action must

not, however, be misinterpreted as though he himself was sympathetic with the Apostles'

cause, for it was not so very much later that one of his pupils, Saul of Tarsus, came out

from under his teaching, "breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of

the Lord" (Acts 9: 1).

It has so far been assumed that the scribes were identical with the lawyers and doctors,

or teachers of the Law mentioned in the N.T. This assumption must now be qualified.

The German theologian, H. A. Meyer, says:

This would appear to be in accord with Scripture. A scribe was sometimes designated

from his most important function, that of teaching the Law. The word "scribe" is

therefore an inclusive word, embracing lawyers, doctors and teacher of the Law. In

confirmation of this, compare Luke 5: 17 with Luke 5: 21, and compare the whole

context with Matt. 9: 2-8.

Throughout the whole life of the Saviour, the scribes watched Him like hawks, ready

to pounce on any action of His contrary to their teaching. They accused the Lord's

disciples of transgressing the tradition of the elders (Matt. 15: 2). They judged that when

He cast out demons He did it by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons (Mark 3: 22).

When the Lord said to the sick of the palsy, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee", they

charged Him in their hearts with blasphemy (Mark 2: 1-12). Together with the Pharisees,

they brought to Him a woman taken in adultery, "tempting Him, that they might have to

accuse Him" (John 8: 3, 6). In council with the chief priests "they sought how they

might destroy Him; for they feared Him, because all the people was astonished at His

doctrine" (Mark 11: 18), and when He stood before Herod, they joined with those that

accused Him (Luke 23: 10).

Their familiarity with the Old Testament should have caused them to realize that this

Jesus was He that was to come, the Messiah, the Hope of Israel. But religion, as is often

the case, blinded their eyes to the truth. They strained out gnats and swallowed camels

(Matt. 23: 24). For all their outward sanctity, within they were full of hypocrisy and

iniquity (Matt. 23: 27, 28). (The whole of Matt. 23: should be read for a complete

picture of these religious leaders, "blind leaders of the blind".)

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"

A table has already been presented showing the basic differences between this party

and the Pharisees. Whereas the Pharisees were religious, the Sadducees were more

political. The Pharisees were ritualistic; the Sadducees rationalistic. The Pharisees were

associated with the common people and exerted a religious influence over them, whereas

the Sadducees, on the other hand, were associated with the nobility, and their influence