IN the last chapter we pointed out that different aspects of Truth are frequently emphasized in the Scriptures by placing two incidents in juxtaposition in order to give point to various differences between them. We gave several illustrations from the Old Testament of the law of comparison and contrast: let us now show that the same principle holds good in the New Testament. Consider, first, the striking antitheses between what is recorded in Luke 18:35-42, and 19:1-9. That which is narrated in the former occurred as Christ approached Jericho (the city of the curse—Joshua 6:26), whereas the latter took p lace after He had passed through it. The subject of the first was a blind beggar, that of the second was "chief of the publicans." Bartimaeus occupied a lowly place, for he "sat by the way side"; Zacchaeus assumed an elevated position, for he "climbed up into a sycamore tree." The one was intent on seeking alms from the passers-by; the other was determined to "see Him"—Christ. Bartimaeus took the initiative and cried "Son of David, have mercy on me"; Christ took the initiative with Zacchaeus, bidding him "come down." The former supplicated for his sight; of the latter Christ made a peremptory request: "today I must abide at thy house." The multitude rebuked Bartimaeus for crying to Christ; all "murmured" at Christ for going to be the guest of Zacchaeus.

There is a striking series of contrasts between what is found in the opening verses of John 3 and John 4. What is recorded in the former occurred in Jerusalem: in the latter the scene is laid in Samaria. In the one we have "a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus"; in the other, an unnamed woman. He was a person of distinction, a "master of Israel"; she was of the lower classes, for she came to the well "to draw water." He was a favored Jew, she a despised Samaritan—a semi-heathen. Nicodemus was a man of high reputation, a member of the Sanhedrin; the one with whom Christ dealt in John 4 was a woman of dissolute habits. Nicodemus came to Jesus; Christ waited for the woman at the well, and she had no thought of meeting her Saviour. The former incident took place "by night"; the latter at midday. To the self-righteous Pharisee Christ said, "Ye must be born again"; to the sinner of the Gentiles He told of "the gift of God." Nothing is said of how the former interview ended—apparently Nicodemus was, at that time, unconvinced; the latter went forth and bore testimony unto Christ.

By comparing together what is recorded in the earliest parts of John 12 and 13 some interesting and instructive contrasts are revealed. In the former we read that "they made Him a supper"; in the latter, there is a supper which He appointed. There He is seated at the table; here He arose from it. There He is honored; here He performs the office of a menial. In the one we behold Mary at the feet of the Saviour; in the other we see the Son of God stooping to attend to the feet of His disciples. The feet speak of the walk. Christ’s feet were anointed with costly ointment; those of the apostles were washed with water. As Christ passed through this world He contracted no pollution: he left it as He entered—"holy, harmless, undefiled" (Heb. 7:26). That His feet were anointed with the fragrant spikenard tells us of the sweet savor which ever ascended from Him to the Father, perfectly glorifying Him in every step of His path. In sharp contrast with His, the walk of the disciples was defiled, and the grime of the way needed to be removed if they were to have "part" or communion with Him (13:8). His feet were anointed before theirs were washed, for in all things He must have the "preeminence" (Col. 1:18). In connection with the former Judas complained; in the latter, Peter demurred. Interpretatively the one had Christ’s burial in view (12:7); the other adumbrated an important part of His present ministry on high (13:1).

Many illustrations of this principle are found in connection with words and expressions that are used only twice in the Scriptures, and startling are the contrasts between them. Apopnigo occurs only in Luke 8:7, 33:the one having reference to the seed being choked by thorns; the other where the demon possessed swine were choked in the sea. In Luke 2:1-5, apographe is employed in connection with the Firstborn Himself being enrolled on earth, whereas in Hebrews 12:23, it refers to the Church of the Firstborn enrolled in heaven. Apokueo is used in James 1:15, 23: of lust bringing forth sin, and of the Father begetting us with the Word of Truth. Apolausi.s is applied to the things which God has given us to enjoy lawfully (1 Tim. 6:17), and to the refusal of Moses to enjoy the unlawful pleasures of sin (Heb. 11:25). Anthrakia is found only in John 18:18, where Peter joined Christ’s enemies before "a fire of coals," and in 21:9, where the disciples fed before one in the presence of Christ. Choramakros is the "far country" into which the prodigal took his journey (Luke 15:13), and a very different one to which Christ went at His ascension (Luke 19:12). Panoplia is used of the enemy’s "armor" (Luke 11:22), and of the armor Christ has provided for the saints (Eph. 6:11, 13).

There are two references to "the king’s dale": in the one Melchizedek brought forth that which symbolized Christ (Gen. 14:17, 18); in the other, Absalom erected a monument to himself (2 Sam. 18:18). What a marked (and probably designed) contrast there is between the expressions "there fell of the people that day about three thousand men" (Ex. 32:28), and "the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:41)—the only occasions where "about three thousand" is used in Scripture. Similar too is this example: "there were with him [David] about four hundred men" (1 Sam. 22:2), and there "rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves" (Acts 5:36). In 1 Samuel 28:24), we read of the "fat calf" of the witch of Endor; in Luke 15:23, we are told of "the fatted calf’ which was killed for the prodigal son! Katischuo occurs only in "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"—the Church (Matthew 16:18), and "the voice of them and of the chief priests prevailed" (Luke 23:23) with Pilate against Christ, to consent to His crucifixion.

How much we miss through failing to heed carefully that word, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:13). If we spent more time in prayerfully meditating on the Scriptures, we should oftener have occasion to say with David, "I rejoice at Thy word, as one that findeth great spoil" (Ps. 119:162). It is not to the hurried nor to the cursory reader that its treasures are revealed. What a startling and solemn contrast there is between Christ was "numbered with the transgressors" (Mark 15:28), and Judas was "numbered with" the apostles (Acts 1:17). Kataluma is used only in Luke 2:7, where it is rendered "there was no room for them in the inn"; and in Luke 22:11, where it is translated "guestchamber"—where the Saviour partook of the passover with His disciples. The woman of Thyatira in Acts 16:14, had her heart opened by the Lord so that she might "take unto her" (which is the meaning of the Greek word rendered "attend") the message of God’s servant; but the woman of Thyatira in Revelation 2:20, opened her mouth for the purpose of seducing God’s servants! Only twice do we read of the Lord Jesus being kissed, and what a contrast: the woman’s kiss of devotion (Luke 7:38), Judas’ kiss of betrayal (Matthew 26:40)!

In connection with the interpreting of Scripture the value of this principle of comparing two things or passages and of observing their variations may be still more definitely seen by placing side by side our Lord’s parable of the wedding feast of Matthew 22:1-10, and the parable of the great supper of Luke 14:16-24. The commentators have carelessly assumed that they teach the same thing, but a close examination of them will show that, though they have a number of things in common, they present quite different aspects of Truth: illustrating, respectively, the external, general and powerless call of the Gospel and the internal, particular and effectual call of God. In the former it is "servants" (in the plural number) who are engaged (vv. 3, 4, 6, 8, 10); whereas in the latter it is "that servant" (v. 21), "his servant" (v. 21), "the servant" (vv. 22, 23). It is to be noted that their commissions are not the same: the servants are instructed to "call them that were bidden to the wedding" (v. 3), to "tell them" (v. 4), and to "bid to the marriage" (v. 9), and nothing more; whereas the servant was not only to "say to them that were bidden, Come" (v. 17), but also to "bring in" (v. 21), and to "compel them to come in" (v. 23).

When those distinctions are dully weighed, it should be quite evident that, whereas in Matthew 22 the "servants" are the ministers of God sent forth to preach the Gospel to every creature, "the servant" of Luke 14 is none other than the Holy Spirit, who by His invincible power and effectual operations quickens God’s elect into newness of life He alone is able to overcome their natural disrelish for and opposition to Divine things, as He alone is competent to "bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind." Nor could anyone less truly say of his efforts, "Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded" (Luke 14:22). As Christ was the "servant" of the God head (Matthew 12:18-20) during the days of His flesh, so the blessed Spirit is the "servant" of Christ during this era (John 16:14; Acts 2:33). This interpretation is further confirmed by the fact that the servants were "entreated spitefully" and even "slain" (Matthew 22:6). Moreover, we read of them, "So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all [into the local churches] as many as they found, both had and good" (Matthew 22:10), for they were unable to read hearts; but no such statement is made of the Servant, who "brings" (to heaven) those with whom He deals.

Ere leaving this division of our subject, one other example of its importance and value. By making use of the law of contrast we are able decisively to determine the controversy which Socinians have raised upon that momentous verse, For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we [which were destitute of acceptable obedience] might be made the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21). That is one of the profoundest and most comprehensive statements to be found in the Scriptures concerning the atonement, containing as it does a brief epitome of the whole plan of salvation. Enemies of the Gospel insist that the "made sin" ought to be translated "made a sin-offering," but such is entirely inadmissible, for in that case the antithesis would require us to render "that we might be made a righteous-offering of God in Him"—a manifest absurdity. The contrast which is here drawn fixes the exact meaning of the terms used. Believers are legally constituted righteous in Christ before God, and therefore the contrast demands that Christ was legally constituted sin—guilty in the eyes of God’s Law. The grand truth affirmed in this verse is the exchange of places with the counter imputations thereof: our sins were reckoned to the account of our Surety, rendering Him judicially guilty; His obedience is reckoned to our account, rendering us judicially righteous before God.

28. The law of first mention. Very frequently this is of great help in arriving at the meaning of a word or expression. Since there be but one Speaker throughout the entire Word, and He knew from the beginning all that He was going to say, He has so ordered His utterances as to forecast from the outset whatever was to follow. Thus, by noting its setting and associations, the initial occurrence of anything in the Scriptures usually intimates to us how it subsequently will be employed. In other words, the earliest pronouncement of the Holy Spirit on a subject very frequently indicates, substantially, what is found in the later references thereto. This is of real assistance to the expositor, supplying him with a kind of key to what follows. So far as we are aware, attention was originally directed to this canon of exegesis by Lord Bacon (1600), and for more than forty years this writer has made use of the same, putting it to the test in scores of instances; and while he has found a few cases where the first mention of a term failed to intimate clearly its future scope, he has never met with one that was out of harmony therewith; and the vast majority of them were invaluable in serving to define their significance and scope. This will appear from the illustrations which follow.

The first prophecy recorded in Scripture supplies the key to the whole subject of Messianic prediction, furnishing a remarkable outline and forecast of all that was to follow. Said the Lord God to the serpent, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. 3:15). First, it is to be noted that those words were not addressed to Adam and Eve, implying that man was not the immediate party in the covenant of recovery; that it depended not upon anything of, by or from him. Second, that this Divine pronouncement was made after the fall, and from this point onwards prophecy is always consequent upon human failure, not coming in during the normal state of affairs, but only when ruin has begun and judgment is impending—the next prophecy was through Enoch (Jude 14, 15) just before the flood! In the prophecy of Genesis 3:15, it was revealed that all human hope was to center in a Coming One. It made known that the Coming One should be man, the woman’s "seed," and therefore of supernatural birth. It announced that He would be the object of Satan’s enmity. It foretold that He should be temporarily humiliated—bruised in His heel. It also proclaimed His ultimate victory, for He should bruise the serpent’s head, and therefore must be more than man. It intimated the age-long strife there would be between the two seeds: the children of the Devil and those united unto Christ.

And the Lord said unto Cain, "What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto Me from the ground" (Gen. 4:10). That is the first time that all-important word "blood" is mentioned in the Scriptures, and like all the initial occurrences of fundamental terms it well repays the most careful attention and meditation. Profoundly important is this reference, foreshadowing as it does some of the most essential and outstanding features of the atonement of Christ. Abel was a shepherd (Gen. 4:2) and was hated, though without cause, by his brother (1 John 3:12). He did not die a natural death, but met with a violent end: as the good Shepherd was crucified and slain by wicked hands (Acts 2:23). In the light of those facts, how deeply significant are the words "the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto Me." That is the all-important but inexpressibly blessed thing in connection with the blood of Christ: it is vocal Godwards! It is "the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel" (Heb. 12:24), for it satisfied every demand of God and procured inestimable blessing for His people. The next mention of "blood" is in Genesis 9:4, where we learn that life is in the blood. The third reference is Exodus 12:13, where it delivers from the avenging angel. Put the three together and we have a complete outline of all the subsequent teaching of Scripture upon the blood. They treat, respectively, of death, life, salvation.