II. But we must not look only at the deliverance, for redemption means deliverance through ransom, or through blood, and we must not forget the ransom, or redemption price. What in this case was the ransom? It was not Pharaoh’s host drowned in the Red Sea, for the bondage of Israel was broken before that event occurred. Nor was it the death of the first-born in Egypt, for that could not be regarded as the ransom of Israel, though I fully admit that it was closely connected with it. For my own part I believe it was the blood of the Paschal Lamb on the night of the Passover. But you may say what a little thing that was as the ransom of a nation! Perfectly true; but remember, it was a type. The whole transaction was a type. The people were a type; the deliverance was a type; and, therefore, it is only natural to expect that the ransom, too, would be a type. Now we learn that the Paschal Lamb was a type of our blessed Saviour, for we read, 1 Cor. v. 7, ‘Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,’ and, therefore, as that paschal lamb was a prophetic picture of Him and His sacrifice, we can see in a moment how it was that it was the ransom price in the redemption of Israel. It was an antedating of the future sacrifice of the Son of God, and it, as it were, carried back the power of the great atonement, and applied it 1500 years before it happened to the redemption of Israel. I can see, therefore, perfectly clearly why the deliverance of Israel was called a redemption; for they were redeemed by the same ransom as we are even by the precious blood of Christ. It was shed, it is true, 1500 years after their deliverance, but even then it was prefigured and applied, and even then it was effectual. What, then, is our conclusion? Is it not surely this? If the burden of Israel was removed, the yoke of Egypt broken, the way opened through the Red Sea, and all through the type, may not we be perfectly sure that our burdens will be removed, our yoke broken, and our difficulty overcome through the effectual power of the reality? Look, then, at that most precious blood of Christ; look at Him as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world; look at Him as your ransom and Deliverer, and never again admit the thought that the yoke of sin’s condemning power is too fast fixed ever to be broken, or the hindrances of sin’s obstructing power too desperate to be overcome. But when you groan under the yoke let your heart rest in redeeming blood; and when you feel the difficulty of progress then look to redeeming power, so that the yoke being broken through the blood, and victory given by the power, you may go on your way with the song of Moses in your heart, ‘The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation.’
III. THE FIRST-BORN.
‘But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.’—Exod. xxxiv. 20.
Man is a very forgetful being, and there is nothing which he seems to forget so much as mercy. It takes a great deal to make us forget a trouble, but very little to wipe away the thought of mercy. Thus when God has wrought great acts He has not unfrequently appointed memorials in order to keep them in remembrance, and has provided for the failure of man’s memory by appointing something that may continually remind him of the past. Sometimes it has been a stone or monument, as, e.g. at the passage of Jordan, but more frequently it has been an institution, such as the Paschal Supper as a memorial of the Passover, and the Holy Communion, or the Supper of the Lord, in remembrance of His death and passion. These institutions have lasted much longer than the material monuments. The Paschal Supper lasted fifteen centuries, and the Lord’s Supper has already lasted more than eighteen. It seems a very simple institution. What can be more simple than to partake together of a little bread and wine in thankful remembrance of His death? But it has never been forgotten by the people of God, and never will be till the Advent. Wherever Christ has been preached this memorial feast has been observed. In all ages and all countries it has been the joy of God’s people. In all mission-stations as well as in our churches at home, always and everywhere, the sacred memorial has been reverently and lovingly observed by those who name the name of Jesus.
But besides the Paschal Supper there was another institution ordained as a remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt. For as Israel was delivered through the death of the first-born of the Egyptians, it was established as a law in Israel that all their first-born both of man and beast should be given up to God. The law is given, and the reason of it, in Exod. xiii. In v. 2, we find the law, ‘Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast: it is mine;’ and in v. 14, the reason, ‘And it shall be, when thy son asketh thee in time to come saying, What is that? that thou shalt say to him, By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt from the house of bondage;’ and in the 16th verse we are taught that it was for a perpetual memorial before God, ‘And it shall be for a token upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt.’
We are not told what was involved in this separation unto God of the first-born of the sons. Some think, and not without reason, that they were separated unto the priesthood, but on this we have no distinct information. One thing is clear, that in some peculiar manner they were the Lord’s. In Exod. xxii. 29, ‘The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give unto me.’ So in Num. iii. 13, ‘Because all the first-born are mine.’ Was there not an allusion to this in Hannah’s words when she said, ‘I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life’? and was there not again a distinct reference to it in the presentation of our Blessed Saviour to the temple, as we read in Luke, ii. 23? In the case of Samuel and our Blessed Lord there was clearly a consecration to a special and exclusive service; so whatever was the precise form of separation, one thing is perfectly clear, that in a peculiar and especial manner the first-born were set apart unto God. There was a vast difference between God’s ordinance and man’s habit. It is a very common thing with man to devote the first-born to the world, and the second, third, or fourth son to the ministry; or, extending the principle, to consider that which is second in our own affections to be good enough for God. But He claims the first of all, that which is the first to bring joy to the mother’s heart, and which is first to claim the mother’s love; that which has for a time the concentrated interest of the only child. The Jewish parent was not to wait till he had many. It was when the mother had only one, that that one was to be given to God.
But it is the redemption of the first-born which we are now to study. In this verse we are told, ‘All the first-born of thy sons thou shalt redeem.’ According to the law there was a legal claim on every first-born, whether of man or animal, but still there was provision made in most cases for their redemption or release, and it is to this provision that I am anxious now to turn your thoughts.
It differed in different classes.
For sacrificial animals, such as the sheep, or the goat, there was no redemption. They were all offered in sacrifice, Num. xviii. 17, ‘But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet savour unto the Lord.’
For other useful animals, such as the ass, there was redemption. The ass might be redeemed by a lamb, but if it was not redeemed, its neck was to be broken, Exod. xxxiv. 20. ‘But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then thou shalt break his neck.’ If redeemed, it was saved from death by substitution. It was redeemed by vicarious death. The lamb was the substitute for the colt, so the lamb died, and the colt was free. You see how the principle of substitution pervades the prophecies of the Jewish ritual.