This will be easily seen if you study the law of redemption as laid down in this chapter. The law is here given respecting one who had sold himself to a stranger. How many are there who, like the bondsman, have sold themselves to sin! But we must not stop to dwell on that. The poor man had sold himself and was a slave. Till the year of jubilee nothing could release him but redemption. But who should pay the redemption price? that was the question. A stranger was not at liberty to do so. However kindly disposed he might feel, he had no right or power to interfere. According to this 48th verse, the Redeemer must be one of his brethren. ‘One of his brethren may redeem him: either his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family, may redeem him; or, if he be able, he may redeem himself.’ The slave himself might redeem himself if he had the power to do so. But what hope had that slave of procuring his own ransom when all his powers and all his time belonged to another? Who then could redeem him? Who could set him free?
The nearest of kin had the prior right, as we see in the case of Boaz and Ruth. But if he failed, the next in order of relationship might step in and take his place. But the redeemer must be a kinsman, and none but a kinsman could redeem. So closely are the two things identified, that redeemer and kinsman are both expressed by the same word in Hebrew. The same word stands for both, for the kinsman had the right of redemption, and the redeemer was obliged to have a blood relationship.
And now observe the manner in which our blessed Lord and Saviour obeyed the law.
We are all by nature in the position of the man that was sold. So St. Paul said of himself in his natural condition, ‘I am carnal, sold under sin,’ Rom. vii. 14; and therefore he described the law of evil within his nature warring against the law of his mind, ‘and bringing him into captivity to the law of sin which was in his members.’ There was therefore a captivity resulting from the sale.
But it is not only the original ruin of our human nature of which the expression is used in Scripture, for it is applied to the personal act of the individual sinner. Is there not an allusion to this very law in those passages which speak of persons having sold themselves? Ahab ‘sold himself to do evil.’ 1 Kings, xxi. 20. In 2 Kings, xvii. 17, the same is said of the children of Israel: ‘They sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord.’ In Isaiah, L. 1, there is a distinct reference to the sale to a creditor,—‘Which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.’ And in Isa. lii. 3, a clear allusion to the redemption of the slave, ‘Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.’ The sinner, therefore, is like the man who sold himself. He has yielded himself to be the servant of sin. He obeys it, and he does its work. If he wishes to get free he cannot. He may long for liberty, but he cannot attain it. He may think with bitter regret of past folly that has led to his ruin. But regret cannot restore. Remorse cannot set him free. A slave he is, and a slave, unless saved by redemption, he must remain.
How, then, can such an one be redeemed? That is the question. It must clearly be by a redemption price. There was no redemption under the law without a ransom. In the case of the man who had sold himself, the price was the value of his service until the year of jubilee. In our case it was infinitely higher, for the Lord Jesus gave Himself ‘a ransom for all.’ The sinner sold himself, and the Lord Jesus gave Himself as a ransom, and because He has done so, God said by the prophet, ‘Ye shall be redeemed without money.’
But my object is to consider, not the ransom, but the Redeemer, and to examine who, according to the law, was qualified to redeem.
(1.) We cannot redeem ourselves.
It is clear that according to ver. 49, the slave, if he were able, might redeem himself. But it must have been very difficult for a slave, who had sold himself because he was ruined, to accumulate sufficient for his own redemption; and it is perfectly clear that it would be utterly impossible for us to accomplish any such redemption for ourselves. Multitudes have endeavoured to do so. They have striven to gain a freedom by tears and toils, and fastings, and almsdeeds, proportioned to the sin committed. But the only effect has been that the chain has been riveted more firmly than ever on their soul. Instead of providing a ransom they have daily increased their debt. And so it will ever be so long as man struggles to redeem himself. ‘It cost more to redeem their souls, so they must let that alone for ever.’
(2.) Then again, angels could not redeem us. Even if there had been any mighty archangel of such majesty as to produce a sufficient ransom, he would have been disqualified for the office, for the simple reason that he would not have been a kinsman. We know but little of the nature of angels, and we cannot realize a mighty spirit perfectly independent of the flesh. But this we know, that there is a clear and marked distinction between the nature of angels and the nature of man, for we read of our blessed Saviour, ‘He took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.’ Heb. ii. 16. The angels, therefore, are not our brethren. They are not kinsmen, and therefore were not qualified to redeem. Whatever benevolence they may have felt, and whatever compassion for us in our captivity, and whatever joy in our salvation, the whole host of angels and archangels were utterly disqualified to act as redeemers, and, whatever they offered, according to the law, they were unable to redeem.