(3.) But still more. Even the Son of God Himself, in His eternal Godhead, could not redeem, for there lay against Him the same disqualification. He was eternal, above man, and of a nature altogether different. As the heaven is high above the earth, so is His nature above ours. It is high, we cannot attain unto it. In His divine nature, therefore, our blessed Lord Himself was not a kinsman, and therefore by law He could not be a Redeemer. He was not one of the brethren of the bondsmen, and therefore could not redeem; and, whatever love He felt for us, He was excluded, according to the law, from showing it in redeeming mercy.
And now you see the homage paid to the law in His incarnation. When He took on Him our nature He became a kinsman, and could redeem. See how clearly this is put in Heb. ii. 14. ‘Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.’ He identified Himself with them in nature in order that, being their kinsman, He might have the right of redemption. He took not on Him the nature of angels, for that would not have established a relationship with man, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham, and so became one with the great human family. The Levitical law, ver. 48, was, ‘One of his brethren may redeem him.’ So to carry out His own most gracious purpose of mercy, He took our nature, He made Himself a brother, and according to the 11th verse of that chapter in the Hebrews, ‘He is not ashamed to call us brethren.’
Just the same truth is taught us in Gal. iv. In ver. 3, we are described as bondsmen: ‘We were in bondage under the elements of the world.’ And when our Heavenly Father in boundless love undertook to save, what did He do? He first prepared a qualified Redeemer, and then that Redeemer redeemed us by His blood. ‘He sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the law,’ qualified therefore in all respects, because He was of the same family ‘to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.’ He became a brother, and, being a brother, redeemed us by His blood. There was a double act of love and mercy: first, in assuming the relationship, and next, in availing himself of that relationship in stepping forth to pay the ransom for our release. Oh! who can tell the love of Christ? Who can sufficiently exalt His grace?
But now what is the position of all those that are in Him? What is the position of all you who have redemption through His blood? You were bondsmen once; sold under sin: sold by the act of Adam, and sold by your own conduct afterwards. As St. Paul says, Rom. vi. 17, ‘Ye were the servants’ or the slaves ‘of sin.’ But what are you now? Are you still slaves? No. Those only who are strangers to salvation in Christ Jesus are slaves. But you are not, for you are free. Your kinsman has appeared and paid the redemption price; so you are free: as completely free as if you had never been in bondage. The moment that the kinsman paid the ransom, the slave was free. He was not required to stop and inquire whether he deserved it or no. He was not obliged to wait and look into his feelings, and ascertain whether he felt it or no. The ransom was paid, and he was free, so that he might go home with a thankful heart to show his deep gratitude to the kinsman who had paid it. So it is with you if you be in Christ Jesus. The creditor has no hold on you, for your kinsman has come forward, and the whole ransom is paid. You are as completely free as you will be if you wait a hundred years. You cannot add anything to the ransom, and there is no need that you should do so, for all is paid, and paid in full. You may dwell therefore in perfect peace in your Father’s home, and with a thankful heart gather round your Father’s table, in the peaceful enjoyment of your Father’s fellowship, and your Father’s love.
But think how strange it would have been in olden times, if, when the kinsman had come forward and most kindly paid the redemption price, the poor bondsman had preferred captivity, and refused the liberty thus freely purchased for him by his brother. Such things apparently did happen sometimes, though they appear to us almost impossible; for, in Exod. xxi. 5, the servant is described as plainly saying, ‘I love my master . . . I will not go out free,’ and, when he said that he was taken to the door-post, and his ear was bored through in token that he was a slave for life. I do not know whether that often happened in ancient days, but I fear it is a very common occurrence now. The Son of God has become a kinsman on purpose to redeem, and as a kinsman has redeemed us by His blood. He has come to the master, and having broken all his legal power, has proclaimed liberty to the captive, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; but there sits the slave, content in his slavery, and plainly says, ‘I love my master; I will not go out free.’ How many are there even amongst ourselves thus indifferent to liberty! They know there is a deliverer; they have heard it: they have read it: they believe it. They know their kinsman has paid the ransom, so that, according to the covenant, they may be free. But they love the old sins, and the old ways, and the old habits, and they have no wish to be set free. They like the old associations, and a change of heart might cause a separation from their wives and their children, so they had rather go on as they are, the slaves of sin, the bondsmen of their own corruption. Is it unjust that such persons should never be set free? If the bondsman of old deliberately went to the door-post that his ear should be bored, was it unjust that he should be bound a slave for ever? and if any one of us with the grand offer of the freedom of the Gospel fully before him, prefers his bondage and will not accept the purchased freedom, is it unjust that that man should remain a miserable slave? Oh, that I could persuade those who have thus far been sitting still content with their captivity, to accept the freedom which their kinsman now offers them, so that henceforth we may change our note, and instead of saying, ‘The ransom is paid, come home and enjoy your freedom,’ we may say to them in the full enjoyment of their Father’s loving home, ‘Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free.’
V. RUTH.
‘And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance; redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.’—Ruth, iv. 6.
It has been my sacred privilege to speak lately more than once on the great subject of redemption as taught in the Old Testament, and the last time I did so I directed your attention to the law of redemption, as laid down in the book of Leviticus. But that law conveys a very imperfect idea of the redemption by our Lord and Saviour. In some respects there is a remarkable agreement, but the type falls utterly short of the reality. Let me mention a single instance. If the kinsman came forward to redeem either the person or property of the debtor, the effect of that redemption was to restore the ruined man to his liberty and his home. The forfeited property was restored, and the bondman became free; but there it stopped. The poor man was no better off after redemption than he was before he was sold. All that redemption did for him was to restore him to his original position. Here, then, you see in a moment the enormous difference between this Levitical redemption and the blessed work of our most blessed Saviour. He raises man by redemption to a position far above his position before the fall. Adam in Paradise had nothing to compare with the sacred inheritance of the saints of God in the kingdom of our Lord. Man, as represented in Adam, was far below the angels; but as redeemed in Christ Jesus, the second Adam, is high above them. Man in Adam had his inheritance on earth, but redeemed man in Christ Jesus is made heir to an ‘inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for him.’
This point is very well illustrated by the case of Ruth. The history of Ruth is not unlike that of Joseph—a remarkable illustration, though never declared to be a type. We may, therefore, accept the illustration, though we must not ascribe to it a divine, or typical, authority.
Turning to chapter i., we find that Elimelech, a man of Bethlehem, had property in Bethlehem-judah, and in consequence of famine and subsequent poverty, had emigrated with his wife and two sons to Moab. When there, both his sons married, but before there was any family born to either of them, both they and their father died. The three women, therefore, were left widows, and the famine having abated, Naomi decided to return. She appears to have gone back to the old home at Bethlehem, but said that her name should be no more Naomi (pleasant), but Marah (bitter), for the old house had lost its joy. After her return she struggled on, with Ruth as her companion. At length Boaz, the great man of the neighbourhood, ‘a mighty man of wealth,’ became acquainted with their circumstances, and most kindly interested himself in their condition. Being related to Elimelech, he was prepared to step in, and act the part of a kinsman, by redeeming the property from sale. But in this there was a difficulty, for he was not the next of kin, and therefore had no right to redeem (ch. iii. 12). But when he who was next of kin heard of it, he declined to act, as he could not undertake the burden. Boaz, therefore, undertook to pay the redemption price himself. Is there not a remarkable illustration there of the sacred work of our Kinsman, for when all others failed, though bound by no responsibility, He freely undertook to redeem us Himself? Thus the price was paid, the property was redeemed, the family inheritance was preserved, and it is not at all improbable that it was in that very farm that Jesse lived, and David spent his boyhood.