‘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.

The same principle of substitution appears in the redemption of the first-born sons. But there is a marked difference between that made for them, and that for the animals, viz., that the law did not admit the idea of any such thing as human sacrifice, and therefore the sons were not like the animals subject to death. They belonged to God for service, not for death, and the redemption price was of the same character as the yoke from which they were redeemed. Thus you find the whole tribe of Levi given up as the redemption price of the first-born of the other tribes. The transaction is explained, Num. iii. 41. ‘Thou shalt take the Levites for me (I am the Lord) instead of all the first-born among the children of Israel.’ Thus all the men amongst the Levites were numbered, and all the first-born amongst the other tribes, and by divine authority the Levites were solemnly given up as a substitute for the others, Num. iii 45: ‘Take the Levites instead of all the first-born among the children of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle: and the Levites shall be mine: I am the Lord.’But here a difficulty arose, and it is one which teaches us the extreme danger of giving a typical authority to all the institutions of the Old Testament. There was clearly in this case the principle of substitution. The Levites were substituted for the first-born, and the first-born were free. The transaction was, therefore, an illustration of the work of the atonement. But yet if we were to regard it as a divine type of it we should be landed in a most dangerous and unscriptural conclusion, for in the case of the first-born the substituted gift was insufficient; so that if we were to call those Levites a type of the Lord Jesus, we might gather that His sacrifice was insufficient, and required something else as a supplement. Be very careful, therefore, how you call anything a type which is not declared to be one by God Himself.

When the Levites were numbered it turned out that there were only 22,000; but the number of the first-born males of the other tribes was 22,273. The substitution, therefore, fell short by 273 persons. It clearly, therefore, could be no type of the Lord Jesus, for there was no falling short in Him. The result was that a supplement was necessary. Five shekels of silver was to be added for each of the 273, and when that was paid the whole of the first-born were redeemed. This money payment afterwards became a permanent institution in Israel, and appears to have been continued long after the original transaction was complete. In Num. xviii. 16, we find the direction that ‘all that are to be redeemed . . . shalt thou redeem . . . for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary.’

Now in this Levitical picture there are many things that bear a close resemblance to the Gospel. There was a clear legal claim, and the remission of that claim by substitution, or the payment of a redemption price. And this may serve to illustrate the claim which the law has on us all, and the remission of the claim by the substitution of the Son of God. But, as I have already said, we must be very careful how we call it a type, for the contrasts are more remarkable than the resemblances. There are two points of contrast to which I would draw your most especial attention, points which I can scarcely doubt you have yourselves observed already.

In the first place, the freedom or the release bestowed on the first-born through redemption was the exact opposite of that bestowed on us through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. They were redeemed from God; but we are redeemed to God, as we read Rev. v. 9, ‘Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.’ Before they were redeemed, all the first-born were the Lord’s, and were enrolled as a separate people belonging in a special and peculiar manner to Him; so that He said of them, Num. iii. 13, ‘All the first-born are mine.’ The effect of the redemption was to put an end to this sacred relationship, and to place them on the same footing as the other members of the family. It released them from all that was involved in their being a peculiar people unto God. They ceased, in short, to be a peculiar people. Now this is the exact reverse of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. The effect of His work is to call out a peculiar people unto God, and so separate us unto Himself, that He may say of us, as He said of the first-born, ‘All are mine.’ You remember how clearly this is put in Titus, ii. 14, ‘Who gave himself for us.’ There is the redemption price, and the next clause teaches the object of it, ‘that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.’ Those, therefore, whom he has redeemed are purified as ‘a peculiar people unto himself.’ We are brought by redemption into the position from which the first-born were delivered. And I cannot help thinking that there is an allusion to this fact in that great description of the Christian’s position in Heb xii. We there read, in ver. 23, that we are come ‘to the general assembly and church of the first-born which are written in heaven.’ What is the meaning of that expression? Why are believers called the first-born, and why were their names thus written? Is it not because they are brought into the same peculiar relationship to God which was the inheritance of the first-born? Because, as the first-born were His own so are we? And because as they were enrolled as being His in the national register, so are we in the book of life? And is there any one amongst us that would wish to be free from that peculiarity? Is there one that has ever knelt down in the fulness of his heart and said, ‘Lord, I am thine,’ who would now rise up and say, ‘But I wish to be thine no more’? Is there any one who has ever borne the yoke of the Lord Jesus who would now wish to throw it off, and be free? No, never! We wish to be free from all that keeps us back from Him; free from every weight and from the sin which doth so easily beset us: free from every temptation that tends to hinder us in His service. But free from Christ! Never, never, never! The desire of our heart is to be His altogether; His without reserve; His in the exercise of all our powers; His in life; His in death; His for eternity; His whatever may be given up for His service; His, so completely, so truly, so heartily, that we may be able to say in the sincerity of our souls, ‘Whether we live, we live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.’

But there is another most marked point of contrast to which I have already alluded, but which we ought to consider more carefully before we close. There was an essential difference of character between the redemption price in the case of the first-born and in ours. In theirs there was no shedding of blood. There was substitution, but not blood-shedding. The life of the child was not forfeited to the law, so the life of the substitute was not taken in its stead. It was a gift of service for service, the service of the Levite for the service of the child. Then again it was a mixed, and composite substitution. The substitution of the Levites was insufficient, so the defect was made up by the 1365 shekels of silver. But in our case, as our lives were forfeited by sin, His life was given in our stead; and who shall say that it was insufficient? May we not rather say, ‘She hath received at the Lord’s hand double for all her sins,’ for ‘with Him is plenteous redemption?’ We have no need to supplement His sacrifices by silver. It appears that St. Peter had reference to this very contrast and to those supplemented shekels, when he said, 1 Pet. i. 18, ‘Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers: but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.’ Some people might possibly think more of redemption if the redemption price consisted of gold and silver, for they seem to care more for money than for the most precious blood of Christ; at all events, they appear to cling much faster to it. But what can money do for you when you are face to face with God? And what can man do for you when your conscience is bowed down by the weight of sin? No vicarious work of other men, and no gifts, however great, can set you free from the yoke and condemnation of the law. That will never enable you to say, as was said to me last week by one well known to many of you, ‘The whole weight is gone.’ No, indeed! All the Levitical service that conscientious men may offer to God, and all the accumulated wealth that the richest amongst us may tender as a redemption price, will all together utterly fail to take the weight from one sin-burdened soul. But the precious blood of Christ, of Christ Jesus the one divinely-appointed substitute, that is enough; enough, though quite alone, enough to redeem us from the whole curse, and to redeem us from it for ever, that so, by His boundless grace, we may be set apart as the first-born unto God, and live and die amongst those who are written in heaven.