Pharaoh's third proposal was that the adult Israelites might go from Egypt, but they must leave their children behind them. The wolves in Aesop made a some what similar overture to the sheep; namely, that the latter should exchange their lambs for the young of the wolves. What a friendly proposition that seems at first view (yet on reflection misgivings arise). Pharaoh however only suggests that the Hebrews shall leave their own little ones in his care: has he not already given some evidence of his strong interest in them?
By such an arrangement that astute diplomatist knew full well that he would have them all back in his power sooner or later. If the Hebrews had gone without their children their hearts would have remained in Egypt, while their bodies were in the wilderness: a truly miserable condition and an insult to God; for their bodies are no use to Him without their hearts—dumb, driven cattle were better than that. God's purpose is to bring them entirely out of Egypt, and to fix all the objects of their interest and affections outside its borders, through the wilderness on Canaan— “to deliver us from the present evil world,” and to set our “affection on things above.” Pharaoh's purpose is to fix the objects of their love and interest in the old kingdom of sin and condemnation, and so keep them tethered to it as securely as if bound by chains. For the force of attraction is very marvelous: we see for instance, an immense body like the moon held swaying round the earth by a chain so slight as to be absolutely invisible—else would she instantly bound away into the recesses of the heavens, but her heart is thus linked by earthly ties. In this, too, as in her celestial origin and borrowed light is she not fitly a type of the church?
By-ends' great-grandfather was a waterman, said the Dreamer; he rowed in one direction whilst he looked in another. This was the position proposed by the third compromise; only that Pharaoh wanted the Hebrew boat tautly moored to the Egyptian shore: then they might row as hard as they liked in the other direction. It is the general principle that we have here of the displacement of the center of attraction—the attachment of the interests and sympathies of God's people to worldly allurements of any sort. But still it is remarkable how often the Devil hinders the advance, and thwarts the usefulness of even the most devout and earnest by the special means before us, namely, their children. If he can only get possession of them as hostages, we have some terrible examples of how he will use his power: Jacob wailing over Simeon and Levi, as David over Absalom; Aaron's ministry silenced by the sight of his sons struck dead before the altar. The spiritual Pharaoh also got possession of Eli's sons, and so, though an aged and devoted servant of God, he has to bear the rebukes of a child; to have the ministry of his life turned into a reproach; to close it in a storm of disaster, and to remain a perpetual example of the evil effects of a man's neglecting his own home. It is quite safe to censure him, for he cannot defend himself: his eyes, dimmed in ninety-eight years of service to God, darkened entirely, and his white hairs bowed in death when he heard that His Ark had been captured by the enemy—perhaps his censors might not have taken such a thing so much to heart. Nevertheless we must learn—a hard lesson—that the ardent prosecution of the highest duties will not exempt us from the evil results of neglecting the lowest. The glory of the illustrious John Howard's achievements is dimmed by the death of his own son from insanity through wickedness.
When a third compromise is rejected, Pharaoh, exhausting the resources of diplomacy, makes his last proposal: he will let them go when, how, and whither they like, but they must leave their flocks and herds. Now this proposal appears innocent enough; it seems a mere matter of their surrendering a little property; but Moses' answer reveals the subtle deadly nature of the overture—like that spear of Ithuriel, the touch of which disclosed the lurking fiend. For the prophet's answers not only disclose his own mind, but also his questioner's. A remarkable mode of answering exercised by his Antitype in later times; for our Lord usually not only replied to the words of those who questioned Him, but also to their very thoughts, which fact reveals largely the meanings of His utterances. Moses answers, “Our cattle also shall go with us, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God: there shall not an hoof be left behind." He regarded the cattle, and so did Pharaoh, not merely as so much property, or food supply (for they ate manna in the wilderness), but as the sacrificial means of approach to Jehovah. In fact they were so many types of CHRIST. The enemy wants us to go into the wilderness without Christ: it would be miserable indeed; but it would mean certain destruction.
It is peculiarly the proffer of the present time. The coarser and cruder attempts of the enemy against the people of God have more or less failed, and he is now ready to surrender everything if he can but deprive us of the sacrificial Christ. He will let us have the Christ of the manna; but not the Christ of the passover. That is to say, there is a fashion of religion rapidly growing that affects to receive and reverence our Lord in His heavenly life here on earth, but it rejects and treats with slight and repugnance the doctrine of his sacrificial death, His vicarious suffering and atoning blood. Now there are some stern and terrible words in the New Testament on this subject. In that chapter, in which we have the Son of God set before us as the Anti-type of the manna, we are told, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” That is, except you receive into the soul and appropriate, as food is received and appropriated by the body, the Son of Man in His blood-shedding and death, ye have no spiritual life at all. It is stated here in contrast with the manna which was the wilderness food of the redeemed—the earthly life of Christ; and the connection is that unless the Israelites had eaten the passover sacrifice before starting, they would never have lived to get to the wilderness at all. This passage has no connection with the Lord's Supper, except that in the symbolism of the Lord's Supper we profess all this. Nor is it a continuous matter like the manna; the tense is, “except ye shall have eaten (φάγητε,πίητε” that is, once for all appropriated) the death and atonement of the Son of Man.
However greatly the religion of emasculated sentimentality may extend, the truth shall remain, that before mercy can be satisfied justice must be appeased; before the gospel can be preached, the law must be vindicated. Before the Savior can accomplish His first miracle in turning water into wine, the Law-giver must accomplish his first miracle and turn water into blood.