Study VIII.
LESSON I.
The Hebrew letters עʿ ain, בb beth, and דd daleth compose the word by which the Hebrews meant what we mean by the word slave. There is some variation among men of letters, even among the Jews themselves, as to the pronunciation of this word, some following the Asiatic, some the Portuguese, and some the Polish method.
Out of respect and in deference to King James’s translators of the Old Testament, of the learned and critical Dr. Blany, and of that indefatigable biblical scholar, Dr. Bagster, we have adopted their pronunciation of this word, and call it ebed.
This word, as left untranslated by them, will be found in Jer. xxxviii. 7–12; also xxxix. 16, 17, thus:—“Now, when Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, one of the eunuchs which was in the king’s house.” “Ebed-melech went forth out the king’s house.” “When the king commanded Ebed-melech the Ethiopian.” “So Ebed-melech took the men with him.” “And Ebed-melech the Ethiopian said to Jeremiah.” “Go, speak to Ebed-melech the Ethiopian.” The words Ebed-melech are here left untranslated, because we have not, in English, words to express the idea conveyed by them, except by paraphrasis, as, for instance, they would have had to have said, his majesty’s private, or principal, and confidential body-servant: and this is the exact meaning implied by the words Ebed-melech, as here used: the word servant, meaning a slave. In Judges ix. 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, the word Ebed is also left untranslated. Also in Ezra viii. 6: “Ebed, the son of Jonathan.” And in some other places.
We trust that our authority for the pronunciation of the word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, will be deemed sufficient: yet, we admit that, in Hebrew pronunciation, it will be varied by suffix, affix, and points, as has been found by the learned rabbis long since to best agree with their rules of cantation and the idiomatic construction of the language.
This word ebed is used as a noun, verb, adjective, participle, and adverb; but we make the proposition, that, however used, and in whatever form, it is never used disconnected from the idea of slavery. Philological history will develop to us, at least, one human weakness:—pride to be thought learned, has more or less, among the European nations and languages, had its effect in the compilation of dictionaries.
In some instances, men of learning have undertaken their compilation without using their ability to fathom the depths of language, or to discover the sources of its streams, or describe the qualities of their combinations. And the world is full of servile imitations of former and old errors; and each one seems to think that the authority of a book warrants their perpetuation.
But there will occasionally arise, in the walks of knowledge, some Moses, some Confucius, some Homer, some Euclid, some Socrates, some Bacon, some Newton, some Franklin, some Champollion, before the fire of whose genius and mental power, all imitations of error wither away.
Touching the subject of the Asiatic languages generally, and the darkness that has for ages overspread them, may we not fondly hope that such a luminary is now culminating in the region of the universities of England. Permit us, at least, to have some hope for the Regius Professor of Cambridge.
But to our subject:—We sometimes find the philologist yield his sceptre and borrow his definitions from a bad translation. And we often find the translator sacrificing his original upon the altar of his own imperfections. Now, it is not uncommon that a word in one language may be in such peculiar use, that, consistently with the constitution of some other language, it cannot be translated therein by any one single term and even if so, not always by the same word. Should all the different terms and words that might thus be legitimately used in translation, be collected together, and put down as the descriptive meaning of some foreign or ancient term, our lexicons would, of necessity, contain some portions of error. For example, suppose we take the Arabic word عَبْدࣨʿabd abed, which means absolutely a slave in that language: we all know that an Arabian, speaking or writing to one far his superior, would someway call himself by this term. He uses it to express great devotedness, honesty, and integrity of intentions to the one addressed. If we were composing an Arabic lexicon, what would the scholar have good reason to say, if we should put as the definition of this word,—honesty, integrity of intention, &c.? This Arabic word is the same as in Hebrew, and the word is used in both languages with great similarity: also in Chaldee, Syriac, and other Shemitic dialects.
While we premise that the Koran is taken as the standard of Arabic literature, we present this word, as used in that language, as a sample of its use in the other Shemitic dialects.
This word, as above, in Arabic, is composed of the letters gain, or ain, under point jesm, which is equivalent to the Hebrew quiescent sheoa, but really having the shortest possible trace of the sound of our short ĕ, and terminated by the letter dhal, or dal, under the diacritical sign of nunnation.
Mr. Sale, who had great experience in Arabic literature, has left this word frequently untranslated in his notes, quoting Beidawi and Iolalo'ddin, to his version of the Koran, and in Roman letters expressed it thus, abda, and, without annunation thus, abd. We confine ourselves to this particular form of the word. If, by long experience we supply the shortest possible trace of our vowel ĕ between the b and d, and in annunation cause the terminating vowel to coalesce in some trace of our consonant n, we should perhaps arrive at as correct a pronunciation as could be attained by mere rules and it will be seen that the ebĕd of Jerusalem became abĕd at Mecca.
We copy from Sale’s translation, without burthening our page with a repetition of the original; our object is to show the precise idea for the expression of which the Arabians appropriated this word.
“God causeth some of you to excel in worldly possessions: yet, they who are caused to excel do not give their wealth unto the slaves whom their right hands possess, that they may become equal sharers therein.” Koran, chap. 16.
Al Beidawi, an Arabian commentator on the Koran, upon this passage says—
“A reproof to the idolatrous Meccans, who could admit created beings to a share of the divine honour, though they suffered not their slaves to share with themselves in what God had bestowed on them.”
The expression of a thing done, held, or “possessed by the right hand,” in Arabic, is a full concession that the doing, holding, or possessing, is just, rightful, and righteous.
“God propoundeth, as a parable, a possessed slave, who hath power over nothing, and him on whom we have bestowed a good provision from us, and who giveth alms thereout, both secretly and openly; shall these two be esteemed equal? God forbid.” Koran, chap. 16.
Of this, the above commentator says, “The idols, we have likened to a slave, who is so far from having any thing of his own, that he is himself in the possession of another.” Idem.
“And this is the favour which thou hast bestowed on me, that thou hast enslaved the children of Israel.” Koran, chap. 26.
“O prophet, we have allowed thee thy wives, unto whom thou hast given their dower, and also the slaves which thy right hand possesseth, of the booty which God hath granted to thee.” Koran, chap. 33.
Yet, so it is, we find in our Hebrew lexicons, among the significations of this word עבדʿbd ebed, not only its true signification,—slave, slavery, &c.,—but also, to labour, cultivate, labour generally, worship, to make, to do, or deal with any one, to take place or happen, work, business, tillage, cultivation of land, agriculture, implements, utensils, appurtenances, a worship of God or of idols, wearied, to be wearied with labour, complied with, assented to, performed, religious service, a submissive epithet, a minister, to minister unto, any one employed in the service of a king, any one who worships, adores God, one who is commissioned by him for any purpose, benefit, employment of any kind.
But we will desist from increasing this catalogue of definitions, for fear of being charged with slander on the Hebrew lexicons. Must not that be a very strange language in which one little word of only three letters has so many varied and adverse meanings? Yet, in all sobriety, we might double the number. If each and every Hebrew word were like this, thus loaded with lexicographical learning, we beg to know who would undertake and what would be the use of its study; for surely, from the same page, there might be a very great number of adverse and contradictory translations, all equally correct. But, if such catalogue is not legitimate, to what cause are we to look for its existence? to some abiding influence, secret but persevering, in the minds of the lexicographers for the last thousand years? Or shall we rather confine our views to the casualities of hurried translations and bad readings, to the facility of the copyist in book-making, instead of the laborious study of the investigator?
This circumstance, from whatever cause it may have sprung, will impose on us some labour to show the correctness of our proposition, to wit, the word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, however used, and in whatever form, is never used in Hebrew disconnected from the idea of slavery.
We first propose to show that the Hebrew is abundantly supplied with words to express all these other meanings, disconnected with the idea of slavery.
Aware that such examination may be extremely uninteresting to the most of us, yet, deeming it of great importance to our subject, we humbly ask indulgence, while we examine a few of the most leading terms as examples, whose significations have been appropriated to the word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed.
LESSON II.
But, before we enter into such examination, it may be proper to remark that the Hebrew, in common with all the Shemitic languages, makes abundant use of what we call rhetorical figures. The word בֵּןbēn ben means a son; but by prosopopœia it is made to mean an arrow. Thus, Lam. iii. 13, “He hath caused the arrows of his quiver,” בְּנֵי֖ אַשְׁפָת֥וֹbĕnēy ʾašpātô beney, ashpatho—literally, the sons of his quiver, from the notion that the arrow is the produce, issue, adjunct, &c. of the quiver. We might quote a great number of instances where the word בֵּןbēn ben, by the same figure, is used to express some other idea than son, yet never unassociated with the primitive idea but, what would be the value of the lexicographical assertion that this word in Hebrew meant an arrow? The following fifteen verses are wholly of the same character: “He hath filled me with bitterness, he hath made me drunk with wormwood.”
The Arabians have a common way of expressing “one of great affliction,” by saying that he is a “wormwood beater.” Yet the Arabic word that means affliction, by no means is synonymous of wormwood.
The figure of Lamentations is also used in Ps. cxxvii. 4, 5: “As awards are in the hand of a mighty man, so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them.” Yet, the word אֶת־אַשְׁפָּתֹוֹʾet-ʾašpātōô is in no sense a synonyme of whatever word for which it is here figuratively used. A singular instance of this figure is found in Lam. ii. 13: “Let not the apple of thine eye cease;” בַּת־עֵינֵֽךְbat-ʿênēk bath eynek, the daughter of the eye. The translators have understood this to mean the “pupil,” otherwise called the apple of the eye; but, the word bath, daughter, shows that the thing meant is a produce of the eye; hence, it cannot mean the apple or pupil of the eye, but tears. But how stupid the page that shall put down as a signification of the word בַּתbat bath, an apple, or the apple of the eye, or the pupil, or yet, what it here means, a tear?
These two words ben, a son, and bath, a daughter, sometimes beth, are associated in so many different forms of figure and in connection or compound with other Hebrew words, to express some complex idea, that, if each different idea thus conveyed was to be considered a legitimate signification of these words, their description would be quite lengthy, and contradictory; for instance, Gen. xxiv. 16, בְּתוּלָ֕הbĕtûlâ is used to mean a virgin. But, 1 Sam. i. 16, בַת־בְּלִיַּעַלbat-bĕliyyaʿal is used to mean quite a different character, as if of different origin. In Eccl. xii. 4, בְּנוֹ֥ת הַשִּׂ֥ירbĕnôt haśśîr is generally understood to mean the voice of an old man. But in Dan. xi. 17, בַ֤ת הַנׇּשִׁים֨bat hannŏšîm is understood to mean a princess. We might multiply examples without number; yet, in all instances, the leading idea, a daughter, is ever present: other primitive words, whose signification was an idea of great and leading interest, will be found in similar use. And it may be remarked, that, at one age of the world, when a large proportion of the children of men were slaves, that the word signifying that condition would be naturally and exceedingly often used in a figurative manner. Even among us, our word servant, which, from use, has become merely a milder term to express the same idea, is in the mouth of every devout man, while slave is in constant use among the moral and political agitators of the day.
One among the causes of our finding in the lexicons so many and adverse significations of the word ebed, is the fact, that the Hebrew often expressed an adjective quality, by placing the substantive expressing the quality as if in apposition with the substantive qualified, thus, עֲבָדֶיךָ מְרַגְּלִיםʿăbādêkā mĕraggĕlîm they, slaves (not) spies; עֲבָדֶ֨יךָ אַחִ֧יםʿăbādêkā ʾaḥîm they slaves, brethren, Gen. xlii. 11–13, לְעַבְדְּךָ לְאָבִינוּlĕʿabdĕkā lĕʾābînû thy slave our father, Gen. xliii. 28.
In an analogous sense the word א֤יִשׁʾyiš is used in 2 Kings i. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Also iv. 25 and 27, preceding הָֽאֱלֹהִ֤יםhāʾĕlōhîm a man of God, meaning one so wholly devoted to God as to partake of the divine nature. But such use in no manner changes the meaning of the word אִישׁʾîš or אֱלהיםʾĕlhym. This mode of expressing quality, by placing one of the substantives in the genitive, is quite common even in the modern languages. Grammarians will also inform us that substantives are often used adverbially, designating the time, place, and quality of the action of the verb.
But again, the Hebrew adjectives are in disproportional scarcity to the substantives, which the language remedies by a kind of circumlocution; this, אִ֨ישׁ דְּבָרִ֜יםʾîš dĕbārîm a man (of) words, i.e. an eloquent man, as in Ex. iv. 10; the son of strength בֶּן־חַיִלben-ḥayil valiant or worthy man, 1 Kings i. 52; בְּנֵי־קֶדֶםbĕnê-qedem the sons of the East, i.e. the orientals, Gen. xxix. 1; בֶּן מָוֶתben māwet the son of death, i.e. doomed to death, 1 Sam. xx. 31; בַּת־בְּלִיַּעַלbat-bĕliyyaʿal the daughter of baseness, i.e. a base woman, 1 Sam. i. 16.
This use of language is common to our word, ebed, slave: עֲבֵד אֱלָהָאʿăbēd ʾĕlāhāʾ slaves of God, i.e. a man devoted to God, as a slave to a master, i.e. a man who most devotedly worships God, Dan. iii. 26; עֲבֵד אֱלָהָאʿăbēd ʾĕlāhāʾ slave of God, i.e. devoted worshipper of God, &c., Dan. vi. 21, the 20th of the English text; and to express this adjective quality, is thus compounded in Ezra v. 11, עַבְדוֹהִ֩יʿabdôhî slaves of God, i.e., devoted to God as slaves are to their masters. &c., to express the adjective qualities of devotion and obedience. This word is used and compounded with many other words in a great variety of instances.
But, doubtless, another cause which has led the lexicographers into the alleged error, is the peculiar disposition of the Hebrew, (common to all the Shemitic tongues) to express the idea intended, by expressing another to which it has a real or supposed analogy, either in primitive relation or in ultimate result. For example, let us take the word ben, a son, thus: Isa. v. 1, keren, here used to mean the top of a mountain, because they fancied an analogy between the top of a mountain and a horn. Ben, a son, shamen, fat, son of fatness, is here used to mean a fruitful mountain. But, do these words acquire new significations from this figurative use of them? The sons of the quiver, i.e. arrows. Lem. iii. 13. Shall we say that ben, means an arrow? Ben kasheth, the son of the bow, (cannot make him flee,) i.e. the arrow, Job xli. 20, (the 28th of the English text.) Shall we indeed then say that ben means an arrow? Ben shahor, the son of blackness, here used to express night,—son of the night,—used to convey our idea, the morning star. Shall we say that ben means a star? or, that blackness means the morning? Isa. xiv., 12 בֶּן יוֹנָהben yônâ ben yonah, the son of a dove, i.e. a young dove, a squab? Lev. xii. 6. Shall we say that בֶּןben ben means a squab? Lev. xii. 8, beni yonah, sons of a dove, i.e. two young doves or squabs. Shall we then, surely say that beni means two squabs? But, in Lev. xiv. 22, we have the same words used in the same sense: must we say that this word means squabs? בֶּנֵי עֹ֝רֵבbenê ʿōrēb bene oreb, the sons of the raven, i.e. young ravens, Ps. cxlvii. 9: does beni then mean young ravens also? בֶּן בָּקָרben bāqār ben baker, xxix. 1. What, does ben mean a calf? Num. xxix. 2–8, son of an ox, also; ben the son of an ox—meaning a calf, does ben most surely mean a calf? Job xxxix. 16, speaking of ostrich-eggs, calls them, בָּנֶיהָbānêhā, the plural: what! does this word also mean ostrich-eggs? But, Eccl. ii. 7, canithi, I purchased, ebadim, male slaves, shepaphath, and female slaves, and sons, bayith, of my house, haya, there were, li, to me:—here בְנֵיbĕnê bené is used to express the idea “home-born slaves.” But, shall we say that this word means such young slaves? Would such a catalogue of significations placed to the word ben, a son, be legitimate or truthful?
But, in Jer. ii. 14, we again find this word bayith, preceded by yelid, born of the house, meaning a house-born slave. The same words are used to mean the same thing in Gen. xiv. 14, meaning house-born slaves; and again, Gen. xvii. 12, meaning a house-born slave; also, idem. 13, meaning a slave born in thy house—thy house-born slave.
God did not speak to Abraham in an unintelligible language: every one knew what the idea was, even down to this day. Yet, are either of these words a synonyme of ebed, a slave?
But we will close this portion of our remarks by stating that the lexicographers might, in the manner here pointed out, (which they have pursued to great extent,) have still increased their catalogue of significations to the word ebed.
Let us show an instance. It is well known that the ancient eastern nations punished great offenders by cutting them in pieces. The term expressing and threatening this punishment was used somewhat technically, as is now the term to guillotine, meaning to cut off a man’s head. The term used by the ancients to express this cutting in pieces, as introduced in Hebrew, was, עֲבַד הַדָּמִיןʿăbad haddāmîn abad haddamin, which literally was “to enslave in pieces.” The term is expressed thus in Dan. ii. 5: הַדָּמִין תִּתְעַבְדוּןhaddāmîn titʿabdûn in pieces ye shall be enslaved, i.e. “Ye shall be cut in pieces.”
The lexicographers might have continued their catalogue with the same truthfulness with which they have extended it to such length, and have said that עבדʿbd ebed also meant to hew, to cut, &c., and have cited this instance in proof.
But in Dan. iii. 29, the term is used again thus הַדָּמִ֣ין יִתְעֲבֵדhaddāmîn yitʿăbēd in pieces shall be enslaved, i.e. “shall be cut in pieces.” Surely, they should have added, that ebed means to cut. It is true that the literal meaning of this term cannot always be given in English so as to be in pleasant accordance with our use of language.
But the same is true as to many other phrases and terms, and perhaps applicable to every other language. This form and use of this word as here used by Daniel, is rather a Persian adulteration than pure Hebrew, of which several instances may be found in some of the later books. The Babylonian and Persian kings considered even all their subjects as slaves to them, and this word was evidently used with greater latitude among them than it appears to have been among the Hebrews at the time of Moses.
LESSON III.
The lexicons seem tenacious that a very usual signification of the word עבדʿbd ebed is labour, both as a noun and verb; and inasmuch as to many there may seem some relation between the ideas slavery and labour, we wish to be particular in examining the Hebrew use of the terms expressive of these ideas. It appears to us that the Hebrew word יָגַעyāgaʿ yaga, it simply our idea of labour, more closely than any other word. Yet this word is never disconnected with the idea fatigue and weariness, and perhaps something of the same character will be perceived to be attached to our word labour. In Gen. xxxi. 42, it is used and translated, “the יְגִיֽעַyĕgiyʿa labour of my hands.” xxv. 18, “and when thou wast faint and וְיָגִ֑עַwĕyāgiaʿ weary.” 3: “And make not all the people to תְּיַגַ֥עtĕyagaʿ labour thither.” xxiv. 13: “And I gave you a land for which you did not יָגַ֣עְתָּyāgaʿtā labour.” 2 Sam. xvii. 2: “And I will come upon him while he is יָגֵעַyāgēaʿ weary.” Neh. v. 13: “So shall God shake out every man from his house and from his וּמִ֣יגִיע֔וֹûmîgîʿô labour.” Job iii. 17: “And the יְגִ֣יעֵיyĕgîʿê weary be at rest.” ix. 29: “If I be wicked, why then אִיגָע֖ʾîgāʿ labour I in vain.” x. 13: * * “despised the יְגִ֣יעַyĕgîaʿ work of thy hands * *.” xxviii. 18: “That which he יָגָעyāgāʿ laboured for shall he restore.” xxxix. 11: * * “Wilt thou leave thy יְגִיעֶֽךָ֖yĕgîʿekā labour to him.” 16: * * * “ her יְגִיעָ֣הּyĕgîʿāh labour is in vain without fear?” Ps. lxix. 4: “They that hate me without a cause;” the idea is, they that labour to injure, &c. “And their וִ֜יגִעָםwîgiʿom labour unto the locust.” cix. 11: “let the stranger spoil his יְגִיע֥וֹyĕgîʿô labour.” cxxviii. 2: “For thou shalt eat the יְגִ֣יעַyĕgîaʿ labour of thy hands.” Prov. xxiii. 4: “תִּיגַע֥tîgaʿ labour not to be rich.” Eccl. xii. 12: “Much study is יְגִעַ֥תyĕgiʿat weariness to the flesh.” Isa. xliii. 22, 23, 24: “But thou hast been יָגַ֥עְתָּyāgaʿtā הֽוֹגַעְתִֽיךָhôgaʿtîkā wearied thee with incense.” “Thou hast הֽוֹגַעְתַּ֖נִיhôgaʿtanî wearied me with thine iniquities.” xlv. 14: “The יְגִ֨יעַyĕgîaʿ labour of Egypt.” xlvii. 15: “with whom thou hast יָגָ֑עַתְּyāgāʿat laboured.” lv. 2: “And your וִיגִיֽעֲכֶם֖wîgiyʿăkem labour for that which satisfieth not.” lxv. 23: “They shall not יִֽגְעוּ֨yigĕʿû labour in vain.” Jer. iii. 24: “For shame hath devoured the יְגִי֥עַyĕgiyʿa labour.” xx. 5: “And all the יְגִיעָ֖הּyĕgîʿāh labours thereof.” xlv. 3: “I יָגַעְתִּיyāgaʿtî fainted in my sighing.” The idea is, my sighing was a labour of great weariness, &c. Ezek. xxiii. 29: “And shall take away all thy יְגִיעֵךְyĕgîʿēk labour.” Hag. i. 11: “And upon all the יְגִי֥עַyĕgiyʿa labour of thy hands.” Mal. ii. 17: “Ye have הֽוֹגַעְתֶּם֤hôgaʿtem wearied the Lord with your words, yet ye say, Wherein have we הוֹגָ֑עְנוּhôgāʿĕnû wearied him?” Eccl. i. 8: “All things are full of יְגֵעִ֔יםyĕgēʿîm labour.” x. 15: “The (עָמָלʿāmāl amal) labour of the foolish (תִּיגָעֶנּוּtîgāʿennû) every one of them.” The word labour in this sentence is translated from amal, another Hebrew word, which signifies labour, but in its signification is implied the association of the idea grief, sorrow, &c. The adjective quality of this word is mental—in yaga, it is physical. This word amal seems to be derived from the Arabic عَملمنࣨʿamln amelan, and from thence the Syriac ܥܰܠܢܵܐ, having nearly the same signification. In Arabic the signification is put down by Castell, operator, mercenarius; and in Syriac, labore defessus. It is used in Hebrew as follows: Gen. xli. 51: “And Joseph called the name of his first-born Manessa; for God, said he, hath made me forget all my עֲמָלִיʿămālî toil,” (labour, sorrow.) The word manessa means to forget, to cause to forget, &c. Num. xxiii. 21: “He hath not beheld עָמָ֖לʿāmāl iniquity in Jacob,” i.e. labour designed to give trouble, perplexity, or sorrow. Deut. xxvi. 7: “The Lord heard our voice and looked upon our affliction, and our עֲמָלֵנ֭וּʿămālēnû labour and our oppression.” Judg. v. 26: “And her right hand to the workman’s (עֲמֵלִי֑םʿămēliym labourer’s) hammer.” Job iii. 10: “Nor hid עָ֜מָׄלʿāmāl sorrow from mine eyes.” 20: “Wherefore is light given unto him that is in לְעָמֵ֣לlĕʿāmēl misery.” iv. 8: “They that plough iniquity and sow עָמָ֣לʿāmāl wickedness shall reap the same.” v. 7: “Yet man is born to לְעָמָ֣לlĕʿāmāltrouble.” vii. 3: “So I am made to possess months of vanity, and עָ֝מָלʿāmol wearisome nights are appointed to me.” xv. 35: “They conceive עָ֭מָלʿāmol mischief and bring forth vanity.” xvi. 2: עָמָ֣לʿāmāl “Miserable comforters are ye all.” xx. 22: “In the fulness of his sufficiency he shall be in עָמֵ֣לʿāmēl straits.” But it should be remembered that the Hebrew copy of Job is itself a translation. Ps. vii. 15: “He made a pit and digged it, and has fallen into the עָ֜מָׄלʿāmāl ditch (sorrow bringing labour) which he made.” 16: “His עֲמָ֣לוֹʿămālô mischiefs shall return upon his own head.” x. 7: “Under his tongue is עָמָלʿāmāl mischief and vanity.” 14: “Thou beholdest עָ֘מָ֤לʿāmāl mischief and spite.” xxv. 18: “Look upon mine affliction and my וַֽעֲמָלִ֑יwaʿămālî pain, and forgive my sin.” “Yet is their strength עָמָ֣לʿāmāl labour and sorrow.” cv. 44: “And they inherit the וַֽעֲמַ֖לwaʿămal labour of the people.” cxxvii. 1: “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain.” Prov. xvi. 26: “He that עָֽמְל֣וּʿāmĕlû laboureth עָ֣מְׄלָה עָ֭מֵלʿāmĕlâ ʿāmēl Isa. liii. 11: “He shall see of the מֵעֲמַלmēʿămal travail of his soul,” (labour producing sorrow, &c.) “And that write עָמָלʿāmāl grievousness which they have prescribed,” (a labour producing sorrow, &c.) Jonah iv. 10: “Thou hast had pity on the gourd for which thou hast not עָמַ֥לְתָּʿāmaltā laboured.” Eccl. i. 3: “What profit hath a man of all his עֲמָלוֹʿămālô labour which he taketh under the sun?” ii. 10: “For my heart rejoiced in all my עֲמָלִיʿămālî labour.” 11: “And then I looked on all the work that my hands had wrought, and on all the וּבֶֽעָמָ֖לûbeʿāmāl labour that I had שֶֽׁעָמַ֣לְתִיšeʿāmaltî laboured.” I hated all my עֲמָלִיʿămālî labour which I had עָמֵ֖לʿāmēl taken (laboured) under the sun.” 19: “Yet shall he have rule over all my עֲמָלִ֔יʿămālî labour wherein I have שֶֽׁעֽמַ֥לְתִּיšeʿmaltî laboured.” 20: “Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the הֶ֣עָמָלheʿāmol labour which I שֶׁ֥עָמַ֖לְתִּיheʿāmol took (laboured) under the sun.” 21: “For there is a man whose שֶֽׁעֲ֗מָל֛וֹšeʿămālô labour is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity—yet to a man that hath not עָ֥מַלʿāmal laboured herein shall he leave it for his portion.” 22: “For what hath man of all his עֲמָל֔וֹʿămālô labour and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath עָמֵ֖לʿāmēl laboured under the sun?” iv. 4: “Again I considered all עָמָלʿāmāl travail,” (labour and sorrow.) 8: “Yet there is no end to all his עֲמָל֔וֹʿămālô labour, neither saith he, For whom do I עָמֵ֗לʿāmēl labour.” iii. 9: “What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he עָמֵ֥לʿāmēl laboureth?” v. 18: “And to enjoy the good of all his בַּֽעֲמָל֑וֹbaʿămālô labour.” vi. 7: “All the עֲמַ֥לʿămal labour of a man is for his mouth.” ix. 9: “For that is thy portion in this life and in thy וּבַעֲמָ֣לְךָ֔ûbaʿămālĕkā labour.” x. 15: “The עֲמַ֥לʿămal labour (amal) of the foolish תְּיַגְּעֶ֑נּוּtĕyaggĕʿennû wearieth every one of them.”
מְלָאכָה֜mĕlāʾkāh melahkah is also quite analogous in its signification to our word labour, insomuch that our word labour may be often used in translation without impairing the sense. Gen. ii. 2: “On the seventh day God ended his work,” מְלַאכְתּ֖וֹmĕlaʾktô labour. xxxix. 11: “Joseph went into the house to do his business,” (labour.) Exod. xx. 9: “And do all thy work,” מְלַאכְתֶּֽךָmĕlaʾktekā 10: “In it thou shalt not do any work,” (labour, מְלָאכָ֜הmĕlāʾkâ.) xxxi. 3: “All manner of workmanship,” מְלָאכָֽהmĕlāʾkâ. 14: “For whosoever doeth any work,” מְלָאכָ֔הmĕlāʾkâ. 15: “Six days may work מְלָאכָה֒mĕlāʾkāh be done.” Lev. xiii. 48: “Of any thing made מְלֶ֥אכֶתmĕleʾket of skin,” (done, laboured, manufactured.) Ezra iii. 8: “To set forward the work of the house.” 9: “To set forward the workman,” הַמְּלָאכָ֖הhammĕlāʾkâ. Esther iii. 9: “And those that have charge of the king’s business,” הַמְּלָאכָ֔הhammĕlāʾkâ. ix. 3: “And officers הַמְּלָאכָה֙hammĕlāʾkāh of the king. Without multiplying examples, it may suffice to say, that this word, as expressive of labour, is ever associated with the idea of particularity, or class of labour, business, employment or job, without reference to any other adjective quality; and hence it came to mean a message, or one charged with a message, and is therefore sometimes used to mean an angel, because they were supposed to be messengers, charged to do a particular labour; hence, also, applied to a prophet; and hence, also, the prophet Malachi’s name.
עָשָׂהʿāśâ Asa properly means work or labour, as the result of making, procreating, producing, doing, acting, or performing, without any regard to the condition of the agent or actor. Gen. i. 7: “God made וַיַּעַשׂwayyaʿaś the firmament.” 16: “God made וַיַּעַשׂwayyaʿaś two great lights.” ii. 2: “God ended his work מְלַאכְתּוֹmĕlaʾktô which he had made,” עָשָׂ֥הʿāśâ. This word is also used to express the result of labour in acquiring slaves and other property generally, as in Gen. xii. 5: “All their substance that they had gathered, and the souls they had gotten in Haran,” i. e. all the property and slaves that they had laboured for, &c. עָשׂ֣וּʿāśû. Exod. xxxi. 4: “To work in gold and silver.” 5: It is used with malabkah, thus: “to work לַֽעֲשׂ֖וֹתlaʿăśôt in all manner of workmanship,” (מְלָאכָֽהmĕlāʾkâ malakah.) These two words occur together again in Neh. iv. 15, the iv. 21 of the English text: “So we laboured עֹשִׂ֣יםʿōśîm in the work,” בַּמְּלָאכָ֑הbammĕlāʾkâ. Ezek. xxix. 20: “I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour,” עָ֣שׂוּʿāśû. Exod. xxx. 25: “And thou shalt make it (וְעָשִׂ֣יתָwĕʿāśîtā labour it) an oil of holy ointment, an ointment composed after the art of the apothecary.” Art is here translated from מַ֥עֲשֵׂ֣הmaʿăśē maase, which is another word of very similar import, and is derived from עָשָהʿāšâ, and expresses the idea of labour, as of a thing done, or wrought, a work, deed, action, concern, business, i. e. a labour emanating from a habit, or an occupation of business. Gen. xliv. 15: “What deed הַמַּעֲשֶׂ֥הhammaʿăśe is this that ye have done?” xlvii. 3: “What is your occupation?” מַּֽעֲשֵׂיכֶ֑םmaʿăśêkem. Exod. xxiii. 16: “And the feast of the harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours מַֽעֲשֶׂיךָmaʿăśêkā, which thou hast sown in the field, and the first of the ingathering, which is the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours,” מַעֲשֶׂ֖יךָmaʿăśêkā. Hag. ii. 17: “And I smote you with blasting and with hail in all the labours מַֽעֲשֵׂ֣הmaʿăśē of your hands.” Hab. iii. 17: “Although the fig-tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vine, the labour מַֽעֲשֵׂהmaʿăśē of the olive shall fail.”
סֵבֶלsēbel sebel is sometimes translated labour, but it more often means something consequent to labour, as the burthen of labour is consequent to the labour: it is sometimes used to mean the produce of labour, and hence the Syrian Ephraimitish word סִבֹּלֶהsibbōle siboleth, which is said to mean an ear of corn, because an ear of corn was the produce of labour. Hence, it is sometimes used to mean prolific and fruitful, because the produce of labour is prolific and fruitful; and because to sustain a burthen, as of labour, carries with it the idea of physical ability and strength, it is used in the sense of bearing up, to elevate, to deliver from, &c. A few instances of its use will suffice. Exod. i. 11: “To afflict them with their burthens,” בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑םbĕsiblōtām. Ps. lxxxi. 7: “I delivered מִסֶּ֣בֶלmissebel thee.” cxliv. 14: “That our oxen may be strong to labour,” מְֽסֻבָּ֫לִיםmĕsubbālîm. The Hebrews had thus several ways by which they could express the idea labour accompanied with different adjective qualities. So the word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed may express the idea labour; but when so, it is always slave-labour, the labour peculiar to, or performed by a slave as in Isa. xix. 9: “They that work עֹֽבְדֵ֥יʿōbĕdê in fine flax.” The meaning is, they that labour or slave themselves in fine flax. The working in fine flax was slave-labour. If it were good English for us to say, they that slave in fine flax, it would be exactly what the prophet did say in this passage. So in Exod. xx. 9: “Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work.” Here labour is translated from ebed תַּ֥עֲבֹ֔ד֮taʿăbōd, as a verb “do” is from וְעָשִ֣֭יתָwĕʿāšîtā and “work” from מְלַאבְתְ֥ךָmĕlaʾbtĕkā. The literal meaning of this is—Six days shalt thou slave and labour all thy work;—or, more plainly—Six days shalt thou slave thyself (i.e. do slave labour) and וְעָשִ֣֭יתָwĕʿāšîtā labour, or make all thy מְלַאבְתְ֥ךָmĕlaʾbtĕkā particular, accustomed, professional or usual work or labour. This command is addressed to all mankind, and the propriety of it, as here explained, will be seen in the succeeding verse. “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do תַֽעֲשֶׂ֣הtaʿăśe any work כָל־מְלָאכָ֜ה֡kol-mĕlāʾkāh thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, (עַבְדְּךָʿabdĕkā, ebeddeka, slave.)” So, then, if this particular word had not been used, we could not have said that the command applied to slaves.
But the Hebrews had a way of expressing the idea of labour alone, associated with the idea of industry as its adjective quality: Should I say; By your hands you shall be sustained, the idea would be that you shall be sustained by your labour; that is, your personal industry. So the Hebrews used the words עַל־יָדʿal-yād el yod, which means “by hand,” and is used to mean labour. Thus, Prov. xiii. 11: “He that gathereth by vanity shall be diminished, but he that gathereth by labour (עַל־יָ֣דʿal-yād by hand, i. e. by his own industry) shall increase.” Is it not clear, then, that the Hebrews stood in no need of the word ebed to mean labour generally. They did use it to mean slave-labour, and slave-labour alone, as we shall more fully see hereafter.
This language enabled its writers to express the distinctive shades of meaning—those adjective qualities associated with the idea labour. These facts may appear to the mere English scholar as matters of no importance—not worth investigation. But, touching the Hebrew use of this word עבדʿbd ebed and its compounds, as it affects and expresses the institution of slavery, amid the eras of Divine inspiration, we hope to be sustained in the consideration of its very great importance.