Studies on Slavery, in Easy Lessons

Some of the lexicons say that this root עֶבֶדʿebed ebed means also worship, to worship God, or idols, &c., without any connection with the idea of slavery. In Gen. xxii. 5: “And I and the lad will go yonder and worship;” here, worship is from וְנִ֥שְׁתַּֽחֲוֶ֖הwĕništaḥăweh, from the root שׁחהšḥh shahah, which means to bow down. xxiii. 12: “And Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the Lord,” bowed down himself וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ֙wayyištaḥû. xlvii. 31: “And Israel bowed himself upon the bed’s head,” וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּwayyištaḥû. Exod. iv. 31: “Then they bowed their heads and worshipped,” וַיִּ֥שְׁתַּ֥חֲוֽוּwayyištaḥăwû. This root, like all others, takes upon itself a change of shape, according to the condition in which it is used. We will present a few instances of its application in Hebrew. Exod. xi. 8: “And bow down themselves unto me,” וְהִשְׁתַּ֥חֲווּwĕhištaḥăwû. xx. 5: “Thou shalt not bow down thyself תִּשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֶ֥֣הtištaḥăwe unto them.” xxxiii. 10: “And the people rose up and worshipped,” וְהִ֥שְׁתַּֽחֲו֔וּwĕhištaḥăwû. Deut. xxvi. 10: “And worship וְיִִּֽשְׁתַּֽחֲוִ֔יתָwĕyiišĕttaḥăwîtā before the Lord thy God.” Josh. v. 14: “And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and did worship,” וַיִּשְׁתָּ֔ח֗וּwayyištāḥû. 1 Sam. xv. 30: “That I may worship וִהִשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֵ֖יתִיwihištaḥăwêtî the Lord thy God.” 31: “And Saul worshipped וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּwayyištaḥû the Lord.” 2 Sam. i. 2: “That he fell to the earth and did obeisance,” וַיִּשְׁתָּ֥חוּwayyištāḥû. xiv. 33: “And bowed himself וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּwayyištaḥû on his face to the ground before the king.” 1 Kings i. 23: “He bowed himself וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּwayyištaḥû before the king with his face to the ground.” 2 Kings v. 18: “When my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship לְהִשְׁתַּֽחֲ֙וֹתlĕhištaḥăwōt there, * * * and I bow myself וְהִֽשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֵיתִיwĕhišĕttaḥăwêtî in the house of Rimmon, * * * when I bow myself down בְּהִשְׁתַּֽחֲוָיָתִיbĕhištaḥăwāyātî in the house of Rimmon.” xviii. 22: “Ye shall worship תִּשְׁתַּ֥חֲו֖וּtištaḥăwû before the altar of Jerusalem.” xix. 37: “And it came to pass as he was worshipping מִשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֶהmištaḥăwe in the house of Nishrosh, his God.” Job i. 20: “Then Job arose and fell down upon the ground and worshipped,” וַיִּשְׁהָֽחוּwayyišhāḥû. Ezek. viii. 16: “And they worshipped מִשְׁהֲוִיהֶ֥םmišhăwîhem the sun towards the east.”

Before we close our examples, let us notice how the Hebrews applied this word in poetry. Ps. xlv. 12 (11 of the English text): “Worship וְהִשְׁתַּ֥חֲוִיwĕhištaḥăwî thou him,” xcix. 5: “Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship וְ֭הִשְׁתַּ֥חֲווּwĕhištaḥăwû at his footstool.” cvi. 19: “They made a calf in Horeb and worshipped הִ֥שְׁתַּ֖חֲווּhištaḥăwû the molten image.” xcvii. 7: “Confounded be all they that serve (עֹבְדֵיʿōbĕdê slave themselves to) graven images; that boast themselves of idols: worship הִֽשְׁתַּֽחֲווּhišĕttaḥăwû him, all ye gods.” In this instance, the word serve associates with the idea of slavery, as does the original; but the worship with that of reverence. Both words occurring in the same sentence, will give us some idea of their different uses; yet some think this word in such instances synonymous with the word worship, notwithstanding the Hebrew writers thought differently; yet true it is, this word is sometimes used (as it were by figure) to express humility, subserviency, and devotedness of the true worshipper. In the same manner, St. Paul expresses the idea, when he says, that he is the doulos (δοῦλος, slave) of Jesus Christ. In an analogous sense, the Arabic words هَلَّhal hel and هَلّلَhallal hallel, Hebrew הַלֵּלhallēl hallal, are used to mean worship, &c. Ps. cl.: “Praise ye the Lord, praise God in his sanctuary,” &c., where this word is in frequent use, and from which our word hallelujah has arisen. Also the Arabic word هَوْدٌhawdun hōd, Hebrew הוֹדhôd hōd, is in somewhat similar use: Ps. cxxxvi. 1, 2, 3, all commencing, “O give thanks to the Lord,” meaning glory, majesty, or dignity to the Lord, as the worship of the Almighty. We trust no one has ever found the word ebed used in such a sense.

But it is said that עֲבֹדָתʿăbōdāt avoda means implements, utensils, appurtenances, (see Gessenius,) and Num. iii. 26, 31, and 36, is quoted in proof: “And the hangings of the court and the curtains for the door of the court, which is by the tabernacle, and by the altar round about, and the cords of it, for all the service thereof.” Service is translated from עֲבֹֽדָתוֹʿăbōdātô avodatho. The word, as here used, means slave-labour, and might well have been translated, “For all the slave-labour thereof,” i. e. of the tabernacle. We cannot perceive that it means the hanging of the court, or the curtains, or cords. The other instances quoted are of the same character, and we dismiss their consideration, asking the passages to be read.

But it is said, to minister, to minister unto, is sometimes translated to the word ebed. 1 Kings xix. 21: “Then he arose and went unto Elijah, and ministered וַֽיְשָׁרְתֵֽהוּwayšortēhû unto him.” The word is from the root שֵׁרֵתšērēt shereth, and means to wait upon, to attend to, &c., distinct from the idea of slavery. In Matt. iv. 11: “Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered (διηκονουν, diekonoun) unto him.” This Greek word, we deem, would be a good translation of this word from Hebrew into Greek. This word is used in Num. iii. 6: “That they may minister unto him.” 31: “Wherewith they may minister וְשֵֽׁרְת֖וּwĕšērĕtû unto it.” iv. 12: “And they shall take all the instruments of ministry וְשֵֽׁרְתוּwĕšērĕtû wherewith they minister.” 14: “Wherewith they minister about it.” xviii. 2: “That they may be joined unto thee and minister וִֽישָֽׁרְת֑וּךָ֩wîšārĕtûkā unto thee.” 1 Kings i. 4: “And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king and ministered וַתְּשָׁ֣רְתֵ֔הוּwattĕšārĕtēhû to him.” 15: “The Shunammite ministered מְשָׁרַ֖תmĕšārat unto the king.” If the word ebed had been used, it would have shown that she was a slave. The same word is continued to be used to mean minister. In 1 Sam. ii. 11: “And the child did minister unto the Lord before Eli.” 18: “But Samuel ministered מְשָׁרֵתmĕšārēt before the Lord, being a child.” iii. 1: “And the child Samuel ministered מְשָׁ֣רֵ֥תmĕšārēt unto the Lord before Eli.” 2 Sam. xiii. 17: “Then he called his servant (נַֽעֲרוֹnaʿărô his young man) that ministered מְשָׁ֣רְת֔וֹmĕšārĕtô unto him.” Now, had the ebed been here used instead of this word, as a verb, in the required mood and tense, &c., it would have been proof that the young man was a slave. But, in case the word ebed, as a noun, had been used, instead of נערnʿr nar, then this word might have been used as it is, without affecting the slave character of the servant. 1 Kings x. 5: “And the sitting of his servants, (עֲבָדָיו֩ʿăbādāyw slaves,) and the attendance of his ministers,” מְשָׁרְתָי֜וmĕšortāyw.

This passage shows with great distinctness the different use and meaning of the words ebed and shereth, between those who ministered unto him, and those who did slave-labour, between the minister and the slave and so we ever find the distinct uses and meanings of these words. See Exod. xxviii. 43: “Or when they come near unto the altar to minister לְשָׁרֵ֣תlĕšārēt in the holy place.” Deut. x. 8: “To stand before the Lord to minister לְשָֽׁרְתוֹ֙lĕšārĕtô unto him.” xviii. 5: “For the Lord thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes to stand to minister לְשָׁרֵתlĕšārēt in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for ever.” 1 Kings viii. 11: “So that the priests could not stand to minister לְשָׁרֵ֖תlĕšārēt because of the cloud.” 2 Kings xxv. 14: “And all the vessels of brass wherewith they ministered, יְשָֽׁרְתוּyĕšārĕtû, took they away.” 2 Chron. xxiv. 14: “ Even vessels to minister,” שָׁרֵתšārēt. Neh. x. 36 (the 27th of the Hebrew text): “Unto the priests that minister in the house of God.” 39 (the 40th of the Hebrew text): “And the priests that minister,” הַ֥מְשָׁ֣רְתִ֔יםhamšārĕtîm. Isa. lx. 7: “The rams of Nebaioth shall minister יְשָֽׁרְת֑וּנֶךְyĕšārĕtûnek unto thee.” Let it be noticed that the word strangers is translated from the word נֵכָרnēkār nechar. The word is of Arabic derivation from eker, and has a privative sense, as nescivit, abrogavit, improbavit. Hence, the Hebrews used it to mean strange, foreign, and sometimes false, as in Deut. xxxii. 12: “No strange (false) God with him.” Mal. ii. 11: “The daughter of a strange (false) God.” And this word was used to mean the strangers, idolaters, and rejected people, out of whom the Hebrews were allowed to make slaves, and therefore it was used in Gen. xvii. 12: “Or bought with thy money of any stranger (נֵכָ֔רnēkār neker) which is not of thy seed.” And therefore the propriety of the use of this word in the description of those who should be their drudges and slates, is beautifully expressed by the idea of building up their walls, as here expressed by the prophet. But the idea of the kings ministering, is as before, from the root, shereth. Many more examples of the use of this word might be quoted; but we trust the foregoing are sufficient to establish its meaning to be altogether different and distinct from any use of the word ebed. Yet, there are in the received translation of the holy books, a few instances where this word is translated erroneously, as though it were a synonyme of the word ebed.

In Num. xi. 28, “And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses,” the word servant is translated from מְשָׁרֵ֥תmĕšārēt, and should have been the minister of Moses. In Exod. xxiv. 13: “Moses rose up and Joshua his minister” מְשָֽׁרְת֑וֹmĕšārĕtô. In this last quotation, minister is correctly translated from the word as above, proving the error in Numbers. A similar error occurs also in Ezek. xx. 32; it reads thus: “And that which cometh into your mind shall not be at all that ye say, We will be as the heathen, as the families of the country to serve לְשָׁרֵ֖תlĕšārēt wood and stone.” Serve is translated from as above, and should have been to minister unto wood and stone. A like error occurs in Exod. xxxiii. 11: “But his servant וּמְשָֽׁרְתוֹûmĕšārĕtô Joshua,” should have been rendered, “his minister Joshua.” So, also, in Num. iv. 47, the word ebed is translated as a synonyme of sherath. The passage reads thus: “From thirty years old and upward, even unto fifty years old, every one that comes to do the service of the ministry, and the service of the burden in the tabernacle of the congregation.” In this passage, the word ebed, with affixes, is used four times consecutively, and immediately followed by the word massa, which we have before seen means labour, with the idea of the burden of labour altogether predominating.

In the translation, it is plain to see that one of these words is totally left out, which, we suppose, no one will pretend is not an error. The translation made of these five words at the Theological College at Andover, is far more correct than the received version. It is thus: “to perform the business of the service and the business of the burden,” &c. Yet this is not the language of the original, which reads thus: לַֽעֲבֹ֨ד עֲבֹדַ֧ת עֲבֹדָ֛ה וַֽעֲבֹדַ֥ת מַשָּׂ֖אlaʿăbōd ʿăbōdat ʿăbōdâ waʿăbōdat maśśāʾ.

If our proposition is correct, that the word ebed is never used in Hebrew expression unassociated with the idea of slavery, then this passage from Numbers should read: “From thirty years old and upwards, even to fifty years old, every one that comes to slave in the slavery of the slave labour, and in the slavery of the burdens of the tabernacle of the congregation.” We agree that the passage is somewhat difficult to render into English but because we may find some difficulty in making good English, we are not to translate from other words of different meaning from the ones used. The holy penmen said what they meant, and surely meant what they said: there was no double dealing in the spirit of Jehovah, who dictated to them. But that translators should have, in some few instances, mistaken or confounded the use of one word, is not to be thought strange. Taking into view the volume of the holy books, it is truly wonderful that greater errors were not committed. And we take occasion here to remark, that, of all the ideas, qualities, and actions, given in definition of the word ebed, unassociated with the idea of slavery, upon examination of the language, we shall find graphic symbols representing their phonetic signs, distinct from the idea of slavery, as we have these already examined.

LESSON V.

To show more clearly that the word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed is never used in Hebrew expression unassociated with the idea of slavery, we now propose to examine that word as used by the Hebrew writers in the holy books. Our words SERVANT, servitude, service, &c. are all derived from the Roman word SERVUS, which meant a SLAVE; and our word servant, when first introduced into our language, as absolutely meant a slave as now does that term itself, and even now fully retains that meaning, where the English language and slavery coexist. The oriental scholar (and let him be invited to examine) will perceive that the word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed was common to all the Shemitic tribes, and almost with the same phonetic particulars; but as their figures representing the same phonetic power were quite dissimilar, we think it a proof, almost demonstration, that the word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed was used as a phonetic symbol by them long before any of those languages were written. This circumstance shows the extreme antiquity of the word; and if we succeed to establish the fact, that this word meant nothing but what is now meant by the word slave, we shall also have established the extreme antiquity of the thing itself. A word means nothing, until it is by some means agreed what it shall represent, what idea, or association of ideas it shall excite in the mind. Hence, it not unfrequently occurs that a thing may be better described by paraphrasis than by the expression of a single term. In Gen. xii. 5: “And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran.” The latter clause of this sentence is from this Hebrew expression, וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־עָשׂ֣וּ בְֹחָרָ֑ןwĕʾet-hannepeš ʾăšer-ʿāśû bĕōḥārān, which is correctly translated in the Andover lexicon, “The souls they had acquired in Haran.” Every one knows that the things here meant are slaves. But, when the scholar comes to examine the power of the language of this Hebrew paraphrasis, he will discover three incident attendants. הַנֶּפֶשׁhannepeš hannephesh, translated souls, also carries with it the idea a living soul, to have life, the life itself, the living principle, and is so translated in many places. A slave, therefore, must have life: when dead, the condition ceases. In the same way, the sentence expresses the idea of acquiring property by purchase, or any other way in which property may be acquired so as to be property. The three incidents then are life, a capacity of being acquired, and, when so acquired, property. All this could not have been expressed by the single term עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, only as it is made the representative of this complex idea: and God has no doubt caused this passage to be on record at this early period, that these incidents should finally come to the knowledge of all men. A somewhat similar expression is used in Rev. xviii. 13. Every one knows that Babylon had been a great slave-market. St. John, after naming the various articles of her merchandise, adds και των σωματων, και την ψυχην, kai ton sōmatōn, kai tēn psuchēn, which is translated, “slaves and souls of men:” σωματων does not mean slaves, but a dead body, and is so used by Homer, Xenophon, and by the New Testament itself; but, when united with και την ψυχην, means slaves alone. The phrase “souls of men,” therefore, in the translation, is surplusage. But the xii. 16 of Genesis is more particular in giving the different kinds of property and their appropriate names. “And he had sheep and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants (עֲבָדִיםʿăbādîm abadim), and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels.” The word men-servants is translated from the plural of עֶבֶדʿebed ebed. Here we find the conventional term expressing the complex idea, previously expressed by the phrase “ souls gotten,” persons in life, subject to be purchased, and when purchased, property, as were sheep and oxen, and he-asses and she-asses, and camels. In Gen. xvii. 9–13, we begin to find the law influencing the conduct of Abraham in the management of this property: “And God said unto Abram, thou shalt,” &c. 12: “And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised,” &c.: “He that is born in thy house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed.” 13: “He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised.” And let it here be remembered that God recognises the possession of this property, by giving directions with his own voice concerning its government. And in Gen. xx. 14, we have some account of the origin of Abraham’s title to some portion of this property: “And Abimelech took sheep and oxen and men-servants (עבדיםʿbdym ebedim, the plural of ebed), and gave them to Abraham.” xxiv. 35: “And the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great; and he hath given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and men-servants and maid-servants, and camels and asses.” Here the plural of ebed is also used. Such is the title by which he possessed this property, described as given to him by the Lord. But God had promised that he would bless Abraham, Gen. xvii. 1: “The Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God.” 2: “And I will make my covenant between me and thee.” 7: “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant.” 10: “This is my covenant.” (This covenant extends from the beginning of the 10th to the end of the 14th verse.) One part of this covenant was, that these ebeds, translated men-servants, whether born in his house or bought with his money of any stranger, should be circumcised. Wherefore, the possession of these ebeds as property became agreeable to the terms of the covenant, a part of the covenant itself—a covenant first proposed and promulgated by the great Jehovah; as he styles himself in the covenant, the Almighty God! Gen. xxvi. 2: “And the Lord appeared unto him (Isaac), and said, Go not down into Egypt: dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee.” 4: “And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and I will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” 13: “And the man (Isaac) waxed great, and went forward and grew until he became very great.” 14: “For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants (עֲבֻדָּֽהʿăbuddâ abuddah, slaves, a plural formation of ebed), and the Philistines envied him.”!!!

Gen. xxvii. 29: “Let people serve thee (יַֽעַבְדּ֣וּךָyaʿabdûkā be slaves to thee), be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee; cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.” Let us notice the conformity of this passage with Gen. xxv. 23: “And the Lord said unto her, two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels, and the one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve (יַֽעֲבֹ֥דyaʿăbōd be a slave to) the younger.” Gen. xxx. 43: “And the man (Jacob) increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maid-servants, and men-servants (וַֽעֲבָדִ֔יםwaʿăbādîm the plural of ebed), and camels and asses.” Exod. xx. 1, 2, 9, 10, 17: “And God spake all these words, saying,” 2: “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (עֲבָדִֽי֑םʿăbādiym out of slavery): 5: “Thou shalt not bow down (תִשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֶה֣tištaḥăweh worship them) thyself to them, nor serve (תָֽעָבְדֵ֑םtāʿobdēm be a slave to them) them.” 9: “Six days shalt thou labour (תּֽ֥עֲבֹ֔ד֘tʿăbōd slave thyself, or do SLAVE-LABOUR) and do (oso, labour or do work) all thy work,” (וְעָשִׂי֣תָwĕʿāśiytā all thy accustomed labours.) This command embraces all classes, the slave as well as the most elevated. All men, by the fall of Adam, had become subject to slave-labour. 10: “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant (עַבְדְּךָʿabdĕkā thy slave), this commandment we are directed not to covet any thing that is our neighbour’s, including his man-servant and maid-servant. Here the same word עַבְד֤וֹʿabdô is also used. Exod. xxi. 1: “Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.” 2: “If thou buy a Hebrew servant (עֶ֣בֶדʿebed ebed), (יַֽעֲבֹ֑דyaʿăbōd shall slave himself),” 5: “And if the servant (הָעֶבֶדhāʿebed ha ebed, slave) shall plainly say, I love,” &c. Exod. xxi. 7: “She shall not go out as the men-servants do.” (הָֽעֲבָדִֽיםhāʿăbādîm the plural is here used.) 20: “If a man smite his servant עַבְדּוֹʿabdô or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished: for he is his money.” 26: “If a man smite the eye of his servant,” עַבְדּ֛וֹʿabdô. 27: “ If he smite out his man-servant’s tooth,” עַבְדּ֛וֹʿabdô. 32 “If the ox shall push the man-servant עֶבֶדʿebed or maid-servant, he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.”

Lev. xxv. 44: “Both thy bond-men וְעַבְדְךָwĕʿabdĕkā and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bond-men,” (עֶ֥בֶדʿebed ebed.) 45: “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they beget in your land, and they shall be your possession.” 46: “And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession they shall be your bond-men תַּ֖עֲבֹ֑דוּtaʿăbōdû for ever.”

Deut. v. 14: “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant וְעַבְדְּךָwĕʿabdĕkā, nor thy maid-servant, that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.” 15: “And remember that thou wast a servant (עֶ֣בֶ֥דʿebed ebed) in the land of Egypt.” 21 (18th of Hebrew text): “Neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his man-servant וְעַבְדֵֹוwĕʿabdōēw, or his maid-servant.” Deut. xii. 12: “And ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God, ye, and your sons, and your daughters, and your men-servants (וְעַבְדֵיכֶםwĕʿabdêkem a plural form of ebed), thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant,” וְעַבְדְּךָwĕʿabdĕkā. Deut. xv. 12: “If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve וַעֲבָֽדְךָ֖waʿăbādĕkā thee six years.” 15: “And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man (עֶ֣בֶדʿebed ebed) in the land of Egypt.” 17: “And he shall be thy servant (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed) for ever.” Deut. xvi. 11: “And thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant וְעַבְדְּךָwĕʿabdĕkā, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you.” 12: “And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed) in Egypt.” 14: “And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant וְעַבְדְּךָ֣wĕʿabdĕkā, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow.” Deut. xx. 10: “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.” 11: “And it shall be if it make thee an answer of peace and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people found therein shall be tributaries (לָמַ֖סlāmas lamas, afflicted, cast down, to pay tribute, &c.), and they shall serve (וַֽעֲבָדֽוּךָwaʿăbādûkā be thy slaves) thee.” Deut. xxiii. 9–17 contains certain laws to be observed in time of war with their enemies, &c., one of which is, that a slave escaped to them from the enemy should not be restored, &c. Deut. xxiii. 16 (15th of the English text): “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant,” (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, slave.) xxiv. 18: “But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man,” (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, slave.) wast a bond-man,” עֶבֶדʿebed Gen. ix. 25: “And he said, Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants (ebed-ebedim) shall he be unto his brethren.” 26: “And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant,” (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed.) Many more instances of a similar use of this word might be selected from the holy books; some of which we hope to notice in the progress of our study. Such, then, was the Hebrew use of the word, to mean slave, a person purchased or otherwise acquired, and the unquestionable property of the master. Such then being the condition of the ebed, slave, it is evident that he could not be contented and happy, in case he had ambition to gratify, with hopes and prospects before him adverse from those of his master; his whole earthly felicities are bound up in his master’s welfare and prosperity; like an individual of an army, he feels that the elevation, the brilliancy of the commander is reflected upon him; and with a Christian spirit, he obeys his master in all things, “not with eye-service, but with singleness of heart, fearing God.” See Col. iii. 22. In such a state of mind, the slave finds no unhappiness in his condition, but joy and gladness; and with the slave of Abraham, he implores Jehovah: “O Lord God of my master Abraham! I pray thee send me good speed this day, and show kindness unto my master Abraham: Blessed be the Lord God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and truth.” Gen. xxiv. 12 and 27. Expressive of a character of perfect devotedness, humility, and obedience. The term ebed might well be borrowed to express the earnest devotion of a worshipper of Jehovah, and is so often used in connection with the patriarchs, Moses, David, and the prophets. The term thus used expresses the quality of their devotedness and obedience, and not necessarily the quality of the individual. In this sense, the apostles style themselves the (δουλοι, douloi) slaves of Jesus Christ; not that they were personally douloi, but in their devotion and obedience to him, they were what the doulos was or should be to his master. It is probable that, in some sense, all men feel that in the hand of God they are as clay in the hands of the potter; that the great Jehovah overrules and governs all things; that, as existences, they are from and dependent on him: under such a sense, we sometimes find the term ebed applied, as in the name Obadiah, Obadyahu, the slave of God, and used as a proper noun. But such compound words are dependent for their meaning upon the complex ideas of what their primitives signified; and, in a somewhat analogous sense, the term ebed is applied to Nebuchadnezzar, lie being in the hands of the Almighty, as clay in the hands of the potter, the mere instrument, the fabrication of his hand. There is, however, in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, a use of this word peculiar to them; but we should recollect that they were educated in the Persian capital and employed in high stations by the Persian monarch. We may therefore well expect some variation in their dialect.

LESSON VII.

And we may well bring to mind the fact that there are two distinctly marked eras in the Hebrew language. The first ends at the Babylonish captivity. The Pentateuch and older prophets, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Psalms, and Proverbs, come within this era. The second commences with the return of the Israelites from that captivity, and extends to the introduction of Greek into Palestine, subsequent to the conquests of Alexander. The first period may be emphatically called ancient Hebrew; and the latter, more modern. The Hebrew of this period is strongly marked by an approximation to the Chaldee and Persian. To this period of the language belong the books of Nehemiah, Ezra, Daniel, Esther, Jonah, Haggai, Malachi, Ecclesiastes, and a part of the Psalms; and these works will ever be regarded by the oriental scholar as inferior in classical literature to those of earlier date, notwithstanding their other merits of high excellence. But some of the peculiarities of the writings of the second period are not to be regarded as recent alterations, but as the phonetic, unwritten Hebrew of the more remote districts of Palestine itself. The variations of this more modern from the ancient Hebrew are extremely numerous, both as to the substitution of one word for another, but also as to a change of meaning of the same word; as, for instance, the more ancient would have used the word מָלַךְmālak malak to signify a king, to rule, &c.; but the more modern have used a word, which, from its strong phonetic relation, has evidently been derived from it, שָלַטšālaṭ shalat, to mean to rule, &c., and so used Ps. cxix. 133, Eccl. ii. 19, Esther ix. 1, Neh. v. 15, Dan. ii. 39, and in many other places. So also the ancient would use the word אָמַרʾāmar amar, to signify to speak, to say; but the more modern uses the same word to signify to command. What we say is, that we cannot always learn the original meaning of a word from the more modern use of it. We will now notice the use of the ancient word ebed in this more modern dialect of the Hebrews. In Ezra iv. 19, we find, “And that rebellion and sedition have been made therein” is translated from מִהְעֲבֶדmihʿăbed mithabed. Let us examine the circumstances under which this sentence was written. Rehum had written to the monarch Artaxerxes in opposition to the building of the walls of Jerusalem, informing him that it had ever been a rebellious city, hurtful to kings, &c.; in answer to which, the king writes, “that the records have been examined, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition hath been made therein.” The Persian monarchs were all absolute; they regarded those whom they conquered as slaves; and when they rebelled, they used this word to signify that it was slaves who rebelled. Our word servile is somewhat analogous, and might very properly be substituted for it in the foregoing text, thus: “And it is found, this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that there hath been servile rebellion and sedition therein.” When we speak of insurrection, sedition, rebellion, or war with slaves, we call it servile, as Artaxerxes did in this case, to show the fact that the war was with slaves. Ezra iv. 24, this word עֲבִידַ֣תʿăbîdat is translated work. So in v. 8, עֲבִ֥ידְתָּאʿăbîdĕttāʾ work, vi. 7, עֲבוׄדַ֭תʿăbwdat work, to show that the labour was done by slaves, or, figuratively, that the labour was intense, devoted, and obedient, as of slaves. vi. 8: תַעַׄבדֹוּןtaʿabdōûn “Ye shall do.” 12: יִתְעֲבֵ֖דyitʿăbēd “Let it be done with speed.” 13: עֲבַֽדוּʿăbadû “So they did speedily.”

21: יִתְעֲבֵ֖דyitʿăbēd “It be done speedily.” 23: יִתְעֲבֵדyitʿăbēd “Let it be diligently done.” 26: עָבֵדʿābēd “Will not do.” מִתְעֲבֵ֖דmitʿăbēd “Let judgment be executed speedily.” These instances of the use of monarch of Persia is speaking, who regarded not only the Jews, but all his subjects, as slaves. It was the court manner of the eastern monarchs in such decrees to throw in occasionally an exclamation of the nature of an imperative interjection, such as, Slave, attend! Pay attention, slaves! Listen, slaves! &c., all in substance meaning that those to whom the decree is issued should perform it quickly and without further notice. And we find the same custom existing among them even at this day, and such is the true sense in which the term is here used. Let us exemplify it. Ezra vi. 12: “I, Darius, have made a decree;” then follows the Persian adverb אָסְפַּ֖רְנָאʾosparnāʾ asepporna, which means quickly, speedily, diligently, &c.; then the word in question, as before noticed: “quickly, slaves,” is therefore the literal meaning, i. e. what he had decreed they should instantly perform. We do not pretend to say that translating it to do, &c. gives a substantially wrong sense; but it seems it may have led lexicographers to an erroneous conception of the meaning of the word. Jer. x. 11: “The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth:” made is translated from עֲבַ֑֗דוּʿăbadû. If this word is the correct reading, the idea of the prophet had regard to the power, not to the act of a creator,—the gods that have not subjected, have not placed in subjection, as if in slavery to, whose laws do not govern the heavens and the earth. The gods who could not do these things are not gods, and they shall perish. This was the idea of the prophet. But this word is marked in all the best copies with a keri, showing that this reading was suspected by the Jewish scholars to be bad; and they supply in the margin the words פתח כאתנחptḥ kʾtnḥ, which is at least some proof that they thought its use in this instance unusual; and Kennecott and De Rossi found these words used instead of עבדוֹעבדו in some copies.

LESSON VIII.

But we have a sure method by which we may discover what meaning Ezra did affix to this word—by examining his use of it in those cases where its meaning cannot be doubtful. See Ezra iv. 11: “Thy servants,” עַבְדָּ֛י֯ךְיךʿabdāykĕyk. v. 11: “We are the servants,” עַבְדוֹהִיʿabdôhî, having relevance to their devotedness to God. vi. 16 commences with the word יַֽעֲבַ֣דוּyaʿăbadû, which is omitted in our translation. The sentence should commence thus: “And the slaves, the children of Israel, the priests,” &c. ix. 9: “For we were bondmen עֲבָדִ֣יםʿăbādîm, yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage,” וּבְעַבְדֻתֵ֔נוּûbĕʿabdutēnû. These instances clearly show how Ezra understood this word: notwithstanding his writings were touched with the Persian and Chaldee idioms. A similar result will be found upon the examination of Nehemiah and Daniel. Neh. ii. 10 and 19: “And Tobiah the servant הָּעֶ֣בֶדhāʿebed, the Ammonite heard of it”—“And Tobiah the servant הָעֶ֣בֶדhāʿebed, the Ammonite.” v. 5: “Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and lo, we bring into bondage (כֹֽ֠בְשִׁיםkōbĕšîm kovshim) sons and our daughters to be servants (לַֽעֲבָדִֹםlaʿăbādiōm slaves), and some of our daughters are brought into bondage (נִכְבָּשׁוֹתnikbāšôt subjections, not necessarily slavery) already,” (כָּבַשkābaš kovash.) The root from which these two words are formed in no sense means slavery, but to reduce, to subdue, to humble; and in this sense is used in Esther vii. 8, and translated “force.” But this word aids very much in showing what idea was affixed to the word ebed; and we ask to compare this passage of Nehemiah with Jer. xxxiv. 8–16: “This is the word that came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, after that king Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people which were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them; * * * that every man should let his man-servant, (עַבְדּ֔וֹʿabdô male slave,) and every man his maid-servant שִׁפְחָת֛וֹšipḥātô, being a Hebrew or Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve (עֲבָד־ʿăbād- slave) himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother. Now, when all the princes, and all the people which had entered into the covenant, heard that every one should let his man-servant (עַבְדּ֔וֹʿabdô male slave), and every one his maid-servant, go free, that none serve themselves (עֲבָד־ʿăbād- slave themselves), of them any more, then they obeyed and let them go. But afterwards they turned and caused the servants (הָ֥עֲבָדִיםhāʿăbādîm ha abadim, slaves), and the hand-maids, whom they had let go free, to return. Therefore the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, from the Lord, saying, Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bond-men (עֲבָדִ֖יםʿăbādîm ebedim, slaves), saying, At the end of seven years, let go every man his brother a Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee; and when he hath served thee (וַֽעֳבָ֖דְךָwaʿŏbādĕkā slaved for thee) six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee; but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear. And ye were now turned, and had done right in my sight, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbour; and ye had made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name. But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, (עַבְדּוֹʿabdô ebeddo, slave,) and every man his hand-maid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection (וַתִּכְבְּשׁ֣וּwattikbĕšû) to be unto you for servants (לַֽעֲבָדִ֖יםlaʿăbādîm for slaves), and for hand-maids.” The comparison of these passages proves the fact that Nehemiah and Jeremiah used the word ebed to mean a slave, without any variation of meaning. Nor will we hold Nehemiah responsible for his word כָּבַשׁkābaš kavash, subjection, being translated bondage. Neh. vii. 66, 67, gives an account of the captive Israelites that returned from Susa and Babylon to Jerusalem. “And the whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore. Besides their man-servants (עַבְדֵיהֶ֤םʿabdêhem male slaves), and their maid-servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty score.” We trust that so varied, particular, and descriptive are the records left in the holy books through which we may search out what the Hebrews meant by their use of the word ebed (עבדʿbd), that its certainty and definiteness must place the inquiry beyond doubt. But as in this instance the word כָּבַשׁkābaš kavash has been translated bondage, it may be well to give a few examples of its use in the holy books, that all may see and know that its meaning is totally distinct from that of slavery. Gen. i. 28: “Multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it,” וְכִבְשֻׁהָwĕkibšuhā. Num. xxxii. 22: “And the land be subdued וְנִכְבְשָׁ֥הwĕnikbĕšâ before the Lord.” 29: “And the land shall be subdued וְנִכְבְּשָׁהwĕnikbĕšâ before you.” Josh. xviii. 1: “And the land was subdued נִכְבְּשָׁ֖הnikbĕšâ before them.” 2 Sam. viii. 1: “Which he subdued,” כִּבֵשׁkibēš. ‎2 Chron. ix. 18: “With a footstool,” וְכֶבֶשׁwĕkebeš because a footstool was in the place of subjection. Zech. ix. 15: “And subdue וְכָ֥בְשׁוּwĕkābĕšû with sling-stones.” Micah vii. 19: “He will subdue יִכְ֖בּוֹשׁyikbôš our iniquities.” The foregoing examples, we trust, are sufficient to disabuse the mind of the idea of any synonyme of meaning of these two words.

LESSON IX.

WE propose to examine the Hebrew use of the word ebed in the 5th and 15th of the second chapter of Genesis: “In that day the Lord God made the earth, and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till לַֽעֲבֹ֖דlaʿăbōd the ground.” To till is here translated from this word ebed, with the affix of the preposition לl. This is the first instance in which the word is used in the holy book; and it may seem extremely strange that the writers of these books found its use necessary in their description of events even before the creation of man. It is not our business to draw out theological doctrine unconnected with the subject of our present inquiry; but we suppose it will not be disputed that the great Jehovah as well knew, before he created the heavens and the earth, and man upon the earth, all and every particular of what would happen, as at any subsequent time: with him, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. We may behold the birth, maturity, and death of some animalcula, in a day or in an hour. But, with him the succession of generations, of the animal life of a thousand years, pass in instantaneous and present view. Time appertains alone to mortals. He saw the most ultimate condition of man; and the earth and the herb were made to suit it. But from the manner of the expression of the text, may we not conclude that the herb, although made, would not grow until man was created, and in the condition to till (לַ֥עֲבֹ֖דlaʿăbōd to slave) the ground? The support of the animal world, independent of man, is spontaneously presented before them: not so with man in his fallen state. “He sendeth the springs into the valley, which run among the hills. They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst. By them shall the fowls of heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches. He watereth the hills from his chambers; the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works. He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service (לַֽעֲבֹדַ֣תlaʿăbōdat for the slavery) of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth,” Ps. civ. 10–14. The second instance in which this word is used is in Gen. ii. 15: “And the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it, and to keep it.” To dress it is translated from this word לְעָבְדָ֖הּlĕʿobdāh. There is certainly much obscurity in the use of the word in this instance. Professor Stuart, of Andover, supposes that it inculcates the doctrine that labour was imposed on man in the paradisiacal state; consequently, that labour was no part of the curse which followed the apostacy. (See his Chreestomathy, page 105.) This view excludes the idea that the word, as here used, is associated with the idea of slavery, and that, if, in the interchange of language, although the idea of labour may predominate, nevertheless, it must be slave labour. Our mind does not yield its assent to his position. We had associated with our idea of this paradise the most perfect heaven, the dwelling-place of Jehovah!! and that the generations of man, when guided and governed by Divine mercy in such a manner that we could be happy therein, that it would yet become our ultimate home,—(“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God,” Rev. ii. 7,)—and that the humble worshipper of Jehovah while in a state of progressive preparedness, would therefore cry out with the Psalmist, “Unto thee I lift mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens! Behold, as the eyes of servants (עֲבָדִ֠יםʿăbādîm male slaves) look unto the hand of their master; and as the eyes of a maiden (שִׁפְחָה֮šipḥāh shiphhah, female slave) unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God until he have mercy upon us.” Ps. cxxiii. 1, 2. If then the paradise of old was the type of the paradise eternal, it would seem that the labour of the ebed was excluded therefrom: “Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage (δουλείας, slavery) of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Rom. viii. 21. And for this very good reason, that slavery, the consequent of sin, could never find entrance there: regeneration is therefore indispensable.

“It strikes me that the use of the verb (עָבַדʿābad abad, presents no difficulty that calls for explanation. The language of inspiration is man’s language, though employed by God. The events, facts, things, acts, that preceded man’s creation, must still be described by language and terms that had come into use after man’s creation. Man must first exist before there could be words to be used in conveying knowledge to man. A word implying slavery might therefore most reasonably be found in a description of things prior to the existence of man, or of slavery, which description was written long afterwards by Moses, and in language which was in use amongst the men for whom he wrote. When Moses wrote, when God inspired him, עֶבֶדʿebed ebed was a familiar word.” Extract from manuscript letter of the Rev. J.B. Stratton to the author.

But in the pursuance of the chain of thought that first was impressed on our mind, we have to remark that the word Eden meant pleasure, happiness. It seems to have been derived from or cognate with the Arabic word عَدْنٌʿadan aden, and means softness, gentleness, mildness, tenderness, and daintiness, in that language. The Hebrews had also another word from this same root, עֲדִיʿădî adi, to mean ornaments, &c., and עֲדָיִןʿădāyin adain, to mean luxuriousness and delicate. The word, as used in the text before, is applied to a district of country, and confers the adjective qualities to said district, i. e. a district of country of great pleasure and delight. The general boundaries are given and described by the naming of its rivers. It was of considerable extent, embracing, perhaps, more than the whole of the ancient Armenia.

“And a garden was planted eastward in Eden.” Garden is translated from גַןgan gan. The word is derived from גַנּןgann ganan. The word means, to protect, protection, a thing protected. The idea expressed by it is not confined to a single walled area; but the two words are often used together, as if it was intended to convey the idea of the fact that the protection extended to the whole of Eden. And it may be well conceived that innocency was its protection. Here cunning art never wove its web for the entanglement of its victim. Here no crocodile tears enticed sympathy within the reach of harm. Here no vile wretch ever betrayed a brother’s confidence. Here the lion and the lamb might have couched together, and the infant have played with the tiger’s paw. We are aware that some modern scholars consider the description of the garden of Eden by Moses a mere picture of the mind. Rosenmaeler says that it is on a par with Virgil’s description of the Elysian fields. This class of philosophers consider the whole as a fiction: but man had his commencement somewhere, and it is a fact that four large rivers, answering to the outlines of the general description of Moses, do flow from fountain-heads not more than thirty or forty miles apart, in the central and most elevated region of Armenia. These streams meander through the same countries described by him, and exhibit the same mineral productions: nor would it be any thing remarkable, if investigation should yet prove that they were all indebted to one and the same source. Let us consider then, whether it was not a fact that the garden of Eden was not confined to a little plat of ground, but included a whole district of country, embracing the visible sources of the rivers named: a district of country, from the mildness of its climate, fruitfulness, and other causes of pleasure and delight, exceedingly well adapted to the early residence of man. We have therefore no well founded reason to believe that the account given by Moses of the garden of Eden was a fiction, independent of Divine authority. But his account must be understood so as to be consistent with itself, and with the facts now existing of which it speaks. We are not under the necessity of supposing that the felicity of our first parents was confined to the locality named: a paradise was to them anywhere. It was their innocence, not the location, that made it so; and thus they were driven out of paradise, perhaps, without a change of location. The use of the word ebed עבדעבד, in ii. 15 of Genesis, might then well be of the same foreshadowing import as in the first instance of its use, even before the creation of man. For, who must not conclude, when man was first placed in paradise, that God did not as clearly see his apostasy then, as now? By his wisdom, power, and mercy, all nature was ready-prepared for the change, and poor fallen man, without change of habitation, found that habitation no longer heaven, and commenced his first act of slavery by the vain attempt to hide himself from God and his own contempt. And here, let us remark, we find the true commencement of slavery. “And Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever committeth sin is the servant (δουλος, slave) of sin.” John viii. 34. Force, disease, ruin, and death were now introduced to man. For, “A. servant (עָ֑בֶדʿābed slave) will not be corrected by words.” Prov. xxix. 19. God had mercifully contrived that he should be forced to action. “He that tilleth (עֹבֵ֣דʿōbēd slaveth) of bread; but he that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough.” Prov. xxviii. 19. When God made “every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew,” foreseeing the apostasy of man—its poisonous effect upon his moral and physical condition—its direct influence to produce immediate ruin and death, he also provided, ordained, and decreed a relation, a law between man and his mental and physical wants, which must cleave unto him, upon his apostasy, and be of the utmost value and efficacy in alleviating, removing, and preventing the final evils incident to his poisoned condition. This relation, law, institution, was the ebeduth, the institution of slavery, as expressed in Ezra ix. 8, 9: “And give us a little reviving in our bondage (עֲבדתנוּʿăbdtnû ebeduthenu, slavery). For we were bond-men (עֲבָדִ֣יםʿăbādîm abedim, slaves), and yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage,” עבדתנוּʿbdtnû. So in 2 Chron. xii. 8: “Nevertheless, ye shall be his servants (לעבדיםlʿbdym le-obedim, his slaves), that they may know my service (עֲב֣וֹדָתִ֔יʿăbôdātî slavery), and the service (וַֽעְבוֹדַ֖תwaʿbôdat and the slavery) of the kingdoms of the countries.” So in Esther vii. 4: “For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for bond-men (וְלִשְׁפָח֤וֹת לַֽעֲבָדִ֨יםwĕlišpāḥôt laʿăbādîm) and bond-women, I had held my tongue.”