Book ix. chap. 48. Ἐν Ἀθηναίοισί τε τὴν πρόπειραν ποιευμένους αὐτούς τε

ἀντια _δούλων_ τῶν ἡμετέρων τασσομένους.

“We see you delegating to the Athenians the more dangerous attempt of opposing us, and placing yourselves against our _slaves_.” _Beloe._

In the “Libellus de Vitâ Homeri,” attributed to Herodotus, in the 23d section we find the word συνδούλῳ, used to mean a _fellow-slave_.

------------------

LESSON IX.

We now propose to notice the scriptural use of the word δουλος, _doulos_, and its derivatives, not only that its use may be compared with the Greek writers, but that it may be seen, as we believe is true, that its use in these carries with it abundant proof, even in the absence of all other, that “it means a slave,” and “that he to whom it was applied was a slave.”

Whenever a thing is made any part of discourse, it is necessarily placed in a position of commendation, reprehension, or of perfect indifference. One of these conditions must unavoidably attend its mention. A little reflection will enable us to perceive these distinctive positions. For instance, in the sentence, “Lay up treasures in heaven, where moth and rust doth not corrupt, nor thieves break through nor steal,” who does not feel the commendable position of the things, treasure and heaven, and the reverse of moth, rust, and thieves? Let us apply this view to the word _servant_, selecting only those instances in the Christian Scriptures, where the word is translated from the Greek word δουλος, _doulos_, and means nothing except what we mean by the word _slave_.

St. Paul commences his epistle to the Romans, to the Philippians, and to Titus, with the appellation of servant. In the two first cases he calls himself the servant and apostle of Christ. In the last instance, he terms himself the servant of God and apostle of Jesus Christ. Peter, in his second epistle, styles himself a _servant_ and apostle: Jude, the servant of Christ. In all these instances the word means _slave_, and is used commendatively, but figuratively, to signify their entire devotedness to the cause in which they are engaged,—devoted to the cause wholly, as a good slave is to his master. And it may be here remarked, that the professing Christian is indebted to the institution for the lesson of humility and devotedness here plainly taught him, and without which, perhaps, he never could have been taught his duty in these particulars so pertinently and clearly. The humility and devotedness of the Christian are illustrated by this ordinance in _John_ xv. 20: “Remember the words that I said unto you, the servant is not greater than his Lord.”

In the parable of the vineyard, _Luke_ 20 and _Matt._ 21, the _servant_ (δοῦλος, _doulos_, slave) is presented in a position evincing, the trustworthiness, devotion, and obedience implied in that character, clearly indicating the idea that these qualities inspire the mind of the proprietor with a confidence surpassed only by that in his son and heir. And it may be well remarked, that the position of the slave is one of great facility for the generating of such confidence in the mind of the master. Between the good slave and the good master there can be no dissimilarity of interest, but not so with the _hired man_, see _Matt._ 20; for the very moment those hired in the morning for a penny a day perceived that those who had not laboured the whole day received the same amount of wages, they commenced a quarrel with the proprietor.

This distinctive use of language we think also perceptible in the parable of the prodigal son, _Luke_ xv. 17: “_How many hired servants_ (πόσοι μίσθιοι, _posoi misthioi_) of my father have bread enough and to spare,” περισσεύουσιν ἄρτων, _perisseuousin arton, an overflowing of bread_.

He is not made to say that his father’s slaves had bread enough, but that even his hired men had enough. “Make me as one of thy _hired servants_,” μισθίων, _misthion_. He does not ask to be received as a son, not even to be accounted as a slave,—he feels unworthy of either. “But the father said to his servants,” δούλους, _doulous_, slaves, “Bring forth the best robe.” Having slaves, it would have been quite out of place to have called one of his μίσθους, _misthous_, hired men. But the elder son “called one of the servants;” nor would it have been natural for him to have called a _hired-man_, nor yet one of the _common slaves_, but a confidential servant, whose position in the family would enable him to possess the information required, and so we find the fact by the expression τῶν παίδων αὐτοῦ, _ton paidon autou_, his young confidential, favourite slave.

But the elder brother said to his father, “Lo, these many years do I serve thee;” the verb used is δουλεύω, _douleuo_, and expresses the faithful and devoted service of a good slave, not of a _hired man_, who would feel no real interest beyond his own personal benefit. And this word is put in the mouth of the angered son, whereby to show more forcibly his sense of his own merits.

While we cast reflection back upon the incidents of this parable, let us suppose the owner of slaves also to employ hired labourers: if from famine or other cause he finds himself unable to supply them all with bread, which would he turn away, his slaves, or hired men? or, if they refused to go, which would he feel disposed to put on small allowance?

Jesus Christ seems to have understood that if there was to be any deficiency of bread, the hired-men might be expected first to feel it. Our Lord and Saviour, in pronouncing this parable, has given us the most explicit assurance that he intimately understood the domestic relations of the _slave_, and has taught us the lesson by placing him side by side with the _hired servant_.

From the fact that the good slave was wholly devoted and faithful to his master, the idea was not only applied to Paul, Peter, and Jude, but also to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, and David, and others, to express these qualities in them towards Jehovah; and we find it so used in the Christian Scriptures: “He hath holpen his servant Israel,” Ἰσραὴλ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ, _Israel paidos autou_, _Luke_ i. 54. It is noticed that with the word “_Israel_” is associated the same term to mean _slave_ which was applied to the slave called by the elder brother; and the reason seems to be because the name _Israel_ is supposed to be in higher regard than the word Jacob,—the word in apposition should also be expressive of such elevated regard. Therefore, if the word Jacob had been used, the word δοῦλος would have followed it. This word παῖς, _pais_, when applied to a _slave_, was a word of endearment, and hence was used in the case of the centurion’s servant. And we may here well remark that the case of the centurion is one in point, presenting an instance where slave-holding was brought to the immediate and particular notice of the Saviour, and the record shows his conduct and language upon the occasion.

“For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, (δούλῳ, _doulo_, _slave_,) Do this, and he doeth it.

“When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” _Matt._ viii. 9, 10.

“And as he was now going down, his servants (δοῦλοι, _douloi_, _slaves_) met him, and told him, saying, Thy son liveth.” _John_ iv. 51.

------------------

LESSON X.

The Christian Scriptures use the institution of slavery figuratively, in illustration of the Christian character and duty, and also in happy illustration of the providences of God to man.

“Who is that faithful and wise servant, (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_,) whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_,) whom his lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing. But if that evil _servant_ (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_) shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, (συνδούλους, _sundoulous_, _fellow-slaves_,) and to eat and drink with the drunken, the lord of that servant (δούλου, _doulou_, _slave_) shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of.” “For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, (δούλους, _doulous_, _slaves_,) and delivered unto them his goods.” “His Lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful _servant_, (δοῦλε, _doule_, _slave_,) thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” “His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, (δοῦλε, _doule_, _slave_,) thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strewed,” &c. “And cast ye the unprofitable servant (δοῦλον, _doulon_, _slave_) into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” _Matt._ xxiv. 45–50 xxv. 14, 30.

“And he called his servants (δούλους, _doulous_, _slaves_), and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants (δούλους, _doulous_, _slaves_) to be called unto him, to whom he had given money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.” “And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant (δοῦλε, _doule_, _slave_), because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.” “And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant, (δοῦλε, _doule, slave_.) Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow.” _Luke_ xix. 13–28.

“Blessed is that servant, (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_) whom his lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing. But if that servant (δοῦλους, _doulos_, _slave_) say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the men-servants (τοὺς παῖδας, _male-slaves_) and maidens, (τὰς παιδίσκας, _female slaves_,) and to eat and drink and be drunken; the lord of that servant (δούλον, _doulou_, _slave_,) will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder.” “And that servant (δοῦλος, _slave_) which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” _Luke_ xii. 43–48.

Here is an instance when the most favourite slave, called by the term expressing such favouritism, when supposed to be disobedient, is immediately designated by the term δοῦλος, _doulos_.

“Blessed are those servants (δοῦλοι, _douloi_, _slaves_) whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching; and if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants,” (δοῦλοι, _douloi_, _slaves_.) _Luke_ xii. 37, 38.

“And sent his servant (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_) at supper-time,” &c. * * * “So that servant (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_) came and showed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry, said to his servant,” (δούλῳ, _doulo_, _slave_.) “And the servant (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_) said, Lord, it is done. And the lord said unto the servant, (δοῦλον, _doulon_, _slave_,) Go out into the highway,” &c. _Luke_ xiv. 17–23.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free, (ἐλευθερώσει, _eleutherosei_, _free_.) They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, we were never in bondage (δεδουλεύκαμεν, _dedouleukamen_, _slavery_) to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever committeth sin, is the _servant_ of sin, (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_.) And the _servant_ (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_) abideth not in the house for ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” _John_ viii. 32–35.

“But which of you, having a servant (δοῦλον, _doulon_, _slave_) ploughing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shall eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant (δούλῳ, _slave_) because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants (δοῦλοι, _slaves_): we have done that which was our duty to do.” _Luke_ xvii. 7–10.

In all these instances slavery is made a lesson of instruction, and always in the position commendable.

------------------

LESSON XI.

The Christian Scriptures recognise the force and application of the command, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s man-servant, nor his maid-servant,” as applicable to slaves at the time of the apostles; and that the act of “coveting,” extended into action, becomes “stealing,” the property named in the command. “Now the end of the command is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: from which some having swerved, have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, the ungodly, and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for _men-stealers_, (ἀνδραποδισταῖς _andrapodistais_, _slave-stealers_,) for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.” 1 _Tim._ i. 5–11.

It may be well remembered that the preceding third verse of this chapter beseeches Timothy to still abide at Ephesus, that he may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, &c.

The word _andrapodistais_, of the original Greek text, here translated _men-stealers_, means the stealing, or enticing away from the possession and ownership of their masters, their slaves. St. Paul speaks of it as a part of the law,—speaks of the offence as one well known, and as too well known to be a part of the law to require any explanation. When we come to know that that act of the mind called _coveting_, indulged to action, becomes stealing,—that the crime in action includes the crime in mind,—we may readily perceive what particular law is referred to. Is it difficult to decide that property, which the law forbids us to covet, it also forbids us to steal, even if “thou shalt not steal” had not preceded?

The idea stealing was expressed by the Greeks by the word κλέπτο, _klepto_, but the idea _stealing slaves_ was expressed by the word in the text. The formation is ἀνὴρ, _a man_, ποῦς, _a foot_, and signifies the condition of slavery, as a man bound by the foot. A whole class of words of this formation, all including the idea of slavery, were in use by the Greeks, and found in their authors. When used to express the substantive, the idea of slavery is associated with the idea of some change of position or ownership; hence its use in this instance. The thing stolen involves the idea of a change of position, possession, &c. Yet in many instances it may be difficult to perceive this distinction, it rather appearing to have been often used as a synonyme of _doulos_, both as a verb and substantive.

In the 8th section of the 4th book of the Cyropædia, Xenophon uses this word to mean a slave, the quality growing out of the imputed change in the condition of the soldier, thus: Ὡς ὁ τοῦτο ποιῶν οὐκέτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ σκευοφόρος, καὶ ἔξεστι τῷ βουλομένω ἤδε χρῆσθαι τούτῳ ὡς ἀνδραπόδῳ. Which Ashley translates, “And as he that does this can no longer be reckoned a man, but a mere bearer of baggage, so any one that will is free to use him as a slave.” The Romans so understood this word. In the translation of Xenophon into Latin by Amelburnus, we find this passage: “Nam qui hoc facit non miles et vir est, sed sarcinarius calo; quem uti mancipium tractare cuivis licet;” nor can it be said that this learned man misunderstood his Greek, for we have before us the critical translations of Oxford and Cambridge, in which the sentence reads, “Nam qui hoc facit, non amplius vir est et miles, sed sarcinarius calo, atque hoc adeò uti mancipium licet.” They have made no change as to this word, nor as to the sense of the sentence.

Xenophon uses this word also in the 14th section of the 8th book, to mean slaves, and in the same passage with δοῦλος, the adjective sense existing in the presumed unwillingness in the slaves to seek freedom, on the account of their happiness being probably better secured in a state of _slavery_ to Cyrus than it would be in a state of freedom. We give it entire:

Ὃυς δ’ αὖ κατεσκεύαζεν εἰς τὸ _δουλεύειν_, τούτους οὔτε μελετᾷν τῶν ἐλευθερίων πόνων οὐδένα παρώρμα, οὔτε ὅπλα κεκτῆσθαι ἐπέτρεπεν· ἐπεμελεῖτο δ’ ὅπως μήποτε ἄσιτοι μήτε ἄποτοι ποτὲ ἔσοιντο, ἐλευθερίων ἕνεκα μελετημάτων. Καὶ γὰρ ὁπόταν ἐλαύνοιεν τὰ θηρία τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν εἰς τὰ πεδία, φέρεσθαι σίτον εἰς θήραν τούτοις ἐπέτρεπε, τῶν δὲ ἐλευθέρων οὐδενί. Καὶ ὁπότε πορεία εἴη, ἤγεν αὐτους πρὸς τὰ ὑδατα ὕσπερ τὰ ὑποζύγια. Καὶ ὁπότε δὲ ὥρα εἴη ἀρίστου, ἀνέμενεν αὐτοὺς ἔστ’ ἂν φάγοιέν τι, ὡς μὴ βουλιμιῷεν· ὥστε καὶ οὗτοι αὐτὸν ὥσπερ οἱ ἄριστοι, πατέρα ἐκαλουν, ὅτι ἐπεμέλετο αὐτῶν ὅπως ἀναυφιλόγως ἀεὶ _ἀνδράποδα_ διατελοῖεν.

Which may be translated thus: “But in rearing up his _slaves_, he never permitted them to practise the employment of the free, nor allowed them the possession of arms, but took care that they would never be without their meat and drink for the sake of the practices of the free; for when with their horses they drove out the wild beasts into the plains, he allowed meat and drink to be carried for the use of these people during the hunt, but not for the free; and when he was upon a march, he led them to water, as he did the beasts of burden; and when the time for dinner came, he waited till they had eaten something, that they might not be distressed with hunger; so that these people, as likewise the more elevated, called him their father; so he was careful, beyond a doubt, that they would always remain his _slaves_,” _ἀνδράποδα_, _slaves_, _i. e._ they would have no desire to change their situation.

Amelburnus translates it thus: “Quos autem ad serviendum instruebat, eos nec ad labores ullos liberales excitabat, nec habere arma sinebat: studiosèque dabat operam, ne unquam liberalium exercitationum causa vel cibo vel potu carerent. Permittebat enim _servis_, quoties equitibus feras in campos adigerent, ut cibum ad venationem secum sumerent; ingenuorum verò nemini. Quando item faciundum erat iter, ad aquas eos, perinde ac jumenta, ducebat. Quum prandii tempus erat, expectabat eos donec aliquid comedissent, ne furcilla sive fames acrior eos affligeret. Quo fiebat ut, non aliter ac optimates, etiam hi Cyrum _patrem_ appellarent, qui curam ipsorum gereret ut semper sine dubio _mancipia_ manerent.”

The Oxford translation, which was published in 1737, has perhaps made the Latin more classical, but has strictly adhered to the same meaning of the words δουλεύειν and ἀνδράποδα. We give their version also, that the curious may compare, and have no doubt about this matter. It reads thus:

“Quos autem ad serviendum instruebat, eos nec ad se in laboribus ullis liberalibus exercendos excitabat, nec habere arma sinebat. Studiosèque dabat operam, ne unquam liberalium exercitationum causa vel cibo vel potu carerent. Etenim his permittebat, ut cibum ad venationem secum sumerent, ingenuorum verò nemini: quando item faciendum erat iter, ad aquas eos, perinde ac jumenta, ducebat. Et cùm prandii tempus erat, expectabat eos donec aliquid comedissent ne fames ingens eos invaderet; quo fiebat ut etiam hi, non aliter ac optimates, Cyrum patrem appellarent, qui curam ipsorum gereret ut semper sine dubio _mancipia_ manerent.”

We deem it proper to add a word concerning the use of this term, especially as some, who claim to be learned divines, also claim that Paul by its use totally forbid slavery. See _Barnes, on Slavery_, p. 355. He says? “‘The law is made for _manstealers_,’ ἀνδραποδισταῖς, 1 _Tim._ i. 9, 10. The meaning of this word has been before considered. It needs only to be remarked here, that the _essential_ idea of the term is _that of converting a freeman into a slave_. Thus Passon defines the word ἀνδραπόδισμος, _andrapodismos_: Verwandlung eines freyen Mannes in einen Sklaven, besonders durch Varkauf, Unterjochung, U.S.W.: a changing of a freeman into a slave, especially by traffic, subjection, &c. Now, somehow this ‘conversion of a freeman into a slave,’ the sin forbidden in the passage before us, occurs essentially in the case of every one who ever becomes a slave.”

We know not why Mr. Barnes chose to go to a Dutch dictionary for his quotation, since he might have found the true signification in that of any schoolboy.

But we think it a singular argument that, because _andrapodismos_ means the making or selling a slave, _andrapodistais_ means the exact same thing. The truth is, the essential idea conveyed by this word is _slave_, _slavery_, &c. If I wish to say “stealing a slave,” I use one form of it; if “selling a slave,” another, and so on; but the stealing a _freeman_ with the view to make _him a slave_ was not expressed by this word, or any form of it. The Greeks used the term _anthropokleptais_, but the legal reduction of a man to slavery was quite a different matter. St. Paul’s animadversion comprehended the idea of slavery and stealing,—what? a freeman, or a slave? Had it been a freeman that occupied the objective case, it is presumable that his language would have had some analogy to that used in the Septuagint, _Deut._ xxiv. 7.

This word, or some form of it, is of most frequent occurrence in the Greek authors. We need quote but a few passages to show their use of the term, whether it included the idea of a freeman, or only that of a slave. Thucydides, Leipsic edition, 1829:

Οἱ δ’ Αθηναῖοι οὔτε τἄλλα ὑπηκουον, οὔτε τὸ ψήφισμα καθῄρουν, ἐπικαλοῦντες ἐπ’ ἐργασίαν Μεγαρεῦσι τῆς γῆς τῆς ἱερᾶς, καὶ τῆς ἀορίστου, καὶ _ἀνδραπόδων_ ὑποδοχὴν τῶν ἀφισταμένων.

“But the Athenians listened to none of these demands, nor would revoke the decree, but reproached the Megarians for tilling land that was sacred, land not marked out for culture, and for giving shelter to runaway slaves.”

Vol. ii. p. 138. Αἱ δέ νῆες περίεπλευταν, τα ἀνδράποδα ἀγοῦσαι.

“But the vessels came back along the coast, on board of which were the _slaves_.”

Idem. Καὶ τὰ ἀνδράποδα ἀπεδόσαν.

“And here they offered the _slaves_ for sale.”

P. 118. Ἀνδράποδα Ὑκκαρικὰ—“Hyccarian _slaves_.”

P. 201. Καὶ ἀνδράποδων πλέον ἢ δύο μυριαδες ηὐτομοληκέσαν.

“And more than twenty thousand slaves had deserted.”

P. 314. Καὶ σκεύη μὲν καὶ ἀνδράποδα ἀρπαγὴν ποιησάμενος, τοὺς δὲ ἐλευθέρους πάλιν κατοικίσας, ἐπ’ Ἄβυδον ἦλθε.

“He gave up all the effects and slaves to pillage, and after establishing such as were free people in their old habitations, he went against Abydos.”

The instances of the use of this word are so frequent that we know not whether more of them should not be given; but may we not presume that those who read the language have some knowledge of the matter? and we therefore ask them to relieve us from that burden. We think it no hazard to maintain the fact that ἀνδραποδίζω, its _cognates_ and _derivatives_, both _nouns_ and _adjectives_, are never used in the Greek language unassociated with the idea of slavery. If so, then it follows that the idea _stealing_, as it existed in the mind of St. Paul, was not associated with the idea “_man_,” but “_slave_,” and that he used the term ἀνδραποδισταῖς, _andrapodistais_, to express the idea “slave-stealers.”

------------------

LESSON XII.

But as the verb ἀνδραποδίζω, _andrapodizo_, and its conjugates, are sometimes used to express the action of subjecting to slavery, it is asked, how are we to know whether Paul did not mean such subjugation? It was surely in the compass of the Greek language for Paul so to have used the proper mood and tense of this verb, with other suitable words, and effectually forbid the subjecting of others to slavery. But is it probable he could have consistently done so? Such forbidding would have been forbidding what the law prescribed. It would have been a rebellious teaching against the laws of the land, as well as against the laws delivered to Moses for the civil government of the Israelites. “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, thou shalt proclaim peace unto it; and it shall be, if it make answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee,” (וַעֲבָֽדוּךָ _va abaduka, be slaves to thee—and they shall be slaves to thee_.) “But if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: and when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thy hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take to thyself.” _Deut._ xx. 10–14.

Such, substantially, was the law of all nations at the very time Paul wrote to Timothy. The verb proposed the making of a _slave_ in a legal manner, reducing to the condition alluded to by the prophet. “Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive restored?” _Isa._ xlix. 24. The verb _andrapodizo_ expressed a lawful act. If individuals, without law, had seized upon the others with the view to make them slaves, such act would have been called by a different name. It would not have been a name formed from ἀνὴρ and ποῦς, (_aner_ and _pous_,) unaccompanied by explanations. We have an example before us in _Deut._ xxiv. 7: “If any man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him, then that thief shall die.” Here the individual stolen was not a slave, either by the laws of God or man: and hence we find that the Septuagint uses no word to signify slave. The passage reads thus:

Ἐαν δὲ ἁλῷ ἄνθρωπος κλέπτων ψυχὴν ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ τῶν ὑιῶν Ἰσραήλ, καὶ καταδυναστεύσας ἀυτὸν αποδῶται, ἀποθανεῖται ὁ κλέπτης ἐκεῖνος.

And had St. Paul merely in his mind the idea _man-stealing_, unconnected with slavery, he would have used analogous language. In the passage in Timothy, he might well have used the term ἀνθρώποκλεπταις, _anthropokleptais_, which would have expressed the same thing,—an unlawful act, an act forbidden in the passage just quoted,—the act of stealing a freeman, with an intention of making him a slave, contrary to law; and Paul would have probably added this offence, if the Ephesians had been guilty of the crime. But Paul did not use a word even conjugated from ἀνδραποδίζω, _andrapodizo_, but a cognate substantive, used almost technically to mean those who stole slaves, not _freemen_.

The word used by Paul is translated into Latin, in the Vulgate, by the word _plagiariis_, which also means those who stole slaves. It is formed from _plagiger_, _one born to be whipped_, (the Romans were cruel to their slaves,) and _areo_, _to be parched up_, _to be thirsty_, and hence _plagiarius_, from the notion that he who stole slaves _coveted_ the slave with such intensity that he thirsted for the slave, and appropriated _him_ to himself as a thirsty man does water. It originally was a mere cant word. But it expressed the contempt the Romans entertained for the act of slave-stealing. Hence has come our word _plagiary_; only used now to mean the act of appropriating the literary property of another, but still retaining, to some extent, the expression of contempt. The learned men who translated the New Testament into Latin well knew that Paul told Timothy that the law was made against those who stole slaves: and so we find it, _Thou shalt not steal_. Thou shalt not even _covet_ thy neighbour’s _slave_. (See _Exod._ xx. 15, 17; also _Deut._ v. 19, 20.) Had Paul used the word _andrapodizo_, or some form of it, and had he really intended to have told Timothy that he or others should no longer, under any circumstances, subject others to slavery, or under the Christian dispensation he should not; that Christianity forbid it; yet he could not have been so shallow as to have added the sentiment that it was against the law, for such addition, such part of his instruction, Timothy would have at once known to be not true; and we trust but few will entertain a position so full of gross consequences. This discourse to Timothy was founded upon the fact that “some had swerved” from the end of the law, and turned to vain jangling, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm,—probably teaching doctrines that led essentially to the crimes here exposed. Paul’s object, in part, was to expose their ignorance and wickedness, to sustain the supremacy of the law, and by his counsel to warn him against a shipwreck of faith, as in the case of Hymeneus and Alexander.

Can it be supposed that under such circumstances he would have undertaken to have repealed a law, or to have asserted that the law prohibited what it sustained? In such case, he would have done the very act himself for which he condemned Hymeneus and Alexander, and have proved himself one of the lawless and disobedient, for whom the law was made.

There is another consideration, which to our mind is of moment in the review of this subject. The religion of Jesus Christ never undertook to meddle with the civil institutions of the law. Its object was to make its devotees happy under and resigned to its adjudications, whatever they may have been, by reason of the greater considerations of a hereafter; nor do we recollect an instance where either Christ or his apostles even suggested any repeal. His kingdom was not of this world, and therefore his followers could not act in reference to the things of this world. Peter in his zeal smote off the ear of the slave of the high-priest, but Christ immediately rebuked the act and restored the injury done. Had Paul intended to have suggested that the subjecting to slavery, as that subject then existed and ever had from the time of Moses, was no longer to be countenanced, then, it seems to us, he would have travelled beyond the mission of an apostle, the precepts of his Master, and out of his kingdom into the problematical questions of civil government.

Paul, in the passage before us, enumerates a class of the breaches of the law which came within the view of Timothy, which breaches of the law he pronounces to be “contrary to sound doctrine,” and “to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust,” having previously notified him “that the law was good if a man use it lawfully.” Now, one of the plain and well-known laws on the subject of slavery was, “Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are around about you; of them shall you buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and their families that are with you, which they beget in your land, and they shall be your possession. 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 for ever.”

Under such a state of facts can any thing be conceived more inconsistent, than that Paul should, under such circumstances, design to slip in a word repealing in fact this law, and directly producing all the other ill effects which he so pointedly complained of in others. Whoever can believe such a thing, surely, whatever he may pretend, can have no respect for the character of Paul, nor for his religion.

But the character of Paul remains consistent, his religion unblemished and spotless, and the preaching of Jesus Christ in relation to the matter vindicated and supported, by giving to the word _andrapodistais_, as here used by Paul, its plain, legitimate, and usual meaning, _slave-stealers_, persons who steal, or entice away from the possession of their masters, individuals who according to the law are slaves.

------------------

LESSON XIII.

The inquiry naturally occurs, how happened it that St. Paul found it necessary to instruct and inform Timothy that the law forbid the stealing or enticing away other men’s slaves. By an examination of his writings and letters to the Gentile churches, the fact is plainly proven that there had grown up among them some new doctrines, which his office as apostle made it his duty to reprehend. What these doctrines were we are enabled in some measure to discover, by examining the 7th of the _1st Corinthians_, which commences thus: “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me,” disclosing the fact that the Corinthians had written to him for advice and counsel, whom he now answers with instructions against the abolition of marriage, and against the abolition of slavery, &c.

Some of the Gentile churches advocated the doctrine that if a man or a woman of the faith were married to one not of the faith, that such marriage should be abolished; so also, that a slave of the faith should be set free, and especially from his believing master; so also, the believing child should be discharged from the authority of the unbelieving parents. The promulgation of these doctrines filled society with disorder there, and the church with confusion.

In his lesson to _Timothy_, he complains of the doctrines taught by Hymeneus and Alexander, as _blasphemous_. Now, in this same lesson, he applies this epithet to these new abolition doctrines, leaving us plainly to infer that these doctrines were also taught by them, and for which he “delivered” them “unto Satan.” And here we have a connecting link between this lesson to Timothy and his whole instruction to the Gentile churches on this subject. But these doctrines, as taught by Hymeneus and Alexander, or others analogous, have found advocates ever since; for folly has never been so foolish nor wickedness so wicked as not to find followers. These new doctrines Paul reprehended in many other places, and touching the subject of our present inquiry, let us examine how he treated the matter during the time of his apostleship.

“Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant, (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_,) care not for it; but if thou mayest be _made free_, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_,) is the Lord’s _freeman_; likewise, also, he that is called, being free, is Christ’s _servant_, (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_.) Ye are bought with a price; be ye not the servant (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_) of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.” 1 _Cor._ vii. 20–24. And this is consistent with his introduction to the subject in the 17th verse: “But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk, and so ordain I in all churches.” Compare this with his instruction to _Titus_: “Exhort servants (δούλος, _doulous_, _slaves_,) to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things. Not answering again, not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.” _Titus_ ii. 9–15.

And to the _Colossians_: “Servants, (δοῦλοι, _douloi_, _slaves_,) obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve (δουλεύετε, _douleuete_, _ye slave yourselves to_) the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. Masters, give unto your servants (δούλοις, _doulois_, _slaves_) that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.” _Col._ iii. 22, 25; iv. 1.

And to the Ephesians: “Servants, (δοῦλοι, _douloi_, _slaves_,) be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-_service_ (ὀφθαλμοδουλείαν, _ophthalmodouleian_, _slavery to the eye_) as men-pleasers; but as the servants (δοῦλοι, _douloi_, _slaves_) of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good-will doing service (ουλεύοντες, _douleuontes_, _slaving yourselves_) as to the Lord, and not to men; knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be _bond_ (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_) or _free_ (ἐλεύθερος, _eleutheros_, _a freeman_). And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master is also in heaven, neither is there respect of persons with him.” _Eph._ vi. 5–9.

And, finally, to Timothy: “Let as many servants (δοῦλοι, _douloi_, _slaves_) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not _blasphemed_. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren; but rather do them service, (δουλευέτωσαν, _do them slave-labour_,) because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment, let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 _Tim._ vi. 1–14.

From the arguments here presented to Timothy in support of the doctrine which Paul invariably taught in relation to slavery, we may well suppose he felt a deep interest, even anxiety, to prevent these new doctrines from affecting Timothy’s mind in their favour; and we cannot but notice, that while, with the dignified authority of an apostolic teacher, his instructions are full, distinct, and certain, yet they are accompanied with a courteousness of explanation consolatory even to the slave, the subject of them, and with a solemnity of attestation that fathoms the very foundation of the Christian faith.

------------------

LESSON XIV.

Jesus Christ announced to the Jews that whosoever committeth sin is the servant (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_) of sin; that the servant (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_) abideth not in the house for ever, but the son abideth ever, &c.; therefore, if the son make them free, they shall be free indeed, &c. Of the doctrine here inculcated by the Saviour himself, it seems to us St. Paul has given a full and happy illustration; and, by his using the institution of slavery as a principal medium of his illustration, and by referring to facts well-known in the history of the institution of slavery, has not only recognised its existence, but also that it existed in conformity with the ordinances of God: and we deem his illustration not the less valuable, because it explains what is meant by, and how we are to understand, the Christian equality of all in that church. In addition to what we have already read from his writings, we may also notice, “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid; for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have come by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_) nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” _Gal._ iii. 21–29.

“Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_) though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage (δεδουλωμένοι, _dedoulomenoi_, _a state of slavery_) under the elements of the world. But when the fulness of the _time_ was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_,) but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service (ἐδουλεύσατε, _edouleusate_, _did slave yourselves_) unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?” (δουλεύειν, _douleuein_, _to be in slavery_.) Gal. iv. 1–9.

“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-maid, (παιδίσκης, _paidiskes_, _a favourite female slave_,) and the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bond-woman (παιδίσκης, _paidiskes_, _a favourite female slave_) was born after the flesh, but he of the free-woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai in Arabia, which gendereth to bondage, (δουλείαν, _douleian_, _slavery_,) which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage (δουλεύει, _douleuei_, _slavery_) with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” _Gal._ iv. 21–26.

“Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the scripture? Cast out the bond-woman (παιδίσκην, _paidisken_, _favourite female slave_) and her son: for the son of the bond-woman (παιδίσκης, _paidiskes_, _favourite female slave_) shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, (παιδίσκης, _paidiskes_, _favourite female slave_,) but of the free. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage,” (δουλείας, _douleias_, _slavery_.) _Gal._ iv. 29–31, v. 1.

In these lessons of Paul we not only find the Greek use of the word “doulos,” but we find also the doctrine that slavery is the quotient of sin. It is true he often uses the word figuratively to illustrate the devotion and obedience of the humble followers of Jesus Christ; but in him who spurns obedience to the laws of God, and rejects the faith of the gospel, the character is fixed and permanent, as is the course of conduct that gives it.

While in this portion of our present Study, we desire to bring to mind the word _doulos_ and its cognates, as used in the ancient Greek Scriptures, with the design that it may be easily compared with its use by the classical authors in that language. We shall be happy if successful in the attempt to present it in such form that the mind may acknowledge the doctrine inculcated to be consistent with the justice of Divine providence and the mercy of a redeeming love; that the deduction shall be evident; that slavery is a creation of Divine justice upon the model of mercy, every way adapted to benefit the most degenerate and wicked races of mankind; and that its whole action manifests the principle, that he whom the Father loveth, him he chasteneth;—and such, indeed, is the object of our entire study.

------------------

LESSON XV.

From the writings of St. Paul, we deem the deduction clear, that he considered slavery to be a consequent of sin, and plainly set it forth in his address to the Romans. “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. For until (ἄχρι, _achri_, _as far as_—see Iliad, xvii. 599) the law, sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.” _Rom._ v. 12–24.

“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants (δούλους, _doulous_, slaves) to obey, his servants (δοῦλοι, _douloi_, slaves) ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants (δοῦλοι, _douloi_, slaves) of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants (ἐδουλώθητε _edoulothete_, ye enslaved yourselves) to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants (δοῦλοιes) of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then, in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now, being free from sin, and become servants (δουλωθέντες, _doulothentes_, slaving yourselves) to God, ye have fruit unto holiness, and in the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” _Rom._ vi. 16–23.

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage (δουλείας, _douleias_, slavery) again to fear, but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs: heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ: if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon, that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage (δουλείας, _douleias_, slavery) of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now: and not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” _Rom._ viii. 14–23. “So then, with the mind I myself serve (δουλεύω, _douleuo_, slave myself to) the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.” _Rom._ vii. 25. “For they that are such serve (δουλεύουσιν, _douleuousin_, slave themselves to) not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly.” _Rom._ xvi. 18.

The word “doulos” is used by Peter in a similar manner: “For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God,” (δοῦλοι, _douloi_, slaves.) Idem: “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants, (δοῦλοι, _douloi_, slaves) of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage,” (δεδούλωται, _dedoulotai_, is he enslaved.)

Further instances of the use of the word “doulos” in the original Greek Scriptures will be found as follows:—“But I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, (δουλαγωγῶ, _doulagogo_, and guide it as in slavery,) lest that by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” 1 _Cor._ ix. 27. “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, whether we are bond (δοῦλοι, _douloi_, slaves) or free, and have been all made to drink into one spirit.” 1 _Cor._ xii. 13. “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond (δοῦλος, _doulos_, slave) nor free.” _Col._ iii. 11. “As ye also learned of Epaphras, our dear fellow-servant” (συνδούλου _sundoulou_, fellow-slave.) _Col._ i. 7. “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage (δεδούλωται, _dedoulotai_, is enslaved) in such cases.” 1 _Cor._ vii. 15. “For ye suffer if a man bring you into bondage,” (καταδουλοῖ, _katadouloi_, reduce you to slavery,) &c. 2 _Cor._ xi. 20. “For he that in these things serveth (douleύsei, _douleusei_, shall slave himself to) Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men.” _Rom._ xiv. 18. “It was said unto her, the elder shall serve (δουλεύσει, shall _slave_ himself to) the younger; for it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” _Rom._ ix. 12, 13. “And behold, one of them which were with Jesus, stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant (δοῦλον, _doulon_, slave) of the high-priest, and smote off his ear.” _Matt._ xxvi. 51. “And one of them that stood by drew his sword, and smote a servant (δοῦλον, _doulon_, slave,) of the high-priest, and cut off his ear.” _Mark_ xiv. 47. “And one of them smote a servant (δοῦλον, _doulon_, slave) of the high-priest, and cut off his right ear.” _Luke_ xxii. 50. “Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and smote the high-priest’s servant (δοῦλον, _doulon_, slave,) and cut off his right ear. The servant’s (δούλῳ, _doulo_, slave) name was Malchus.” “One of the servants (δούλων, _doulon_, slaves) of the high-priest (being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off) saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?” _John_ xviii. 10, 26. “And the servants (δοῦλοι, _douloi_, slaves) and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, (for it was cold,) and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them and warmed himself.” _John_ xviii. 18.

There are several instances where the word is used figuratively, as a submissive epithet, as an example of which we cite _Acts_ iv. 29: “And now, Lord, behold their threatenings, and grant unto thy servants (δούλοις, _doulois_, _slaves_) that with all boldness they may speak thy word.” “And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, (δουλώσουσιν, _doulosousin_, should enslave them,) and entreat them evil four hundred years. And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage (δουλεύσωσι, _douleusosi_, to whom they shall be enslaved) will I judge, said God.” _Acts_ vii. 6, 7. “Not now as a servant (δοῦλον, _doulon_, slave,) but above a servant, (δοῦλον, _doulon_, slave,) a brother beloved,” &c. _Philem._ 16. “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant (δοῦλον, _doulon_, slave) depart in peace.” _Luke_ ii. 29.

------------------

LESSON XVI.

The English words _servant_, _to serve_, _service_, _servile_, _servilely_, _serving_, &c. have descended into the language from the Latin word _servus_, a slave, and these words, when first introduced into the language, as distinctly carried with them the idea of slavery as does now our present term, and will continue to do so wherever the English language and slavery prevail. In no slave-holding country will the word servant be applied to a freeman as a legitimate term of description, but in non-slaveholding communities these words are sometimes used in a somewhat different sense, yet erroneously, because they are then used without adherence to their derivation and analogy. These words, when found in the received translation of the Christian Scriptures, are in the most of instances translated from some Greek word that signified or included the idea slavery. But notwithstanding the obvious error in giving the word _servant_, &c. as the translation of a word that did not carry with it the idea which was in unison with the original of these words, yet we find some few instances of such error. We give a few examples.

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my _servants_ fight.” _John_ xviii. 36.

Here servants is translated from ὑπηρέται, _huperetai_, and signifies a subordinate. In English it sometimes requires attendants, assistants, inferior officers, &c., but never associates with the idea of slavery.

“Peter followed him afar off unto the high-priest’s palace, and he sat with the _servants_, (ὑπηρετῶν, _attendants_, &c.,) and warmed himself at the fire.” _Mark_ xiv. 54. “And the servants (δοῦλοι, _douloi_, _slaves_) and officers (ὑπηρέται, _huperetai_, _attendants_, _inferior officers_, &c.) stood there, who had made a fire of coals, (for it was cold,) and they warmed themselves.” _John_ xviii. 18.

That the word here used never conjugates with the idea slavery, we quote it as used in _Luke_ iv. 20, in proof: “And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister,” (ὑπηρέτῃ, _huperete_, _attendant_, _inferior officer_, &c.) Also, _Acts_ xxvi. 16: “But rise and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a _minister_ (ὑπηρέτην, _hupereten_, _attendant_, _assistant_, _minister_, &c.) and a _witness_ both of those things which thou hast seen and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee.”

Here the requisites of the character required are totally incompatible with the character of the _doulos_, proving with the greatest certainty that these two words have no analogy whatever. For we may well here remark, that human learning has never arrived at a more nicely distinct and definite perfection in the use of language than is even now manifest in the sayings of Him “who spoke as never man spake.”

Besides, in the case of _John_ xviii. 18, servants, _douloi_, and officers ὑπηρέται, _huperetai_, being used consecutively and coupled together by a conjunction, is a strong proof that the idea appropriated here severally to these terms could not be expressed by either term alternately by substitution, and that these terms were by no analogy synonymous.

The word _servant_ has also in error been rendered from other terms: see Hebrews iii. 5: “And Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a _servant_,” (θεράπων, _therapon_.) We have not in English any single term that fully expresses the idea conveyed by this. It means an associate or companion who is voluntarily under the direction of one whom he takes and acknowledges to be his superior. The old Roman _umbra_, when applied to an attendant, conveyed the idea more exactly than any one term of ours. Thus, the warrior was called the _therapon_ of Mars, and of the muses and kings of the gods generally. Thus, Menelaus is called the _therapon_ of his chief, &c. &c. (See _Iliad_, viii. 113, xviii. 244, xix. 143.)

A similar error is occasionally found in the use of the terms _to serve_, _served_, _service_, &c., as if they were legitimately derived from some form of _doulos_. Thus, Luke ii. 37: “But _served_ God with fasting and prayers night and day,”—“served,” λατρεύουσα, _latreuousa_, from _latreuo_. The more appropriate term is “to worship,” &c.

The term was used by the Greeks, “to worship” the gods by sacrifices and offerings. (See _Euripides_, _Electra_, 131; _Iphagenia in Tauris_, 1115.) So in _Acts_ vii. 7: “And after that shall they come forth and _serve_ me in this place,”—“serve,” λατρεύσουσι, _latreusousi_. It should have been, “and worship me in this place.” _Rom._ ix. 4: “And the _service_ of God, and the promises,” λατρεία, _latreia_, worship, &c. So also _Heb._ ix. 1: “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service,” λατρείας, _latreias_, worship. So also _Heb._ xiii. 10: “We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which _serve_ the tabernacle,”—“serve,” λατρεύοντες, _latreuontes_, who are worshipping in the, &c. &c.

Διάκονος, _diakonos_, is also sometimes erroneously translated _servant_, _service_, _to serve_, &c. An instance occurs, _John_ ii. 5: “And his mother saith unto the _servants_,” διακόνοις, _diakonois_, from _diakonos_: as a verb, it means to minister unto, to wait upon, to manage affairs, to perform some function to another; and hence, in English, we may occasionally require some other term of cognate meaning. From this term our word “deacon” has been legitimately derived. The word is of less elevated import in Greek than _therapon_ (see Aristophanes, _Ornithes_, line 1322, ὡς βλαχιχῶς διαχονεῖς,) but never consorts in the least degree with the idea slavery. “Saith unto” them who ministered, who waited upon the guests, &c. So also _John_ ii. 9: “But the _servants_ which drew the water knew,”—servants, διάκονοι, _diakonoi_, “they who ministered unto.” See also _Rom._ xvi. 1: “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a _servant_ of the church,” &c., διάκονον, _diakonon_, _one who ministers unto_, &c. So also _John_ xii. 26: “If any man _serve_,” διακονῇ, _diakone_, wait upon, minister unto me. “And where I am there shall my _servant_ be,” διάκονος, _diakonos_, one who waits upon, who ministers unto; “him will my Father honour.” It is not always in English easy to select a phrase distinctly the best adapted to express the precise difference between the words _diakonos_ and _huperetes_, but it may be remarked that the _huperetes_ was of an employment more of public character: hence those who in the ships held certain banks of oars were called by that name; also those of a particular rank in the army, or in civil government; but the word _diakonos_ was used as a term more applicable to domestic, personal, or private life. Keeping this distinction in mind, the same word may often, in English, give the sense of either; yet _huperetes_ will often appear in Greek where _diakonos_ would be ill used. A more correct use of this word than the preceding will be found in _Matt._ iv. 11: “Then the devil leaveth him, and behold, angels came and _ministered_ unto him,” διηκόνουν, _diekonoun_, ministered unto, attended to.

_Matt._ xx. 26: “But whosoever will be great among you, let him be your _minister_,” διάκονος, _diakonos_, minister, &c. And here is shown the distinction between this word and _doulos_, a slave; for he proceeds, “And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your _servant_,” δοῦλος, _doulos_, slave. Also, _Luke_ viii. 3: “And Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others which ministered unto him of their substance,” διηκόνουν, _diekonoun_, ministered, &c. We have deemed it proper to notice these inaccuracies in our translation, to prevent the word _servant_, &c., when used to mean _slave_, &c., being confounded with its use when given in translation as above; and it may be proper also to notice that the _hired_ labourer, a freeman _hired_ into the employ of another, is never described by any term implying _slavery_, or even having any analogy with it, as examples will show:

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a man that is a householder, which went out early in the morning to _hire labourers_ (μισθώσασθαι ἐργάτας, _misthosasthai ergatas_, to hire labourers) into his vineyard.” “They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us,” (ἐμισθώσατο, _emisthosato_, hath hired.) “So when the evening was come, the Lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, call the labourers and give them _their hire_,” μισθὸν, _misthon_, wages, &c. “And when they had received it, they murmured against the good man of the house.” _Matt._ xx. 1, 7, 8, 11. “And when he came to himself, he said, How many _hired servants_ (μίσθιοι, _misthioi_, hired persons) of my father’s have bread,” &c. _Luke_ xv. 17. “But he that is a hireling, (μισθωτὸς, _misthotos_, a person hired,) and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf, &c. and the wolf catcheth them and scattereth the sheep. The _hireling_ (μισθωτὸς, _misthotos_, a person hired) fleeth because he is a _hireling_ (μισθωτὸς, _misthotos_, a person hired,) and careth not for the sheep.” _John_ x. 12, 13. “For the labourer is worthy of his _hire_,” τοῦ μισθοῦ hire, wages, payment, &c. _Luke_ x. 7. “Behold, the hire (ὁ μισθὸς, payment for being hired) of the labourers (τῶν ἐργατῶν, _ton ergaton_, the labourers, not slaves) who have reaped down your fields.” _James_ v. 4.

He who is seeking to obtain a correct view of the truth will perceive the propriety of keeping in mind the distinction between the different characters thus in our version called by the same name, “_servants_,” and not suffer his mind to be governed, or even influenced, by any bias which has been produced by an incomplete examination of the whole gospel of God.

------------------------------------

Study VIII.

------------------

LESSON I.

The Hebrew letters ע ain, ב beth, and ד 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 עֶבֶד _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 عَبْدࣨ _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 עבד _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 עֶבֶד _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 עֶבֶד _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 בֵּן _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 אַשְׁפָת֥וֹ _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 בֵּן _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־אַשְׁפָּתֹוֹ 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־עֵינֵֽךְ _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 בַּת _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, בְּתוּלָ֕ה is used to mean a _virgin_. But, 1 _Sam._ i. 16, בַת־בְּלִיַּעַל is used to mean quite a different character, as if of different origin. In _Eccl._ xii. 4, בְּנוֹ֥ת הַשִּׂ֥יר is generally understood to mean the voice of an old man. But in _Dan._ xi. 17, בַ֤ת הַנׇּשִׁים֨ 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 מְרַגְּלִים _they_, slaves (not) spies; עֲבָדֶ֨יךָ אַחִ֧ים _they slaves_, brethren, _Gen._ xlii. 11–13, לְעַבְדְּךָ לְאָבִינוּ _thy slave our father_, _Gen._ xliii. 28.

In an analogous sense the word א֤יִשׁ is used in 2 _Kings_ i. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Also iv. 25 and 27, preceding הָֽאֱלֹהִ֤ים _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 אִישׁ or אֱלהים. 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 דְּבָרִ֜ים _a man_ (of) _words_, _i.e._ an eloquent man, as in _Ex._ iv. 10; _the son of strength_ בֶּן־חַיִל _valiant_ or _worthy man_, 1 _Kings_ i. 52; בְּנֵי־קֶדֶם the sons of the East, _i.e._ the orientals, _Gen._ xxix. 1; בֶּן מָוֶת the son of death, _i.e._ doomed to death, 1 _Sam._ xx. 31; בַּת־בְּלִיַּעַל 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 אֱלָהָא 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 אֱלָהָא _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, עַבְדוֹהִ֩י 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 יוֹנָה _ben yonah_, the _son of a dove_, _i.e._ a young dove, a squab? _Lev._ xii. 6. Shall we say that בֶּן _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 עֹ֝רֵב _bene oreb, the sons of the raven_, _i.e._ young ravens, _Ps._ cxlvii. 9: does _beni_ then mean young ravens also? בֶּן בָּקָר _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, בָּנֶיהָ, 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 בְנֵי _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 הַדָּמִין _abad haddamin_, which literally was “_to enslave in pieces_.” The term is expressed thus in _Dan._ ii. 5: הַדָּמִין תִּתְעַבְדוּן _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 עבד _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 יִתְעֲבֵד _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 עבד _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 יָגַע _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 יְגִיֽעַ _labour_ of my hands.” xxv. 18, “and when thou wast faint and וְיָגִ֑עַ weary.” 3: “And make not all the people to תְּיַגַ֥ע _labour_ thither.” xxiv. 13: “And I gave you a land for which you did not יָגַ֣עְתָּ _labour_.” 2 _Sam._ xvii. 2: “And I will come upon him while he is יָגֵעַ weary.” _Neh._ v. 13: “So shall God shake out every man from his house and from his וּמִ֣יגִיע֔וֹ labour.” _Job_ iii. 17: “And the יְגִ֣יעֵי weary be at rest.” ix. 29: “If I be wicked, why then אִיגָע֖ labour I in vain.” x. 13: * * “despised the יְגִ֣יעַ work of thy hands * *.” xxviii. 18: “That which he יָגָע laboured for shall he restore.” xxxix. 11: * * “Wilt thou leave thy יְגִיעֶֽךָ֖ labour to him.” 16: * * * “ her יְגִיעָ֣הּ 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 וִ֜יגִעָם labour unto the locust.” cix. 11: “let the stranger spoil his יְגִיע֥וֹ labour.” cxxviii. 2: “For thou shalt eat the יְגִ֣יעַ labour of thy hands.” _Prov._ xxiii. 4: “תִּיגַע֥ _labour_ not to be rich.” _Eccl._ xii. 12: “Much study is יְגִעַ֥ת weariness to the flesh.” _Isa._ xliii. 22, 23, 24: “But thou hast been יָגַ֥עְתָּ הֽוֹגַעְתִֽיךָ wearied thee with incense.” “Thou hast הֽוֹגַעְתַּ֖נִי wearied me with thine iniquities.” xlv. 14: “The יְגִ֨יעַ labour of Egypt.” xlvii. 15: “with whom thou hast יָגָ֑עַתְּ _laboured_.” lv. 2: “And your וִיגִיֽעֲכֶם֖ _labour_ for that which satisfieth not.” lxv. 23: “They shall not יִֽגְעוּ֨ labour in vain.” _Jer._ iii. 24: “For shame hath devoured the יְגִי֥עַ labour.” xx. 5: “And all the יְגִיעָ֖הּ labours thereof.” xlv. 3: “I יָגַעְתִּי _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 יְגִיעֵךְ _labour_.” _Hag._ i. 11: “And upon all the יְגִי֥עַ labour of thy hands.” _Mal._ ii. 17: “Ye have הֽוֹגַעְתֶּם֤ wearied the Lord with your words, yet ye say, Wherein have we הוֹגָ֑עְנוּ wearied him?” _Eccl._ i. 8: “All things are full of יְגֵעִ֔ים labour.” x. 15: “The (עָמָל _amal_) _labour_ of the foolish (תִּיגָעֶנּוּ) 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 عَملمنࣨ _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 עֲמָלִי toil,” (_labour_, _sorrow_.) The word _manessa_ means to forget, to cause to forget, &c. _Num._ xxiii. 21: “He hath not beheld עָמָ֖ל _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 עֲמָלֵנ֭וּ labour and our oppression.” _Judg._ v. 26: “And her right hand to the workman’s (עֲמֵלִי֑ם _labourer’s_) hammer.” _Job_ iii. 10: “Nor hid עָ֜מָׄל sorrow from mine eyes.” 20: “Wherefore is light given unto him that is in לְעָמֵ֣ל _misery_.” iv. 8: “They that plough iniquity and sow עָמָ֣ל _wickedness_ shall reap the same.” v. 7: “Yet man is born to לְעָמָ֣לtrouble.” vii. 3: “So I am made to possess months of vanity, and עָ֝מָל wearisome nights are appointed to me.” xv. 35: “They conceive עָ֭מָל mischief and bring forth vanity.” xvi. 2: עָמָ֣ל “Miserable comforters are ye all.” xx. 22: “In the fulness of his sufficiency he shall be in עָמֵ֣ל _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 עָ֜מָׄל _ditch_ (sorrow bringing labour) which he made.” 16: “His עֲמָ֣לוֹ _mischiefs_ shall return upon his own head.” x. 7: “Under his tongue is עָמָל mischief and vanity.” 14: “Thou beholdest עָ֘מָ֤ל _mischief_ and spite.” xxv. 18: “Look upon mine affliction and my וַֽעֲמָלִ֑י pain, and forgive my sin.” “Yet is their strength עָמָ֣ל _labour_ and _sorrow_.” cv. 44: “And they inherit the וַֽעֲמַ֖ל _labour_ of the people.” cxxvii. 1: “Except the Lord build the house, they _labour_ in vain.” _Prov._ xvi. 26: “He that עָֽמְל֣וּ _laboureth_ עָ֣מְׄלָה עָ֭מֵל _Isa._ liii. 11: “He shall see of the מֵעֲמַל _travail_ of his soul,” (labour producing sorrow, &c.) “And that write עָמָל 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 עָמַ֥לְתָּ _laboured_.” _Eccl._ i. 3: “What profit hath a man of all his עֲמָלוֹ _labour_ which he taketh under the sun?” ii. 10: “For my heart rejoiced in all my עֲמָלִי _labour_.” 11: “And then I looked on all the work that my hands had wrought, and on all the וּבֶֽעָמָ֖ל _labour_ that I had שֶֽׁעָמַ֣לְתִי _laboured_.” I hated all my עֲמָלִי _labour_ which I had עָמֵ֖ל _taken_ (laboured) under the sun.” 19: “Yet shall he have rule over all my עֲמָלִ֔י _labour_ wherein I have שֶֽׁעֽמַ֥לְתִּי _laboured_.” 20: “Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the הֶ֣עָמָל _labour_ which I שֶׁ֥עָמַ֖לְתִּי took (laboured) under the sun.” 21: “For there is a man whose שֶֽׁעֲ֗מָל֛וֹ _labour_ is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity—yet to a man that hath not עָ֥מַל _laboured_ herein shall he leave it for his portion.” 22: “For what hath man of all his עֲמָל֔וֹ _labour_ and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath עָמֵ֖ל _laboured_ under the sun?” iv. 4: “Again I considered all עָמָל _travail_,” (labour and sorrow.) 8: “Yet there is no end to all his עֲמָל֔וֹ _labour_, neither saith he, For whom do I עָמֵ֗ל _labour_.” iii. 9: “What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he עָמֵ֥ל _laboureth_?” v. 18: “And to enjoy the good of all his בַּֽעֲמָל֑וֹ _labour_.” vi. 7: “All the עֲמַ֥ל _labour_ of a man is for his mouth.” ix. 9: “For that is thy portion in this life and in thy וּבַעֲמָ֣לְךָ֔ _labour_.” x. 15: “The עֲמַ֥ל _labour_ (_amal_) of the foolish תְּיַגְּעֶ֑נּוּ _wearieth_ every one of them.”

מְלָאכָה֜ _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,” מְלַאכְתּ֖וֹ _labour_. xxxix. 11: “Joseph went into the house to do his _business_,” (labour.) _Exod._ xx. 9: “And do all thy _work_,” מְלַאכְתֶּֽךָ 10: “In it thou shalt not do any _work_,” (labour, מְלָאכָ֜ה.) xxxi. 3: “All manner of _workmanship_,” מְלָאכָֽה. 14: “For whosoever doeth any _work_,” מְלָאכָ֔ה. 15: “Six days may _work_ מְלָאכָה֒ be done.” _Lev._ xiii. 48: “Of any thing _made_ מְלֶ֥אכֶת of skin,” (done, laboured, manufactured.) _Ezra_ iii. 8: “To set forward the _work_ of the house.” 9: “To set forward the workman,” הַמְּלָאכָ֖ה. _Esther_ iii. 9: “And those that have charge of the king’s _business_,” הַמְּלָאכָ֔ה. ix. 3: “And officers הַמְּלָאכָה֙ 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.

עָשָׂה _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_ וַיַּעַשׂ the firmament.” 16: “God _made_ וַיַּעַשׂ two great lights.” ii. 2: “God ended his _work_ מְלַאכְתּוֹ which he had _made_,” עָשָׂ֥ה. 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. עָשׂ֣וּ. _Exod._ xxxi. 4: “To work in gold and silver.” 5: It is used with _malabkah_, thus: “to _work_ לַֽעֲשׂ֖וֹת in all manner of workmanship,” (מְלָאכָֽה malakah.) These two words occur together again in _Neh._ iv. 15, the iv. 21 of the English text: “So _we laboured_ עֹשִׂ֣ים _in the work_,” בַּמְּלָאכָ֑ה. _Ezek._ xxix. 20: “I have given him the land of Egypt for his _labour_,” עָ֣שׂוּ. _Exod._ xxx. 25: “And thou shalt make it (וְעָשִׂ֣יתָ labour it) an oil of holy ointment, an ointment composed after the art of the apothecary.” Art is here translated from מַ֥עֲשֵׂ֣ה _maase_, which is another word of very similar import, and is derived from עָשָה, 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_ הַמַּעֲשֶׂ֥ה is this that ye have done?” xlvii. 3: “What is your _occupation_?” מַּֽעֲשֵׂיכֶ֑ם. _Exod._ xxiii. 16: “And the feast of the harvest, the firstfruits of thy _labours_ מַֽעֲשֶׂיךָ, 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_,” מַעֲשֶׂ֖יךָ. _Hag._ ii. 17: “And I smote you with blasting and with hail in all the _labours_ מַֽעֲשֵׂ֣ה of your hands.” _Hab._ iii. 17: “Although the fig-tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vine, the _labour_ מַֽעֲשֵׂה of the olive shall fail.”

סֵבֶל _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 סִבֹּלֶה _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_,” בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם. _Ps._ lxxxi. 7: “I delivered מִסֶּ֣בֶל thee.” cxliv. 14: “That our oxen may be strong to _labour_,” מְֽסֻבָּ֫לִים. The Hebrews had thus several ways by which they could express the idea _labour_ accompanied with different adjective qualities. So the word עֶבֶד _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_ עֹֽבְדֵ֥י 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_ תַּ֥עֲבֹ֔ד֮, as a verb “_do_” is from וְעָשִ֣֭יתָ and “_work_” from מְלַאבְתְ֥ךָ. 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 וְעָשִ֣֭יתָ _labour_, or make all thy מְלַאבְתְ֥ךָ 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 תַֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה _any work_ כָל־מְלָאכָ֜ה֡ thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, (עַבְדְּךָ, _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־יָד _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־יָ֣ד _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 עבד _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.

------------------

LESSON IV.

Some of the lexicons say that this root עֶבֶד _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 וְנִ֥שְׁתַּֽחֲוֶ֖ה, from the root שׁחה _shahah_, which means to bow down. xxiii. 12: “_And_ Abraham _bowed down himself_ before the people of the Lord,” _bowed down himself_ וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ֙. xlvii. 31: “_And_ Israel bowed himself upon the bed’s head,” וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ. _Exod._ iv. 31: “Then they bowed their heads and worshipped,” וַיִּ֥שְׁתַּ֥חֲוֽוּ. 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,” וְהִשְׁתַּ֥חֲווּ. xx. 5: “_Thou shalt not bow down thyself_ תִּשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֶ֥֣ה _unto them_.” xxxiii. 10: “And the people rose up and _worshipped_,” וְהִ֥שְׁתַּֽחֲו֔וּ. _Deut._ xxvi. 10: “And _worship_ וְיִִּֽשְׁתַּֽחֲוִ֔יתָ before the Lord thy God.” _Josh._ v. 14: “And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and did _worship_,” וַיִּשְׁתָּ֔ח֗וּ. 1 _Sam._ xv. 30: “That I may _worship_ וִהִשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֵ֖יתִי the Lord thy God.” 31: “And Saul worshipped וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ the Lord.” 2 _Sam._ i. 2: “That he fell to the earth and did _obeisance_,” וַיִּשְׁתָּ֥חוּ. xiv. 33: “And _bowed himself_ וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ on his face to the ground before the king.” 1 _Kings_ i. 23: “He _bowed himself_ וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ before the king with his face to the ground.” 2 _Kings_ v. 18: “When my _master_ goeth into the house of Rimmon to _worship_ לְהִשְׁתַּֽחֲ֙וֹת there, * * * and I bow myself וְהִֽשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֵיתִי in the house of Rimmon, * * * _when I bow myself down_ בְּהִשְׁתַּֽחֲוָיָתִי in the house of Rimmon.” xviii. 22: “Ye shall worship תִּשְׁתַּ֥חֲו֖וּ before the altar of Jerusalem.” xix. 37: “And it came to pass as he was _worshipping_ מִשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֶה in the house of Nishrosh, his God.” _Job_ i. 20: “Then Job arose and fell down upon the ground and _worshipped_,” וַיִּשְׁהָֽחוּ. _Ezek._ viii. 16: “And they _worshipped_ מִשְׁהֲוִיהֶ֥ם 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 וְהִשְׁתַּ֥חֲוִי thou him,” xcix. 5: “Exalt ye the Lord our God, and _worship_ וְ֭הִשְׁתַּ֥חֲווּ at his footstool.” cvi. 19: “They made a calf in Horeb and worshipped הִ֥שְׁתַּ֖חֲווּ the molten image.” xcvii. 7: “Confounded be all they that _serve_ (עֹבְדֵי slave themselves to) graven images; that boast themselves of idols: _worship_ הִֽשְׁתַּֽחֲווּ 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 هَلَّ _hel_ and هَلّلَ _hallel_, Hebrew הַלֵּל _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 هَوْدٌ _hōd_, Hebrew הוֹד _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 עֲבֹדָת _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 עֲבֹֽדָתוֹ _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_ וַֽיְשָׁרְתֵֽהוּ unto him.” The word is from the root שֵׁרֵת _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_ וְשֵֽׁרְת֖וּ unto it.” iv. 12: “And they shall take all the instruments of ministry וְשֵֽׁרְתוּ wherewith they _minister_.” 14: “Wherewith they _minister_ about it.” xviii. 2: “That they may be joined unto thee and _minister_ וִֽישָֽׁרְת֑וּךָ֩ unto thee.” 1 _Kings_ i. 4: “And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king and _ministered_ וַתְּשָׁ֣רְתֵ֔הוּ to him.” 15: “The Shunammite _ministered_ מְשָׁרַ֖ת 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_ מְשָׁרֵת before the Lord, being a child.” iii. 1: “And the child Samuel _ministered_ מְשָׁ֣רֵ֥ת unto the Lord before Eli.” 2 _Sam._ xiii. 17: “Then he called his servant (נַֽעֲרוֹ _his young man_) that _ministered_ מְשָׁ֣רְת֔וֹ 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 נער _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, (עֲבָדָיו֩ _slaves_,) and the attendance of his ministers,” מְשָׁרְתָי֜ו.

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_ לְשָׁרֵ֣ת in the holy place.” _Deut._ x. 8: “To stand before the Lord to _minister_ לְשָֽׁרְתוֹ֙ unto him.” xviii. 5: “For the Lord thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes to stand to _minister_ לְשָׁרֵת 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_ לְשָׁרֵ֖ת because of the cloud.” 2 _Kings_ xxv. 14: “And all the vessels of brass wherewith they _ministered_, יְשָֽׁרְתוּ, took they away.” 2 _Chron._ xxiv. 14: “ Even vessels to _minister_,” שָׁרֵת. _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_,” הַ֥מְשָׁ֣רְתִ֔ים. _Isa._ lx. 7: “The rams of Nebaioth shall _minister_ יְשָֽׁרְת֑וּנֶךְ unto thee.” Let it be noticed that the word _strangers_ is translated from the word נֵכָר _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 (נֵכָ֔ר _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 מְשָׁרֵ֥ת, and should have been the _minister_ of Moses. In _Exod._ xxiv. 13: “Moses rose up and Joshua his _minister_” מְשָֽׁרְת֑וֹ. 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_ לְשָׁרֵ֖ת 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_ וּמְשָֽׁרְתוֹ 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 מַשָּׂ֖א.

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 עֶבֶד _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 עֶבֶד _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 עֶבֶד _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 בְֹחָרָ֑ן, 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. הַנֶּפֶשׁ _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 עֶבֶד _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 (עֲבָדִים _abadim_), and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels.” The word _men-servants_ is translated from the plural of עֶבֶד _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_ (עבדים _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_ (עֲבֻדָּֽה _abuddah_, _slaves_, a plural formation of _ebed_), and the Philistines envied him.”!!!

------------------

LESSON VI.

_Gen._ xxvii. 29: “Let people serve thee (יַֽעַבְדּ֣וּךָ _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 (יַֽעֲבֹ֥ד _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_ (וַֽעֲבָדִ֔ים 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” (עֲבָדִֽי֑ם out of _slavery_): 5: “Thou shalt not _bow down_ (תִשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֶה֣ _worship them_) thyself to them, nor _serve_ (תָֽעָבְדֵ֑ם _be a slave to them_) them.” 9: “Six days shalt thou _labour_ (תּֽ֥עֲבֹ֔ד֘ _slave thyself_, or do SLAVE-LABOUR) and do (_oso_, _labour or do work_) all thy work,” (וְעָשִׂי֣תָ 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_ (עַבְדְּךָ 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 עַבְד֤וֹ is also used. _Exod._ xxi. 1: “Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.” 2: “If thou buy a Hebrew _servant_ (עֶ֣בֶד _ebed_), (יַֽעֲבֹ֑ד _shall slave himself_),” 5: “And if the _servant_ (הָעֶבֶד _ha ebed_, _slave_) shall plainly say, I love,” &c. _Exod._ xxi. 7: “She shall not go out as the _men-servants_ do.” (הָֽעֲבָדִֽים the plural is here used.) 20: “If a man smite his _servant_ עַבְדּוֹ 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_,” עַבְדּ֛וֹ. 27: “ If he smite out his _man-servant’s_ tooth,” עַבְדּ֛וֹ. 32 “If the ox shall push the _man-servant_ עֶבֶד 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_ וְעַבְדְךָ 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_,” (עֶ֥בֶד _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_ תַּ֖עֲבֹ֑דוּ 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_ וְעַבְדְּךָ, 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_ (עֶ֣בֶ֥ד _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_ וְעַבְדֵֹו, 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_ (וְעַבְדֵיכֶם a plural form of _ebed_), thy son, and thy daughter, and _thy man-servant_,” וְעַבְדְּךָ. _Deut._ xv. 12: “If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and _serve_ וַעֲבָֽדְךָ֖ thee six years.” 15: “And thou shalt remember that thou wast a _bond-man_ (עֶ֣בֶד _ebed_) in the land of Egypt.” 17: “And he shall be thy servant (עֶבֶד _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_ וְעַבְדְּךָ, 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_ (עֶבֶד _ebed_) in Egypt.” 14: “And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy _man-servant_ וְעַבְדְּךָ֣, 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_ (לָמַ֖ס _lamas_, afflicted, cast down, to pay tribute, &c.), and they shall _serve_ (וַֽעֲבָדֽוּךָ _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_,” (עֶבֶד _ebed_, _slave_.) xxiv. 18: “But thou shalt remember that thou wast a _bond-man_,” (עֶבֶד _ebed_, _slave_.) wast a bond-man,” עֶבֶד _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_,” (עֶבֶד _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 מָלַךְ _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, שָלַט _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 אָמַר _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 מִהְעֲבֶד _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 עֲבִידַ֣ת is translated _work_. So in v. 8, עֲבִ֥ידְתָּא _work_, vi. 7, עֲבוׄדַ֭ת _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: תַעַׄבדֹוּן “_Ye shall do._” 12: יִתְעֲבֵ֖ד “Let it be done with speed.” 13: עֲבַֽדוּ “_So they did speedily._”

vii. 18: תַֽעַבְדוּן } “_That do_ after the will of your God.”

and לְמֶעְבַּ֑ד } “_To do_ with the rest of the silver and gold.”

21: יִתְעֲבֵ֖ד “It be done speedily.” 23: יִתְעֲבֵד “Let it be diligently _done_.” 26: עָבֵד “Will not _do_.” מִתְעֲבֵ֖ד “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 אָסְפַּ֖רְנָא _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 עֲבַ֑֗דוּ. 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 כאתנח, 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 עבדוֹ 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,” עַבְדָּ֛י֯ךְיך. v. 11: “We are the servants,” עַבְדוֹהִי, having relevance to their devotedness to God. vi. 16 commences with the word יַֽעֲבַ֣דוּ, 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_ עֲבָדִ֣ים, yet our God hath not forsaken _us in our bondage_,” וּבְעַבְדֻתֵ֔נוּ. 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_ הָּעֶ֣בֶד, the Ammonite heard of it”—“And Tobiah the _servant_ הָעֶ֣בֶד, 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_ (כֹֽ֠בְשִׁים _kovshim_) sons and our daughters to be _servants_ (לַֽעֲבָדִֹם _slaves_), and some of our daughters are brought into _bondage_ (נִכְבָּשׁוֹת _subjections_, not necessarily slavery) already,” (כָּבַש _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_, (עַבְדּ֔וֹ _male slave_,) and every man his maid-servant שִׁפְחָת֛וֹ, being a Hebrew or Hebrewess, go free; that none should _serve_ (עֲבָד־ _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_ (עַבְדּ֔וֹ _male slave_), and every one his maid-servant, go free, that none _serve themselves_ (עֲבָד־ _slave themselves_), of them any more, then they obeyed and let them go. But afterwards they turned and caused the _servants_ (הָ֥עֲבָדִים _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 (עֲבָדִ֖ים _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 (וַֽעֳבָ֖דְךָ _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_, (עַבְדּוֹ _ebeddo_, _slave_,) and every man his _hand-maid_, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into _subjection_ (וַתִּכְבְּשׁ֣וּ) to be unto you for _servants_ (לַֽעֲבָדִ֖ים _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 כָּבַשׁ _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_ (עַבְדֵיהֶ֤ם _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_ (עבד), that its certainty and definiteness must place the inquiry beyond doubt. But as in this instance the word כָּבַשׁ _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,” וְכִבְשֻׁהָ. _Num._ xxxii. 22: “And the land _be subdued_ וְנִכְבְשָׁ֥ה before the Lord.” 29: “And the land _shall be subdued_ וְנִכְבְּשָׁה before you.” _Josh._ xviii. 1: “And the land _was subdued_ נִכְבְּשָׁ֖ה before them.” 2 _Sam._ viii. 1: “Which he _subdued_,” כִּבֵשׁ. ‎2 _Chron._ ix. 18: “With a footstool,” וְכֶבֶשׁ because a footstool was in the place of subjection. _Zech._ ix. 15: “And _subdue_ וְכָ֥בְשׁוּ with sling-stones.” _Micah_ vii. 19: “He will _subdue_ יִכְ֖בּוֹשׁ 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_ לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד the ground.” _To till_ is here translated from this word _ebed_, with the affix of the preposition ל. 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_ (לַ֥עֲבֹ֖ד _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_ (לַֽעֲבֹדַ֣ת _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 לְעָבְדָ֖הּ. 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_ (עֲבָדִ֠ים _male slaves_) look unto the hand of their master; and as the eyes of a _maiden_ (שִׁפְחָה֮ _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 (עָבַד _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, עֶבֶד _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 عَدْنٌ _aden_, and means softness, gentleness, mildness, tenderness, and daintiness, in that language. The Hebrews had also another word from this same root, עֲדִי _adi_, to mean ornaments, &c., and עֲדָיִן _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 גַן _gan_. The word is derived from גַנּן _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_ עבד, 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_ (עָ֑בֶד _slave_) will not be corrected by words.” _Prov._ xxix. 19. God had mercifully contrived that he should be forced to action. “He that _tilleth_ (עֹבֵ֣ד _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_ (עֲבדתנוּ _ebeduthenu_, _slavery_). For we were _bond-men_ (עֲבָדִ֣ים _abedim_, _slaves_), and yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage,” עבדתנוּ. So in 2 _Chron._ xii. 8: “Nevertheless, ye shall be his _servants_ (לעבדים _le-obedim_, his _slaves_), that they may know my _service_ (עֲב֣וֹדָתִ֔י _slavery_), and the _service_ (וַֽעְבוֹדַ֖ת _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 לַֽעֲבָדִ֨ים) and bond-women, I had held my tongue.”

------------------

LESSON X.

Towards the close of the book of Deuteronomy, Moses, having delivered to the children of Israel such of the laws of the Almighty as were then deemed necessary for their government and guidance, proceeds to inform them of the consequences of disobedience; and boldly informs them, xxviii. 15, “But, if it shall come to pass if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments, and his statutes which I command thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon thee and overtake thee. 16: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. 17: Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store. 18: Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. 19: Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. 20: The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all thou settest thy hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly, because of the wickedness of thy doings whereby thou hast forsaken me.” “And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee. Thou shalt see it no more again, and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for _bond-men_ (לַֽעֲבָדִ֥ים( for _slaves_), and bond-women, and no man shall buy you.” They should be so trifling and worthless that no one would wish to buy them. _Josh._ ix. 23–27: “Now, therefore, ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bond-men (עֶ֗בֶד _slaves_), and hewers of wood and drawers of water,” &c. “And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water, for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord, even unto this day.”

------------------

LESSON XI.

Before closing this subject we offer a few more examples of the Hebrew use of this word. “Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? There be many _servants_ (עֲבָדִ֔ים _slaves_) now-a-days that break away every man from his master.” 1 _Sam._ xxv. 10. Nabal pretended in his drunkenness, that he might be a runaway _slave_. 1 _Kings_ ii. 29, 40: “And it came to pass at the end of three years, that two of the _servants_ (עֲבָדִים_ebedim_, _slaves_) of Shimei ran away unto Achish, son of Maachah king of Gath; and they told Shimei, saying, Behold thy _servants_ (עַבְדֶּךָ _slaves_) be in Gath. And Shimei arose and saddled his ass, and went to Gath to Achish to seek his _servants_ (עֲבָדָיו _slaves_), and Shimei went and brought his _servants_ (עֲבָדָ֖יו _slaves_) from Gath.” 1 _Kings_ ix. 20, 21, and 22: “And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebuzites, which were not of the children of Israel, their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon these did Solomon levy a tribute of _bond-service_ (עָבֶד _obed_, _slavery_) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no _bond-men_,” (עָבֶד _ebed_, _slaves_.) 2 _Chron._ viii. 9: “But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no _servants_ (לַֽעֲבָדִ֖ים _la ebedim_, no _slaves_) for his work, (לִמְלַאכְתּ֑וֹ _his works_, _labours_.) But they were men of war, and chief of his captains, and captains of his chariots and horsemen.” 2 _Kings_ iv. 1: “Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant, my husband, is dead, and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord, and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be _bond-men_,” (לַֽעֲבָדִ֖ים _la ebedim_, for _slaves_.) In 1 _Chron._ xxvii. 26, this word is used in a sense quite analogous to slave-labour, thus: “And over them that did the _work_ (_meleketh_, _i.e._ the particular work or labour) of the field for _tillage_ (לַעֲבֹדַת _slave-labour_) of the ground, was Ezra, the son of Chelub.” _Job_ i. 2, 3: “And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters. His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five thousand yoke of oxen, and five hundred she-asses, and a very great _household_.” The word “household” is here translated from וַֽעֲבֻדָּה a body of slaves, _i. e._ a large family of slaves. _Job_ iii. 19: “The small and the great are there, and the _servant_ (וְעֶבֶד _ve ebed_, master.” _Job_ xxxi. 13: “If I did _despise_ (מִשְׁפַּטַ _misjudge_) the cause of my _man-servant_,” (עַֽבְדִּי my _slave_.) _Job_ xxxix. 9: “Will the unicorn be willing to _serve_ thee?” (עָבְדֶךָ be a _slave_ to thee.) _Ps._ cxvi. 16: “O Lord, truly I am thy _servant_ (עַבְדֶךָ _obedeka_, _slave_); I am thy _servant_ (עַבְדֶּךָ _slave_), and the son of thy _hand-maid_ (אֲמָתֶ֑ךָ _amatheka_, _female slave_): thou hast loosed my bonds.” It is a little remarkable how similar is this sentiment of David to one expressed by St. Paul. _Prov._ xii. 9: “He that is despised and hath a _servant_ (עֶבֶד _ebed_, _slave_) is better than he that honoureth himself and lacketh bread.” _Prov._ xvii. 2: “A wise _servant_ (עֶבֶד _ebed_, _slave_), shall rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the brethren.” _Prov._ xxx. 21, 22, 23: “For three things is the earth disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear: For a _servant_ (עֶבֶד _ebed_, _slave_) when he _reigneth_ (יִמְ֑לוֹךְ _imlok_), and a fool when he is filled with meat. For an odious woman when she is married, and a _hand-maid_ (וְשִׁפְחָה _female slave_) that is heir to her mistress.” _Eccl._ ii. 7. “_I got me_ (קָנִ֨יתִי _kanithi_, _I purchased_) _servants_ (עֲבָדִ֣ים _male slaves_) and _maidens_ (וּשְׁפָח֔וֹת _female slaves_), and had servants born in my house.” _Eccl._ vii. 21: “Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken, lest thou hear thy _servant_ (עַבְדְךָ _slave_) curse thee.” _Jer._ ii. 14: “Is Israel a _servant_ (הָעֶבֶד _slave_)? is he a home-born _slave_? why is he spoiled?” In the latter part of this quotation, the word עבד _ebed_ is not expressed in Hebrew, but _understood_, as is often the case in English: yet King James’s translators did not hesitate to supply it in English with the word _slave_, giving indisputable proof of what they understood the word _ebed_ to mean, and also, that they used the English word _servant_ as a synonyme of the word _slave_. The omission to express the word עֻבֶד _ebed_ in Hebrew, in this instance, has the effect to make the idea conveyed by the prophet more emphatic; and hence the translators seem to have felt the necessity of using the most forcible synonyme, in order that they might truly and beyond doubt convey the full import of the prophet’s meaning. _Mal._ i. 6: “A son honoureth his father, and a _servant_ (וְעֶ֣בֶד _slave_) his master.” This passage is a connecting link in a chain of reasoning, and the prophet continues thus: “If then I be a father, where is my honour? If I be a _master_, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?” As though they were astonished at the accusation! And this is the answer—7: “Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar.” A figure, to show that they had become wholly disobedient, and held in disregard the law of God. By their disobedience, they were degenerating from the condition of the son to that of the _ebed_. Instead of being influenced by love, they were about to be operated upon by fear, and hence the prophet continues, ii. 1: “And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings, yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. 3: Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.” He would curse them with the hateful curse of Cain. And we beg to notice this scriptural glancing at the doctrine that a course of sin does produce some change upon the physical man,—some change of countenance, which is continued, degenerating and deteriorating the succeeding generations,—and ask, is not such a doctrine alluded to in _Ezek._ xviii. 2, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” And, again, in _Ps._ lviii. 2, 3: “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent.” Again, in _Jer._ vii. 19: “Do they provoke me to anger? saith the Lord. Do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?” And, in _Isa._ iii. 9: “The show of their countenance doth witness against them, and they declare their sin as Sodom. They hide it not. Wo unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.” _Jer._ xiii. 22: “If thou say in thy heart, wherefore have these things come upon me? for the greatness of thine iniquities are thy skirts discovered and thy heels made bare.” And ii. 22: “For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God.” We will not enter into the examination of this doctrine at present, but hasten to close our view of the Hebrew use of the word עבד _ebed_. In _Joel_ iii. 2 (ii. 29th of the English text) is this remarkable passage: “And also upon the _servants_ (הָֽעֲבָדִ֖ים _ha ebedim_, the _male slaves_) and upon the _hand-maids_ (הַשְּׁפָח֑וֹת _hashshephahoth_, the _female slaves_) in those days will I pour out my Spirit.” This passage was translated at Jerusalem by St. Peter, into Greek. See _Acts_ ii. 18: “And on my _servants_, and _on my hand-maids_ (δουλους και επι τας δουλας), will I pour out in those days my Spirit,”—using those Greek words that most unconditionally mean a _slave_, and showing as effectually as language can show, and proving as distinctly as language can prove, that St. Peter well understood these words of Joel to mean _male_ and _female slaves_. He translates the passage, referring to it, and quoting it. There can have been no mistake. Besides, the passage is rendered definite by its particularity; for the preceding sentence avers that his Spirit should be poured out “upon all flesh,” and goes on to particularize, “your sons” and “daughters,” “your old men,” “your young men,” and then in this passage includes the _slaves_, thus explaining whom he means by “all flesh.” It was on the day of Pentecost, when the disciples of Jesus Christ “were all with one accord in one place, and suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting; and there appeared upon them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” _Acts_ ii. 1, 2, 3.

Such were the circumstances under which this translation was made—just after the death of Jesus Christ. Circumstances more solemn, more imposing, more awful to the human mind cannot well be conceived. In the immediate presence of God the Father, and the Holy Ghost operating upon the mind of St. Peter!! Should any one, timorous, decline to believe men, or mortals, permit us, in the name of that Jehovah whose work we all are, to call their reflection on what may be the nature of that sin which contemns, denies, or treats as untruth the very language of the Holy Ghost.

------------------

LESSON XII.

The Hebrew noun _ebed_ belongs to the declension of _factitious_, _euphonic segholate_ nouns of two syllables, with the tone on the penult and a furtive vowel on the final:

_Singular absolute._ _Construct state._ עָ֑בֶד or עֶבֶד עֶבֶד

_With light suffix._ _Grave suffix._ עַבְדִי עַבְדְכֶם

_Plural absolute._ _Construct state._ עֲבָדִים עַבְדֵי

_With light suffix._ _Grave suffix._[1] עֲבָדַי עַבְדֵיכֶם

Footnote 1:

Termed grave, because they always have the tone accent.

Declined with the personal pronoun, thus:

_Absolute_ _singular_, עֶבֶד _a slave_. _Suff._ 1. עַבְדִי _my slave_. 2. m. עַבְדְּךָ _thy slave_. 2. f. עַבְדְךְ _thy slave_. 3. m. עַכְדְּךָ _his slave_. 3. f. עַבְדָהּ _her slave_. 1. (plur.) עַבְדֵנוּ _our slave_. 2. m. עַבְדְכֶם _your slave_. 2. f. עַבְדְכֶך _your slave_. 3. m. עַבְדָם _their slave_. 3. f. עַבְדָך _their slave_. _Absolute_ _plural_, עֲבָדִים _slaves_. _Suff._ 1. עֲבָדַי _my slaves_. 2. m. עֲבָדֶיךָ _thy slaves_. 2. f. עֲבָדַיִךְ _thy slaves_. 3. m. עֲבָדָיו _his slaves_. 3. f. עֲבָדֶיהָ _her slaves_. 1. (plur.) עֲבָדֵינוּ _our slaves_. 2. m. עֲבָדֵיכֶם _your slaves_. 2. f. עֲבְדֵיכֶן _your slaves_. 3. m. עַבְדֵיהֶם _their slaves_. 3. f. עַבְדֵיהֶן _their slaves_.

Prefixed by a preposition, it will stand thus: בְּעבד _in_, _at_, _with_, &c. a slave; or with ל thus, לְעבד _to_, _at_, _in_, _towards_, _till_, _until_, &c. a slave; or, when the word עבד is used as a verb, it will stand in place of our infinitive mood, thus, לַֽעֲבֹ֨ד _to slave_, as in _Num._ iv. 47. So this word עבד or any form of it may be prefixed by מ as a contraction of ןמ, a preposition of various meanings or applications, as _from_, _apart from_, _of_, _out of_, _by_, &c. &c.; and so it may be prefixed by any of the letters הֶ֥אֱמַנְתִּ֖י forming the word _heemanti_, each prefixed letter giving to the _root word_ some shade of meaning, emphasis, or adjective quality. So, also, it may be prefixed by כּ, used both as a preposition, and as a conjunction, thus, כִּעָבֶד _as_, _so_, _according to_, _after_, _about_, _nearly_, _almost_, &c. &c. _a slave_. Hebrew nouns may also be prefixed by particles of old obsolete words, varying their form, and exceedingly so their phonetic representation; as for example, שְׁלֹמֹה _Shelomah_ was the son and successor of King David. Now שׁ, as the particle of some ancient word, and followed by ל, becomes the sign of the possessive case; but when the word begins with these two letters, they then will be duplicated, as in _Canticles_ iii. 7, מִטָתוֹ שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹמֹה _mittatho shellishlomoh_, _Solomon’s bed_, &c.

Prepositions, sometimes two or more, are, or seem to be, compounded, yet used in the sense of the last in the compound, thus: מִן and עַל used thus, מֵעַל for עַל, or לְמִן for מִן, &c. &c.

The noun עֶבֶד _ebed_ may also be prefixed by a conjunction, thus, וְעבד _and a slave_, &c. &c.

It may also often be compounded with other nouns. Thus, עֹבַדְיָהו _the slave of God_. In this manner the composition of significant terms, and their conversion into proper names, is unlimited: thus, עַבְדּוֹן _the judgment_, or _government of a slave_, and made the name of a city. See _Josh._ ii. 30; also 1 _Chron._ i. 59, the 74th of the English text; and hence the word _abaddon_ has been used by some to signify a place of punishment. We can give but a mere sketch of the grammatical formations and variations of the word _ebed_; aware that even such sketch, can be considered of value only by a few, we refrain from even a glimpse of its phonetic variations and peculiarities, deeming them only interesting to the advanced and more critical of the proficients in the language; but we cannot refrain from giving a sketch of its declension as a verb, for the benefit of the Greek and Roman scholar.

Conjugation of the word עָבַד as a verb, _to slave_, &c.

IN KAL. _Praet._ 3. p. m. עָבַד 3. f. עָֽבָדָהּ 2. m. עָֽבַדְתָּ 3. (plur.) עָֽבְדוּ 2. m. עָבַדְתֶּם _Infinitive absolute_, עָבוֹד _Construct state_, עֲבֹד _Future_, 3. m. יַעֲבֹד 2. m. תַּעֲבד 3. (plur.) יַעַבְדוּ 3. f. תַּעֲבֹדְנָה _Imperative_, 2. p. m. עֲבֹד 2. f. עבְדִי _Participle_, _act._ עוֹבֵד _pass._ עָבוּד

NIPHAL. _Praet._ 3. m. נֶעֱבַד 2. m. נֶעֱבַ֫דְתָּ _Infinitive_, הֵעָבֵד _Future_, יֵעָבֵד _Imperative_, הֵעָבֵד _Participle_, נֶעֱבָד

PIEL, (_poel_, _polel_.)

_Praet._ עִבֵּד _Infinitive_, עַבֵּד _Future_, יְעַבֵּד _Participle_, מְעַבֵּד

PUAL, (_poal_, _polal_.)

_Praet._ עֻבַּד _Infinitive_, עֻבַּד _Future_, יְעֻבַּד _Participle_, מְעֻבָּד

HIPHIL.

_Praet._ הֶעֱבִיד 2. m. הֶעֱבַ֫דְתָּ _Infinitive_, הַעֲבִיד _Future_, יַעֲבִיד _Participle_, מַעֲבִיד

HOPHAL.

_Praet._ הָעֳבַד _Infinitive_, הָעֳבַד _Future_, יָעֳבַד _Participle_, מָעֳבָד

HITHPAEL.

_Praet._ הִתְעַבֵּד _Infinitive_, הִתְעַבֵּד _Future_, יִתְעַבֵּד _Participle_, מִתְעַבֵּד

The unusual conjugations sometimes found in the form of some Hebrew words, _hothpaal_, _pilel_, _pulal_, _hithpalel_, and the Arabic _iq-talla_, _pealal_, _pilpel_, and the Aramaen _tiphel_, and the Syriac _shaphel_, are not known to the writer to have an example in the Hebrew Scriptures in the word עבד, and are therefore not exemplified.

Paradigm of the verb עָבַד _to slave_, as a 1. guttural in KAL.

_Praeter_, _singular_, 3. m. עָבַֽד 3. f. עָֽבְדָֽה 2. m. עָבַֽדְתָּ 2. f. עָבַֽדְתְּ 1. com. עָבַֽדְתִּי _Plural_, 3. com. עָֽבְדֽוּ 2. m. עֲבַדְתֶּם 2. f. עֲבַדְתֶּֽן 1. com. עָבַֽדְנוּ _Infinitive absolute_, עָבֽוֹד _Infinitive construct_, עֲבֹ֖ד _Imperative_, _singular_, m. עֲבֹ֥ד f. עִבְדִֽי _Plural_, m. עִבְד֖וּ f. עֲבֹֽדְנָה _Present_, _singular_, 3. m. יַֽעֲבֹֽד 3. f. תַּ֥עֲבֹֽד 2. m. תַּ֖עֲבֹֽד 2. f. תַּ֖עַבְדִ֖י 1. com. אֶֽעֱבֹֽד _Plural_, 3. m. יַעַֽבְדֽוּ 3. f. תַּֽעֲבֹֽדְנָה 2. m. תַּ֖עַבְדוּ 2. f. תַּ֖עֲבֹֽדְנָה 1. com. נַֽעֲבָֹד _Pres. apocope_, יַֽעֲבֽד _Participle_, _active_, עֹבֵד _passive_, עָבֽוּד

Paradigm of the verb עבד _to slave_, as a 1. guttural in NIPHAL.

_Praeter_, _singular_, 3. m. נֶֽעֱבַֽד 3. f. נֶ֖עֶבְדָ֖ה 2. m. נֶֽעֱבַ֖דְתָּ 2. f. נֶֽעֱבַ֖דְתְּ 1. com. נֶ֖עֱבַֽדְתִּי _Plural_, 3. com. נֶֽעֶבְד֭וּ 2. m. נֶֽעֱבַדְתֶּם 2. f. נֶֽעֱבַדְתֶּן 1. com. נֶֽעֱבַדְנוּ _Infinitive_, הֵּעָבֵֽד _Imperative_, _singular_, m. הֵעָבֵ֖ד f. הֵעָ֖בְדִֽי _Plural_, m. הֵֽעָ֖בְדֽוּ f. הֵעָבֵ֖דְנָה _Present_, _singular_, 3. m. יֵעָבֵֽד 3. f. הֵּעָבֵֽד 2. m. תֵּעָבֵֽד 2. f. תֵּעָֽבְדִ֖י 1. com. אֵעָֽבֵֽד _Plural_, 3. m. יֵעָֽבְדֽוּ 3. f. תּעָֽבֵ֖דְנָה 2. m. תֵּעָֽבְד֭וּ 2. f. תֵּ֥עָבֵדְנָה 1. com. נֵעָבֵ֖ד _Participle_, נֶֽעֱבָֽד

Paradigm of the verb עבד _to slave_, as a 1. guttural in PIHEL or _piel_, (_poel_, _polel_.)

_Praeter_, _singular_, 3. m. עִבֵּ֖ד 3. f. עִבַּדָה 2. m. עִבַּדְתָּ 2. f. עִבַּדְתְּ 1. com. עִבַּדְתִּי _Plural_, 3. com. עִבְּדֽוּ 2. m. עִבַּדְתֶּם 2. f. עִבַּדתֶּן 1. com. עִבַּדְנוּ _Infinitive_, עַבֵּד _Imperative_, _singular_, m. עַבֵּֽד f. עַבְּדִי _Plural_, m. עבּדוּ f. עַבֵּדְנָה _Present_, _singular_, 3. m. יְעַבֵּֽד 3. f. תּעַבֵּד 2. m. תְּעַבֵּד 2. f. תְּעַבֵּֽד 1. com. אֲעַבֵּֽד _Plural_, 3. m. יְעַבְדֽוּ 3. f. תְּעַבֵּדְנָה 2. m. תְּעַבֵּדֽוּ 2. f. תְּעַבֵּדְנָה 1. com. נְעַבֵּ֖ד _Participle_, מְעַבֵּד

Paradigm of the verb עבד _to slave_, as a 1. guttural in PUHAL, (_pual_, _poal_, _polal_.)

_Praeter_, _singular_, 3. m. עֻבַּד 3. f. עֻבְּדָֽה 2. m. עֻבַּדְתָּ 2. f. עֻבַּֽדְתְּ 1. com. עֻבַּֽדְתִּי _Plural_, 3. com. עֻבְּדוּ 2. m. עֻבַּדְתֶּֽם 2. f. עֻבַּדְתֶּן 1. com. עֻבַּֽדְנוּ _Infinitive_, עֻבַּֽד _Present_, _singular_, 3. m. יְעֻבַּד 3. f. תְּעֻבַּֽד 2. m. תְּעֻבַּֽד 2. f. תְּעַבּדִי 1. com. אֲעֻבַּֽד _Plural_, 3. m. יְעֻבְּדֽוּ 3. f. תְּעֻבְּדֽנָה 2. m. תְּעֻבְּדֽוּ 2. f. תְּעֻבַּֽנָה 1. com. נְעֻבַּֽד _Participle_, מְעֻבַּֽד

Paradigm of the verb עבד _to slave_, as a 1. guttural in HIPHIL.

_Praeter_, _singular_, 3. m. הֶֽעֱבִֽיד 3. f. הֶֽעֱבִידָה 2. m. הֶֽעֱבַֽדְתָּ 2. f. הֶֽעֱבַֽדְתְּ 1. com. הֶֽעֱבַֽדְתִּי _Plural_, 3. com. הֶעֱבִֽידוּ 2. m. הֶעֱבַדְתֶּם 2. f. הֶעֱבַדְתֶּן 1. com. הֶעֱבַדְנוּ _Infinitive_, הַֽעֲבִֽיד _Imperative_, _singular_, m. הַֽעֲבֵֽד f. הַֽעֲבִֽידִי _Plural_, m. הַֽעֲבִֽידוּ f. הַֽעֲבֵדְנָה _Present_, _singular_, 3. m. יַֽעֲבִֽיד 3. f. תַּֽעֲבִֽיד 2. m. תַּעֲבִֽיד 2. f. תַּֽעֲבִֽידִי 1. com. אַֽעֲבִֽיד _Plural_, 3. m. יַֽעֲבִֽידוּ 3. f. תַּֽעֲבֵֽדְנָה 2. m. תַּֽעֲבִֽידוּ 2. f. תַּֽעֲבֵדְנָה 1. com. נַעֲבִֽיד _Pres. apocope_, יַֽעֲבֵד _Participle_, מַֽעֲבִֽיד

Paradigm of the verb עבד _to slave_, as a 1. guttural in HOPHAL.

_Praeter_, _singular_, 3. m. הָעֳבַֽד 3. f. הָֽעָבְדָֽה 2. m. הַֽעֳבַֽדְתָּ 2. f. הָֽעֳבַֽדְתְּ 1. com. הָֽעֳבַֽדְתִּי _Plural_, 3. com. הָֽעָבִדֽוּ 2. m. הָֽעֳבַדְתֶּם 2. f. הָֽעֳבַדְתֶּן 1. com. הָֽעֳבַֽדְנוּ _Infinitive_, הָֽעֳבַֽד _Present_, _singular_, 3. m. יָֽעֳבַֽד 3. f. תָּעֳבַד 2. m. תָּעֳבַד 2. f. תָּֽעָבְֽדִי 1. com. אָֽעֳבַֽד _Plural_, 3. m. יָֽעָבְדֽוּ 3. f. תָּֽעֳבַֽדְנָה 2. m. הָּֽעָבְדוּ 2. f. הָּֽעֳבַֽדְנָה 1. com. נָֽעֳבַֽד _Participle_, מָֽעֳבָֽד

Paradigm of the verb עבד _to slave_, as a 1. guttural in HITHPAEL.

_Praeter_, _singular_, 3. m. הִתְעַבַּד 3. f. הִתְעַבְּדָה 2. m. הִתְעַבַּדְתָּ 2. f. הִתְעַבַּדְתְּ 1. com. הִתְעַבַּדְתִּי _Plural_, 3. com. הִתְעַבְּדוּ 2. m. הִתְעַבַּדְתֶּם 2. f. הִתְעַבְּדְתֶּן 1. com. הִתְעַבַּדְנוּ _Infinitive_, הִתְעַבֵּד _Imperative_, _singular_, m. הִתְעַבֵּד f. הִתְעַבְּדִי _Plural_, m. הִתְעַבְּדוּ f. הִתְעַבֵּדְנָה _Present_, _singular_, 3. m. הִתְעַבֵּד 3. f. תִּתְעַבֵּד 2. m. תִּתְעַבֵּד 2. f. תִּתְעַבְּדִי 1. com. אֶתְעַבֵּד _Present_, _plural_, 3. m. יִתְעַבֵּדוּ 3. f. תִּתְעַבֵּדְנָה 2. m. תִּתְעַבְּדוּ 2. f. תִּתְעַבֵּדְנָה 1. com. נִתְעַבֵּֽד _Participle_, מִתְעַבֵּד

In close, it may be remarked that there is perhaps no Hebrew verb found in all the forms of conjugation in the Holy Books.

THE END.

-----------------------

Transcriber’s Note

Errors which are readily attributed to printer’s lapses have been corrected, as noted below. There are a number of lapses in the punctuation of quoted matter, which have been rectified as described in the table below. Spelling has been retained, except where the printer seems most likely to be at fault.

Greek words are sometimes given without diacritical marks including in quoted passages, or the marks are incorrect, based upon what we now have for the Greek sources. The Greek is given here as printed.

The Greek ‘ou’ ligature is represented here using the Latin version ‘ȣ’.

Likewise, the typesetting of Hebrew is problematic in many places, particularly with the use of cantillation marks (tropes). In most cases, cantillation for single words or phrases are moot, but the author frequently includes them, not always accurately. Where modern fonts are unable to represent the printed characters, or where the typesetting was faulty, the text will follow the currently accepted forms. Vowel marks are sometimes omitted in the original, and are given here as printed. The combination hataf-patah is frequently reversed, and has been corrected everywhere with no further notice. Likewise, the printer seems to have frequently confused the trope merkha with the vowel point meteg, i.e. יְשָׁ֥רְתוּ for יְשָֽׁרְתוּ. The standard Hebrew has been followed here, as noted below. In this version, bidirectional text cannot be reliably rendered. The author provided a transliteration of most of the Hebrew words and phrases; however a separate transliteration has been included here based on the scheme provided by the Society of Biblical Literature. These appear in bold as =yĕšārĕtû=. These transliterations necessarily lose the cantillation marks. (The same has been done for the Arabic and Syriac words, which are also printed right-to-left.)

On p. 461, the Hebrew word בּוּת requires the vav as printed be a shuruk (וּ) to be read as a vowel 'û'. The character was printed without the dot, and is corrected here.

Arabic, Coptic, and Syriac scripts are rendered using the available Unicode characters. The script used by the author frequently could not be confirmed to match either the stated translations or the transliterations he provided. The Syriac script seems to be the so-called Western script. The Unicode characters follow the Estrangela, which was most widely used. Many of the Arabic words were either unrecognizable, did not match the transliterations given by the author, or both. Best guesses of the author’s intent are provided in the text.

On p. 390, the Arabic word which appears to be متصُعَادࣨ , seems incorrect. The most likely word is مِصعادٌ, which has the meaning given by the author. This has been substituted.

On p. 592, the maqqef (־) in בַּתבְּלִיָּ־עַל is misplaced. The word, from 1. _Samuel_ i. 16, should be בַּת־בְּלִיַּעַל, and has been corrected.

On p. 620, the Arabic غظنٌ does not exist; the author may have intended either عَدْنٌ which means Eden or غَدَن, which means languor, softness, limpness. etc. The former was used here.

Problematic cases with the original images and their replication here, are given below:

On p. 95, the quoted phrase from Ephesians 6:5, ‘And ye masters, do the _same things_ unto them;[’], is missing the closing single quotation mark. The words which follow the semicolon seem to be a paraphrase. The punctuation has been added.

On p. 141, the paragraph beginning ‘In _Judg._ iii. 7, 8, we have as follows:’ has an unclosed double quotation. It is not clear where the citation ends, and the text has been given here as printed.

On p. 486, the citation of Jeremiah li. 55 is misprinted as verse 15. Immediately following, the first of two citations of Isaiah li. 13 should have been to verse 15. These have been corrected. The second reference to verse 13 is correct.

In Lesson IV of Study VII (pp. 516–536), the punctuation of the extracts is inconsistent, and, with just a few exceptions noted below, has been retained as printed.

On p. 630, the Praet. 2 m. conjugation of עבד is printed as עְָבַדְתָּ, which is an invalid combination of vowel marks on the leading ayin. Either עָֽבַדְתָּ or עֳבַדְתָּ would be valid.

p. 10 Acorimus _sic._ Acosimus (p. 332).

p. 16 legis[l]ator Added.

p. 117 and heal his _servant_ (δοῦλον, Added. _slave_.)[”]

“And he called his ten _servants_ Added. (δοῦλους, _slaves_),[”] &c.

Ye shall be made free?[”] Added.

p. 119 commo[m/n]wealth Corrected.

p. 122 co[m/n]formity Corrected.

p. 125 [“]And when the hand of thy God Opening quote added.

p. 130 “For,[”] says Olybius Missing quotation mark added.

p. 131 multit[i]utudes Removed.

p. 141 the hand of _Chusan Rishathaim_, Added. (כּוּשָׁן רִשְׁעֲתַיִם )[”]

p. 151 of four o[f/r] five years old Corrected.

p. 183 property is an exclusive right.[”] Added.

p. 184 to the former.[”] Added.

p. 201 “I[s/t] is the great appointed Corrected. trial

p. 251 “Their visage is blacker than a Corrected. coal.[’/”]

p. 267 shows the [“]sentence Removed.

p. 390 רֶנּל should be רֶגּל Corrected.

p. 405 “the spiritual power,[”] Added.

p. 436 “He should be a fugitive and a Added. vagabond.[”]

p. 437 become black.[’/”] Corrected.

p. 439 Egypt[ai/ia]ns Transposed.

p. 451 di[c/s]tinct Corrected.

p. 456 offered infants and young children _sic._ ‘as’ [a] sacrifice. missing?

p. 465 (מִצְרִ֖ית _Mitsrith_[)] a Removed. descendant of Misraim,)

p. 475 سُليْمَنࣨ should be شُليْمَنࣨ Corrected.

p. 484 co[n]gnisance Removed.

p. 485 œstus _sic._ œstrus? castus?

p. 486 li. [15/55] “When her waves do roar Corrected.

Isa. li. [13/15]: “But I am the Corrected. Lord...

p. 487 _Jer._ [xliv/xlvi]. Corrected.

p. 530 “Such the slave’s nature, but this Corrected. favours thee.[’/”]

p. 593 _L[e/a]m._iii. 13. Corrected.

p. 597 עָ֣מְׄלָה עָ֭מֵל _sic._ Words are reversed.

p. 600 _Ps._ lxxxi. 7[0]: “I delivered ‘0’ removed. מִסֶּ֣בֶל thee.”

p. 602 וַיִּ֥שְׁתַּ֥חֲוְוּ should be וַיִּ֥שְׁתַּ֥חֲוֽוּ Corrected.

p. 610 יַעֲבַֹ֥ד should be יַֽעֲבֹ֥ד Corrected.