Chapter XXVII: Part 27

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.