Study VIII.
The Hebrew lettersעʿain,בbbeth, andדddaleth 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 itebed.
This word, as left untranslated by them, will be found inJer.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. InJudgesix. 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, the word Ebed is also left untranslated. Also inEzraviii. 6: “Ebed, the son of Jonathan.” And in some other places.
We trust that our authority for the pronunciation of the wordעֶבֶדʿebedebed, will be deemed sufficient: yet, we admit that, in Hebrewpronunciation, 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 wordebedis used as anoun,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 wordعَبْدࣨʿabdabed, 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 lettersgain, orain, under pointjesm, which is equivalent to the Hebrewquiescent sheoa, but really having the shortest possible trace of the sound of our shortĕ, and terminated by the letterdhal, ordal, under the diacritical sign of nunnation.
Mr. Sale, who had great experience in Arabic literature, has left this word frequently untranslated in his notes, quotingBeidawiand 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 particularformof the word. If, by long experience we supply the shortest possible trace of our vowelĕbetween thebandd, and inannunationcause the terminating vowel to coalesce in some trace of our consonantn, we should perhaps arrive at as correct a pronunciation as could be attained by mere rules and it will be seen that theebĕdof Jerusalem becameabĕdat 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 theslaveswhom 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, apossessed 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 aslave, 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 theslaveswhich 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 wordעבדʿbdebed, 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 Godorof 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 confineour 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 wordעֶבֶדʿebedebed, 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,disconnectedwith 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 leadingtermsas examples, whose significations have been appropriated to the wordעֶבֶדʿebedebed.
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 wordבֵּןbēnbenmeans a son; but byprosopopœiait is made to mean anarrow. Thus,Lam.iii. 13, “He hath caused thearrows of his quiver,”בְּנֵי֖ אַשְׁפָת֥וֹbĕnēy ʾašpātôbeney,ashpatho—literally, thesons 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 wordבֵּןbēnben, by the same figure, is used to express some other idea thanson, 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 meansaffliction, by no means is synonymous ofwormwood.
The figure of Lamentations is also used inPs.cxxvii. 4, 5: “Asawards are in the hand of a mighty man, so are children of the youth. Happyisthemanthat hath his quiver full of them.” Yet, the wordאֶת־אַשְׁפָּתֹוֹʾet-ʾašpātōôis in no sense a synonyme of whatever word for which it is here figuratively used. A singular instance of this figure is found inLam.ii. 13: “Let notthe apple of thine eyecease;”בַּת־עֵינֵֽךְbat-ʿênēkbath eynek, thedaughter of the eye. The translators have understood this to mean the “pupil,” otherwise called the apple of the eye; but, the wordbath,daughter, shows that the thing meant is aproduceof the eye; hence, it cannot mean theappleorpupilof the eye, buttears. But how stupid the page that shall put down as a signification of the wordבַּתbatbath, an apple, or the apple of the eye, or the pupil, or yet, what it here means, a tear?
These two wordsben, ason, andbath, adaughter, sometimesbeth, 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,בְּתוּלָ֕הbĕtûlâis used to mean avirgin. But, 1Sam.i. 16,בַת־בְּלִיַּעַלbat-bĕliyyaʿalis used to mean quite a different character, as if of different origin. InEccl.xii. 4,בְּנוֹ֥ת הַשִּׂ֥ירbĕnôt haśśîris generally understood to mean the voice of an old man. But inDan.xi. 17,בַ֤ת הַנׇּשִׁים֨bat hannŏšîmis 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 wordservant, which, from use, has become merely a milder term to express the same idea, is in the mouth of every devout man, whileslaveis 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 wordebed, is the fact, that the Hebrew often expressed an adjective quality, by placing the substantive expressing the quality as if in apposition with the substantive qualified, thus,עֲבָדֶיךָ מְרַגְּלִיםʿăbādêkā mĕraggĕlîmthey, slaves (not) spies;עֲבָדֶ֨יךָ אַחִ֧יםʿăbādêkā ʾaḥîmthey slaves, brethren,Gen.xlii. 11–13,לְעַבְדְּךָ לְאָבִינוּlĕʿabdĕkā lĕʾābînûthy slave our father,Gen.xliii. 28.
In an analogous sense the wordא֤יִשׁʾyišis used in 2Kingsi. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Also iv. 25 and 27, precedingהָֽאֱלֹהִ֤יםhāʾĕlōhîma 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 wordאִישׁʾîšorאֱלהיםʾĕlhym. This mode of expressing quality, by placing one of the substantives in the genitive, is quite common even in the modern languages. Grammarians will also inform us that substantives are often used adverbially, designating the time, place, and quality of the action of the verb.
But again, the Hebrew adjectives are in disproportional scarcity to the substantives, which the language remedies by a kind of circumlocution; this,אִ֨ישׁ דְּבָרִ֜יםʾîš dĕbārîma man(of)words,i.e.an eloquent man, as inEx.iv. 10;the son of strengthבֶּן־חַיִלben-ḥayilvaliantorworthy man, 1Kingsi. 52;בְּנֵי־קֶדֶםbĕnê-qedemthe sons of the East,i.e.the orientals,Gen.xxix. 1;בֶּן מָוֶתben māwetthe son of death,i.e.doomed to death, 1Sam.xx. 31;בַּת־בְּלִיַּעַלbat-bĕliyyaʿalthe daughter of baseness,i.e.a base woman, 1Sam.i. 16.
This use of language is common to our word,ebed,slave:עֲבֵד אֱלָהָאʿăbēd ʾĕlāhāʾslaves of God,i.e.a man devoted to God, as a slave to a master,i.e.a man who most devotedly worships God,Dan.iii. 26;עֲבֵד אֱלָהָאʿăbēd ʾĕlāhāʾslave 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 inEzrav. 11,עַבְדוֹהִ֩יʿabdôhîslaves 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 wordben, 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 ahorn.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 thatben, means an arrow?Ben kasheth, the son of the bow, (cannot make him flee,)i.e.the arrow,Jobxli. 20, (the 28th of the English text.) Shall we indeed then say thatbenmeans an arrow?Ben shahor, the son ofblackness, here used to express night,—son of the night,—used to convey our idea, themorning star. Shall we say thatbenmeans a star? or, thatblacknessmeans the morning?Isa.xiv., 12בֶּן יוֹנָהben yônâben yonah, theson of a dove,i.e.a young dove, a squab?Lev.xii. 6. Shall we say thatבֶּןbenbenmeans a squab?Lev.xii. 8,beni yonah, sons of a dove,i.e.two young doves or squabs. Shall we then, surely say thatbenimeans two squabs? But, inLev.xiv. 22, we have the same words used in the same sense: must we say that this word means squabs?בֶּנֵי עֹ֝רֵבbenê ʿōrēbbene oreb, the sons of the raven,i.e.young ravens,Ps.cxlvii. 9: doesbenithen mean young ravens also?בֶּן בָּקָרben bāqārben baker, xxix. 1. What, doesbenmean a calf?Num.xxix. 2–8,sonof anox, also;benthe son of an ox—meaning a calf, doesbenmost surely mean a calf?Jobxxxix. 16, speaking of ostrich-eggs, calls them,בָּנֶיהָbānêhā, the plural: what! does this word also mean ostrich-eggs? But,Eccl.ii. 7,canithi, I purchased,ebadim, male slaves,shepaphath, and female slaves, andsons, bayith, of my house,haya, there were,li, to me:—hereבְנֵיbĕnêbenéis 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 wordben, a son, be legitimate or truthful?
But, inJer.ii. 14, we again find this wordbayith, preceded byyelid, born of the house, meaning a house-born slave. The same words are used to mean the same thing inGen.xiv. 14, meaninghouse-born slaves; and again,Gen.xvii. 12, meaning ahouse-born slave; also,idem.13, meaning a slave born in thy house—thyhouse-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 ofebed, a slave?
But we will close this portion of our remarks by stating that the lexicographers might, in the manner here pointed out, (whichthey have pursued to great extent,) have still increased their catalogue of significations to the wordebed.
Let us show an instance. It is well known that the ancient eastern nations punished great offenders bycutting them in pieces. The term expressing and threatening this punishment was used somewhat technically, as is now the termto guillotine, meaningto cut off a man’s head. The term used by the ancients to express thiscutting in pieces, as introduced in Hebrew, was,עֲבַד הַדָּמִיןʿăbad haddāmînabad haddamin, which literally was “to enslave in pieces.” The term is expressed thus inDan.ii. 5:הַדָּמִין תִּתְעַבְדוּןhaddāmîn titʿabdûnin 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 thatעבדʿbdebedalso meant to hew, to cut, &c., and have cited this instance in proof.
But inDan.iii. 29, the term is used again thusהַדָּמִ֣ין יִתְעֲבֵדhaddāmîn yitʿăbēdin pieces shall be enslaved,i.e.“shall be cut in pieces.” Surely, they should have added, thatebedmeansto 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 evenall theirsubjects 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 wordעבדʿbdebedis labour, both as anounandverb; and inasmuch as to many there may seem some relation between the ideasslaveryandlabour, we wish to be particular in examining the Hebrew use of the terms expressive of these ideas. It appears to us that the Hebrew wordיָגַעyāgaʿyaga, it simply our idea of labour, more closely than any other word. Yet this word is never disconnected with the ideafatigueandweariness, and perhaps something of the same character will be perceived to be attached to our wordlabour. InGen.xxxi. 42, it is used and translated, “theיְגִיֽעַyĕgiyʿalabourof my hands.” xxv. 18, “and when thou wast faint andוְיָגִ֑עַwĕyāgiaʿweary.” 3: “And make not all the people toתְּיַגַ֥עtĕyagaʿlabourthither.” xxiv. 13: “And I gave you a land for which you did notיָגַ֣עְתָּyāgaʿtālabour.” 2Sam.xvii. 2: “And I will come upon him while he isיָגֵעַyāgēaʿweary.”Neh.v. 13: “So shall God shake out every man from his house and from hisוּמִ֣יגִיע֔וֹûmîgîʿôlabour.”Jobiii. 17: “And theיְגִ֣יעֵיyĕgîʿêweary be at rest.” ix. 29: “If I be wicked, why thenאִיגָע֖ʾîgāʿlabour I in vain.” x. 13: * * “despised theיְגִ֣יעַyĕgîaʿwork of thy hands * *.” xxviii. 18: “That which heיָגָעyāgāʿlaboured for shall he restore.” xxxix. 11: * * “Wilt thou leave thyיְגִיעֶֽךָ֖yĕgîʿekālabour to him.” 16: * * * “ herיְגִיעָ֣הּyĕgîʿāhlabour is in vain without fear?”Ps.lxix. 4: “They thathateme without a cause;” the idea is, they that labour to injure, &c. “And theirוִ֜יגִעָםwîgiʿomlabour unto the locust.” cix. 11: “let the stranger spoil hisיְגִיע֥וֹyĕgîʿôlabour.” cxxviii. 2: “For thou shalt eat theיְגִ֣יעַyĕgîaʿlabour of thy hands.”Prov.xxiii. 4: “תִּיגַע֥tîgaʿlabournot to be rich.”Eccl.xii. 12: “Much study isיְגִעַ֥תyĕgiʿatweariness to the flesh.”Isa.xliii. 22, 23, 24: “But thou hast beenיָגַ֥עְתָּyāgaʿtāהֽוֹגַעְתִֽיךָhôgaʿtîkāwearied thee with incense.” “Thou hastהֽוֹגַעְתַּ֖נִיhôgaʿtanîwearied me with thine iniquities.” xlv. 14: “Theיְגִ֨יעַyĕgîaʿlabour of Egypt.” xlvii. 15:“with whom thou hastיָגָ֑עַתְּyāgāʿatlaboured.” lv. 2: “And yourוִיגִיֽעֲכֶם֖wîgiyʿăkemlabourfor that which satisfieth not.” lxv. 23: “They shall notיִֽגְעוּ֨yigĕʿûlabour in vain.”Jer.iii. 24: “For shame hath devoured theיְגִי֥עַyĕgiyʿalabour.” xx. 5: “And all theיְגִיעָ֖הּyĕgîʿāhlabours thereof.” xlv. 3: “Iיָגַעְתִּיyāgaʿtîfaintedin my sighing.” The idea is, my sighing was a labour of great weariness, &c.Ezek.xxiii. 29: “And shall take away all thyיְגִיעֵךְyĕgîʿēklabour.”Hag.i. 11: “And upon all theיְגִי֥עַyĕgiyʿalabour of thy hands.”Mal.ii. 17: “Ye haveהֽוֹגַעְתֶּם֤hôgaʿtemwearied the Lord with your words, yet ye say, Wherein have weהוֹגָ֑עְנוּhôgāʿĕnûwearied him?”Eccl.i. 8: “All things are full ofיְגֵעִ֔יםyĕgēʿîmlabour.” x. 15: “The (עָמָלʿāmālamal)labourof the foolish (תִּיגָעֶנּוּtîgāʿennû) every one of them.” The wordlabourin this sentence is translated fromamal, another Hebrew word, which signifieslabour, but in its signification is implied the association of the ideagrief,sorrow, &c. The adjective quality of this word is mental—inyaga, it is physical. This wordamalseems to be derived from the Arabicعَملمنࣨʿamlnamelan, and from thence the Syriacܥܰܠܢܵܐ, 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 myעֲמָלִיʿămālîtoil,” (labour,sorrow.) The wordmanessameans to forget, to cause to forget, &c.Num.xxiii. 21: “He hath not beheldעָמָ֖לʿāmāliniquityin 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 ourעֲמָלֵנ֭וּʿămālēnûlabour and our oppression.”Judg.v. 26: “And her right hand to the workman’s (עֲמֵלִי֑םʿămēliymlabourer’s) hammer.”Jobiii. 10: “Nor hidעָ֜מָׄלʿāmālsorrow from mine eyes.” 20: “Wherefore is light given unto him that is inלְעָמֵ֣לlĕʿāmēlmisery.” iv. 8: “They that plough iniquity and sowעָמָ֣לʿāmālwickednessshall reap the same.” v. 7: “Yet manis born toלְעָמָ֣לlĕʿāmāltrouble.” vii. 3: “So I am made to possess months of vanity, andעָ֝מָלʿāmolwearisome nights are appointed to me.” xv. 35: “They conceiveעָ֭מָלʿāmolmischief and bring forth vanity.” xvi. 2:עָמָ֣לʿāmāl“Miserable comforters are ye all.” xx. 22: “In the fulness of his sufficiency he shall be inעָמֵ֣לʿāmēlstraits.” 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 theעָ֜מָׄלʿāmālditch(sorrow bringing labour) which he made.” 16: “Hisעֲמָ֣לוֹʿămālômischiefsshall return upon his own head.” x. 7: “Under his tongue isעָמָלʿāmālmischief and vanity.” 14: “Thou beholdestעָ֘מָ֤לʿāmālmischiefand spite.” xxv. 18: “Look upon mine affliction and myוַֽעֲמָלִ֑יwaʿămālîpain, and forgive my sin.” “Yet is their strengthעָמָ֣לʿāmāllabourandsorrow.” cv. 44: “And they inherit theוַֽעֲמַ֖לwaʿămallabourof the people.” cxxvii. 1: “Except the Lord build the house, theylabourin vain.”Prov.xvi. 26: “He thatעָֽמְל֣וּʿāmĕlûlabourethעָ֣מְׄלָה עָ֭מֵלʿāmĕlâ ʿāmēlIsa.liii. 11: “He shall see of theמֵעֲמַלmēʿămaltravailof his soul,” (labour producing sorrow, &c.) “And that writeעָמָלʿāmālgrievousness which they have prescribed,” (a labour producing sorrow, &c.)Jonahiv. 10: “Thou hast had pity on the gourd for which thou hast notעָמַ֥לְתָּʿāmaltālaboured.”Eccl.i. 3: “What profit hath a man of all hisעֲמָלוֹʿămālôlabourwhich he taketh under the sun?” ii. 10: “For my heart rejoiced in all myעֲמָלִיʿămālîlabour.” 11: “And then I looked on all the work that my hands had wrought, and on all theוּבֶֽעָמָ֖לûbeʿāmāllabourthat I hadשֶֽׁעָמַ֣לְתִיšeʿāmaltîlaboured.” I hated all myעֲמָלִיʿămālîlabourwhich I hadעָמֵ֖לʿāmēltaken(laboured) under the sun.” 19: “Yet shall he have rule over all myעֲמָלִ֔יʿămālîlabourwherein I haveשֶֽׁעֽמַ֥לְתִּיšeʿmaltîlaboured.” 20: “Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all theהֶ֣עָמָלheʿāmollabourwhich Iשֶׁ֥עָמַ֖לְתִּיheʿāmoltook (laboured) under the sun.” 21: “For there is a man whoseשֶֽׁעֲ֗מָל֛וֹšeʿămālôlabouris in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity—yet to a man that hath notעָ֥מַלʿāmallabouredherein shall he leave it for his portion.” 22: “For what hath man of all hisעֲמָל֔וֹʿămālôlabourand of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hathעָמֵ֖לʿāmēllabouredunder the sun?” iv. 4: “Again I considered allעָמָלʿāmāltravail,” (labour and sorrow.) 8: “Yet there is no end to all hisעֲמָל֔וֹʿămālôlabour, neither saith he, For whom do Iעָמֵ֗לʿāmēllabour.” iii. 9: “What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein heעָמֵ֥לʿāmēllaboureth?” v. 18: “And to enjoy the good of all hisבַּֽעֲמָל֑וֹbaʿămālôlabour.” vi. 7: “All theעֲמַ֥לʿămallabourof a man is for his mouth.” ix. 9: “For that is thy portion in this life and in thyוּבַעֲמָ֣לְךָ֔ûbaʿămālĕkālabour.” x. 15: “Theעֲמַ֥לʿămallabour(amal) of the foolishתְּיַגְּעֶ֑נּוּtĕyaggĕʿennûweariethevery one of them.”
מְלָאכָה֜mĕlāʾkāhmelahkahis also quite analogous in its signification to our wordlabour, insomuch that our wordlabourmay be often used in translation without impairing the sense.Gen.ii. 2: “On the seventh day God ended his work,”מְלַאכְתּ֖וֹmĕlaʾktôlabour. xxxix. 11: “Joseph went into the house to do hisbusiness,” (labour.)Exod.xx. 9: “And do all thywork,”מְלַאכְתֶּֽךָmĕlaʾktekā10: “In it thou shalt not do anywork,” (labour,מְלָאכָ֜הmĕlāʾkâ.) xxxi. 3: “All manner ofworkmanship,”מְלָאכָֽהmĕlāʾkâ. 14: “For whosoever doeth anywork,”מְלָאכָ֔הmĕlāʾkâ. 15: “Six days mayworkמְלָאכָה֒mĕlāʾkāhbe done.”Lev.xiii. 48: “Of any thingmadeמְלֶ֥אכֶתmĕleʾketof skin,” (done, laboured, manufactured.)Ezraiii. 8: “To set forward theworkof the house.” 9: “To set forward the workman,”הַמְּלָאכָ֖הhammĕlāʾkâ.Estheriii. 9: “And those that have charge of the king’sbusiness,”הַמְּלָאכָ֔הhammĕlāʾkâ. ix. 3: “And officersהַמְּלָאכָה֙hammĕlāʾkāhof the king.Without multiplying examples, it may suffice to say, that this word, as expressive oflabour, is ever associated with the idea of particularity, or class oflabour,business,employmentorjob, 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.
עָשָׂהʿāśâAsaproperly means work or labour, as the result ofmaking,procreating,producing,doing,acting, orperforming, without any regard to the condition of the agent or actor.Gen.i. 7: “Godmadeוַיַּעַשׂwayyaʿaśthe firmament.” 16: “Godmadeוַיַּעַשׂwayyaʿaśtwo great lights.” ii. 2: “God ended hisworkמְלַאכְתּוֹmĕlaʾktôwhich he hadmade,”עָשָׂ֥הʿāśâ. This word is also used to express theresultof labour in acquiring slaves and other property generally, as inGen.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 hadlabouredfor, &c.עָשׂ֣וּʿāśû.Exod.xxxi. 4: “To work in gold and silver.” 5: It is used withmalabkah, thus: “toworkלַֽעֲשׂ֖וֹתlaʿăśôtin all manner of workmanship,” (מְלָאכָֽהmĕlāʾkâmalakah.) These two words occur together again inNeh.iv. 15, the iv. 21 of the English text: “Sowe labouredעֹשִׂ֣יםʿōśîmin the work,”בַּמְּלָאכָ֑הbammĕlāʾkâ.Ezek.xxix. 20: “I have given him the land of Egypt for hislabour,”עָ֣שׂוּʿāśû.Exod.xxx. 25: “And thou shalt make it (וְעָשִׂ֣יתָwĕʿāśîtālabour it) an oil of holy ointment, an ointment composed after the art of the apothecary.” Art is here translated fromמַ֥עֲשֵׂ֣הmaʿăśēmaase, which is another word of very similar import, and is derived fromעָשָהʿāšâ, and expresses the idea of labour, as of athing done, orwrought, awork,deed,action,concern,business,i. e.a labour emanating from a habit, or an occupation of business.Gen.xliv. 15: “What deedהַמַּעֲשֶׂ֥הhammaʿăśeis this that ye have done?” xlvii. 3: “What is youroccupation?”מַּֽעֲשֵׂיכֶ֑םmaʿăśêkem.Exod.xxiii. 16: “And the feast of the harvest, the firstfruits of thylaboursמַֽעֲשֶׂיךָmaʿăśêkā, 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 thylabours,”מַעֲשֶׂ֖יךָmaʿăśêkā.Hag.ii. 17: “And I smote you with blasting and with hail in all thelaboursמַֽעֲשֵׂ֣הmaʿăśēof your hands.”Hab.iii. 17: “Although the fig-tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vine, thelabourמַֽעֲשֵׂהmaʿăśēof the olive shall fail.”
סֵבֶלsēbelsebelis sometimes translatedlabour, but it more often means something consequent to labour, as the burthen oflabouris consequent to the labour: it is sometimes used to mean the produce of labour, and hence the Syrian Ephraimitish wordסִבֹּלֶהsibbōlesiboleth, 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 isprolific 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 theirburthens,”בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑םbĕsiblōtām.Ps.lxxxi. 7: “I deliveredמִסֶּ֣בֶלmissebelthee.” cxliv. 14: “That our oxen may be strong tolabour,”מְֽסֻבָּ֫לִיםmĕsubbālîm. The Hebrews had thus several ways by which they could express the idealabouraccompanied with different adjective qualities. So the wordעֶבֶדʿebedebedmay express the idealabour; but when so, it is alwaysslave-labour, the labour peculiar to, or performed by a slave as inIsa.xix. 9: “They thatworkעֹֽבְדֵ֥יʿōbĕdêin fine flax.” The meaning is, they thatlabouror slave themselves in fine flax. The working in fine flax wasslave-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 inExod.xx. 9: “Six days shalt thoulabouranddo all thy work.” Here labour is translated fromebedתַּ֥עֲבֹ֔ד֮taʿăbōd, as a verb “do”is fromוְעָשִ֣֭יתָwĕʿāšîtāand “work” fromמְלַאבְתְ֥ךָmĕlaʾbtĕkā. 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) andוְעָשִ֣֭יתָwĕʿāšîtālabour, or make all thyמְלַאבְתְ֥ךָmĕlaʾbtĕkāparticular, 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 doתַֽעֲשֶׂ֣הtaʿăśeany workכָל־מְלָאכָ֜ה֡kol-mĕlāʾkāhthou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, (עַבְדְּךָʿabdĕkā,ebeddeka,slave.)” So, then, if this particular word had not been used, we could not have said that the command applied to slaves.
But the Hebrews had a way of expressing the idea of labour alone, associated with the idea of industry as its adjective quality: Should I say; By your hands you shall be sustained, the idea would be that you shall be sustained by your labour; that is, your personal industry. So the Hebrews used the wordsעַל־יָדʿal-yādel 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 bylabour(עַל־יָ֣דʿal-yādby hand,i. e.by his own industry) shall increase.” Is it not clear, then, that the Hebrews stood in no need of the wordebedto 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 idealabour. These facts may appear to the mere English scholar as matters of no importance—not worth investigation. But, touching the Hebrew use of this wordעבדʿbdebedand 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.