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.