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 מְרַגְּלִיםʿăbādêkā mĕraggĕlîm they, slaves (not) spies; עֲבָדֶ֨יךָ אַחִ֧יםʿăbādêkā ʾaḥîm they slaves, brethren, Gen. xlii. 11–13, לְעַבְדְּךָ לְאָבִינוּlĕʿabdĕkā lĕʾābînû thy slave our father, Gen. xliii. 28.
In an analogous sense the word א֤יִשׁʾyiš is used in 2 Kings i. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Also iv. 25 and 27, preceding הָֽאֱלֹהִ֤יםhāʾĕlōhîm 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 אִישׁʾîš or אֱלהיםʾĕlhym. 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 dĕbārîm a man (of) words, i.e. an eloquent man, as in Ex. iv. 10; the son of strength בֶּן־חַיִלben-ḥayil valiant or worthy man, 1 Kings i. 52; בְּנֵי־קֶדֶםbĕnê-qedem the sons of the East, i.e. the orientals, Gen. xxix. 1; בֶּן מָוֶתben māwet the son of death, i.e. doomed to death, 1 Sam. xx. 31; בַּת־בְּלִיַּעַלbat-bĕliyyaʿal 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 אֱלָהָאʿăbēd ʾĕlāhāʾ 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 אֱלָהָאʿăbēd ʾĕlāhāʾ 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, עַבְדוֹהִ֩יʿabdôhî 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 יוֹנָהben yônâ ben yonah, the son of a dove, i.e. a young dove, a squab? Lev. xii. 6. Shall we say that בֶּןben 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 עֹ֝רֵבbenê ʿōrēb bene oreb, the sons of the raven, i.e. young ravens, Ps. cxlvii. 9: does beni then mean young ravens also? בֶּן בָּקָרben bāqār 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, 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, and sons, bayith, of my house, haya, there were, li, to me:—here בְנֵיbĕnê 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 הַדָּמִיןʿăbad haddāmîn abad haddamin, which literally was “to enslave in pieces.” The term is expressed thus in Dan. ii. 5: הַדָּמִין תִּתְעַבְדוּןhaddāmîn titʿabdûn 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 עבדʿbd ebed also meant to hew, to cut, &c., and have cited this instance in proof.