And we may well bring to mind the fact that there are two distinctly marked eras in the Hebrew language. The first ends at the Babylonish captivity. The Pentateuch and older prophets, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Psalms, and Proverbs, come within this era. The second commences with the return of the Israelites from that captivity, and extends to the introduction of Greek into Palestine, subsequent to the conquests of Alexander. The first period may be emphatically called ancient Hebrew; and the latter, more modern. The Hebrew of this period is strongly marked by an approximation to the Chaldee and Persian. To this period of the language belong the books of Nehemiah, Ezra, Daniel, Esther, Jonah, Haggai, Malachi, Ecclesiastes, and a part of the Psalms; and these works will ever be regarded by the oriental scholar as inferior in classical literature to those of earlier date, notwithstanding their other merits of high excellence. But some of the peculiarities of the writings of the second period are not to be regarded as recent alterations, but as the phonetic, unwritten Hebrew of the more remote districts of Palestine itself. The variations of this more modern from the ancient Hebrew are extremely numerous, both as to the substitution of one word for another, but also as to a change of meaning of the same word; as, for instance, the more ancient would have used the word מָלַךְmālak malak to signify a king, to rule, &c.; but the more modern have used a word, which, from its strong phonetic relation, has evidently been derived from it, שָלַטšālaṭ shalat, to mean to rule, &c., and so used Ps. cxix. 133, Eccl. ii. 19, Esther ix. 1, Neh. v. 15, Dan. ii. 39, and in many other places. So also the ancient would use the word אָמַרʾāmar amar, to signify to speak, to say; but the more modern uses the same word to signify to command. What we say is, that we cannot always learn the original meaning of a word from the more modern use of it. We will now notice the use of the ancient word ebed in this more modern dialect of the Hebrews. In Ezra iv. 19, we find, “And that rebellion and sedition have been made therein” is translated from מִהְעֲבֶדmihʿăbed mithabed. Let us examine the circumstances under which this sentence was written. Rehum had written to the monarch Artaxerxes in opposition to the building of the walls of Jerusalem, informing him that it had ever been a rebellious city, hurtful to kings, &c.; in answer to which, the king writes, “that the records have been examined, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition hath been made therein.” The Persian monarchs were all absolute; they regarded those whom they conquered as slaves; and when they rebelled, they used this word to signify that it was slaves who rebelled. Our word servile is somewhat analogous, and might very properly be substituted for it in the foregoing text, thus: “And it is found, this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that there hath been servile rebellion and sedition therein.” When we speak of insurrection, sedition, rebellion, or war with slaves, we call it servile, as Artaxerxes did in this case, to show the fact that the war was with slaves. Ezra iv. 24, this word עֲבִידַ֣תʿăbîdat is translated work. So in v. 8, עֲבִ֥ידְתָּאʿăbîdĕttāʾ work, vi. 7, עֲבוׄדַ֭תʿăbwdat work, to show that the labour was done by slaves, or, figuratively, that the labour was intense, devoted, and obedient, as of slaves. vi. 8: תַעַׄבדֹוּןtaʿabdōûn “Ye shall do.” 12: יִתְעֲבֵ֖דyitʿăbēd “Let it be done with speed.” 13: עֲבַֽדוּʿăbadû “So they did speedily.”

vii. 18:
and		תַֽעַבְדוּן
לְמֶעְבַּ֑ד taʿabdûn
lĕmeʿbad 		“That do after the will of your God.”
“To do with the rest of the silver and gold.”

21: יִתְעֲבֵ֖דyitʿăbēd “It be done speedily.” 23: יִתְעֲבֵדyitʿăbēd “Let it be diligently done.” 26: עָבֵדʿābēd “Will not do.” מִתְעֲבֵ֖דmitʿăbēd “Let judgment be executed speedily.” These instances of the use of monarch of Persia is speaking, who regarded not only the Jews, but all his subjects, as slaves. It was the court manner of the eastern monarchs in such decrees to throw in occasionally an exclamation of the nature of an imperative interjection, such as, Slave, attend! Pay attention, slaves! Listen, slaves! &c., all in substance meaning that those to whom the decree is issued should perform it quickly and without further notice. And we find the same custom existing among them even at this day, and such is the true sense in which the term is here used. Let us exemplify it. Ezra vi. 12: “I, Darius, have made a decree;” then follows the Persian adverb אָסְפַּ֖רְנָאʾosparnāʾ asepporna, which means quickly, speedily, diligently, &c.; then the word in question, as before noticed: “quickly, slaves,” is therefore the literal meaning, i. e. what he had decreed they should instantly perform. We do not pretend to say that translating it to do, &c. gives a substantially wrong sense; but it seems it may have led lexicographers to an erroneous conception of the meaning of the word. Jer. x. 11: “The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth:” made is translated from עֲבַ֑֗דוּʿăbadû. If this word is the correct reading, the idea of the prophet had regard to the power, not to the act of a creator,—the gods that have not subjected, have not placed in subjection, as if in slavery to, whose laws do not govern the heavens and the earth. The gods who could not do these things are not gods, and they shall perish. This was the idea of the prophet. But this word is marked in all the best copies with a keri, showing that this reading was suspected by the Jewish scholars to be bad; and they supply in the margin the words פתח כאתנחptḥ kʾtnḥ, which is at least some proof that they thought its use in this instance unusual; and Kennecott and De Rossi found these words used instead of עבדוֹעבדו in some copies.

LESSON VIII.

But we have a sure method by which we may discover what meaning Ezra did affix to this word—by examining his use of it in those cases where its meaning cannot be doubtful. See Ezra iv. 11: “Thy servants,” עַבְדָּ֛י֯ךְיךʿabdāykĕyk. v. 11: “We are the servants,” עַבְדוֹהִיʿabdôhî, having relevance to their devotedness to God. vi. 16 commences with the word יַֽעֲבַ֣דוּyaʿăbadû, which is omitted in our translation. The sentence should commence thus: “And the slaves, the children of Israel, the priests,” &c. ix. 9: “For we were bondmen עֲבָדִ֣יםʿăbādîm, yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage,” וּבְעַבְדֻתֵ֔נוּûbĕʿabdutēnû. These instances clearly show how Ezra understood this word: notwithstanding his writings were touched with the Persian and Chaldee idioms. A similar result will be found upon the examination of Nehemiah and Daniel. Neh. ii. 10 and 19: “And Tobiah the servant הָּעֶ֣בֶדhāʿebed, the Ammonite heard of it”—“And Tobiah the servant הָעֶ֣בֶדhāʿebed, the Ammonite.” v. 5: “Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and lo, we bring into bondage (כֹֽ֠בְשִׁיםkōbĕšîm kovshim) sons and our daughters to be servants (לַֽעֲבָדִֹםlaʿăbādiōm slaves), and some of our daughters are brought into bondage (נִכְבָּשׁוֹתnikbāšôt subjections, not necessarily slavery) already,” (כָּבַשkābaš kovash.) The root from which these two words are formed in no sense means slavery, but to reduce, to subdue, to humble; and in this sense is used in Esther vii. 8, and translated “force.” But this word aids very much in showing what idea was affixed to the word ebed; and we ask to compare this passage of Nehemiah with Jer. xxxiv. 8–16: “This is the word that came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, after that king Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people which were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them; * * * that every man should let his man-servant, (עַבְדּ֔וֹʿabdô male slave,) and every man his maid-servant שִׁפְחָת֛וֹšipḥātô, being a Hebrew or Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve (עֲבָד־ʿăbād- slave) himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother. Now, when all the princes, and all the people which had entered into the covenant, heard that every one should let his man-servant (עַבְדּ֔וֹʿabdô male slave), and every one his maid-servant, go free, that none serve themselves (עֲבָד־ʿăbād- slave themselves), of them any more, then they obeyed and let them go. But afterwards they turned and caused the servants (הָ֥עֲבָדִיםhāʿăbādîm ha abadim, slaves), and the hand-maids, whom they had let go free, to return. Therefore the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, from the Lord, saying, Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bond-men (עֲבָדִ֖יםʿăbādîm ebedim, slaves), saying, At the end of seven years, let go every man his brother a Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee; and when he hath served thee (וַֽעֳבָ֖דְךָwaʿŏbādĕkā slaved for thee) six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee; but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear. And ye were now turned, and had done right in my sight, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbour; and ye had made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name. But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, (עַבְדּוֹʿabdô ebeddo, slave,) and every man his hand-maid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection (וַתִּכְבְּשׁ֣וּwattikbĕšû) to be unto you for servants (לַֽעֲבָדִ֖יםlaʿăbādîm for slaves), and for hand-maids.” The comparison of these passages proves the fact that Nehemiah and Jeremiah used the word ebed to mean a slave, without any variation of meaning. Nor will we hold Nehemiah responsible for his word כָּבַשׁkābaš kavash, subjection, being translated bondage. Neh. vii. 66, 67, gives an account of the captive Israelites that returned from Susa and Babylon to Jerusalem. “And the whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore. Besides their man-servants (עַבְדֵיהֶ֤םʿabdêhem male slaves), and their maid-servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty score.” We trust that so varied, particular, and descriptive are the records left in the holy books through which we may search out what the Hebrews meant by their use of the word ebed (עבדʿbd), that its certainty and definiteness must place the inquiry beyond doubt. But as in this instance the word כָּבַשׁkābaš kavash has been translated bondage, it may be well to give a few examples of its use in the holy books, that all may see and know that its meaning is totally distinct from that of slavery. Gen. i. 28: “Multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it,” וְכִבְשֻׁהָwĕkibšuhā. Num. xxxii. 22: “And the land be subdued וְנִכְבְשָׁ֥הwĕnikbĕšâ before the Lord.” 29: “And the land shall be subdued וְנִכְבְּשָׁהwĕnikbĕšâ before you.” Josh. xviii. 1: “And the land was subdued נִכְבְּשָׁ֖הnikbĕšâ before them.” 2 Sam. viii. 1: “Which he subdued,” כִּבֵשׁkibēš. ‎2 Chron. ix. 18: “With a footstool,” וְכֶבֶשׁwĕkebeš because a footstool was in the place of subjection. Zech. ix. 15: “And subdue וְכָ֥בְשׁוּwĕkābĕšû with sling-stones.” Micah vii. 19: “He will subdue יִכְ֖בּוֹשׁyikbôš our iniquities.” The foregoing examples, we trust, are sufficient to disabuse the mind of the idea of any synonyme of meaning of these two words.

LESSON IX.

WE propose to examine the Hebrew use of the word ebed in the 5th and 15th of the second chapter of Genesis: “In that day the Lord God made the earth, and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till לַֽעֲבֹ֖דlaʿăbōd the ground.” To till is here translated from this word ebed, with the affix of the preposition לl. This is the first instance in which the word is used in the holy book; and it may seem extremely strange that the writers of these books found its use necessary in their description of events even before the creation of man. It is not our business to draw out theological doctrine unconnected with the subject of our present inquiry; but we suppose it will not be disputed that the great Jehovah as well knew, before he created the heavens and the earth, and man upon the earth, all and every particular of what would happen, as at any subsequent time: with him, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. We may behold the birth, maturity, and death of some animalcula, in a day or in an hour. But, with him the succession of generations, of the animal life of a thousand years, pass in instantaneous and present view. Time appertains alone to mortals. He saw the most ultimate condition of man; and the earth and the herb were made to suit it. But from the manner of the expression of the text, may we not conclude that the herb, although made, would not grow until man was created, and in the condition to till (לַ֥עֲבֹ֖דlaʿăbōd to slave) the ground? The support of the animal world, independent of man, is spontaneously presented before them: not so with man in his fallen state. “He sendeth the springs into the valley, which run among the hills. They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst. By them shall the fowls of heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches. He watereth the hills from his chambers; the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works. He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service (לַֽעֲבֹדַ֣תlaʿăbōdat for the slavery) of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth,” Ps. civ. 10–14. The second instance in which this word is used is in Gen. ii. 15: “And the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it, and to keep it.” To dress it is translated from this word לְעָבְדָ֖הּlĕʿobdāh. There is certainly much obscurity in the use of the word in this instance. Professor Stuart, of Andover, supposes that it inculcates the doctrine that labour was imposed on man in the paradisiacal state; consequently, that labour was no part of the curse which followed the apostacy. (See his Chreestomathy, page 105.) This view excludes the idea that the word, as here used, is associated with the idea of slavery, and that, if, in the interchange of language, although the idea of labour may predominate, nevertheless, it must be slave labour. Our mind does not yield its assent to his position. We had associated with our idea of this paradise the most perfect heaven, the dwelling-place of Jehovah!! and that the generations of man, when guided and governed by Divine mercy in such a manner that we could be happy therein, that it would yet become our ultimate home,—(“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God,” Rev. ii. 7,)—and that the humble worshipper of Jehovah while in a state of progressive preparedness, would therefore cry out with the Psalmist, “Unto thee I lift mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens! Behold, as the eyes of servants (עֲבָדִ֠יםʿăbādîm male slaves) look unto the hand of their master; and as the eyes of a maiden (שִׁפְחָה֮šipḥāh shiphhah, female slave) unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God until he have mercy upon us.” Ps. cxxiii. 1, 2. If then the paradise of old was the type of the paradise eternal, it would seem that the labour of the ebed was excluded therefrom: “Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage (δουλείας, slavery) of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Rom. viii. 21. And for this very good reason, that slavery, the consequent of sin, could never find entrance there: regeneration is therefore indispensable.

“It strikes me that the use of the verb (עָבַדʿābad abad, presents no difficulty that calls for explanation. The language of inspiration is man’s language, though employed by God. The events, facts, things, acts, that preceded man’s creation, must still be described by language and terms that had come into use after man’s creation. Man must first exist before there could be words to be used in conveying knowledge to man. A word implying slavery might therefore most reasonably be found in a description of things prior to the existence of man, or of slavery, which description was written long afterwards by Moses, and in language which was in use amongst the men for whom he wrote. When Moses wrote, when God inspired him, עֶבֶדʿebed ebed was a familiar word.” Extract from manuscript letter of the Rev. J.B. Stratton to the author.