It is used in Gen. 2: 15. And the Lord God took the man, and put him in the garden of Eden to DRESS IT. Adam was put into Eden, not to serve or dress the garden as a SLAVE, but as a man. The same word is used to express the service performed for Laban by Jacob. The relation of Joshua to Moses is expressed by the same word; Ex., 33: 21. It is also used in the fourth commandment. Six days shalt thou labor, etc.
From these examples of the use of the word it is clear that the idea of chattel slavery is not found in it. It is used to express all kinds of service—the service of God, a king, a friend, or an employer.
The word ama, rendered maid-servant, bond-maid, maid, hand-maid, and the word shiphhah with similar renderings, are applied to Hagar, Ruth, Hannah, Abigail, Bilhah and Zilpah, and evidently mean no more than our English word servant in its usual acceptation. Those women were not slaves, they were free women. It has been very properly remarked that if chattel slavery existed among the Hebrews at any time it is not a little surprising that the language contains no word which expresses the relation.
Some have endeavored to force into the word translated servant &c., the idea of slavery because it is said that Abraham had servants “bought with money.” But from the ancient use of the word buy or bought we are not to infer that the persons bought became slaves. Wives were procured in the times of the patriarchs by purchase. Boaz said—“Moreover Ruth, the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife.” The same word (kanithi) is used here to express the manner in which Boaz obtained his wife, that is used in Gen. to show how a part of Abraham’s servants were obtained. But the beautiful Ruth was not a slave. Jacob purchased his beloved Rachel, and less beloved Leah, but those wives and mothers of the twelve patriarchs could not have been slaves. Had they been chattels, why, then, according to an essential feature of the American slave code, the twelve patriarchs would all have been born in the same condition. Partus sequitur ventrem. A Hebrew might sell himself on a limited time, and he might be bought by a wealthy neighbor, but no one, I believe, has ever pretended that he became a SLAVE thereby. The contract was voluntary. The employer bought the services of his fellow, and paid in advance for the same, not to a third person, but to the servant himself. God is said to have purchased (kanitha) his people; Ps., 75: 2.
Hence from the scriptural use of the word buy, or bought, we are not authorized to infer that the persons purchased became slaves. Such an inference would do violence to the holy word.
The true state of the matter in respect to Abraham, and his case is mainly relied upon, was without a doubt this. Abraham, being a wise, wealthy and good man, gathered around him many devoted friends who, upon his removal to a distant location, desired to accompany him, to receive the benefits of his friendship and counsels, live under his patriarchship, as he was a prince, (see Gen., 23: 6,) and enjoy the protection of his power. Some of these may have been involved in pecuniary embarrassments or obligations of service to other persons, which made it necessary for the benevolent patriarch to release them by paying them in advance for many years of service.
Many of these servants were doubtless converts from idolatry, which had been made in Haran. In Gen. 12: 5, the fact is recorded of the removal of Abraham, Sarai, their effects, and of “the SOULS they had gotten.” This word “gotten” is translated, says Mr. Carothers, from osa, which is used in Ezekiel 18: 31, to express the work of conversion. “Cast away from you all your transgressions, and make you a new heart and a new spirit.” And this rendering of the word “gotten” is confirmed by the Chaldee paraphrase on this passage, which reads thus: “Souls they had instructed or turned from idolatry and taught in the true religion.” “The Hebrews have a tradition,” says Banberg, “that Abraham brought over many men, and Sarah many women from infidelity to the knowledge and worship of the true God; and thus made them spiritually.” A similar mode of expression is used by St. Paul: “I have begotten you through the gospel.” The idea that Abraham and Sarah made slaves of their converts is simply preposterous.
From the foregoing facts and considerations it is perfectly clear to my mind, that the effort to find an apology for slaveholding in patriarchal servitude is a total failure. The charge that the patriarchs held slaves is wholly without foundation,—is a disingenuous attack upon their reputation, and a miserable subterfuge for hard-hearted oppressors, who are seeking an apology or excuse for sins which loudly cry for the vengeance of heaven! Could Father Abraham arise from the dead, visit the South, and there behold thousands of his spiritual children toiling without remuneration, shut out from the blessings of family and home, denied an education and all means of intellectual improvement, driven by the keen lash of a brutal overseer, and then should he hear an appeal made to the patriarchs in justification of this system of unmingled tyranny, he would indignantly repel the appeal as a base calumny!
It is surprising with what confidence the example of the patriarchs is urged in justification of slavery in the absence of all proof or semblance of proof, that they were implicated in this practice. But our surprise is increased when we consider that, even could it be made appear that the patriarchs did hold slaves, this fact of itself, would afford not the slightest apology for slaveholding now. The patriarchs, it is admitted, had a plurality of wives, but their example is not now a sufficient warrant for polygamy. There is not an ecclesiastical court in the United States and territories, if we may except the Mormon, Utah, which would accept the example of the patriarchs as an apology for the man who should stand up before that court with two wives leaning on his arms. The argument therefore appears utterly worthless and shallow from every point of view.