The terms evedh, in the Old Testament, and doulos in
the New, clearly synonymous, and we believe, invariably translated servant or
bondman, are evidently used with great latitude of meaning, and freedom of
application. The fundamental signification seems to be, One who is in some
respects subject to the will of, and acts for another. Hence the phrase,
servant of the King, is an honorable title, denoting a courtier, or other high
officer. The King of Syria, in his letter to the King of Israel, styles Naaman
his servant, although he was a great man with his master, and chief commander
of his army. A servant of God in scripture language, is one devoted to his
service; especially one distinguished for piety and holiness, as was the case
with Moses, Joshua, David and Paul. In the New Testament, the epithet servant
of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ is a title of honor commonly given to the
teachers of the christian religion, and particularly to the apostles
themselves. In some few instances, the epithet, servant of God, is given to men
whom, though not willingly obedient to him, he uses as instruments in accomplishing
his purposes. The king of Babylon is thus denominated.
The term servants, is however very generally applied to
persons of humble condition, who, either with or without their consent, were
subject to other individuals as their masters; and occupied in menial
employments. Among those were several classes. Some were hired servants.
These, however, were not designated by a qualifying term joined with the
ordinary word for servants, but by an entirely different name. One hired to do
sevice for another during a set time and for a stipulated price, the Hebrews
denominated sakir, and the Greeks misthios: Names significant of
their peculiar condition as hired. Persons of Hebrew origin were liable under
the Levitical law to be reduced to servitude on account of failure to pay,
either ordinary debts or sums in which they had been amerced for crimes
committed. Not only the insolvent debtor himself, but his family with him, were
liable to be seized and sold by the creditor, in order that by their services
the money due might be obtained. On this custom is founded that parable of our
Lord which says of the delinquent, who owed ten thousand talents and had
nothing to pay, that his creditor “commanded him to be sold, and his wife and
children, and payment to be made.” This kind of servitude, however, might not
continue at the longest over six years. Deut. 15: 12. Servants of a still lower
order were obtained both by conquest and by purchase from among the neighboring
nations. These were to serve, not merely for six years; but for life, or at
least unto the year of jubilee: and their children inherited the condition of
their parents. The mere fact that they were purchased, does not prove
that they were held as articles to be used only for the benefit of the owner,
and to be sold again at his pleasure; any more than the fact that they were in
the habit of purchasing wives, proves the same thing in regard to them. Boaz
says, “So Ruth, the Moabitess, the wife,” that is widow, “of Mahlon, have I purchased
to be my wife.” The prophet Hosea remarks respecting his wife, “So I bought
her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for a homer of barley, and an half
homer of barley.” Jacob bought his wives, Rachel and Leah; and for want of
money paid for them in labor at the rate of seven years apiece. Their wives
were in a sense, their money. Are we to infer that they were in the common
sense of the term property, merchantable in the market? They were purchased of
their fathers not as merchandize but as wives; to perform the
duties and enjoy all the rights and privileges of that condition. So heathen
servants were bought either of former masters, or of their parents, or, for any
thing that appears, of themselves, to occupy the place, and perform the duties
of their peculiar station; their duties and rights being prescribed and
established, under the Levitical dispensation, by very merciful laws. That they
were held as chattels, like beasts of the field, subject to be sold from one to
another for purposes of gain, as slaves are among you, we can find no
sufficient evidence in the Bible. The conquerers of the Hebrews ‘cast lots for
the people, they gave a boy for a harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they
might drink,’ but were accursed of God for so doing.
Now since the term servants is used with such latitude of
meaning, what proof does the mere fact, that the patriarchs had servants,
afford, that they were slaveholders, in the received sense of that term? Has
not many a gentleman in England, in the British West Indies, and in the free
States of this Union, servants — some expecting to remain for life, some hired
for a short season only, and some occupying important stations, as farmers,
manufacturers, and stewards of their households, to whom they, without fear,
commit their most valued treasures? Are these men on this account to be
denominated slave holders? With indignation they would repel the charge. That
either Isaac or Jacob ever bought, sold, or held, a human being as a slave, you
have furnished no certain evidence; nor have we been able to find any.
_______________
Continued from: Reverend
Silas McKeen to Thomas C. Stuart, August 20, 1839
SOURCE: Cyrus P. Grosvenor, Slavery vs. The Bible: A
Correspondence Between the General Conference of Maine, and the Presbytery of
Tombecbee, Mississippi, p. 37-42
No comments:
Post a Comment