A case is stated in Leviticus xxv. 47-55, where a servant, reduced to poverty, sells himself; and it is declared that afterward he may be redeemed, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF.  As he was forced to sell himself from sheer poverty he must not only have acquired property after he became a servant, but a considerable sum.

If it had not been common for servants to possess, and acquire property, over which they had the exclusive control, Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of money, (nearly $3000[A]) from Naaman, (2 Kings v. 22, 23.) As it was procured by deceit, he was anxious to conceal the means used in getting it; but if the Israelitish servants, like our slaves, could “own nothing, nor acquire any thing,” to embark in such an enterprise would have been consummate stupidity.  The fact of having in his possession two talents of silver, would of itself convict him of theft[B].  But since the possession and use of property by servants, was common under the Mosaic system, he might have it, and invest or use it, without attracting special attention.  And that consideration alone would have been a strong motive to the act.  His master, while he rebukes him for using such means to get the money, not only does not take it from him, but seems to expect that he would invest it in real estate, and cattle, and would procure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26.  In 1 Sam. ix. 8, we find the servant of Saul having money, and relieving his master in an emergency.  Arza, the servant of Elah, was the owner of a house.  That it was spacious and somewhat magnificent, would be a natural inference from the fact that it was a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9.  The case of the Gibeonites, who, after they became servants, still occupied their cities, and remained, in many respects, a distinct people for centuries; and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the servants of Solomon, who worked out their tribute of bond-service in levies, periodically relieving each other, while preparing the materials for the temple, are additional illustrations of independence in the acquisition and ownership of property.

[Footnote A:  Though we have not sufficient data to decide with accuracy upon the relative value of that sum, then and now, yet we have enough to warrant us in saying that two talents of silver had far more value then than three thousand dollars have now.]

[Footnote B:  Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing a large amount of money?  They “know how to take care of themselves” quite too well for that.  When they steal, they are careful to do it on such a small scale, or in the taking of such things as will make detection difficult.  No doubt they steal now and then a little, and a gaping marvel would it be if they did not.  Why should they not follow in the footsteps of their masters and mistresses?  Dull