The points in these verses, urged as proof, that the Mosaic system sanctioned slavery, are 1.  The word “BONDMEN.” 2.  “BUY.” 3.  “INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION.” 4.  “FOREVER.”

The second point, the buying of servants, has been already discussed, see page 15.  And a part of the third (holding servants as a “possession.”  See p. 36.) We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is derivable from the terms “bondmen,” “inheritance,” and “forever.”

I. BONDMEN.  The fact that servants, from the heathen are called “bondmen,” while others are called “servants,” is quoted as proof that the former were slaves.  As the caprices of King James’ translators were not divinely inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them.  The word rendered bondmen, in this passage, is the same word uniformly rendered servants elsewhere.  To infer from this that the Gentile servants were slaves, is absurd.  Look at the use of the Hebrew word “Ebed,” the plural of which is here translated “bondmen.”  In Isaiah xlii. 1, the same word is applied to Christ.  “Behold my servant (bondman, slave?) whom I have chosen, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth.”  So Isaiah lii. 13.  “Behold my servant (Christ) shall deal prudently.”  In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, it is applied to King Rehoboam.  “And they (the old men) spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a servant (Ebed) unto this people this day, and will serve them and answer them, and wilt speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants forever.”  In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, it is applied to the king and all the nation.  In fine, the word is applied to all persons doing service to others—­to magistrates, to all governmental officers, to tributaries, to all the subjects of governments, to younger sons—­defining their relation to the first born, who is called Lord and ruler—­to prophets, to kings, to the Messiah, and in respectful addresses not less than fifty times in the Old Testament.

If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, why had their language no word that meant slave?  If Abraham had thousands, and if they abounded under the Mosaic system, why had they no such word as slave or slavery?  That language must be wofully poverty stricken, which has no signs to represent the most common and familiar objects and conditions.  To represent by the same word, and without figure, property, and the owner of that property, is a solecism.  Ziba was an “Ebed,” yet he "owned” (!) twenty Ebeds.  In English, we have both the words servant and slave.  Why?  Because we have both the things, and need signs for them.  If the tongue had a sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some name for it:  but our dictionaries