(4.) Bought servants and their descendants seem to have been regarded with the same affection and respect as the other members of the family[A]. The treatment of Eliezer, and the other servants in the family of Abraham, Gen. chap. 25—­the intercourse between Gideon and his servant Phurah, Judges vii. 10, 11. and Saul and his servant, in their interview with Samuel, 1 Sam. ix. 5, 22; and Jonathan and his servant, 1 Sam. xiv. 1-14, and Elisha and his servant Gehazi, are illustrations.  No such tie seems to have existed between hired servants and their masters.  Their untrustworthiness seems to have been proverbial.  See John ix. 12, 13.

None but the lowest class seem to have engaged as hired servants.  No instance occurs in which they are assigned to business demanding much knowledge or skill.  Various passages show the low repute and trifling character of the class from which they were hired.  Judges ix. 4; 1 Sam. ii. 5.

The superior condition and privileges of bought servants, are manifested in the high trusts confided to them, and in the dignity and authority with which they were clothed in their master’s household.  But in no instance is a hired servant thus distinguished.  In some cases, the bought servant is manifestly the master’s representative in the family—­with plenipotentiary powers over adult children, even negotiating marriage for them.  Abraham besought Eliezer his servant, to take a solemn oath, that HE would not take a wife for Isaac of the daughters of the Canaanites, but from Abraham’s kindred.  The servant went accordingly, and himself selected the individual.  Servants also exercised discretionary power in the management of their master’s estate, “And the servant took ten camels, of the camels of his master, for all the goods of his master were under his hand.”  Gen. xxiv. 10.  The reason assigned for taking them, is not that such was Abraham’s direction, but that the servant had discretionary control.  Servants had also discretionary power in the disposal of property.  See Gen. xxiv. 22, 23, 53.  The condition of Ziba in the house of Mephiboseth, is a case in point.  So is Prov. xvii. 2.  Distinct traces of this estimation are to be found in the New Testament, Math. xxiv. 45; Luke xii. 42, 44.  So in the parable of the talents; the master seems to have set up each of his servants in trade with considerable capital.  One of them could not have had less than eight thousand dollars.  The parable of the unjust steward is another illustration.  Luke xvi. 4, 8.  He evidently was entrusted with large discretionary power, was “accused of wasting his master’s goods.” and manifestly regulated with his master’s debtors, the terms of settlement.  Such trusts were never reposed in hired servants.