Imagens das páginas

referring to God's former commands, " to execute true judgment, and show mercy, and oppress not the stranger" and declaring that for such oppression, and for not executing judgment and mercy, God had "scattered them as with a whirlwind among the nations," Zech. 7: 9, 10,14. Finally, in the 19th chapter of Leviticus, the same chapter that contains the precept, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, there stands out this conclusive, emphatic, comprehensive law: "If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not oppress him, but the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born amongst you, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God," Lev. 19: 34. Now it is incredible, impossible, that this very class of persons, thus protected and favored of God, and commended to the favor and love of the Hebrew people, could have been at the same time selected as the subjects of bondage, and appointed as a class on whom the Hebrew masters might exercise the full rigor of perpetual slavery. It is impossible that they could have been doomed and treated as an inheritance of human chattels. Yet this is the argument, and this the monstrous conclusion of those who would restrict the application of the free law of the Jubilee to persons of Hebrew birth, and who contend that in the 45th and 46th verses of this chapter, there is a wholesale consignment of the heathen to the Hebrews as their chattels, their slaves. Let us examine the Hebrew of this clause. The first phrase essential to be marked, is the designation of the class from whom servants may be taken, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, Asbs a"^an E^asiF.n iasa . The same expression is used in Lev. 25:23: Ye are strangers and sojourners with me, a'atiim t:"ns. Job uses a word derived from the same verb ">M from which this noun a^s is derived, to signify a dweller in the house: They that dwell in my house, and my maids, virnptti "ns, Job 19: 15. So in Ex. 3: 22, Every woman shall borrow of her that sojourneth in her house, WTO rnw . So also in Gen. 23:4, the words "?, stranger, and aoin, sojourner, are almost synonymous. They are thus used, Ps. xxxix., " I am a stranger and a sojourner with thee," atiin "qw? iax 15. The same words are used (Lev. 25:47) in the next clause of the law under consideration, if a sojourner or stranger, saWni 11 (stranger and sojourner). One might be merely a stranger passing through the land, but not a sojourner, because not making any stay in the land; but the sojourners, settling in the country, were called the strangers of the land, and their children are the class designated in the verse before us, their descendants generally. Of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. This is an additional description. Their families that are with you, esa? -itix annaws, i. e. separate and independent families, living by themselves, settled in the land under protection of its laws, and in the enjoyment of its privileges; not families in bondage, nor in any way under tribute, but free families, under protection of Jehovah. Of these, begotten in the land, and consequently citizens, proselytes, covenanters, with all the Hebrews, a naturalized part and parcel of the nation, might the Hebrews buy is the word used), obtain, by purchasing their services, servants for themselves, as in the verse preceding, rrato ias, the serving man and serving woman, the servant and maidservant. Then it is added, and they shall be your possession, tssi Wti rttnxi, they shall be to you for a possession; that is, the servants so obtained by purchase of their services on contract for time, shall be your possession; not the families, not the race of sojourners, but such of the children or descendants of the sojourners, or members of their families, as might enter into such contract of service for money; as, in Ezek. 44: 28, God says of himself, that he is the possession of the priests, the Levites, ownx "<ax, J am their possession. Still, it is not absolute; they shall be to you for a possession, not absolutely, your possession. Nor is it any stronger than where it is said in Ex. 21: 21, of the servant purchased, that is apprenticed according to the legal contract, for money paid beforehand to the servant for his services, that he is his master's money, for he is his money, xin iEco"o. He might be a Hebrew servant, and yet be called, in this sense, his master's money, his master's possession, his services belonging to his master for so long a time as might have been specified in the terms of the contract. But the servant himself was never, and could not be, the property of the master, though he might be bound for a term of service, extending from master to son, as would be the case, if bound until the Jubilee. It would be regarded in the light of a long lease, conveyed for an equivalent, in consideration of which, though the servant making the contract was not the master's property, yet the service, promised and paid for, was. And this claim, up to its legal expiration, would with propriety be spoken of, be described, as conveyable from the master to his children, for any period within the limit of its legal conclusion at the Jubilee. If the master who made the contract with the servant, died, while any part of the contract remained unfulfilled, the claim belonged as an inheritance, or family possession, to his children after him. For example, if, during the first year after the year of Jubilee, when many new contracts would be made, and householders would be looking out for servants on the most profitable terms, a master could agree with a servant, could hire or apprentice him, could buy him, as the Hebrew phrase is ordinarily translated, from a family of strangers or sojourners, to serve in his household till the next Jubilee, this would be an engagement for at least forty-seven years. Now supposing such a master to be of the age of fifty, and at the head of a family, the contract would bind this servant, in effect, as a servant to the children of the household; and supposing the master to die at the age of seventy-five, the claim upon his services would descend as a possession, as an inheritance to the children for some twenty-two years longer. The servant might be said to belong to the family still, for that period of the unfulfilled engagement. It was an engagement which had bound the servant, in Hebrew phrase, forever. But this phrase, in respect to legal servitude, is, absolutely and beyond dispute, demonstrated to mean a period no longer than to the Jubilee. Two prominent instances, in the case of Hebrew servants, put this beyond possibility of controversy, showing that the /oreuer-contract (^\-\) had always its termination, by the law of Jubilee, at that period; nor could any contract override'that law; nor was there ever a pretence, because the servant was bound to his master, technically, forever, that therefore he was bound to him beyond the Jubilee, or was not to be free at the coming of the Jubilee. One of these cases is that of the Hebrew servant renewing his contract with his master to the longest period (Ex. 21: 6): his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him forever, eAsi "nasi . But at the Jubilee, on the sound of the trumpet, he was free, and must return to his own family, he and his children with him. The second instance of this illustration of the usage and meaning of the word and the law, is in Deut. 15:17, comprehending Hebrew men-servants and maid-servants under the same rule. At his own agreement and desire, the Hebrew servant has his ear bored, and is bound until the longest period ever admitted by the law: and he shall be thy servant forever, aisi iss r$ rnm. And also unto thy maid-servant thou shalt do likewise. Nevertheless, at the Jubilee they were to be free; this contract, which was said to be forever, terminated by a law that lay at the foundation of the whole system of Hebrew jurisprudence and polity, at the Jubilee; it could not be made to run across that limit; no one could be held in servitude, no matter what were the terms of his contract, beyond that illustrious year of liberty. A similar usage and illustration are found in 1 Sam. 27:12: "And Achish believed David, saying, He hath made his people Israel utterly to abhor him; therefore he shall be my servant forever, aiis wi *i rnni, he shall be to me for a servant forever. In the book of Job there is another illustration (40: 28 — in our translation, 41: 4): "Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant forever?" The phraseology here is strikingly illustrative; for it seems to be drawn from the very contract made with servants who were willing to enter into the longest apprenticeship, and the man

ner of sealing it, that is, by boring the ear of the voluntary bondman. "Can any man bore the nose of leviathan with a gin, and take him in his sight? Canst thou bore his jaw through with a thorn? Will he speak soft words unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee ("'a? trna n'ir^n)? Wilt thou take him for a servant forever (o^is iasi wnpn)?" It is to be marked that the word here translated take, is the very word used for purchasing or buying the contract with a servant: " Wilt thou buy him for a servant forever?" In buying a servant, the covenant or contract was made with himself, not with a third party. Hence the condition here referred to, for the possibility of taking leviathan for a servant,— " will he enter into covenant with thee?" Thou canst take him for thy servant in no other way. Will he agree with thee to be thine ias, thy bounden servant of all work, for thyself and thy family? Wilt thou bind him for thy maidens? Will he consent to be a fixture in thine household? Nothing is requisite, nothing needed, to strengthen this demonstration. It is as clear as the noon that the longest period of servitude among the Hebrews was entered into by voluntary contract, and was terminated by the Jubilee. Hebrew servants were apprenticed forever, and so were a possession, an inheritance, until the Jubilee, but never slaves. The children of strangers and sojourners, in like manner, were apprenticed forever; and, in like manner, were a possession, but never slaves. With Hebrew servants, the long term was the exception, and the ordinary term was six years; and even during the long term, they were to be treated as hired servants, rather than as apprentices, though they were legally bound. With servants from the heathen, or from the families of strangers, the long term of apprenticeship would seem to have been the ordinary term, and the six years, or less, the exception; and during the long term there was no such legal provision for them as for the Hebrews, requiring that they should be treated as hired servants. But the advent of the Jubilee put an end to both periods and both kinds of servitude, and all were free, all the inhabitants

« AnteriorContinuar »