WE propose to examine the Hebrew use of the word _ebed_ in the 5th and
15th of the second chapter of Genesis: “In that day the Lord God made
the earth, and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it grew;
for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was
not a man _to till_ לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד the ground.” _To till_ is here translated
from this word _ebed_, with the affix of the preposition ל. This is the
first instance in which the word is used in the holy book; and it may
seem extremely strange that the writers of these books found its use
necessary in their description of events even before the creation of
man. It is not our business to draw out theological doctrine unconnected
with the subject of our present inquiry; but we suppose it will not be
disputed that the great Jehovah as well knew, before he created the
heavens and the earth, and man upon the earth, all and every particular
of what would happen, as at any subsequent time: with him, a day is as a
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. _We_ may behold the
birth, maturity, and death of some animalcula, in a day or in an hour.
But, with him the succession of generations, of the animal life of a
thousand years, pass in instantaneous and present view. _Time_
appertains alone to mortals. _He_ saw the most ultimate condition of
man; and the earth and the herb were made to suit it. But from the
manner of the expression of the text, may we not conclude that the herb,
although made, would not grow until man was created, and in the
condition _to till_ (לַ֥עֲבֹ֖ד _to slave_) the ground? The support of
the animal world, independent of man, is spontaneously presented before
them: not so with man in his fallen state. “He sendeth the springs into
the valley, which run among the hills. They give drink to every beast of
the field: the wild asses quench their thirst. By them shall the fowls
of heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches. He
watereth the hills from his chambers; the earth is satisfied with the
fruit of thy works. He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and
herb _for the service_ (לַֽעֲבֹדַ֣ת _for the slavery_) of man: that he
may bring forth food out of the earth,” _Ps._ civ. 10–14. The second
instance in which this word is used is in _Gen._ ii. 15: “And the Lord
God took the man and put him into the garden of _Eden to dress it_, and
to keep it.” _To dress it_ is translated from this word לְעָבְדָ֖הּ.
There is certainly much obscurity in the use of the word in this
instance. Professor Stuart, of Andover, supposes that it inculcates the
doctrine that _labour_ was imposed on man in the paradisiacal state;
consequently, that labour was no part of the curse which followed the
apostacy. (See his Chreestomathy, page 105.) This view excludes the idea
that the word, as here used, is associated with the idea of slavery, and
that, if, in the interchange of language, although the idea of labour
may predominate, nevertheless, it must be _slave_ labour. Our mind does
not yield its assent to his position. We had associated with our idea of
this paradise the most perfect heaven, the dwelling-place of Jehovah!!
and that the generations of man, when guided and governed by Divine
mercy in such a manner that we could be happy therein, that it would yet
become our ultimate home,—(“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the
Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to
eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God,”
_Rev._ ii. 7,)—and that the humble worshipper of Jehovah while in a
state of progressive preparedness, would therefore cry out with the
Psalmist, “Unto thee I lift mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the
heavens! Behold, as the eyes of _servants_ (עֲבָדִ֠ים _male slaves_)
look unto the hand of their master; and as the eyes of a _maiden_
(שִׁפְחָה֮ _shiphhah_, _female slave_) unto the hand of her mistress, so
our eyes wait upon the Lord our God until he have mercy upon us.” _Ps._
cxxiii. 1, 2. If then the paradise of old was the type of the paradise
eternal, it would seem that the labour of the _ebed_ was excluded
therefrom: “Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the
_bondage_ (δουλείας, _slavery_) of corruption into the glorious liberty
of the children of God.” _Rom._ viii. 21. And for this very good reason,
that slavery, the consequent of sin, could never find entrance there:
regeneration is therefore indispensable.
“It strikes me that the use of the verb (עָבַד _abad_, presents no
difficulty that calls for explanation. The language of inspiration is
man’s language, though employed by God. The events, facts, things, acts,
that preceded man’s creation, must still be described by language and
terms that _had come into use after man’s creation_. Man must first
exist before there could be _words_ to be used in conveying knowledge to
man. A word implying _slavery_ might therefore most reasonably be found
in a _description_ of things _prior_ to the existence of man, or of
slavery, which description was written long afterwards by Moses, and in
language which was in use amongst the men for whom he wrote. When Moses
wrote, when God inspired him, עֶבֶד _ebed_ was a familiar word.”
_Extract from manuscript letter of the Rev. J.B. Stratton to the
author._
But in the pursuance of the chain of thought that first was impressed on
our mind, we have to remark that the word _Eden_ meant pleasure,
happiness. It seems to have been derived from or cognate with the Arabic
word عَدْنٌ _aden_, and means softness, gentleness, mildness,
tenderness, and daintiness, in that language. The Hebrews had also
another word from this same root, עֲדִי _adi_, to mean ornaments, &c.,
and עֲדָיִן _adain_, to mean luxuriousness and delicate. The word, as
used in the text before, is applied to a district of country, and
confers the adjective qualities to said district, _i. e._ a district of
country of great pleasure and delight. The general boundaries are given
and described by the naming of its rivers. It was of considerable
extent, embracing, perhaps, more than the whole of the ancient Armenia.
“And a garden was planted eastward in Eden.” Garden is translated from
גַן _gan_. The word is derived from גַנּן _ganan_. The word means, to
protect, protection, a thing protected. The idea expressed by it is
not confined to a single walled area; but the two words are often used
together, as if it was intended to convey the idea of the fact that
the protection extended to the whole of Eden. And it may be well
conceived that _innocency_ was its protection. Here cunning art never
wove its web for the entanglement of its victim. Here no crocodile
tears enticed sympathy within the reach of harm. Here no vile wretch
ever betrayed a brother’s confidence. Here the lion and the lamb might
have couched together, and the infant have played with the tiger’s
paw. We are aware that some modern scholars consider the description
of the garden of Eden by Moses a mere picture of the mind. Rosenmaeler
says that it is on a par with Virgil’s description of the Elysian
fields. This class of philosophers consider the whole as a fiction:
but man had his commencement somewhere, and it is a fact that four
large rivers, answering to the outlines of the general description of
Moses, do flow from fountain-heads not more than thirty or forty miles
apart, in the central and most elevated region of Armenia. These
streams meander through the same countries described by him, and
exhibit the same mineral productions: nor would it be any thing
remarkable, if investigation should yet prove that they were all
indebted to one and the same source. Let us consider then, whether it
was not a fact that the garden of Eden was not confined to a little
plat of ground, but included a whole district of country, embracing
the visible sources of the rivers named: a district of country, from
the mildness of its climate, fruitfulness, and other causes of
pleasure and delight, exceedingly well adapted to the early residence
of man. We have therefore no well founded reason to believe that the
account given by Moses of the garden of Eden was a fiction,
independent of Divine authority. But his account must be understood so
as to be consistent with itself, and with the facts now existing of
which it speaks. We are not under the necessity of supposing that the
felicity of our first parents was confined to the locality named: a
paradise was to them anywhere. It was their innocence, not the
location, that made it so; and thus they were driven out of paradise,
perhaps, without a change of location. The use of the word _ebed_ עבד,
in ii. 15 of _Genesis_, might then well be of the same foreshadowing
import as in the first instance of its use, even before the creation
of man. For, who must not conclude, when man was first placed in
paradise, that God did not as clearly see his apostasy then, as now?
By his wisdom, power, and mercy, all nature was ready-prepared for the
change, and poor fallen man, without change of habitation, found that
habitation no longer heaven, and commenced his first act of slavery by
the vain attempt to hide himself from God and his own contempt. And
here, let us remark, _we find the true commencement of slavery_. “And
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever
committeth sin is the _servant_ (δουλος, _slave_) of sin.” _John_
viii. 34. _Force_, _disease_, _ruin_, and _death_ were now introduced
to man. For, “A. _servant_ (עָ֑בֶד _slave_) will not be corrected by
words.” _Prov._ xxix. 19. God had mercifully contrived that he should
be forced to action. “He that _tilleth_ (עֹבֵ֣ד _slaveth_) of bread;
but he that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough.”
_Prov._ xxviii. 19. When God made “every plant of the field before it
was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew,”
foreseeing the apostasy of man—its poisonous effect upon his moral and
physical condition—its direct influence to produce immediate ruin and
death, he also provided, ordained, and decreed a relation, a law
between man and his mental and physical wants, which must cleave unto
him, upon his apostasy, and be of the utmost value and efficacy in
alleviating, removing, and preventing the final evils incident to his
poisoned condition. This relation, law, institution, was the
_ebeduth_, the _institution of slavery_, as expressed in _Ezra_ ix. 8,
9: “And give us a little reviving _in our bondage_ (עֲבדתנוּ
_ebeduthenu_, _slavery_). For we were _bond-men_ (עֲבָדִ֣ים _abedim_,
_slaves_), and yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage,”
עבדתנוּ. So in 2 _Chron._ xii. 8: “Nevertheless, ye shall be his
_servants_ (לעבדים _le-obedim_, his _slaves_), that they may know my
_service_ (עֲב֣וֹדָתִ֔י _slavery_), and the _service_ (וַֽעְבוֹדַ֖ת
_and the slavery_) of the kingdoms of the countries.” So in _Esther_
vii. 4: “For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be
slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for _bond-men_
(וְלִשְׁפָח֤וֹת לַֽעֲבָדִ֨ים) and bond-women, I had held my tongue.”
------------------