Duties of Servants

Paul writes from within the slave reality of the first century, not to sanction it but to transfigure it. The command in Ef 6:5 is situated within the Haustafel (6:1–9): servants, masters, children, fathers form a complete domestic ethic. The tension is not social but ontological — obedience to the earthly master receives its form and measure from obedience to Christ. The servant does not serve out of fear of blows but because he recognizes in the master according to the flesh a derived, not absolute, authority.

Haplotēs (ἁπλότης, "simplicity/integrity") and phobos (φόβος, "fear") define the interior quality of the exterior act: no dissimulation, no duplicity, undivided service.

The OT root of haplotēs resonates in tōm-lēbāb (תֹּם-לֵבָב), integrity of heart: David serves "with an upright heart" (Sal 78:72).

Avot 2:2 illuminates the structure: Rabban Gamliel son of Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasì teaches that labor performed derekh eretz and done leshem shamayim — for the Name of Heaven — does not empty the Torah but completes it. Daily service becomes a sacral act when intention is consecrated.

Consecrate ordinary working activity by declaring, inwardly, to whom your labor belongs.

How to observe it: the tradition Tannaitic tradition codifies in Ketubot 5:5 the limits of compulsory work assigned to a wife by her husband, enumerating by contrast the boundaries within which domestic service is binding: grinding, cooking, washing, nursing, making the bed. The underlying halakhic logic is relevant to Ef 6:5: prescribed service is defined by specific tasks, defined times, and verifiable conditions — not by unlimited dedication to the master's will. The practice of obeying "according to the flesh" finds its correlate in the Mishnah in the punctual and complete execution of assigned duties, without subtraction or dissimulation (geneivat da'at), in the agreed times and manner, since what invalidates service is not the harshness of the task but the duplicity in carrying it out.

Paul writes from Roman imprisonment to a plural community — free persons and slaves together in the assembly at Ephesus. The command to douloi ("servants/slaves") in Eph 6:5 does not legitimate slavery as an institution, but transfigures it from within: obedience to the carnal kyrios becomes a vehicle of obedience to the heavenly Kyrios. The theological tension is vertical: every horizontal relationship is reinterpreted under the lordship of Christ.

Haplótes (ἁπλότης, "simplicity") denotes undivided integrity of heart, the absence of duplicity. Phóbos kai trómos ("fear and trembling") echoes the cultic language of Is 19:16 and Ps 2:11: not craven servility but sacred reverence.

The OT root lies in Lv 19:34 and Dt 10:19: the stranger/servant received into the community is treated as neighbor — because Israel knows service in the land of Egypt. The service of the outsider carries the dignity of a covenantal relationship.

Avot 2:2 — Rabban Gamliel teaches: "yafeh talmud Torah im derekh erets" — good is the study of Torah united with concrete labor, for the toil of both atones for sin. Work performed leshem shamayim ("for the Name of Heaven") is not degrading: it transforms the material act into sacred service. Paul radicalizes this logic: the Christian servant works leshem Mashiah.

Perform every work task as an act of worship — not for the master's gaze, but for Christ.

How to observe it: the tradition Tannaitic tradition codified in Kiddushin 1:7 establishes that the Hebrew servant (eved ivri) is not reduced to an instrument: he retains religious obligations equal to those of a free man, with the exception of time-bound positive precepts (mitzvot aseh she-ha-zman grama). Operative practice requires that service be rendered with full intentional presence (kavanah) and without subterfuge — a servant who works in a duplicitous or deceitful manner violates the norm of integrity required by the covenantal relationship. Performance is valid when the act is carried out openly, within the agreed times, and with the whole body engaged in the action, not merely formally executed. What invalidates the service is not toil but duplicity of heart: performing externally while withholding interior availability constitutes halakhic non-fulfillment of the relationship.

Paul writes to the believers of Ephesus in the context of the haustafeln — the household code governing relations between servants and masters (Ef 6:5-9). The central theological tension is not sociological but spiritual: the Christian servant risks reducing work to an external performance calibrated to the human gaze. Paul breaks this logic: the true recipient of service is not the earthly master but Christ himself. Authentic obedience arises from an interior motivation that no human eye can verify.

Ophthalmodoulía (ὀφθαλμοδουλία) — "eye-service" — is a term probably coined by Paul himself: work performed only under surveillance. Against it he sets psychē (ψυχή), the integral soul, the volitional-moral center of being.

The OT root resides in Deuteronomy 6:5 — to love the Lord bechol-levavkha — with all your heart, a formula prescribing an obedience that is neither divisible nor conditioned by the external observer.

Avot 2:2 offers the precise Tannaitic parallel: Rabban Gamliel son of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi teaches that every work performed for the community must be carried out leShem Shamayim — for the Name of Heaven. The intention transcends the visible result; the ultimate judge is God, not the human observer.

Let the worker examine his motivation daily: does he serve to be seen, or for the Name?

How to observe it: the tradition most pertinent Tannaitic source is Ketubot 5:5, which establishes the working obligations of a wife toward her husband: she must spin, weave, cook, and nurse — but if she brings slave-women as dowry, the number of servants proportionally exempts her from each task. The discriminating halakhic criterion is not the visibility of the work but its intrinsic completeness: the obligation subsists even in the master's absence and is not extinguished by the mere appearance of fulfillment. The Mishnah measures the obligation by the substance of the act — the wool spun, the bread baked, the child nursed — regardless of who observes. This operative principle directly illuminates Ef 6:6: the valid action is that performed fully when no one is watching, not the performance executed under a gaze.

Paul writes to the slaves of Ephesus, placing them within the broader haustafeln (Eph 5:22–6:9), a domestic code transformed christologically. The central tension is radical: the servant must not perform his work as ὀφθαλμοδουλεία (ophthalmodouleia) — service rendered only under the master's gaze — but rather ἐκ ψυχῆς (ek psychēs), from the depths of the soul, as though the true master were Christ himself. Outward obedience without inner intention is disqualified.

The compound ὀφθαλμοδουλεία (a Pauline hapax) describes work that ceases the moment the supervisor's eye is averted; ἐκ ψυχῆς, by contrast, invokes the totality of being, not merely the outward act.

The Old Testament root is Deuteronomy 6:5: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul" — total and undivided service as the norm of the covenant.

Avot 2:2 transmits the teaching of Rabban Gamliel the Younger: "All who work for the community, let them work לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם — for the Name of Heaven." The Tannaitic principle is identical: the valid action is the one oriented toward Heaven, not toward the human gaze. Kavanah (intention) determines the quality of the act, not its external visibility.

Examine a daily task performed far from any witness, offering it deliberately as service to Christ.

How to observe it: the tradition of Avot 2:2 (and the Mishnaic principle of kawwanah) draws a sharp distinction between a gesture performed under supervision and one animated by authentic inner intention. The Mishnah (Berakhot 2:1) establishes that every obligatory act requires kawwanah — directing the heart toward the one who commands — without which the action is technically performed but spiritually void. For the servant, this translates operationally: the assigned work must be carried out with the same consistency before an absent master as before a present one; discontinuity — slowing or ceasing when the supervisor withdraws — constitutes partial fulfillment. Ketubot 5:5, codifying a wife's work obligations independently of the husband's presence, attests this same principle: the obligation is not conditioned on another's gaze, but on the charge received.

Paul in Eph 6:7 addresses the Christian slaves of Ephesus by embedding the command within the household code (Haustafeln, 6:5-9): the tension is not social but christological. The visible master becomes transparent with respect to the invisible Lord. Daily service — even coerced service — is reinterpreted as liturgy. Tertullian (De Oratione) grasps the same logic: whoever serves God serves with fear and trembling also those who share his same nature.

Eunoia (εὔνοια, "benevolence") designates not mere obedience but an interior affective disposition toward those one serves. Douleuontes (δουλεύοντες, "serving as slaves") inverts social shame into theological vocation.

The root is 'abad (עָבַד) of the Hebrew Bible: the servant of YHWH in Is 42 and 53 fulfills the divine will through abasement, not despite it.

Rabban Gamliel in Avot 2:2 teaches that every labor performed leshem shamayim — לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, "for the Name of Heaven" — carries intrinsic value that transcends the visible result. Manual work united with Torah does not debase; it purifies from iniquity and orients action toward its eternal foundation.

Carry out every task today with the same care you would bring to an explicit act of worship.

How to observe it: the tradition of Ketubot 5:5 defines with precision the domestic labor obligations owed within the household according to good will and not mere compulsion: the wife ground grain, cooked, washed, nursed, and wove — or, should the husband bring slaves into the household, certain tasks could be delegated, yet the underlying disposition remained that of one who serves le-shem shamayim, for the Name of Heaven. The operative point is that labor is not validated by the external act alone but by the intention accompanying it: to carry out the assigned task completely, within the proper rhythms of the domestic cycle, neither evading it nor neglecting the quality of its execution. Fulfillment is invalidated when the servant performs negligently or with a hostile spirit, because good will (eunoia / ratzon) is an intrinsic condition of the act's validity, not an accessory ornament.

Paul writes as a prisoner to the believers at Colossae, placing the doûloi (servants/slaves) within a household code (hauskódes) in which every relationship is reconfigured christologically. The central tension is not social but theological: the servant does not obey the earthly master because compelled, but because he fears the heavenly Lord. Obedience "in all things" does not annul moral conscience but roots it in a higher authority that transcends the carnal hierarchy.

Haplótēs (ἁπλότης, "simplicity/integrity of heart") denotes interior undividedness, the absence of duplicity; it stands opposed to ophthalmodoûlia (ὀφθαλμοδουλεία, "eye-service"), performative labor visible only when the master is watching.

The Hebrew Bible root is the yir'at YHWH (fear of the Lord) of Proverbs 3:7 and Psalm 19: to obey uprightly because "the eyes of the Lord are in every place" (Prov 15:3), not out of human coercion.

Aqavya ben Mahalalel teaches in Avot 3:1: "Know before Whom you are destined to give account" — liphné mi attah 'atid littén din vekheshbón. The Tannaitic principle calibrates every daily action on awareness of divine judgment, not on the gaze of the human supervisor: an identical motivational structure to Col 3:22.

Every morning, before beginning work, explicitly consider that your true superior is the Lord: this orients the entire working day toward haplótēs.

How to observe it: the tradition Tannaitic that best illuminates this practice is Kiddushin 1:7, which enumerates the tasks the Hebrew servant (eved ivri) is obligated to perform and those that remain at the master's discretion. The halakhah establishes that the servant must carry out assigned duties even in the absence of supervision, since the obligation arises from the contractual-legal bond, not from the supervisor's eye. Valid fulfillment requires complete execution (be-lev shalem, with full heart) and not partial; a reduced or simulated service — performed only when the master is present — does not satisfy the obligation. The criterion of validity is not the result visible to the master, but the correspondence between the task received and the actual performance rendered, regardless of the presence or absence of witnesses.

Paul writes as a prisoner (Col 4:10), yet does not weaken the command: servants must obey κατὰ πάντα — in everything — their κύριοι κατὰ σάρκα, the masters according to the flesh. The theological tension is precise: obedience is not grounded in the legitimacy of the earthly master, but in the fear of the heavenly Lord. Paul distinguishes between service rendered as ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι — literally "men-pleasers" — and service rendered with ἁπλότης καρδίας, singleness of heart: the latter is the total integration of visible act and interior intention.

ἁπλότης (haplotēs, "simplicity, integrity") designates an undivided heart, without hidden recesses. ἀνθρωπάρεσκος (anthrōpareskos) denotes one who calibrates behavior according to the gaze of others.

The Old Testament root is the tāmîm of Genesis 17:1 — walk before me and be blameless — an integrity that does not change according to who is watching.

Avot 2:2 records Rabban Gamliel the Younger (Tanna): "Whoever works for the community, let him work for the sake of Heaven." The Tannaitic principle is exact: human action receives its value from orientation toward Heaven, not from human approval. Transcendent motivation qualifies every form of service, including servile labor.

One who serves should assess each morning: "Before whom am I destined to give account?" (Avot 3:1, Akavya ben Mahalalel). Fear of the Lord — not of the master — is the sole measure of integrity in action.

How to observe it: the tradition Tannaitic tradition furnishes in Kiddushin 1:7 the fundamental operative principle: the servant who acts under authority is bound in action, not in intention — yet it is precisely intention that determines the moral quality of the act. Concrete practice requires that fulfillment not cease when supervision ceases: the same work performed in the master's presence must be performed with identical diligence in his absence. The criterion of validity is not the observable result, but the constancy of interior disposition — what invalidates service is not material error, but the discontinuity between observed and unobserved behavior, which constitutes precisely the conduct of the anthrōpareskos condemned by Paul.

Paul writes from imprisonment to a community tempted to stratify reality into sacred and profane spheres — the celestial worship of angels set against the daily toil of slaves (Col. 3:22–4:1). In this context, Col. 3:23 is not a moralistic exhortation: it is Christology applied to manual labor. Every task — even the most servile — bears the weight of eternity because the worker is answerable before a single Kyrios.

Psychē (psychḗ, ψυχή) in ek psychēs does not simply denote "heart" but the entire volitional person; kyrios (κύριος) invokes the royal title of Christ, not the earthly master.

The root lies in Dt 6:5: "you shall love the Lord with all your soul" — the same kol napshekha that permeates every action of the faithful Israelite toward God.

Avot 2:2 transmits Rabban Gamliel son of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi: "let all work done for the community be performed lishem shamayim — for the Name of Heaven". The consecratory intention pertains not only to worship but to every melakhah: the act is judged by its interior orientation, not by its outward appearance.

Perform today an ordinary task with deliberate intention of being answerable to the Kyrios: the criterion is not human approval, but the reckoning before Him.

How to observe it: the tradition most pertinent Tannaitic source is Kiddushin 1:1, which establishes the operative principle of the maamad — the juridical status that determines before whom one is answerable. The act of consecration (kiddushin) is valid when the intention (kavanah) explicitly orients the action toward the designated recipient: without direct kavanah, the gesture remains juridically null. Applied to manual labor, this means that every task — even a servile one — fulfills the obligation only if the performer consciously maintains orientation toward the supreme mandator, not the earthly one. The worker who acts lishmah (for the Name) transforms the technical gesture into a binding act; one who acts out of fear of the earthly master without that kavanah fulfills only the civil obligation, not the higher one attested by the structure of the maamad.

Paul, writing to the Colossians from imprisonment, addresses the relationship between slaves and masters (Col 3:22–25) by inverting the logic of human retribution: the servant who works κυρίῳ — for the Lord — and not for man, receives his wage not from a corruptible social structure but from the heir of all things. The tension is christological: the believer is a servant of Christ, yet a co-heir. Obedience is not empty servitude but investment in the kingdom.

The central term is ἀνταπόδοσιν (antapódosin), "reciprocal recompense," a Pauline hapax suggesting a full, not partial, counter-return. Connected to it is κληρονομία (klēronomiā), "inheritance," a term implying legal right transmitted by divine election.

The Old Testament root is נַחֲלָה (naḥalāh): the allotment of land to Israel by divine decree (Nm 18:20), not by acquired merit but by covenantal promise.

Avot 2:2 records Rabban Gamliel son of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi: "all labor done for the community should be done for the sake of Heaven" — work oriented lešem šamayim generates a relationship of response from above, a principle Paul radicalizes in the identity of the Kyrios as the ultimate bestower of every reward.

The believer works today in every ordinary context with the awareness that the Lord sees and recompenses: act without mental reservation.

How to observe it: the tradition tannaitic tradition of hired labor offers the most pertinent operational framework in Kiddushin 1:1, where the Mishnah distinguishes the modes of acquisition of a person and the obligations arising therefrom. The concrete practice for one who serves faithfully — the servant, the laborer, the employee — was governed by the principle that reward is earned in the very act of faithful fulfillment, not in negotiation. Kiddushin 1:7 specifies that whoever fulfills a positive obligation receives his reward (sekhar): the validity of the action depends on intention (kavvanah) and completeness of execution, not on the earthly master's acknowledgment. The worker who has rendered service with integrity has title to recompense; the action is valid and the master's debt is real, regardless of who materially honors it.

Titus 2:9 is situated within the Cretan Haustafel: Paul entrusts Titus with the task of forming ordered communities in a Greco-Roman context where slavery was a structural institution. The theological tension is not the approval of the institution itself, but the ethical transfiguration of the believer's conduct within that structure: submission becomes missionary witness, not moral capitulation. The parallel in 1 Pet 2:18 uses identical language: ὑποτασσόμενοι to masters, even harsh ones.

Hypotassomenoi (ὑποτασσόμενοι): middle-passive participle of hypotassō, "to place oneself under an order," implies voluntary positioning, not coerced servitude of the soul. Antilégontas (ἀντιλέγοντας): "those who contradict," the negative to be avoided.

The OT root is found in Gen 16 and in the sapiential texts: the faithful servant (eved ne'eman) who honors his place manifests the fear of God within the creational order.

Avot 2:2 — Rabban Gamliel teaches that any Torah without melakhah ultimately leads to annulment. The upright conduct of the believing servant — free of contradictions and duplicity — is itself embodied Torah: the believer's conduct becomes the credibility of the Gospel before the pagans.

How to observe it: the tradition Tannaitic articulates the servant-master relationship in terms of juridically defined mutual obligations. Kiddushin 1:1 distinguishes between different modes of acquisition of a person in a state of dependency, establishing that the bond is constituted by a formal and documented act; Kiddushin 1:7 specifies that the Hebrew servant (eved ivri) fulfills his status by remaining available for the assigned duties for the agreed duration, without the possibility of unilaterally withdrawing from service. Concrete submission is expressed in not abandoning the work, in not openly contradicting the order received (antilegōn), and in executing what is commanded within the limits of the permissible — a condition that Tannaitic halakhah maintains firmly: no obedience holds if the order violates an explicit precept of the Torah.

Titus 2:9 is situated within the section of the pastoral Haustafel (Tt 2:1–10), where Paul entrusts Titus with the task of forming credible communities in Crete. The command to the douloi is not a theological endorsement of slavery, but a strategy of witness: the conduct of the uncorrupt servant renders "an ornament to the doctrine of God" (v. 10). The central tension lies between freedom in Christ (Gal 3:28) and fidelity to present social structures — fidelity read as ministry, not as resignation.

Hypotassesthai (ὑποτάσσεσθαι, "to be subjected") connotes voluntary structural alignment, not interior servitude. Antilegein (ἀντιλέγειν, "to contradict") denotes deliberate verbal opposition, not mere disagreement.

The OT root resides in Gn 39: Joseph serves Potiphar faithfully with complete integrity, transforming submission into testimony of the presence of YHWH.

Avot 2:1 (Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi) teaches: "Which is the right path that a person should choose for himself? That which is an honor to the one who does it and which also brings him honor from mankind." Integral service — even under another's authority — brings kavod (honor) twofold: it confirms that acting rightly within imperfect structures is itself a direct path.

The servant who obeys without needlessly contradicting bears witness through conduct to what the word proclaims.

How to observe it: the tradition of Avot 2:1 on the "calculation between the loss of a precept and its gain" provides the operational framework, but it is Ketubot 5:5 that documents the concrete practice of bound service: the woman who enters her husband's household assumes specific obligations of daily performance — grinding, cooking, washing — and deliberate refusal of these tasks constitutes mored/moredeth, formally sanctioned rebellion. The Tannaitic parallel for the doulos is structurally identical: valid fulfillment requires effective and continuous execution, without omission and without verbal opposition (antilegein) signaling intentional misalignment. The validity of the act does not depend on interior agreement but on observable external conformity — the deed performed, not contradicted in words.

Titus 2:9-10 is situated within the section on ordered households (Haustafeln), where Paul instructs enslaved believers to conduct themselves with honor in their servile condition. The theological tension is acute: this is not social quietism, but incarnate mission. The servant's integrity becomes a living apologia — "that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things". Domestic ethics carry doxological weight: daily conduct either reveals or obscures the character of the Lord.

The Greek nosphizomenous (νοσφιζομένους, "to defraud/misappropriate") recalls Joshua 7:1 (LXX) concerning Achan's sacrilegious theft. The counterpart: pistin pasan endeiknumenous — demonstrating fidelity that is full, integral, and visible.

The root is 'emunah (אֱמוּנָה), structural faithfulness grounded in Abraham and the prophets: "The righteous shall live by his emunah" (Hab 2:4).

Avot 2:1 instructs: "What is the upright path that a person should choose? That which is an honor to the one who follows it and which also brings honor from others." Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi teaches that righteous action has an unavoidable public dimension — the disciple's conduct bears witness before the world.

Whoever serves faithfully in every context, even unseen, adorns the doctrine of God with the only irrefutable proof: a coherent life.

How to observe it: the tradition of Qiddushin 1:7 establishes that the servant must fulfill his obligations with full operational loyalty: every task delivered, every entrusted good, every assigned duty must correspond exactly to what was received — without retaining, misappropriating, or diverting to private use. Faithfulness ('emunah) is not an interior sentiment but a verifiable action: the complete restitution of what belongs to the master, transparency in accounts, the absence of misappropriation (gezel). Non-fulfillment — even partial, even tacit — constitutes a violation of the fiduciary relationship. Compliance requires consistency over time, not an isolated gesture: pistin pasan is daily practice, not declaration.

Peter writes to believers scattered in Pontus, Galatia, and Bithynia — communities in a subordinate position within the empire. The immediate context (1 Pt 2:13–3:7) is the household code (haustafeln), in which submission is not social resignation but eschatological witness: the servant who endures unjust treatment suffers "for the sake of conscience toward God" (v. 19), being conformed to the suffering Christ (vv. 21–24). The theological tension is acute: Peter does not abolish hierarchy, but reinterprets it as the locus of discipleship.

The key term is ὑποτασσόμενοι (hypotassomenoi), a present middle participle of hypotassō: active, voluntary submission, not externally imposed. Complementary is φόβος (phobos), "fear" oriented toward God, not toward the master.

The Old Testament root resides in Genesis 50:19–21: Joseph, unjustly oppressed as a servant, does not take revenge because he recognizes divine sovereignty over human history.

Avot 4:1 transmits Ben Zoma: "Who is strong? One who masters his own impulse." (hakoveš et yiṣro). The kibbuš ha-yeṣer — the control of impulse — is precisely the virtue Peter requires of the servant before the skolios master (crooked, difficult): not impulsive reaction, but inner mastery rooted in the fear of God.

In daily life, identify a difficult authority and consciously choose the measured response, motivated by fidelity to Christ, not by human fear.

How to observe it: the tradition (Ketubot 5:5) codifies the obligatory regime of the domestic worker in terms of specific duties and inviolable limits: the male or female servant must perform the tasks assigned by the householder — grinding, cooking, washing, nursing, making the bed — but the Mishnah specifies which tasks may or may not be imposed depending on status. The operative principle is that submission is exercised concretely in the punctual and uncontested execution of ordinary service, while deliberate refusal or omission constitutes halakhic non-performance. The phobos of 1 Pt 2:18 finds its correspondence in the implicit bond of respect within the service relationship: the worker does not act out of fear of the master in an absolute sense, but because the contract of service (and, by spiritual analogy, conscience toward God) obliges diligent and unsabotaged performance.

Peter, writing to the communities of the diaspora in Asia Minor (1 Pt 2:18), inserts the exhortation to household servants (οἰκέται) within a broader household code (2:13–3:7), founded on ὑποτάσσω — ordered submission — as missionary witness in the pagan context. The theological tension is precise: submission is not moral capitulation, but conformity to the way of the Suffering Servant (2:21–25). The limiting case — the σκολιός master, crooked, unjust — does not dissolve the obligation, but radicalizes it.

Ὑποτασσόμενοι (hypo-tassomenoi) denotes structural order, not servitude of the soul. Φόβος (fobos) is not paralyzing fear but conscious reverence, oriented ultimately toward God (v.17).

The Old Testament root goes back to the eved (עֶבֶד) of Deuteronomy and the wisdom texts: the servant of Israel is inwardly free precisely in faithful obedience, because he serves YHWH through delegated authority.

Avot 4:1 cites Ben Zoma (Tanna, 2nd cent.): "Who is strong? He who masters his own impulse" — הַכּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת יִצְרוֹ. In Tannaitic literature, true strength is not resistance to external authority but interior mastery of the reactive impulse. Submitting to a difficult master without losing moral integrity embodies precisely this structural self-control.

In a difficult work environment, exercise φόβος toward God — not man — as the concrete compass for every response to unjust superiors.

How to observe it: the tradition documented in Kiddushin 1:1 distinguishes the servant's obligation according to the quality of the master — but does not place any exemption therein. The regularly acquired Hebrew servant must render service regardless of the character of the holder: the act of submission (שירות, sherut) is valid not by virtue of the worthiness of the one who receives it, but by the juridical structure of the relationship. No reduction of service toward the difficult or unjust master is permitted while the bond is in force; what invalidates the obligation is only redemption or the completion of the stipulated period, not the arbitrary conduct of the master. Concrete practice leaves the servant no discretion in selecting the recipients of obedience.