2. It will naturally occur to inquire, what that is, in particular, which our Lord denominates “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” Matt. xii, 31, 32; Mark iii, 28, 29; Luke xii, 10. But without entering minutely into the discussion of this question, it may suffice here to observe, that this blasphemy is certainly not of the constructive kind, but direct, manifest, and malignant. First, it is mentioned as comprehended under the same genus with abuse against men, and contradistinguished only by the object. Secondly, it is farther explained by being called speaking against in both cases: ὃς ἂν ἐίπη λόγον κατὰ τοῦ ὑιοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρωπȣ,--ὃς δ’ ἂν ἐίπη κατὰ τοῦ ϖνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίς. “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man.”--“Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost.” The expressions are the same, in effect, in all the Evangelists who mention it, and imply such an opposition as is both intentional and malevolent. This cannot have been the case of all who disbelieved the mission of Jesus, and even decried his miracles; many of whom, we have reason to think, were afterward converted by the Apostles. But it was the wretched case of some who, instigated by worldly ambition and avarice, slandered what they knew to be the cause of God; and, against conviction, reviled his work as the operation of evil spirits. This view of the sin against the Holy Ghost is confirmed by the circumstances under which our Lord spoke.
If we consider the Scripture account of this sin, nothing can be plainer than that it is to be understood of the Pharisees’ imputing the miracles wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost to the power of the devil; for our Lord had just healed one possessed of a devil, and upon this the Pharisees gave this malicious turn to the miracle. This led our Saviour to discourse on the sin of blasphemy. The Pharisees were the persons charged with the crime: the sin itself manifestly consisted in ascribing what was done by the finger of God to the agency of the devil; and the reason, therefore, why our Lord pronounced it unpardonable, is plain; because, by withstanding the evidence of miracles, they resisted the strongest means of conviction, and that wilfully and malignantly; and, giving way to their passions, opprobriously treated that Holy Spirit whom they ought to have adored. From all which it will probably follow, that no person can now be guilty of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, in the sense in which our Saviour originally intended it; but there may be sins which bear a very near resemblance to it. This appears from the case of the apostates mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to whom “no more sacrifice for sins” is said to remain; whose defection, however, is not represented so much as a direct sin against the Holy Ghost as against Christ, whom the apostate Jews blasphemed in the synagogues. It implied, however, a high offence against the Holy Spirit also, with whose gifts they had, probably, been endowed, and their conduct must be considered, if not the same sin as that committed by the Pharisees, yet as a consenting with it, and thus as placing them in nearly, if not altogether, the same desperate condition. Even apostasy in the present day, although a most aggravated and perilous offence, cannot be committed with circumstances of equal aggravation to those which were found in the case of the persons mentioned by St. Paul; and it may be laid down as certain, for the relief of those who may be tempted to think that they have committed the unpardonable sin, that their horror of it, and the trouble which the very apprehension causes them, are the sure proofs that they are mistaken. But although there may be now fearful approaches to the unpardonable offence, it is to be remembered that there may be many dangerous and fatal sins against the Holy Ghost, which are not the sin against him, which has no forgiveness.
BLEMISH, whatever renders a person or thing imperfect or uncomely. The Jewish law required the priests to be free from blemishes of person, Lev. xxi, 17–23; xxii, 20–24. Scandalous professors are blemishes to the church of God, 2 Peter ii, 13; Jude 12, and therefore ought to be put away from it, in the exercise of a godly discipline.
BLESS, BLESSING. There are three points of view in which the acts of blessing may be considered. The first is, when men are said to bless God, as in Psalm ciii, 1, 2. We are then not to suppose that the divine Being, who is over all, and, in himself, blessed for evermore, is capable of receiving any augmentation of his happiness, from all the creatures which he has made: such a supposition, as it would imply something of imperfection in the divine nature, must ever be rejected with abhorrence; and, therefore, when the creatures bless the adorable Creator, they only ascribe to him that praise and dominion, and honour, and glory, and blessing, which it is equally the duty and joy of his creatures to render. But when God is said to bless his people, Gen. i, 22; Eph. i, 3; the meaning is, that he confers benefits upon them, either temporal or spiritual, and so communicates to them some portion of that blessedness which, in infinite fulness, dwells in himself, James i, 17; Psalm civ, 24, 28; Luke xi, 9–13. In the third place men are said to bless their fellow creatures. From the time that God entered into covenant with Abraham, and promised extraordinary blessings to his posterity, it appears to have been customary for the father of each family, in the direct line, or line of promise, previous to his death, to call his children around him, and to inform them, according to the knowledge which it pleased God then to give him, how, and in what manner, the divine blessing conferred upon Abraham was to descend among them. Upon these occasions, the patriarchs enjoyed a divine illumination; and under its influence, their benediction was deemed a prophetic oracle, foretelling events with the utmost certainty, and extending to the remotest period of time. Thus Jacob blessed his sons, Gen. xlix; and Moses, the children of Israel, Deut. xxxiii. When Melchizedeck blessed Abraham, the act of benediction included in it not merely the pronouncing solemn good wishes, but also a petitionary address to God that he would be pleased to ratify the benediction by his concurrence with what was prayed for. Thus Moses instructed Aaron, and his descendants, to bless the congregation, “In this wise shall ye bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless thee, and keep thee; the Lord make his face to shine upon thee; the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace,” Num. iv, 23. David says, “I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord,” Psalm cxvi, 13. This phrase appears to be taken from the practice of the Jews in their thank-offerings, in which a feast was made of the remainder of their sacrifices, and the offerers, together with the priests, did eat and drink before the Lord; when, among other rites, the master of the feast took a cup of wine in his hand and solemnly blessed God for it, and for the mercies which were then acknowledged, and gave it to all the guests, every one of whom drank in his turn. To this custom it is supposed our blessed Lord alludes in the institution of the cup, which also is called, 1 Cor. x, 16, “the cup of blessing.” At the family feasts also, and especially that of the passover, both wine and bread were in this solemn and religious manner distributed, and God was blessed, and his mercies acknowledged. They blessed God for their present refreshment, for their deliverance out of Egypt, for the covenant of circumcision, and for the law given by Moses; and prayed that God would be merciful to his people Israel, that he would send the Prophet Elijah, and that he would render them worthy of the kingdom of the Messiah. See also 1 Chron. xvi, 2, 3. In the Mosaic law, the manner of blessing is appointed by the lifting up of hands. Our Lord lifted up his hands, and blessed his disciples. It is probable that this action was constantly used on such occasions. The palm of the hand held up was precatory; and the palm turned outward or downward was benedictory. See [Benediction] and [Lord’s Supper].
BLINDFOLDING. This is the treatment which Christ received from his enemies. It refers to a sport which was common among children, called μυΐνδα, in which it was the manner first to blindfold, then to strike, and to ask who gave the blow, and not to let the person go till he had named the right man who had struck him. It was used in reproach of our blessed Lord as a Prophet, or divine instructer, and to expose him to ridicule, Luke xxii, 63, 64.
BLINDNESS is often used in Scripture to express ignorance or want of discernment in divine things, as well as the being destitute of natural sight. See Isa. xlii, 18, 19; vi, 10; Matt. xv, 14. “Blindness of heart” is the want of understanding arising from the influence of vicious passions. “Hardness of heart” is stubbornness of will, and destitution of moral feeling. Moses says, “Thou shalt not put a stumbling block before the blind,” Lev. xix, 14, which may be understood literally; or figuratively, as if Moses recommended that charity and instruction should be shown to them who want light and counsel, or to those who are in danger of going wrong through their ignorance. Moses says also, “Cursed be he who maketh the blind to wander out of his way,” Deut. xxvii, 18, which may also be taken in the same manner. An ignorant or erring teacher is compared by our Lord to a blind man leading a blind man;--a strong representation of the presumption of him that professes to teach the way of salvation without due qualifications, and of the danger of that implicit faith which is often placed by the people in the authority of man, to the neglect of the Holy Scriptures.
BLOOD. Beside its proper sense, the fluid of the veins of men and animals, the term in Scripture is used, 1. For life. “God will require the blood of a man,” he will punish murder in what manner soever committed. “His blood be upon us,” let the guilt of his death be imputed to us. “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth;” the murder committed on him crieth for vengeance. “The avenger of blood;” he who is to avenge the death of his relative, Num. xxxv, 24, 27. 2. Blood means relationship, or consanguinity. 3. Flesh and blood are placed in opposition to a superior nature: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven,” Matt. xvi, 17. 4. They are also opposed to the glorified body: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” 1 Cor. xv, 50. 5. They are opposed also to evil spirits: “We wrestle not against flesh and blood,” against visible enemies composed of flesh and blood, “but against principalities and powers,” &c, Eph. vi, 12. 6. Wine is called the pure blood of the grape: “Judah shall wash his garments in the blood of the grape,” Gen. xlix, 11; Deut. xxxii. 14. 7. The priests were established by God to judge between blood and blood; that is, in criminal matters, and where the life of man is at stake;--to determine whether the murder be casual, or voluntary; whether a crime deserve death, or admit of remission, &c. 8. In its most eminent sense blood is used for the sacrificial death of Christ; whose blood or death is the price of our salvation. His blood has “purchased the church,” Acts xx, 28. “We are justified by his blood,” Rom. v, 9. “We have redemption through his blood,” Eph. i, 7, &c. See [Atonement].
That singular and emphatic prohibition of blood for food from the earliest times, which we find in the Holy Scriptures, deserves particular attention. God expressly forbade the eating of blood alone, or of blood mixed with the flesh of animals, as when any creature was suffocated, or strangled, or killed without drawing its blood from the carcass. For when the grant of animal food was made to Noah, in those comprehensive words, “Even as the green herb have I given you all things,” it was added, “but flesh with the life thereof, namely, its blood, ye shall not eat,” Gen. ix, 4. And when the law was given to the children of Israel, we find the prohibition against the eating of blood still more explicitly enforced, both upon Jews and Gentiles, in the following words, “Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people: for the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul,” Lev. xvii, 10, 11. And to cut off all possibility of mistake upon this particular point, it is added: “Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood; and whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof and cover it with dust, for it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof; therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof; whosoever eateth it shall be cut off,” verses 12–14. This restraint, than which nothing can be more express, was also, under the new covenant, enjoined upon believing Gentiles, as “a burden” which “it seemed necessary to the Holy Spirit to impose upon them,” Acts xv, 28, 29. For this prohibition no moral reason seems capable of being offered; nor does it clearly appear that blood is an unwholesome aliment, which some think was the physical reason of its being inhibited; and if, in fact, blood is deleterious as food, there seems no greater reason why this should be pointed out by special revelation to man, to guard him against injury, than many other unwholesome aliments. There is little force in the remark, that the eating of blood produces a ferocious disposition; for those nations that eat strangled things, or blood cooked with other aliments, do not exhibit more ferocity than others. The true reason was, no doubt, a sacrificial one. When animals were granted to Noah for food, the blood was reserved; and when the same law was reënacted among the Israelites, the original prohibition is repeated with an explanation which at once shows the original ground upon which it rested: “I have given it upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls.” From this “additional reason,” as it has been called, it has been argued, that the doctrine of the atoning power of blood was new, and was, then, for the first time, announced by Moses, or the same cause for the prohibition would have been assigned to Noah. To this we may reply, 1. That unless the same reason be supposed as the ground of the prohibition of blood to Noah, as that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be conceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite of mankind from Noah to Moses; and yet we have a prohibition of a most solemn kind, which in itself could have no reason, enjoined without any external reason being either given or conceivable. 2. That it is a mistake to suppose that the declaration of Moses to the Jews, that God had “given them the blood for an atonement,” is an “additional reason” for the interdict, not to be found in the original prohibition to Noah. The whole passage occurs in Lev. xvii; and the great reason there given of the prohibition of blood is, that it is “the life;” and what follows respecting “atonement,” is exegetical of this reason;--the life is in the blood, and the blood or life is given as an atonement. Now, by turning to the original prohibition in Genesis we find that precisely the same reason is given: “But the flesh with the blood, which is the life thereof, shall ye not eat.” The reason, then, being the same, the question is, whether the exegesis added by Moses must not necessarily be understood in the general reason given for the restraint to Noah. Blood is prohibited because it is the life; and Moses adds, that it is “the blood,” or life, “which makes atonement.” Let any one attempt to discover any reason for the prohibition of blood to Noah, in the mere circumstance that it is “the life,” and he will find it impossible. It is no reason at all, moral or instituted, except that as it was LIFE SUBSTITUTED FOR LIFE, the life of the animal in sacrifice for the life of man, and that, therefore, blood had a sacred appropriation. The manner, too, in which Moses introduces the subject, is indicative that, though he was renewing a prohibition, he was not publishing a new doctrine; he does not teach his people that God had then given, or appointed, blood to make atonement; but he prohibits them from eating it, because he had already made this appointment, without reference to time, and as a subject with which they were familiar. Because the blood was the life, it was sprinkled upon, and poured out at, the altar: and we have in the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, a sufficient proof that, before the giving of the law, not only was blood not eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred sacrificial purpose. Nor was this confined to the Jews; it was customary with the Romans and Greeks, who, in like manner, poured out and sprinkled the blood of victims at their altars; a rite derived, probably, from the Egyptians, who deduced it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah. The notion, indeed, that the blood of the victims was peculiarly sacred to the gods, is impressed upon all ancient Pagan mythology.
BOANERGES. This word is neither Hebrew nor Syriac, and some have thought that the transcribers have not exactly copied it, and that the word was benereen, βενερεὲν, which expresses the sound of the Hebrew of the phrase, “sons of thunder.” Parkhurst judges the word to be the Galilean pronunciation of the Hebrew בנירעש expressed in Greek letters. Now, רעש properly signifies a violent trembling or commotion, and may therefore be well rendered by βροντὴ, thunder, which is a violent commotion in the air; so, vice versâ, any violent commotion is figuratively, and not unusually, in all languages, called thunder. When our Saviour named the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges, he perhaps had an eye to that prophecy of Haggai, “Yet once, and I will shake the heavens and the earth,” ii, 6; which is by the Apostle to the Hebrews, xii, 26, applied to the great alteration made in the economy of the Jews by the publication of the Gospel. The name Boanerges, therefore, given to James and John, imports that they should be eminent instruments in accomplishing the wondrous change, and should, like an earthquake or thunder, mightily bear down all opposition, by their inspired preaching and miraculous powers. That it does not relate to their mode of preaching is certain; for that clearly appears to have been calmly argumentative, and sweetly persuasive--the very reverse of what is usually called a thundering ministry.
BOAR, חזיר. The wild boar is considered as the parent stock of our domestic hog. He is smaller, but at the same time stronger and more undaunted, than the hog. In his own defence, he will turn on men or dogs; and scarcely shuns any denizen of the forests, in the haunts where he ranges. His colour is always an iron grey, inclining to black. His snout is longer than that of the common breed, and his ears are comparatively short. His tusks are very formidable, and all his habits are fierce and savage. It should seem, from the accounts of ancient authors, that the ravages of the wild boar were considered as more formidable than those of other savage animals. The conquest of the Erymanthian boar was one of the fated labours of Hercules; and the story of the Calydonian boar is one of the most beautiful in Ovid. The destructive ravages of these animals are mentioned in Psalm lxxx, 14. Dr. Pococke observed very large herds of wild boars on the side of Jordan, where it flows out of the sea of Tiberias; and saw several of them on the other side lying among the reeds by the sea. The wild boars of other countries delight in the like moist retreats. These shady marshes then, it should seem, are called in the Scripture, “woods;” for it calls these animals, “the wild boars of the woods.”