sin, he who had not a lamb, or a kid, “might offer two turtles, or two
young pigeons; one for a sin-offering, the other for a burnt-offering.
These he presented to the priest, who offered that first which was for
the sin-offering, and wrung off the head from the neck, but did not
divide it asunder: the other he was to offer for a burnt-offering,” Lev.
v, 7, 8. When a man who had been smitten with a leprosy was healed, he
came to the entrance of the camp of Israel, and the priest went out to
inspect him, whether he were entirely cured, Lev. xiv, 5, 6. After this
inspection, the leprous person came to the door of the tabernacle, and
offered two living sparrows, or two birds; (pure birds, those of which
it was lawful to eat;) he made a wisp with branches of cedar and hyssop,
tied together with a thread, or scarlet ribbon; he filled an earthen pot
with running water, that the blood of the bird might be mingled with it;
then the priest, dipping the bunch of hyssop and cedar into the water,
sprinkled with it the leper who was healed; after which he let loose the
living bird, to fly where it would. In Palestine dead bodies were
sometimes left exposed to birds of prey, as appears from Scripture; but,
generally, they were buried in the evening: even criminals were taken
down from the gallows.
BIRTHRIGHT, or PRIMOGENITURE, the right of the first-born or eldest son.
The birthright, or right of primogeniture, had many privileges annexed
to it. The first-born was consecrated to the Lord, Exod. xxii, 29; had a
double portion of the estate allotted him, Deut. xxi, 17; had a dignity
and authority over his brethren, Gen. xlix, 3; succeeded in the
government of the family or kingdom, 2 Chron. xxi, 3; and, as some with
good reason suppose, in ancient times to the priesthood or chief
government in matters ecclesiastical. Jacob, having bought Esau’s
birthright, acquired a title to the particular blessing of his dying
father; and, accordingly, he had consigned to him the privilege of the
covenant which God made with Abraham, that from his loins the Messiah
should spring: a prerogative which descended to his posterity. Reuben
forfeited the blessings of his birthright, as we see by the express
declaration of his father Jacob, in his benediction of his children,
Gen. xlix, 1, &c, for the crime of incest with his father’s concubine,
on account of which his tribe continued all along in obscurity; while
the priesthood was conferred on Levi, the government on Judah, and the
double portion on Joseph, to descend to their respective tribes. And
this preëminence of the first-born took place from the beginning, and as
much belonged to Cain, before his forfeiture of it, as it did to Reuben
before his. See Genesis iv, 7; xlix, 3. Thus the patriarchs, Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, offered sacrifices, and were priests as well as kings
in their respective families, Gen. xii, 7, 8; xiii, 18; xvii, 7; xxvi,
25; xxxi, 54; xxxv, 7. Job, in Arabia, acted in the same capacity, Job,
i, 5; and it is highly probable that, among the ancient Heathen nations
in general, the first-born were entitled not only to the civil
authority, but also to the priesthood. This seems to have been the case
in Egypt, in the time of Moses: and hence Jehovah’s destroying their
first-born, as it was the last miracle wrought in that country before
the Exodus, so was it the most dreadful, and most effectual in
prevailing on Pharaoh and the Egyptians to dismiss the Israelites.
BISHOP, פקיד, ἐπίσκοπος, signifies _an overseer_, or one who has the
inspection and direction of any thing. Nehemiah speaks of the overseer
of the Levites at Jerusalem, Neh. xi, 22. The most common acceptation of
the word _bishop_ is that in Acts xx, 28, and in St. Paul’s Epistles,
Philip, i, 1, where it signifies the pastor of a church. St. Peter calls
Jesus Christ “the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls,” 1 Peter ii, 25; and
St. Paul describes the qualities requisite in a bishop, 1 Tim. iii, 2;
Titus 1, 2, &c. It is not improbable that the overseers of Christ’s
church are in the New Testament called ἐπισκόποι, from the following
passage in Isaiah: “I will also make thy officers peace, and thine
_overseers_” (ἐπισκόπȣς,) “righteousness,” Isa. lx, 17. The word, as
used by the Apostolic writers, when referring to the pastors of
Christian churches, is evidently of the same import as _presbyter_ or
_elder_; for the terms, as they occur in the New Testament, appear to be
synonymous, and are used indifferently. Thus the same persons that are
called ἐπισκόποι, _bishops_ are also called ϖρεσβύτεροι, _elders_.
Hence, when St. Paul came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus for the
presbyters of the church, and thus addressed them: “Take heed unto
yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made
you” (the presbyters) “ἐπισκόπȣς, bishops,” or overseers, Acts xx, 17.
“Here,” says Dr. Campbell, “there can be no question that the same
persons are denominated presbyters and bishops.” Nor is this the only
passage in which we find the terms used convertibly. In Titus i, 5, it
is said, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set
in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders” (Greek,
ϖρεσβυτέρȣς) “in every city;” and then it follows in verse 7, “For a
bishop” (ἐπίσκοπον) “must be blameless.” In like manner, the Apostle
Peter, 1 Peter v, 1: “The elders” (ϖρεσβυτέρȣς) “which are among you I
exhort; feed the flock of God which is among you, _taking the oversight
thereof_; ἐπισκοποῦντες, that is, discharging the office of bishops.”
See EPISCOPACY.
BITHYNIA, a country of Asia Minor, stretching along the shore of the
Pontus Euxinus, or Black Sea, from Mysia to Paphlagonia; having Phrygia
and Galatia on the south. In it are the two cities of Nicæa, or Nice,
and Chalcedon: both celebrated in ecclesiastical history, on account of
the general councils held in them, and called after their names. The
former city is at present called Is-Nick, and the latter Kadi-Keni.
Within this country, also, are the celebrated mountains of Olympus. St.
Peter addressed his first Epistle to the Hebrew Christians who were
scattered through this and the neighbouring countries.
BITTER HERBS. מרורים. Exod. xii, 8, and Num. ix, 11. The Jews were
commanded to eat their passover with a salad of bitter herbs; but
whether one particular plant was intended, or any kind of bitter herbs,
has been made a question. By the Septuagint it is rendered επι ϖικριδων;
by Jerom, “_cum lactucis agrestibus_;” and by the Gr. Venet., επι
ϖικρισιν. Dr. Geddes remarks, that “it is highly probable that the
succory or wild lettuce is meant.” The Mischna in _Pesachim_, cap. 2,
reckons five species of these bitter herbs: 1. Chazareth, taken for
lettuce: 2. Ulsin, supposed to be endive or succory: 3. Tamca, probably
tansy: 4. Charubbinim, which Bochart thought might be the nettle, but
Scheuchzer shows to be the camomile: 5. Meror, the sow-thistle, or
dent-de-lion, or wild lettuce. Mr. Forskal says, “the Jews in Sana and
in Egypt eat the lettuce with the paschal lamb.” He also remarks, that
_moru_ is centaury, of which the young stems are eaten in February and
March.
BITTERN. קפוד. Isa. xiv, 23; xxxiv, 11; and Zephaniah ii, 14.
Interpreters have rendered this word variously: an _owl_, an _osprey_, a
_tortoise_, a _porcupine_, and even an _otter_. “How unhappy,” says Mr.
Harmer, “that a word which occurs but three times in the Hebrew Bible
should be translated by three different words, and that one of them
should be _otter_!” Isaiah, prophesying the destruction of Babylon, says
that “the Lord will make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of
water;” and Zephaniah, ii, 14, prophesying against Nineveh, says that
“the cormorant and bittern shall lodge in the upper lintels of it: their
voice shall sing in the windows.” The Arabic version reads
“_al-houbara_.” According to Dr. Shaw, the _houbara_ is “of the bigness
of a capon, but of a longer body. It feeds on little shrubs and insects,
like the _graab el Sahara_; frequenting, in like manner, the confines of
the desert.” Golius interprets it _the bustard_; and Dr. Russel says
that the Arabic name of the bustard is “houbry.”
BITTERNESS, _waters of_. See ADULTERY.
BLASPHEMY, βλασφημία, properly denotes _calumny_, _detraction_,
_reproachful_ or _abusive language_, against whomsoever it be vented.
That βλασφημία and its conjugates are very often applied, says Dr.
Campbell, to reproaches not aimed against God, is evident from the
following passages: Matt. xii, 31, 32; xxvii, 39; Mark xv, 29; Luke
xxii, 65; xxiii, 39; Rom. iii, 8; xiv, 16; 1 Cor. iv, 13; x, 30; Eph.
iv, 31; 1 Tim. vi, 4; Titus iii, 2; 1 Pet. iv, 14; Jude 9, 10; Acts vi,
11, 13; 2 Pet. ii, 10, 11; in the much greater part of which the English
translators, sensible that they could admit no such application, have
not used the words _blaspheme_ or _blasphemy_, but _rail_, _revile_,
_speak evil_, &c. In one of the passages quoted, a reproachful charge
brought even against the devil is called κρισις βλασφημίας, Jude 9; and
rendered by them, “railing accusation.” The import of the word βλασφημία
is _maledicentia_, in the largest acceptation; comprehending all sorts
of verbal abuse, imprecation, reviling, and calumny. And let it be
observed, that when such abuse is mentioned as uttered against God,
there is properly no change made in the signification of the word: the
change is only in the application; that is, in the reference to a
different object. The idea conveyed in the explanation now given is
always included, against whomsoever the crime be committed. In this
manner every term is understood that is applicable to both God and man.
Thus the meaning of the word _disobey_ is the same, whether we speak of
disobeying God or of disobeying man. The same may be said of _believe_,
_honour_, _fear_, &c. As, therefore, the sense of the term is the same,
though differently applied, what is essential to constitute the crime of
detraction in the one case, is essential also in the other. But it is
essential to this crime, as commonly understood, when committed by one
man against another, that there be in the injurious person the will or
disposition to detract from the person abused. Mere mistake in regard to
character, especially when the mistake is not conceived by him who
entertains it to lessen the character, nay, is supposed, however
erroneously, to exalt it, is never construed by any into the crime of
defamation. Now, as blasphemy is in its essence the same crime, but
immensely aggravated by being committed against an object infinitely
superior to man, what is fundamental to the very existence of the crime
will be found in this, as in every other species which comes under the
general name. There can be no blasphemy, therefore, where there is not
an impious purpose to derogate from the Divine Majesty, and to alienate
the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. The blasphemer
is no other than the calumniator of Almighty God. To constitute the
crime, it is as necessary that this species of calumny be intentional.
He must be one, therefore, who by his impious talk endeavours to inspire
others with the same irreverence toward the Deity, or perhaps,
abhorrence of him, which he indulges in himself. And though, for the
honour of human nature, it is to be hoped that very few arrive at this
enormous guilt, it ought not to be dissembled, that the habitual
profanation of the name and attributes of God by common swearing, is but
too manifest an approach toward it. There is not an entire coincidence:
the latter of these vices may be considered as resulting solely from the
defect of what is good in principle and disposition; the former from the
acquisition of what is evil in the extreme: but there is a close
connection between them, and an insensible gradation from the one to the
other. To accustom one’s self to treat the Sovereign of the universe
with irreverent familiarity, is the first step; malignly to arraign his
attributes, and revile his providence, is the last. The first divine law
published against it, “He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord” (or
_Jehovah_, as it is in the Hebrew) “shall be put to death,” Lev. xxiv,
16, when considered along with the incident that occasioned it, suggests
a very atrocious offence in words, no less than abuse or imprecations
vented against the Deity. For, in what way soever the crime of the man
there mentioned be interpreted,--whether as committed against the true
God, the God of Israel, or against any of the false gods whom his
Egyptian father worshipped,--the law in the words now quoted is
sufficiently explicit; and the circumstances of the story plainly show,
that the words which he had used were derogatory from the Godhead, and
shocking to the hearers. And if we add to this the only other memorable
instance in sacred history, namely, that of Rabshakeh, it will lead us
to conclude that it is solely a malignant attempt, in words, to lessen
men’s reverence of the true God, and, by vilifying his perfections, to
prevent their placing confidence in him, which is called in Scripture
_blasphemy_, when the word is employed to denote a sin committed
directly against God. This was manifestly the attempt of Rabshakeh, when
he said, “Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord,” (the word is
_Jehovah_,) “saying, Jehovah will surely deliver us. Hath any of the
gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the king of
Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and of Arpad? Where are the gods
of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Iva? Have they delivered Samaria out of my
hand? Who are they, among all the gods of the countries, that have
delivered their country out of mine hand, that Jehovah should deliver
Jerusalem out of mine hand?” 2 Kings xviii, 30, 33–35.
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.