It ia not easy to draw a line in principle between the thanks- giving of God which is benediction and that which is denoted by the word ' praise ' («.Vi7»). But there is a practical distinc- tion. The use of special formulas, and especially of the word 'n? ' blessed' (siXeyij/isvo,-), is characteristic of benedictions.
There are only three references in the Gospels to benedictions of God other than those pronounced at meal-times. In each case they are prompted by unusual manifestations of Divine favour to the speakers (Lk 1« RV, 2=8 24"). The actual words of benediction are not recorded in any case. Lk 2'-^-^ is a prayer supplementing the benediction proper.
Four narratives in the Gospels allude to ble.ss- ings pronounced at meal-times. The occasions are the miracles of the feeding of tlie 5000 and of the 4000, the institution of the Lord's Supper, and the evening meal at Emmaus. The refer- ence in evei-y case to the breaking of bread is noteworthy. It emphasizes the character of the act as one in accordance with Jewish custom. The Jewish formulas of blessin^ at meal-times make it perfectly certain tliat no blessin" on the iooA is asked, but that God is thanked for the food. Illustrations of this meaning of the word 'bless' are found in the parallel narratives of the Gospels themselves. Lk 22'' has 'give tlianks' (cuxapicr- T^ffos) in place of the ' bless' (ci)\or^(ras) of Mk 14'-'' a,nd Mt26=»; Jn 6" has 'give thanks' where the Synoptists have 'bless' (cf. al.so the parallel ex- pressions in 1 Co 14"). When the grammatical object of the verb is an article of food, 'bless' then signifies 'pronounce a benediction over,' i.e. ' give thanks to God for' the food in question (so Mk 8' and Lk 9'^). The same construction occurs in the OT (1 S 9^), (in the Mishna Sh rvi is jjener- ally u.sed). Christ's blessing of the elements m the institution of the Lord's Supper should no doubt be understood in the light of tliese facts.
The only other passage in the NT where a material object is said to be blessed is 1 Co 1016, and it really belongs to the category just explained. The expression ' cup . . . which we bless ' means simply ' cup for which we give thanks,' over which we pronounce our benediction. In Jewish phraseology material objects may be consecrated or hallowed, uut they cannot be said in the same sense to be blessed.
Mk G'" (and so the parallels) speaks of Christ looking up to the sky, and implies, no doubt, iu accordance with the circumstances, that He stood wliile He offered His prayer of thanksgiving. But the ordinary Jewish practice seems to have been to sit while grace was being said. In Jn 6=^ it is not obvious at first sight why the words ' when the
Lord gave thanks' liave been added. Perhaps they were intended to mean 'when the Lord was giver of the feast.' The statement in Lk 24** that the risen Christ was recognized in tlie breaking of bread seems to imply that the disciples were familiar with the manner in which He acted on such occasions, and that there was something peculiar or characteristic in the procedure which He followed. Doubtless the act as He performed it was always deliberate and impressive.
The application of the word evKoy^iv to meals ia common to the Synoptists, but St. Matthew (15") and St. Luke (22'^) both substitute on one occasion evxapiiTTdv for St. Mark's eiXoyeiv (8' 14~). ei;Xo7eri' with God as explicit object occurs in St. Luke only (pu 2=8 2453). St. John does not use the word at all in this sense (see 6" and cf. also ll*").
LiTEr..4Ti:RE.— Sectheauthoriti28citedatcnd of art. Blbssiso.
W. B Stevenson BENEDICTUS.-The Song of Zacharias (wh. see), preserved in Lk I^s-ts^ jg usually spoken of under the name familiar to us in the offices of tlie Churcli — a name derived from its opening word in the Latin version. St Luke introduces it immedi- ately after his narrative of the circumcision and naming of the future Baptist, with the copulative and, in these terms : ' And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying' (v.^) But while he thus asserts the author's inspiration, and claims the Song as an outcome thereof, it does not follow either that the Holy Ghost came on Zacharias then and there, — He may have rested on him during the whole period of his miraculous dtimbness, teaching him in that ijenitential silence, and bringing to his remem- brance the dealings and promises of God, — or that the Song was extempore (it was whUe the old psalmist was musing, that the fire burned, Ps 39'). Zacharias may have had it ready for the long anticipated moment ; may have recited it then, and written it af tenvards
Nor, again, does the fullest acceptance of its inspiration as a fact forbid that it should bear the marks of the time at which it was composed, and of the feelings of devout Israelites under the trials of their age. The Holy Spirit speaks through men, not through pipes. Their character, proved and purified by calamities,— public as well as private, — IS of no small importance to Him They were ' holy men of God,' who ' spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost' (2 P 1='). Zacharias was an old man (Lk 1'8) ; he might easily remember the capture of Jerusalem bj' Pompey (B.C. 63), and his pushing fonvard, like Antiochus Epiphanes, into the Holy of Holies. There were chief priests who ' opened the gates ' to the heathen conqueror as ' sous to receive a father ' ( Ps-Sol S'^^") ; but anion" the min- istering priesthood there tlien lived (as tliere still survived iu Zacharias himself) a piety so genuine and fearless that, when the victorious Romans burst into the Temple courts, the officiating priests went on with the .service as if nothing unusual were happening, and suft'ered themselves to be cut down at tlieir posts. That awful day was the end of Jewish independence. Zacharias had lived through all the shame that followed, and tlie further Roman outrages of Crassus, who robbed the Temple (B.C. 54), and of Cassius, who sold 30,000 Jews into captivity (B.C. 51). The usurpa- tions, the feuds, the subserviences to Herod and the Romans, the Sadducean unbelief of the high- jfriestly families, the immoralities which disgraced them, — must aU have been fresh in his recollection, and may well have led him, as these things led the more quiet and relipous Pharisees around him, to turn back for comfort to the Divine promise to Da\'id and his seed for evermore.