Washing

In Scripture language the act of washing carries with it an interest in the service for which it is observed. Thus, Jesus washes his disciples’ feet. (John 13. 3 - 12.) Hence the apostle speaking of the truly regenerated in Christ saith, "Now ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor. vi. 11.) And the redeemed in glory, are represented as having "washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev. 7: 14.) We are so little acquainted withthe customs of the East that it is next to an impossibility to have a full and clear apprehension of the signification of washing as expressed in the Scriptures. It will be enough for all our purposes however to consider in general, that it had in spiritual concerns a blessed intimation in those that were washed of being partakers in the pardoning and sanctifying blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Psa. li. 2. Acts xx2: Rev. i. 5.)

[ABLUTION]

Various ceremonial washings were enjoined in the Mosaic law, both upon priests, Exo 30:19-21, and upon others, Lev 12:1 ; 15:33 Heb 9:10.\par These were significant of spiritual purification through the Savior’s blood, Tit 3:5 Jer 1:5, as well as of that holiness without which none can see God. To these the Jews added other traditional ablutions, Mar 7:2-4 ; and regarded it as an act of impiety to neglect them, as Christ frequently did, Luk 11:38 . The washing of the hands before and after meals, Mat 15:2, called for by their custom of feeding themselves with their fingers, is still practiced in Syria. See cut in BED.\par Where there is a servant in attendance, he pours water from a pitcher over his master’s hands, holding also a broad vessel underneath them, 2Ki 3:11 Psa 60:8 . See FOOT and SANDALS. "Washing the hands" was a protestation of innocence, Deu 21:6 Mat 27:24 ; and has given rise to the proverbial saying common among us, "I wash my hands of that."\par

The high priest’s whole body was washed at his consecration (Exo 29:4; Lev 16:4); also on the day of atonement. The priests’ hands and feet alone were washed in the daily tabernacle ministrations (Exo 30:18-20). So Christians are once for all wholly "bathed" (leloumenoi) in regeneration which is their consecration; and daily wash away their soils of hand and foot contracted in walking through this defiling world (Joh 13:10, Greek "he that has been bathed needs not save to wash (nipsasthai) his feet, but is clean all over": 2Co 7:1; Heb 10:22-23; Eph 5:26). The clothes of him who led away the scape-goat, and of the priest who offered the red heifer, were washed (Lev 16:26; Num 19:7).

The Pharisaic washings of hands before eating, and of the whole body after being in the market (Mar 7:2-4), turned attention off from the spirit of the law, which aimed at teaching inward purity, to a mere outward purification. In the sultry and dusty East water for the feet was provided for the guests (Luk 7:44; Gen 18:4). The Lord Jesus by washing His disciples’ feet taught our need of His cleansing, and His great humility whereby that cleansing was effected (compare 1Sa 25:41; 1Ti 5:10). The sandals, without stockings, could not keep out dust from the feet; hence washing them was usual before either dining or sleeping (Son 5:3). Again, the usage of thrusting the hand into a common dish rendered cleansing of the hand indispensable before eating. It was only when perverted into a self righteous ritual that our Lord protested against it (Mat 15:2; Luk 11:38).

baptismos (G909) Washing

baptisma (G908) Baptism

Baptismos and baptisma are exclusively ecclesiastical terms, as are baptistes (G910) and baptisterion (baptismal font). None of these terms are used in the Septuagint or in classical Greek. They occur only in the New Testament and in writings dependent on it. Each of these terms is lineally descended from baptizein (G907), which rarely occurs in classical Greek, though it is used frequently in later writers such as Plutarch, Lucian, and others.

Before proceeding further, let us examine the relation between words of one family that are distinguished by the endings -ma and -mos, words like kerygma (G2782) and kerygmos, diogma and diogmos (G1375), degma and degmos, and many others. Only infrequently are both forms of such pairs found in the New Testament. More frequently, the New Testament writers selected words that end in -ma over their counterparts, which end in -mos, for example, apaugasma but not apaugasmos, sebasma but not sebasmos, bdelygma but not bdelygmos, rhegma but not rhegmos, perikatharma but not perikatharmos. Less frequently, the New Testament writers selected words that end in -mos over their counterparts, which end in -ma, for example, harpagmos but not harpagma, apartismos but not apartisma, katartismos but not katartisma, hagiasmos but not hagiasma. Sometimes, though rarely, both forms occur, for example, miasma and miasmas, and this is true of baptisma and baptismos, the words presently under discussion. Occasionally, though not in the New Testament, there is a third form. For example, sebasma, sebasmos, and sebasis;apartisma, apartismos, and apartisis; harpagma, harpagmos, and harpasis; and in Josephus baptisma, baptismos, and baptisis. It is not difficult to assign each individual form its proper meaning, though in actual use the words deviate from such assignments. For example, words that end with the active termination -mos constantly drift into a passive sense, as is the case with basanismos (G929), hagiasmos, and others. Although the converse is not as common, it occurs frequently.

Baptisis is the act of baptism viewed as a baptizing. Baptismos is the same act viewed not only as a baptizing but as a completed act, as a baptism. And baptisma does not refer to the act at all but to the abiding fact that results from the act, a baptism. Baptisis embodies the transitive sense of the verb, baptismos the intransitive, and baptisma the result of the transitive sense. Therefore the last word is the one best suited to refer to the institution of baptism in the church as an abstract idea, or as an ever-existing fact. This is only an approximation of the usage of baptismos in the New Testament, however, since baptismos is not used there to refer exclusively to the dignified concept of Christian baptism. In the New Testament, baptismos refers to any ceremonial washing or lustration, either ordained by God (Heb_9:10) or invented by men (Mar_7:4; Mar_7:8). In neither instance does baptismos possess any central significance, though baptisma refers to the Christian sense of baptism, though not so strictly as to exclude the baptism of John. This distinction between baptismos and baptisma primarily is preserved in the Greek ecclesiastical writers. Augusti incorrectly affirmed that the Greek fathers habitually used baptismos to refer to Christian baptism. It would be difficult to find a single example of this in Chrysostom or in any of the great Cappadocian fathers. In the Latin church, baptismus and baptisma were used to refer to Christian baptism, but this is not the case in ecclesiastical Greek, which remained faithful to the New Testament distinction.

The distinctions between baptismosand baptismaare maintained so consistently in the New Testament that every explanation of Heb_6:2 that assumes that Christian baptism is intended breaks down. Additionally, this explanation fails to account for the use of the plural baptismon. If we understand baptismoi in this passage in its widest sense as any type of baptism that the Christian has anything to do witheither by rejecting or by making them his ownthen a "doctrine of baptisms" would refer to teaching young converts that Christ abolished Jewish ceremonial lustrations, that John's baptism was preparatory and provisional, and that the baptism of Christ is eternally valid. Because all of these acts were washings, they could be included under the one term baptismoi, without encroaching on the exclusive use of baptisma to refer to the "washing of regeneration," which is the exclusive privilege of the church of Christ.

The Hebrew words for washing deserve attention from the fact that they too are used ceremonially and morally as well as literally.

Duach (דוח), to cast off, and hence to purge from impurity, is used only four times in the O.T. Twice it is rendered wash, viz in 2Ch 4:6, and Eze 40:38; in each of these places reference is made to the putting off the pollution contracted by the priests and Levites while preparing the animals for offering. The first of these passages may be thus understood: ’He made also ten lavers, and put five on the right hand, and five on the left, to wash in them; the defilement contracted by the operations connected with the burnt offering they cleansed in them; and the sea was for the priests to wash in.’ The Levites washed in the lavers, and the priests in the larger vessel called the sea. The R. V. has failed to draw out the distinction.

Duach is used in a spiritual sense in Isa 4:4, ’When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst there of by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning.’ The other passage where the word occurs is Jer 51:34. Here the Lord, identifying Himself with his people, says, ’Nebuchadnezzar hath devoured me, . he hath cast me out,’ i.e. hath treated me as if I were the ’offscouring’ of the earth.

Shathaph (שׁטף), to flood, overflow, or pour copiously, is used, in 1Ki 22:38, of the cleansing of Ahab’s chariot; [Different Hebrew words are used for the washing of Ahab’s chariot and for the cleansing of his armour. Were the two washed at the some place? The chariot was washed in the pool of Samaria; but probably his armour was taken to be cleaned at his palace at Jezreel, and doubtless the dogs licked the blood that was rinsed from it at or near the pool of Jezreel, according to the prophecy of Elijah, which otherwise would not have been literally fulfilled. But see R.V.] in Job 14:19, of the destruction of the surface of the l and by floods of water; and in Eze 16:9, of the ’thorough washing’ which represented the care with which God dealt with his people Israel at their first beginning.

We now come to the two words which were in most ordinary use among the Jews, namely, cav as (כבס), for which the LXX has πλύνω or ἀποπλύνω, which was applied to the washing of garments; and rachats (רחץ, Ass. rahatsu), generally rendered νίπτω or λούω, but in seven passages πλύνω, which represented the bathing or washing of the body.

Cav as is the term applied to the ’fuller,’ and is supposed to refer in the first place to the treading whereby clothes were cleaned. this cleansing of garments was an important ceremonial action. We have already seen its meaning under a slightly different form in Gen 35:2, where Jacob told his household to put away their false gods, and to change their garments; evidently the latter action was taken as the external symbol of the former. of the ’divers washings’ of the Levitical dispensation, some had to do with the garments, and are described under the word cavas; while others had to do with the flesh, and are represented by rachats. The following come under the first head: the ceremonial cleansing of the garments before the people were allowed to approach Mount Sinai (Exo 19:10; Exo 19:14); the cleansing of the garment sprinkled with the blood of the offering (Lev 6:27); the cleansing of men’s clothing after leprosy or after contact with that which was pronounced unclean (Lev 17:15); the cleansing of the Levites’ clothing for their service (Num 8:7), where it was connected with the sprinkling of ’holy water’ over their flesh.

Under the second head (rachats, the washing of the flesh) come the washing or bathing of the body, the hands, and the feet generally; the washing of the sacrifices (Exo 29:17); of the priests before their consecration, and also before their daily ministration (Exo 29:4; Exo 30:19; Exo 30:21); and the washing of the elders’ hands over the beheaded heifer (Deu 21:6). this word is also used figuratively in Job 29:6, and Psa 58:10 in the triumphant expression, ’Moab is my washpot’ (Psa 60:8; Psa 108:9), the image is taken from the laver for the cleansing of the body, not from the trough for the washing of garments.

Each of these expressions is applied to spiritual washing. The word cavas, which implies the cleansing of garments, is found in the four following passages--Psa 51:2, ’Wash me throughly from my sin ;’ Psa 51:7, ’Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow;’ Jer 2:22, ’Though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God;’ Jer 4:14, ’O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved.’

The word rachats, which signifies the washing of the body, is used in a spiritual sense in Psa 26:6, ’I will wash my hands in innocency;’ Psa 73:13, ’I have washed my hands in innocency;’ Pro 30:12, ’There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness;’ Isa 1:16, ’Wash you, make you clean;’ Isa 4:4, ’When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughter of Zion.’

The word wash, whether applied to the body or to its clothing, is never used except with reference to water, and it appears to symbolise the purgation of the inclinations, the character and the external life, from moral pollution. Compare Heb 10:22, ’having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.’

In the N.T., νίπτω is used of washing the face (Mat 6:17); the hands (Mat 15:2); the eyes (Joh 9:7; Joh 9:11; Joh 9:15); and the feet (Joh 13:5-6; Joh 13:8; Joh 13:10; Joh 13:12; Joh 13:14; 1Ti 5:10). The word λούω is used of the bathing of the body in Act 9:37; Act 16:33, and 2Pe 2:22 in Joh 13:10 we read, ’He that is bathed (λελουμένος) needeth not save to wash (νίψασθαι) his feet, but is clean every whit’ (καθαρὸς ὅλος). It is evident that our Lord here referred, in the first instance, to the well-known fact that after a complete bath a man needed only to cleanse away the impurity which he contracted in walking from it if he wished to be accounted entirely clean; the significance of the act to the disciples seems to have been that where as they were in a measure clean through the word which He had spoken unto them, there was yet need that He should humble Himself still lower in their behalf, in order to cleanse them in the sight of God. The act of washing their feet symbolised the humiliation of Him who took the form of a servant, and it set forth the necessity of yielding to his cleansing work as the only means of having part with Him in his future kingdom. Washing with water is also connected with the Word in Eph 5:26. Here we read that Christ gave Himself (i.e. died) for his Church, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing [The laver (כיור) is rendered λουτήρ in the LXX. The word λουτρονonly occurs in Son 4:2; Son 6:5 for רחצהthe washing of sheep.] of the water in the word (τῳ̂ λουτρῳ̂ το̂υ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι). Washing (λου̂τρον) is also used as a symbol of regeneration in Tit 3:5. With these passages we may connect Act 22:16, ’Arise, and be baptized, and wash away (ἀπόλουσαι) thy sins;’ and 1Co 6:11, ’Such were some of you, but ye are washed’ (ἀπελούσασθε) in the Received Text of Rev 1:5 we read, ’Who washed us from our sins in his own blood.’ Others here read λύσαντι (liberated) for λούσαντι (washed).

The word πλύνω, which is applied to the washing of garments, is used symbolically in Rev 7:14; also in the oldest MSS; together with the Vulgate and the versions made from it, in Rev 22:14, ’Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have a right to the tree of life.’

A requirement of frequent literal recurrence under the law, but in the N.T. a term bearing commonly a moral force and application. Important truth may be learned from the different significations of the Greek words used for ’washing’ in John 13. The word in Joh 13:10 is λούω, ’to cleanse, wash thoroughly.’ One who is cleansed in this sense never needs to be thus washed again; he is, as the Lord said, ’clean every whit,’ yet in order to have ’part with’ Christ, he needs, because of the defilement of the way, that his feet should be washed (here the word is νίπτω), Joh 13:5-14, an action which is applied to parts of the body only. The same difference was typified in the cleansing of Aaron and his sons. They were at their consecration once ’washed’ by Moses, but were thenceforward required continually, when executing their service, to wash only their hands and feet in the laver. Exo 40:12; Exo 40:30-32.

By: Emil G. Hirsch, Immanuel Benzinger

As compared with the Greeks and Romans, the Hebrews paid little attention to the care of the body; and the bath was a rarity in a land where water was relatively scarce. It was important, therefore, that personal cleanliness should have a religious basis, and that the cult should ordain frequent ablutions. Thus, for example, the ancient custom of washing before meals may have had its origin in ritualistic requirements; and water was an important factor in the Hebrew cult as in all other Semitic religions. A partial explanation of this phenomenon lies in the fact that springs and rivers were often worshiped by the Semites either as gods or as the dwelling-places of divinities. To bathe or wash in such waters was, therefore, in itself a ritualistic act, although this should not be taken to imply that all water was holy, and it must also be borne in mind that one who wished to take part in a ritualistic act had first to be in a condition appropriate to it, or, in other words, had to be ritually clean.

The original meaning of this concept can not be discussed here; for many things conditioned "purity," just as there were many things which made one ritually defiled. First of all, however, bodily cleanliness was requisite; for one could no more come unclean into the presence of God than before the king. Consequently a man washed not only himself (Gen. xxxv. 2; Ex. xxx. 17 et seq.), but also his clothes (Ex. xix. 10 et seq.), while the camp of Israel, which was considered a holy place on account of the presence of Yhwh, was defiled by any pollution (Deut. xxiii. 10 et seq.). It thus becomes plain how ablutions developed into symbolistic purifications, especially from ritualistic defilements. It is sufficient in this connection to allude to the ritual uncleanness connected with certain physical pollutions, as with touching a corpse, a leper, or his house, or with sexual intercourse. From this standpoint of symbolic purification ablutions were prescribed, in the course of the development of the Law, for a number of impurities which, since they could easily be removed by washing, were characterized as slight, in contradistinction to those graver states of defilement which required sacrifice and the like. Thus, the clothing of a leper (Lev. xiii. 6, 34, 54-58), one who had been in a leper’s house (Lev. xiv. 47), and the house itself (Lev. xiv. 52) were to be washed, while washing also removed the pollution resulting from sexual intercourse and the like. See also Ablution.

See Laver, Purification.