Wash
Wash
(denoted by several Hebrew words of varying import; but in Greek , which applies to a part of the person, is clearly distinguished from , which applies to the whole body, in Joh 13:10, where the A.V. unfortunately confounds the two). This act for ordinary purposes of personal cleanliness is considered under SEE BATHE. We here treat it under its ceremonial aspect. SEE ABLUTION.
The Jews had two sorts of washing for purposes of religious purification: one, of the whole body by immersion, , tabal, which was used by the priests at their consecration, and by the proselytes at their initiation; the other, of the hands or feet, called dipping, or pouring of water, , tsabd, which was of daily use, not only for the hands and feet, but also for cups and other vessels used at their meals (Mat 25:2; Mar 7:3-4). The six water-pots of stone used at the marriage feast of Cana in Galilee (Joh 2:6) were set for this purpose. To these two modes of purification our Lord seems to allude in Joh 13:10, where the being “clean every whit” implies one who had become a disciple of Christ, and consequently had renounced the sins of his former life. He who had so done was supposed to be wholly washed, and not to need any immersion, in imitation of the ceremony of initiation, which was never repeated among the Jews. All that was necessary in such a case was the dipping or rinsing of the hands or feet, agreeably to the customs of the Jews. SEE WASHING (the Hands and Feet). Sometimes the lustration was performed by sprinkling blood or anointing with bil. Sprinkling was performed either with the finger, or with a branch of cedar and hyssop tied together with scarlet wool (Lev 14:4-6; Num 19:18; Psa 51:7). SEE BAPTISM.
The practice of frequent ablutions was not peculiar to the Hebrews; we find it rigidly enjoined by the Mohammedan law. We quote the following extract from Taylor, History of Mohammedanism:
“The Sonna of the Mohammedans exactly corresponds with the , Mishnah, of the Jews, and comprehends all their religious traditions. (a.) From it we take the following account of the greater purification, Ghasl. It must be remembered that there are seven species of water fit for rightly performing religious ablutions; that is to say, rain, sea, river, fountain, well, snow, and ice water. But the principal requisites for the lustration Ghasl are three:
(1) intention;
(2) a perfect cleansing;
(3) that the water should touch the entire skin and every hair.
There are five requisites of the traditional law, or Sonna:
(1) the appropriate phrase, Bismillah (‘In the name of the most merciful God’), must be pronounced;
(2) the palms must be washed before the hands are put into the basin; (3) the lustration Wodfi must be performed;
(4) the skin must be rubbed with the hand;
(5) it must be prolonged. (We omit the cases in which this lustration is required.)
(6.) The second lustration, Wodfi. The principal parts, indeed the divine (they are called divine because taken from the Koran) institutions, of the lustration Wodfi are six:
(1) intention;
(2) the washing of the entire face;
(3) the washing of the hands and forearms up to the elbows;
(4) the rubbing of some parts of the head;
(5) the washing of the feet as far as the ankles;
(6) observance of the prescribed order.
“The institutes of the traditional law about this lustration are ten:
(1) the preparatory formula, Bismillah, must be used;
(2) the palms must be washed before the hands are put into the basin;
(3) the mouth must be cleansed;
(4) water must be drawn through the nostrils;
(5) the entire head and ears must be rubbed;
(6) if the beard be thick, the fingers must be drawn through it;
(7) the toes must be separated;
(8) the right hand and foot should be washed before the left;
(9) these ceremonies must be thrice repeated;
(10) the whole must be performed in uninterrupted succession. (We omit the cases in which this lustration is required.) “Of purification by sand. The divine institutions respecting purification by sand are four:
(1) intention;
(2) the rubbing of the face;
(3) the rubbing of the hands and forearms up to the elbows;
(4) the observance of this order.
But the Sonnite ordinances are three:
(1) the formula Bismillah;
(2) the right hand and foot precede the left;
(3) that the ceremony be performed without interruption.
The Mohammedans have borrowed the permission to use sand for water, in case of necessity, from the Jews. Indeed, Cedrenus mentions an instance of sand being used for a Christian baptism. Their necessity dictated the permission; we need not therefore have recourse to Reland’s strange theory, that sand is really a liquid. Four requisites to its validity are added by the commentators:
(1) the person must be on a journey;
(2) he must have diligently searched for water;
(3) it must be at the stated time of prayer;
(4) the sand must be clean.” SEE LUSTRATION.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Wash
plyno (G4150) Wash
nipto (G3538)
louo (G3068)
Unfortunately, only the English “to wash” is an adequate translation for the Greek words plyno, nipto, and louo, each of which the biblical writers used in distinct ways. Thus plynein always means “to wash inanimate things” (usually garments), as distinguished from living objects or persons. But plynein is not only used for garments. In Luk 5:2 it refers to the washing or cleansing of nets. When David exclaimed: “Wash [plynon] me thoroughly from my iniquity” (Psa 51:2), this was not an exception to the rule. The mention of hyssop in Psa 51:7 indicates that he had in mind the ceremonial purifications (i. e., by sprinkling) of the Levitical law, the purification of the garments of the unclean person, though he may have foreseen a better sprinkling in the future.
Niptein and louein each refer to washing living persons. Niptein and nipsasthai almost always refer to the washing of a part of the body; and louein (whose meaning is closer to “to bathe” than to “to wash”) and lousthai (“to bathe oneself”) always refer to the whole body, not just a part. The restriction of niptein to persons, as opposed to things, is always observed in the New Testament, as it is elsewhere (with but few exceptions). A single verse in the Septuagint (Lev 15:11) uses all three of the words in their distinct meanings: “And whomever he who has the discharge touches, and has not rinsed [neniptai] his hands in water, he shall wash [plynei] his clothes and bathe [lousetai] his body in water.”
In the Authorized Version, Joh 13:10 suffers the most by the translators’ failure to distinguish between niptein (to wash a part of the body) and louein or lousthai (to wash the whole body): “He that is washed [ho leloumenos] needeth not save to wash [nipsasthai] his feet, but is clean every whit.” The Latin Vulgate has the same defect: “He who has been washed [lotus est] needs only that he wash [lavet] his feet.” De Wette tried to preserve the variation of words: “He who is bathed [gebadet ist] needs to wash [waschen] but his feet.” The New King James Version is an improvement: “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean.” Because Peter had not understood the symbolic nature of the foot washing, he exclaimed at first: “You shall never wash my feet!” But as soon as he comprehended the true meaning of Jesus’ actions, he wanted to be completely washed: “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head!” Christ replied that this was not necessary because Peter had already received the washing of forgiveness that included the whole man. He was leloumenos (i. e., bathed all over his body), and this absolution not only did not need to be repeated but was incapable of repetition: “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you” (Joh 15:3). Although Peter already possessed this all-inclusive forgiveness, he did need to wash his feet to be clean. He needed to allow his Lord to cleanse him from the defilements that he (a justified and partially sanctified man) would acquire by living in a sinful world. Some have suggested that this was an allusion to the Levitical ordinance where Aaron and his successors in the priesthood were to be washed once for all from head to foot when they were officially consecrated (Exo 27:4; Exo 40:12). But afterwards, whenever they ministered before the Lord, they were to wash their hands and their feet in the brazen laver (Exo 30:19; Exo 30:21; Exo 40:31). This view would have more to commend it if we did not find hands and feet in the same category there, whereas in John they are not merely separated but opposed to one another (Joh 13:9-10). The whole mystery of our justification (once for all, sufficient for every need, embracing our whole being) and sanctification (a daily process) is wrapped up in the antithesis between the two words. Augustine expressed this clearly:
A person indeed is cleansed in holy baptism, not with the exception of his feet but totally; however when he lives afterward in human situations, he certainly abuses the ground. Accordingly human passions, without which there is no mortal life, are as feet when we are influenced by human situations. Therefore he daily washes our feet by interceding for us and daily we must wash our feet with the Lord’s Prayer when we say, “Forgive us our debts.”
Fuente: Synonyms of the New Testament
Wash
is chiefly used of “washing part of the body,” Joh 13:5-6, Joh 13:8 (twice, figuratively in 2nd clause), Joh 13:12, Joh 13:14 (twice); in 1Ti 5:10, including the figurative sense; in the Middle Voice, to wash oneself, Mat 6:17; Mat 15:2; Mar 7:3; Joh 9:7, Joh 9:11, Joh 9:15; Joh 13:10. For the corresponding noun see BASON.
“to wash off,” is used in the Middle Voice, in Mat 27:24.
signifies “to bathe, to wash the body,” (a) Active Voice, Act 9:37; Act 16:33; (b) Passive Voice, Joh 13:10, RV, “bathed” (AV, “washed”); Heb 10:22, lit., “having been washed as to the body,” metaphorical of the effect of the Word of God upon the activities to the believer; (c) Middle Voice, 2Pe 2:22. Some inferior mss. have it instead of luo, “to loose,” in Rev 1:5 (see RV).
“to wash off or away,” is used in the Middle Voice, metaphorically, “to wash oneself,” in Act 22:16, where the command to Saul of Tarsus to “wash away” his sins indicates that by his public confession, he would testify to the removal of his sins, and to the complete change from his past life; this “washing away” was not in itself the actual remission of his sins, which had taken place at his conversion; the Middle Voice implies his own particular interest in the act (as with the preceding verb “baptize,” lit., “baptize thyself,” i.e., “get thyself baptized”); the aorist tenses mark the decisiveness of the acts; in 1Co 6:11, lit., “ye washed yourselves clean;” here the Middle Voice (rendered in the Passive in AV and RV, which do not distinguish between this and the next two Passives; see RV marg.) again indicates that the converts at Corinth, by their obedience to the faith, voluntarily gave testimony to the complete spiritual change Divinely wrought in them. In the Sept., Job 9:30.
is used of “washing inanimate objects,” e.g., “nets,” Luk 5:2 (some texts have apopluno); of “garments,” figuratively, Rev 7:14; Rev 22:14 (in the best texts; the AV translates those which have the verb poieo, “to do,” followed by tas entolas autou, “His commandments”).
“to sprinkle,” is used in the Middle Voice in Mar 7:4, in some ancient texts, of the acts of the Pharisees in their assiduous attention to the cleansing of themselves after coming from the market place (some texts have baptizo here). See SPRINKLE.
“to wet,” is translated “to wash” in Luk 7:38, Luk 7:44, AV; the RV, “to wet” and “hath wetted,” gives the correct rendering. See RAIN, B.
is rendered “washed” in Luk 11:38. See BAPTIZE.
Note: With regard to Nos. 1, 3, 5, the Sept. of Lev 15:11 contains all three with their distinguishing characteristics, No. 1 being used of the hands, No. 3 of the whole body, No. 5 of the garments.
Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words
Wash
Jer 4:14 (a) The cleansing of the soul and heart from evil sin is compared to a washing. It is the thought of taking advantage of the blood of the sacrifices, or of the Word of GOD, or of the Spirit of GOD, to put away things that are wrong in the sight of GOD in order that the person may be cleansed from the evil. It occurs many times throughout the Scriptures. (See also Job 29:6; Psa 51:2, Psa 51:7; Isa 1:16; Jer 2:22).
Mat 27:24 (a) Pilate evidently thought that by this procedure he could take away the sin of his soul. He was using a Jewish custom.
Eph 5:26 (b) The cleansing effect of the Word of GOD on the ways and activities of His Church is thus described.
1Ti 5:10 (b) This type represents any gracious hospitality rendered by a godly hostess to her Christian guest.
Heb 10:22 (b) By this type is described the cleansing of the Word of GOD on the habits and activities of the person whose body is given to the Holy Spirit as His temple. (See also Psa 119:9).
2Pe 2:22 (b) This represents the moral cleansing brought about in the lives of those who seek by their own efforts to get rid of their evil ways and habits, thinking that thereby they will be Christians. The pig that is washed still stays a pig.
Rev 7:14 (b) It represents the act of faith whereby the believing sinner trusts in the Lord JESUS CHRIST who, by His own Blood, makes the believer clean and white in GOD’s sight.