A Bible History of Baptism

Section XXVII. —Mode implied in the Meaning of the Rite

The instructiveness and utility of types and symbols consist in an appreciable analogy between them and the spiritual things which they are appointed to symbolize. In the case of the Old Testament self-washings, I suppose it has never entered the imagination of any one that they were types of the burial of the Lord Jesus. Of such an interpretation there is not a trace anywhere in the Scriptures. On the contrary, such meaning is there attributed to them that, in order to a sustained analogy, the subject of the rite should, by a voluntary and active exercise of his own powers take and apply the water to his members and person, for their cleansing. In this respect, they stand in emphatic contrast with the sprinkled water of purifying. That was designed to concentrate the attention of Israel upon the active agency of the Mediator, in bestowing the baptism of his blood and Spirit, for the renewing and quickening of dead souls. In it, therefore, the subject was the passive recipient of rites dispensed by the hands of another. But the activity of the Christian life and warfare were symbolized by the self-washings. Christ’s grace is given his people, not to sanction supineness and indolence; but to stimulate to activity in the pursuit of holiness. As the Spirit is now to them an opened fountain, they are to have recourse to it, to seek and obtain, day by day, more grace, for the purging of the flesh, for overcoming the world, for bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit, for fighting the good fight of faith and laying hold on eternal life.

This, which comprehends the whole matter of practical religion is urged in the Scriptures, not only by direct and continual admonitions, but in the use of every variety of figures and illustrations. It was the lesson taught, under the figure of self-washing. Pure water is alike adapted to quicken the soil, to quench the thirst, and to cleanse the garments and the person. But, as the water of life will not quench the thirst of the soul, unless we come and drink, neither will it purge away the defilements of evil, unless we take it and apply it, with diligence and labor. “Wash ye! make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.” – Isa. i, 16, 17. The Spirit thus clearly indicates that self-washing signified an intense and life-pervasive activity, – an activity applied, in detail, to each particular relation and duty, so as to purge out every principle of evil, and conform every act to the law of holiness. To correspond with this meaning of the rite, its form should be such as to call forth the active energies of the subject, by the application of the water to the appointed parts and members of the person in detail; and by such successive manipulation as is proper to secure a thorough cleansing. The ordinary mode of washing, among Israel, as we shall presently see, perfectly met these requirements; whilst immersion would have been wholly inadequate, not to say directly contradictory to them, since it indicates a mere passive recipiency, and not an active appropriation and use of the means of cleansing.

Section XXVIII. —The Words used to designate the Washings

The discriminating use of words on this subject, in the original Scriptures is very noticeable, and is susceptible of being brought within the comprehension of any intelligent reader of the English version. There are three which are worthy of special notice.

1. Shātaph means, to overflow, or rush over, as a swollen torrent or a beating rain. Thus, – “Behold the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which, as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing,” shall beat down the crown of pride. (Isa. xxviii, 2.) Again, – “Say unto them which daub with untempered mortar that it shall fall; there shall be an overflowing shower,” beating it down. (Ezek. xiii, 11-14.) From this, the radical meaning of the word, is derived its use to signify the act of washing or rinsing, by means of water dashed or flowed over the object. It is employed in application to vessels of wood and of brass (Lev. vi, 28; xv, 12), and to the hands of the unclean. (Ib. xv, 11.) In all these places it is translated, to rinse.

2. Kābas. The radical meaning of this verb is, to tread, to trample. The participle from it is used to designate the craft of the fuller, who fulled his goods by treading them with the feet. Hence its use to signify the thorough cleansing and whitening of clothing and stuffs. The word occurs in the Old Testament forty-six times, with this uniform meaning. It is used whenever the ritual washing of clothes is spoken of. From it a very striking figure is derived, which appears twice, to indicate the most thorough self-cleansing, under the idea of a garment scoured, with “nitre and much soap” (Jer. ii, 22; iv, 14), and twice, to indicate a like thorough cleansing wrought by the Holy Spirit. “Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin… Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow” (Psa. li, 2, 7), white, as a garment is made by the fuller’s art. (Mark ix, 3.) These passages indicate the essential idea of the word. It is expressive of a scouring, or washing, which searches the very texture of the fabric. It is, however, worthy of notice that in the Targum of Onkelos, on Numbers xix, 19, it is rendered, “to sprinkle.” “The clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean, on the third day and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he shall be clean; and he shall sprinkle his raiment, and wash with water, and at even he shall be clean.“ This rendering is very noteworthy, as it indicates the manner in which the law was understood on this point. In fact, as we have already seen, sprinkling signified the most thorough cleansing.

Rāhatz. While kābas indicates a purifying of the substance, rāhatz signifies a washing of the surface. This is the word which is invariably used to express the ritual self-washings or bathings of the hands, the feet, and the person. It is sometimes assumed that, like the English, to wash, rāhatz is strictly generic in its meaning – that it signifies to cleanse with, or in, water, without any regard to mode. This is an error, as a single fact shows. It is never used for the cleansing of skins, clothes, or garments. Nor is this an accidental omission. Such washings are mentioned nearly fifty times, and in nineteen places they are brought into connection with the bathing of the person. But in no one place is the word in question used either generically, as comprehensive of both the person and garments, or specifically for the latter. In every place where the two processes come in the same connection, the language is accurately discriminated. The directions are, to wash, or scour (kābas), the clothes, and to bathe (rāhatz) the flesh. This word occurs over seventy times. In five or six places, it applies to the washing of sacrificial flesh, before it was placed on the altar. (Lev. i, 9, 13, etc.) In every other instance it refers to the human person. It expresses cleansing with water actively applied to the surface. Thus, when Joseph ”washed his face,” to obliterate the traces of tears (Gen. xliii, 31), and when the Beloved is described, “His eyes, as the eyes of doves by the rivers [rivulets] of waters, washed with milk and fitly set” (Cant. v, 12), the reference is clearly to the familiar mode of washing the face with water applied. When the Lord, by Isaiah, speaks of the time when he “shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion” (Isa. iv, 4), and when the Preacher describes “a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness” (Prov. xxx, 12), the idea presented is the same – that of water actively applied to the surface, so as to detach and carry off the dirt. In another place this definition is even more imperatively indicated. “Then (rāhatz) washed I thee with water; yea (shātaph), I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.” – Ezek. xvi, 9. Here three things unite to determine the meaning of rāhatz. 1. It is explained by shātaph, the signification of which we have seen. 2. The defilement from which the washing is promised, is that of nidda, for which expressly the sprinkled “water of nidda” was appointed and named. 3. The construction is precisely the same in the two clauses of the verse, “I washed thee with water,” and “I anointed thee with oil.” Of the mode of the latter there can be no question. In both clauses the element named is the instrument of the action specified. The ideas of washing and of immersion are not merely different, but sharply contrasted with each other. Where there is an immersion, there may also be a washing. But it must be by additional action. Rāhatz expresses the latter. It neither expresses nor implies the former.

Section XXIX. —The Mode of Domestic Ablution

The customs of Israel as to personal ablution would, it is evident, decide the manner of these self-washings, in the absence of explicit directions. The indications in their history are very decisive on this point.

1. The patriarchs were keepers of cattle, dwelling in tents. The circumstances of such a mode of life forbid the supposition that they were accustomed to the use of the immersion bath. The possession, the transportation, and the use of the requisite vessels, are wholly foreign to that mode of life.

2. Facts in the history of the patriarchs confirm the correctness of the inference thus indicated. Although in later ages, after Palestine had been pierced with wells, water was abundant for all the uses incident to the mode of life of the people, the contrary was true, in earlier times. Surface streams are of rare occurrence. The substratum is a cavernous limestone, into the cavities of which the rains quickly percolate. Hagar and Ishmael were in danger of perishing of thirst, when sent away by Abraham. (Gen. xxi, 15.) Abraham and Isaac relied on digging for water; and the scarcity and value of the element were indicated by the violence with which the other inhabitants of the country seized wells digged by each of those patriarchs. (Gen. xxi, 25; xxvi, 19-22.) These were usually deep, and all the water used for personal washings, as well as for drinking and for culinary uses, must be laboriously drawn and carried by the maidens of the camp. We can thus see the bearing of the phraseology of Abraham in tendering his hospitality. “Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet.” – Gen. xviii, 4.

3. We may safely conclude that Jacob and his family did not take with them into Egypt the habit of bathing by immersion. But may they not have acquired it in the land of their bondage? It happens that we have very interesting evidence as to the custom of the Egyptians on this subject. Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, in his splendid work on “The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,” gives an engraved copy of the only pictorial illustration on this subject found by him among the abundant remains of Egyptian art. It is taken from a tomb in Thebes. In it, a lady is represented with four attendants. One removes the jewelry and clothes which she has put off; another pours water from a vase over her head: the third rubs her arms and body with open hands; and a fourth, seated near her, holds a flower to her nose, and supports her, as she sits. “The same subject,” says Wilkinson, “is treated nearly in the same manner on some of the Greek vases, the water being poured over the bather, who kneels or is seated on the ground.”14 The Greeks were colonists from Egypt, with which country their relations were always intimate. And the fact, which will hereafter appear, that this was the only mode of domestic or in-door bathing, in use among them, is very significant, as to the customs of Egypt on the point.

4. It is hardly necessary to insist on the utter impossibility of the Hebrew bondmen having acquired in Egypt more luxurious habits than those of their Egyptian taskmasters, – habits, too, requiring much more expensive appliances, such as would be necessary for immersion-bathing. And, when they left Egypt, “their kneading troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders” (Ex. xii, 34), the supposition that they had with them a sufficient supply of bath tubs to serve for the continual immersions which, upon the Baptist theory, the Levitical law demanded, does not need to be controverted. In fact, the customary mode of washing, among Israel, as traceable in all their history, was precisely that which we have seen in use among the patriarchs and the Egyptians. It was, with water poured on, and the necessary rubbing by the bather himself, or by an attendant. This custom was universal in Israel, and throughout the east, from the earliest ages. At first, the only utensil used was a pitcher or jar, out of which the water was poured. A case before referred to in the history of Abraham illustrates the circumstances and manner of this usage. As he sat in his tent door, in the heat of the day, he saw three men approach. He ran to salute them, and said, “Let a little water be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree.” – Gen. xviii, 1-4. The washing was done in the open air, and the earth received the flowing water. In the same region, the Dead Sea expedition found the same custom among the tent-dwelling Arabs. On one occasion, “having as usual submitted to be stared at and their arms handed about and inspected, as if they were on muster, water was brought and poured upon their hands, from a very equivocal water jar; after which followed the repast.”15

So long as the simplicity of tent life was maintained, this was all-sufficient. But, afterward, the convenience of a bowl or basin was added, which was so placed as to catch the water, as it flowed off, in washing, thus preventing the wetting of the floor. The water, once used, was not applied a second time, but rejected, as being defiled. The examples of Bathsheba and Susanna indicate that, in bathing the person, even in the later times, the primitive custom still so far survived that resort was sometimes had to a retired place outside the house; no doubt because of the inconvenience of flooding the floor with the water, as it was poured over the person. “The History of Susanna,” (one of the Apocryphal books), dates as far back as two centuries before Christ. The heroine is described as an eminently modest and virtuous woman. Her husband, Joachim, “was a rich man, and had a fair garden adjoining his house.” His house was a place of resort to the Jews, and the magistrates commonly sat there, to exercise their office. It was Susanna’s custom to walk in the garden at noon, after the people had left the house. Two of the elders are described as plotting against her. “And it fell out, as they watched a fit time, she went in as before with two maids only, and she was desirous to wash herself in the garden; for it was hot. And there was nobody there save the two elders, that had hid themselves and watched her. Then she said to her maids, Bring me oil and washing balls, and shut the garden doors, that I may wash. And they did as she had bade them, and shut the garden doors, and went out themselves at private doors, to fetch the things that she had commanded them.” Her purpose is prevented by the appearance of the two elders, from whose false accusation she is in the sequel rescued by the famous “judgment of Daniel.” The same custom is illustrated by the case of Pharaoh’s daughter at the finding of Moses, and by the Egyptian picture, from Wilkinson. A signal proof of the prevalence of the custom of washing with water poured on by an attendant, presents itself, in the fact that the designation of a body servant, or personal attendant, was derived from it. Elisha the prophet had been the minister or attendant of Elijah, before the translation of the latter. Of this relation, king Jehoshaphat was informed by the statement that it was he “which poured water on the hands of Elijah.” – 2 Kings iii, 11.

The circumstances render it certain that this was the form of washing in the expiation of a concealed murder. The elders of the nearest city were required to take an unbroken heifer down into a rough and uncultivated valley or gorge, and there, in the presence of the priests, strike off its head, wash their hands over the carcass, and call God to witness their innocence in the matter. Thus, the water flowing from their hands upon the carcass, transferred to it and the barren spot where it lay the putative guilt of the crime. (Deut. xxi, 3-9.)

From this ordinance, the form seems to have become a familiar mode of protesting innocence of crime, and is memorable for that occasion when Pilate “took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.” – Matt. xxvii, 24. Two primitive representations of this scene, in sculptured relief, have been found in the catacombs at Rome. They date from the first centuries of the Christian era. In them the wife of Pilate appears in the background, with averted face. An attendant holds a vase or pitcher in one hand, and in the other a bowl: while Pilate sits rubbing his hands. The position of the bowl shows it to be empty. “The mode of washing implied in the empty bowl is characteristic. In the east, the water is still poured from the vase over the hands, and caught in the bowl, so that it should not pass over them twice.”16

The manner of washing the feet is illustrated by a fact in the life of our Savior. At dinner, in the house of Simon, the Pharisee, a woman that was a sinner “brought an alabaster box of ointment and stood at his feet, behind him, weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.” – Luke vii, 37, 38, 44. But how was it possible for the woman, coming behind him at table, to get access to his feet: which, according to our custom, would be concealed under the table? The ordinary mode of sitting, in the east, then as now, was, on the ground or floor, squat, cross-legged, or reclining. Chairs were not in common use, but were reserved for purposes of state, and used almost exclusively by dignitaries. In later times a bench or settee was introduced, which was without a back. Whether on it or the floor, the usual position, in eating was the same. The guests reclined on the left elbow, leaving the right hand free. The person next on the right thus leaned toward or against the breast of him who was at the head. (John xiii, 23.) The feet were drawn up behind. Persons who wore sandals, always, on entering a house, left them at the door. These were not ordinarily worn by the common people, but only upon occasions of special travel; and our Savior, therefore, forbade his disciples to take time to provide them, in the haste of the mission on which he first sent them to preach. (Matt. x, 10; Luke x, 4.) They poorly protected the feet from the soiling and roughness of the way.17 Decency, therefore, and comfort both, – especially in the case of guests coming from a distance, required that the feet should be washed, immediately upon entrance, and the addition of oil or ointment was not only agreeable, for the perfumes commonly mixed with it, but very soothing and grateful to the weary and excoriated feet. It was one of the first obligations of hospitality to provide for this washing of the feet of guests. (Gen. xviii, 4; xix, 2; etc.) Where special respect was intended, the office was sometimes performed by the master of the house, or his wife. As the guest reclined, his feet projecting over the edge of the seat behind him, a basin was placed beneath, so as to receive the flowing water, as it was poured over them. To this mode there is an allusion in the language of our Savior, to Simon the Pharisee, upon the occasion just referred to, which is lost in our translation. “I entered thine house. Water upon my feet thou didst not give.” – Luke vii, 44.18 So, the night of the betrayal, Jesus took water and a towel and washed and wiped the disciples’ feet, as they reclined; and thus the woman came behind him at the table, and bedewed his feet with her tears. To this customary rite of hospitality Paul refers, when he describes a widow – “if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet.” – 1 Tim. v, 10. To it, Abigail alludes, when, in response to David’s offer of marriage, she replies, – “Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant, to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.” – 1 Sam. xxv, 41. If the ritual bathings of Israel were immersions, the mode was without precedent in the domestic habits of the people; as it was without prescription in the law.

Section XXX. —The Facilities requisite

Not only was the rite of immersion without precedent in the domestic customs of Israel. It was wholly impracticable as an observance to be fulfilled with the frequency of the ritual washings of the law. On this point, delicacy forbids unnecessary detail. But an examination of the various requirements on the subject of uncleanness, and especially as contained in the fifteenth chapter of Leviticus, will establish the fact that recourse to those washings, was a matter of constant, – almost daily, – necessity, in every household, and for both men and women. In order to fulfil these obligations, the supposition that immersion was the mode would render two things imperatively necessary in every family, – a very large supply of water; – and a capacious bath-tub or tank in which the immersions might be performed. As to these points, but few words are necessary. The people of Israel did not usually live on their lands in the country; but, like all other populations of the east, were gathered in towns and villages, to which they resorted at night; going forth in the day-time to their labors in the field. This mode of life was rendered necessary to avoid exposure to the depredations of bands of wandering marauders; and was equally congenial to the social disposition and habits of the people. The population of each village was accustomed to depend, for the supply of water, upon a well to which all resorted, and which was usually near the gate of the village. From this source, each household was supplied; the water being carried in pitchers, or jars, on the shoulders of the females of the family.19 It is unnecessary to protract argument. The facts are of themselves conclusive. The washings can not have been immersions.

This conclusion is confirmed by the absence of vessels of any kind suited to the performance of such a rite. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New, neither in the Apocrypha, Philo, nor Josephus is there any mention of such facilities, or such a rite, nor allusion to them. In fact, with all the advantages and appliances of modern civilization, there is not, and there never was a people on the globe of whom one in a hundred could comply with the law of Moses, if interpreted in the Baptist sense. And it is certain that no primitive people ever adopted that mode of domestic bathing – a mode which implies a very great advance in luxury and its appliances. The Greeks themselves did not use it, except as they sometimes resorted to rivers and streams. In their arrangements for bathing, domestic and public, the immersion bath was unknown until introduced with the luxury of imperial Rome. In Homer’s description of the bath of Ulysses in the palace of Circe, the hero is described as seated in a vessel which contained no water, but was designed to receive that which was poured over him; and the bathing was performed in a manner identical with that which we have seen practiced in Egypt. In the remains of antique Greek art, the bath is frequently represented. But the mode is invariably the same. The bather is placed beside the vessel containing the water, which is taken thence in a dipper or jar, and poured over him.20

Homer’s description of the bath of Ulysses is thus rendered by Bryant: