WASHING AND BAPTIZING
It has been said, and often said, that Scripture usage shows that wash is the equivalent of baptize; and as washing may be performed by various methods, so may baptizing. The fallacy of this is easily shown.TOB 23.1
In 2 Kings we find the commandment of Elisha, given to the Syrian, to “wash in Jordan;” and accordingly he “dipped himself in Jordan.” Where the preposition is thus used,—in Jordan,—the mind is naturally led to dipping as the method of washing. But washing may be performed by other methods, or without dipping; therefore washing and dipping are not equivalents. Washing designates neither dipping nor pouring, but may include both. Thus in signification it materially differs from either. Washing indicates an action; dipping or immersing indicates a method of action. The latter is specific; the former is not. The latter is always used in reference to the gospel ordinance; the former is never so used. There is no necessity for mistake in this matter.TOB 23.2
But the objection is based chiefly on Mark 7:TOB 23.3
4: “And when they come from the market, except they wash [baptisôntai], they cat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptismous] of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables,” or couches.TOB 24.1
Here it is assumed that baptism is used where immersion is, at least, improbable. The reader will be interested in the following extracts from Clarke’s comment on the text:—TOB 24.2
“Except they wash] or dip; for may mean either. But instead of the word in the text, the famous Codex Vaticanus, (B) eight others, Euthymius, have , sprinkle. However, the Jews sometimes washed their hands previously to their eating; at other times, they simply dipped or plunged them into the water.”TOB 24.3
“And of tables] Beds, couches—. This is wanting in BL, two others, and the Coptic. It is likely it means no more than the forms or seats, on which they sat. A bed or couch was defiled if any unclean person sat or leaned on it,—a man with an issue, a leper, a woman with child, etc. As the word , baptisms, is applied to all these, and as it is contended that this word, and the verb whence it is derived, signify dipping or immersion alone, its use in the above cases refutes that opinion, and shows that it was used, not only to express dipping or immersion, but also sprinkling and washing. The cups and pots were washed; the beds and forms perhaps sprinkled; and the hands dipped up to the wrist.”TOB 24.4
This is the most that can possibly be said on that side of the question. It would have been well for his opinion if facts would have permitted him to say more than “perhaps sprinkled.” More than a “perhaps” should be inquired for by every one who seeks a “full assurance of faith.” Hebrews 10:22. On this subject we have “the law,” which settles all controversies.TOB 24.5
Leviticus 6:28: “And if it be sodden in a brazen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water.”TOB 25.1
Chap. 11:32: “And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even.”TOB 25.2
Chap. 15:12: “And the vessel of earth, that he toucheth which hath the issue, shall be broken; and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water.”TOB 25.3
Here is the requirement for putting into water, or baptizing, the very articles specified in Mark 7:4. And not only those vessels, but raiment, and “whatsoever” was rendered unclean by contact. And thus every conjecture and “perhaps,” which is designed to obscure the plain truth of this passage, is shown to be gratuitous. No reason exists for giving baptizo any other definition than immerse.TOB 25.4
It should be noticed that the Saviour did not say a word against the baptisms required in the Levitical law; but he spoke against their traditions in connection with them, or their making void the commandment of God by their traditions.TOB 25.5