Ceremonial Purification

In reply to my fifth letter you say: “I have still two difficulties in reference to your explanation of the passage referring to Naaman: — (1) To translate baptizo by the word ‘cleanse’ makes the Septuagint to say that Naaman ‘cleansed himself seven times’ in the Jordan. Now I can understand how dipping himself seven times, at the command of the prophet, should result in his being cleansed; but was he cleansed seven times? (2) Admitting that the word means ‘cleanse,’ the cleansing was by dipping, was it not? If so, how that could help me in reaching the conclusion that ritual purification might be attained by sprinkling or pouring, I cannot see.”

Your statement of these difficulties is both clear and concise. I shall try to meet them fully.

First, as to the sevenfold cleansing, let me say three things: —

(1) There is no greater difficulty in conceiving of cleansing a thing seven times than of washing it seven times; and just that was what Naaman was ordered to do by the prophet. Washing is not simply wetting. To wash a garment is to make it clean. Were I to quote the various passages in which the same word (rawchats) that is here translated “wash” is found, it would be evident that it is substantially a synonym of “cleanse.” Many of our Baptist brethren have the impression that Naaman was commanded by the prophet to dip himself seven times in the Jordan. This is a mistake; he was directed to wash seven times: in other words, to cleanse himself seven times.

(2) “Seven” being a common Hebrew symbol of completeness, to cleanse a thing seven times is, in Hebrew phraseology, to thoroughly cleanse it.

(3) The usage of other passages abundantly justifies the Seventy in supposing that a Jew might, without violating any law of Hebrew usage, speak of Naaman cleansing himself seven times: as, for example, Psalm 12:6: — “The words of the Lord are pure words... purified seven times.”

These remarks, I think, will fully meet your first difficulty.

As to your second question I may say that thus far I have only mentioned one of the instances in which the word baptizo is used in the Septuagint. The others I am to give in their regular order. In the case of Naaman I have no doubt that his mode of cleansing was by dipping himself in the Jordan, for the use of the Hebrew word tawbal determines this. But this does not prove at all that the Greek word used by the Seventy meant “dip”; this I have endeavored to show was not the case. That word meant simply to express the general fact that he cleansed himself as he had been told to do. He was not commanded to dip himself, as we have seen; but he was not forbidden to do so, and he chose his own mode of performing the water cleansing which had been required of him as the condition of his recovery.

The very next instance to which I call your attention is one in which the cleansing was in some other manner than by dipping. It is found in the book of Judith, and shows conclusively that the word baptizo was used to express the general idea of ritual purification, and that, too, in a case where immersion is excluded with wellnigh absolute certainty.

Allow me briefly to recapitulate the circumstances as they are given in this book — which is properly placed in the Apocrypha, but which was written, as generally understood, about two hundred years before Christ; and whether the book is historical or fictitious makes no difference in illustrating the use of the word baptizo.

As the story runs, there was a war between the Assyrians and the Medes. Holof ernes was the commander-in-chief of the Assyrian army, and led them forth to a war of conquest determined to compel all to submit to Nebuchadnezzar, the Assyrian king, and even to render him divine worship. In his progress he approached the land of Israel. The Jews prepared to resist him. They were in Bethulia and were rapidly coming into great distress.

Judith, a Jewish widow, planned deliverance for her country by a piece of superb strategy. Making herself as attractive as possible by reason of her personal beauty and her splendid attire, she went with her maid to the camp of Holofernes, pretending to take refuge there against the certain destruction which was speedily to overtake her people. In reality she had gone to the camp of the Assyrians for the purpose of getting Holofernes intoxicated and of taking his life, and so raising the siege and delivering her country.

So well did she play her part that the king was deceived by “her beauty of face and wisdom of words/’ and a tent was assigned to her and her maid. She remained in the camp three days, and having obtained permission to go out for prayer she went forth by night into the valley of Bethulia and purified herself (ebaptizeto) in the camp at the fountain of water. And entering in pure (kathara) she remained in the tent till one brought her food in the evening. (Judith 12:6, 7, 9.)

This was evidently in form a religious purification. It was in the camp. It was under the eye of the guard. It was at a “fountain” (pēgē) — “a spring” — not a lake. She purified herself at the fountain, not in it. The Greek preposition is epi. It was, I repeat, within the camp, It was not a natural place for immersion. No lady would have been at all likely to immerse herself in such a place, even had there been facilities for it, which is not at all probable (though one Baptist writer, in his zeal for his theory, suggests that she might have found a horse-trough large enough for the purpose).

“But why should she leave her tent for a purification other than immersion; and why at night?” To this objection several answers may be made.

First, it may be said that as a Jewess, accustomed to the use of running water in all ritual cleansing, she would naturally choose water which had not gone through any uncircumcised hands, and which had not in any ceremonial way become unclean. This she could find only at the fountain itself.

Secondly, it may be said that she had her own special reasons for this walk to the fountain at night. She had laid a deep plot. Before she got through with it she intended to get into her possession the head of the Assyrian general and to carry it back with her to the besieged city. So she went forth night after night, and returned again, until all suspicion had been allayed and the opportune moment had come. It was not till the fourth night that she could accomplish her mission and return with the head of Holofernes.

Reasons enough may be suggested for her going to the fountain, and going at night, without adopting the utterly improbable theory that it was for the purpose of immersion — a theory supported only by the assumption that the word baptizo means immerse and nothing else. Understanding it to express the general idea of ceremonial purification by water, all is easy.

It might be added that as the professed purpose of her going to the fountain was for religious purification, and as the purification of the Jews was almost always by sprinkling, it is not at all probable that she would immerse herself, even could she have done so with perfect facility. But this would be to anticipate what will be said more fully hereafter.

The only remaining instance in which baptizo is found in the Septuagint (except once in a figurative sense) occurs yi in “Ecclesiasticus, or Son of Sirach,” 34:25, and when properly studied is itself enough to settle the whole controversy. Your special attention is invited to this case, for if I am correct in my interpretation it Is absolutely conclusive.

The passage is this: “He that is purified (baptizomenos) from a dead body, and touches it again, what does his cleansing profit him?”

We may safely assume that the author of this book understood the process of ceremonial cleansing to which he refers, and that he had in mind the process required by the law of Moses. That law is laid down in the nineteenth chapter of Numbers. And the only and entire process of cleansing required was that the ashes of the burnt heifer should be put into a vessel, running water should be put thereto, and this water should be sprinkled upon him with a bunch of hyssop in the hands of a clean person. Nothing more whatever.¹

And so it is said (Num. 19:13) that he who neglects to be thus purified from the touch of a dead body shall be cut off from his people; “because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean.”²

So again in the 20th verse: “The man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord; the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him: he is unclean"

So, also, it is that the writer to the Hebrews says, in allusion to this law: “For if the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb. 9:13, 14.)

In like manner he speaks of having “our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.” (Heb. 10:22.)

The entire process of cleansing from a dead body, to which the son of sirach refers, was by sprinkling, and yet he calls it baptism.

Is it asked, how it comes that this argument has not long ago settled the question in every candid mind? I answer that it is because, somehow or other, writers on both sides have generally stumbled upon the grammar of the 19th verse of this chapter. So true is it that philology and theology are own brothers. By some strange oversight the fact that the subject of both parts of the verse are one and the same has not been noticed.

This 19th verse reads thus: — “And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he (that is, the clean person who has now become somewhat unclean from contact with the unclean) shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at evening.” The pronoun “he” has been improperly referred to the unclean who had touched the dead body, whereas it refers to the person originally clean who had used the hyssop and the water of separation.

Notice particularly the law upon the whole subject. That law required that a clean person should take hyssop and dip it in the water and sprinkle it upon him that had touched a dead person. And then it also required that after thus sprinkling it upon the seventh day (which was for the last time) he should purify himself by washing his clothes and bathing. And by a wrong grammatical construction this washing and bathing have been referred to him who had touched the dead body. They were not at all a part of his cleansing. Nor was the sprinkling required of him who had used the hyssop. It is only necessary to read the verse naturally, without assuming any change of subject in passing from the first to the second clause, and everything is plain. The originally clean person, who had used the hyssop upon the unclean, was regarded as so far infected that he was required to become disinfected by washing his clothes and bathing himself in water; and then he should be clean at evening.

There is nothing whatever to indicate that the object of the first part of the sentence becomes the subject of the second part. Nothing whatever. On the contrary the natural construction of the Hebrew, and equally so of the Greek in the Septuagint, as well as the English of our own versions, — both old and new, — all are in favor of the interpretation which I have given.

Besides, the whole context is confirmatory of it. Please to open to the passage and see how entirely plain it is. The 19th verse reads thus: —

“And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at evening.” Thus reads the 19th verse. All this is required of the clean person: — no intimation of any change of subject. But now notice how the next verse begins: —

“<span class="small-caps">but the man that shall be unclean</span>, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation,” etc.

To suppose that the second clause of the 19th verse refers to the unclean person is well nigh absurd, when it is so evident that there is no reference to him until the beginning of the next verse, where he is so formally introduced.

Notice, again, that in this same chapter there are several other enactments bearing upon precisely the same class of cases. For example, the priest who had officiated in connection with the slaying of the red heifer, and who had thus become infected, must pass through a similar process of disinfection. For this it is thus provided:

“Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the evening.” (verse 7.)

Two other similar enactments follow: —

“And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until evening.” (verse 8.)

“And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until evening.” (verse 10.)

Notice, again, that after enacting in the 19th verse that the clean person who has become somewhat contaminated by sprinkling the water of separation shall go through with the process of washing his clothes and bathing, it follows in the 2 1 st verse: “And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his clothes.” This form of making a statute perpetual seems never to be used except when the statute has been previously announced.³ But unless we understand it to be announced in the latter half of the 19th verse, it is not found at all.

Every line of argument seems to compel the conclusion that I have given the only reasonable construction to the verse under consideration.

To none of all those mentioned in the 7th, 8th, and 9th verses was the water of separation applied. They who had anything to do with the purification of the unclean, even the one that gathered up the ashes, must all of them be clean in the outset. Their infection could be removed by bathing. But the unclean person must be cleansed by the sprinkling of that which symbolized and represented the blood of christ - and by that alone. The law recoiled from requiring more.

I do not see how the case could be made any stronger. Either the Son of Sirach was utterly ignorant of what constituted the cleansing from a dead body, to which he refers (and no one has ever suggested any question as to his competency), or he understood baptizo to be the right word to express a ceremonial cleansing which was performed solely by sprinkling.

That he was not ignorant we may certainly assume. And you can readily consult Josephus to discover that he understood the thing in the same way: that The whole ceremony of cleansing from a dead body was by sprinkling alone. And yet that ceremony is called baptism by the writer of this book of the Son of Sirach, which dates back at least two hundred years b.c.

Lest you may not have Josephus’ works at hand, I will copy the sentence referred to. It is very significant, for it shows that this learned man, who certainly knew the Greek language as the Jews understood it, and knew Jewish customs, also called this sprinkling “baptism.” He says: “Baptizing by this ashes put into spring water, they sprinkled on the third and seventh day.”⁴

The Greek word which he uses is baptizontes.

Putting the words of the Son of Sirach by the side of those of Josephus, who wrote about two hundred and fifty years later, it will be seen that the word baptizo had for many generations been employed by the Jews who were familiar with the Greek to express this idea of ceremonial cleansing by water. It had been so used for at least two or three centuries before Christ. If Christ had used it in any other sense, it would have been necessary for him to state that fact; they would not naturally have expected him to use the word in any other sense, nor would they have understood him if he had so used it.

And it is also seen that the word was so used where the entire cleansing was by sprinkling.