The Pharisees judged the omission of this ablution to be a crime of equal magnitude with fornication, and worthy of death.

"They taught that, if a person had not departed from the house, the hands, without the fingers being distended, should be wet with water poured over them, and then elevated so that the water might flow down to the elbows; furthermore, the water was to be poured a second time over the arms, in order that, (the hands being held down), it might flow over the fingers. This practice is alluded to in Mark 7:3, ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται” [except they wash their hands] "and is denominated by the Rabbins. See Buxtorf's Chaldaic, Talmudic, and Rabbinic Lexicon, col. 1335. On the contrary, those who had departed from the house, washed in a bath, or, at least, immersed their hands in water with the fingers distended. The ceremony in this case (Mark 7:4) is denominated lav un Вanτlowvτai" [except they immerse, or bathe], "and by the Rabbins 2. See Buxtorf's Lexicon, col. 849."

Dr. G. Campbell, on Mark 7: 3, 4, says; "For illustrating this passage, let it be observed, 1st, that the two verbs, rendered wash in the English translation, are different in the original. The first is vlyviai, properly translated wash; the second is ẞanilowvrat, which limits us to a particular mode of washing; for Banilo denotes to plunge, to dip." After quoting with approbation the following remark of Wetstein's, "fantigeσOα est manus aquæ immergere, viлτεσ0α manibus affundere” [i. e. βαπτίζεσθαι is, to immerse the hands in water, νιπτεσθαι, to pour water on the hands] he proceeds; "This is more especially the import, when the words are, as here, opposed to each other. Otherwise viate, like the general word to wash in English may be used for βαπτίζειν, το

66

dip, because the genus comprehends the species; but not conversely βαπτίζειν for νιπτειν, the species for the genus. By this interpretation, the words, which, as rendered in the common version, are unmeaning, appear both significant and emphatical; and the contrast in the Greek is preserved in the translation." Accordingly, Dr. Campbell translates the passage thus; "For the Pharisees....eat not until they have washed their hands, by pouring a little water upon them; and if they be come from the market, by dipping them."

Rosenmuller, in his notes on this passage, speaks of two modes of washing the hands, namely, immersion of the hands in water, and, when one hand is washed by the other.*

Kuinoel also speaking of the opinion entertained by some, that a total ablution was performed in case of returning from the market, says, "But an immersion of the hands, duly performed, would have abundantly sufficed for this end," that is, for purification from contact with the multitude.

Spencer, on the Ritual Laws of the Hebrews, speaks thus; "Some of the Jews ambitious for the credit of superior purity, frequently immersed their whole persons in water; the greater part, however, following a milder discipline, frequently washed only their hands, when they were about to take food. That the greater part, and especially the Pharisees, attended to this rite privately at home, and considered it a very important part of religion, is sufficiently evident from Mark 7: 3, 4. Hence it was that stone vessels for water [water pots, John 2: 6] were provided in every house of the Hebrews;

* Immersio manuum in aquam, et quum una manus abluitur altera.

† On Mark 7: 4.

so that all, when about to take food, might perform the frequent washings according to the discipline of the Pharisees. These vessels were very suitable for performing these daily purifications of the Jews; for it was customary among the Jews, sometimes to wash the hands by water poured upon them; at other times, to immerse the hands in water up to the wrist. The former mode of washing they expressed by, the latter by

* יי.טבל

From Lightfoot I gather the following. On Mark 7: 4, he says, "The Jews used the washing

of hands,' and

the plunging of the hands.' And the word viyorτaι wash,' in our evangelist seems to answer to the former,-and ẞanτlowviαι, 'baptize' to the latter." "Those that remain at home, eat not,

...

...

'unless they wash the fist.' But those that come from the market eat not, ...unless they plunge their fist into the water,' being ignorant and uncertain, what uncleanness they came near unto in the market." Then follows an extract from the Jewish writer Maimonides,

* E Judæis nonnulli, puritatis accuratioris laudem ambientes, se totos in aquas frequenter immergebant: plerique vero, disciplina mitiore usi, manus tantum, cum cibum capturi essent, frequenter abluebant. Hunc ritum plerosque omnes, Pharisæos inprimis, domi suæ privatim exercuisse, eumque in præcipua religionis parte posuisse, satis e S. Marci verbis [7: 3, 4.] cognoscatur. Hinc factum est, quod voglaı MOivai (quarum meminit Evangelista) per singulas Hebræorum ædes disponerentur, quod scilicet omnes cibum sumpturi lavacris frequentibus e disciplina Pharisaeorum uterentur. Erant autem haec vasa ad quotidianas hasce Judæorum purificationes peragendas maxime accommodata: nam Judæis solenne erat, nunc xɛoviëtɛiv, aqua affusa manus abluere, nunc Bartlε, manus carpo tenus aquis emergere [immergere]; et lotionem priorem per, posteriorem per exprimebant. Spencer de Leg. Heb. Rit, p. 1175,

mentioning the quantity of water which was required for the ceremony of plunging the hands, viz. "a fit place; that is, where there was a confluence of forty seahs of water;" while for the washing merely, such exactness was not demanded. "The phrase therefore," Lightfoot adds, "seems to be meant of the 'immersion, or plunging, of the hands only."" But, I remark, though it were only the hands that were plunged, yet the meaning of Banilo is sufficiently obvious.

The observances here mentioned have been handed down among the Jews from age to age; and it is impossible to fix the precise point in their history at which they commenced. Certain it is, they shed light on such passages as the one under consideration; and could as appropriate illustrations be produced, in respect to many other passages of Scripture, on various topics, the Christian world would feel itself under great obligations.

The preceding copious examination helps us, of course, rightly to understand the quotation from Luke 11: 38, which is next brought forward to sustain the meaning to wash, ascribed to Baлrlo; But the Pharisee, seeing him, wondered that he had not first WASHED HIMSELF (¿ßantioon) before dinner: Common version; And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner; that he had not first immersed, that is, himself, or his hands. By the preceding part of the chapter it appears, that our Lord and his host had been exposed to a great mixture of company, and therefore needed, in the judgment of the Pharisee, the more formal and thorough sort of washing. On this passage too, Lightfoot observes, "there is a washing of the hands,' and there is nap a dipping of the

hands.' This clause we are upon, refers to this latter. The Pharisee wonders, that Christ had not washed his

hands; nay, that he had not dipped them all over in the water, when he was newly come, ayogas, that is, ἐκ τῶν ὄχλων ἐπαθροιζομένων, ver. 29, from the people that were gathered thick together."

To sustain the meaning to wash, three other passages are produced, by Prof. Stuart, which contain the substantive derived from the verb βαπτίζω.

"Mark 7: 4, THE WASHINGS (Вαлtioμovs) of cups and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches (xλivor).

66

cups.

Mark 7: 8, THE WASHINGS (Валпiσμous) of pots and

"Heb. 9: 10, Only in meats and drinks, and divers WASHINGS (βαπτισμοίς).”*

That the word rendered wASHINGS in these passages ought, so far as philology is concerned, to be rendered IMMERSIONS, Would be a plain inference from the preceding investigations. And even though a difficulty should seem to arise from the nature of some of the things mentioned by Mark, we ought, before we decide that the word must have another meaning, to inquire whether the supposed difficulties really existed in practice among the Jews. It is by no means satisfactory to refer to customs among ourselves, as suggesting difficulties in respect to what the Jews are said to have done, and especially, what they are said to have done by the influence of a misguided religious scrupulosity; for it was from religious, though mistaken, considerations, that they practised these observances. Nor were such observances entirely without foundation in the statutes of Moses. In Lev. 11: 32, it is directed, that any vessel upon which the dead body of an unclean animal had fallen, "whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is

* P. 310.