What is ablution? Does the Bible talk about ablutions?

Washing with water was an action with which all Jews were familiar. There was (a) the washing of the garments or nets, expressed in the New Testament by the verb plunein (Rev. 7:14, 22:14; Luke 5:2) (b) the washing (brechein) by the woman (in Luke 7:38, 44) of the Lord's feet with her tears; (c) the ceremonial washing of the person, or parts of the person, and of utensils, expressed in the New Testament by the noun baptismos (Mark 7:4, 8; Heb. 6:2, 9:10), and the verb baptizein (Mark 7:4; Luke 11:38); (d) the act of washing the whole body, for which louein is used (John 13:10; Acts 9:37, 16:33; Heb. 10:22), to which, if we follow the common reading, we must add Rev. 1:5; and its compound apolouein (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11); and (e) the washing of the parts of the body, whether the face (Matt. 6:17), the eyes (John 9:7, 11, 15), the hands (Matt. 15:2; Mark 7:3), or the feet (John 13:5-6, 8, 10, 12, 14; 1 Tim. 5:10), for which niptein is employed. A glance at the references given above show that the verbs louein and niptein are the only ones made use of by the Lord in His discourse with the disciples on the night before He suffered. So, dismissing all further reference to (a), (b), (c), let us turn to mark the distinction noticed by the Lord between (d) and (e), as He said, in answer to Peter: "He that is washed (leloumenos) needeth not save to wash (nipsasthei) his feet, but is clean every whit" — a distinction which his hearers doubtless comprehended, and with which the readers of the LXX. must have been acquainted. For we read in that version that, when Aaron and his sons were to be consecrated, they were washed all over with water once for all — an act expressed by the verb louein (Ex. 29:4, 40:12; Lev. 8:6). But, as often as they or Moses entered the holy place, or ministered at the brazen altar, they washed their hands and feet in the laver of the tabernacle, or molten sea of the temple, to express which act the verb niptein is used (Ex. 30:19, 21, 40:30-32; 2 Chron. 4:6).

With these two washings, then, for those who approached God in the tabernacle or temple, all were familiar. So it was no unmeaning distinction, nor one of which the disciples were ignorant, which the Lord drew between the being washed all over and the washing of the feet. First washed all over — a washing which was never repeated — the priests, as often as they entered the tabernacle or ministered at the altar, had to wash both hands and feet in the place and vessel appointed by God. Washing with water for them was a requisite never to be dispensed with, and the washing in these two ways was absolutely necessary. The having been once washed all over could never be a substitute for the frequent ablutions enjoined them; nor could the washing of one day, however often repeated, if they had afterwards left the sanctuary or altar, be pleaded as availing for the next day. They had to wash in the laver as often as they required it. Of this rule there could be no relaxation; but, unless the washing all over once for all had first been effected, the other ablutions could never have taken place.

JEWISH. In Heb. 6:2 (βαπτισμός) the Hebrew believers were exhorted to leave 'the doctrine of baptisms;' and in Heb. 9:10 we read of 'divers baptisms or washings,' but which is followed by the words "imposed until the time of reformation," which 'time' is referred to as 'Christ being come.' This shows that the baptisms referred to were some part of the Jewish ritual, in which there were many washings and bathings; but none of these washings signified fully the baptism of the N.T., which as an initiatory ordinance places the baptised in a new position: the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:2) was a figure of this. It was the Jewish washings that the Hebrew believers were exhorted to leave, or not to be laying again as a foundation.

In the law there were many ceremonial defilements, each of which had its appointed purification. To these the scribes and Pharisees added others, such as washing the hands before eating, washing cups and plates — being very zealous in these things, while within they were full of extortion and excess. Mark 7:2-8. In Christianity the purification required extends to the heart, Acts 15:9; James 4:8; the soul, 1 Peter 1:22; and the conscience through the blood of Christ. Heb. 9:14.

The reason was, they were external things, that stood only in meats and drinks and divers washings. An Israelite had to be very careful about what kind of food he ate. The law prescribed as to everything he ate or drank; all had to be clean, or else he was defiled. But these things were all external things — meats, drinks, and divers washings; or, as the word really is (we saw it in the sixth chapter), divers baptisms. There was a washing at the laver, the sprinkling of blood to sanctify the unclean, upon the brazen altar too, sometimes upon the horns of the altar of incense, and once a year upon the mercy-seat. These could not make the conscience perfect, or give real peace; they were carnal, or fleshly, ordinances; having to do with the outward man, with a relationship to God which was purely external. A man might thus be a good Israelite, might be ceremonially clean, and yet be an utter stranger to peace with God or a sense of His love, or access into His holy presence. We are told here these things were laid upon them as a yoke — a yoke, in fact, as Peter says, "which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear" — until the time of reformation: that is, the time when all would be put on a right foundation, a right basis. These things were of a purely temporary character, but full of meaning for us, as types.

The great failure in Judaism, as the apostle shows there, was its failure to really purify the conscience, so as to set the soul at rest in the presence of God. In the tabernacle of old, he says, "were offered both gifts and sacrifices, which could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience." Why? Because they consisted only in "meats and drinks, and divers baptisms," or purifications, "carnal ordinances" — that is, ordinances which could not in their very nature affect the condition of the soul.

The great failure in Judaism, as the apostle shows us there, was its failure really to purify the conscience, so as to set the soul at rest in the presence of God. In the tabernacle of old he says were offered "both gifts and sacrifices, which could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience." Why? Because they consisted only in "meats and drinks and divers baptisms," or purifications, "carnal ordinances," that is, ordinances which could not in their very nature affect the condition of the soul, but the flesh only. He contrasts them then with that which does purify. "For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer, purifying the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh" (here are the divers baptisms, namely of blood and of ashes, ordinances of flesh, purifying only the flesh), "how much rather shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

Such gifts and sacrifices left the conscience still unpurged. Their actual value lay only in the fact that they typified a better sacrifice than these. Meats and drinks too were but typical of the food and refreshment of the sacrifice of Christ - both for God and for the believer. Divers washings and carnal ordinances were typical of the application of the truth of Christ to the soul, in cleansing and sustaining power. Such things, being typical, were of course temporary, - imposed only until the time of reformation, when God would set things in proper relationship and perspective, introducing a change to end all changes.

"It was laid down that the hands were first to be washed clean. The tips of the ten fingers were then joined and lifted up, so that the water ran down to the elbows, then turned so that it might run off to the ground. Fresh water was poured on them as they were lifted up, and twice again as they hung down. The washing itself was to be done by rubbing the fist of one hand in the hollow of the other. When the hands were washed before eating they must be held upwards, when after it, downwards, but so that the water should not run beyond the knuckles. The vessel must be held first in the right, then in the left hand; the water was to be poured first on the right and then on the left hand; and at every third time the words repeated: 'Blessed art Thou who hast given us the command to wash the hands.' It was keenly disputed whether the cup of blessing or the handwashing should come first; whether the towel should be laid on the table or on the couch; and whether the table was to be cleared before the final washing or after it."

The answer of the Lord to the question of the Pharisees stamped this rite with its true character. In essence, it was a commandment of men, not of God. And their ablutions had an external effect only, not an internal. The six stone water-pots, each holding about twenty gallons, standing empty during the marriage banquet at Cana of Galilee, illustrate what ample provision it was customary to make for the sacramental purification of the guests (John 2:6). Yet to the Omniscient eye, this ritual so scrupulously enforced by the Jewish elders contemplated nothing further than the purity of the hands and of domestic utensils, the outside of the cup and the platter (Matt. 23:25), while it ignored the condition of the heart, that ever-flowing, and over-flowing spring of pollution.

In the Mosaic ritual various ablutionary rites were definitely prescribed, and the brazen laver, which was a prominent feature of the court of the tabernacle, was an abiding witness to the necessity of cleansing by water before there could be approach to God in sacrificial worship. The holocaust or whole burnt-offering, particularly, was to be purified thoroughly by water before it could become upon the altar a fire-offering of a sweet savour unto Jehovah. And by other similar ceremonies, including the washing of garments (Lev. 13:6; Lev. 14:8), the nation was taught symbolically that the removal of defilement was an essential preparation for intercourse with God. See also Ex. 30:17-21; and compare Ps. 26:6.

In His reply to the Pharisees the Lord did not pronounce any decision as to the legitimacy of their practices, but showed that they had invested the rite of washing with a spiritual significance and value which were unwarrantable. For the alleged principle involved was one not of physical cleanliness on sanitary grounds, but of ceremonial pollution. "They shrank not from dirt, but from defilement." They considered it possible that they might have come into contact with a Gentile or a tax-gatherer in the public footways. They might have handled something ritually unclean. Their cups might have been touched by the lips of strangers. Their couches might have been used by those who, according to the tradition of the elders, were defiled. These and many other things they had "received to hold," their elaborate ritual for maintaining "purity" being enforced by them with the inflexibility of a divine mandate.