English tongue when we perpetrated this outrage in Accepted in the Beloved

but the long silence suggests that it meets a need.

+

A word of explanation to any who may be puzzled at the difference

between louo and louein.  It is all a matter of custom.  Some grammarians

always use the infinitive 'to wash' louein, others adopt the first person

singular present indicative, 'I wash', louo.  There is little to choose

between them, but for consistency's sake, we adhere to one presentation and

use in our publications the first person.

Three words conclude our survey of the references to the act of washing

in the New Testament that have any bearing upon the believer's acceptance,

and these three are louo, pluno and nipto.  'The grammarians remark a

difference between louein, and plunein and niptein that louein is spoken of

the whole body, plunein of garments and clothes, and niptein of the hands'

Louo+ is considered by some to be from luo, 'to loosen', and the

washing which this word represents, generally contains the idea of loosening

any unclean element that may adhere.  In Acts 16:33 the Authorized Version

translation, 'and washed their stripes', does not recognize the presence of

the preposition apo.  It should be read, 'washed (the blood) from their

stripes'.  This verb, louo, is frequently used by the LXX to translate the

Hebrew rachats, the word employed in speaking of the ceremonial washings of

the law.  This is referred to in Hebrews:

'Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having

our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed

with pure water' (10:22).

Should any be inclined to urge a literal interpretation from the

reference to the washing of the body, let him first of all consider what he

must do with 'hearts' that are 'sprinkled' from an evil conscience.  The

Hebrews would find no difficulty in the apparent mixture of metaphors

but would immediately associate Old Testament typical washings with their New

Testament spiritual equivalents.  We cannot introduce Revelation 1:5 here, as

the best texts read, lusanti, 'loosed', instead of lousanti, 'washed'.

Washing in blood would defile, not cleanse.  Sprinkling with blood and

washing in water are alone known to the Old Testament (save in Psa. 58:10).

The question of Revelation 7:14 will come up when we deal with the

Greek verb pluno.  A very solemn thought is suggested by Peter's use of louo:

'But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is

turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her

wallowing in the mire' (2 Pet. 2:22).

The sow that is washed ever so clean is a sow still.  Sheep that have

strayed return to the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls (1 Pet. 2:25); but

sows, be they ever so clean externally, return to the mire.  Unless the

washing be intimately associated with regeneration (Tit. 3:5) it is of no

avail.  Before we turn to John 13:10 for the first reference to louo we must

acquaint ourselves with nipto which occurs in the same verse.  There are

seventeen occurrences in the New Testament, but not one refers to the bathing