this word holokleros of sacrificial witness which had to be entire or perfect. It is a stronger word than holos, `the

whole', it means the whole in the .full integrity of its parts. Now `the parts' that Paul has in view are not the mere

physical members of a sacrificial animal, but `the parts' that go to make up `the whole person', namely, spirit, and

soul and body. Sanctification that is entire, that covers the parts that make up the whole, not only relates to the

spirit, but applies to the soul, the sensual part of man, and to his body also. The apostle prayed that the `holiness' of

the believer should comport with `wholeness', and where any one of these God given `parts' is neglected, `entire'

sanctification is defeated. There is a tendency among believers, especially among those whose great desires are

spiritual and have sensed the evil of the world and the corruption of the flesh, to neglect the mind, the senses and the

body. This is, however, but an unconscious criticism of the wisdom of the Creator Who made man with all his

faculties and parts.

If we will read 1 Thessalonians 5:12-22, beginning with the exhortation to `know them that labour among you',

to the closing words `abstain from every appearance of evil', and carry these exhortations, that impinge upon the

whole round of experience, with us into verse twenty-three, we may perceive what a practical thing `entire

sanctification' must be, and what it means in the estimate of the apostle `to be preserved blameless' unto the coming

of the Lord. This, therefore, although written before the revelation of the mystery, can be appropriated by us all as a

practical outworking of the position into which grace has placed the believer, who is accepted in the Beloved.

Among the terms that came before us was the word `wash', in Ephesians 5:26. A very slight acquaintance with

the typical ritual of the Old Testament will call to mind many references to the `diverse washings and carnal

ordinances' that were imposed `until the time of reformation' (Heb. 9:10). There are quite a number of different

words used in the New Testament to provide these ceremonial washings a doctrinal explanation, and as these form a

part of our great enquiry let us give them consideration in this section. The words are :

Apolouo `to wash' (1 Cor. 6:11).

Apopluno `to wash' (Luke 5:2).

Baptizo `to wash or baptize' (Luke 11:38).

Baptismos `washings' (Heb. 9:10).

Louo `to wash' (John 13:10).

Nipto `to wash' (John 13:10).

Plano `to wash' (Rev. 7:14).

Apolouo. There are two references only in the New Testament to this word :

` Be baptized and wash away thy sins' (Acts 22:16).

` But ye are washed but ye are sanctified'' (1 Cor. 6:11).

We expect, in the usual way, that the verb `be baptized' would be `passive' as it is indeed in the parallel passage

in Acts 2:38. In the case of Acts 22:16, Paul departs from the usual and employs what is known as the middle voice.

The Authorised Version of Mark 7:4 reads, `When they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not', but

the Revised Version gives effect to the middle voice of the verb and translates `except they wash themselves'.

The middle voice appears again in 1 Corinthians 10:2 but there we can hardly say `they baptized themselves',

although it is true that no one else baptized the Israelites into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

Green translates ebaptisanto `they got baptized'. This of course is the possible meaning of Acts 22:16,

nevertheless Mark 7:4 demands the translation `wash themselves', that we dare not set aside the thought that Paul's

baptism was carried out by himself. To us, this sounds revolutionary, but it was the general custom in the Old

Testament ritual. The Priest `washed himself' (Ex. 40:31), the leper, on the day of his cleansing, `washed himself',

`washed his flesh' (Lev. 14:8,9), and Naaman `dipped himself' in the Jordan (2 Kings 5:14). Therefore, even though