G3538 νίπτω (níptō)

νίπτω niptō 17x

to wash; spc. to wash some part of the person, as distinguished from λούω, Mt. 6:17; Jn. 13:8

νίπτω, late form of νίζω,

[in LXX chiefly for רחץ;]

to wash, usually of a part of the body: c. acc. pers., Jo 13:8; τ. πόδας, Jo 13:5, 6, 8, 12, 14, I Ti 5:10; mid., reflexive, to wash oneself: Jo 9:7, 11, 15; τ. χεῖρας, Mt 15:2, Mk 7:3; τ. πόδας, Jo 13:10; τ. πρόσωπον, Mt 6:17 (in cl. Att. prose, used only in compounds; cf. ἀπο-νίπτω).†

SYN.: λούω (q.v.), πλύνω.

THERE is a certain poverty in English, which has one only word, ‘to wash,’ with which to render these three Greek ; seeing that the three have each a propriety of its own, and one which the inspired writers always observe. Thus πλύνειν is always to wash inanimate things, as distinguished from living objects or persons ; oftenest garments (εἵματα, Homer, Il, xxii. Sxtv- SVVONVMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. τοὶ 155; ἱμάτιον, Plato, Charm. 161 e; and in the Septuagint ᾿ continually ; so στολάς, Rev. vii. 14); but not exclusively garments, as some affirm, for see Luke v. 2, where it expresses the washing or cleansing of nets (δίκτυα : cf. Polybius ix. 6, 8). When David exclaims Πλῦνόν pe ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνομίας Ps. 1. 8 [li. 2, A. V.]), this is no exception to the rule; forthe mention of hyssop, which follows, shows plainly that the royal penitent had the ceremonial aspersions of the Levitical law primarily in his eye, aspersions therefore upon the garments of the unclean person (Lev. xiv. 9; Num. xix. 6, 7); however he may have looked through these to another and better sprinkling beyond.! Nirrew and λούειν, on the other hand, express the washing of living persons; although with this difference, that νίπτειν (which displaced in the later period of the language the Attic view), and νίψασθαι, almost always express the washing of a part of the body—the hands (Mark vii. 8; Exod. xxx. 19), the feet (John xiii. 5; Plutarch, Thes. 10), the face (Matt. vi. 17), the eyes (John ix. 7), the back and shoulders (Homer, Od. vi. 224); while λούειν, which is not so much ‘ to wash’ as ‘to bathe,’ and λουέσθαι, ‘to bathe oneself,’ implies always, not the washing of a part of the body, but of the whole (thus λελουμένοι τὸ σῶμα, Heb. x. 22; ef. Exod. xxix. 4; Acts ix. 87; 2 Pet. ii. 22; Rev. i. 5; Plato, Phedo, 115 a). This limitation of νίπτειν to persons as contradistinguished from things, which is always observed in the N. T., is not without exceptions, although they are very unfrequent elsewhere ; thus, δέπας (Homer, Il. xvi. 229); τραπέζας (Od. 1. 112) ; σκεῦος (Lev. xv. 12). A single verse in the Septuagint (Lev. xv. 11) gives us all the three words, and all used in their exact propriety of meaning: καὶ ὅσων ἐὰν ἅψηται ὃ yovoppuys, καὶ τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ οὐ νένιπται ὕδατι, πλυν εἴ τὰ ἱμάτια, καὶ λούσεται τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι. The passage where it is most important to mark the distinction between νίπτειν, to wash a part, and λούειν or λουέσθαι, [) Ezek. xvi. 9, however, should perhaps be quoted as an exception, where ἔπλυνα is used of the person of a new-born infant.] 152 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § χιν to wash the whole, of the body, and where certainly our English Version loses something in clearness from the absence of words which should note the passing from one word to the other in the original, is John xiii. 10: “ He that is washed [ὃ λελουμένος] needeth not save to wash [νίψασθαι] his feet, but is clean every whit.’’! The foot-washing was a symbolic act. St. Peter had not understood this at the first, and, not understanding, had exclaimed, ‘Thou shalt never wash my ἰδοὺ. But so soon as ever the true meaning of what his Lord was doing flashed upon him, he who had before refused to suffer his Lord to wash even his feet, now prayed to be washed altogether : ‘Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.’ Christ replies, that it needed not this: Peter had been already made partaker of the great washing, of that forgiveness which included the whole man: he was λελουμένος, and this great absolving, cleansing act did not need to be repeated, was indeed incapable of repetition : ‘Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you’ (John xy. 8). But while it fared thus with him in respect of the all-inclusive forgiveness, he did need to wash his feet (νίψασθαι τοὺς πόδας), evermore to cleanse himself, which could only be through suffering his Lord to cleanse him, from the defilements which even he, a justified and in part also a sanctified man, should gather as he moved through a sinful world. One might almost suppose, as it has been suggested, that there was allusion here to the Levitical ordinance, according to which Aaron and his successors in the priesthood were to be washed once for all from head to foot at their consecration to their office (Exod. xxix, 4; xl. 12); but were to wash their hands and thezr feet in the brazen laver as often as they afterwards ministered before the Lord (Exod. xxx. 19, 21; xl. 31). Yet this would commend itself more, if we did not find hands and feet in the same category there, 1 The Latin labours under the same defect; thus in the Vulgate it stands: ‘Qui lotus est, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet.’ De Wette has sought to preserve the variation of word: ‘ Wer gebadet ist, der braucht sich nicht als an den Fiissen zu waschen.’ §xLvI SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 153 while here they are not merely disjoined, but set over against one another (John xiii. 9, 10). This much however to me is plain, that the whole mystery of our justification, which is once for all, reaching to every need, embracing our whole being, and of our sanctification. which must daily go forward, is wrapped up in the antithesis between the two words. This Augustine has expressed clearly and well (In Ev. Joh. xiii. 10): ‘Homo in sancto quidem baptismo totus ablwitur, non preter pedes, sed totus omnino: veruntamen cum in rebus humanis postea vivitur, utique terra calcatur. Ipsi igitur humani affectus, sine quibus in hac mortalitate non vivitur, quasi pedes sunt, ubi ex humanis rebus afficimur. Quotidie ergo pedes lavat nobis, qui interpellat pro nobis: et quotidie nos opus habere ut pedes lavemus in ipsé Oratione Dominica confitemur, cum dicimus, Dimitte nobis debita nostra.’ ὃ xlvi. φῶς, φέγγος, φωστήρ, λύχνος, λαμπάς. Au these words are rendered, some occasionally, some always, in our Version, by ‘light’; thus, φῶς at Matt. iv. 16 ; Rom. xiii. 12, and often; φέγγος at Matt. xxiv. 29; Mark xii. 24; Luke xi. 33 (it does not occur again); dworyp at Phil. ii. 15; Rev. xxi. 11 (where only it occurs); λύχνος at Matt. vi. 22; John v.35; 2 Pet. 1. 19, and elsewhere ; though this often by ‘candle’ (Matt. v. 15; Rev. xxii. 5); and λαμπὰς at Acts xx. 8, though elsewhere rendered ‘lamp’ (Matt. xxv. 1; Rev. viii. 10), and ‘torch’ (John xviii. 8). The old grammarians distinguish between φῶς and φέγγος (which are but different forms of one and the same word), that φῶς is the light of the sun or of the day, φέγγος the light or lustre of the moon. The Attic writers, to whom this distinction must belong, if to any, themselves only imperfectly observe it. Thus, in Sophocles φέγγος is three or four times ascribed to the sun (Antig. 800; Ajax, 654, 840; Trachin. 597); while in Plato we meet φ ὦ ς σελήνης (Rep. vii. 516 b; ef. Isai. xiii. 10; Ezek. xxxii. 7). This much right the grammarians have, that φέγγος is oftenest the light of the 1534 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § ΚΥΝῚ moon or other luminaries of the night, φῶς that of the sun or of the day ; thus Plato (Rep. vi. 508 c) sets over against one another ἡμερινὸν φῶς and νυκτερινὰ φέγγη. This, like so many other finer distinctions of the Greek language, is so far observed in the N. T., that the light of the moon, on the only occasions that it is mentioned, is φέγγος (Matt. xxiv. 29; Mark xiii. 24; cf. Joel ii. 10; iii. 15), as φῶς is that of the sun (Rev. xxii. 5). It will follow that φῶς, rather than φέγγος, is the true antithesis to σκότος (Plato, Rep. vil. 518 a; Matt. vi. 283; 1 Pet. ii. 9); and generally that the former will be the more absolute designation of light; thus Hab. 11]. 4: καὶ φέγγος αὐτοῦ [rod Θεοῦ] ὡς φῶς ἔσται : compare HKuripides, Helen. 5380: φησὶ δ᾽ ἐν φάει πόσιν τὸν ἀμὸν ζῶντα φέγγος εἰσορᾶν. See Déderlein, Lat. Synon. vol. ii. p. 69. Φωστήρ is rendered ‘light’ in our Version; thus, at Phil. ii. 15: “ Among whom ye shine as lights in the world”’ (ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ). It would be difficult to improve on this, which yet fails to mark with entire precision what St. Paulintends. The φωστῆρες here are the heavenly bodies, ‘luminaria’ (Vulg.), ‘Himmelslichter’ (De Wette), and mainly the sun and moon, the ‘lights,’ or ‘ great lights’ (= ‘luces,’ Cicero, poet.), of which Moses speaks, Gen.i. 14, 16; where nj Nd is rendered φωστῆρες in the Septuagint. Compare Ecclus. xliii. 7, where the moon is φωστήρ: and Wisd. xiii. 2, where φωστῆρες οὐρανοῦ is exactly equivalent to φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ here, the κόσμος of this place being the material world, the στερέωμα or firmament, not the ethical world, which has been already designated by the γενεὰ σκολιὰ καὶ διεστραμμένη. Nor would it be easy to improve on our version of Rev. xxi. 11: ‘ Her light [ὃ φωστὴρ αὐτῆς] was like unto a stone most precious.’ Our Translators did well in going back to this, Wiclif’s rendering, and in displacing ‘ her shining,’ which had been admitted into the intermediate Versions, and which must have conveyed a wrong impression to the English reader. Not that the present rendering is altogether satisfactory, being itself not wholly unambiguous. Some may still be tempted to understand ‘ her light’ as the light which ξ ΧΙΝῚ SYVONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT τες the Heavenly City diffused; when, indeed, φωστήρ means, that which diffused light to the Heavenly City, her luminary or light-giver ; ‘lumen ejus,’ as in the Vulgate. What this light-giver was, we learn from ver. 23: “the Lamb is the light thereof;” 6 λύχνος αὐτῆς there being =6 φωστὴρ αὐτῆς - here. In rendering λύχνος and λαμπάς our Translators have scarcely made the most of the words at their command. Had they rendered λαμπάς by ‘torch, not once only (John xviii. 3), but always, this would have left ‘lamp,’ now wrongly appropriated by λαμπάς, disengaged. Altogether dismissing ‘candle,’ they might then have rendered λύχνος by ‘lamp’ wherever it occurs. At present there are so many occasions where ‘ candle ’ would manifestly be inappropriate, and where, therefore, they are obliged to fall back on ‘light,’ that the distinction between φῶς and λύχνος nearly, if not quite, disappears in our Version. The advantages of such a re-distribution of the words would be many. In the first place, it would be more accurate. Λύχνος is not a ‘candle’ (‘ candela,’ from ‘candeo,’ the white wax light, and then any kind of taper), but a hand-lamp, fed with oil. Neither is λαμπάς a ‘lamp,’ but a ‘torch,’ and this not only in the Attic, but in the later Hellenistic Greek as well (Polybius, 111. 98. 4; Herodian, iv. 2; Plutarch, Z%mol. 8; Alex. 88; Judg. vii. 16; xv. 4); and so, I believe, always in the N. T. In proof that at Rev. viii. 10, λαμπάς should be translated ‘torch’ (‘ Fackel,’ De Wette), see Aristotle, De Mund. 4. Our early translators, who rendered it ‘brand’ or ‘firebrand’ (John xviii. 3), showed that they understood the force of the word. It may be urged that in the parable of the Ten Virgins the λαμπάδες are nourished with oil, and must needs therefore be lamps. But this does not follow. In the Kast the torch, as well as the lamp, is fed in this manner: ‘The true Hindu way of lighting up is by torches held by men, who feed the flame with oil from a sort of bottle [the ἀγγεῖον of Matt. xxv. 4], constructed for the purpose’ (Elphinstone, Hist. of India, vol. i. p. 333). 156 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xtvu More passages than one would gain in perspicuity by such a re-arrangement; and mainly through the clear distinction between φῶς and λύχνος, which would then be apparent. One of these is John v. 35: ‘He was a burning and a shining light,’—so our Translation; but in the original, ἐκεῖνος ἦν ὃ λύχνος 6 καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων ; or, as the Vulgate has it: ‘Tile erat lucerna ardens et lucens;’ not obliterating, as we have done, the whole antithesis between Christ, the φῶς ἀληθινόν (John 1. 9), φῶς ἐκ φωτός, that Kternal Light, which, as it was never kindled, so shall never be quenched, and the Baptist, a lamp kindled by the hands of Another, in whose brightness men might for a season rejoice, and which must then be extinguished again. In the use of Avxvos here and at 2 Pet. i. 19, tacitly contrasted here with φῶς, and there avowedly with dwoddpos, the same opposition is intended, only now transferred to the highest sphere of the spiritual world, which our poet had in his mind when he wrote those glorious lines: ‘Night’s candles are burnt out, and jocund Day Stands tiptoe on the misty mountain-tops.’

νίπτω. See Ev. Petr. 1 τῶν δὲ ᾿Ιουδαίων οὐδεὶς ἐνίψατο τὰς χεῖρας : ‘‘the callousness of the Jewish leaders is sharply contrasted with the scruples of the Gentile Procurator” (Swete ad 1). MGr νίβω (νίβγω).

νίπτω (niptō) — to wash. Included with: νίζω, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; imperative νίζε [Refs 8th c.BC+]; infinitive νίζειν [Refs 8th c.BC+]; participle νίζων [Refs 8th c.BC+]: Epic dialect imperfect νίζον [Refs 8th c.BC+]:— the present νίπτω, analogically formed from νίψω ἔνιψα, first in [NT+5th c.BC+] uses middle νίπτομαι [Refs]: future νίψω [Refs 8th c.BC+]: aorist ἔνιψα [Refs]; Epic dialect νίψα [Refs 8th c.BC+]:—middle, νίζομαι [Refs 5th c.BC+]: imperfect νίζετο [Refs 8th c.BC+]future νίψομαι (see. ἀπο-, ἐκ-νίζω)[LXX]aorist ἐνιψάμη; Epic dialect 3rd.pers. singular νίψατο [Refs 8th c.BC+]perfect νένιμμαι (see. below): aorist passive ἐνίφθην (κατ-) [Refs 5th c.BC+]:—wash the hands or feet (see. entry near the end), νίζε δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἆσσον ἰοῦσα ἄναχθ᾽ ἑόν [Refs 8th c.BC+], cf. Oracle texts cited in [Refs 5th c.BC+] [same place]:—middle, νίψατο δ᾽ αὐτὸς χεῖρας [Refs 8th c.BC+]; νίψασθαι, absolutely, to wash one's hands, [Refs 8th c.BC+]; χεῖρας νίψασθαι ἁλός [with water] from the sea, [Refs 8th c.BC+]

2. generally, purge, cleanse, νίψαι καθαρμῷ [Refs 5th c.BC+]

II. wash off, ἐπεί σφιν κῦμα θαλάσσης ἱδρῶ.. νίψεν ἀπὸ χρωτός [Refs 8th c.BC+][same place]:—passive, αἷμα νένιπται [Refs 8th c.BC+] —middle, ἐκ ποταμοῦ χρόα νίζετο ἅλμην he washed the brine off his skin [with water] from the river, [Refs 8th c.BC+]—Commonly used of washing part of the person, while λούομαι is used of bathing, πλύνω of washing clothes, etc.; but νίζω is sometimes used of things, σπόγγοισι.. τραπέζας νίζον [Refs 8th c.BC+] — _Attic dialect_ Prose writers use the word only in compounds, see.{ἀπο-}, ἐναπο-, ἐκ-νίζω. (Cf. OIr. nigid, Sanskrit nénekti 'wash', niktá- 'washed', Gr. ἀ-νιπτό-ποδες, χέρνιβα, I.-[Refs 5th c.BC+] nig[uglide]-.)