Washing and Baptism: Titus 3:5

Last Saturday, I mentioned that Oso Famoso over at You Are Cephas had asked me about the meaning of Baptism, washing, and regeneration in verses such as John 3:5, Titus 3:5, and Hebrews 10:22. Last time, I looked briefly at Hebrews 10:22. Today, I want to look at Titus 3:5, which will probably be a bit more technical than last time.

This verse in NAB says, "not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit..."

The first thing to note here is the presence of regeneration (παλιγγενεσία, literally, "Birth again"). The Greek here is, διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας. The ESV translates the phrase as, "Washing of Regeneration." While this is probably a less intuitive reading, it certainly presents the theological issues here a bit more clearly. Thus, if the bath (λουτροῦ) here refers to Baptism, then we have a clear link to Baptismal Regeneration. The question is, "Does it mean Baptism?"

The entire argument hinges on what the word, λουτροῦ, from the noun, λουτρόν, means and signifies here.

First, let's proceed from a contextual perspective. In the short book of Titus, Paul is writing to Titus, a bishop/pastor in Crete, a very immoral country. Paul instructs Timothy about how he should pastor, minister, and teach. After the greeting (1:1-4), Paul begins by discussing what types of men should be ordained as elders and who should be avoided (1:5-2:1). Next, he gives further instructions about how people are to act in light of the grace and salvation of God (2:2-15). He then emphasizes how as heirs, based upon the work of Christ, we are to treat each other (3:1-11). He wraps up with brief instructions and another blessing (3:12-15).

The letter emphasizes three things over and over. (1) Salvation has come through God's grace, not our own works. (2) Titus and the elders must teach what is good, sound, and true. (3) Everyone is to behave in a way commensurate with the Gospel, i.e. the work God has done.

In the immediate context surrounding Titus 3:5, Paul begins with several practical, relational exhortations - be submissive and obedient, act peacefully and gently, show courtesy to everyone, etc. He then gives reasons why (note the γάρ, "for" at the beginning of v. 3) the people are to do this. In particular, we were once foolish, disobedient slaves, but now, God's kindness and generous love has appeared. He saved us, not because of our works, but by his own mercy, the bath of rebirth, and the renewal of the Holy Spirit.

Ok, so Paul is emphasizing the works of God in our salvation, not anything we do to earn salvation. Now, I must mention that Catholics do not believe that Baptism earns them salvation. It is not meritorious in that sense. Thus, to be honest, this by itself does not rule out the possibility of Baptismal regeneration here.

However, it must be admitted that Baptism is an act performed by men. Although God does, in fact, act through Baptism - both Catholic and Reformed understandings admit this, but to different degrees - the act itself is purely a human one. In other words, a person pours the water, a person says the words, and a person gets wet. People here are the subjects, not just the objects.

Thus, it would seem strange to me to include this in the list, if it means Baptism. God's mercy, the renewal of the Holy Spirit, the pouring out of the Spirit (v. 6), and being justified by grace (v. 7) all have God as the subject, not people. The only item listed that would be otherwise, would be the bath of rebirth.

Also, all of the other graces and acts listed are purely spiritual. If "Bath of Renewal" equals "Baptism," then it becomes the only one with a physical component.

Hence, based upon the context of Titus 3:5, it seems that this bath (λουτρόν) probably does not refer to the physical act of Baptism.

However, let us secondly turn to a semantic perspective. Here we look at the lexical meaning of λουτρόν. Here the Catholic argument is far stronger. Liddell, Scott, and Passow, define λουτρόν as, "A bath or bathing place" (date, 865). Louw and Nida define it more specifically as, "A ceremonial washing referring to baptism" (53.43). That seems pretty clear.

It is derived from the verb, λουω, which means, "To bathe, to wash oneself, or to wash the entire body" (Liddell, et al., 865). Louw and Nida agree (47.12).

The only other place in the New Testament that λουτρόν is used is Ephesians 5:26, "To sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word" (NAB). Here, the "her" is a reference to the Church, which is the object of Christ's love and giving in 5:25. Unfortunately, this is not specific enough to be really helpful here. "Water" makes it appear physical, but "with the word," indicates a more spiritual sense. I would argue that whatever sense one takes Titus 3:5 - whether physical or spiritual - one would have to take that same sense with Ephesians 5:26, and vice versa.

Looking at the Old Testament, the noun, λουτρόν, only appears twice in Song of Songs 4:2 and 6:6. The verses are identical. Although the context is metaphorical, "Your teeth are like...", the image clearly comes from a real, physical experience, namely shorn sheep, fresh out of a bath. Hence, λουτρόν clearly means a physical washing.

If we look at the Catholic Canon, then we can add 1 more use of the word. This is Sirach 34:25. Here the NAB translates λουτρόν as "Purification," a clear reference to ceremonial cleansing. Interestingly, the word parallels, βαπτίζω, which means, "To Baptize." Again, this is pretty clear.

The verb, λουω occurs 50 times in the Old Testament and 5 times in the New (John 13:10; Acts 9:37, 16:33; Hebrew 10:22; and 2 Peter 2:22). Without going into each verse, we must admit that the word almost always refers to a literal, physical bathing (see Exodus 2:5; Leviticus 15:5; 2 Samuel 11:2), oftentimes ceremonial bathing. The only "debatable" verse I can see on my cursory glance, is Hebrews 10:22, which we discussed last time.

So what are we to conclude? Here we cannot be entirely certain. The normal usage of the word, "Bath" or "Washing" is a literal bath. It is rarely used metaphorically or spiritually. In fact, it often corresponds to ceremonial cleansings, and it appears a lot in Leviticus with this meaning.

Nevertheless, the context of Titus 3:5 seems to indicate a purely spiritual interpretation. The normal use of the word does not need to demand otherwise. If Paul's point was spiritual and metaphorical, of course, he would use a term that is normally physical. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a metaphor, and how many terms did the Jews have for only spiritual washings? He would have to use a term normally applied to physical life in order to illustrate the depth and reality of the spiritual.

In fact, given its typical ceremonial meaning, Paul's use of the word emphasizes the point. God has made us ceremonial clean in his mercy. This is certainly greater than the ceremonial cleansings of the Old Testament, for God Himself has done it, not just an ordinary priest. The Spirit has been poured out upon us; we have been justified; and we are reborn as clean and holy. David uses similar terminology in Psalm 51:2, 7, where he uses physical words, "Wash," "Cleanse," and "Hyssop," for spiritual purposes (see my paper on The Description of God in Psalm 51).

Therefore, I must conclude that I am uncertain. The normal usage of the term would indicate a literal, physical, and probably ceremonial cleansing. This would point towards Baptism in the technical sense. Nevertheless, the context suggests that whatever is meant here is meant spiritually, for God is the subject, not man. While Baptism is never taken to be a work which earns salvation, it is clearly an act performed by man.

Thus, I must admit that the Regenerative-Baptismal interpretation is possible, but again not necessary. The argument here seems stronger than Hebrew 10:22, but the context of the verse cannot be ignored. Hence, with full gusto and enthusiasm, I conclude, "I don't know," although I do lean against the Catholic interpretation based upon contextual arguments.

Matthew Henry sees the connection to Baptism, but he believes that Paul is incorporating it to point to the spiritual truth. He says, "Water is of a cleansing and purifying nature, does away the filth of the flesh, and so was apt to signify the doing away of the guilt and defilement of sin by the blood and Spirit of Christ, though that aptness alone, without Christ's institution, would not have been sufficient" (Emphasis added).

This is probably where I come out: baptismal language is used to describe the immense and perfect cleansing work of God, rather than to describe Baptism itself.

Perhaps this seems to be an awfully long post just to conclude that I'm not sure, but I'd rather be honest than dogmatic here. These are tough passages, and my intellect alone is not sufficient to answer such important questions. Plus, unfortunately, I don't have access to my commentaries at the present. Stupid Atlantic Ocean.

Needless to say, I am intrigued enough to hopefully pursue the matter further, and I appreciate the challenge by Oso Famoso. This has been good for my soul. I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter, so please comment (assuming you're still reading this rubbish).