# Girls and the Covenant



## heartoflesh (Jun 9, 2005)

I apologize if this has been already addressed elsewhere, but this is my question:

Under the Old Covenant, were infant girls automatically considered as members of the covenant? (since they didn't undergo circumcision)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 9, 2005)

The daughters of covenant members were _circumcised_ through the federal headship of their father as the seed passed during conception.

Matt could explain this better than I.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 9, 2005)

He is very good at explaining it.

Sadly such an explanation is not found in the scriptures.

Federal headship is one thing. Adding on all this 'seed passing through' business is merely conjecture.

JH


----------



## heartoflesh (Jun 9, 2005)

Scott's answer makes as good a sense as any I've heard. It's pretty much what I was thinking, that the daughters were somehow represented by the father.


----------



## Myshkin (Jun 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The daughters of covenant members were _circumcised_ through the federal headship of their father as the seed passed during conception.




Does this have anything to do with traducianism? or totally unrelated?


----------



## kceaster (Jun 9, 2005)

*Jonathan....*

Federal headship is very Scriptural. In Adam all die, in Christ some live. "I will be your God and you shall be my people," places those in this relationship in Christ. Therefore, if any man had a daughter, and he was elect in Christ from the foundation of the world, then his daughter was _externally_ a member of the covenant as well.

God could have hatched us in eggs in the forest somewhere without any ties to family whatsoever. Instead, He created family for the very reason of headship.

Further, when the head of the family made sacrificial atonement for his covenant household, daughters were included. Otherwise, atonement for daughters would not have happened and all the virgins of Israel, who in Scripture are a prized class of citizens, would have died in their trespasses and sins and are now in hell.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 9, 2005)

With respect, I never disagreed with federal headship.

JH


----------



## heartoflesh (Jun 9, 2005)

It is interesting that daughters could be represented by their fathers under the Old Covenant, but in the New Covenant a sign is required for them, the same as for boys.

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## Augusta (Jun 9, 2005)

Adams sin was headship on a grand scale, here is headship on a family scale. If the daughters can suffer for their the sin of their covenant head then you would think they would share in the good gifts of their covenant head.

Joshua 7:24-26
24 Then Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, the silver, the garment, the wedge of gold, his sons, his daughters, his oxen, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and all that he had, and they brought them to the Valley of Achor. 
25 And Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? The LORD will trouble you this day." So all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones. 
26 Then they raised over him a great heap of stones, still there to this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of His anger. Therefore the name of that place has been called the Valley of Achor to this day.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 9, 2005)

Under the OC, they were included in the covenant (whether a sign was applied to them or not). In the NC, the sign is applied to both men and women, which Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, makes note of for us.



> But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Under the OC, they were included in the covenant (whether a sign was applied to them or not). In the NC, the sign is applied to both men and women, which Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, makes note of for us.
> 
> 
> ...



Gabriel,
The inclusion you speak of is not by proxy, correct? It had to do with the federal headship I earlier spoke of, right?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 9, 2005)

Certainly Federal headship in the OT included women.

Kevin stated this perfectly. (I like the "egg bit").

Also other things which are not conjecture, but simply need a bit more thought.

When did the OT *not* include girls?

Were girls "circumcised" in the OT? If they were not, then they are cut off from among God's people, and not allowed to participate, say, in the Passover?

Apart for FH, some see problems with Females. Females were not physically circumcised, but they were virtually circumcised. We know, in certain medical ways, that women can be "circumcised" of sorts. But nowhere in the Old Testament does God command that women are to be physically circumcised. That would throw a wrench into Federal Headship as God set it up. 

But, we do need to clear up the problem of "covenant."

Exodus 12:48, "And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it."

Who is not allowed to eat the Passover? 

No uncircumcised person. Period.

How then, could females eat of it? If NO uncircumcised person is to eat of it, no one with a foreskin, and women, anatomically do have that in a smaller degree, then what could God be talking about here?

The male is circumcised on the foreskin. It is cut. Covenants, as we know, are cut. This is very meaning of the word "_berith_". When God made a covenant with Abraham He passed through the animal parts and ratified the cutting of the covenant. He passed through the blood of the covenant to ratify His end of the covenant. 

Now, to propagate and remind men who are in covenant with God about the covenant they have with Him, they are cut too. Males are cut, and the sign of the covenant is in their flesh. Their procreative organ (pressing us to consider lineage and covenant promises) is cut as an object lesson every time intercourse takes place in view of the covenant they have and God's desire to "raise up godly seed." 

For females, they are not cut. But both males and females pass through the procreative organ and pass through "their side" of the covenant that God made with Abraham. EVERY FEMALE SEED (and male seed for that matter) passes through the midst of the covenant every time procreation takes place. The female seed passes through the male procreative organ, right in the middle of the circumcision made in blood. A covenant, then, is virtually cut every time the child of covenant promise is conceived. The reality of it is ratified by Federal Headship, but it is a great object lesson. Both male and females are virtually circumcised by passing through the covenant sign, and the males are both virtually and actually circumcised to continue the sign in their own flesh. 

There is no stretch here, or no fabrication. God passed though the cutting, and so the "seed" passes though t he cutting as well.

Federal headship wraps this up in a nice little theological blanket.


----------



## heartoflesh (Jun 9, 2005)

Thanks, Matt.


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 9, 2005)

Very interesting.


I don't buy it, but it really is a fascinating idea.


----------



## heartoflesh (Jun 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Wannabee_
> Very interesting.
> 
> 
> I don't buy it, but it really is a fascinating idea.



Joe, how would you answer the question? 

Just so you know, I am currently undecided between Credo/Paedo. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with your having a different take on this than Matt, but I suspect so.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Certainly Federal headship in the OT included women.



I never said it didn't.



> There is no stretch here, or no fabrication. God passed though the cutting, and so the "seed" passes though t he cutting as well.
> 
> Federal headship wraps this up in a nice little theological blanket.



No sale. I don't buy comfort blankets.

JH


----------



## heartoflesh (Jun 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> No sale. I don't buy comfort blankets.
> 
> JH


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> 
> No sale. I don't buy comfort blankets.



Then how do you explain the fact that *no uncircumcized person* was allowed to eat of the passover? How could women partake of it unless they were considered circumcized?

What is your answer to this question, since you don't accept Matt's explanation?


----------



## Dan.... (Jun 9, 2005)

Are there any examples in scripture of women partaking of the passover? Or any evidence that implies the participation of women?

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> ...



Well, if we accept that women DID partake of the passover, which I would, (seeing as the original passover feast takes account of 'each' member of the household in determining whether to have a whole lamb or to share one)...

Then I would say that they partook because they WERE considered circumcised. Why? Because their federal head was circumcised. The whole passage refers to MEN in reference to the ACT of circumcision, and then says 'uncircumcised person'. I would say that the wives and daughters are considered 'circumcised' through their husbands and fathers who physically were. Circumcision is circumcision. It is the cutting off of a foreskin. Women were not circumcised.

I would NOT say that they (women) were actually 'circumcised' themselves. This theory Matt has spelled out (clearly and succinctly) is a construct which is entirely neccessary for those who hold to paedobaptism. Why? Because the objection otherwise stands that we should baptise only male babies if baptism is a continuation of circumcision. So, let all females be considered virtually baptised by virtue of their covenant headship. No? I thought not.

Another thought occurs to me. As this thread is hanging a doctrine on one verse, let me point out an anomaly...

The stranger enters in with his family. He is circumcised, his boys are circumcised. They partake. Wonderful.

But how can his women partake? His wife, his girls? How?

You see, the seed that created them never passed through the covenantally cut procreative organ, because it wasn't circumcised at the time.

The answer is to me seems simple: It is federal headship. The wife and female children are considered circumcised because the federal head is circumcised.

I am sure I shall be shot down in flames, but that's my


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Wannabee_
> ...


In a way I think you answered it yourself.


> It is interesting that daughters could be represented by their fathers under the Old Covenant, but in the New Covenant a sign is required for them, the same as for boys.


Look at the language in the Genesis passage Rick. Circumcision doesn't admit one into the covenant, it is an act of obedience of one who is already in it. If a male child is not circumcised he is cut off from the covenant. One can't be cut off if they are not already part of it. The women would remain in the covenant until they lived in disobedience to it (married a Gentile, etc.).


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 9, 2005)

I think the point, though, is being missed overall. God is a God who likes object lessons that have meaning. Let's ask the question - why the unit? Now, when I say "unit" I mean the male procreative organ (trying to be civil).

God could have said, "Clip off your toe," or "Clip your earlobe," or "Shave off your eye brows as a sign," etc. He could have picked a number of different parts.

But that's not what he did.

He chose the unit. The Procreative Organ that symbolizes something. Now don't go get all literally technical. People are circumcised today and it has no impact or significance. But, after Genesis 15-17 and everything Abraham went though, it has TONS of significance.

Think about just the logistics. God tells him he has to cut off the tip of his unit! How did he take that? How would the rest of his servants have taken it! 

Man, if I were standing there and Abraham said, "God told me to cut off the end of all your units - so form a line...." I would have said, "God said what??????" Now that might be a bit humorous, but seriously, can you imagine just one of them asking "Why in the world does God want the tips of our units cut off??"

Abraham would have had to explain the "covenant", "lineage" "commandment", "blood", "sacrifice", "atonement,' etc. 

But Abraham, "Why the UNIT?!!"

Ahhh, just because?

Not really.

You'll have to attach more theological reflection to it than that guys....



[Edited on 6-9-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 9, 2005)

Thanks, Matt; that was really helpful. I remember these discussions a year ago at this time when I was making the transition to paedo.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 9, 2005)

Greg Bahnsen used the exact same argument in his sermon on baptism.


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_You'll have to attach more theological reflection to it than that guys....



More reflection wasn't required in the context. Here's a few thoughts though (some of which, admittedly, may not be right on the money).

Circumcision - a cut around

The choice of the male reproductive organ was indeed significant. It is through this that the seed passes from generation to generation. It is through the seed that both the promise and the curse is passed down. Agreed?

There were probably sanitary ramifications, but those could, and probably should, be treated as more incidental than central in any way. Morris says that "There is some medical evidence tht this practice has indeed contributed ot the long-lasting vigor of the Jewish race" (The Genesis Record, 333). So, though this is not central, it may have been an aspect of the blessing, though admittedly, this is not implied in the text. To take this further though, in a sense, what was unclean was cut away. We can see the analagy here in reference to the circumcised heart of the NT.

The emphasis is on the seed. "The circumcision (cutting around) of [the procreative] channel would thus picture its complete enclosure within God's protective and productive will" (Morris). It must be noted that all of God's people must pass through the circumcision. It was a reminder though. Matt's discussion is very interesting, but to make the postulations in regard to the female's reproductive organ departs from direct Scriptural reference. Simply put, there was no need for the female to undergo circumcision because the seed had already passed through the circumcision.

It should also be a deterent in fornication. When the circumcised sex organ was seen it was immediately identified with YHWH. If one were to fornicate it would be known by all involved parties that they were of the covenant people of the LORD, thus degrading His name and bringing judgment upon themselves (Deu 10:16; 30:6).

A final observation. It's better to have missed something in God's Word than to mess it up. By not understanding something we are simply in ignorance. By stating something as true that is not necessarily Scriptural can be most dangerous, and if wrong is actually adding to the Word of God. I'm not making accusations, but rather voicing that, since I cannot see this teaching clearly spelled out in Scripture, I would fear to proclaim it. There's too much that is clear in Scripture; the well is far too deep for me to ever hope to draw from its depths. I'll stick with what I can positively know and proclaim the perspicuity of Scripture.


----------



## kceaster (Jun 9, 2005)

We're getting too wrapped up in the sign again.

What does circumcision signify?

What does baptism signify?

Are Gentiles in the NT "circumcised"?

Are Hebrews in the OT "baptized"?

Why did God create man in His image, male and female?

Why did God design procreation through a relationship between man and woman?

The way some of you talk and practice, you make it sound like the Bible says nothing about little girls and what God thinks about them. They're only important when it comes to proving paedobaptists wrong and if they're converted. The rest of the time, they somehow fall off of God's radar.

The Hebrew virgin was the prize of Israel. There is no dispute in this. Why was she prized? Because God prized her. Why does God prize the Hebrew virgin? Wasn't she born in sin like the rest? Isn't she in sin and misery under the wrath of God?

The only answer to this question is that God is a covenant God who works through families. If you can't see that from a plain reading of the Scriptures then you need to read it again. There is no conjecture. God's plan is familial and still is. There is one long ribbon of family structure through His covenant with Abraham.

If you are in the faith, Abraham is your father. It is quite simple, really.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 9, 2005)

Well said Kevin.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Gabriel,
> The inclusion you speak of is not by proxy, correct? It had to do with the federal headship I earlier spoke of, right?



Right. If I understand you correctly. I was merely pointing out that, in the NC, women along with men receive the *sign* of covenant inclusion, while in both the OC and the NC, they were included under the Federal headship principle.


----------



## pastorway (Jun 10, 2005)

Can we go back to something everybody missed/ignored?



> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> 
> The stranger enters in with his family. He is circumcised, his boys are circumcised. They partake. Wonderful.
> 
> ...



We cannot assume that Matt's view is Biblically correct, because the Bible includes those in the Old Covenant that did not pass from a circumcised male when conceived. Yet when dad got circumcised the whole family was respresented.

Matt's conclusions, though making for a fascinating discussion about certain _things_, is void of anything but theological speculation.

Phillip


----------



## Dan.... (Jun 10, 2005)

Pastor Way,

Not everyone missed or ignored it.

I thought it was a good point. 


But one other thing...



> This theory Matt has spelled out (clearly and succinctly) is a construct which is *entirely neccessary for those who hold to paedobaptism.* Why? Because the objection otherwise stands that we should baptise only male babies if baptism is a continuation of circumcision.



Matt's position, however "a fascinating discussion" it may be, isn't a necessary position for those who hold to paedo-baptism.

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 11, 2005)

Exactly. Why do Baptists allow women at the Lord's Supper? Why do they have Music Ministers? Why do they do anything that isn't "evidenced" or "practiced" in the New Testament? It is an invalid argument to argue against paedobaptism on the basis of "lack of example" in the NT, since so much of what Reformed and non-Reformed Baptists practice as orthodox and acceptable elements of worship and practice are completely absent from the Biblical record.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> We're getting too wrapped up in the sign again.
> 
> What does circumcision signify?
> ...



Kevin,

I agree that it is simple. I'm right there with you.

For 15 years, though, it was not simple to me because of my preconcieved notions that I brought to the text, instead of allowing the text to direct me, right from the beginning. It took an act of God's Spirit to change my mind on the matter. It was hard start to study theology all over again with no presuppositions brought to the text. That alone lead me to start restudying int he book of Genesis, not in Colossians or Romans.

So it is simple if we act as the ploughboy, but it is not simple otherwise. Human nature warping hermeneutics convolutes this.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 11, 2005)

> The stranger enters in with his family. He is circumcised, his boys are circumcised. They partake. Wonderful.
> 
> But how can his women partake? His wife, his girls? How?
> 
> ...



Completely right. When cars are off track, it takes the pit crew to get them back on the track, and then race continnues. When someone came into the fold, Israel, there was not only a circumcising, but also a washing with water (baptism) for the entire family (look up the Jewish sources on this - there are also some threads on the board ont his too). They had to be "cleansed" in order to get on the track. Federal Headship kicked in, so to speak, and from then on, it was regulatory unless they apostasized.

That does not take away from the object lesson at all though. I'm not sure why it would. Abraham would have still explained to them. Circumcision still meant what it meant, and the Federal headship of the father woudl have been over the family. From then ont he boject lesson would have been taught and took place.


----------

