# females not circumcised?



## Preach (Jan 16, 2005)

I'm just looking for a quick reply from the paedos regarding the objection that females were not circumcized, so why should baptism replace circumcision. Other than simply saying there is not a one to one identitiy, how do we repond?
"In Christ',
Bobby


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 16, 2005)

I'm gonna quote Matt because I need my nap:

When did the OT not include girls?

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

In mentioning infants, some see problems with Females. Females were not circumcised. Would we contend that they are then baptized? Let me say this, forget baptism for a moment. We are jumping ahead because we have not established that children should be baptized at all yet. But I think an important aspect of the Old Testament covenant has eluded you and we should take it up now. Females were 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 circumcised. That woudl be wrong to a certain degree. Read 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.

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. 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. Males are cut, and the sign of the covenant is in their flesh. But females, EVERY FEMALE SEED 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 cut every time the child of covenant promise is conceived. The reality of it is ratified on her. Females are virtually circumcised by passing through the covenant sign, and the males are both virtually and actually circumcised to continue the sign in the own flesh. 

More here pal:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5685#pid68614


----------



## Peter (Jan 16, 2005)

How did Matt come up with this? Who else holds this view of female circumcision? I thought females just looked to the circumcision of their covenant head as a sign/seal of their own covenant membership in the OT. Since the NT specifically denotes discontinuity in the application of the seal, we Baptize females as well as males.


----------



## Peter (Jan 16, 2005)

hmmm

I think the female seed still "passes through the procreative organ", only into the tube. Besides, even though the ancient Israelites were no doubt advanced practitioners of medicine, they probably didnt know how to artificially create women


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



Cloning is _cellular_ alone. No fertilization is ever done on the cloned cells. A 50 year old who was cloned was an unfertilized person in that they actually were not part of the intital fertilization process. However, even the cheek is part of a series of steps. The original person whom had the cheek passed through the male organ, hence there's your federal headship.

God has this all figuired out.

[Edited on 1-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Peter (Jan 16, 2005)

Well, I didnt used to think there was a preAbrahamic sign, but wasnt Eve's rib *cut* from Adam.


----------



## Preach (Jan 16, 2005)

thanks for the responses


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 31, 2005)

But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, *men and women alike*.
Acts 8:12

Seems to me that Luke is making it clear that women are now participating in the visble covenant sign of baptism under the New Covenant, whereas in the Old Covenant, only males were circumcised physically/visibly.

*shrug*


----------

