# Circumcision And Gender



## TheologiaCrucis (Jan 7, 2017)

If the promised seed if Gen 3:15 is to woman..., but the sign of the covenant in the Abrahamic era is circumcision which is a male only sign, how would one address the concern that the covenantal sign here is sexist? I have an answer to this is my mind but am looking for more feedback. I


----------



## TheologiaCrucis (Jan 7, 2017)

Apologies for the typos. iPad. Lol


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 7, 2017)

The questions seems to come out of a 21st century mindset--meaning, it seems parochial, of concern to a modern person (of a certain kind); and completely outside of the concerns of Scripture itself, or people of the Bible. The charge of "sexism" is something that assumes a modern or post-modern frame of reference, so we're demanding the ancient text supply an answer for a current bugbear.

Well, if we aren't going to challenge the hubris of the current "concern," but attempt to meet the person where he is (N.B. the neutral use of the masculine pronoun, because I frankly don't care... except for rules of proper grammar), the sign of circumcision applied to male members of the covenant people is an indicator that the Savior to come will be male. "Seed," is a masculine Heb. noun, and Eve seems to be the first person to assume her son (Cain) was the promised deliverer.

No matter who the Savior turned out to be, he would come into the world by means of a female of our species; not by falling out of the sky or a tree, or rising up out of the ground or the sea. Woman will not be bypassed in this operation. That, it seems to me, underscores the indispensability of the female half of our race to the divine plan.

Don't know if those are the kind of thoughts you're looking for.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheologiaCrucis (Jan 7, 2017)

Thanks. That's sort of the direction I was going with this... The seed was promised to woman. If gender is relevant here at all it would be as a reminder than the male is not separable from the promise.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 7, 2017)

TheologiaCrucis said:


> If the promised seed if Gen 3:15 is to woman..., but the sign of the covenant in the Abrahamic era is circumcision which is a male only sign, how would one address the concern that the covenantal sign here is sexist? I have an answer to this is my mind but am looking for more feedback. I


 
Thankfully, we now are all one in Christ, neither male/female, but all equal in His Kingdom.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 7, 2017)

TheologiaCrucis said:


> how would one address the concern that the covenantal sign here is sexist?



Respond by laughing at the objector. In this case, it is the most loving and Christian thing that you could do for the person in question.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 7, 2017)

I would have thought that feminists would have been outraged if female Israelites had to undergo FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) [emoji16] 

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheologiaCrucis (Jan 9, 2017)

Lol I agree the question is not anachronistic and absurd... It is a question that took me a bit off guard but within an ecumenical forum wherein a certain decorum was expected. My original response was that covenant theology affirms that the Lord deals with families and the sign upon the male is as good as if the whole family had received it... though I hesitated after saying it on account that all 8 day old males were to bear the sign and not simply heads of households.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 9, 2017)

There were other sacrificial rituals peculiar to female babies as opposed to male babies but it would have been understood that the female Israelites were included as part of the covenant people although they didn't have a specific sign and seal of the covenant applied to them.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------

