Women in the New Covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.

Douglas Somerset

Puritan Board Freshman
In what way has the position of women changed in the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament? For example, women are baptised in the NT but obviously could not be circumcised in the OT. Is there any spiritual advance for women to which this is pointing? Herod's Temple had "the Court of the Women" which seems to have been as far as the women were allowed to go. I am not clear that this was a biblical arrangement but if it was, it would seem that the NT marks an immense change in the position of women. I am interested in general light on this topic on which I feel very ignorant.
 
One would they have to ask themselves if women were in covenant in the Old Testament? They had to be in Covenant. How that actually happened was by proxy. That being, the seed passing through the cut of the federal head that created the female gender.

The only change in the NT economy is the sign can be physically applied to both genders

Did women take off the Passover meal?

The Larger Catechism Q. 31 - With whom was the covenant of grace made?
The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.
 
Last edited:
When the curtain temple tears at Christ's death the implication is that women and men share the same worship space in a sort of spiritual equality while retaining complementarity. The clergy also retain maleness and headship and Scripture presupposes marital distinctions. So what differs? A clarity in revelation that shows a spiritual relationship that was always present but not clearly known. Unfortunately, many take these matters and open up all offices without taking a closer look at Scripture, historical readings of Scripture, and Pauline theology.
 
All believers both men and women have become King & Priests, or by extension Queens & Priestesses. This means that they are part of the royal lineage of the King of Kings, everything is theirs, because everything is their Father and Kings; and having dominion, we model the activity of royalty by the example given to us by our King; that is to glorify God and expand the Kingdom in all we do. And currently, they are also ambassadors of the Gospel within complementary bounds. For women, this means many of them will be the spiritual light for their children, like Timothy's mother, and grandmother. Or, they will evangelize their work places, social groups, and other circles. When we think about this; we must understand that our eternal abode is as singular, not complementary genders. There is no giving in marriage in the world to come. In glorification, husbands will not share lives with former wives, and wives will not share lives with former husbands; and, children and their families will also have an individual calling within Heaven. I don't know if the man will still be the head; or, if there will be equilateral subjection with Christ as both genders sole authority? But there was a definite change. When we read, there is no longer Jew nor Greek, Male nor Female, Free nor Slave; we see God breaking the barriers of classes. To the Jew, the Gentiles were dogs. To the Men, Females were second class, to the Freeman, the Slave was little more than property. So within the Christian economy, no woman, no lower or upper class, no distinct race, is to be looked at as less in value within the Divine Family. That was most certainly revolutionary in those days, and in many ways is still as much today. New Testament Patriarchy is not about value, but order. God has ordained who is to be his generals, his lieutenants, his corporals; but what blessedness it is for us who have not been called to authority, to serve under it as soldiers? So, God has made every Saint, at least a soldier. And some he has gifted and equipped for high command. In the OT, very few if any women had anything to do with the Temple, its service, or its upkeep. Very few if any were Prophets. And Israel failed miserably in the point of going out into the world and sharing God. But we see women actively a part of the NT church. And we have seen so in the history of the Church. The problem we see now days isnt so much there isnt a place for every woman of God to find fulfillment in service, as it is a rebellious and discontent spirit of some who disregard the order, under the guise that order means a disregard of value.
 
Last edited:
A critical difference here applies to modern worship too. In the Old Testament, the closer one approached God, the greater the number of people were excluded until you only had the high priest approaching God in worship infrequently. We needed a high priest. Women, the foreigners, etc. could only go to a certain point. This constituted a worship by proxy.

We now have a High Priest that enables the whole church from both genders -- and every tribe and nation -- to go boldly before God in worship. The Bible defines specific roles, particularly in the preaching of the word and administration of sacraments, but that is God through his under-shepherds addressing his people; no believer is excluded.

@davejonescue we must have been typing at close to the same time :) I like your bringing the kingly and prophetic roles into the discussion.
 
Although there are indeed several ways covenant blessings are expanded now that Christ has inaugurated his kingdom, we should not think women were left on the fringe in Old Testament times. When the covenant was first made with Abraham, Sarah was a vital part. In fact, Abraham and Sarah themselves tried to marginalize Sarah as if her role could be filled by any woman, but God would have none of it. The promise was not just to Abraham, but to Sarah as well: "Sarah your wife shall bear you a son" (Genesis 17:19).

Likewise with the covenant ceremony at Sinai, the whole assembly took part. The text never singles out just the men, so we can assume the women too promised to obey what the Lord had spoken and were sprinkled with the blood, which is an event that prefigures baptism as much as circumcision does, if not more so. And in later renewals of the covenant, like in Deuteronomy 29:10-11 and Ezra 10:1, the inclusion of women is explicitly mentioned. So it is not really a great expansion for women to be baptized in the New Testament era. We see something similar at least as far back as Sinai.

I suspect our Western, individualistic mindset causes us to look at circumcision and think women were excluded more than it ought to. Just because they did not personally bear that particular covenantal sign does not mean they were halfway participants in the covenant. They received the promises (Genesis 21:6). They went through purification and entered the sanctuary (Leviticus 12:4). They came under judgment for covenant violations (Numbers 12:10). They came to God in faith and joined his covenant people (Ruth 1:16). They ate at the festivals and prayed at the Lord's house and made vows to God (1 Samuel 1:11). So of course they were baptized when the New Testament era arrived. It's not really a big change.
 
Last edited:
Women as a class in OT Israel did experience a degree of exclusion from maximum participation in the religious life of the nation. This in practice led (probably too often) to a lesser regard of them than was warranted, when they shared--then as now--with men as full image-bearers. Yet, they and little children were no less covenant-citizens in Israel than adult men, and had as their due a right to the privileges of such membership. The treatment of the Levite's concubine in Judges 19, and how shocking it was to the sensibilities of those who heard about it, is proof both of the exceptionally bad treatment shown her (otherwise, why would news of the incident appall the hearers?) and of how easily those with any privilege in any age are quick to lord it over others and push others down for fear of losing their advantage.

Women were unclean ceremonially more often than men in the nature of the case. Barring pregnancy, a typical mature woman was unavoidably unclean for as much as half of every month (for as long as her period lasted, plus a few days extra). Unlike a man, who might deliberately avoid causes of uncleanness in order to fully participate in the altar and feasts of Israel when summoned to the duty, a woman was at the mercy of her cycle, bound to nature's ordinance and the Law's prohibition on account of it. She should not have been so little regarded as she was in certain eras, as if God did not delight in Abraham's daughters; but we know how culture can be. Society sometimes took the limitations placed religiously (or covenantally) on women, and turned those into excuses for making them second-class citizens.

By the NC removal of the OC ceremonial system, almost all the restrictions that affected women more than men (and sometimes men also) fell away. There are still a handful of rules regarding worship and discipline of the church that have a sex-specific designation. But it is clear that women as well as men were marked by baptism in the same manner, proving that many old lines were erased for the kingdom of heaven; and this meant women were also summoned to participate in the Lord's Supper. We reason to this conclusion, not because there are any examples in the NT of women joining the covenant meal, but because the same rules surely apply to either sex. OC participation and service was organized around the expectations of cleanness, which setup benefited the males who consequently bore the brunt of covenant duties (to accompany the rights and privileges).

In the OT, only adult, circumcised males were summoned 3X a year to the feasts (doubtless, women came along when encouraged to do so, e.g. travel of both Hannah and Mary mentioned in the text). Curiously, the ordinance of memorial Passover (and that feast alone) can be read to exclude women on the basis that it is for ONLY the circumcised person, Ex.12:48, meaning men. There are no unambiguous examples of women fully participating in the Passover, and even the Last Supper which could have easily demonstrated female participation also happens to have none such present. It is recorded (Lk.8:1-3) that Jesus had women-devotees including wealthy ones who believed in him and were close to him, supporting his ministry; some of his disciples were married men, but the upper room did not contain any female contingent. Still, never in the history of the church, apart from a cult, have women been denied their right to eat of the Lord's body and blood, and that without any special approval. They are baptized, professing Christians, and as such if under no other bar are fully entitled as a man to partake under like circumstances. The whole church of men and women are summoned equally to the Lord's Table.

The NT teaches us to value the removal of the sex-specific burdens of outward cleanliness, and to recognize there is no more male and female distinguished in covenant-law, any more than Jew versus Greek, Gal.3:28. Paul does not write this, after to dispense with all differences between the sexes or teach the end of all sex-specific rules or limits. But women have been elevated, or restored in Christ to their honored place in the church. Christians, of all people, should be determined to show absence of prideful discrimination among us. Nor should we submit by default to a socially constructed definition of offensive discrimination, which would force us to deny the Bible's authority to propound God's limits wherever it may. Sex-specific limit set by divine authority does not count as sinful discrimination. Even with that, an outsider observing Christians at worship and in fellowship should be impressed by the evident dignity of every member regardless of sex (and station).
 
Thanks to all who have contributed so far. Any light on the Court of the Women in Herod's temple? Was this a Pharisaic innovation, excluding women from the brazen altar to which they had previously been admitted, or was it something that went back to the days of the Tabernacle? And were slaves under any constraints in OT worship which their masters were not?
 
Thanks to all who have contributed so far. Any light on the Court of the Women in Herod's temple? Was this a Pharisaic innovation, excluding women from the brazen altar to which they had previously been admitted, or was it something that went back to the days of the Tabernacle? And were slaves under any constraints in OT worship which their masters were not?
Hi Douglas,
These are great questions. My take is that the Old Testament tabernacle and temple laws did not exclude women (or slaves) from anywhere ordinary free men could go. However, the impurity laws would likely have meant women being ceremonially unclean more often than men. It would not surprise me (though I don't have any evidence to prove it) if excluding women was a "hedge around the law", aimed at making sure that they didn't accidentally or carelessly enter while ceremonially unclean. Just a thought.
 
Although there are indeed several ways covenant blessings are expanded now that Christ has inaugurated his kingdom, we should not think women were left on the fringe in Old Testament times. When the covenant was first made with Abraham, Sarah was a vital part. In fact, Abraham and Sarah themselves tried to marginalize Sarah as if her role could be filled by any woman, but God would have none of it. The promise was not just to Abraham, but to Sarah as well: "Sarah your wife shall bear you a son" (Genesis 17:19).

Likewise with the covenant ceremony at Sinai, the whole assembly took part. The text never singles out just the men, so we can assume the women too promised to obey what the Lord had spoken and were sprinkled with the blood, which is an event that prefigures baptism as much as circumcision does, if not more so. And in later renewals of the covenant, like in Deuteronomy 29:10-11 and Ezra 10:1, the inclusion of women is explicitly mentioned. So it is not really a great expansion for women to be baptized in the New Testament era. We see something similar at least as far back as Sinai.

I suspect our Western, individualistic mindset causes us to look at circumcision and think women were excluded more than it ought to. Just because they did not personally bear that particular covenantal sign does not mean they were halfway participants in the covenant. They received the promises (Genesis 21:6). They went through purification and entered the sanctuary (Leviticus 12:4). They came under judgment for covenant violations (Numbers 12:10). They came to God in faith and joined his covenant people (Ruth 1:16). They ate at the festivals and prayed at the Lord's house and made vows to God (1 Samuel 1:11). So of course they were baptized when the New Testament era arrived. It's not really a big change.
Thanks. The Leviticus 12 reference makes it very plain, I think that the Court of the Women in Herod's Temple was an innovation. What a dangerous innovation! Should we not be combining an Eastern corporate or federal mindset with a Western individualistic mindset, holding both in balance?
 
Hi Douglas,
These are great questions. My take is that the Old Testament tabernacle and temple laws did not exclude women (or slaves) from anywhere ordinary free men could go. However, the impurity laws would likely have meant women being ceremonially unclean more often than men. It would not surprise me (though I don't have any evidence to prove it) if excluding women was a "hedge around the law", aimed at making sure that they didn't accidentally or carelessly enter while ceremonially unclean. Just a thought.
Thanks. It would seem then that many women were debarred from the Temple for nearly half the year. And the uncleanness lasted longer for girl baby than for a boy (Lev. 12:3 and Lev. 12:5). So there is a definite equalising of an inequality in the NT.

One other point that puzzles me, however, is that with many people living so far from the Temple, their uncleanness cannot have made much practical difference to them because they must very seldom have gone to the Temple anyway. What seems relevant to the NT believer is the symbolism of the rules rather than the actual practice of the Israelites which may not have conformed very closely to the rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top