Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Reception into the Old Covenant


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Algernon

Algernon

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 09 May 2016 - 09:05 AM

I'm just curious: how were females received into the Old Covenant?

 

Thanks,

A



#2 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,032 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 09 May 2016 - 01:36 PM

It is not clear to me how this relates to Orthodox Christianity through patristic, monastic, and liturgical study. You could ask a rabbi.



#3 Algernon

Algernon

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 09 May 2016 - 09:47 PM

I recently heard someone try to explain that baptism replaces circumcision as the means by which we enter into covenant with God (Col 2.11-13). He was attempting to defend the practice of infant baptism. However males and females can both be baptized, but only males can be circumcised, so the two aren't really equivalent, are they?

Were females not part of the Old Covenant?



#4 Olga

Olga

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,825 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 09 May 2016 - 10:37 PM

Baptism indeed supersedes circumcision for those who are part of the New Israel. It is a requirement for all. Infant baptism is an ancient and accepted practice for Orthodox, as well as certain other "traditional" Christian denominations.

 

How and whether females came under the old covenant is straying beyond the purview of this forum.



#5 Algernon

Algernon

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 09 May 2016 - 11:36 PM

 How and whether females came under the old covenant is straying beyond the purview of this forum.

Not if one of the readers happens to know the answer and can post it here...



#6 Olga

Olga

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,825 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 10 May 2016 - 12:08 AM

Algernon, please note the following from the Community Handbook:
 

the Monachos.net Discussion Community is principally for discussion and discourse on the thought and heritage of Orthodoxy through its patristic and monastic traditions

 

The Monachos.net Discussion Community is not an interfaith forum for discussions on Orthodoxy with respect to other Christian churches, denominations or religious faiths. This means that discussions on, e.g., ‘Orthodoxy vs. Protestantism’ are beyond the purview, and conversations which transform to such points of focus will be terminated.

 

I recommend you approach a rabbi, or a forum dedicated to the discussion of Judaism for an answer to your question.



#7 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 10 May 2016 - 06:58 AM

I recently heard someone try to explain that baptism replaces circumcision as the means by which we enter into covenant with God (Col 2.11-13). He was attempting to defend the practice of infant baptism. However males and females can both be baptized, but only males can be circumcised, so the two aren't really equivalent, are they?

Were females not part of the Old Covenant?

 

Depends on the time period. In about 50 BC converts both men and women would be baptised in a mikveh. These ritual baths became quite popular for ritual cleansing during the second temple period,  the pool of siloam mentioned in the gospel of John is a mikveh.  Its still the final process of conversion in orthodox judaism today.

 

If you want to go further in time it gets a bit sketchy. Originally if you lived in a jewish household you would have to follow the torah since everyone fell under the subject of the master

. Hence God told Abraham everyone in his household including the slaves were to be circumcised as an eternal convenant (Gen 17.12-13).  Likewise in early christianity it was expected that a convert's entire household would be baptised into Christ (See Galatians 3.28-4.2 & Acts 16.14-15, 33-35).

 

 Jewish men in antiquity were also permitted in certain circumstances to marry gentile women captured in war (Deut 21.10-14), these women would be considered jewish converts.  Usually though it is Ruth the Moabite which set the precedent on how a gentile woman would be accepted into the old covenant. The biggest mark of conversion is a demonstration of immersing yourself into the jewish heritage and literally adopting it as your own (Ruth 1.15-17). Once accepted from that time forward even your offspring were considered jewish. This may also explain why a sign of the flesh is only needed for men, as once your joined into the covenant it cannot be relinquished. The jewish lineage persists among the offspring of jewish women but not from the men.



#8 Algernon

Algernon

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 10 May 2016 - 09:06 AM

Thank you.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users