Women in the Old Covenant?

If circumcision is equivalent to baptism - which makes total sense - how did women come in to the old covenant to become a Jew?

Women can obviously be baptized in the new covenant.

By being born to a Jewish mother (or by converting).

Circumcision isn’t the equivalent of baptism which, as far as I understand it, is viewed as a change in the state of spiritual being, circumcision is a mark of belonging.

Newborn Jewish girl babies were automatically part of the Covenant. It was boy babies who had something to prove. :slight_smile:

As for women converting to Judaism, the classic story is the Book of Ruth. A verbal commitment is enough there.

In Judaism today, formal conversion for both men and women involves being ritually immersed in a mikveh (ritual bath). I trust we can all see the parallels to Baptism.

Thanks for the information. I thought Jews are a race.

Baptism can also be said as a mark of belonging; it is an initiation into the family of God. The Holy Spirit put a mark in the believer (Christian). I agree it should not be an equivalent to circumcision. But since Christians believe they are in the New Covenant, it can said it is a replacement of circumcision, which they don’t practice anymore, remembering that they regard Christianity as a continuation of Judaism.

Ruth. My favorite woman of the Old Testament. The great grandmother of David, the human ancestor of Jesus.

No, boy babies were automatically Jewish as well, it’s that circumcision was/is a ‘mark’ of being so.

In Judaism today, formal conversion for both men and women involves being ritually immersed in a mikveh (ritual bath). I trust we can all see the parallels to Baptism.

No there is no equivalent of moving from one state of spiritual existence to another in the ritual bath, it’s just a rite of passage.

No, we are a ‘people’ (said the relatively tall, blue-eyed, northern Italian-looking woman in the street :)).

Baptism can also be said as a mark of belonging; it is an initiation into the family of God. The Holy Spirit put a mark in the believer (Christian). I agree it should not be an equivalent to circumcision. But since Christians believe they are in the New Covenant, it can said it is a replacement of circumcision, which they don’t practice anymore, remembering that they regard Christianity as a continuation of Judaism.

Yes, I can see all that. From an external perspective, though, it’s the difference I think between a rite of passage that is in itself a ‘signifier’ as opposed to one that signifies a change of spiritual state.

Ruth’s a very good name. :wink:

Not sure of other countries, but ironically given the mostly christians or christianeque nature of americans, and the majority circumcise for health although not for religious purpose. So in a funny sense you would find at least here more Christians circumcised than not.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.