They were not given a command such as circumcision.
2007-01-12 13:29:17 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Circumcision was a sign of covenant participation, not the participation itself. An uncircumcised baby less than eight days old was still considered a partaker in the covenant.
2007-01-12 13:38:32 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were very much a part of the covenant people - the families of the priests were even allowed to eat some of the priestly share of the offerings.
The difficulty is that in that era, women were considered property, not people. As you read the Torah or first 5 books, you'll see the stunning strides made in obtaining more rights for women, but it is still a long, long way from today. Their "part" has been through their family. The Bible requires no form of bodily alteration for females.
2007-01-12 21:44:15 · answer #2 · answered by Joe Cool 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
God made the covenant with Abraham, that he would be the father of many nations. Women would be blessed by this covenant then as they still are today. They did not have any ritual like circumcision.
2007-01-12 22:52:04 · answer #3 · answered by angel 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no.. no in ruling order....
but women determined the nationality of the person..
mother=jewish...... born of a jewish women
not father...
men were priests.....from time of Aaron brother of Moses.
2007-01-12 21:36:40 · answer #4 · answered by cork 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't remember reading anything for women.
2007-01-12 21:34:22 · answer #5 · answered by B"Quotes 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good thing to huh?
2007-01-12 21:37:17 · answer #6 · answered by HAND 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sarah certainly was wasn't she?
2007-01-12 21:34:13 · answer #7 · answered by oldguy63 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Meh........Who cares?
It's all a fairy tale anyways!
2007-01-12 21:32:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋