Join us in Chicago, August 6–9, 2026—Registration is open!

Published Date: January 31, 2024

Published Date: January 31, 2024

Featured Articles

Like What You’re Reading?

Click to help create more!
GIVE NOW!

Priscilla Papers

Get notified when new
issues are online. 

SIGN UP

CBE Abuse Resource

Cover of "Created to Thrive".
Buy Now!

Featured Articles

Christian Baptism as the Gender-Inclusive Covenant Sign

Download a PDF version of this article.

The OT sign of inclusion in the covenant community is circumcision. This is a male-only rite. This male-only covenant sign has consequences in the OT for women pertaining to how they are included within the privileges and responsibilities of the covenant. On the other hand, the NT sign of covenant community inclusion is baptism, which is administered to females and males alike. Circumcision is now, for Christians, a spiritual circumcision of the heart which is as applicable to females as it is to males. This circumcision is the result of the atoning work of Christ. The distinction between the covenant signs suggests that the new covenant provides greater participation for women in the covenant community than was the case for Israelite women in the OT. The contrast between male-only circumcision and female-inclusive baptism is not directly addressed in the NT. However, that is not to say that the pieces are not available to us. This article attempts to put the pieces together and to explore the significance of female-inclusive baptism for the body of Christ.

Old Testament Circumcision and Its Male-Only Nature

From the third millennium BC, circumcision was a common practice in the ancient Near East, of which Israel was a part. However, the way circumcision was practiced in Israel was different from the nations surrounding it, one distinction being the Israelite practice of circumcising eight-day-old male infants rather than at puberty or before marriage.1 The Jewish practice of circumcising male infants began with God’s command to Abraham in Gen 17.2 God said to Abraham:

As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his  foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant. (Gen 17:9–14 NRSV)

Circumcision served the positive purpose of acting as a visual reminder of God’s covenant promises to Abraham, reminding both God and each circumcised man of the promise of many offspring for Abraham.3 It connected future generations to the covenant promises and served as a means of continuing the covenant throughout generations (Gen 17:10–12).4 Thus each generation was required to exercise faith by being circumcised, or else suffer being cut off from the covenant.5

It also served a negative purpose, for without it, inclusion within the covenant was denied. Meredith Kline argues that as part of a covenant based on the format of a suzerain-vassal treaty, circumcision was the “knife rite.” It symbolised the curse of being cut off from the covenant community, both for the individual and his descendants.6 Thus, no one could be included within the covenant without being circumcised (Gen 17:10, 14).7 Gentiles could be included in the covenant, but it was not possible to convert to Judaism without being circumcised. “Uncircumcision” was a term of reproach (Judg 14:3, 15:18; 1 Sam 14:6, 17:26, 36, 31:4; 1 Chr 10:4; Isa 52:1). Those who were uncircumcised sat outside the covenant and were therefore considered pagan and unclean (Ezek 44:7, 9).8

Physical circumcision was considered insufficient because the heart must become circumcised so that a man can love God (Deut 10:16–17, 30:6–7) and obey his commandments (Lev 26:40–41; Jer 9:24–26).9 Yet later in rabbinic Judaism, bodily circumcision was considered as the most important commandment, the central tenet of Judaism. Circumcision is still considered by many Jews as the essence of what it means to be Jewish. It functions as a boundary marker, without which a Jew is no longer a Jew.10

The elephant in the room is that circumcision applies to males only.11  What about Israelite women?

How Are Jewish Women Included in the Covenant?

Since circumcision is such a significant boundary marker, indicating that a male is a Jew and having the power to convert a Gentile into a Jew, what makes a woman a Jew?12 Are women part of the covenant also? Are they equal citizens of the covenant community with men? Rabbinic Judaism would respond that women are Jews but not the equals of men. The Babylonian Talmud affirms that circumcision is a means of differentiating males from females. According to this view, the ideal Jew is male, not female, because the male Jew has the mark of the covenant visible in his flesh.13 For the rabbis of antiquity, to be Jewish without qualification, one must be male.14 This ancient rabbinic view, however, is not necessarily a biblical position.

There is some biblical support for the inclusion of women into the covenant in the Gen 17 narrative. After Abraham was given circumcision as the covenant sign (Gen 17:9–14), God spoke to Abraham about Sarah (Gen 17:15–16). Like Abraham, she was given a new name (thus Sarai became Sarah). However, she had no covenant obligations, only a blessing.15 Sarah was not required to take on a physical marker, even though she had a part within the covenant, namely, being the mother of Abraham’s offspring.16 We should note that God told Abraham of Sarah’s name change, rather than telling her directly (see Gen 18:9ff).17 So, although Gen 17 seems to include Sarah within the covenant as the mother of God’s covenant people, Sarah received no visible or tangible sign of the covenant in contradistinction to Abraham and his male descendants.

It can be biblically argued that women are part of the covenant through the headship of father or husband. Three OT examples spell out this principle. Members of the priest’s family may eat the sacred offerings. Thus, while a woman cannot be a priest, as long as she lives in her father’s house, she may eat the sacred offerings. If she marries a man who is not a priest, she is no longer able to eat these. However, if she is widowed or divorced, and childless, she may return to her father’s house and once again eat them (Lev 22:10–13). The second example is regarding annulling of vows. When a woman makes a vow (Num 30), her father (if she is unmarried) or husband has the right to annul the vow under certain conditions. The third concerns inheritance of land within Israel (Num 27:1–11). The five daughters of Zelophehad had no brothers, and Moses declared that they could inherit their father’s property. But to make sure that the ancestral land did not transfer to another tribe, the property was to be given to a male relative within the tribe if the woman married outside the tribe (Num 36:1–12). By implication “a woman is part of her husband’s domain,” and her property becomes his.18

According to this logic, a woman’s place in Israelite society explains why women are not circumcised. The male is circumcised as the sign of the covenant. A woman’s status is dependent on the man with whom she dwells. Consequently, a woman is part of the covenant community through her association with father or husband.19

There have been attempts at softening the significance of the male-only nature of this covenant sign. One suggestion is that circumcision need only be on the man because he and his wife become one flesh (Gen 2:24). This renders it unnecessary to circumcise the woman. Another idea is that the real significance of circumcision is found in the circumcised heart, mind and lips (Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4, 9:26; Ezek 44:7).20 Even Calvin affirmed that circumcision did not grant to males an exclusive possession of the covenant and its promises, because females also share in the covenant.21 But the male-only nature of circumcision remains.

Circumcision and Female Authority in the Old Testament

There is no argument that ancient Israelite society was patriarchal and patrilineal. The OT is written from a male perspective. Women lived their lives under the authority of men: single women under a father’s authority and married women under a husband’s authority.22  There is evidence that women were viewed as the property of the man under whose authority they lived (Exod 21:22; Deut 22:28–29).23 This notwithstanding, much of the OT views women positively.

In several narrative texts, the portrayal of women is distinct from the prevailing worldview of the rest of the ancient Near East. The creation narratives state that both men and women are created in the image of God and imply the necessary partnership of women and men. Other texts affirm the value of women. For example, the Hebrew midwives are acknowledged as brave (Exod 1:15–21) and women are involved in the construction of the tabernacle (Exod 35:22, 26, 29). Indeed, the Decalogue commands that fathers and mothers be honoured (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16).24

However, there were real restrictions on the authority roles women could exercise in the OT. Ancient Israel had three main leadership roles: king, priest, and prophet. All monarchs of Israel were male.25 Priests were male descendants of Aaron (Exod 28:1–4). However, prophets were sometimes female. Isaiah’s wife is explicitly called a “prophet” (Isa 8:1–4). Other female prophets named in the Scriptures include Deborah (Judg 4–5), Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14), and Miriam (Exod 15:20).26 The Bible does not state that these restrictions were due to the lack of circumcision, but the need to be male to fulfil two out of three leadership roles allows this association.

The majority of laws in the Pentateuch are directed inclusively at men, women, and children. Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy frequently refer to the entire community of Israel.27 Females were as accountable before God as were males. This is evidenced by the mention of specific sins of women and the punishments they would face (Amos 4:1; Isa 3:16–4:1, 32:9–14; Jer 7:18, 44:17; Ezek 8:14, 13:17).28  A woman could make vows, including the Nazirite vow (Num 6:2), even though her father (if she was unmarried) or husband had the right to annul the vow under certain conditions (Num 30:3–16).29

However, some laws particularly impacted women. A man could divorce a woman (Deut 24:1), but there is no law allowing a woman to divorce her husband. Women could not inherit property, except in the case where a father had no sons (Num 27:1–11).  If a husband suspected his wife of being unfaithful, he could take her to the priest to test if he was correct (Num 5:11–31).30 No reciprocal test was provided if a woman suspected her husband.

At least one law in particular reads as if men alone are obliged to obey it. “Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord GOD” (Exod 23:17 NRSV; see also Deut 16:16). Women were not restricted by this law because they were able to attend the festivals, even encouraged to do so (Deut 16:14).31 The Talmud interpreted the exclusion of women from this command as the result of their lack of circumcision,32 though the Bible does not make this connection. Sadly, the rabbis’ exemption of women from “positive time-bound commandments”33 has been used by some to disrespect the significance of women within Judaism.34

Indeed, throughout much of history, Judaism has relegated women to second place. Judaism at the time of Jesus had digressed from the biblical ideal. Women were excluded from many of the religious observances of Judaism. Although males were schooled in the faith from a young age and required in synagogue services, women were not.35 Shaye Cohen observes that classical Judaism regarded women as differently Jewish from males because of their lack of circumcision. This was the reason for their lower status.36

In summary: the Bible does not exclude women from the old covenant; they were genuine participatory members of the Israelite community.37 However, without a covenant sign in the flesh, they were only indirectly included in the covenant through the males under whose authority they resided—through the father or husband. The subsequent way in which the rabbis interpreted the OT law and the male-only nature of circumcision as covenant sign resulted in exclusion of women from much of Judaism.

The New Testament View of Circumcision

The gospel introduces a new mark of the covenant. The rite by which a person enters the covenant community is no longer circumcision, but baptism.38

Even so, the NT addresses the church with reference to the practice of circumcision in several epistles. In Galatians, the issue was the church trying to be justified by works rather than faith in Christ (Gal 3:11).39 The Judaizers preached that circumcision was necessary for complete Christian sanctification (Gal 3:3) and receipt of the Abrahamic blessing. Paul argued that it is through faith in Christ, not through the physical ancestry of Abraham that a person is made an heir of God (Gal 3:29). Circumcision is not relevant. It is not the requisite for inclusion within the people of God. Circumcision was but temporary until the promises of God were fulfilled in Christ.40

In Romans, Paul argued against circumcision as a guarantee of salvation (Rom 2:17–27). The new age has dawned, and circumcision of the heart is accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Gentiles who believe in Christ are spiritually circumcised. Abraham was circumcised to be the father of the circumcised (Rom 4:9–12). But before being circumcised he was righteous by faith, and therefore the father of those who have faith. Now that Christ has appeared, a new era is here, one in which the true seed of Abraham are not the circumcised but, rather, believers in Christ.41

What is implied in Rom 2:25–29 is made explicit in Phil 3:3: “For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh” (NRSV).42  The covenant community of God is no longer made up of those who are physically circumcised, but instead includes all who have faith in Jesus Christ.

In Colossians, the discussion centres on circumcision through Christ. “In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ” (Col 2:11 NRSV). The Christian has been circumcised in Christ, not by human hands but by God. Physical circumcision is but a shadow of the true circumcision, which is of the heart, making genuine heart-obedience to God possible.43 “Putting off the body of the flesh” is a violent metaphor for the death of Christ. The means by which a Christian receives the benefits of “the circumcision of Christ” is through faith and baptism.44 “Christ’s cross is the true circumcision for believers.”45

While Paul applies his understanding of circumcision and the new covenant to the inclusion of Gentiles in the church, he does not explicitly apply it to women. This does not mean that there is no application to women. But before looking at the consequences of this new understanding of circumcision, it is necessary to consider the covenant sign that replaces circumcision, namely, baptism.

Baptism as the Gender-Inclusive New Covenant Sign

Christian baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the new covenant.46 When the Christian is baptized, he or she invokes the name of Christ, receives forgiveness of sins, is given new life, and is baptized in and sealed by the Holy Spirit.47 By baptism believers become partakers of Christ’s death (Rom 6:3–4) and are united with him so that they receive his blessings (Gal 3:27).48 Baptism is a sign of regeneration by the Holy Spirit through the death and resurrection of Christ, and thus represents the person’s connection to Christ and his covenant of grace.49

Calvin argued that Christ is the foundation of both circumcision and baptism. On the basis of Col 2:11–12, he avers that circumcision and baptism are both signs of the same reality.50 When a person is baptized, she or he becomes part of the body of Christ through Christ’s already-completed work of redemption.51 Baptism is “a sacred and serious act of incorporation into the visible community of faith.”52 It is “the initiation rite into the Christian church.”53  Baptism is thus analogous to circumcision in its function as a mark of inclusion in the covenant people.

A significant difference, however, is that women as well as men are baptized as a mark of membership of the covenant community. Unlike circumcision, baptism is a gender-inclusive sign. This is evidenced in various biblical passages and by the theology of at least one church father.

First, passages about baptism are inclusive of females and males. Whole households were baptized. The Gentile household of Cornelius believed the gospel preached by Peter and were all baptized (Acts 10:44–48). The Philippian jailer and his household were baptized by Paul and Silas (Acts 16:33). In Corinth, Crispus and his household believed in Christ and were baptized (Acts 18:8). Paul baptized the household of Stephanus (1 Cor 1:16). A household most likely contained at least one woman. Some passages are explicit about women being baptized. Philip preached the gospel in Samaria and his converts were “baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12 NRSV). Lydia was evangelised by Paul in Philippi and “she and her household were baptized” (Acts 16:15 NRSV).

Further biblical passages demonstrate that women could become believers in Christ independent of their fathers or husbands. In the Roman colony of Philippi, Paul looked for a place of prayer near a river outside the city (Acts 16:12–13). In the absence of a synagogue in Philippi,54 Paul spoke only to the women gathered there. One in particular, Lydia, was converted and took Paul and his companions to her house (Acts 16:13–15). Lydia was not subject to questions of whether her husband (if she had one) approved of her conversion. Her status as a believer was her own decision.55

Paul’s discussion of marriage in 1 Cor 7 is another plain indication that women can be part of the new covenant community without being under the authority of father or husband. Women can serve God without being married (1 Cor 7:8–9). A Christian woman may be married to an unbelieving spouse, yet her faith sanctifies both her husband and the children of the union (1 Cor 7:12–14). Even if it were not unusual for Greek women to practice a religion different from that of their husbands,56 this passage makes it clear that the Christian woman was not dependent on her husband for her status as a believer.       

Women in the ancient world were, for all practical purposes, under the authority of men. That did not prevent women from becoming Christians contrary to the dictates of their husbands. 1 Peter 3:1 addressed the situation of a Christian woman married to a non-Christian husband. Peter advised women to uphold the normal patterns of society such as obedience to husbands. This may not have been the Christian ideal in marriage but it was necessary as a witness to Christ in a society hostile to the gospel.57

The church father Cyprian—as part of his efforts to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian faith over Judaism—also observed the gender-inclusive nature of baptism as the rite of inclusion into the Christian community of faith. He observed, “That sign [circumcision] does not profit women, but everyone is signed with the sign of the Lord.”58 Effectively his argument was “that Christian signs of communal inclusion—be they faith, baptism, circumcision of the heart, or a combination of all three—are superior to Jewish circumcision, since they include women as well as men.”59

The biblical passages above and the theology of Cyprian provide positive indication that a woman can be a Christian without reference to a man. Unlike the Jewish women in the OT, who were not circumcised and thus part of the covenant vicariously through father or husband, the Christian woman is baptized into Christ without reference to any man. This is a radical difference between old covenant and new covenant.

The change from a male-only covenant sign in the OT to a gender-inclusive covenant sign in the NT prompts the question of whether God was sexist under the old covenant. If so, he was within his rights as the sovereign Lord of Creation (cf. Rom 9:19–21). However, it is possible that God’s apparent sexism in the OT functions in a similar way to the exclusivity of Israel as God’s people in the OT compared to the openness of the gospel to Gentiles in the NT (Eph 3:6; Col 1:27). The former makes the latter all the more wonderful. If this is the case, the radical shift is even more significant because the NT denotes an expansion of status and roles for women which must be taken seriously.

Implications of Baptism as the Gender-Inclusive Rite

The implications of baptism as the gender-inclusive rite, compared to circumcision as a male-only rite of entrance to the covenant community, are not spelled out explicitly in the NT. Nonetheless, if a woman’s inclusion in Christ is symbolised by baptism, which is equally administered to males and females, then we would expect a change in the status of women in the NT over against the OT. A theology of gender-inclusiveness may be built based on the existing general passages and hints found regarding the leadership of women in the early church.

Female status before God is always because of Christ (Gal 3:28; cf. Col 3:11), and the observance of baptism is a way of signifying this. Being in Christ makes a person what they are in the church. It is not a matter of gender. Aside from the clearly stated distinction in marriage (Eph 5:25–33) and a couple of much-debated passages (1 Tim 2:11–15; 1 Cor 14:34–35), the NT does not differentiate between men and women. Rather, the overwhelming majority of passages are addressed to both men and women without distinction.

There is reason to believe that the status of women under the new covenant, through the new inclusive sacrament of baptism, means that both women and men can take on leadership roles. Before considering concrete examples of female leaders in the NT, some theological pointers to female leadership will be considered.

Women as well as men are baptized in the Holy Spirit. In Acts, all Christian women are filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17).60 One result of the baptism in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) is the Holy Spirit’s distribution of gifts to the church, a distribution which Paul never ties to gender (1 Cor 12:7–11) but only to the confession of Christ as Lord (1 Cor 12:3). This being the case, we would expect that leadership gifts could be provided to women as well as men, the most obvious being that of prophet (Acts 2:17; see also Acts 21:9).61

As concerns accountability, Craig Keener observes, “In Luke’s view women and men are equally morally responsible (Acts 5:1–11).”62  In addition, Luke makes explicit that both men and women are included among those who are persecuted for the faith (Acts 8:3, 9:2, 22:4).63 If women are able to suffer and die for the faith,62 it is reasonable to suppose that Christian women have the same level of accountability before God for defending the faith as do Christian men.

The NT mentions women in leadership roles in several places. Several women are designated as patrons. Tabitha supported widows (Acts 9:36), and Mary was the patron of a Jerusalem house church (Acts 12:12). Lydia acted as a patron to Paul and those with him (Acts 16:15)65 and was the leader of the first church in Philippi (Acts 16:12–15, 40).66

In Judaism, teaching the Torah was almost exclusively a male role. However, in Acts, Priscilla and Aquila worked together and ministered together. In particular, they both taught Apollos (Acts 18:26).67 Priscilla’s name appears before her husband’s (Acts 18:18; see also Acts 18:26; Rom 16:3; 2 Tim 4:19), possibly suggesting that she had a more powerful and influential ministry than did he. Clearly, Priscilla’s teaching enabled Apollos to make a great contribution to the kingdom of God (Acts 18:27–28).68 Both Priscilla and Aquila were called synergous (“coworkers,” CEB, NIV) by Paul, and they risked their lives for him (Rom 16:3–4). Paul designated seven women as his co-labourers (Rom 16:3, 6, 7, 12; Phil 4:2–3):69 Priscilla, Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2–3), Phoebe, Tryphaena and Tryphosa (Rom 16:12), and Junia (Rom 16:7).70 Phoebe was likely the courier who brought the letter to the Romans from Paul and thus explained it to them (Rom 16:1–2). She is called a “deacon [diakonos] of the church at Cenchreae” (NRSV). In Pauline usage, diakonos generally applies to someone who ministers the word of God. She is also called “patron of many” (NRSV) and consequently would have been honoured as the one whose house was the meeting place for the church.71

The qualifications for an apostle72 were fulfilled by certain female disciples (Luke 8:1–3, 23:49, 55–56, 24:1–10).73 A female apostle was mentioned by Paul: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was” (Rom 16:7 NRSV). There are no existing examples of a corresponding masculine name, “Junias.” Thus, Junia was a woman. “Prominent among the apostles” is a better translation than “outstanding in the eyes of the apostles.”74

The theological passages above and the narrative passages regarding women leaders stand in unity. As persons who carry the new covenant sign of baptism, Christian women can take on leadership positions in the church.

Conclusion

The new covenant sign of baptism is more inclusive of women within the covenant community than the old covenant male-only sign of circumcision was. A woman is no longer part of the covenant community only through her husband or father, but can believe in Christ independently of a man. Women, by virtue of being marked by the gender-inclusive covenant sign of baptism, are not lesser than men. This fact should result in rethinking and restructuring the position of women within the church, particularly at the local church level. It is one thing to speak of equality before God and another to actualise this in practical terms.

Notes

  1. P.R. Williamson, “Circumcision,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. David W. Baker and T. Desmond Alexander (InterVarsity, 2003), 122.
  2. Thomas Thomas Robert Schreiner, “Circumcision: An Entrée Into ‘Newness’ in Pauline Thought” (Ph.D Fuller Theological Seminary, School of Theology, 1983), 18.
  3. Schreiner, “Circumcision,” 21-22.; Williamson, “Circumcision,” 123. Wenham argues that the primary act of remembrance was on the part of the circumcised male rather than on the part of God (Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, Volume 2, Word Biblical Commentary, (Zondervan, 2000), 23-24.).
  4. Williamson, “Circumcision,” 122-23.
  5. Schreiner, “Circumcision,” 22.
  6. Meredith Kline, cited in B. Witherington, Troubled Waters: The Real New Testament Theology of Baptism (Baylor University Press, 2007) 11–12.
  7. Williamson, “Circumcision,” 123.
  8. Schreiner, “Circumcision,” 52–53, 55.
  9. Williamson, “Circumcision,” 125.
  10. Lawrence A. Hoffman, Covenant of Blood: Circumcision and Gender in Rabbinic Judaism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996) 10–12.
  11. To be clear, it is not being suggested that any female should be circumcised.
  12. Shaye J.D. Cohen, “Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?,” Gender & History 9/3 (1997) 560.
  13. M. Adryael Tong, “‘Given as a Sign’: Circumcision and Bodily Discourse in Late Antique Judaism and Christianity” (Fordham University, 2019) 39, 133.
  14. Hoffman, Covenant of Blood, 25–26.
  15. Bill T. Arnold, Genesis, New Cambridge Bible Commentary, (Cambridge University, 2009) 168–73.
  16. J. Sailhamer, Genesis (Zondervan Academic, 2017).
  17. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1–17 (Eerdmans, 1990).
  18. David A. Bernat, “Circumcision and ‘Orlah in the Priestly Torah” (Brandeis University, 2002) 108–10.
  19. Bernat, “Circumcision and ‘Orlah in the Priestly Torah,” 110.
  20. John Goldingay, “The Significance of Circumcision,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25/88 (2000) 4; Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1–17.
  21. John Calvin, Genesis (Crossway, 2001).
  22. S. J. Dille, “Women and Female Imagery,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets, ed. Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon McConville (InterVarsity, 2012) 847.
  23. M. J. Evans, “Women,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. David W. Baker and T. Desmond Alexander (InterVarsity, 2003) 898.
  24. Evans, “Women,” 899, 900–03.
  25. The sole exception to this rule is Athaliah, queen of Judah after the death of Ahaziah (2 Kgs 11). Some believe she was acting as queen-regent on behalf of Ahaziah’s infant son Joash, but, in line with the biblical account, Josephus plainly states that she was a usurper bent on destroying the Davidic royal line (Ant. 9.140–142) (Joseph Scales and Cat Quine, “Athaliah and Alexandra: Gender and Queenship in Josephus,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 11/2 (2020) 233–50).
  26. Dille, “Women and Female Imagery,” 847.
  27. Evans, “Women,” 899.
  28. Dille, “Women and Female Imagery,” 849–50.
  29. David A. Bernat, “Circumcision and ‘Orlah in the Priestly Torah,” 109.
  30. Evans, “Women,” 898–99.
  31. Evans, “Women,” 899. That women were not required to travel to the sanctuary for the three feasts may have benefited those women whose childbearing and childrearing responsibilities would have hindered such a journey.
  32. Cohen, “Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?” 572–73.
  33. That is, any commandment that must be performed at a particular time and cannot be done later.
  34. Anat Israeli, “Jewish Women and Positive Time-Bound Commandments: Reconsidering the Rabbinic Texts,” Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary e-Journal 12/1 (2015) 2.
  35. C. C. Kroeger, “Women in Greco-Roman World and Judaism,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (InterVarsity, 2000) 1279.
  36. Shaye J. D. Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism (University of California, 2005) 111.
  37. Evans, “Women,” 903.
  38. Schreiner, “Circumcision.” Abstract.
  39. Although I have read Gal 3:10 in a typical conservative fashion in line with the Magisterial Reformers, the “New Perspective on Paul” would read this verse differently. For example, J. D. G. Dunn sees the issue in Galatians as covenantal nomism rather than works righteousness (James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Westminster John Knox, 1990) 242). Regardless of whether one takes a traditional or some version of the New Perspective, circumcision is still not a requisite for inclusion under the new covenant.
  40. Schreiner, “Circumcision,” 139–82.
  41. Schreiner, “Circumcision,” 188–228.
  42. Schreiner, “Circumcision,” 246.
  43. Schreiner, “Circumcision,” 283.
  44. David E Garland, Colossians and Philemon (Zondervan, 1998) 2:6–15.
  45. Thomas R Schreiner, “Baptism in the Epistles: An Initiation Rite for Believers,” ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (B&H Academic, 2006).
  46. “It is difficult to know when the Jews began to practice proselyte baptism as an initiation rite for Gentile converts to Judaism, so we cannot assume it was a precursor of John’s and Christian baptism” (Andreas J Köstenberger, “Baptism in the Gospels,” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ [2006] 11).
  47. Francois Bovon, “Baptism in the Ancient Church,” Sewanee Theological Review 42/4 (1999) 435.
  48. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. Two (SCM, 1960 [1559]) IV.xv.5–6. The Bible makes strong statements regarding Christian baptism, which should not be vacated.  Because of the completed work of Christ, baptism is first a gracious work of God before it is the action of an individual.  However, baptismal regeneration is not a doctrine which the Bible teaches.  In other words, as significant as Christian baptism is, it does not bring about salvation.
  49. Karl Barth, The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism (Wipf and Stock, 2006).
  50. Calvin, Institutes, Two., IV.xvi.3, 11.
  51. Bovon, “Baptism in the Ancient Church,” 436.
  52. Timothy George, “Foreword,” ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (B&H Academic, 2006).
  53. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, “Introduction,” ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (B&H Academic, 2006).
  54. Chaido Koukouli-Chrysantaki, “Colonia Iulia Augusta Philippensis,” in Philippi at the Time of Paul and after His Death, ed. Charalambos Bakirtzis and Helmut Koester (Wipf and Stock, 2009) 34.
  55. I am not saying that salvation is dependent on the human will over against God’s election. I am merely emphasising the capacity of women to enter the Christian faith independently of a man.
  56. Kroeger, “Women in Greco-Roman World and Judaism,” 1279.
  57. C. S. Keener, “Woman and Man,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (InterVarsity, 1997) 1207–08.
  58. To Quirinus 1.1.8
  59. Tong, “‘Given as a Sign’,” 150.
  60. Keener, “Woman and Man,” 1207.
  61. There is not room to explore what the roles of priest and king look like under the new covenant. However, I contend that in Christ, who is prophet, priest, and king as mediator of the new covenant, women are as fit for these roles as men.
  62. Keener, “Woman and Man,” 1206.
  63. C. C. Kroeger, “Women in the Early Church,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (InterVarsity, 1997), 1216.
  64. Female Jewish martyrs do exist. Second Maccabees mentions the martyrdom of several women. Two women who defied the Greeks and circumcised their sons were killed by being thrown off a wall (2 Maccabees 6:10). Another mother was put to death after each of her seven sons was tortured and killed for refusing to eat pork and after she encouraged them to choose death over disobedience to God (2 Maccabees 7) (Susan Haber, “Living and Dying for the Law: The Mother-Martyrs of 2 Maccabees,” Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary e-Journal 4/1 (2006)).
  65. Keener, “Woman and Man,” 1206.
  66. Kroeger, “Women in the Early Church,” 1217.
  67. Keener, “Woman and Man,” 1207.
  68. Kroeger, “Women in the Early Church,” 1217–18.
  69. Kroeger, “Women in the Early Church,” 1219.
  70. C. G. Kruse, “Ministry,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (InterVarsity, 1993), 603.
  71. C. S. Keener, “Man and Woman,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (InterVarsity, 1993), 589.
  72. An apostle must be someone who was with Jesus during his ministry and who was a witness to his resurrection (Acts 1:21–22).
  73. Kroeger, “Women in the Early Church,” 1216.
  74. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Volume 38B (Zondervan Academic, 2018) 16:3–16.