Why circumcise servants and slaves

[Jim6]

Hi,
I am wondering why God asked Abraham to circumcise his servants and slaves? It doesn’t seem that his servants shared his faith. Or at least it doesn’t give this as being the reason for their circumcision.

I can see that circumcision marked out a physical nation, that did not require all the people of the nation to have faith. It seems all were included through circumcision. Does this mean circumcision belongs to the physical promises of the abrahamic covenant? I know many credo baptists would say it was to make a nation. I can see the spiritual significance of circumcision but still see that it was applied to all Jews regardless of faith.

 

[lunarWood]

First, I must make a correction for you here: Circumcision was not applied to all Jews, but male descendants only, for obvious reasons.

Those in Abraham’s household were under Abraham’s headship. So all the males would get circumcised, and come to partake in the covenant. I don’t recall Scripture giving much attention to the spiritual condition of Abraham’s servants, but judging from the fact they were willing to set out with Abram to go an unknown place (instead of seeking employment/servitude elsewhere), it seems to me they at least had some measure of faith in Abram’s God.

Circumcision as a sign did physically mark out God’s people in the old covenant — so yes, the sign of circumcision belonged to the physical descendants of Abraham — but it is clear that none should presume themselves safe from God’s wrath because of the physical sign, since it was always the circumcision of the heart that mattered (Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4; Rom. 2:29).

The Visible Church in the old covenant was made up of those who have the physical sign (i.e., the nation), but the Invisible Church was only made up of the elect — those whose hearts would be circumcised by the work of the Spirit at some point in their lives.

However, there seems to be an unstated question in your OP.

 

[Sam Jer]

It doesn’t seem that his servants shared his faith.

Why are we assuming that? Read Genesis 24.


Psalm 101

A Psalm of David.
1 I will sing of mercy and judgment: unto thee, O Lord, will I sing.
2 I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart.
3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.
4 A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person.
5 Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.
6 Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me.
7 He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.
8 I will early destroy all the wicked of the land; that I may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the Lord.

 

[Sam Jer]

I can see that circumcision marked out a physical nation, that did not require all the people of the nation to have faith. It seems all were included through circumcision

I don't think this is accurate. Deuteronomy 13 makes it quite clear what Israel was expected to do and whom they were supposed to worship. The fact that this was sometimes transgressed dows not overthrow that. In some countries baptizing you're baby is just something you do, even if you are a complete atheist, but this does not change the theology of baptism.

Edit: rephrased the post to say the same thing in a hopefully more edifying way

 

[Jim6]

First, I must make a correction for you here: Circumcision was not applied to all Jews, but male descendants only, for obvious reasons.

Those in Abraham’s household were under Abraham’s headship. So all the males would get circumcised, and come to partake in the covenant. I don’t recall Scripture giving much attention to the spiritual condition of Abraham’s servants, but judging from the fact they were willing to set out with Abram to go an unknown place (instead of seeking employment/servitude elsewhere), it seems to me they at least had some measure of faith in Abram’s God.

Circumcision as a sign did physically mark out God’s people in the old covenant — so yes, the sign of circumcision belonged to the physical descendants of Abraham — but it is clear that none should presume themselves safe from God’s wrath because of the physical sign, since it was always the circumcision of the heart that mattered (Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4; Rom. 2:29).

The Visible Church in the old covenant was made up of those who have the physical sign (i.e., the nation), but the Invisible Church was only made up of the elect — those whose hearts would be circumcised by the work of the Spirit at some point in their lives.

However, there seems to be an unstated question in your OP.

But would you say it’s true that you could belong to the nation of Israel without having faith? I am trying to understand how much circumcision was something that was meant to mark out an ethnic people as opposed to marking out those who have faith.
Really what I am getting at is the idea that faith is required for baptism for adults. However, it seems like it was applied to Abraham’s servants aside from faith. I am in discussions with credo Baptists so really trying to work through this idea that they have of circumcision being a ethnic people marking in a way that baptism isn’t.

I don't think this is accurate. Deuteronomy 13 makes it quite clear what Israel was expected to do and whom they were supposed to worship. The fact that this was sometimes transgressed dows not overthrow that. In some countries baptizing you're baby is just something you do, even if you are a complete atheist, but this does not change the theology of baptism.

Edit: rephrased the post to say the same thing in a hopefully more edifying way

Yet would you say that those that whom did not exhibit faith were still aloud to remain part of the people of Israel? They weren’t cut out from the people in the way that the church now would discipline/ excommunicate those who show themselves not to be of faith?

I ask these things as I am trying to consider how much the abrahamic covenant was just about bringing about the nation of Israel and how much it is similar to the church today.

 

[J.L. Allen]

I've been watching these threads pop up and have been wondering why you aren't posting in the paedobaptist sub thread. I think it would help focus your questions and get you more answers.

 

[EvanF]

Hi,
I am wondering why God asked Abraham to circumcise his servants and slaves? It doesn’t seem that his servants shared his faith. Or at least it doesn’t give this as being the reason for their circumcision.

I can see that circumcision marked out a physical nation, that did not require all the people of the nation to have faith. It seems all were included through circumcision. Does this mean circumcision belongs to the physical promises of the abrahamic covenant? I know many credo baptists would say it was to make a nation. I can see the spiritual significance of circumcision but still see that it was applied to all Jews regardless of faith.

Certainly even those who were circumcised among Abraham’s seed according to the flesh did not necessarily share his faith. God's covenant was with Abraham and it was a covenant to make of him a great nation. The prefatory fulfillment of this covenant necessarily flowed through male progeny, even the progeny of his household servants. It doesn't seem incongruous that the mark of this fleshly covenant be placed upon the flesh of those who, in a certain sense, were the fruit of that covenant, signifying that this people was wrought of God and not of themselves.

Of course we know that the ultimate fulfillment of Abraham’s covenant was in the incarnation of Christ, and in the fruit of his new covenant, but Christ came through the instrumentality of a national Israel built by God among the flesh of Abraham’s people. Remember that Abraham’s covenant was not a covenant of salvation, nor of attendant faith. Only in the outworking of Christ's covenant do any have true atonement, salvation, regeneration, and faith, including any who, like Abraham, received these gifts in advance of his revelation.

Unlike Abraham’s fleshly covenant, in Christ's covenant a spiritual seed is promised, and the mark of this covenant is a spiritual circumcision of the heart. While we who are circumcised in the heart demonstrate the covenantal fruits of faith and obedience in ourselves by receiving and administering the symbolic waters of baptism, baptism is not the actual spiritual mark of the spiritual covenant, but only a sign.

Neither circumcision nor baptism represent entrance into covenant with God. In every case, those who are the fruit of God's covenants are born or reborn before ever receiving any outward sign and remain the fruit of those covenants whether an outward sign is made or not.

 

[lunarWood]

But would you say it’s true that you could belong to the nation of Israel without having faith? I am trying to understand how much circumcision was something that was meant to mark out an ethnic people as opposed to marking out those who have faith.
Really what I am getting at is the idea that faith is required for baptism for adults. However, it seems like it was applied to Abraham’s servants aside from faith. I am in discussions with credo Baptists so really trying to work through this idea that they have of circumcision being a ethnic people marking in a way that baptism isn’t.

Yes, it was true that one could belong to the national of Israel (i.e., the Visible Church) without having faith, or even a pretended faith; the entire wilderness generation that came out of Egypt died outside the promised land and was denied from entering God’s rest (Num. 26:65; Ps. 95:11; Heb. 3:7-11).

Regarding baptism, as J.L. Allen has said, you would benefit more if this thread gets moved to the baptism sub thread. Reformed Baptists differ from other reformed traditions (WCF and 3 Forms of Unity) in their covenant theology, which has direct implication on the issue of baptism — hence the age-long debate on whether we should baptize infants in the New Covenant.

Any discussions on different baptism positions that fail to look at things on the level of “Who is in the new covenant?” would likely prove futile.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Friends,

Michael Lynch has recently been translating the answers of international reformed faculties during the era of the Synod of Dort (1618) to the question of whether the children of pagans, taken as slaves into Christian families, or being adopted by them, should be baptized.

Around half said yes, half said no, and gave their reasons, which truly go into the issues more than I had ever considered them, including with Abraham in Gen. 17.

They may be found on this page 'On Infant & Household Baptism' at RBO under the sections on Adoption, Foster-Children, Older Children, etc.

And Jean Diodati shows clearly from the OT that not all of the slaves owned by Israelites were circumcised, so far as their chattel pagan slaves, permanently and forever in their possession, and their children, according to civil right, could be yet sold to pagan nations, whereas their Hebrew slaves could not.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's strange to assume that Abraham's household did not believe in the God He professed. Whether they had real faith is only something God could know, but why would Abraham keep idolaters in his household? Further, the only time we hear from a servant of Abraham about what he believes, it is clear that he confesses and believes in Abraham's God.

Household economies were not like "jobs" where people went home at night to their respective homes. Does anyone imagine Abraham allowing for the confession of foreign gods or their sacrifices under his roof?

Circumcision is not, as imagined, some mere natural or physical sign. Abraham was commanded to circumcise his servants because, like him, they too were to be marked out by a sign that signified that they belonged to Yahweh and not, ultimately, to Abraham.

 

[Jim6]

Thank you all for your helpful answers

 

[Andrew35]

It's strange to assume that Abraham's household did not believe in the God He professed. Whether they had real faith is only something God could know, but why would Abraham keep idolaters in his household? Further, the only time we hear from a servant of Abraham about what he believes, it is clear that he confesses and believes in Abraham's God.

Household economies were not like "jobs" where people went home at night to their respective homes. Does anyone imagine Abraham allowing for the confession of foreign gods or their sacrifices under his roof?

Circumcision is not, as imagined, some mere natural or physical sign. Abraham was commanded to circumcise his servants because, like him, they too were to be marked out by a sign that signified that they belonged to Yahweh and not, ultimately, to Abraham.

I imagine the notion in the ancient world that you were free to pick or even keep your own god, while not unknown, would be rather presumptuous. Raises all kinds of other questions re. real faith, but seems to me that as a servant in the ancient world, particularly under a powerful and prosperous man like Abraham, your fortune would be tied up with his and you would look to his God for blessing and protection.

I mean, even from an ancient, pagan--to say nothing of a Yahweh-worshipping POV--pledging allegiance to another god might make your master's god really mad, and potentially cause all kinds of havoc in heaven.

 

[hammondjones]

I imagine the notion in the ancient world that you were free to pick or even keep your own god

See also the Roman concept of paterfamilias, which I think is underused as an argument for why, culturally, household baptism would have been the natural default way of thinking in the pagan NT world, and would have needed to have been taught against.