John Chrysostom
And see how He seems to grant something to circumcision, while in fact granting it nothing. The promise was given before it, and circumcision came afterward.
And he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so he begot Isaac and circumcised him the eighth day: and Isaac begot Jacob: and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs.
και εδωκεν αυτω διαθηκην περιτομης και ουτως εγεννησεν τον ισαακ και περιετεμεν αυτον τη ημερα τη ογδοη και ο ισαακ τον ιακωβ και ο ιακωβ τους δωδεκα πατριαρχας
5 Church Fathers comment on this verse
And see how He seems to grant something to circumcision, while in fact granting it nothing. The promise was given before it, and circumcision came afterward.
The promises are given to the descendants, but calamities to the forefathers.
The fathers were commanded by the Law to circumcise the foreskin because Abraham had gone out from the land of the Chaldeans. Among the Chaldeans, as also among the Medes and Persians, ancestral customs permitted men to marry their mothers and sisters.
Thus Abraham is circumcised as a sign that he renounces carnal mingling and rejects unlawful marriages among kindred.
Others say that circumcision was commanded to Abraham and his descendants so that it might be clear that from them Christ was to come according to the flesh.
For we know that circumcision in the old covenant was a type. It contained the image of saving baptism, and by the cutting away of flesh it signified the renunciation of life according to the flesh.
It also made the circumcised sons of God.
“And so he begot Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day.” Isaac is the first to be circumcised on the eighth day. From this the Jews also are circumcised on the eighth day.
But Ishmael was circumcised when he was thirteen years old. Therefore his descendants, the Ishmaelites, as Josephus says, are likewise circumcised in their thirteenth year.
In the speech which Stephen delivered in the hall of the Sanhedrin, in answer to the high priest’s interrogation, he recalled before his judges the history of the people of God. He began with their forefather Abraham and ended with Solomon (vv. 1-50).
In conclusion he reproached the persecutors of Christians for their resistance to the Holy Spirit, Who was calling them to salvation (vv. 51-53).
Stephen’s speech is both defensive and accusatory. The accusation reported that he had spoken blasphemous words against the Law of Moses and the Jerusalem temple, and against Moses and God.
The basis for this charge was that, in disputing with the Jews, Stephen had expressed the thought that the Law of Moses was abolished in the New Testament. This included all its many ordinances and institutions, not excluding the Jerusalem temple.
That temple was now no longer the only place of true worship (Jn 4:21 and following).
Stephen now briefly recounts the history of God’s divine economy for the salvation of Israel. By the mere presentation of this history, he defends himself against the charge of blasphemy.
Through it he makes clear what God he confesses and how he confesses Him. For this purpose, among other things, at the beginning of his speech he calls God “the God of glory” (v. 2).
By this he shows with what reverence he treats this holy Name. Then, by pointing in the history of Israel to the world-governing right hand of God, he confesses still more clearly the whole majesty of God.
“And He gave him the covenant of circumcision”: the covenant concluded through the mediation of circumcision.
God’s covenant with Abraham is so called because the circumcision of Abraham and his posterity was not only the outward sign of this covenant, but also an essential part of it (Gen. 17:10-11).
The expression “He gave him a covenant,” instead of “He made a covenant with him,” seems to have been chosen with special intent.
It points out that the making of the covenant is a free act of God, even His gift to Abraham and his posterity.
In His revelations and relations with man, God is not bound by man. Only what is pleasing to Him is granted, and only if it is pleasing to Him.
“After this” means properly “and so,” or “in this way.” That is, already standing in such relations to God, in the relation of the covenant concluded by God with him, Abraham begot Isaac, and so forth. See the note on Mt 1:2.
“Patriarchs”: this is the name given to the children of Jacob, as the forefathers of the twelve tribes of Israel.
The word concerning the law of circumcision stands beside the report that Isaac was born from Abraham, Jacob from Isaac, and the twelve sons, the patriarchs of Israel, from Jacob.
It points to the special divine election of all Israel. The sign of this is the sacred covenant with God, accomplished through circumcision.
This covenant was a type of a still more sacred and mystical image of spiritual union with God, given in baptism. In baptism the one baptized, through immersion, as it were dies, and through rising from the water, as it were lives again.
“We know,” writes Blessed Theophylact, “that circumcision, which in the Old Testament was a type, contained the image of saving baptism. By the cutting away of flesh it signified renunciation of life according to the flesh.
“And it made the circumcised sons of God.”
To ascribe divine sonship to Israel is not to blaspheme the Jewish people. On the contrary, it exalts them, both in the persons of the first circumcised and of all who followed them.
That is, it exalts those circumcised with the same thoughts and feelings with which they were circumcised, as a sign of special nearness to God by the power of the sacred covenant.
From this it is clear that if circumcision existed, and still exists, among other peoples, it had and has there an entirely different meaning, significance, and aim.
The inner meaning and significance of the law of circumcision, as well as its non-obligatory character for Christians, was especially fully unfolded by the holy Apostle Paul (see Rom. 2:25-29; 4:10-12; Gal. 6:15; Col. 2:11).
Passages read together with this verse.
Greek text, 26 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.