Let us put this question another way. In the New Testament, were any infants legitimate members of any visible Christian covenant community? If we say no, then we are saying one of two things. Either the apostles were wrong to permit this practice which the New Testament records—they should have insisted that Christian Jews cease circumcising their boys—or the apostles changed the signification of circumcision in Christian homes so that it was merely a neutral cultural thing—“Jews had circumcision and Romans had togas.”
This is the main point of the past section: if circumcision is covenantal, and it was allowed in the intercovenantal period, but infants were no longer included in the covenant, then why would the apostles allow it to continue at all instead of hard-stopping it as soon as the Upper Room occurred? If it is merely cultural, then where is the record of the apostles changing its significance?
