I am told that the New Testament is the New Covenant. If that is so, why didn't God remove the rainbow that He made for the Jews. If the Old Covenant has gone away, how does the Church explain the continuation of rainbows? Genesis 9:13 (NIV) > I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the > covenant between me and the earth

In Acts 15:19-29, were the Apostles of The Jerusalem Council acting in accordance with the Law of Moses, where each violation of the Torah equated to a "cutting off" of the community? Further, aren't three of the four dietary restrictions? The Four detailed prohibitions (Acts 15:19) are: 1) That they abstain from foods sacrificed to idols (dietary), as described in Leviticus 17:7-9. Note Leviticus specifically addresses the alien (Heb. *Ger*) shall be "cut off". 2) That they abstain from fornication, which is associated with Idolatry. (ref. Leviticus 18:26, 29). Here too both the native and the alien are addressed (vs 26), violations of such equate to a "cutting off" (vs. 29) removal from the Covenant. 3) That they abstain from consuming blood (Dietary, ref. Lev. 17:10-12). Verse 10 specifically states that both Native Israelites and Aliens who consume blood will be "cut off". 4) That they abstain from eating foods strangled. (Dietary, ref. Leviticus 17:12-14) The Torah specifically instructs the community to pour out the blood and cover it with earth which is not done in slaughters performed by strangulation. Note once again that those who do such are "cut off" - ref. vs. 14 Is this practice not associated with the idolatry of the surrounding nations and religion according to Leviticus 18:24-25? If the apostles are not standing upon the authority of the Law of Moses, being led by the Holy Spirit, where did they derive such an arbitrary set of conditions for new believers to enter the synagogue (vs. 21)?

**No Christian can claim that the fact they believe or have accepted Jesus as their personal saviour is a full-proof barrier against committing sin going forward.** Many discussions I have encountered on this forum take the view that Old Testament animal sacrifices and repentance were inneffectual and would not reduce the propensity to sin (they had become routine, repetitive, and "religious"). **If faith/belief in Jesus doesn’t stop one from sinning again, in what way is it better than or different from Old Testament animal sacrifice coupled with repentance?** **Many great men and women of the Old Testament times are recorded in scripture as having highly intimate and powerful relationships with God; so it can not be true that it was impossible to have a personal relationship with God under the belief system of those times.** If even Christians who have accepted Jesus as their personal saviour can fall into sin and repent; **is the advantage of the "new regime" only in the fact that we don't have to spend money buying sacrificial animals?**

I have spent time on the website [Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life, by Lee & Annette Woofenden](https://leewoof.org) , which has articles about some of this information but I cannot find what seems to be a sufficient answer to my questions on the nature of Christ's sacrifice according to Swedenborg's interpretation of scripture. Some of the questions I have in regard to the Swedenborgian perspective: Why did Christ die? Did Christ die for our sins as an offering as we find in the Old Testament? What about the book of Hebrews? How can Christ be the new covenant if his blood does not cover sin? I am just needing more clarity. I cannot seem to piece it together.

Why doesn't the greatest commandment include "spirit" along with heart, soul, mind, and strength? >Mark 12:29-31 - “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your **heart** and with all your **soul** and with all your **mind** and with all your **strength**.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Is it because before Jesus’ death and shedding of blood ushered in the new covenant, our spirits were dead? >Ephesians 2:1,4-5 - As for you, you were **dead** in your transgressions and sins, … But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, **made us alive** with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions —it is by grace you have been saved. >Ezekiel 11:19 - I will give them an undivided heart and put a **new spirit** in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. >Ezekiel 36:26 - I will give you a new heart and put a **new spirit** in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. >Luke 22:20 - In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the **new covenant in my blood**, which is poured out for you. The shedding of blood is required for the establishment of a covenant and for forgiveness. >Hebrews 9:16-18 - In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the **first covenant was not put into effect without blood**. >Hebrews 9:22 - In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and **without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness**. I’m thinking that possibly, the old covenant commands, though good, did not have the ability to give life. They are good and perfect, but no one could follow them. They basically were given so the people of Isreal (and people watching) could see that no one could be holy on their own. God needed to provide the way to holiness and life. >Colossians 2:13-14 - When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, **having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness** [written code], which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it [written code] away, nailing it to the cross. Could it be that before we were made alive by belief in Christ we had no way to love him with “all our spirit” because our spirits were dead and so the law did not include spirit in the greatest command? Now we are spiritually alive and can love him with our spirit. >John 4:24 - God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

The Old Testament is clear on male homosexual activity. From Leviticus 20:13: >If a man lies down with a male as one lies down with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. Leviticus is part of the Old Testament. In the New Testament Jesus changes some of the rules. He is allowed to because he is the Messiah. If earlier scripture says something, and Jesus says the opposite, then we give Jesus priority. That is what makes it Christianity. This is used for example to justify why Christians do not keep Kosher or circumcise their children. For rules not mentioned by Jesus, some say the rules remain the same. Others say the rules are no longer valid, as Jesus' death and resurrection fulfilled the old covenant between man and god. The Old Covenant is gone, and the new one is what Jesus said. But the New Testament is not just the life and teachings of Jesus. There are loads of stuff after the resurrection about the establishment of the Church. Some of that says homosexuality is bad. For example Romans 1:26, 27: >God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Or 1 Corinthians 6:9 >do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men These were written by Paul years after the resurrection. Perhaps the above reflects some teachings of Jesus that were not included in the earlier gospels. Without justification, however, we can only believe the above is Paul's personal view. Suppose one was interested in living life only according to what Jesus said and did. Not the scripture and prophets that came before. Not the saints and missionaries that came after. In that case are there any rules on homosexuality? Is it good bad or neutral?

Sometimes I'm not clear why a systematic theologian doesn't simply adopt the Biblical term "New Covenant" but using terms like "Covenant of Grace". What is the reasoning behind it? In the [ESV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=new+covenant&version=ESV) the term "New Covenant" appears in a variety of contexts: Jer 31:31, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, 2 Cor 3:6, Heb 8:8, Heb 8:13, Heb 9:15, Heb 12:24. Doesn't the usage and contexts created by Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, and author of Hebrews **sufficient** to justify the use of "New Covenant" as a systematic theology category, making the systematic theology more Biblical? If a systematic theology uses the category "Covenant of Grace" how does it integrate the Biblical term "New Covenant" into its theology and how does the theology contrast it with "Covenant of Grace"? ### Preliminary research - Examples systematic theologians using "Covenant of Grace": see [Mr. Bultitude's answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/37001/10672) to the question "What is the origin of the Covenant of Grace?". Although the answer shows that the origin was in the Calvinistic tradition, the answer does not explicitly explain why the need to organize their theologies around an *additional* but artificial concept "Covenant of Grace". - Clue from [Nathaniel's answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/54931/10672) to the question "According to Reformed theology, when did the New Covenant start?" since the answer is framed in terms of "Covenant of Grace".

Circumcision is part of the covenant process in the old testament, and is replaced by Paul’s spiritual interpretation of sacrifice in the new testament. I would have thought this covenant is different from the new covenant. I take it that Saint Paul still regards this covenant as relevant to Christians, it’s just he wants reinterpretation. I am therefore confused, as this leads me to think there are two covenants (the new covenant, and the covenant being reinterpreted) that should be taken to be Christian. Would you be so kind as to resolve this issue? If either of the covenant’s do need to be taken, how should they be formally done? Thank you all so much. As "I am planning on becoming a member of the Church of Scotland" I seek answers from those in that Protestant and Presbyterian 'stable'.

Hebrews 7:12 provides: >“For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.” ‭ In Hebrews 7:11, the change in priesthood refers to a change from the order of Aaron to the order of Melchizedek. Accordingly, the change in law refers to a change from the law given during the priesthood of Aaron and back into the law given during the priesthood of Melchizedek.

This is the second in a series of three questions about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is the first question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/86460/how-do-jehovah-s-witness-support-their-belief-that-jesus-started-ruling-invisib I have been asked to write an article on what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe with regard to the number of the 144,000 (as mentioned in Revelation7:4) being a literal number, but the description of the 144,000 (male, Jewish virgins from the 12 tribes of Israel) as being symbolic. Here is a partial quote from their 1 September 2004 Watchtower article, Questions from Readers: >The context of Revelation 7:4 and related statements found elsewhere in the Bible bear out that the number 144,000 is to be taken literally. It refers to those who will rule in heaven with Christ over a paradise earth, which will be filled with a large and undetermined number of happy people who worship Jehovah God. Of critical importance is their belief that the 144,000 have been anointed by Jehovah’s spirit and they alone are in the New Covenant. They have a “heavenly hope.” Those Jehovah’s Witnesses who are not among the 144,000 have an “earthly hope”—to live forever on a paradise earth ruled from heaven by Christ and the 144,000. They are not part of the New Covenant. Speaking of the New Covenant that Jesus introduced on the night before he was betrayed, their ‘Bible Teach’ book says this in the Appendix on pages 207-208: >This covenant, or contract, makes it possible for 144,000 faithful Christians to go to heaven. There they will serve as kings and priests for the blessings of all mankind.... Only those in the new covenant – that is, those who have the hope of going to heaven – should partake of the bread and wine. God convicts such ones that thy have been selected to be heavenly kings. In 1935 the number of Witnesses who believed they were part of the 144,000 numbered 52,465. The number of Witnesses who believed they were heaven bound decreased dramatically over the following decades but in 2005 there were only 8,524 partakers of the bread and wine at the annual memorial service. By 2020 the number had increased again, up to 21,182. Now the Society says the number of the 144,000 will be sealed just before the Great Tribulation starts. What is the explanation for the numbers of Witnesses partaking of the emblems going up and down so much? And what about the hundreds of thousands of Christians who lived and died for Christ Jesus since the first century? Are we to believe that there were less than 100,000 Christians between then and the 1930’s who were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and who were in the New Covenant? ***What is the official explanation that over the past 2,000 years only 144,000 persons can ever be in the New Covenant, be filled with the Holy Spirit, thereby qualifying them to go to heaven?*** My information is incomplete, and may be out of date, so I would appreciate an up to date explanation from official sources so that I can write an article that accurately represents the views of Jehovah’s Witnesses as they understand who the 144,000 are and why only they can be in the New Covenant and to to heaven. There is no intention to belittle or refute the official view with regard to their views; rather I wish to present an accurate account.

Based on the following passages, it's my understanding that The New Testament clearly supports offering: 2 Corinthians 9 (NIV): > 6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7 **Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver**. 8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9 As it is written: > >“They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor; > their righteousness endures forever.” > >10 Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. 11 **You will be enriched in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God**. Acts 2:44-47 (NIV): > 44 All the believers were together and **had everything in common**. 45 **They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need**. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. Acts 4:32-35 (NIV): > 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. **No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had**. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. **For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need**. Acts 24:17 (NIV): > 17 “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people **gifts for the poor and to present offerings**. ________________________ However, many denominations claim that Christians are **expected to give both tithes and offerings**, not just offerings (e.g. (https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/daves-advice-on-tithing-and-giving) , (https://stewardship.adventist.org/2015-19-3-tithe-and-offerings-it-all-about-worship) , (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/for-the-strength-of-youth/tithes-and-offerings?lang=eng) , (https://www.wpmbc.org/tithes-and-offering/)) . ________________________ **Question**: What is the biblical basis for claims that Christians are expected to give **both tithes and offerings** in the New Covenant, instead of just offering?

Many denominations believe that Christians should obey the [ten commandments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments) (also known as the decalogue), which can be found in Exodus 20:1-17. However, there are [613 commandments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments) in the Old Testament, not just 10. Moreover, Jesus himself claimed in Matthew 22:36-40 that the two greatest commandments **are not** part of the decalogue. In other words, Jesus endorsed the observance of two non-decalogue commandments. This makes me wonder: how many of the 603 non-decalogue commandments are still morally binding for Christians today? I know that the two greatest commandments definitely are, but are there others?

Given "sola scriptura" and the explicit assertions in scripture regarding the participants in the covenant ("the houses of Israel and Judah") how do Protestants justify teaching it to be for gentile Protestants? >Jer 31:31 KJV - 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant **with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah**: > >Heb 8:8 KJV - 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant **with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah**: Isn't this overreach that is contrary to sola scriptura? Update for clarification ------------------------ I'm not concerned that the *gospel* only applies to Jews (gentiles do have "access by faith into the grace") but rather the *covenants*: >Rom 9:4 ASV - 4 who are **Israelites**; whose is the adoption, and the glory, **and the covenants, and the giving of the law**, and the service of God, and the promises; I'm seeking maybe a "theodicy" about gentiles and the new covenant from a representative "Reformer" and why, since they are all about "sola fida" and "sola scriptura" do they commandeer the explicitly Jewish new covenant as well?

Do messianic Jews say that the following is true in their lives?: > NIV Jer 31: 33b: ...“**I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts**. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34**No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,**” We are told in Hebrews 10:9-18 (and elsewhere) that Jesus ratified the new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah when he died. It appears that the new covenant speaks of a pan-Israeli supernatural knowledge of the Torah rather than individual knowledge involving teaching that I've not heard any express as being realized in modern times. What do messianic Jews say about the outworking of the new covenant? Was it fulfilled in apostolic times and now gone? Is it active now? Or will it be active in the future?

In Jer. 31:31-34 , it is written, >31 “Behold, the days are coming,” said Yahveh, “that I shall cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day that I took their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them,” said Yahveh. 33 “But this shall be the covenant that I shall cut with the house of Israel. After those days,” said Yahveh, “**I shall put My Law within them, and I shall write it upon their hearts**, and I shall be their god, and they shall be My people. 34 And a man shall no longer teach his neighbor, and a man his brother, saying, “Know Yahveh!” for they all shall know Me, from the least of them even unto the greatest of them, for I shall forgive their iniquity, and I will no longer remember their sin.” In the New Covenant, the prophet Jeremiah states that Yahveh shall put His Law within the Israelites and write it upon their hearts. **According to Catholics, what is this Law that Yahveh puts within the Israelites?**

I've asked this question to several people over the years, only professing Christians and particularly those who tout them selves as 'New Testament Christians'. And this is an important question as Mathew 26:28 tells us that this is the Covenant offered in Christs very own blood: Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the New Covenant (testament), which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Any one with apt comprehension can identify the parties to this Covenant as quoted in Hebrews 8 and Jeramiah 31, yet even more so for some one with legal background such as a contract lawyer the party and terms here specified are clad tight: > Jer 31:31  Behold, the days come, **saith the LORD**, that I will make a **new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah**:  Jer 31:32  Not according to the covenant that I made with **their fathers** in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:  Jer 31:33  **But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law** in their **inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.  Jer 31:34  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.**  > Jer 31:35  Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:  Jer 31:36  If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the **seed of Israel** also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.  Now this is repeated in Hebrews 8, as I had said. By expository bible study and exegeting this text to understand what Christ is affecting in his blood what do you all arrive at for the what, who, why, and how?

My understanding of the new covenant is that it was made ONLY with the houses of Israel, not with gentiles: >[Jer 31:31 KJV] 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: > >[Heb 8:8 KJV] 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: It seems to me that they ascribe to the "anointed class" features of the "great army" of the new covenant Jews: >[Eze 37:10 KJV] 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them [IE: the regathered Israel in Jerusalem 33AD], and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Do they believe that the new covenant is in force today among them (gentile JWs) in any way?

After looking at @Affable Geek's answer to an overview question on different understandings of why Jesus had to die, and in particular after his comment on Catholicism in this respect, I went to look at the discussion in the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_ regarding the role of the death of Jesus in salvation. . One thing that struck me about the Catechism's discussion of "Why did Jesus die?" is the intimate connection the Catechism draws between the offering of Jesus on the Cross and the institution of the New Covenant. This connection is evident in the language of paragraph 610, >On the eve of his Passion, while still free, Jesus transformed this Last Supper with the apostles into the memorial of his voluntary offering to the Father for the salvation of men: "This is my body which is given for you." "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." and also in the language of the Eucharistic Prayer: >When supper was ended, he took the chalice1 and, once more giving thanks, he gave it to his disciples, saying: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. That is, rather than specifying a single reason why Jesus had to die (was it as a ransom from sin? an atonement for humanity?), Catholicism appears to focus instead on the New Covenant between God and Man which His death and resurrection created. I don't see this connection being made in the soteriological approaches discussed in the answer above. How does Reformed Theology in particular connect its view of the purpose behind Jesus' death with the institution of the New Covenant? Or does Reformed Theology not talk much about the New Covenant? What sort of emphasis does it place on any connection between the Covenant and the Sacrifice? ---- 1 There are a number of difficulties I have with the new translation of the Roman Missal; one is the translation of "calix" as "chalice" rather than the simple "cup" of the previous translation.

When instituting the Lord's Supper, Jesus Christ said ([Luke 22:20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A20&version=NIV) , NIV): > In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup > is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. And in [Jeremiah 31](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah+31&version=NIV) the new covenant is also mentioned, with the blessings of the covenant listed. [Hebrews 8](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+8&version=NIV) talks about the new covenant superceding the old in some way (the details of which perhaps I will put in another question). **At which stage did this new covenant supersede the older covenant, according to Reformed theology?**

The Old Covenant was a bilateral covenant of which Yahveh and the nation of Israel were parties. The Israelites had to agree to the terms of the covenant, which they did (Exo. 24:7 ). Is the New Covenant a bilateral covenant?