The New Testament’s Authority in a Jewish Covenantal Framework (Part 3)

Introduction
Many people assume the New Testament (NT) draws its authority from later Church pronouncements or extra-biblical writings like the Didache. In reality, the NT’s true authority is rooted in a much older foundation: the covenantal structure of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) itself. From the very beginning, Judaism has understood God’s relationship with humanity through covenants – sacred agreements that define responsibilities and blessings. In this essay, we will explore a two-tiered covenant model central to Judaism: (1) a universal covenant with all humanity (embodied in God’s covenant with Noah after the Flood), and (2) a particular covenant with Israel (initiated through Abraham and later formalized at Mount Sinai). Within this framework, the Tanakh and the New Testament form one continuous story. The NT – written by Jewish believers in Jesus – continues Israel’s calling rather than breaking from it. By reclaiming the NT’s Jewish covenantal roots, we can see a coherent thread connecting the “Old” and “New” Testaments, and better understand how the NT was meant as a fulfillment of Israel’s vocation to bless all the world, not a rupture from it.

The Universal Covenant with Noah: A Foundation for All Humanity
According to the book of Genesis, after the great Flood God made a covenant with Noah and his descendants – in fact, with all humankind (Genesis 9:8–17). God promised never again to destroy the earth by flood and set the rainbow as a sign of this everlasting covenant. In Jewish understanding, this Noahide covenant establishes a universal moral law. Ancient rabbinic tradition distilled the obligations of this covenant into basic commandments binding on all people, often listed as Seven Laws of Noah.[1] These seven Noahide laws (prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, sexual immorality, theft, cruelty to animals, and an injunction to promote justice) represent the fundamental ethics that God expects of every nation. They are largely commonsense moral rules, like respecting life and property, being sexually responsible, and honoring the Creator – principles one might consider accessible to all via conscience or natural reason.

In Jewish thought, every non-Jew is a “son of the covenant of Noah.” In other words, all people – whether Jewish or not – are under this universal covenant. One who accepts and observes its basic moral duties is sometimes called a Ger Toshav, a “resident alien” living alongside Israel, or simply a righteous gentile.[2] Remarkably, the rabbis taught that a Gentile who keeps the Noahide laws because they are divine commands is considered a righteous person who has a share in the world to come, even without converting to Judaism.[3] Thus, from a Jewish perspective, God provided a covenant path for all humanity: anyone, anywhere, can be upright before God by following these core moral laws and acknowledging the one God – without needing to become part of Israel. This universal covenant is inclusive, offering every nation a relationship with God on basic ethical terms.

It’s important to note that these Noahide laws are understood as the minimal standard, “the essential principles of religion and ethics which are in accord with universal reason and conscience.” Jewish thinkers like Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh (whom we’ll discuss later) even compared the Noahide code to a kind of natural law – a moral truth accessible to all humanity. In his view, God’s first revelation of law was through rational moral commands to Noah’s family, in contrast to the more detailed ritual laws given later to Israel.[4] Whether or not one calls it “natural law,” the key idea is that basic morality isn’t exclusive to any one people. All cultures at their best can recognize the wrongness of murder, theft, etc., and this is no coincidence – in the Jewish view, it’s rooted in the Noahic covenant that applies to all descendants of Noah (i.e., everyone).

The Priestly Covenant with Israel: Abraham, Sinai, and a Holy Nation
If the Noahide covenant is the broad base, covering everyone, the next tier in God’s plan is a special covenant with a particular people. According to Genesis, when humanity as a whole failed to live up to basic morality (for example, the generation after Noah fell into corruption again), God initiated a new covenant relationship – this time with one man, Abram (Abraham), and his family. God chose Abraham to father a nation that would be dedicated to God’s service and become an instrument of blessing to all other nations. “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed,” God told Abraham (Genesis 12:3).[5] This promise reveals a crucial point: Israel’s covenant was never meant to benefit Israel alone, but to ultimately bless everyone. Abraham’s call was the starting point of a covenant “much more particular than the covenant with Noah” – a focused agreement through which God would work out the salvation of humanity.

God’s covenant with Abraham was marked by the sign of circumcision (Genesis 17) and by promises of land, numerous offspring, and blessing. It established Abraham’s descendants (through Isaac and Jacob) as God’s chosen people. Centuries later, the family of Abraham had grown into the people of Israel, enslaved in Egypt. In the Exodus story, God liberated Israel and led them to Mount Sinai, where He made a formal covenant with them as a nation. At Sinai, Israel received the Torah (Law) – encapsulated by the Ten Commandments and expanded into a detailed code of 613 commandments covering moral, ritual, and societal life. Whereas the Noahide laws were few and general, the Sinai covenant introduced many specific obligations (dietary laws, Sabbath, festivals, temple worship, etc.) that applied only to Israel as God’s “holy nation.”

Indeed, God declared to Israel at Sinai: “If you will obey My voice and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession out of all the nations – for the whole earth is Mine – and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:5–6).[6] This phrase “kingdom of priests” is telling. It portrays Israel’s role as priestly, meaning serving a mediating role between God and the rest of humanity. Just as a priest represents the people before God and teaches God’s laws, Israel as a whole was meant to represent the one God to the other nations by living according to His ways. They would demonstrate a model of holiness and justice. As Moses told the Israelites, “Observe [these laws] carefully, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the peoples, who will hear all these statutes and say: Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people” (Deuteronomy 4:6).[7] In other words, the Torah was meant to showcase an ideal society under God, inspiring other peoples.

The Israelite covenant can thus be seen as layered on top of the universal Noahide covenant. It assumes the basics (it doesn’t cancel the command against murder, for example – it reinforces it), but it adds many further duties that are “much more particular.” Whereas the Noahide laws deal mostly with fundamental ethics (and avoiding idolatry), the Torah given to Israel includes “dogmas, rites and priestly concepts [which] respond to the mystical needs of humanity.” It introduced practices like dietary restrictions and ritual purity that are not obviously dictated by universal reason, but serve to set Israel apart for a sacred mission. This is why one Jewish thinker summed it up as a “double law: the rational and the suprarational; the knowable and the unknowable; the intelligible and the supraintelligible. It is the first which we find in the Noahide law and the second which corresponds to Torah law.” Both layers come from the same God – they are not in conflict but in partnership.

To put it simply, the Tanakh presents two covenants revealed by God: one with all humanity through Noah, and another with Israel through Abraham and Moses. The first is universal and moral; the second is particular and also ritual/national. Crucially, the particular covenant of Israel carried forward the purpose of the universal one: through Israel’s obedience and witness, all nations would eventually be blessed and come to know the true God. The prophet Isaiah, for example, envisioned a day when “many peoples will come” to Jerusalem to learn God’s ways (Isaiah 2:2–3), and calls Israel (or Israel’s servant) “a light to the nations” (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6).[8] Far from being an exclusionary plan, the covenant with Israel was the next step in God’s inclusive plan – a focused project to remedy the world’s evils through a model nation, ultimately benefitting everyone.

One Story: The Tanakh and New Testament in a Covenantal Continuum
Understanding this two-tiered covenant structure helps us see that the New Testament emerges naturally from the Tanakh’s storyline rather than from outside ideas. The Hebrew Bible ends with Israel still awaiting the full realization of God’s promises – the fulfillment of the covenants. The prophets spoke of a coming Messiah and a “new covenant” (Jeremiah 31:31) that would renew Israel from within and draw all nations to God.[9] Early Judaism (in the Second Temple period, around the time of Jesus) was diverse in expectations, but many Jews hoped for a restoration of Israel and the inclusion of Gentiles in honoring God (some envisioned Gentiles converting fully, others envisioned a more Noahide-like scenario where Gentiles abandon idols and follow basic moral laws).

It is within this Jewish milieu that Jesus of Nazareth and the early Jesus movement arose. Jesus and his first disciples were Jews, faithful to the God of Israel and the Torah’s authority. They believed Jesus was the promised Messiah who would bring the covenant story to its climax. Notably, Jesus at the Last Supper spoke of his impending death as inaugurating the “new covenant” (Luke 22:20) – echoing Jeremiah’s prophecy that God would make a new covenant with Israel, writing His law on their hearts. This new covenant was not a rejection of the old, but a renewal and extension of it. According to the New Testament, Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection were the means by which Israel’s God would both renew Israel and extend salvation to the Gentiles (the nations) in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham.

The writings of the New Testament, all authored in the first century A.D., reflect this worldview. They are thoroughly grounded in the Jewish scriptures – quoting and alluding to the Tanakh hundreds of times. The NT presents itself as the continuation (and in Christian understanding, the fulfillment) of the Tanakh, not a separate story. For example, the Gospel of Matthew opens with a genealogy of Jesus linking him to Abraham and David; the implication is that Jesus is the heir of the Abrahamic covenant and the Davidic kingship. Throughout the NT, Jesus is portrayed as the Messiah of Israel. The very term Christ (Greek Christos) means “Anointed One,” translating the Hebrew Mashiach (Messiah). Thus the identity of Jesus is unintelligible apart from the Jewish covenant context – he is claimed to be the one through whom God is keeping the covenant promises to Israel (like the promise of a messianic king and a new covenant of forgiveness).

Now, one might ask: if the NT is Jewish at heart, why did Christianity become filled with so many Gentiles, and why did it sometimes appear to diverge from Judaism? The answer brings us back to the two-tiered covenant and to the real keepers of Jesus’ tradition in the land of Israel. The earliest Christian movement was not a free-floating Gentile church, but a dynastic, covenantal sect within Judaism — often called the Nazarenes or the Way — led by the Desposyni (literally, “those who belong to the Lord”), the blood relatives of Jesus. According to early church historians like Hegesippus, the leadership of the Jerusalem community after Jesus passed through his brother James, then to Jude, Symeon, and other family members. These relatives functioned almost like a “Jesus dynasty,” not in a worldly royal sense but as a covenantal lineage, guarding both the Torah and the testimony about Jesus. They were known for their Torah observance, their loyalty to the Temple until its fall, and their resistance to Roman collaboration.

It was this family-led movement — what later polemicists called Ebionites (“the poor”) — that preserved the Jewish-covenantal interpretation of the Messiah. They did not preach a Gnostic redeemer detached from Israel’s story, nor a purely spiritualized Christ. They saw Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, Israel’s priest-king, and they continued to live as Torah-keeping Jews while welcoming Gentiles through the Noahide doorway. In other words, the Desposyni and their followers in the land were the living bridge between Abraham’s covenant and the inclusion of the nations.
When non-Jews (Gentiles) began to be attracted to this movement – moved by the message of the one God and the teachings about Jesus – the early Church faced the crucial question: On what basis could these Gentiles be included? Did they need to fully convert to Judaism and take on Israel’s Torah (circumcision, kosher laws, etc.)? 

Or was there another way? This leads us to a pivotal event recorded in the New Testament: the Council of Jerusalem (circa 50 A.D.), described in Acts 15.

Early Christian Insights: Acts 15 and the Apostolic Embrace of the Two Covenants
As the Book of Acts tells it, the question of Gentile converts caused sharp debate in the young Church. Some Pharisees who believed in Jesus argued that “It is necessary to circumcise [Gentile believers] and to command them to keep the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). In other words, they thought Gentiles must essentially become Jews to fully join the community of the saved. The Apostle Paul and others, however, had observed that Gentiles were receiving God’s Holy Spirit without becoming Jews, and they opposed placing the full yoke of the Torah on Gentile shoulders.

To resolve this, the apostles and elders met in Jerusalem. St. Peter reminded the council that God had already accepted Gentiles by giving the Holy Spirit to uncircumcised people (like Cornelius, the Roman centurion in Acts 10 who was a devout God-fearer). Peter concluded that Jews and Gentiles are saved alike “through the grace of the Lord Jesus,” not by the Law of Moses (Acts 15:10–11). Then James (Jacob), the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, summed up the consensus. Crucially, James’ decision was that Gentiles did not need to adopt full Mosaic observance to be part of the community. Instead, he said:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

This statement, known as the Apostolic Decree, imposed only a handful of requirements on Gentile Christians: essentially, to avoid idolatry (no idol feasts), sexual immorality, and consumption of blood (which includes not eating strangled animals that still have blood in them).[10] These particular rules coincide strikingly with Jewish ideas of what God-fearing Gentiles should observe. In fact, they mirror elements of the Noahide laws. Early Jewish sources often summarized the Noahide obligations in a shorter list of three core prohibitions: idolatry (often including blasphemy), sexual immorality, and bloodshed.

The Apostolic Decree’s four rules match this template: “pollutions of idols” corresponds to idolatry, the sexual immorality ban is obvious, and “blood/strangled” corresponds to forbidding bloodshed or cruelty (since consuming blood was associated with violence and disrespect for life).[11]

Historical scholarship suggests that “the threefold list [of Noahide laws] existed in the first century CE and was the basis of the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15 which gives a minimum of rules to Gentiles.” In other words, James’s ruling was not invented out of thin air – it reflected an existing Jewish concept that Gentiles could live righteously by adhering to a basic code very much like the Noahide laws.[12]

This compromise affirmed the two-tier covenant structure in practice. As one commentator puts it, the early church recognized essentially “two pathways: (1) convert the Gentiles to become Jews, or (2) allow them to remain as Noahides.” They chose the latter (with a slight modification of adding a couple rules to facilitate table-fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in the same community). By not requiring circumcision and full Torah observance, the apostles implicitly acknowledged that the Gentiles were already acceptable to God under the Noahide-type covenant, especially now that they had turned from idols to the God of Israel.

At the same time, Jewish believers in Jesus would continue to keep the Torah as part of their identity and devotion (there is evidence in Acts that Jewish Christians like James remained observant of the Law). So within the one community of the Church, there was a differentiation: Jewish Christians lived by the Mosaic covenant obligations, Gentile Christians lived by the simpler Noahide norms. Far from causing division, this arrangement was seen as God’s will – “not to burden” Gentiles beyond the necessary basics. The apostolic letter in Acts 15 even phrases it as “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to impose on you any further burden beyond these requirements” (Acts 15:28–29). The early church thus officially rejected the idea that one must become Jewish to be a full member of God’s people, which was a revolutionary affirmation of the Noahide principle of universal access to God.

It’s fascinating to observe that the Acts 15 decree omits saying “Don’t murder, don’t steal,” etc. Why? The likely reason is that such fundamentals were assumed – any God-respecting Gentile would know those from the universal moral law (Noah’s covenant). As a modern Jewish-Christian analysis notes, “Many have wondered why there is a glaring absence of the obvious commands, such as murder, theft, adultery… The Noahide framework would have covered these.” In other words, the apostles didn’t need to spell out “Don’t kill” because they were operating within the worldview that Gentile followers of Jesus were already committed to the basic righteousness of the Noahic covenant. They only added a few additional prohibitions important for religious harmony and purity, especially to distance Gentile converts from idolatrous practices common in the pagan world.

The Council of Jerusalem is a powerful example of how the New Testament community navigated the relationship between the two covenants. It shows the NT church did not see itself as scrapping the Jewish covenant. Rather, it confirmed Israel’s covenant (Jewish believers would still circumcise their children, keep kosher, etc., as Acts implies elsewhere) while opening a path for Gentiles to join in fellowship with Israel’s Messiah without becoming Jewish proselytes. This aligns perfectly with the earlier covenant model: Israel remains a distinct priestly people, and the nations are welcomed to ethical monotheism and salvation as Gentiles. The Apostle James even justified this decision by quoting the prophet Amos, who foresaw that in messianic times God would restore “the booth of David” (the kingdom) so that “the rest of humanity may seek the Lord – even all the Gentiles who bear My name” (Acts 15:16–17, quoting Amos 9:11–12).[13] The inclusion of Gentiles was thus presented as a fulfillment of Israel’s prophetic hope, not a break from it.

Paul’s Letters and the Abrahamic Promise: Gentiles as Adopted Heirs
The Apostle Paul (himself a Jew, formerly a Pharisee) became the leading missionary to the Gentiles. His letters in the New Testament further illuminate the covenantal thinking of early Christianity. Paul vehemently defended the idea that Gentile believers did not need to be circumcised or take on the whole Mosaic Law. But he did so in a profoundly biblical and covenantal way – by pointing back to Abraham. In Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, for example, he reminds readers that God’s promise to Abraham preceded the Sinai law by centuries, and that promise included blessing “all nations” through Abraham’s offspring (Galatians 3:8). Paul identifies Jesus as that offspring (the Messiah from Abraham’s line), and thus sees the blessing flowing out to the Gentiles who have faith in Jesus. “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise,” Paul writes (Gal. 3:29).[14] This is a remarkable statement: Paul is saying Gentile Christians, by virtue of Christ, are reckoned as children of Abraham – not by ethnic lineage or conversion, but by faith. They “receive the blessing God promised Abraham and his children,” like wild olive branches grafted into the ancient cultivated olive tree of Israel.

Paul explicitly uses that grafting image in his Letter to the Romans. He compares Israel to an olive tree nurtured by the patriarchal covenants. Some natural branches (unbelieving Jews) might be broken off due to unbelief, and wild olive branches (Gentiles) are “grafted in among them and now share in the nourishing root” of Israel’s covenant. But he cautions Gentile believers not to boast or think themselves superior, for they are supported by the root, not the other way around (Romans 11:17–18). He even holds out hope that the natural branches will be grafted back in, implying Israel’s covenant is irrevocable and her people will yet be restored in faith (Romans 11:23–29).[15] All of this imagery only makes sense if the Gentile Christians are understood as joining Israel’s covenantal framework, not starting a new tree from scratch. Paul’s theology, contrary to some later misinterpretations, did not jettison the Jewish covenants; it placed Gentiles within their scope. He saw the church as the international extension of the Abrahamic family, united by the Jewish Messiah.

It’s also important to note that Paul never advocated moral lawlessness for Gentiles. While he insisted that observances like circumcision, food laws, and holy days were not required of Gentile converts (see Galatians and Colossians 2:16), he upheld the core moral principles. In Romans 13:8–10, he reiterates several of the Ten Commandments (no adultery, murder, theft, coveting) and says all are summed up in “love your neighbor as yourself.” He refers to this as fulfilling the Law through love. In effect, Paul expected Gentile Christians to keep the ethical heart of Torah – which corresponds to Noahide morality – but not necessarily the ceremonial and national distinctions that applied to Jews. This again reflects the two-tier model: one could say Gentile believers remain under the Noahide covenant obligations (now illuminated by Christ’s teaching), while Jewish believers have both that and their own Torah covenant identity. Paul himself lived as a Jew (he circumcised Timothy who had a Jewish mother, Acts 16:3, and participated in Temple rituals, Acts 21:20–26), but he advised Gentiles: “Were you uncircumcised when called? Do not get circumcised” (1 Cor. 7:18). He wanted each to remain in the condition of their calling – meaning, Jews remain Jews for Jesus, and Gentiles remain Gentiles for Jesus, united in one community.

The Epistle of James offers yet another New Testament voice that is deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. James (likely written by Jesus’s brother or another early Jewish Christian leader) addresses his letter to “the twelve tribes in the dispersion” (James 1:1), using an Israel-focused metaphor for the community of believers. James emphasizes ethical living – caring for orphans and widows, not showing favoritism to the rich, controlling one’s tongue, etc. He calls the law “the royal law” and “the law of liberty” (James 2:8, 2:12) and insists that faith without works is dead (James 2:17).[16] All of this resonates strongly with Jewish wisdom literature and moral teaching. James does not discuss Gentile Torah observance directly (his letter is more general), but given that James the church leader was the architect of the Acts 15 decree, we can assume the ethos of his epistle is the same: believers in Jesus must live by God’s moral law (which for Jews includes Torah observance, and for Gentiles at least the basics of righteousness). The NT book of Acts also portrays James as fully Torah-observant himself (Acts 21:20) while shepherding a mixed Jewish-Gentile church with sensitivity.

To summarize, the early Christian texts themselves attest that the Jesus movement saw no abolition of the earlier covenants. Rather, they believed the covenants were being fulfilled and extended. Peter, Paul, James, and John all wrote in a way that takes the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants as the given background – they quote Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, the Psalms, and Prophets constantly. The New Testament, as a collection of writings, is a covenantal document. In fact, the very phrase “New Testament” comes from Latin Novum Testamentum which means “New Covenant” (testamentum was used to translate the Greek diatheke, covenant). Early Christians viewed the NT writings as the record of the New Covenant brought by the Jewish Messiah, analogous to how the Tanakh records the Old (or earlier) covenants. And crucially, this New Covenant was understood (by those first Jewish Christians) not as God throwing away the old relationships, but as God bringing them to fruition – writing His law on hearts, forgiving sins, and welcoming the nations into His family, just as the prophets foretold.

Second Temple and Post-Temple Jewish Perspectives: A Wider Context
The alignment of the New Testament with the two-covenant idea is not as anachronistic as it might sound. In the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BCE to 70 CE), Jews were already reflecting on the place of Gentiles in God’s plan. While some sects were quite separatist, other Jewish thinkers took a more universal view. For instance, Philo of Alexandria (a Jewish philosopher contemporary with Jesus and Paul) spoke of a universal law of nature given by God. He, like some Hellenistic Jews, believed that the ethical core of the Mosaic law reflected universal principles that philosophers like the Greeks could partially grasp through reason.[17] Likewise, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote that the Mosaic legislation was known and admired by other nations, implying its general moral appeal.[18]
In Jewish apocryphal/pseudepigraphal literature, we also find the idea of covenants with the Gentiles. The Book of Jubilees (2nd century BCE; apocryphal) re-tells Genesis and explicitly mentions commandments given to Noah’s children – like prohibitions on consuming blood – as binding on all humanity (Jub. 7:20–28).[19] Jubilees lays out a kind of proto-Noahide code and has Noah exhorting his sons to certain moral laws, illustrating that the concept of a universal law for Gentiles was present in Jewish thought well before Christianity. The fact that the Apostolic decree in Acts 15 mirrors this concept is evidence that the early (Jewish) Christians were drawing from ideas already circulating in Judaism, not inventing something novel. The “God-fearers” mentioned in the New Testament (like Cornelius in Acts 10) were Gentiles who worshipped the God of Israel and adhered to basic ethical norms and certain Jewish practices without fully converting. These were historical examples of Gentiles living under the Noahide type of arrangement – a recognized category in many synagogues of the Greco-Roman world.

After the Temple’s destruction in 70 CE and the subsequent centuries, rabbinic Judaism carried forward the explicit doctrine of the Noahide laws. The Talmud discusses the sheva mitzvot b’nei Noach (seven commandments of Noah’s children) in several places (e.g., Sanhedrin 56a–57a), and the concept became a formal part of Jewish teaching.[20] The rabbis even debated which religions or peoples might count as observing these laws. Interestingly, later rabbinic authorities viewed Christianity in light of the Noahide laws. While early on some Rabbis were ambivalent about whether Christianity’s doctrines violated the prohibition of idolatry, by the Middle Ages a common Jewish opinion was that certain forms of gentile Trinitarian belief (classified as shittuf, “association”) were not prohibited to non-Jews under Noahide law, allowing Christianity to function as a path to ethical monotheism for Gentiles.[21] In simpler terms: a sincere Christian could worship the one God (through a complex Trinitarian understanding) and follow basic morality – sufficient to be a righteous Gentile. This is precisely in line with the two-tier covenant model: Gentile Christianity was seen (at least by some Jewish theologians) as an instrument to spread knowledge of God’s ethical laws to the nations, without those Gentiles needing to live as Jews.

Elijah Benamozegh and the “Dual Covenant” Understanding
No discussion of this topic would be complete without highlighting Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh (1823–1900), an Italian Jewish scholar who powerfully articulated the harmony between Judaism and Christianity in terms of the two covenants. In his book Israel and Humanity, Benamozegh proposed what he called a “dual law” or dual covenant theory. He taught that Judaism consists of two complementary revelations: one universal and rational (the Noahide covenant), and one particular and more mysterious (the Sinai Torah for Israel).[22]

Benamozegh viewed Christianity as a providential vehicle for spreading the Noahide covenant to the Gentile world. Being an Orthodox rabbi, he did not accept Christian doctrines in a Jewish life, but he had a remarkably positive outlook on Christianity’s role for non-Jews. He believed there is no inherent conflict between Jews remaining faithful to Judaism and Gentiles finding God through Jesus, as long as the Gentiles accept the Noahide commandments.[23] In fact, Benamozegh suggested that Jesus’ teachings (stripped of later interpretations) can be seen as guiding Gentiles toward the ethical monotheism of Noah’s covenant. “Jesus fulfills God’s covenant with Noah,” wrote Rabbi Leon Klenicki, summarizing Benamozegh’s belief.[24]

Benamozegh was ahead of his time in interfaith thinking. He did not advocate merging Judaism and Christianity into one. Rather, he saw them as distinct covenanted paths working toward a common divine plan. He lovingly called Christianity a “daughter religion” of Judaism – meaning it emerged from Jewish soil and carries Jewish truths to the world in a form Gentiles could accept.[25]
Importantly, Benamozegh grounded all this in the covenant concept we’ve discussed. He reiterated that the Noahide laws are the “essential principles” of religion for everyone, accessible to reason, while the Mosaic Torah is Israel’s heritage, containing deeper rites and teachings for Israel’s unique mission. “These are the two covenants revealed in the biblical text, one of God with all humanity, and the other with Israel,” as Benamozegh (and Klenicki’s summary) put it.[26] In Benamozegh’s ideal scenario, “Jews should remain absolutely committed to Judaism… and Gentiles should learn of the One God through Christianity.”

Loss of the Jewish Covenantal Context in Later Church Tradition
If the New Testament authors and even modern Jewish sages like Benamozegh saw Christianity in covenantal continuity with Judaism, one might wonder: why have so many Christians (and Jews) historically viewed the NT as completely divorced from the Jewish framework? The answer lies in how the message was reframed over time. In the centuries after the apostolic age, the Church increasingly became a Gentile institution, as fewer Jews joined the movement and the center of gravity shifted to the Greco-Roman world. With this shift, the memory of the two-tier arrangement faded. Many second through fourth-century Christian leaders – the Church Fathers – lacked personal connection to Judaism and were inclined to interpret the Old Testament in purely symbolic or christological ways, often downplaying the ongoing role of Jewish law or the Jewish people.

Some early Fathers like Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch argued that the laws of Torah were either abolished or reinterpreted spiritually in Christ, and that the Church (mostly Gentile by then) was the “new Israel.” Over time, this led to supersessionism – the theology that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. While not all Church Fathers were equally supersessionist, the general trend was to see the New Covenant as rendering the Old obsolete except as a foreshadowing. By the time of Constantine (4th century) and the imperialization of Christianity, efforts were made to distance Christian practice from Jewish practice entirely.

Restoring the Jewish Covenantal Roots: Coherence and Reconciliation
In recent times, both Christian and Jewish scholars have been revisiting these early connections. By reclaiming the NT’s Jewish covenantal roots, we find a far more coherent and compassionate theology. For Christians, recognizing that the New Covenant does not cancel the Old but fulfills and expands it brings unity to the Bible. The apparent dichotomy of “Law versus Grace” is resolved into a beautiful partnership: God’s grace provided a covenant for all humanity (present in the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants), and God’s grace also chose Israel and gave the law as a tutor – and in the fullness of time, God’s grace through Jesus opened the door for Gentiles to enter the family without law-taking. Paul put it this way to Gentile Christians: “Previously, you were outsiders, strangers to the covenants of promise… But now in Christ Jesus, you who once were far off have been brought near.” He likened the separation between Jew and Gentile to a dividing wall that Jesus has broken down, creating one community (Ephesians 2:12–14).[27] Brought near to what? To Israel’s covenants and commonwealth – effectively, to the covenantal relationship with God that Israel already enjoyed. This suggests Gentile believers join Israel’s story; they don’t replace it.

Reading the New Testament in this covenantal light also clarifies Jesus’s mission. He said in the Gospel of Matthew, “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17).[28] Jesus fulfilled them in multiple ways: by embodying their ideals, by bringing prophetic hopes to reality, and by extending their scope. He commissioned his Jewish apostles to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19), effectively to carry the Noahide invitation to the ends of the earth with the added news of the Messiah’s redemption.
Finally, restoring the covenantal framework can enrich Christian practice and identity. It reminds the Church that it is, in a sense, an assembly of Noahites plus grafted branches of Abraham. Meanwhile, those from a Jewish background in the Church might honor their Torah heritage as a beautiful “bonus” calling, much like the apostles did, without imposing it on others. And outside the Church, Jews following their covenant can be respected as faithful to God’s call, not as people who “missed the boat.” This erases the false notion of a competing covenant or replacement. Instead, we see a collaborative picture: Israel remains God’s priestly people, and from Israel sprang a messianic movement that opened the doors of the sanctuary to let the nations in. Both are part of the divine purpose.

Conclusion
The New Testament’s authority flows from being the continuation of the Tanakh’s covenant story. When we grasp that the NT was written by Jews who believed the long-awaited New Covenant had arrived, and that this New Covenant was about God writing His Torah on hearts and embracing Gentiles alongside Israel, we relocate the NT from a foreign, later authority to an integral part of the covenantal fabric of Scripture. The “new” in New Testament does not mean “unrelated to the old”; it means “renewed” or “culminating.” As the Apostle Paul majestically put it regarding Gentile inclusion: “You Gentiles… have been grafted in. So now you also receive the blessing God promised Abraham and his children, sharing in the rich nourishment from the root” of Israel’s tree (cf. Romans 11).[15] The NT is essentially the documentary evidence of that grafting-in process and its implications.

By viewing both Testaments through the two-tiered covenant lens, we honor the integrity of God’s unbroken plan – a plan in which “the gifts and calling of God” for Israel are irrevocable, and yet through Israel’s Messiah “God has shown mercy to all” (Romans 11:29, 32). It reconnects Christianity with its source and provides a more gracious understanding between Jews and Christians. Most importantly, it shows the consistency of God’s character: a God who made a universal covenant of love and justice with the world, and a particular covenant of holiness and mission with Israel – and who, through Jesus Christ (a son of Israel), brought the two together in one beautiful tapestry. This, and not any post-biblical institution, is the wellspring of the New Testament’s authority. It stands upon the covenants of God – “the covenants of promise” (Eph. 2:12) – now revealed to be open to all who will join themselves to the God of Abraham, whether by the first route or the second. Such a framework restores not only coherence between the Testaments, but also a measure of peace between faith communities, as we recognize we have been part of one grand covenantal story all along.
⸻

Endnotes
1. Seven Noahide laws: Talmud, Sanhedrin 56a–57a (lists and discussions of the commandments incumbent on “sons of Noah”).
2. Ger Toshav / righteous gentile: Leviticus 25:35; discussions in Avodah Zarah 64b; Maimonides, Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 10:6.
3. Share in the world to come for righteous gentiles: Tosefta Sanhedrin13:2; Sanhedrin 105a; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah 3:5.
4. Natural law tone: Elijah Benamozegh, Israel and Humanity (various eds./translations); see esp. his framing of “universal rational law” vs. Israel’s particular Torah.
5. Abrahamic blessing to all nations: Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; cf. Galatians 3:8.
6. Kingdom of priests: Exodus 19:5–6.
7. Torah as wisdom to the nations: Deuteronomy 4:6–8.
8. Light to the nations: Isaiah 2:2–4; 42:6; 49:6.
9. New covenant prophecy: Jeremiah 31:31–36 (Hebrew 31:30–35).
10. Apostolic Decree: Acts 15:19–21, 28–29 (cf. Acts 21:25).
11. Noahide core mapped to Acts 15: Compare Sanhedrin 56a–57a (idolatry/blasphemy, sexual immorality, bloodshed) with Acts 15 (idols, sexual immorality, blood/strangled).
12. First-century triad behind Acts 15: See e.g., David Flusser, “The Jewish Sources of the Early Christian Church” (multiple essays); also Jacob Jervell, The Unknown Paul, on God-fearers and the decree.
13. Amos in Acts 15: Acts 15:16–17 quoting Amos 9:11–12 (LXX).
14. Gentiles as Abraham’s seed: Galatians 3:8, 14, 29.
15. Olive tree and irrevocable calling: Romans 11:17–24; 11:28–29, 32.
16. James’ moral Torah and “law of liberty”: James 1:1; 1:27; 2:8, 12, 17.
17. Philo on universal reason/law: Philo, On the Decalogue; On the Creation 142–148; Special Laws I.
18. Josephus on Mosaic law’s reputation: Against Apion 2.170–173; Antiquities 14.
19. Jubilees as apocryphal witness: Jubilees 7:20–28 (Noah’s exhortations against idolatry, blood, sexual immorality). (Second Temple, non-canonical in Judaism/Protestantism; valued at Qumran.)
20. Rabbinic codification of Noahide laws: Sanhedrin 56a–57a; see also Maimonides, Melakhim u’Milchamot 8–10.
21. Shittuf and Christianity for gentiles: Tosafot to Sanhedrin 63b; Avodah Zarah 2a; Rema (R. Moses Isserles) on Shulchan Aruch O.C. 156:1 (and related responsa). Views vary; this note marks a significant strand.
22. Benamozegh’s dual covenant: Israel and Humanity (e.g., chs. on “Universal Religion” and “Israel’s Mission”).
23. Noahide acceptance as criterion: Benamozegh, Israel and Humanity; cf. Maimonides, Melakhim 8:11 (Noahide acceptance “because God commanded it through Moses”).
24. Klenicki summary: Leon Klenicki, essays on Benamozegh and interfaith; see introductions to some English editions of Israel and Humanity.
25. “Daughter religion”: Benamozegh’s language in Israel and Humanityand associated correspondence (usage varies by translation).
26. Two covenants “revealed in the biblical text”: Benamozegh, Israel and Humanity (summative chapters).
27. Brought near to the covenants: Ephesians 2:12–14, 19.
28. Fulfillment, not abolition: Matthew 5:17–20; cf. 28:19–20.