Chapter 4: The Central Issue – The Gospel

Having examined the difference between documented facts and speculation, we can now turn to what is ultimately the most important issue in this discussion. Questions about Noahide organisations, international congresses, future courts, prophetic developments and possible political consequences may all deserve consideration, but they are not the central issue for the Christian.

When reading the previous three chapters, we can draw a clear distinction between documented facts and speculation. Questions can now be asked about Noahide Organisations, the International Congress, future courts, whether Noahide laws have any developments that are tied to the New Testament Bible prophecy and possible political consequences that need to be considered; with all that is spoken about online, Noahide discussions that focus on Noahide organisations and Christian persecution should not be the primary issue for Bible-believing Christians.

The primary issue is the messaging around Noahides: what are these rabbis promoting in terms of their theology and the New Testament gospel?

For the Christian, the most important question is not whether a future Noahide court will ever be established, whether the Noahide movement will become more influential, or whether particular interpretations of biblical prophecy will eventually prove correct. The question that stands above all of these is much more fundamental: How is a sinful human being made right with God?

This question becomes even more important when we consider what Jesus Himself said about the law. In Matthew 11, Jesus did not simply call people to take upon themselves another burden of religious observance that the Rabbis, through promoting Noahide laws to Gentiles, are placing heavy burdens on them. Instead, Jesus called the weary and burdened to come to Him and learn from Christ rather than through Jewish Traditions:

“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

Jesus then continued:

“Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” (Matthew 11:29)

It is essential to understand that Jesus did not present salvation as something that could ultimately be achieved through human effort and certainly not through keeping the seven laws of Noah, the bible says that “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20); this will not make you right with God. He called people to come to Christ.

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ…” (Galatians 2:16)

Here Paul explicitly contrasts justification by faith with justification by works of the law.

“For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Galatians 2:21)

This verse is particularly powerful. Paul’s argument is straightforward: if righteousness could be obtained through law-keeping, then Christ’s death was unnecessary this is what the Global Congress of Noahides is promoting that Christs death was not necessary missing the whole point of what Moses was teaching about blood sacrifice and what to atone for sins we commit mean.

The answer to the burden of sin is not found in man’s ability to keep God’s commandments perfectly, but in the person and work of Jesus Christ. The New Testament consistently points sinners away from confidence in themselves and towards the One who fulfilled the law and gave His life as a sacrifice for sin.

From a Christian perspective, the difficulty with Noahidism is not simply its emphasis upon the Seven Noahide Laws. The deeper issue is its reliance upon rabbinic tradition as an authoritative framework through which Scripture is interpreted. Christians believe that Scripture itself must remain the final authority and that all religious traditions must be tested against the written Word of God.

The biblical narrative repeatedly points to the necessity of atonement through sacrifice. God instructed Abraham about sacrifice, and throughout the Mosaic covenant, God established a sacrificial system that continually reminded Israel that sin required atonement. The Law of Moses did not present human obedience as a substitute for sacrifice; rather, the sacrificial system testified to humanity’s need for forgiveness and reconciliation with God, so keeping the seven laws of Noah has no meaning unless it recognises atonement through blood offering; then, without the shedding of the blood of an animal, no man can be made right with God this renders noahidism useless and of no effect concering a mans standing with God.

The Passover stands as one of the clearest examples. When God delivered Israel from Egypt, the people were not saved merely by moral conduct or obedience to commandments. They were instructed to apply the blood of the Passover lamb, and it was through that divinely appointed sacrifice that judgement passed over them. The Passover therefore pointed beyond itself to a greater redemption yet to come.

For Christians, the significance of Passover finds its fulfilment in Jesus Christ. Paul writes, “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7). The Passover lamb was not an end in itself but a shadow of the true Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world. This was significant because Jesus, our passover lamb, was sacrificed at Passover, which is commemorated once a year.

This is where the fundamental difference emerges. The New Testament teaches that the sacrifices, the Passover, and the entire redemptive history of the Old Testament ultimately point to Christ. Noahidism does not recognise Jesus as the fulfilment of these things. As a result, Christians believe that it misses the central message toward which the Scriptures themselves are directing the reader.

The issue is therefore not merely one of law versus grace, nor simply a disagreement over religious tradition. The issue is whether the Scriptures ultimately point to Jesus Christ as God’s provision for sin, or seek to reject Jesus in favour of a works-based gospel of human effort that comes to nothing. The Christian answer: keeping Noahide laws does not. The sacrifices anticipated Christ, who is the Passover Lamb; the reality is that the passover that Moses gave is a foreshadowing of Christ, and the Gospel proclaims Him as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

“Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” (Colossians 2:17)

From what we understand of Jesus in his Hebrew name, “Yeshua HaMashiach”, He certainly did not teach that God’s law was evil or that obedience was unimportant. In fact, He would later make clear that He had not come to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfil them (Matthew 5:17). The issue, therefore, is not whether Christians should obey God. They should. The issue is whether obedience to the law can make a sinful person right before God as Othodox Jews like Ben Shapiro and others want you to believe.

Matthew 11 points us back to Christ Himself. Jesus says, “Come unto me.” He does not say, “Make yourself righteous and then come to me.” He calls the burdened sinner to Himself and promises rest.

It is crucial, when comparing the Gospel with a religious system, that we know the difference: obedience to commandments is placed at the centre of humanity’s divinely appointed spiritual purpose. Christianity does not deny the importance of God’s commandments; rather, it recognises that the law exposes our sin and shows us our need for a Saviour. The answer to that need is not ultimately found in our ability to keep the law, but in the One who came to fulfil it.

Christians do not believe that they must look to their own obedience as the basis of their acceptance before God, as this is what is being promoted by some Rabbinical teachers; we would say the opposite to the Orthodox Jews as much as they believe they want us to keep the works of the law, salvation and the works of the law to be rightous and accepted before God must come through Christ alone. We believe that we look to Christ,

In this area, we would say every othodox jews, every other religious Judaic system, must, in one form or another, provide an answer to that question. How does humanity stand before a holy God? What does God require of us? What happens to the sinner? Is reconciliation with God achieved through obedience, making atonement, religious observance, moral conduct, faith, sacrifice, grace, or some combination of these things?

Christianity’s answer is centred not upon a system of human achievement such as keeping the laws of noah or 613 commandments known as (mitzvot), but upon a person: Jesus Christ.

The New Testament begins with the recognition that humanity has a problem that it cannot solve by itself. Paul writes that “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Sin is not merely a failure to live up to an ideal standard. It represents rebellion against God and leaves mankind guilty before a righteous and holy Creator.

Consequently, the problem facing humanity cannot ultimately be solved simply by becoming a better person by reforming his behaviour to be right with God nor is it to become more disciplined, live according to a moral code and perform acts of charity, yet none of these things can erase the guilt of sin before God.

This is why the Gospel is so radically different from any system in which human obedience becomes the basis upon which a person establishes his righteousness before God.

How Noahide Literature Understands Righteousness

Christians must understand the Noahide position accurately before attempting to criticise it. The purpose of Christian apologetics is not to misrepresent another religious position in order to make it easier to attack. If we are going to disagree with Noahidism, we should disagree with what its own literature actually teaches, including legalism. At the same time, Christians are not opposed to moral principles simply because they are found within Noahide teaching.

Where the Noahide Laws reflect biblical morality, Christians can readily affirm those principles. The disagreement is not over basic moral truths such as prohibitions against murder or theft, but over the theological question of how a sinner is made right with God and whether righteousness comes through obedience to commandments or through faith in Jesus Christ.

By legalism, we do not simply mean having religious laws or believing that God’s commandments should be obeyed. Christians themselves believe that God’s moral commands are good and should be obeyed. The problem arises when obedience to commandments is made the basis upon which a sinner is regarded as righteous before God. The New Testament explicitly rejects this understanding of justification, teaching that “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight” (Romans 3:20), and that “a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 2:16).Therefore, the Christian objection is not to morality or obedience itself.

The issue is the role assigned to obedience in relation to righteousness and salvation. Good works are the fruit of genuine faith, but they are not the means by which a sinner earns acceptance before God. As Paul states, “For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Galatians 2:21). The Christian Gospel points away from confidence in our own law-keeping and towards the righteousness provided through Jesus Christ.

Below, I show you why the modern Noahide movements are not following biblical teaching, but I aim to examine and explain why; to do this, we can aim to understand what Rabbi Yakov Cohen’s is teaching.

The modern Noahide movement teaches that non-Jews do not need to convert to Judaism in order to have a relationship with God or a share in the World to Come (Olam Ha-Ba). Instead, non-Jews are called to observe the Seven Noahide Laws, which are understood within the movement as universal commandments given by God to humanity.

Rabbi Yakov Dovid Cohen’s Divine Image: Insights into the Noahide Laws Through the Light of Torah and Chabad Philosophy provides an important example of how this theology is presented. Cohen explains that human beings are created in the image of God and that this divine image is expressed through humanity’s fulfilment of the commandments given by God. He writes that every human being is created in the image of God and is therefore capable of imitating God, with this imitation taking place through “the performance of the Divinely given Noahide commandments” (Cohen, Divine Image, p. 4).

This is significant because the commandments are not presented merely as useful principles for establishing a peaceful society. They are given a religious and spiritual significance. Cohen explains that the performance of a commandment takes something within the physical creation and utilises it for a divine purpose. He writes:

“The core element of every mitzvah – commandment performance is to take the physical creation and utilize it for a Divine purpose.” (Cohen, p. 4)

Within this framework, obedience to the commandments is therefore connected with humanity’s spiritual purpose.

Cohen also appeals to the teaching of Maimonides concerning the righteous among the nations. He quotes the principle that a person among the nations who fulfils the Seven Commandments in order to serve God is regarded as belonging to “the Righteous among the Nations” and has a share in the World to Come (quoted in Cohen, p. 18).

This is an important point because it demonstrates that the Noahide system is not simply proposing that people should obey seven useful moral principles because they happen to be good ideas. Rather, the commandments are presented as divinely revealed obligations, and obedience to them has spiritual consequences.

Cohen makes this distinction explicitly. He explains that although there may be many reasons why a non-Jew might follow the Noahide Laws including finding them moral, reasonable or consistent with one’s sense of justice this is not sufficient to make someone a Ben Noah, or Child of Noah, within the religious framework. Instead, the person must follow them because he recognises that they were revealed by God through Moses to the children of Israel at Mount Sinai (Cohen, p. 18).

That distinction is important. It means that the question before us is not simply whether the Seven Noahide Laws contain principles that Christians would consider morally good. Of course they do. Christians have no difficulty recognising the moral wrongness of murder, theft, sexual immorality or injustice.

The deeper question is what role obedience to these commandments plays in a person’s standing before God.

That is where the Christian objection begins.

The Question of How a Sinner Is Justified

The concern is not that Rabbi Cohen encourages non-Jews to reject murder, theft, sexual immorality or other forms of wrongdoing. Christians can agree and apply the moral principles contained within these commandments because they are consistent with biblical morality. The concern is what happens when obedience to these commandments is presented as the means by which a non-Jew fulfils his spiritual purpose and becomes one of the righteous who has a share in the World to Come.

From a Christian perspective, this becomes deeply misleading because it can give a non-Jew the impression that his standing before God ultimately depends upon his obedience to the Noahide commandments. The problem is not the commandments themselves; the problem is the theological role assigned to them through Rabbinic tradition. If a sinner is led to believe that keeping these laws makes him righteous before God, then the central question of the Gospel has been displaced.

The New Testament presents a very different answer to the question of righteousness. Scripture does not teach that a sinful person becomes justified before God by successfully keeping a set of commandments. Paul states plainly, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). The law reveals the problem; it does not provide the remedy.

This is why the Christian must challenge the theological conclusions being drawn from Noahide commandment observance by any rabbi who advocates a theological position. A non-Jew may sincerely obey the Seven Noahide Laws, may live an outwardly moral life, and may genuinely believe that he is serving God. Yet none of these things can remove his guilt before a holy God or provide the righteousness that he needs.

The Gospel tells us that righteousness does not come from what we accomplish for God, but from what God has accomplished for us through Jesus Christ. Paul makes the distinction unmistakably clear: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 2:16).

This is why the issue is so serious. If non-Jews are taught that obedience to the Noahide commandments is sufficient to place them among the righteous and give them a share in the World to Come, without pointing them to their need for Christ, which is central to atonement, then they are being directed towards a system of religious observance while being left without the Gospel. A person can be encouraged to keep the law while never being confronted with the biblical answer to the problem of sin.

The Christian message must therefore go further than telling people what God commands them to do. It must tell them what God has done to save sinners. The law can expose sin, but only Christ can save the sinner from sin, not the works of the law itself.

This is precisely why Jesus’ words in Matthew 11 are so significant. He says, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). Christ does not direct the burdened sinner to confidence in his own ability to achieve righteousness. He directs him to Himself.

The danger, therefore, is not simply that Noahide teaching contains laws. The danger is that a non-Jew may come to believe that keeping those laws is the answer to his fundamental problem with God. Christianity must challenge that conclusion because the New Testament places justification not in human law-keeping but in faith in Jesus Christ.

The question that must therefore be asked is not merely, “Are the Noahide Laws good laws?” Some of them clearly reflect moral truths that Christians affirm. The question is much more important: Can obedience to those laws make a sinner righteous before God?

According to the New Testament, the answer is no.

Righteousness is found in faith alone and in Christ alone.

The Gospel Does Not Point Us Back to Ourselves

This is one of the most important distinctions to understand when comparing Christianity with a religious system centred upon commandment observance.

A works-based approach ultimately directs a person back toward what he must do.

The Gospel directs the sinner toward what Christ has already done.

That distinction runs throughout the New Testament.

Humanity has sinned. Christ died for sinners.

Humanity is guilty. Christ provides redemption.

Humanity cannot achieve perfect righteousness. Christ is righteous.

Humanity deserves judgement. Christ bore the judgement of His people.

The Christian does not stand before God saying, “Look at how well I have kept the commandments.”

The Christian stands before God trusting in Jesus Christ.

This does not mean that Christians are free to live however they want. Genuine faith produces obedience. A person who has truly come to Christ should desire to follow Him and live according to God’s commands. But obedience is the fruit of salvation, not the foundation upon which salvation is earned.

That distinction is essential.

The Christian obeys God because he has been reconciled to God, not in order to purchase reconciliation through his own works.

The New Testament’s Answer Is Jesus Christ

For a non-Jew who is considering the Noahide movement, the most important issue to understand is that the Gospel cannot be separated from the identity and work of Jesus Christ. Christianity does not simply offer another set of moral teachings alongside the Noahide Laws. It makes a far greater claim: that Jesus Christ is the One through whom sinners are reconciled to God.

Jesus Himself declared:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

These are not the words of someone presenting Himself as merely another teacher who can help people find God. Jesus claimed to be the way to the Father. His claim was not that He was one spiritual path among many, but that access to the Father is found through Him. The New Testament goes further by teaching that Christ is the end, or goal, of the Law: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (Romans 10:4). The Law pointed forward to Him, and in Christ its purpose reaches its fulfilment. What was revealed through the Law, the sacrifices, the priesthood and the Passover finds its ultimate meaning in the person and work of Jesus.

This is why Christianity cannot simply treat Jesus as an additional figure within a Noahide framework. If Christ is the goal to which the Law was pointing, then He cannot be placed alongside a system that directs the non-Jew towards righteousness through continued observance of commandments. The Law points beyond itself to Christ, and the Gospel calls the sinner (Rabbi, Jews and Gentiles) to place his faith in Him.

Following His resurrection, the Apostle Peter proclaimed the same message. Speaking of Jesus, he declared:

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

The message of the apostles was therefore not simply that Jesus was a good man, a prophet, or another source of moral instruction. They proclaimed Him as the unique Saviour of humanity. Salvation was not presented as something that could be obtained through adherence to one religious system or another. It was found in the person of Jesus Christ.

This is particularly important for non-Jews who may be encouraged to follow the Noahide Laws. Christianity does not teach that the answer is simply to add Jesus to the Noahide framework. Jesus cannot be treated as an additional religious teacher while retaining the same understanding of righteousness and salvation. To do so would fundamentally change the message of the Gospel.

The Christian objection, therefore, is not to morality. Christians have no objection to the prohibition of murder, theft, injustice or other forms of wrongdoing. Indeed, where the Noahide Laws reflect moral principles taught in Scripture, Christians can affirm those principles.

Nor is the Christian objection to obedience itself. Scripture calls believers to obey God and live righteous lives. The issue is much deeper: what is the basis upon which a sinner is reconciled to God?

The Gospel answers that question by pointing to Christ.

Jesus is presented in the New Testament as the promised Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world and the only mediator between God and humanity. Paul writes:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)

For this reason, a non-Jew considering Noahide teaching needs to understand what is at stake. This is not simply a choice between two different sets of religious rules. The fundamental issue is whether righteousness and reconciliation with God are found through obedience to commandments or through faith in Jesus Christ.

The Gospel does not tell the sinner merely what he must do for God. It announces what God has done for the sinner through His Son.

That is why Jesus cannot simply be added to the Noahide system as another component of religious life. The Gospel places Christ at the centre. If Jesus is truly the Messiah, the Saviour and the only mediator between God and humanity, then He is not an optional addition to another religious pathway. He is the answer to humanity’s greatest need.

Good Works Cannot Replace the Cross

The moral teachings found within Noahide literature should not be dismissed simply because they form part of a religious system with which Christians disagree. Where these teachings correspond with the moral law revealed in Scripture, Christians can affirm them. Murder, theft, sexual immorality and injustice are not made right merely because they appear within a Noahide framework; they are wrong because they violate God’s moral standard.

But moral agreement does not answer the question of salvation.

A person can recognise that murder is evil, refuse to steal, pursue justice and seek to live an outwardly moral life, yet still remain guilty of sin before God. The issue is therefore not whether these commandments are good, but whether keeping them can provide the righteousness that a sinner needs.

The New Testament gives a clear answer. The law reveals our sin, but it cannot remove our guilt. Paul writes that “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight” (Romans 3:20). Righteousness is instead found through faith in Jesus Christ, through whom believers are “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24).

This is where the Gospel differs fundamentally from placing confidence in commandment observance. Good works have their proper place in the Christian life, but they cannot substitute for the atoning work of Christ. A sinner does not stand righteous before God because he has accumulated enough good works or successfully kept a religious code. He stands righteous through the grace of God and the righteousness provided through Jesus Christ.

The cross is therefore not an addition to human obedience. It is the answer to the problem that human obedience cannot solve.

The question is not simply whether a person is trying to live a good life. The question is whether that person has been reconciled to God through Jesus Christ.

Good works cannot replace the cross, because only Christ can deal with sin.

The Importance of Maimonides and the World to Come

The reference to the World to Come is important because it shows that the Noahide discussion goes beyond questions of earthly morality. The issue is ultimately spiritual and concerns a person’s relationship with God and his future standing before Him.

In Divine Image, Rabbi Yakov Dovid Cohen connects observance of the Seven Noahide Laws with the status of the righteous among the nations and their share in the World to Come. He therefore presents the commandments as having significance beyond simply maintaining an orderly or moral society.

Cohen also quotes Maimonides concerning the idea that a person should view himself and the world as being in a balance between good and evil, so that one good deed can tip the scales towards good and bring salvation to himself and to the world (Cohen, p. 18). Cohen likewise cites Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson’s teaching that universal observance of the Noahide Laws will be a principal force in bringing about universal peace and the Messianic Redemption (Cohen, p. 5).

These statements are important because they demonstrate the wider theological framework in which Noahide commandment observance is understood. The commandments are not presented merely as a code of behaviour for making society better. They are connected with righteousness, the World to Come, salvation and the expectation of Messianic redemption.

This is precisely where the Christian must ask what the Bible teaches about redemption.

The Christian does not look to humanity’s eventual obedience to a set of commandments as the means by which Messianic redemption will be accomplished. The Christian believes that the promised Messiah has already come in the person of Jesus Christ. The redemption anticipated throughout the Old Testament finds its fulfilment in Him.

Jesus came into the world, lived the sinless life that humanity could not live, gave Himself as a sacrifice for sin, rose bodily from the grave and will return in glory. The Christian hope is therefore not ultimately placed in what humanity will accomplish through obedience, but in what God has already accomplished through His Son.

This distinction becomes particularly important when considering the biblical relationship between the Law, the sacrifices and the Messiah. The Old Testament does not simply leave humanity with a collection of commandments and tell mankind to achieve righteousness through keeping them. Its sacrifices, priesthood and festivals point beyond themselves towards God’s provision for sin. The Passover itself points forward to Christ, whom Paul identifies as “our passover” who “is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7).

Consequently, from a Christian perspective, the expectation of future redemption cannot be separated from Jesus Christ. The Messiah is not still an unknown figure whose arrival depends upon humanity reaching a sufficient level of obedience. The Messiah has come.

The question for the non-Jew considering Noahide teaching is therefore not merely whether these commandments are good or whether their observance may contribute to a better society. The more important question is whether the biblical promise of redemption is being understood correctly and whether that redemption is found through continued commandment observance or through the Messiah whom the Scriptures proclaim.

For Christianity, the answer is clear: redemption is found in Christ.

The Cross Changes Everything

At the centre of the New Testament stands the cross. It is there that the seriousness of sin and the depth of God’s love meet. God’s justice cannot simply overlook human guilt, yet in His mercy He provided the means by which sinners could be reconciled to Him. That reconciliation is not achieved through human effort, but through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Jesus did not come merely to give humanity another moral code or to provide another set of commandments by which people could attempt to make themselves righteous. He came to save sinners. He declared that He had come “to give his life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28). This was paid for in His blood, not the blood of an animal.

There are clear differences showing that modern Noahide movements are theologically opposed to the Gospel, and when we look at this, it is important that we do not get lost in comparing the Gospel with a system centred on commandment observance. The Christian message is not primarily about what mankind must accomplish for God, but about what God has accomplished for mankind through Christ. Jesus did not merely point humanity towards righteousness as a teacher might point towards an ideal. He became the means by which sinners can be declared righteous before God.

Paul expresses this at the heart of the Gospel:

“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

The righteousness required by God is therefore not something the sinner can manufacture through sufficient moral effort. It is righteousness provided through Christ; this changes the question completely. The issue is no longer simply whether a person has kept enough commandments or laws, performed enough good works, or lived a sufficiently moral life. The question becomes whether that person has placed his faith in Jesus Christ and trusted in what He accomplished through His death and resurrection.

That is the fundamental difference between confidence in human obedience and the Gospel of grace.

The Christian does not look to his own righteousness. He looks to Christ.

Christians Must Not Confuse Moral Agreement With Spiritual Agreement

There is a real danger at this point of falling into one of two extremes. The first would be to misrepresent Noahidism by suggesting that everything associated with it is inherently evil or that everyone who identifies with Noahide teaching has the same motives. Such an approach would neither be fair nor helpful. Christian apologetics should deal honestly with the beliefs themselves rather than attributing motives to individuals without evidence.

The opposite extreme, however, is equally problematic. Because Noahide teaching contains moral principles that Christians can affirm, it does not follow that Christianity and Noahidism are therefore compatible. Agreement over morality does not establish agreement over theology. Christians can recognise truth without accepting the entire religious system in which that truth may be presented.

A Christian can agree that murder is wrong without accepting another religion’s understanding of salvation. We can affirm the importance of marriage and family without adopting another theological understanding of God. We can support justice and reject idolatry while still maintaining the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. The existence of common moral ground does not remove the fundamental differences concerning God, revelation, righteousness, salvation and the identity of the Messiah.

This distinction is essential when discussing with Jewish people. A Christian critique of Noahidism must never become an attack upon Jewish people as an ethnic group, nor should disagreement with Noahide theology be turned into hostility or prejudice against Jews. The subject under examination is a religious and theological system, not the worth or character of the people who may identify with it.

For the Christian, the issue is therefore purely theological. What has God revealed? How is a sinner made righteous? What is the purpose of God’s Law? Who is the Messiah? And where is salvation found?

These are questions upon which Christianity cannot compromise simply because another religious system shares some of its moral convictions.

Christians are commanded to love their neighbours, including those with whom they profoundly disagree. But Christian love does not require theological compromise to coexist or acceptance of our differences. On the contrary, if Christians genuinely care about those who are seeking God, they must be willing to explain why they believe the Gospel is true and why Jesus Christ cannot simply be replaced by, or added to, another religious pathway.

We can respect people without accepting their theology, and we can disagree with a religious system without showing hatred towards the people who follow it.

Why Christians Cannot Embrace Noahidism as an Alternative Spiritual Path

At this point, the core issue becomes clear. The question is not whether the Seven Noahide Laws contain moral principles that Christians can recognise as good, nor whether non-Jews should seek to live morally before God. The question is whether Noahidism can provide an alternative spiritual pathway by which a non-Jew can be regarded as righteous before God and receive a share in the World to Come.

If Noahidism is understood as teaching that non-Jews fulfil their God-given spiritual purpose through obedience to the Seven Noahide Laws and are thereby counted among the righteous, then Christians cannot embrace this as another legitimate pathway to God. Such a framework places commandment observance at the centre of the non-Jew’s religious relationship with God, whereas the Gospel places Jesus Christ at the centre.

As Christian’s our objection is the theological messaging; it is not about good works or God’s moral law. Scripture itself teaches that God’s commandments are good and that those who belong to Christ should live lives characterised by obedience. The issue is whether that obedience can provide the righteousness required for a sinner to stand justified before God.

The New Testament does not present the Seven Noahide Laws as an alternative covenantal pathway to eternal life for Gentiles. Instead, it consistently directs both Jew and Gentile to Jesus Christ. Paul declares that “there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him” and then concludes, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:12–13).

This is why the Gospel cannot simply be incorporated into a Noahide framework as though Jesus were an additional spiritual teacher or source of moral instruction. If righteousness and salvation can ultimately be obtained through another religious pathway, then the unique and necessary work of Christ has been displaced.

Paul’s warning to the Galatians demonstrates how seriously the early Church treated any message that altered the Gospel of grace. The issue was not whether the additional religious practices were morally good in themselves, but whether they were being presented as necessary for justification. Paul would not allow anything to be added to the finished work of Christ.

The same principle applies here. A Christian cannot affirm Jesus as the Saviour while simultaneously accepting a theological framework in which a person’s righteousness before God is ultimately grounded in obedience to another set of religious commandments. Christ cannot be both the only Saviour and merely one component within an alternative system of salvation.

The Gospel therefore leaves no room for treating Noahidism as an alternative spiritual path for non-Jews. The issue is not whether the Noahide Laws contain moral truths; the issue is whether they can provide what only Christ can provide.

They cannot.

Christ must remain at the centre.

The Fundamental Divide

Ultimately, discussions surrounding the Noahide Laws must return to the person of Jesus Christ. The word Torah means “instruction,” “teaching,” or “guidance” and refers specifically to the five books of Moses, Genesis through Deuteronomy. Jesus taught that these Scriptures testify of Him: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me” (John 5:46). The Torah therefore points beyond itself to Christ, who is its fulfilment and the source of righteousness for those who believe.

These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.”
– Luke 24:44

Questions surrounding Noahidism can easily become dominated by politics, international organisations, prophecy, future courts, legislation, or speculation about a coming world system. These subjects may warrant examination in their own right, but they are secondary to the fundamental theological question at the heart of the Gospel.

The real divide is not ultimately about politics or morality. It is about salvation.

The New Testament presents Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah, the Son of God, the sacrificial Passover lamb, the Saviour of the world and the only mediator between God and humanity. Noahidism, however, does not recognise Jesus as Lord, Messiah and Saviour in the way the New Testament does. That is not a minor theological disagreement. It concerns the very foundation upon which a person is reconciled to God: that this message is for the whole of humanity, both Jew and Gentile.

A person may sincerely desire to serve God by observing the Seven Noahide Laws. He may seek to live a moral life, reject murder and theft, avoid sexual immorality, pursue justice, and genuinely believe that he is doing what God requires. Yet sincerity alone cannot establish righteousness before God. Without Christ, the sinner remains unrighteous, and even his own righteousness is as “filthy rags” before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6). The question, therefore, is not simply whether a person is sincere or morally conscientious, but whether he has been reconciled to God through the means God Himself has provided – Jesus Christ.

The Christian answer is found in Jesus Christ, not in the seven laws of Noah, which exclude Christ from keeping the works of the law.

The sinner is not justified because he has achieved sufficient moral improvement, accumulated enough good works, or successfully observed a religious code. Scripture teaches that justification is God’s gracious gift, received through faith in Christ. As Paul writes, we are “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24).

This is why the cross stands at the centre of the message concerning Noahide laws. The Gospel does not tell the sinner to make himself righteous and then approach God. It tells him that he cannot make himself righteous and that God has provided righteousness through His Son.

That is the message of grace.

It is also why the Christian cannot treat Noahidism and Christianity as interchangeable spiritual paths simply because they share certain moral principles. There may be genuine agreement concerning murder, theft, sexual morality, justice and other matters of conduct. But agreement over morality cannot overcome disagreement over the identity of the Messiah, the nature of righteousness and the means of salvation.

Noahidism places significant emphasis upon obedience to the Noahide commandments as part of humanity’s divinely appointed spiritual purpose. The Gospel message is divinely appointed by Ha Shem who we call God and directs the sinner beyond his own obedience and towards the finished work of Jesus Christ.

The difference is therefore not between people who care about morality and people who do not. It is between confidence in what man does and confidence in what Christ has done.

For the Christian, there can be no compromise on this point. Jesus cannot simply be added to another religious framework as an additional teacher or moral authority. If He is truly the Jewish Messiah, the Son of God and the Saviour of the world, the Creator, and the Word made flesh, then He is central to the question of salvation itself.

The ultimate question is therefore not what political developments may arise from Noahidism, how influential the movement may become, or what future structures might emerge. The ultimate question is whether Jesus Christ is who the New Testament declares Him to be and whether salvation is found in Him alone.

The Christian answer is unequivocal:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

And as Peter proclaimed:

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

The fundamental divide is Christ.

References

Cohen, Yakov Dovid. Divine Image: Insights into the Noahide Laws Through the Light of Torah and Chabad Philosophy. Jerusalem: Ask Noah International, 2006.

The Holy Bible, Authorized King James Version.

Views: 7