(Blog) Noahide Laws: A New Religious Movement - Ep. 963 - August 21, 2026

Noahide Laws and the Jerusalem Congress Examined

A set of seven moral laws can sound familiar to Christians, especially when they prohibit murder, theft, idolatry, and sexual immorality. Yet the Noahide Laws carry a larger religious framework, including rabbinic interpretation, a distinct identity for non-Jews, and a call to establish courts that enforce the laws.

In Episode 963, Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland examine those issues alongside plans for an international Noahide gathering in Jerusalem. Their discussion raises questions about religious authority, the place of the New Testament, and the limits of public law.

Why the Noahide Laws Are Receiving Attention

Smith and Rowland describe the Noahide movement as a subject that has existed in rabbinic discussion for many centuries but has gained new visibility. Their focus is a planned First International Congress of Noahides in Jerusalem, described on its own materials as a founding event for communities across multiple continents.

The hosts argue that Christians should understand the movement because the laws can appear harmless at first glance. Most people don't object to a prohibition on murder or theft. However, the episode insists that the short wording of each law doesn't tell the full story.

Their concern centers on the source that defines the laws, the authority behind those definitions, and the legal system proposed to enforce them.

What Are the Noahide Laws?

The Noahide Laws are commonly presented as seven obligations for Gentiles, meaning non-Jews. Smith and Rowland contrast them with the Ten Commandments, which they treat as biblical commands given within the larger covenant story of Scripture.

Several Noahide Laws resemble biblical moral instruction. The hosts stress, however, that resemblance alone doesn't settle the issue. They argue that the detailed meaning of the laws comes from rabbinic tradition and the Talmud rather than from the New Testament.

The Talmud's Role in the Discussion

The episode describes the Talmud as a collection of Jewish rabbinic writings that holds major religious authority within Jewish tradition. Smith and Rowland focus on the Babylonian Talmud as the source they associate with the Noahide framework.

Their stated concern is that a brief rule may sound biblical while later interpretations assign it a broader or different meaning. That question becomes especially important with laws concerning blasphemy, idolatry, and courts of justice.

A familiar list of moral rules can carry a very different meaning when another religious authority defines the terms and penalties.

The Seven Noahide Laws Listed in the Episode

The hosts use slightly different wording at points, but they identify the following seven laws.

1. Do not deny God or practice idolatry. The rule is described as affirming the oneness of God and forbidding worship of false gods or idols.
2. Do not blaspheme. This prohibition includes cursing or profaning God. Smith and Rowland argue that the issue depends on how rabbinic authorities define blasphemy.
3. Do not murder. The episode also uses the phrase "do not take human life." The hosts note that murder and killing are not identical terms in biblical and legal discussion.
4. Do not engage in sexual immorality. The examples named include adultery, bestiality, and other illicit sexual acts.
5. Do not steal. This rule is presented plainly as a prohibition on theft.
6. Do not eat flesh taken from a living animal. The hosts also refer to this as a prohibition against cruelty to animals.
7. Establish courts and legal systems. Gentiles are instructed to create courts that enforce the other six laws.

The seventh law receives the strongest attention because it moves beyond personal morality. It calls for an organized legal structure, not merely private agreement with a code of conduct.

Why Smith and Rowland Say Christians Must Read the "Fine Print"

The hosts repeatedly use the idea of reading the "fine print." Their point is that rules against murder, theft, and idolatry may receive broad agreement, yet the consequences depend on who has authority to interpret and enforce those rules.

The Definition of Blasphemy

Smith and Rowland raise the example of blasphemy to explain their concern. They state that, under the interpretation they are discussing, naming Jesus could be treated as blasphemy because Jesus is not accepted as Messiah or divine within that religious system.

They also state that decapitation is described as a penalty for blasphemy in the rabbinic legal interpretation they are examining. The episode treats that claim as a warning about the distance between a short moral statement and the penalties that may follow from its legal definition.

The question at the center of their argument is simple: Who decides what blasphemy means, and what power does that authority have?

Competing Sources of Authority

The discussion places several sources of religious authority side by side:

• The Bible and the New Testament
• The Torah
• The Talmud
• Rabbinic interpretation
• Courts established to apply religious law

Smith and Rowland argue that the Noahide system gives defining authority to rabbinic teaching. Because of that, they believe Christians cannot assess the laws only by their short titles or surface-level wording.

The 1991 U.S. Congressional Reference

The episode also discusses a 1991 U.S. congressional declaration connected with the administration of President George H. W. Bush. According to the hosts, Congress referenced the Noahide Laws by name in language promoting ethical values.

Jeff Rowland distinguishes between a declaration and a criminal enforcement system. He says the measure was not written to impose the penalties associated with religious-law interpretations of the Noahide code. Instead, it was presented as an ethical statement.

Still, Smith and Rowland view the reference as significant because it placed the Noahide Laws in an official federal document. They question whether public recognition of a religious code could later be used to support broader legal claims.

The episode asks whether a government declaration about ethical values could become part of an argument for religious enforcement later.

The Episode's Comparison With Sharia Courts

Smith and Rowland compare the Noahide court requirement with Sharia courts. They say both systems involve a religious law code, authorities who interpret that code, and legal structures that may enforce it.

This comparison is the hosts' argument, not a complete legal analysis of either Jewish or Islamic law. Their concern is that religious rules can shift from personal belief into public legal practice when courts receive authority to enforce them.

The episode refers to discussions of Sharia law in Minnesota as an example of why the hosts believe Americans should not dismiss religious courts as impossible in the United States. They argue that the Noahide Laws already include a requirement for courts, making enforcement part of the movement's stated structure.

Smith and Rowland also speculate that the Noahide framework could become a shared "universal law" among different religious groups. They present that possibility as a future concern, not as an established outcome.

Why the Hosts Say the System Excludes Christianity

The hosts' central theological objection is that the Noahide system, as they understand it, excludes the New Testament and the core claims of Christianity. They name Jesus Christ, the cross, salvation through Christ, and the authority of the New Testament as beliefs left outside the Noahide framework.

The Concern About Replacement

Smith and Rowland return several times to the word "replacement." They argue that a moral code cannot substitute for the gospel merely because it contains rules that Christians also affirm.

Their position is that Christianity is not built only on ethical prohibitions. It depends on the person and work of Jesus Christ, including His death, resurrection, and the message of salvation through Him.

"The Noahide laws totally exclude the New Testament," summarizes the hosts' central objection.

A Different Identity for Gentiles

The term "Noahide" refers to Noah and his descendants. Smith and Rowland argue that the movement identifies non-Jews through Noah rather than through Christian faith in Christ.

They see that identity as a serious issue because it places Gentiles within a religious system that does not recognize the New Testament. Their argument is theological: a Christian's identity cannot be reduced to a category built around Noah when the New Testament presents salvation and covenant membership through Jesus Christ.

The First International Congress of Noahides

The event discussed in the episode is called the First International Congress of Noahides. The hosts say it is planned for Jerusalem, with dates listed as November 2 through 6.

They also cite conference details that include a $2,000 reservation cost, participants from at least six continents, and a location identified as the Seven Arches overlooking the Temple Mount area. The event is described as more than a gathering for existing supporters.

The conference materials discussed in the episode use the phrase, "You will stand where history begins anew." Smith and Rowland focus on language that says scattered communities of Noah will meet "not to attend, but to found."

According to the hosts, the congress plans to sign a founding charter. They interpret that step as an effort to give the Noahide movement formal international structure, membership, and public recognition.

Details discussed in the episode are available through the Noahide World Center conference website.

The Founding Charter and Israeli Government Involvement

The hosts describe the congress in two stages. The first stage involves signing a founding charter. The second involves a reception connected with the president of Israel.

According to the conference information they quote, the president of Israel is expected to receive congress representatives at Beit HaNassi, the official presidential residence in Jerusalem. Smith and Rowland view the reported involvement of Israeli officials as evidence that the event carries greater public weight than a small private meeting.

They also point to language about communities spread across six continents. The hosts argue that the conference is designed to create an organized global movement with formal commitments rather than loose affiliation.

The proposed charter matters in their analysis because it would reportedly require participants to declare commitment to the Noahide Laws.

Rabbi Uri Sherki and the Noahide World Center

Rabbi Uri Sherki is named in the episode as a founder of Brit Olam and a leader associated with the Noahide World Center. The hosts describe him as a major voice in teaching what the site calls the "universal Torah" to the nations.

Smith and Rowland say the congress will operate under his direction. They also discuss a five-part structure described in the conference materials.

The Five Pillars Discussed by the Hosts

The framework described on the website includes:

1. Positive identity, in which Noahides state who they are openly and without apology.
2. Structured membership, which emphasizes formal belonging and standing rather than a vague connection.
3. Ritual and cycle, described as yearly and life-based rhythms with markers and meaning.
4. Authority, with guidance rooted in the sages of Israel rather than individual interpretation alone.
5. Local and global connection, which links local communities with a broader international body.

Smith and Rowland see these five pillars as evidence of a developing religious movement with a defined identity, formal membership, authority structures, and shared practices.

The Disputed Citation of Zechariah 2:15

The conference website cited in the episode includes the words: "And many nations shall join themselves to Hashem in that day and shall be my people." It attributes the statement to Zechariah 2:15.

Smith and Rowland challenge that reference. They state that Zechariah chapter 2 contains 13 verses in the Bible version they use, and they question why the site cites verse 15.

The hosts acknowledge that the wording may relate to a Hebrew Bible numbering system or another source. However, they don't settle the issue during the episode.

The episode treats the citation as disputed and raises concerns about using prophetic language to support a modern movement without clear scriptural reference.

For Smith and Rowland, the citation matters because the conference presents itself as an answer to prophetic words that have waited for fulfillment. They object to any use of Scripture that, in their view, changes, misquotes, or reinterprets the text beyond its biblical meaning.

Prophecy and Future Religious Authority

Smith and Rowland connect the Noahide system to their interpretation of biblical end-times prophecy. They suggest that a worldwide legal and religious framework could fit an Antichrist system that seeks broad agreement while rejecting Christ.

Their argument centers on the potential punishment for blasphemy. If confessing Jesus becomes a punishable offense under a religious legal system, they believe that persecution of Christians could follow. They connect this concern with references in Revelation to martyrs and beheaded believers, including the fifth seal and Revelation 20.

The hosts also discuss possible cooperation among Judaism, Islam, and Orthodox Christianity in Russia. They mention claims that some Jewish rabbis view the God of Judaism and Islam as the same God. In addition, they reference Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin in connection with discussions of Russia and Islam.

These points are presented as theological and geopolitical interpretations raised during the episode. Smith and Rowland see them as reasons to watch religious alliances, public legal systems, and language about a universal moral order.

Questions the Episode Leaves for Readers

The discussion calls for close attention to primary sources, religious claims, and legal definitions. Readers who want to assess the Noahide movement should ask several direct questions:

• How do rabbinic writings define each of the seven Noahide Laws?
• Who has authority to determine whether someone has committed blasphemy?
• What penalties are attached to violations in the interpretations being cited?
• How would the requirement to establish courts operate in practice?
• Does the movement recognize Jesus Christ and the New Testament?
• What commitments does the proposed founding charter require?
• Why does the congress describe itself as a founding event in Jerusalem?
• Which Bible translation or numbering system is behind the Zechariah 2:15 citation?

These questions move past slogans and broad moral language. They address the beliefs, authority, and enforcement mechanisms that define a religious movement.

A Christian Response Requires Clear Definitions

The Noahide Laws matter to Smith and Rowland because they combine moral commands with a religious authority structure and a call for courts. Their concern is not that Christians should oppose every rule against theft, murder, or idolatry. Their concern is the system that defines those rules and the place it gives, or refuses to give, to Jesus Christ.

The planned Jerusalem congress adds urgency to that discussion because it is presented as the founding of a global movement with formal membership, a charter, leadership, and public recognition. Christians who examine these claims should look beyond the broad language of morality and ask what the movement teaches about Christ, Scripture, authority, and law.

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), Noahide Laws: A New Religious Movement - Ep. 963 - August 21, 2026"