(Blog) Noahide Laws & The Pledge of Allegiance - Ep. 965 - August 26, 2026

Noahide Laws and the Pledge: A Christian Response

Can a moral code make a person righteous before God? That question sits at the center of the discussion in Episode 965 of The Smith and Rowland Show, where Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland examine the Noahide Laws, Noahidism, and a formal pledge connected to the modern movement.

The hosts' concern is direct: a system presented as a universal path for Gentiles may sound morally acceptable on the surface, yet they believe it replaces salvation through Jesus Christ with law-keeping and rabbinic authority.

Before turning to the pledge itself, the conversation begins with the framework behind Noahidism.

A light opening before a serious subject

Smith and Rowland open with their usual humor, reminding listeners that it is "Smith and Rowland," not "Roland and Smith." Recording "high atop the lofty towers," they jokingly nominate coffee cups as the day's sponsor.

The imagined coffee cup conference quickly turns into wordplay about porcelain mugs, the "mug crowd," and "ugly mugs."

"A bunch of mugs."

Their coffee cup discussion also brings up Dixie-brand cups and memories of visiting Dixie Stampede years ago. They recall that the attraction later dropped "Dixie" from its name and became Stampede.

Then the tone changes. The hosts return to a subject they have addressed over several episodes: the Noahide Laws and their possible religious, political, and prophetic implications.

Why Smith and Rowland are focused on Noahide Laws

Smith and Rowland describe this episode as part of an ongoing conversation about Noahide Laws. Earlier discussions looked at the laws themselves, while this installment centers on the Noahide pledge and the formal commitments connected to the movement.

Their primary theological question is whether Gentiles can become righteous by observing a defined set of laws. The hosts reject that idea. They maintain that righteousness before God comes only through Jesus Christ and His imputed righteousness.

For them, the issue isn't whether moral behavior matters. It does. The issue is whether a human being can receive right standing with God through obedience to a religious legal system outside the gospel.

The hosts argue that human laws cannot replace the gospel of Jesus Christ.

They also see the movement through an eschatological lens. Smith and Rowland believe Noahide teaching could become significant in future religious and governmental developments, especially if it gains support across different faith communities.

What the Noahide Laws are presented to accomplish

The hosts describe the Noahide Laws as a moral framework directed toward non-Jews, often called Gentiles. In the movement's presentation, these laws are universal principles for all humanity, not merely a set of expectations for Jewish people.

Supporters present the laws as a way to uphold justice, respect human life, protect creation, and promote peace. The system is also described as enduring and unchanging because it is connected to the covenant God made with Noah.

According to the discussion, people may be encouraged to pledge themselves to the laws for reasons such as:

• A moral commitment to justice, life, and creation.
• Spiritual alignment with what the movement calls divine commandments.
• Participation in a shared mission for peace and righteousness.

Smith and Rowland do not object to justice, respect for life, or moral restraint. Their objection is to the claim that observing these laws can make a Gentile righteous before God.

The hosts' concern about rabbinic interpretation

Smith and Rowland state that the Noahide Laws, as practiced and taught today, come through rabbinic and Talmudic interpretation. They argue that the system takes the biblical covenant with Noah and places an additional body of interpretation over it.

The distinction matters because the hosts do not see the Noahide system as a simple restatement of Scripture. They see it as a religious framework developed through Jewish rabbinic tradition and directed toward non-Jews.

Their criticism rests on the belief that no external code, however moral it may appear, can take the place of Christ's work on the cross.

Noahidism and the modern Noahide movement

The term Noahidism refers to the belief system built around the Noahide Laws. Smith and Rowland describe it as a Jewish religious movement aimed at non-Jews and grounded in traditional Orthodox Jewish interpretations of the laws of Noah.

Those who identify with the movement may be called Noahides or B'nei Noach, a Hebrew phrase meaning "sons of Noah." The hosts also mention the rainbow as an official or unofficial symbol associated with Noahidism.

A movement directed toward Gentiles

As the hosts explain it, Noahidism does not call Gentiles to convert to Judaism. Instead, it offers them a separate path that it describes as sufficient for a place in "the world to come."

That claim raises the central concern of the episode. Smith and Rowland argue that when a system tells Gentiles they can attain righteousness without Christ, it creates an alternative gospel.

They refer to the modern Noahide movement as one that developed in the 1990s through Orthodox Jewish rabbis in Israel. The conversation also mentions connections with religious organizations, including the Temple Institute.

A certificate and a formal identity

The hosts discuss the Noahide World Center and its process for a self-declaration form and certificate. In practical terms, the process allows someone to formally identify with the Noahide movement.

Smith jokes that a person can become a "card-holding member" of the system. Yet both hosts view the formal nature of the process as serious. Religious movements gain strength when people make public commitments, sign charters, and place themselves under recognized authority.

The seven Noahide Laws discussed in the episode

The hosts list seven basic Noahide principles. Several sound familiar to Christians because they overlap with broad biblical moral teachings.

1. No idolatry.
2. No blasphemy.
3. No murder.
4. No theft.
5. No sexual immorality.
6. No cruelty to animals.
7. Establish courts.

Commands against murder, theft, idolatry, and sexual immorality are clearly recognizable in the Bible. Therefore, Smith and Rowland acknowledge why many Christians may initially see nothing troubling in the short list.

However, they warn readers not to evaluate the entire system by the seven brief statements alone.

The details depend on interpretation

The hosts argue that each law receives further definitions through rabbinic teaching. They mention extensive volumes of instruction associated with particular laws, including teachings on theft and the prohibition against eating flesh taken from a living animal.

The animal-related law illustrates their concern. The simple statement may begin with a prohibition against eating flesh from a living animal, but the hosts believe the principle can expand into a much broader discussion of animal life and human conduct.

They even raise practical questions about how far an interpretation could go. Would the principle affect views on eggs? Could it expand into rules about insects or other small acts? They don't claim to have every answer. Their point is that the short list does not explain the scope of the system.

For Smith and Rowland, the need for ongoing interpretation means religious authorities and courts gain power to define what obedience requires.

The Noahide pledge and its religious authority

The Noahide pledge is the central focus of the episode. Smith and Rowland read it as a formal declaration of allegiance, not merely an agreement with general moral principles.

The pledge discussed in the episode states:

"I pledge my allegiance to Hashem, God of Israel, Creator and King of the universe, and to God's Torah. I pledge to observe the seven laws of Noah in their details according to the oral law of Moshe under the guidance of the rabbis."

The wording matters because the pledge does more than affirm belief in God or a desire to live morally. It directs the person to observe the laws "in their details" according to oral law and under rabbinic guidance.

Why the hosts reject the pledge

Smith and Rowland's objection goes beyond the individual laws. They object to pledging allegiance to a religious system that places a Gentile under rabbinic interpretations rather than under Christ.

They argue that a Christian cannot make this pledge while remaining faithful to the gospel as Scripture presents it. In their view, the pledge places another authority between the believer and the finished work of Jesus Christ.

The hosts call this a replacement for the cross of Christ.

They use strong language because they believe the promise of righteousness through Noahide observance displaces both the Old and New Testaments for Gentiles. Instead of directing people to Christ, the pledge directs them to Torah, oral law, and rabbinic oversight.

Righteousness through Christ or righteousness through law

Smith and Rowland return repeatedly to the doctrine of imputed righteousness. They believe people become righteous before God through what Jesus Christ has done, not through their own ability to keep religious laws.

That conviction shapes their criticism of Noahidism. A law-based system may set moral boundaries, but it cannot remove sin or give a person the righteousness required to stand before God.

The hosts express gratitude for the gospel because they believe no person could achieve righteousness by perfect law-keeping. Christ gives righteousness to those who trust Him, rather than requiring them to earn it through flawless obedience.

Smith and Rowland do not deny the value of moral conduct. Instead, they insist that obedience follows salvation. It does not create salvation.

The proposed Jerusalem conference

The episode refers to an international Noahide conference planned for Jerusalem in November. According to the hosts, the event includes the formation of a founding charter that participants may sign to become formal members of the Noahide movement.

They also mention promotional videos connected to the conference. Smith and Rowland believe the event could have influence in the Middle East and then reach further into the world.

Their concern is tied to the movement's stated presentation of the Noahide Laws as a path by which Gentiles can become righteous. They see the conference and charter as more than a small religious gathering because formal documents, public pledges, and recognized leadership can strengthen an organized movement.

A possible bridge between religious systems

Smith and Rowland suggest that Noahide teaching could become a bridge between Judaism, Islam, and what they call apostate Christianity. They frame that concern as part of their end-times interpretation.

In their view, the system may appear attractive for several reasons. The laws sound moral, the name Noah gives the system a biblical association, and the framework claims universal relevance. People with limited biblical understanding may assume that anything connected to Noah must align with the full message of Scripture.

The hosts believe that surface-level agreement on moral rules can hide a much larger disagreement about authority, salvation, and the identity of Jesus Christ.

Courts, government, and enforcement

The seventh Noahide Law, as listed in the episode, calls for the establishment of courts. Smith and Rowland see this as a major issue because it moves the system beyond private belief and personal conduct.

A court requires a standard, an interpreter, and a penalty. Once religious laws become legal requirements, authorities must decide what counts as idolatry, blasphemy, theft, sexual immorality, or a violation of any other law.

The hosts' warning about penalties

Smith and Rowland refer to Talmudic discussions of penalties for violating Noahide Laws. They state that some violations carry severe punishments, including beheading.

They draw a sharp line between the simple seven-law list and the broader body of interpretation they say accompanies it. The hosts urge people not to assume that the plain wording of the laws reveals every consequence or legal application.

They also raise a serious concern about worshiping Jesus. If a religious court defined Christ as a false god, it could label Christian worship as idolatry. Smith and Rowland present this as a warning about what can happen when a legal system gives religious authorities power over conscience.

Noahide Law, Sharia law, and imposed religion

The conversation compares Noahide law with Sharia law because both can involve religious rules enforced through courts. Smith and Rowland also refer to a Minnesota Senate candidate who publicly supported the right of Muslims in America to establish Sharia courts.

Their broader argument is that religious freedom cannot mean one group gains power to impose its religious law on people who do not accept that religion.

The hosts define the problem as the imposition of one system on another person's conscience.

Smith and Rowland argue that Islam, communism, and a Noahide court system share a common danger when they make obedience to their own authority the condition for being right with God or accepted in society. They believe those systems clash with the freedom offered in Christ.

Their position is not that Christians should force their beliefs on others. Rather, they argue that Christian faith requires a free response to God's call.

Freedom of choice in Christianity

Smith and Rowland describe Christianity as a faith built on choice. God draws and calls people, they say, but He does not force them to believe.

That distinction shapes their understanding of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit convicts, draws, and invites. He does not impose faith through coercion, violence, or legal punishment.

A changed "want-to"

During the discussion, Smith makes a practical point about sin. A person may have the freedom to sin, but a transformed heart changes what that person wants.

"You can sin if you want to, but your want-to's changed."

For the hosts, Christian freedom does not excuse sin. Instead, it changes the believer's desire. A Christian obeys God because of a new heart and a relationship with Christ, not because a court system threatens punishment.

They also joke that they have tried barbecues, fancy lights, and smoke machines to draw people, yet no method can make someone choose faith. The choice must be personal.

The central issue: no law can replace Christ

The conversation returns to one claim throughout the episode: no human system of laws can provide righteousness before God. Smith and Rowland reject the idea that Gentiles need Noahide Laws, rabbinic oversight, or a formal pledge to reach eternal life.

Moral rules may identify right and wrong. Courts may punish crimes. Religious leaders may offer interpretations. Yet, according to the hosts' Christian conviction, none of those things can do what Christ has done through His death and resurrection.

The difference is not minor. The gospel offers righteousness through Jesus Christ, while the Noahide pledge directs people toward obedience to a separate religious system.

Can any set of human laws provide righteousness before God, or does salvation come only through Jesus Christ?

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), Noahide Laws & The Pledge of Allegiance - Ep. 965 - August 26, 2026"