A Parallel to “Cursed is Everyone Who Hangs on a Tree”
Introduction: The Fear of the Noahide Laws
In recent years, concerns have emerged within certain Christian and alternative media circles regarding the Noahide Laws, particularly in relation to their mention in Sanhedrin 57a of the Talmud. These concerns suggest a future scenario where global Noahide courts impose a rigid legal system upon non-Jews, potentially criminalizing Christianity under charges of idolatry. However, much of this fear is based on misinformation and lacks historical precedent.
In recent years, concerns have emerged within certain Christian and alternative media circles regarding the Noahide Laws, particularly in relation to their mention in Sanhedrin 57a of the Talmud. These concerns suggest a future scenario where global Noahide courts impose a rigid legal system upon non-Jews, potentially criminalizing Christianity under charges of idolatry. However, much of this fear is based on misinformation and lacks historical precedent.
Just as the Roman Empire weaponized Deuteronomy 21:23—“Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”—to delegitimize Jewish messianic movements, modern misunderstandings of the Noahide Laws serve as a tool to create paranoia rather than genuine interfaith engagement. This essay aims to correct misconceptions by exploring the historical, rabbinic, and contemporary perspectives on the Noahide Laws, distinguishing between traditional Jewish understandings and modern distortions propagated by groups like Chabad-Lubavitch.
1. What Are the Noahide Laws?
The Noahide Laws (Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach) are a set of seven moral principles derived from Jewish tradition, believed to be given to humanity through Noah after the flood. They are:
1. No idolatry (belief in one God)
2. No blasphemy (respect for God’s name)
3. No murder
4. No sexual immorality
5. No theft
6. No eating flesh from a living animal
7. Establishing courts of justice
These laws are seen as the universal moral code for all humanity, distinct from the 613 commandments (mitzvot) that apply specifically to Jews.
According to traditional Jewish theology, a non-Jew who follows these laws is considered a “Righteous Gentile” and assured a place in the World to Come (Olam HaBa). This is the foundation of the Noahide covenantal framework, which is meant to include, not exclude, non-Jews in God’s moral order.
2. The Talmud and the Death Penalty: A Misunderstood Context
The passage most often cited in Noahide conspiracy theories is Sanhedrin 57a, which states that a non-Jew who violates one of the Noahide laws is liable to the death penalty—with decapitation as the specified punishment. However, the historical application of this law was virtually nonexistent. Jewish law imposes extremely high legal standards for capital punishment:
The passage most often cited in Noahide conspiracy theories is Sanhedrin 57a, which states that a non-Jew who violates one of the Noahide laws is liable to the death penalty—with decapitation as the specified punishment. However, the historical application of this law was virtually nonexistent. Jewish law imposes extremely high legal standards for capital punishment:
• Two eyewitnesses must see the crime.
• The perpetrator must have been warned beforehand.
• The crime must be committed with full awareness and intent.
Rabbinic tradition, as seen in the Vilna Gaon, Rashi, and Jacob Emden, never applied Noahide penalties in practice. Instead, they emphasized the ethical and moral obligations of the Noahide laws rather than their legal enforcement.
Additionally, during the Second Temple period, Jewish courts did not have the authority to enforce these laws on non-Jews within the Roman Empire. The concept of Jewish autonomy under Rome (Religio Licita) protected Jewish practice but did not extend to enforcing Noahide Law upon Gentiles. Therefore, no historical precedent exists for executing Noahide violators.
3. The Fear of Noahide Courts and Chabad’s Role
The modern resurgence of Noahide laws in public discourse largely stems from Chabad-Lubavitch, a Hasidic movement that actively promotes Noahide observance among non-Jews. While Chabad does not advocate for the death penalty, its exclusivist stance on Yeshua (Jesus) as an idolatrous figure fuels Christian concerns.
The modern resurgence of Noahide laws in public discourse largely stems from Chabad-Lubavitch, a Hasidic movement that actively promotes Noahide observance among non-Jews. While Chabad does not advocate for the death penalty, its exclusivist stance on Yeshua (Jesus) as an idolatrous figure fuels Christian concerns.
Chabad’s ArtScroll publications have removed traditional references to Yeshua as the Sar HaPanim (Prince of the Presence) in Jewish liturgy, reinforcing their anti-Yeshua position. This raises valid concerns about their interpretation of Jewish-Christian relations and their influence on Noahide discourse.
However, fearing Noahide courts as a tool for global religious persecution ignores the reality that:
No contemporary Jewish legal body has jurisdiction to enforce Noahide penalties.Most mainstream Jewish authorities see the Noahide Laws as a moral code, not a legal system for capital punishment.
Thus, while Chabad’s theological agenda is real, fears of a Noahide inquisition remain speculative and historically unfounded.
4. “Cursed is Everyone Who Hangs on a Tree” – A Historical Parallel
The Roman Empire’s use of Deuteronomy 21:23 provides a striking analogy to modern Noahide fears.
In Jewish tradition, the verse states that a man executed and hung on a tree is cursed by God.Rome weaponized this curse by crucifying Jewish rebels and Messianic claimants, making them appear divinely rejected.Paul’s radical reinterpretation in Galatians 3:13 declares that Jesus became a curse for us, turning the Roman tactic into a theological victory.
Similarly, misunderstandings of Noahide law today act as a psychological weapon. The idea that Christianity could be outlawed under Noahide courts mirrors how the Roman cross was used to delegitimize the Messianic hope.
Yet, just as Paul overturned the meaning of the cross, a proper understanding of the Noahide Laws restores their original intent—not as a tool of oppression, but as an invitation to ethical living.
5. Returning to Rabbinic Tradition:
Instead of modern Hasidic distortions, we must return to classical rabbinic voices:
Rashi (11th century) saw the Noahide Laws as a moral imperative but never advocated for their legal enforcement.The Vilna Gaon (18th century) focused on Talmudic clarity rather than Hasidic mystical revisions.Jacob Emden (18th century) was open to Christianity, seeing it as a path for Gentiles that could align with Noahide principles.
Jacob Emden even suggested that Paul and Jesus sought to bring Gentiles to Noahide observance, rather than abolish the Torah—a position rejected by modern Chabad circles.
By returning to these classical perspectives, we find a more nuanced and historically grounded understanding of the Noahide Laws.
Yeshiyahu Hollander is a notable modern Orthodox rabbi, legal scholar, and a voice of balance in contemporary Jewish-Christian relations. Unlike more rigid interpretations of the Noahide Laws seen in groups like Chabad-Lubavitch, Hollander approaches Noahide principles with a nuanced perspective, recognizing their historical role as a moral guide rather than a rigid legal framework for non-Jews.
Hollander’s Balanced Approach to Christianity
One of Hollander’s most significant contributions is his willingness to affirm positive aspects of Christianity rather than dismissing it as idolatry—a position that contrasts with stricter rabbinic traditions. His work acknowledges that Christianity has historically played a role in spreading ethical monotheism, a view that aligns, in some ways, with Jacob Emden’s historical openness to seeing Christianity as a Noahide-compatible faith.
Additionally, Hollander has even defended the Roman Catholic Church’s historical claim to the Upper Room in Jerusalem, recognizing its deep religious significance. This is not typical of many rabbinic scholars, especially in an era where Jewish-Christian tensions over religious sites remain sensitive. His position suggests a more pragmatic and cooperative outlook, emphasizing shared historical and religious heritage rather than exclusivist claims.
Why Hollander’s Perspective Matters
Hollander provides a refreshing counterbalance to the more polemic-driven and legalistic interpretations of Noahide law that fuel modern fears. His views demonstrate that:
The Noahide Laws should be seen as a universal moral framework, not a punitive legal code.Christianity should not be automatically dismissed as idolatry, especially considering its role in spreading biblical morality.Jewish-Christian dialogue should be rooted in mutual respect, recognizing historical realities rather than engaging in ideological revisionism.
Rabbi Yeshiyahu Hollander represents a crucial bridge in Jewish-Christian relations. His legal scholarship, theological balance, and openness to interfaith discussion make him a valuable figure in clarifying the true intent of the Noahide Laws and countering the misinformation that breeds unnecessary fear. If more voices like his were amplified, the current paranoia surrounding Noahide courts and Christian persecution would be significantly reduced
Conclusion: Clarifying the Noahide Debate
Much of the modern fear surrounding the Noahide Laws is misinformation, fueled by:
1. Selective readings of Sanhedrin 57a without context.
2. Chabad’s anti-Yeshua bias influencing their outreach.
3. A misunderstanding of Jewish legal history and Noahide enforcement.
2. Chabad’s anti-Yeshua bias influencing their outreach.
3. A misunderstanding of Jewish legal history and Noahide enforcement.
Just as the Romans used Deuteronomy 21:23 to suppress Jewish messianism, today’s misinterpretations of the Noahide Laws fuel fear and division rather than fostering understanding.
The solution is not reactionary panic but a return to historical rabbinic wisdom, which sees the Noahide laws not as a legal system of punishment, but as a moral framework for humanity.
In the end, the Noahide laws should not be viewed as a threat, but as a call to ethical monotheism, rightly understood in the light of the New Covenant and fulfilled in Yeshua HaMashiach.
