The Ben-Nuns, the Noahide Laws, and the Problem of Misrepresentation
The Noahide Laws are nothing to fear but to follow, as His disciples (Talmidim). Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of Judaism, providing both the desire and the power to follow the moral principles revealed through general revelation—principles ultimately framed by the absolute authority of the New Testament. This framing places the gospel on Mount Sinai rather than on Mount Zion, grounding it in the continuity of divine law rather than in eschatological or political speculation.
However, futurist sensationalism has clouded this understanding. The Ben-Nuns, Steve and Jana, claim that Noahide Laws are an ecumenical scheme leading to the Antichrist and the mechanism behind the decapitations described in the Apocalypse. Their view, heavily influenced by pre-tribulational dispensationalist presuppositions, misrepresents both Jewish tradition and historical reality. Instead of seeing Noahide principles as a moral foundation for Gentiles within God’s covenantal economy, they descend into a caricature where the Talmud becomes a fundamentalist tool for Jewish domination, portraying Christianity as standing under the impending judgment of what they call “Sharia, Jihadist Judaism.”
This perspective not only mischaracterizes Judaism but also exposes a deeper issue: the enduring hegemony of Zoharist-Maimonidean thought within contemporary Judaism—two elements that have fueled both ignorant rejection and nationalist distortion. Yet even among those who engage with these issues, such as Michael Brown and the Ben-Nuns, we see that a shared adversary often defines their disagreements. While the Ben-Nuns are explicitly anti-Zionist, Brown walks a finer line, maintaining his theological Zionism but distancing himself from extreme nationalist interpretations.
Dr. Michael Brown’s critique of the Ben-Nuns is particularly incisive. He rightfully questions their “authoritative” sources and exposes the disingenuous apologetics of figures like Tovia Singer and Political Zionist Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg—both of whom reinforce negative stereotypes of deception in Judaism. Chabad, as a prominent force within Messianic and Jewish missionary discourse, naturally becomes a focal point for critique, but the reality is that their views remain a minority within broader Jewish tradition. Unfortunately, both Brown and the Ben-Nuns miss the larger point: Jesus explicitly instructed his followers to obey the Pharisees, recognizing their authority in interpreting the Torah (Matthew 23:2-3), an instruction Paul also upheld in his own ministry.
The problem lies in the weaponization of the Talmud through selective proof-texting. Instead of understanding it as a vast repository of debate, commentary, and instruction—where multiple opinions serve as a means of learning—these critics extract negative pronouncements to support preconceived narratives. The Jewish axiom “two Jews, three opinions” reflects this reality, yet the Ben-Nuns are entrenched in a rigid framework that refuses to engage history honestly. Their approach does not seek to reconcile but to divide.
Furthermore, their refusal to acknowledge the qehal and edah structure—a two-tiered system that parallels “Jew & Greek, male & female” (Galatians 3:28)—prevents them from recognizing the unity of revelation. Instead of embracing the cultivated olive tree (Romans 11), they remain fixated on distorted political aspirations, whether driven by anti-Zionism or misdirected Messianic hopes. Christianity’s historical stain of hostility toward Judaism should make us more cautious, not less, in engaging with these issues.
Denying Hashem’s Name: A True Antisemitism
At its core, denying the Name of Hashem is actual antisemitism, for it rejects the divine revelation given to Israel. Loving all people, including Muslims and Arab Christians who also call upon Allah, reflects a proper theological understanding—yet Jana Ben-Nun’s rejection of this name signals an ethnically-driven replacement theology. Such are political Zionist orientations which the Ben-Nuns are fighting against, or anti-Zionist counterparts, obscure vital spiritual realities in favor of identity politics. I really do not understand them in this regard.
The Noahide Laws are not a modern invention but a term for an ancient concept—one recognized not only in rabbinic tradition but also by thinkers like Augustine and in Sura 42 of The Quran. Their purpose is not to impose Jewish domination but to function as a universal moral standard entrusted to those who bear God’s oracles (Romans 3:2). Sadly, the dominance of Zoharist-Maimonidean Judaism continues to cloud this understanding, and researchers like the Ben-Nuns still have much to rediscover.
Final Thoughts
The Ben-Nuns’ polemics are not merely misguided but actively harmful, reinforcing divisive narratives rather than fostering true dialogue. While they position themselves as exposing hidden dangers, their arguments lack historical grounding and fail to appreciate the deeper theological and ethical framework of Judaism. Rather than engaging in reactionary fear-mongering, we must return to the faith’s ancient foundations, recognizing that true discipleship means embracing the wisdom of those entrusted with the oracles of God—without succumbing to either nationalist distortions or apocalyptic paranoia.
