Why Noahides Reject Jesus in the Old Testament and Catholic Refutations

  See Home Page
SevenColorsMinistry@gmail.com

Why Noahides Reject Jesus in the Old Testament and Catholic Refutations

The Noahide movement, rooted in Jewish tradition, adheres to the Seven Laws of Noah, which are believed to be universal moral imperatives given by God to all humanity. Noahides, as non-Jews who follow these laws, often reject the Christian claim that Jesus is prophesied or prefigured in the Old Testament (Tanakh). This rejection stems from theological, hermeneutical, and historical differences between Judaism and Christianity. Catholics, on the other hand, assert that Jesus fulfills Old Testament prophecies and typologies. This essay explores the reasons behind Noahide rejection of Jesus in the Old Testament and provides Catholic refutations to these claims, drawing on scripture, tradition, and theological reasoning.

---

Noahide Reasons for Rejecting Jesus in the Old Testament

1. Monotheistic Concerns and Rejection of Jesus’ Divinity
   Noahides adhere strictly to Jewish monotheism, emphasizing the oneness and indivisibility of God as articulated in the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which posits Jesus as the divine Son of God, is often seen as incompatible with this principle. Noahides argue that any interpretation of the Old Testament suggesting Jesus’ divinity—such as in messianic prophecies or theophanies—violates the prohibition against idolatry, one of the Seven Noahide Laws.
   • Example: Noahides may point to passages like Isaiah 43:10-11, which declares God as the sole savior with “no god formed before me nor after me,” to argue that Jesus cannot be divine or a messianic figure equal to God.
   • Noahide Claim: Prophecies Christians cite (e.g., Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2) are not about a divine messiah but rather historical figures or a human leader, and the Old Testament contains no clear reference to Jesus’ life, death, or resurrection.
2. Messianic Expectations and Jesus’ Non-Fulfillment
   Noahides, following Jewish tradition, expect a messiah who will usher in a physical, political restoration of Israel, rebuild the Temple, and establish universal peace (e.g., Isaiah 2:2-4, Ezekiel 37:24-28). Since Jesus did not accomplish these tasks during his earthly life, Noahides reject claims that he is the prophesied messiah.
   • Example: The prophecy of a ruler from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) is interpreted by Jews as referring to a human king from David’s line, not a divine figure like Jesus. Similarly, Isaiah 53’s “suffering servant” is often understood as Israel collectively, not an individual messiah.
   • Noahide Claim: Jesus’ failure to fulfill messianic prophecies disqualifies him from being the figure foretold in the Old Testament.
3. Contextual and Linguistic Interpretations
   Noahides emphasize the original Hebrew text and its historical context, rejecting Christian interpretations as misreadings or mistranslations. For instance:
   • Isaiah 7:14: Christians cite the Septuagint’s use of “parthenos” (virgin) to support Jesus’ virgin birth, but Noahides argue the Hebrew “almah” means “young woman,” not necessarily a virgin, and the passage refers to a contemporary event in King Ahaz’s time.
   • Psalm 22: Christians see this as foreshadowing Jesus’ crucifixion, but Noahides view it as a lament of David or Israel, with no connection to a future messiah.
   • Noahide Claim: Christian readings impose a retrospective lens on the Tanakh, ignoring its plain meaning (peshat) and historical setting.
4. Rejection of Typology and Allegorical Interpretation
   Catholics often use typology—seeing Old Testament figures and events as prefiguring Christ (e.g., the Passover lamb, Jonah’s three days in the whale). Noahides, rooted in Jewish exegesis, prioritize the literal and legal meanings of the text, dismissing typology as a Christian innovation unsupported by the Tanakh’s intent.
   • Example: Noahides reject the idea that the Binding of Isaac (Genesis 22) prefigures Jesus’ sacrifice, viewing it instead as a test of Abraham’s faith with no messianic implications.
   • Noahide Claim: Typological interpretations are speculative and lack grounding in Jewish tradition.
5. Historical and Theological Continuity
   Noahides view Judaism as the eternal covenant between God and Israel, with the Torah as the definitive revelation. They see Christianity’s claim that Jesus fulfills or supersedes the Torah as a departure from God’s unchanging law. Passages like Deuteronomy 13:1-5, which warn against prophets who lead people away from the Torah, are cited to argue that Jesus’ teachings (as interpreted by Christians) contradict the Old Testament.
   • Noahide Claim: The Old Testament does not anticipate a new covenant or a messiah who changes the Torah, rendering Christian claims about Jesus invalid.

---

Catholic Refutations of Noahide Claims

Catholic theology holds that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, both in its prophecies and its deeper spiritual meaning. The following refutations address Noahide objections, drawing on scripture, Church tradition, and theological reasoning.

1. Response to Monotheistic Concerns
   Catholics affirm monotheism, asserting that the Trinity is one God in three persons, not multiple gods. The Old Testament contains hints of divine plurality within unity, which Christians see as prefiguring the Trinity.
   • Scriptural Evidence: Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image”) and the threefold “Holy, Holy, Holy” in Isaiah 6:3 suggest a complex unity in God. Theophanies, such as the “Angel of the Lord” who speaks as God (e.g., Genesis 16:7-13, Exodus 3:2-6), are interpreted by Catholics as pre-incarnational appearances of Christ.
   • Theological Argument: The divinity of Jesus does not violate monotheism but reveals the fullness of God’s nature, consistent with Old Testament intimations of divine mystery. The Noahide rejection of Jesus’ divinity overlooks these subtle foreshadowings.
2. Response to Messianic Expectations
   Catholics argue that Jesus fulfills messianic prophecies in a spiritual and eschatological sense, with his second coming completing the physical restoration Noahides expect.
   • Scriptural Evidence:
     • Isaiah 7:14: While “almah” can mean “young woman,” the Septuagint’s “parthenos” (virgin) reflects an early Jewish interpretation that aligns with Matthew 1:23. The context of a miraculous sign supports a messianic reading.
     • Isaiah 53: The suffering servant’s vicarious suffering (“he was pierced for our transgressions”) aligns with Jesus’ passion, not Israel as a nation, which does not atone for others’ sins in the same way. Early Jewish interpretations, such as the Targum, sometimes applied Isaiah 53 to the messiah.
     • Micah 5:2: The ruler from Bethlehem, whose “origins are from of old, from ancient times,” suggests a figure beyond a mere human king, pointing to Jesus’ eternal nature.
   • Theological Argument: Jesus’ first coming fulfilled the spiritual redemption promised in the Old Testament (e.g., Jeremiah 31:31-34’s new covenant), while his second coming will complete the physical restoration. Noahides’ focus on immediate political fulfillment ignores the two-stage messianic mission.
3. Response to Contextual and Linguistic Objections
   Catholics acknowledge the importance of historical context but argue that the Old Testament has multiple layers of meaning, including a prophetic sense fulfilled in Christ.
   • Scriptural Evidence: The New Testament’s use of the Old Testament (e.g., Matthew’s citations of Isaiah, Hosea, and Jeremiah) reflects a divinely inspired hermeneutic, guided by the Holy Spirit. For example, Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called my son”) refers historically to Israel but prophetically to Jesus (Matthew 2:15).
   • Theological Argument: The Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine, taught that the Old Testament has a literal sense and a spiritual sense, both valid. Noahides’ insistence on peshat alone limits the text’s divine inspiration, which Catholics believe extends to messianic foreshadowing.
4. Response to Rejection of Typology
   Catholics defend typology as a legitimate interpretive method, rooted in the Old Testament itself and affirmed by the New Testament.
   • Scriptural Evidence:
     • The Passover lamb (Exodus 12) prefigures Christ, the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29, 1 Corinthians 5:7), whose blood saves from death.
     • Jonah’s three days in the whale (Jonah 1:17) is explicitly cited by Jesus as a sign of his resurrection (Matthew 12:40).
     • The bronze serpent lifted up for healing (Numbers 21:8-9) is a type of Jesus’ crucifixion (John 3:14-15).
   • Theological Argument: Typology reflects God’s providential design, weaving salvation history into a unified narrative. Noahides’ dismissal of typology ignores the New Testament’s authority as inspired scripture, which Catholics accept as clarifying the Old Testament’s deeper meaning.
5. Response to Historical and Theological Continuity
   Catholics argue that Jesus does not abolish the Torah but fulfills its purpose, as stated in Matthew 5:17: “I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them.”
   • Scriptural Evidence: Jeremiah 31:31-34 prophesies a new covenant, which Hebrews 8:8-13 applies to Jesus. The Torah’s moral law remains, but its ceremonial and judicial aspects are fulfilled in Christ’s sacrifice and priesthood.
   • Theological Argument: The Catholic Church, following Vatican II, teaches that God’s covenant with Israel remains valid but that Jesus universalizes salvation, extending it to all nations (). Noahides’ claim that Jesus contradicts the Torah misrepresents his role as its fulfillment, not its annulment.

---

Conclusion

Noahides reject the presence of Jesus in the Old Testament due to their commitment to Jewish monotheism, differing messianic expectations, literalist hermeneutics, rejection of typology, and belief in the Torah’s eternal sufficiency. Catholics counter these claims by affirming the Trinity within monotheism, demonstrating Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecies in a spiritual and eschatological sense, defending typological and prophetic interpretations, and asserting that Jesus completes rather than abolishes the Torah. While Noahides prioritize the Tanakh’s historical and literal meaning, Catholics view the Old Testament through the lens of Christ, seeing it as a unified revelation culminating in the New Covenant. This theological divide reflects fundamentally different approaches to scripture, but Catholics maintain that the Old Testament, when read with the New, unmistakably points to Jesus as its fulfillment.