Exposing The Noahide Laws and Defending The Faith
Why dispensationalism serves his argument better than truth ever could
Jan 16, 2026
I thought I would take a few days off from writing about Noahide laws and Judaism. A short break. I was in the kitchen making dinner last evening, my iPad was on the counter, and I glanced at it just long enough to see a new video by Tovia Singer.
I hesitated, then pressed play anyway. I wish I didn’t…
Within minutes, I lost my appetite. What I heard was a rant so full of hypocrisy that I couldn’t ignore it. So much for taking a break. What he said needs to be answered – for the sake of truth and for the sake of exposing such unbearable lies and contradictions he so confidently spews out.
Christians at War Over Israel! ( click to watch and listen)
First, he goes straight for the Church Fathers and keeps calling them “virulent antisemites,” over and over again, like a broken record. He says it so many times you’re supposed to stop thinking and just accept it. But he never once explains what they were reacting to, or what they were actually up against.
What he never tells his audience is that rabbinic and Talmudic literature is full of hatred toward Christ, His mother, Christians, and Gentiles in general. Not polite disagreement or mild criticism. Open contempt and mockery. Dehumanization. That reality is carefully avoided by Tovia every time this subject comes up.
There is no popular word for hatred toward Gentiles.
No “anti-Gentilism” category. No watchdog groups tracking it. No headlines about it.
Why?
Because Gentiles never organized to monitor Jewish attacks against them, and because anyone who tries to point this out today is immediately threatened with the antisemitism label. So the imbalance stays hidden, and only one side of the “hostility “is ever allowed into the conversation.
So here is the question Singer refuses to let people ask: what if some of those Church Fathers said harsh things because they actually discovered what rabbinic teaching was saying about Christ and about them? The Christians? What if their language, however wrong it became, did not come out of thin air?
That is exactly what happened with Martin Luther. Early on, Luther was not hostile to Jews at all. In fact, he openly defended them and attacked the Catholic Church for how badly it treated them. He believed that if Jews were shown kindness instead of cruelty, they would willingly listen to the gospel.
That changed later, and not because Luther suddenly “lost his mind,” as people like to say. It changed after he read rabbinic writings translated by Jewish converts to Christianity. He discovered how Christ was spoken about. How Mary was mocked. How Gentiles were described. How synagogue teaching portrayed them. His reaction was a reaction to something real, not a random eruption of hatred.
This explains Luther’s language. And explanation matters if you care about truth instead of propaganda.
I wrote about this subject here :
The Day Luther Discovered What Judaism Really Taught ( click here to read )
Perhaps this was also true of the Church Fathers Singer mentions by name – John Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome – men who did not speak in hatred perhaps, but in response to what they encountered and believed was being taught against Christ and His followers.
Singer leaves all of this out on purpose. Because if he admitted it, the clean moral story he wants to tell would fall apart. His audience might realize that hostility did not flow in only one direction, and that the history is far messier than his sermon allows.
And just when you think the distortion can’t go any further, Singer keeps talking.
And it gets worse.
After attacking the Church Fathers, Tovia Singer moves on to Catholics and Orthodox Christians and starts repeating one line over and over again: they pray to the dead. He says it like a chant. “Pray to the dead.””Pray to the dead.” That’s all they do, he claims. He keeps repeating it as if repetition alone makes it true.
Now let me be clear. I am not Catholic. I do not pray to saints. I do not defend every Catholic or Orthodox practice. But what Singer does here is not honest critique. It is selective outrage, and it is deeply hypocritical.
Tovia Singer works closely with the Noahide Academy in Jerusalem and cooperates with Rabbi Perets. The mission of this project is very clear. It is to re educate Christians, to dismantle their faith piece by piece, and to make Noahidism look like a morally superior, enlightened alternative. Christianity is dissected with half truths and clever distortions, and many Christians who were never taught how to defend their faith, or who were never truly born again and grounded by the Holy Spirit, fall for it. Once confused and disoriented, they are funneled straight into the Noahide Academy in Israel.
And here is the part Singer never mentions.
On the wall of that academy hangs the portrait of Menachem Mendel Schneerson.
A dead rabbi. A man who openly promoted Noahide law enforcement for Gentiles. Rabbi Perets mentions Schneerson constantly. It is obvious the entire project is Chabad driven. They are now even training Noahide judges.
Singer has repeatedly claimed in the past that he is not associated with Schneerson and that he does not believe Schneerson was the messiah. And yet now he is closely aligned with a Chabad run Noahide project that centers Schneerson’s authority and funnels former Christians directly into it. You cannot pretend distance while benefiting from the machinery.
Rabbi Tovia Singer and Moshe Perets Accept the Noahide Declaration of Faith ( click)
And here is the hypocrisy that cannot be ignored:
Singer accuses Catholics of praying to dead saints, while Chabad Jews openly pray to a dead Schneerson.
They visit his grave. They leave letters there as if he can read them. They ask him for guidance. They expect answers. Politicians do it too. Even president Trump has gone to Schneerson’s grave to pray and leave written petitions.
Most Chabad followers openly believe Schneerson is a divine messiah. Others stop just short of saying it out loud but treat him as spiritually present and active. Letters are still written to his preserved office in New York. Followers claim he sends signs and answers prayers. In yeshivas, Jewish children are taught to pray to an invisible Rebbe.
So what exactly are we talking about here?
If praying to the dead is the scandal Singer says it is, then why is he silent about this? Why does he tolerate it when it is his own camp? Why does he never warn Noahides about it? Why does he never mention Schneerson’s role, even though Schneerson is central to the Noahide project he actively supports?
The answer is obvious – when his tribe does it, it’s ok.
Tovia Singer keeps going … and it gets worse folks.
In the middle of everything he had just said, Tovia Singer suddenly said something that made me stop eating altogether. Talking about John Nelson Darby, he said Darby was “standing on solid ground.”
And then he went on to praise C. I. Scofield.
That was the moment everything clicked.
Just minutes earlier, Tovia had been tearing into Christianity as a whole. He dismissed its history. He mocked its theologians. He painted eighteen hundred years of Christian belief as confused, corrupt, and hostile. According to him, Christianity basically got everything wrong from the beginning.
And then suddenly…suddenly – he’s praising a group of Christians.
Dispensationalists.
Think about that contradiction for a second.
Why would a rabbi who rejects Christianity outright suddenly applaud a Christian theology invented in the 1800s? Why would Darby, of all people, be “on solid ground”?
The answer is simple, and once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
Because dispensationalism works for him. Because it plays his cards!
He knows exactly what Darby and Scofield taught. He knows that dispensationalism fractures Christianity into two tracks. One covenant for the Church, supposedly through Christ. Another covenant for the Jews, supposedly eternal and separate from Christ. Even though that theology is false and heretical from a Christian perspective, it does something very important for him: it removes Jesus from the center of Israel’s story and it allows Jews to become the center stage.
Not Christ – but the Jews!
Dispensationalism tells Christians, “The promises are not really about Christ.”
It tells them, “Israel’s future doesn’t depend on Him.”
It trains them to step back, stay quiet, and defer.
And once Christians accept that, they are already halfway out the door.
Here’s the part Singer will never say out loud: he does not believe Christians have any covenant with Christ at all. He rejects that entirely. So when he tells you Darby was “standing on solid ground,” he cannot possibly mean it. He cannot mean theology. He certainly does not mean the gospel.
He means usefulness.
Darby and Scofield created a system that weakens Christianity without openly attacking it. A system that keeps Christians emotionally invested while stripping Christ of His central place. A system that makes Christians easier to redirect, easier to confuse, and easier to pull into something else.
That “something else” has a name.
Noahidism.
This is why Tovia can praise Darby with a straight face. Because Darby’s theology opens the door for Christians to be told, “You don’t belong here anymore. You were never meant to be part of this covenant. Your role is support the Jews, you must learn from the Jews and if you refuse – you are antisemite! “
And once a Christian accepts that, the next step is easy: abandon Christianity altogether and adopt a Noahide identity.
And it is very telling who calls dispensationalism “solid ground.”
Anyone who benefits from removing Christ will praise whatever helps them do it.
Once you see that, Tovia Singer’s sudden admiration for Darby and Scofield stops being shocking. Doesn’t it ?
To prop all of this up, Tovia Singer starts throwing around passages from the Old Testament, especially Ezekiel 36 and Amos, as if simply quoting them settles the matter. It doesn’t. He misuses them, strips them of their meaning, and then inserts himself and rabbinic Judaism – right into the center of the story.
Ezekiel 36 is not a political manifesto and it is not a blank check. God says very clearly that He is acting not for Israel’s sake, but for the sake of His own Name, which Israel had profaned. The chapter is a rebuke before it is a promise. It speaks of cleansing, repentance, a new heart, and God’s Spirit.
Singer turns the text into a land and privilege claim.
He does the same thing with Amos. Amos is one of the most severe prophetic books in the Bible. It explicitly denies that Israel has special immunity from judgment. God says He will judge Israel like every other nation. Restoration comes after judgment and purification, not instead of it. Amos never teaches entitlement without righteousness. ( and righteousness is measured by acceptance of the Son folks! ) Singer lifts the last verses, ignores the entire warning that precedes them, and presents restoration as automatic and unconditional. That is not faithful reading.
That is manipulation.
The New Testament explicitly explains that the focus of restoration shifts from land to Christ and that the promise to Abraham is fulfilled through the Seed – singular, not plural. The apostolic writings are very clear on this point. The inheritance is not redefined around Jews or geography, but around Jesus Christ Himself.
He is the fulfillment, not a detour.
Back to Tovia Singer…
With irony, he turns around and accuses Christians of “replacement theology.” He name drops people like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, branding them as antisemites and replacement theologians, as if disagreeing with his reading automatically means hatred of Jews.
But here is the truth he does not want you to see:
He is the one practicing real replacement theology.
He takes prophecies that Christians believe are fulfilled in Christ and rips Christ out of them. He inserts himself and rabbinic Judaism into the center instead. He replaces Christ with rabbinic Jews and rabbinic religion. He replaces the gospel of Jesus Christ with noahidism.
That is replacement theology in its purest form.
Christians do not claim that the Church replaces Israel as an ethnic group. They claim that Christ fulfills the promises, and that Jew and Gentile are gathered into Him on equal ground. Singer cannot tolerate that, because Christ leaves no room for rabbinic supremacy.
So he accuses Christians of replacement theology while doing exactly that himself – reclaiming the center stage for himself and stealing it from Christ.
That’s what he is doing.
Jana
Leave a Reply