David Wilber

Boom! My verse-by-verse commentary on 1 Peter is now available from Pronomian Publishing! It's the 1st volume in the new Messianic Jewish Application Commentary Series (MJAC), edited by Dr. Igal German. Praying it blesses the body of Messiah. Learn more: a.co/d/2dcTbwI

Some people consider it “Satanic” or “heresy” to believe that the four commandments of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29) still apply today. In this video, I’ll explain why this belief should not be controversial. As I’ll show, these four commandments are consistently upheld throughout the New Testament and early Christian writings: davidwilber.com/videos/it-is-n…

@DPGBehler @5Solas2 “If you use the words the Bible uses for spiritual beings, you are a polytheist!” -5 Solas, basically

Do you really wanna do this? Ugh, fine. Scripture referring to other beings as Elohim is a fact. It’s in your Bible, you can’t dispute that. Other nations worshipped some of these beings as gods. Heiser taught that “Elohim” was a place of residence term. Those that inhabited the spiritual realm were referred to as Elohim God is THE Elohim, the others are lesser beings in all cases. The elohim other nations worshipped were real spiritual beings, and as spiritual beings they inhabited the spiritual realm and were therefore elohim. We know they were real spiritual beings because, like in the case of the exodus, God tells us He was going to judge them. You’re getting hung up on a label rather than properties. You can chalk these spiritual beings up to being demons. Cool. Heiser would agree, but scripture itself refers to them as elohim because they inhabit the spiritual realm. That’s not polytheism. Calling it polytheism because scripture refers to these beings as elohim is like calling me a polytheist because I called my rug an elohim. Clearly I’m not a polytheist simply because I gave something a label, it’s what you attribute to it that matters. If scripture refers to other beings as elohim, it’s not polytheism to accept that because those other gods aren’t being given worship or having attributes given to them that belong to God alone. This is how stupid the “discernment” crowd is, they can’t defend their position but only throw stones about crap they don’t understand.

See how stupid Heiser makes people? These people think there are literally other gods but believing in other gods isn't polytheism. It's only worshiping other gods that make you a polytheist. You see how foolish these people are?

What nonsense this is! In the Bible, Jael is shrewd; Abigail is wise; a woman saves her city from Joab; Deborah judges Israel well; the Proverbs 31 woman has great "wisdom." Some in the "patriarchy"/nationalist crowd are deeply anti-woman, and it is a stench in God's nostrils.

We often fail to do what we know we should do, and we often do what we know we shouldn't. This is our condition as sinful humans stuck in the tension between our present fallen world and the glorious world to come. Paul describes this situation as a war between his desire to obey God and his desire to sin (Rom. 7:15, 22–23). His frustration causes him to cry out, "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Then he immediately answers his own question: "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 7:24–25). Indeed, Yeshua's work on the cross has set us free from sin and death, and Yeshua sent the Spirit who enables us to obey (Romans 8:1-11). You CAN overcome the desires of the flesh as you faithfully walk according to the Spirit every day. You CAN be transformed. You will not be perfect in this life, but having victory over your current struggle with a particular sin IS POSSIBLE.

@SarcasticLiberT @bren45000 Congrats!

Oh she didn’t like that one. 🤣

Shavuot / Pentecost is right around the corner! In this teaching, we discuss why this festival matters to Christians, how it points to the Gospel and the Great Commission, and practical ways to celebrate it today: davidwilber.com/videos/why-and…

@BrysonGray Darn, I missed it. I’d love to have a friendly chat with you about this subject sometime.

Shabbat Shalom, everyone! May your day of rest be blessed!

@LogosN11514 @TorahRight Possible, but it seems that the "all these things" of 24:8 and 24:33 are broader in scope than the temple's destruction.

@DavidWilberBlog @TorahRight ταῦτα "these things" and πάντα "all" are used in Matthew 24:2 regarding the temple though so it doesn't seem to include the son of man return. Hence in Matthew 24:34 "all these things" simply refer to the temple destruction. You may also want to check out Sloans work on Mark 13.

Scripture seems to teach that the world will get worse and more sinful before the Messiah returns. For instance, Yeshua says that “lawlessness will be increased” in the end days (Matthew 24:12). But that is not the whole story. Two verses later, he also says that the gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world before the end comes (Matthew 24:14). So, while lawlessness increases, the gospel also increases. As the darkness intensifies, so does the light.

@nosoup4knowles Honestly, Candace being sickened by Christian Zionists makes me want to Christian Zionism even harder.

CANDACE is 'sickened' by Christian Zionists in America: "When we're talking about ZIONISTS, let's be clear. The majority of them are CHRISTIAN in America. And I am SICKENED by them. I am sickened by the idea that I ever supported or platformed Allie Beth Stuckey."

The “all these things” that must occur before “this generation” passes away include the unparalleled tribulation (Matt. 24:15–28) and the Son of Man’s return to gather his elect (24:29–31). I find it difficult to see how either of these events can be fully confined to the First Jewish–Roman War of AD 66–70. It seems to me that the phrase “this generation” in Matt 24:34 should be understood qualitatively (cf. Matt 12:39; 16:4; 17:17). It refers not just to people living within a particular period, but to a recurring kind of people characterized by persistent unbelief and opposition to God throughout history. Consider, for example, the previous chapter, where the Pharisees of “this generation” (23:36) are identified with those who persecuted “all the prophets” throughout Israel’s history. Consequently, they are held accountable for the righteous blood shed from Abel onward. In this sense, the Pharisees belong to an enduring evil “generation” that remains until Christ’s return (23:37–39). So I see the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as a partial fulfillment that foreshadows the ultimate fulfillment at the end of the age. This seems to make the best sense of the text since “all these things” were not exhaustively fulfilled in the first century.

@DavidWilberBlog What are your thoughts on Matthew 24:34 seeming to say that it was specifically the apostles' generation - "this generation" - that would experience the events prophesied in that chapter?

I think Jude's appeal to the Enochic traditions is the strongest argument in support of viewing such traditions as authoritative in some sense. But one issue with the idea that Jude validates "1 Enoch" is that what we know today as 1 Enoch is a composite work made up of several texts compiled over centuries. So it is not clear that Jude would have even known or had access to the entire "book" in the form we know today. Also, a strong case could be made that the Book of Parables (1 En. 37–71) was not written until the late first century AD. If that is correct, then what we now call 1 Enoch may not have even existed in the time of Jude. When we look at the passage itself, Jude's citation and allusions to the Enochic traditions appear limited to the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36). Therefore, at most, one could argue that his appeal to these traditions lends support to the Book of the Watchers, but I don't think it can be reasonably argued that his use of these traditions validates the entirety of what we now know as 1 Enoch.

Many of the other apocryphal books are debatable. Won’t see me going out of my way to defend those. But 1 Enoch is explicitly called God-inspired in the 66 books.

In James 2:1–9, James instructs believers to "show no partiality," warning them that to do so is sin and a transgression of the Torah. In this teaching, we’ll examine why partiality is so damaging to the body of Messiah: davidwilber.com/videos/the-law…

@TanakhvsNT Like I said, if you are not interested in interacting with our exegesis (as you just admitted), then everyone who takes Scripture seriously remains justified in rejecting your position. We are persuaded by data and logic, which you have not offered.

@DavidWilberBlog Labelling your view as straight & logical, just patting yourself on the back. A 280-character limit isn’t for dissecting 47 mins of godman confirmation bias, only to voice disagreement. Thankfully my responses don’t match your strawman, a ploy that smears your claim of integrity.

In the Gospels, we see that Yeshua (Jesus) often chose to heal people on the Sabbath. Though some interpret these occasions as a challenge to the Sabbath itself, Yeshua’s words and actions actually reveal what true Sabbath observance is supposed to look like: davidwilber.com/videos/set-fre…

Meh. If you want to persuade people who take Scripture seriously, you’ll need to actually interact with our exegetical arguments and demonstrate where they fall short. So far, your objection to a straightforward, consistent, and logical exegesis has basically been “I disagree! Jesus is bad!” We know you disagree and don’t like Jesus, but that doesn’t mean that people who take Scripture seriously are wrong in our interpretations.

@DavidWilberBlog No. You showed that you do circular reasoning. Jesus had an opinion that doctors can do non-emergency work on sabbath and use the excuse of loosing a daughter. The judges of Israel say different. And you misinterpreted laws (stand by the life) to side with a bad man you love.

@TanakhvsNT I showed how the Torah does require it. Jesus’ interpretation of the Torah is exegetically correct, as he is simply being consistent with the Torah’s logical implications in each of the passages I cited, whereas his interlocutors failed to be consistent.

@DavidWilberBlog You can argue as you like. You said he chose to heal on sabbath. There’s no Torah law saying he must for non-emergencies. So the man did it because he thought he knew best teaching others to have the same arrogance. Jesus obeyed NO law with his acts, doing more to loose sabbath.

No that is the exact opposite of what I said. I argued that the Torah required him to heal on the Sabbath, so he was obeying Torah by doing so, not breaking it. You’re free to disagree, but please interact with my actual argument instead of falsely attributing to me what you’ve imagined in your own head.

@DavidWilberBlog So you’re saying Jesus did break the sabbath publicly. Good admission.

The day of the Lord *will* come, even if it seems to be taking longer than expected or hoped for. God is patiently waiting for people to repent (2 Pet. 3:8-9). But rest assured: the present creation will be destroyed, and God will establish a new creation where righteousness dwells. Therefore, as we wait for this promise to be fulfilled, Peter urges us to lead lives characterized by “holiness and godliness” (2 Pet. 3:10-13).

@TrustJesusAlone Great passage! Paul is telling his readers, who kept the Sabbath and festivals, not to let ascetic critics (who did not keep the Sabbath and festivals) judge them for doing so: davidwilber.com/articles/does-…

@DavidWilberBlog gracelife.org/resources/grac…