This is awesome!!! A few weeks ago I did a study of this as well and came to the same conclusion. I found that the word “decrees” in the New Testament were almost always “man-made” decrees. My thoughts have been confirmed.
The traditional interpretation contradicts scripture. If the Torah really was the dividing line then how was Ruth the Moabite allowed to be an Israelite? Or Caleb? Or name literally anybody who was from a gentile nation who became an Israelite.
Yep. Deuteronomy 29 is explicit that any Gentile who aligns himself with the God of Israel by faith is a covenant member and instructed to keep God's laws.
@@shawn-wr8ux Modern Rabbinic Judaism can trace it's roots back to Pharisaic Judaism so that does not surprise me. It's sad really. I don't like the idea of a class of believers divided into categories such as "closest to God", "less close to God", "Kind of close to God" and "Outside" all based off of race/accepting man made dogmas. Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy/all 'apostolic churches' are very similar in this regard.
This is the same conclusion I came to as well. After considering the context of Ephesians 2 (Circumcision vs. uncircumcision), the dividing wall could only be in reference to what Shammai decreed. In the Talmud, it says that Shammai would not convert any Gentile, and that he made decrees (18 of them, if I can remember correctly), and one of those was in regards to Gentiles being unclean.
Thanks David. I agree that this cannot mean God's law in the Torah. Looking in the LXX, I only find "ordinances" (dogma) in the book of Daniel, describing decrees of the king of Babylon.
Shalom and blessings David. Thank you, excellent teaching and understanding of scripture as always. Praise Yah. Every blessing to you and your family. David (UK)
Thank you, David for your insight on this verse. Unfortunately, those who practice a form of Christianity that excludes the law probably won’t listen or research or study this teaching. I hope they do but for those of us in the messianic community, we still have friends and acquaintances family members in mainstream evangelical churches, we need to help them understand. We also need to pray that they will want to understand.
Thank you David. Maimonides’ Noachide Laws are an example of divisive decrees. Some Christians seem to have a similar mindset to Maimonides, but from the other side of the aisle, so to speak.
Yep. And Deuteronomy 29 explicitly includes any foreigner who aligns himself with the God of Israel by faith as a member of God's covenant people, and admonishes them to keep the commandments.
@@indo3052 Yeah.. its confusing to protestants (which I was for 50yrs). The reason is because we don't understand the three things being addressed by Paul. 1. Laws of Yah. 2. Halachah 3. Paganism. If new converts were taught what those are and to look for them.. Pauls letters would make complete sense.
Whenever the authors of the New Testament epistles speak of "the Law" being abolished by Yeshua, they're actually referring to the extra-biblical laws as formulated by the Pharisees of the Second Temple era. Those laws are unbiblical and Yeshua came to destroy them, because they were an artificial barrier between Jews and Gentiles. The Mosaic Law in its _pure form_ is still in effect today. That said, it is my opinion that when Matthew mentions the "veil" being torn in two, he's actually talking about the veil separating the court of the Gentiles from the court of the Israelites, which, as talked about in the video, was not part of the original biblical blueprints for the Temple. Yeshua destroyed that veil because it was high time for his Gentile followers to have the same access to the Father as the Jews had!
The other thing you didn’t mention is that the word “law” in that passage is actually Dogma, not “nomos” which gives the correct understanding that it’s a man made ordinance not a biblical one.
I have a question for clarification I agree the Torah is not to be done away with but can you make a video of the sort showing the differences in dietary law or restrictions and wearing of wool and linen and whether or not that should still be practiced ? Love your stuff btw
As far as wearing of wool and linnen together the reason why they should not be worn together is because of their frequencies. Fabric has frequencies and linen and wool have frequencies that cancel each other out and that can negatively impact the body. Sometimes these laws don't make any sense until we learn the reasons why God said them. I hope this helps.
Thank you, David, for a clear explanation, especially of the difference between commandments and ordinances. Would you consider Paul's teaching about the head covering for women (1 Cor 11) to fall under commandment or ordinance?
If Paul is referring to physical head coverings, it is a tradition (1 Cor 11:2). My colleague a 119 has recently written a very good teaching series on 1 Cor 11, which will be released in a couple of weeks. Keep an eye out!
I wonder about Kinser's "bilateral ecclesiology..." and if that's the kind of thing Yeshua references in Rev. 3:9. Your understanding is so blessed! Thank you for sharing it. ✨ May Abba continue to bless you, precious brother. It would be amazing if you had zoom Bible studies. Please will you consider it?
Most of the gentiles that Paul was referring to was the northern house of Israel (scattered abroad amongst gentiles) that in the eyes of Jews (house of Judah) were divorced , so Jews thought it was impossible for Israel (Northern House) to come into relationship with God without God breaking His own law Deut 24v4 . Paul describes how God accomplished that in Romans 7 !! now that mystery of how the Northern house can once again be in relationship with God without God breaking His own law. This statement still fits perfectly with what you shared in this video , only I see Paul in the 1st century having a broader scope and why so many were converting mostly of those who lost hope the northern tribes that still knew the scriptures but didn't know how that they that were called not my people are once again a people sons of God Hosea 1v10
I have been running into this on Jewish videos, where they will tell me that not only am I am not allowed to keep Torah, but they will not answer questions as they say the knowledge is not for Gentiles, so now I get it from antinomian Gentile and from Orthodox Jews. Regarding Paul, I give you a lot of credit for trying to understand his word salad, I try to ignore him. Every false teaching of the church goes directly back to Paul. I personally think that he is the false apostle in Revelation 2:2. Thanks for the video.
Thanks for the comment. I strongly disagree with your statements about Paul. I address the Revelation 2:2 claim in another video titled "Christopher Enoch is wrong about Paul (2 Timothy 1:15; Revelation 2:2)."
@@DavidWilberBlog I will look at it, but the point I made about false doctrines going back to Paul, is factual. Whether people are misinterpreting what Paul wrote or not, every antinomian Christian that I converse with on RUclips, ALWAYS quotes Paul, especially Galatians. They take Paul's word over that of Yeshua. Regarding Rev 2:2, everything points to Paul, his church, he was tried there., just as 2:2 states. I'd like to recommend that you check out the 'Karaite Judaism' channel, he has many videos about Paau. I'll try to leave a link, but you can just search on his channel. We may not agree in Paul, but I am really impressed with your understanding of Scripture. Shalom!.
David, thank you and i agree with your assessment. I believe Yeshua also agreed that the Jews of His day (Some- not all) were laying extra biblical commandments on people that were not of Torah. See Matthew 23:4 and Luke 11:46.
Hello , David I wanted to ask if I could use your transcript of the video for an article. Could you also link to 119 Ministries? I would like to produce together with a team your content in German (based on the transcript). I have already written a mail many weeks ago but unfortunately no answer, would be happy to hear from you. God's blessings!
I am sorry that I did not get your email, but feel free to translate my content into German. Just make sure to credit me as the author and link to the original content. You will need to contact 119 directly to ask for permission to use 119's content, but I don't think that would be an issue.
Regarding the idea of Torah being for all people, do you think verses like these indicate that there was indeed a differentiation made between the Israelites and outsiders? (a “wall” of separation) Deu 14:21 “You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk. AND Deu 23:20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
I think Torah is for all God's people, that is, the people of Israel-whether Jew or Gentile-but there are distinctions between Israel and the nations. This is where verses like Deut 23:20 apply (notice that "foreigner" in this verse is not גָּר but נָכְרִי). Deut 14:21 is a little more complex. On its face, it would seem to contradict Lev. 17:15, which applies the command to both the native Israelite and sojourner. One solution is that Deut 14:20 gives the sojourner permission to eat meat from animals that died naturally because it is a weightier matter of the Torah. The sojourner is often mentioned alongside other economically disadvantaged groups, such as widows and orphans. the survival of the poor sojourner is more important than ritual purity. And if the sojourner does eat this meat, then according to Leviticus 17:15, all he would need to do to become ritually clean again is wash his clothes and bathe. This is the same thing a native Israelite who eats this meat would need to do. Thus, the different "standards" are not due to ethnicity per se but rather due to different social conditions and God’s concern for the poor. Another option is that the sojourner in Deut 14:20 is not a covenant member like the sojourner described in Lev 17:15, but rather is a non-covenant member. In this case, the word "sojourner" is further defined by the word "foreigner" used in the same verse. The word נָכְרִי is typically used to describe an idolater and not a covenant member of Israel. Thus, the sojourner in Leviticus 17:15, and elsewhere throughout the Torah, is not the same as the sojourner mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:21. Hope that helps!
Because they were "binding" from the perspective of the religious authorities who enforced them, and probably also from the perspective of Paul's Gentile readers who were affected by them. Paul's point was that such manmade laws that created division between Jewish and Gentile believers do not have any authority.
@@DavidWilberBlog Then Why didn't Paul just say that instead of writing it in a way that would mislead billions of Christians for 2000 years? He could have just said "hey gentiles you don't have to obey these man made teachings that have no authority" rather than coded and esoteric language about walls and decrees that most gentiles wouldn't understand in the first place. I know Paul is hard to understand at times but the way Torah people explain what he wrote makes it seem like Paul was borderline deceptive. Isn't it more logical to say that Paul was talking about ceremonial aspects of the law that separated Jews and gentiles rather than saying Jesus came to abolish man-made traditions that had only existed within the Jewish community for a few hundred years? I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong. I just have questions and I'm honestly trying to find answers.
Have you examined the reception history of this passage to see how the earliest Christians interpreted it? In any case, I think it is a mistake to assume that Paul’s readers would not have understood his allusions, especially when they were directly affected by these man-made laws. I think his original readers understood what he was saying just fine. It may not always be “clear” to us, but it was to them. The language is not “coded” but perfectly plain when we consider Paul’s precise verbiage instead of reading antinomian assumptions into the text. As I explained, and as NT scholars have affirmed, Paul’s precise qualifications in the text function to define Paul’s statement more narrowly as a particular understanding and use of the law. This is not “coded language,” but simply taking the Greek text for what it says. When we take the text seriously for what it plainly says, without antinomian assumptions, then it is certainly not “more logical” to assume Paul is talking about parts of God’s law. My interpretation relies on taking the Greek text seriously, whereas the antinomian interpretation simply assumes what it wants. I appreciate the question. Blessings as you explore these texts in greater depth!
I recently read Eph. 2:13ff and wondered if the barrier wall was between God and man, not between Jew and gentile. Could it be the death sentence for sin, which separated Jews from God, and separated gentiles from God? If Jesus removed the curse of the law, the penalty for sin, for both groups, then he effectively lumped them together as parties trying to be reconciled with God, not as two groups pitted against one another. See Col. 2:14 what do you think?
These educated antinomian's will do flips to contradict Paul out of one side of their mouth while praising him out of the other side. Excellent teaching!
Hey David If under a theocracy Would Torah observers be allowed to stone children and kill woman for seizing a man’s thingy during a fight as its stated both in Deuteronomy Also what about the law in lev 25:44-46 And what bout the feasts with the ceremonies Due to Hebrews 10, espaicialky verse 18 How does that affect the Torah What parts of the Torah are Christian’s meant to follow Just the dietary laws and festivals Or every guideline in the mosaic books. What things from it still stand And what’s you’re epistemology/way of determination of what parts count and. Not I’m a pronominalism Christian And I’m dying to know Thanks
Would Torah observers be allowed to stone children and kill woman as its stated both in Deuteronomy: No we don't have the same "court" system set in place to do so...DEUT 30:1-7 speaks on us not being able do follow all laws when outside of our land.
David, it appears that you either took the the verse in Jubilees (22:16) out of context or you do not know the proper context that it is used, Jubilees 22:16 and 17 should be used together for the context, it is not to keep believers from sharing a meal with gentiles but rather it keeps believers from participating in idol worship with gentiles just as Paul instructs believers not to eat meat knowingly sacrificed to idols.
No, I did not take it out of context. Respectfully, you seem to be importing assumptions into the text. Verse 17 simply characterizes all Gentiles as idol worshipers. The point of the command in verse 16 is for Jews to entirely separate from Gentiles because, as verse 17 goes on to explain, Gentiles are characterized as wicked and impure. The author of Jubilees says elsewhere that Gentiles were predestined to reject God and be idol worshipers, and that is one of the reasons why he believed Jews should have nothing to do with them. The New Testament undermines this false characterization by the author of Jubilees, as many Gentiles were turning to the God of Israel.
So Christ died to abolish ordinances that were not even obligatory on them in the first place? Does that even make sense? Honest question. So you are saying Christ died to abolish man made rules that didn’t even matter to God?
The context is that there was a dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles that Christ abolished. Antinomians say this refers to the Law of Moses, but that doesn't make sense for numerous reasons, as I explained. A better interpretation is available: if we take Paul's precise wording in the text seriously, Christ came to abolish the contemporary religious leaders' unbiblical laws that were based on their misapplications of the Torah and which caused division between Jews and Gentiles. These unbiblical laws were the source of division, not the Torah itself. As I've argued, this interpretation makes better sense of the precise wording in the text as well as the broader context than the antinomian interpretation.
we by Faith are Imputed the righteousness of christ, not our own, there's nothing we can do, say, feel, follow or believe that will change that! if you put your trust in1 corrin 15:1-4 and him and his righteousness not seeking to establish your own righteousness!!! rom 3:20 -22 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Justified by Faith But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: rom4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
The scriptures overwhelmingly proof God is of no respect of persons. Paul states in 1st Tim. 2:4, God would have all men to be saved, and to come into the knowledge of the truth. In addition, the prophet Jeremiah in 32:27 writes as he is inspired by God, "That He is the God of all flesh." We could go on and on, with further proof.
Firstly, framing your argument by simply referencing Matthew 5:17-20 FIRST as if there aren't already significant challenges with your interpretation of that passage is tough. The NEW CREATION HAS COME. You know Paul states this with as large of letters as I just used. And you know how emphatic he is about it. The Gospel of John has this as a massive emphasis. So then, have heaven and earth passed away? Has all been accomplished. The answer has to be carefully thought out. Not merely asserted. I know you have given your thoughts on Matthew 5 before but it is so contentious that to use it as your starting point seems a bit odd. "These statements are not what we would expect" is a pronomian argument as well. Since it can be so easily inverted against you I'm not sure how excellent it is for you. I think your last point simply does not follow. The original question is "is the Torah creating hostility between Jews and Gentiles." The answer you give is that "Nothing in the Torah says that there should be hostility between the two." But this is not the same thing as answering the original question which was not: does the torah command hostility but rather is it causing hostility. And, one could easily argue that yes it was causing hostility. Hence the council in Acts 15.
Thanks for the comment. I agree with the vast majority of NT scholars who insist that Matthew 5 is straightforward and unambiguous in its declaration that the Law is not abolished. It is not "odd" to take such an unambiguous passage into consideration when examining passages that appear directly at odds with it. At the very least, the existence of such a clear passage should give one pause before immediately accepting an interpretation of Ephesians 2 that contradicts the Bible's clear teaching elsewhere. And when a more plausible interpretation of Ephesians 2 is available, which takes seriously Paul's precise language and which DOESN'T contradict other passages, it is entirely reasonable to pursue that option. The interpretation I gave in this video simply makes better sense of the text. Regarding Acts 15, you need to read it again. The problem wasn't the Torah but man-made requirements. The Torah simply says to circumcise your son on the eighth day. It does not require adult male Gentiles to get circumcised in order to be saved. The apostles' opponents were pushing something onto the adult male Gentiles that the Torah did not require of them. Much like Ephesians 2, the apostles determined that such man-made laws should not divide the church. Hope that helps!
@@DavidWilberBlog Thanks for responding and for bearing with me. I need to practice writing more. Sometimes I struggle to communicate my point. That being said, I agree that Jesus is communicating that the Law is not abolished but fulfilled. The meaning of this is hotly contested because so much hinges on how one reads the following verses about "until". I am convinced that the Old has Gone and the new has come. Certainly this has not happened in its fullness. But, we all know how richly the Kingdom of God has broken into the present. . I also agree that the scriptures do not contradict one another. But, I also find that what Paul says in Ephesians 2 is "unambigous". You seem to think that it is ambigous enough to declare it less clear than Matthew 5. And merely declaring that one passage is unambigous compared to another seems like a form of question-begging. Isn't the ambiguity of the text at hand the very question we are confronting? Regarding circumcision I have a few thoughts. 1. Circumcision comes across to me like a shorthand for the entire Covenant. It is the sign and seal of the whole relation of Israel to God furthermore changing that ordinance as it stands is itself a change. Which might seem to violate the "not one jot or tittle" statement of the Lord. Lastly, when I read Genesis 17 it seems that the statement "every male among you must be circumcised" is speaking of all men who join with Israel. Including Gentile adults. Yes, it refers to children, but it also refers to foreign slaves. I am genuine in seeking to understand this issue. I have great love for pronomian brothers and sisters. And if I am the one who is wrong I can promise I would find that to be a joyous day when I am convinced of my wrongdoing (I hope I should be so humble).
@@Lotterywinnerify No worries. Please send me an email because it is easy to lose track of RUclips comments. I'd be more than happy to dialogue about this topic further. Please copy your comment in an email, if you don't mind: davidwilber.com/contact
![[Limbus Company - PV] Chapter.7 - Oblivion](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VUpkXPkvoxU/mqdefault.jpg)
This is awesome!!! A few weeks ago I did a study of this as well and came to the same conclusion. I found that the word “decrees” in the New Testament were almost always “man-made” decrees. My thoughts have been confirmed.
Wow you just put a little more icing on the cake.🙏🏻
I just stumbled upon your video. You are a very good teacher. Clear, succinct, and you can see you are coming at this from the right heart. Thank you!
Thanks!
The traditional interpretation contradicts scripture. If the Torah really was the dividing line then how was Ruth the Moabite allowed to be an Israelite? Or Caleb? Or name literally anybody who was from a gentile nation who became an Israelite.
Yep. Deuteronomy 29 is explicit that any Gentile who aligns himself with the God of Israel by faith is a covenant member and instructed to keep God's laws.
@@DavidWilberBlog all the rabbis in the world would disagree with your interpretation
That’s not true, but who cares? As a Christian, I care about what the Bible teaches.
@@DavidWilberBlog fair point
@@shawn-wr8ux Modern Rabbinic Judaism can trace it's roots back to Pharisaic Judaism so that does not surprise me. It's sad really. I don't like the idea of a class of believers divided into categories such as "closest to God", "less close to God", "Kind of close to God" and "Outside" all based off of race/accepting man made dogmas.
Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy/all 'apostolic churches' are very similar in this regard.
This is the same conclusion I came to as well. After considering the context of Ephesians 2 (Circumcision vs. uncircumcision), the dividing wall could only be in reference to what Shammai decreed. In the Talmud, it says that Shammai would not convert any Gentile, and that he made decrees (18 of them, if I can remember correctly), and one of those was in regards to Gentiles being unclean.
Thanks David. I agree that this cannot mean God's law in the Torah. Looking in the LXX, I only find "ordinances" (dogma) in the book of Daniel, describing decrees of the king of Babylon.
It is also used in Esther 4:8 and 9:1 in reference to man-made laws.
Thanks David. Very well presented.
Shalom and blessings David. Thank you, excellent teaching and understanding of scripture as always. Praise Yah. Every blessing to you and your family. David (UK)
Blessings to you and yours!
Excellent explanation, David.
Thanks for watching!
Thank you, David for your insight on this verse. Unfortunately, those who practice a form of Christianity that excludes the law probably won’t listen or research or study this teaching. I hope they do but for those of us in the messianic community, we still have friends and acquaintances family members in mainstream evangelical churches, we need to help them understand. We also need to pray that they will want to understand.
Thank-you so much!
Thank you David. Maimonides’ Noachide Laws are an example of divisive decrees. Some Christians seem to have a similar mindset to Maimonides, but from the other side of the aisle, so to speak.
Yes, unfortunately some Messianics also have this divisive mindset and wish to resurrect the dividing wall that Christ broke down.
This also proves the term "works of the law" in gal 2 when rebuking Peter is in reference to Jewish customs
Yep. And Deuteronomy 29 explicitly includes any foreigner who aligns himself with the God of Israel by faith as a member of God's covenant people, and admonishes them to keep the commandments.
@@DavidWilberBlog why would Paul use the term "works of the law" when referring to talmudic or Jewish customs. Very confusing
@@indo3052 Yeah.. its confusing to protestants (which I was for 50yrs). The reason is because we don't understand the three things being addressed by Paul. 1. Laws of Yah. 2. Halachah 3. Paganism.
If new converts were taught what those are and to look for them.. Pauls letters would make complete sense.
@@truthnottradition7pls explain in brief overview. Thnx
EXTREMELY well done teaching video!!!! God bless you brother!
Well done. Didn’t know about misapplication of Numbers 1:51. Thx
Thanks! I didn't know about it either, until reading Windsor's commentary. It makes a lot of sense.
God Bless you Massively, I am greatly enlightened
Very clear explanation.
Totally agree.
Excellent video! Thanks David!
Whenever the authors of the New Testament epistles speak of "the Law" being abolished by Yeshua, they're actually referring to the extra-biblical laws as formulated by the Pharisees of the Second Temple era. Those laws are unbiblical and Yeshua came to destroy them, because they were an artificial barrier between Jews and Gentiles. The Mosaic Law in its _pure form_ is still in effect today. That said, it is my opinion that when Matthew mentions the "veil" being torn in two, he's actually talking about the veil separating the court of the Gentiles from the court of the Israelites, which, as talked about in the video, was not part of the original biblical blueprints for the Temple. Yeshua destroyed that veil because it was high time for his Gentile followers to have the same access to the Father as the Jews had!
The other thing you didn’t mention is that the word “law” in that passage is actually Dogma, not “nomos” which gives the correct understanding that it’s a man made ordinance not a biblical one.
Col ch2 as well
I was hoping you’d mention 4QMMT “The works of the Law” found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Great info in your video BTW.
David, I like your shirt. Excellent. The evidence you provided should settle the matter......
lol thanks. You can't see it, but below the image it says "totally koalafied."
I have a question for clarification I agree the Torah is not to be done away with but can you make a video of the sort showing the differences in dietary law or restrictions and wearing of wool and linen and whether or not that should still be practiced ? Love your stuff btw
As far as wearing of wool and linnen together the reason why they should not be worn together is because of their frequencies. Fabric has frequencies and linen and wool have frequencies that cancel each other out and that can negatively impact the body. Sometimes these laws don't make any sense until we learn the reasons why God said them. I hope this helps.
Love God and love people all commandments hang on this. God bless you ❤
@@lavieenrose5954love One Another
Thank you, David, for a clear explanation, especially of the difference between commandments and ordinances. Would you consider Paul's teaching about the head covering for women (1 Cor 11) to fall under commandment or ordinance?
Cursed is every man that does not continue to do everything written in the book of the law.
If Paul is referring to physical head coverings, it is a tradition (1 Cor 11:2). My colleague a 119 has recently written a very good teaching series on 1 Cor 11, which will be released in a couple of weeks. Keep an eye out!
@@elitestockpicks8212 No man can keep all of the statutes of the Law. Which is why Christ came to die for us.
@@elitestockpicks8212 "If you love Me, keep My commandments." John 14:15
@@universe8649 Amen and thank God! We don't keep the Law in order to BE saved - we keep it because we ARE saved.
I wonder about Kinser's "bilateral ecclesiology..." and if that's the kind of thing Yeshua references in Rev. 3:9.
Your understanding is so blessed! Thank you for sharing it. ✨ May Abba continue to bless you, precious brother. It would be amazing if you had zoom Bible studies. Please will you consider it?
What do you think about Dr Mark Nanos
He has done some really good work, especially in Galatians.
Amen!
Thanks a lot!
Once we understand that the issue of Galatians we understand the rest of Paul.
It was all about Jewish Conversion.
I agree.
Most of the gentiles that Paul was referring to was the northern house of Israel (scattered abroad amongst gentiles) that in the eyes of Jews (house of Judah) were divorced , so Jews thought it was impossible for Israel (Northern House) to come into relationship with God without God breaking His own law Deut 24v4 . Paul describes how God accomplished that in Romans 7 !! now that mystery of how the Northern house can once again be in relationship with God without God breaking His own law. This statement still fits perfectly with what you shared in this video , only I see Paul in the 1st century having a broader scope and why so many were converting mostly of those who lost hope the northern tribes that still knew the scriptures but didn't know how that they that were called not my people are once again a people sons of God Hosea 1v10
I have been running into this on Jewish videos, where they will tell me that not only am I am not allowed to keep Torah, but they will not answer questions as they say the knowledge is not for Gentiles, so now I get it from antinomian Gentile and from Orthodox Jews.
Regarding Paul, I give you a lot of credit for trying to understand his word salad,
I try to ignore him.
Every false teaching of the church goes directly back to Paul.
I personally think that he is the false apostle in Revelation 2:2.
Thanks for the video.
Thanks for the comment. I strongly disagree with your statements about Paul. I address the Revelation 2:2 claim in another video titled "Christopher Enoch is wrong about Paul (2 Timothy 1:15; Revelation 2:2)."
@@DavidWilberBlog I will look at it, but the point I made about false doctrines going back to Paul, is factual.
Whether people are misinterpreting what Paul wrote or not, every antinomian Christian that I converse with on RUclips, ALWAYS quotes Paul, especially Galatians.
They take Paul's word over that of Yeshua.
Regarding Rev 2:2, everything points to Paul, his church, he was tried there., just as 2:2 states.
I'd like to recommend that you check out
the 'Karaite Judaism' channel, he has many videos about Paau. I'll try to leave a link, but you can just search on his channel.
We may not agree in Paul, but I am really impressed with your understanding of Scripture.
Shalom!.
Good stuff
David, thank you and i agree with your assessment. I believe Yeshua also agreed that the Jews of His day (Some- not all) were laying extra biblical commandments on people that were not of Torah. See Matthew 23:4 and Luke 11:46.
Hello , David I wanted to ask if I could use your transcript of the video for an article. Could you also link to 119 Ministries? I would like to produce together with a team your content in German (based on the transcript). I have already written a mail many weeks ago but unfortunately no answer, would be happy to hear from you.
God's blessings!
I am sorry that I did not get your email, but feel free to translate my content into German. Just make sure to credit me as the author and link to the original content. You will need to contact 119 directly to ask for permission to use 119's content, but I don't think that would be an issue.
@@DavidWilberBlog Thank you for your reply.
Thank you!!!
Regarding the idea of Torah being for all people, do you think verses like these indicate that there was indeed a differentiation made between the Israelites and outsiders? (a “wall” of separation)
Deu 14:21 “You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk. AND
Deu 23:20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest
Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
I think Torah is for all God's people, that is, the people of Israel-whether Jew or Gentile-but there are distinctions between Israel and the nations. This is where verses like Deut 23:20 apply (notice that "foreigner" in this verse is not גָּר but נָכְרִי). Deut 14:21 is a little more complex. On its face, it would seem to contradict Lev. 17:15, which applies the command to both the native Israelite and sojourner. One solution is that Deut 14:20 gives the sojourner permission to eat meat from animals that died naturally because it is a weightier matter of the Torah. The sojourner is often mentioned alongside other economically disadvantaged groups, such as widows and orphans. the survival of the poor sojourner is more important than ritual purity. And if the sojourner does eat this meat, then according to Leviticus 17:15, all he would need to do to become ritually clean again is wash his clothes and bathe. This is the same thing a native Israelite who eats this meat would need to do. Thus, the different "standards" are not due to ethnicity per se but rather due to different social conditions and God’s concern for the poor. Another option is that the sojourner in Deut 14:20 is not a covenant member like the sojourner described in Lev 17:15, but rather is a non-covenant member. In this case, the word "sojourner" is further defined by the word "foreigner" used in the same verse. The word נָכְרִי is typically used to describe an idolater and not a covenant member of Israel. Thus, the sojourner in Leviticus 17:15, and elsewhere throughout the Torah, is not the same as the sojourner mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:21. Hope that helps!
My only problem with this perspective is that why would Jesus need to abolish man made laws that were never binding in the first place?
Because they were "binding" from the perspective of the religious authorities who enforced them, and probably also from the perspective of Paul's Gentile readers who were affected by them. Paul's point was that such manmade laws that created division between Jewish and Gentile believers do not have any authority.
@@DavidWilberBlog Then Why didn't Paul just say that instead of writing it in a way that would mislead billions of Christians for 2000 years? He could have just said "hey gentiles you don't have to obey these man made teachings that have no authority" rather than coded and esoteric language about walls and decrees that most gentiles wouldn't understand in the first place. I know Paul is hard to understand at times but the way Torah people explain what he wrote makes it seem like Paul was borderline deceptive. Isn't it more logical to say that Paul was talking about ceremonial aspects of the law that separated Jews and gentiles rather than saying Jesus came to abolish man-made traditions that had only existed within the Jewish community for a few hundred years?
I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong. I just have questions and I'm honestly trying to find answers.
Have you examined the reception history of this passage to see how the earliest Christians interpreted it? In any case, I think it is a mistake to assume that Paul’s readers would not have understood his allusions, especially when they were directly affected by these man-made laws. I think his original readers understood what he was saying just fine. It may not always be “clear” to us, but it was to them. The language is not “coded” but perfectly plain when we consider Paul’s precise verbiage instead of reading antinomian assumptions into the text. As I explained, and as NT scholars have affirmed, Paul’s precise qualifications in the text function to define Paul’s statement more narrowly as a particular understanding and use of the law. This is not “coded language,” but simply taking the Greek text for what it says. When we take the text seriously for what it plainly says, without antinomian assumptions, then it is certainly not “more logical” to assume Paul is talking about parts of God’s law. My interpretation relies on taking the Greek text seriously, whereas the antinomian interpretation simply assumes what it wants. I appreciate the question. Blessings as you explore these texts in greater depth!
I recently read Eph. 2:13ff and wondered if the barrier wall was between God and man, not between Jew and gentile. Could it be the death sentence for sin, which separated Jews from God, and separated gentiles from God? If Jesus removed the curse of the law, the penalty for sin, for both groups, then he effectively lumped them together as parties trying to be reconciled with God, not as two groups pitted against one another. See Col. 2:14 what do you think?
Matthew 5:43 is not Matthew 5:44 - Hebrews 7:11-12.
These educated antinomian's will do flips to contradict Paul out of one side of their mouth while praising him out of the other side. Excellent teaching!
That word ordinances is in reference to man made laws
Ordinances Dogma? or Dogmasin. Read Col 2v14 Ordinances.
Hey David
If under a theocracy
Would Torah observers be allowed to stone children and kill woman for seizing a man’s thingy during a fight as its stated both in Deuteronomy
Also what about the law in lev 25:44-46
And what bout the feasts with the ceremonies
Due to Hebrews 10, espaicialky verse 18
How does that affect the Torah
What parts of the Torah are Christian’s meant to follow
Just the dietary laws and festivals
Or every guideline in the mosaic books.
What things from it still stand
And what’s you’re epistemology/way of determination of what parts count and. Not
I’m a pronominalism Christian
And I’m dying to know
Thanks
Would Torah observers be allowed to stone children and kill woman as its stated both in Deuteronomy:
No we don't have the same "court" system set in place to do so...DEUT 30:1-7 speaks on us not being able do follow all laws when outside of our land.
David, it appears that you either took the the verse in Jubilees (22:16) out of context or you do not know the proper context that it is used, Jubilees 22:16 and 17 should be used together for the context, it is not to keep believers from sharing a meal with gentiles but rather it keeps believers from participating in idol worship with gentiles just as Paul instructs believers not to eat meat knowingly sacrificed to idols.
No, I did not take it out of context. Respectfully, you seem to be importing assumptions into the text. Verse 17 simply characterizes all Gentiles as idol worshipers. The point of the command in verse 16 is for Jews to entirely separate from Gentiles because, as verse 17 goes on to explain, Gentiles are characterized as wicked and impure. The author of Jubilees says elsewhere that Gentiles were predestined to reject God and be idol worshipers, and that is one of the reasons why he believed Jews should have nothing to do with them. The New Testament undermines this false characterization by the author of Jubilees, as many Gentiles were turning to the God of Israel.
Didn’t you have a book on Galatians?
I never wrote a book on Galatians, but I do exegete some relevant passages from Galatians in my book, "Remember the Sabbath."
@@DavidWilberBlog thanks
So Christ died to abolish ordinances that were not even obligatory on them in the first place? Does that even make sense? Honest question. So you are saying Christ died to abolish man made rules that didn’t even matter to God?
The context is that there was a dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles that Christ abolished. Antinomians say this refers to the Law of Moses, but that doesn't make sense for numerous reasons, as I explained. A better interpretation is available: if we take Paul's precise wording in the text seriously, Christ came to abolish the contemporary religious leaders' unbiblical laws that were based on their misapplications of the Torah and which caused division between Jews and Gentiles. These unbiblical laws were the source of division, not the Torah itself. As I've argued, this interpretation makes better sense of the precise wording in the text as well as the broader context than the antinomian interpretation.
@@DavidWilberBlogin this case all you have to ask is show me in the Torah where it teaches that there is a dividing wall.
Jesus is lord
Another thing to consider is these mainstream Christians assume they are gentiles
My understanding is that there is Israel and "the nations". Meaning Jews and Gentiles.
I'm a gentile believer in Torah and the Messiah Yeshua.
we by Faith are Imputed the righteousness of christ, not our own, there's nothing we can do, say, feel, follow or believe that will change that! if you put your trust in1 corrin 15:1-4 and him and his righteousness not seeking to establish your own righteousness!!!
rom 3:20 -22 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Justified by Faith
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:
rom4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
The scriptures overwhelmingly proof God is of no respect of persons. Paul states in 1st Tim. 2:4, God would have all men to be saved, and to come into the knowledge of the truth. In addition, the prophet Jeremiah in 32:27 writes as he is inspired by God, "That He is the God of all flesh." We could go on and on, with further proof.
Firstly, framing your argument by simply referencing Matthew 5:17-20 FIRST as if there aren't already significant challenges with your interpretation of that passage is tough. The NEW CREATION HAS COME. You know Paul states this with as large of letters as I just used. And you know how emphatic he is about it. The Gospel of John has this as a massive emphasis. So then, have heaven and earth passed away? Has all been accomplished. The answer has to be carefully thought out. Not merely asserted. I know you have given your thoughts on Matthew 5 before but it is so contentious that to use it as your starting point seems a bit odd. "These statements are not what we would expect" is a pronomian argument as well. Since it can be so easily inverted against you I'm not sure how excellent it is for you. I think your last point simply does not follow. The original question is "is the Torah creating hostility between Jews and Gentiles." The answer you give is that "Nothing in the Torah says that there should be hostility between the two." But this is not the same thing as answering the original question which was not: does the torah command hostility but rather is it causing hostility. And, one could easily argue that yes it was causing hostility. Hence the council in Acts 15.
Thanks for the comment. I agree with the vast majority of NT scholars who insist that Matthew 5 is straightforward and unambiguous in its declaration that the Law is not abolished. It is not "odd" to take such an unambiguous passage into consideration when examining passages that appear directly at odds with it. At the very least, the existence of such a clear passage should give one pause before immediately accepting an interpretation of Ephesians 2 that contradicts the Bible's clear teaching elsewhere. And when a more plausible interpretation of Ephesians 2 is available, which takes seriously Paul's precise language and which DOESN'T contradict other passages, it is entirely reasonable to pursue that option. The interpretation I gave in this video simply makes better sense of the text. Regarding Acts 15, you need to read it again. The problem wasn't the Torah but man-made requirements. The Torah simply says to circumcise your son on the eighth day. It does not require adult male Gentiles to get circumcised in order to be saved. The apostles' opponents were pushing something onto the adult male Gentiles that the Torah did not require of them. Much like Ephesians 2, the apostles determined that such man-made laws should not divide the church. Hope that helps!
@@DavidWilberBlog Thanks for responding and for bearing with me. I need to practice writing more. Sometimes I struggle to communicate my point. That being said, I agree that Jesus is communicating that the Law is not abolished but fulfilled. The meaning of this is hotly contested because so much hinges on how one reads the following verses about "until". I am convinced that the Old has Gone and the new has come. Certainly this has not happened in its fullness. But, we all know how richly the Kingdom of God has broken into the present. . I also agree that the scriptures do not contradict one another. But, I also find that what Paul says in Ephesians 2 is "unambigous". You seem to think that it is ambigous enough to declare it less clear than Matthew 5. And merely declaring that one passage is unambigous compared to another seems like a form of question-begging. Isn't the ambiguity of the text at hand the very question we are confronting? Regarding circumcision I have a few thoughts. 1. Circumcision comes across to me like a shorthand for the entire Covenant. It is the sign and seal of the whole relation of Israel to God furthermore changing that ordinance as it stands is itself a change. Which might seem to violate the "not one jot or tittle" statement of the Lord. Lastly, when I read Genesis 17 it seems that the statement "every male among you must be circumcised" is speaking of all men who join with Israel. Including Gentile adults. Yes, it refers to children, but it also refers to foreign slaves.
I am genuine in seeking to understand this issue. I have great love for pronomian brothers and sisters. And if I am the one who is wrong I can promise I would find that to be a joyous day when I am convinced of my wrongdoing (I hope I should be so humble).
@@Lotterywinnerify No worries. Please send me an email because it is easy to lose track of RUclips comments. I'd be more than happy to dialogue about this topic further. Please copy your comment in an email, if you don't mind: davidwilber.com/contact