Windham/Mowery Debate on Who is Subject to the Gospel

 
 
 Proposition: 
 Like the old covenant, the new covenant is only for the physical descendants of 
the twelve tribes of Israel.

Affirm: Brian Windham
Deny:  Dub Mowery

Thank you Mr. Mowery for your well thought-out and thought-provoking 
rebuttal. I pray my answers will satisfy your questions.

Mr. Mowery seems to think that the words "Israel" and "Jew" are synonymous. 
This, however, is simply not true. While a "Jew" or a Judahite is certainly an 
Israelite, all Israelites are not Jews. This is evident by the fact that the first time 
the word "Jew(s)" is found in the Bible they are at war with Israel (2 Kings 16:5-
6).

The term "Jew" came about only after the split of the House of Israel into two 
houses, Judah and Israel (1 Kings 12). A "Jew" (a corrupted form of the word 
Judahite) was one from the House of Judah. While both houses were Israelites, it 
is a mistake to use the term "Jew" to refer to the House of Israel.

Paul made it clear that in his day there was no more "Jew" (Gal 3:28). This would 
be in harmony with the NC where it begins with the statement that God would 
make a new covenant with the House of Judah and the House of Israel (Heb 8:8). 
However we see the term "after those days" in v. 9 and the covenant is with the 
House of Israel only (Heb 8:9). Therefore the term Israelite is a more proper and 
correct term than "Jew."

Contrary to Mr. Mowery's contention, I do not believe that because the NC is with 
Israel that an Israelite is automatically a Christian. While the NC is with physical 
Israel, that doesn't mean that one is automatically included in the covenant simply 
because that one was born an Israelite. The New Covenant has specific 
requirements, e.g., the faith, repentance and baptism.

Mr. Mowery states, 
"Brian, you cannot have it both ways! Either you are under the new covenant or 
you are not!" "According to you're above proposition, only a Jew is under the new 
covenant."

No Mr. Mowery, according to my statement only an Israelite is under the NC. 
There is no more "Jew" according to the Scriptures.

Mr. Mowery states, 
"You readily admit that you are not a Jew by race. Therefore, according to your 
own proposition you cannot be a Christian. I insist that you explain to us how you 
can be a Christian and not be subject to the new covenant!"

You are confusing terms Mr. Mowery! This is why I didn't want to go into my 
status as a Christian because it's going to take much unnecessary time, effort and 
space and it will be an effort to stay on subject. You seemingly are already 
attempting to sway the discussion to hinge on what I am and am not as to whom 
the NC is with.

However it seems you will not be satisfied until I answer your questions on my 
spiritual status. I am an Israelite! I am covered under the NC.

And to clear up your obvious misunderstanding I stand by my original statement 
that the Bible is a book to and about one nation of people and the people from 
which she sprang. That nation is physical Israel! I didn't say the theme of the 
Bible was Israel. You implied I did. Israel is not the theme! However the main 
players in that theme are Israelites. The theme of the Bible is God's way vs man's 
way or the Way of Life vs the way of death.

Mr. Mowery queries 
"You state that you are a Christian and acknowledge that repentance and baptism 
is essential for a person's salvation. How do you conclude that the conditions for 
an alien sinner to obtain remission of his or her sins apply to you or me since we 
are not Jews by race?"

Mr. Mowery, the proposition is that the NC is with physical Israel only. Why 
would you think an alien would be covered under the covenant? The Bible does 
not mention the fate of non-Israelites. Therefore, I don't know their fate.

You say, 
"Your effort to defuse the truth that the gospel applies to both Jews and Gentiles 
comes over as a weak argument."

Mr. Mowery I appreciate your view, but the debate is less than half over. There's 
much to be said. I ask that you wait until all evidence is in before you rush to 
judgment.

You ask if I would say Titus 2:11, Heb. 2:9, 2 Pet 3:9 & Rom 1:16 applies to 
"Jews".

Those verses apply to physical Israelites! As I stated, we must take what's said in 
consideration of to whom it's said. This will be made clear as we continue.

You say, 
"God does hold every person in the world, who is capable of understanding right 
and wrong, good and evil, accountable for their sins."

I agree Mr. Mowery! What is sin? It is the transgression of God's Law (1 John 
3:4). And where there is no law there is no transgression (Rom 4:15). Therefore 
only those that have the Law can sin. God gave His Law only to Israel (Psalms 
147:19-20). Therefore only Israel can sin because no other nation has God's Law. 
That's why God punishes only Israel for sinning because only Israel has He 
"known" (Amos 3:1-2). And only Israel can be held accountable for sinning 
because only Israel has the Law.

You say, 
"And the gospel is the Lord's means of calling both Jew and Gentile."

I do not question that! I agree! We must identify who the "gentile" is. Just as we 
are to make sure to whom, what is said, we are to properly identify of whom 
terms, e.g., "gentile" apply. It is commonly thought that the term "gentile" simply 
means any "non-Jew." While I agree that "gentile" does not refer to "Jew", I 
maintain the term does not apply to just any non-Jew. It applies to the Israelites of 
the House of Israel. This will be made clear as this affirmative progresses.

You say, 
"What is commonly called "The Great Commission" reveals that the gospel of 
Christ is to be proclaimed unto every person who is accountable in every nation 
(Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 24:36-47)."

Again I agree! We must be clear to properly apply all terms and not take for 
granted ambiguous phrases, e.g., "all men", "every nation", "every person", etc. 
apply to the entire globe. We must be careful to take all things in the Bible within 
the context of the Bible.

An example is this verse:  (Luke 2:1 KJV) "And it came to pass in those days, that 
there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."

Mr. Mowery do you believe that Caesar taxed everyone on the globe? Did he tax 
all of Africa, the North and South American continents? I don't think you will say 
he did. Therefore you can't take the word "world" and apply it to the globe. Its 
meaning must be ascertained within its context.

As for the Gospel going to "every person" in "every nation", we have Paul's 
witness that he accomplished that feat in his day:

(Col 1:3-23 KJV) "We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, praying always for you, {4} Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, 
and of the love which ye have to all the saints, {5} For the hope which is laid up 
for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of THE 
GOSPEL; {6} WHICH IS COME UNTO YOU, AS IT IS IN ALL THE 
WORLD...{23} If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved 
away from the hope of THE GOSPEL, WHICH YE HAVE HEARD, AND 
WHICH WAS PREACHED TO EVERY CREATURE WHICH IS UNDER 
HEAVEN; whereof I Paul am made a minister;"

Mr. Mowery, we have per the Bible a detailed description of Paul's travels and it 
is clear that Paul did not travel the globe or even all the countries in the Middle 
East or Africa, much less the western hemisphere. Do you think Paul's statement 
was in error? This is another example of making sure we take nothing for granted 
and not apply generally what's said specifically.

Mr. Mowery, while I use Jer. 31:31; Lk. 1:68; Matt. 15:24; Matt. 10:5-6; and Heb. 
8:8 as examples that the NC is with Israel only, I can assure you that these verses 
are read in the context of the entire Bible as they should be. I agree that God is not 
the author of confusion nor does He contradict Himself.

It's at this point I wish to define "gentile" per the context of the Bible. IMHO, It 
has been generally taken for granted, without proving it, that the term "gentile" 
means all non-Israelites, with the term "Israel" erroneously assumed to be 
synonymous with the term "Jew." Such fallacious exegesis has produced a 
"gospel" that would, IMHO, qualify for the "another gospel" Paul spoke of in Gal 
1:6.

The term "gentile" has been unsoundly translated from the Hebrew word "goy" 
and the Greek word "ethnos." The proper definition of "goy" and "ethnos" is 
"nation(s)." Since the translators translated both "goy" and "etnos" as "nation(s)" 
many times as well as "gentiles", it seems the translation was done arbitrarily 
without much thought.

Allow me to give you some examples of this haphazard way of translating. For 
my demonstration I will compare translations of verses in the NASB in contrast 
with translations of the same verses in the KJV.

The NASB translates "goy" as "gentiles" while the KJV translates it as "nations" 
in Isa. 9:1.

The NASB translates "etnos" as "gentile(s)" while the KJV translates it as 
"nation(s)" in Mar 7:26; Luke 21:24; Rom 1:5 & Gal 3:8.

The NASB translates "goy" as "nation(s)" while the KJV translates it as 
"gentile(s) in

Gen 10:5 , Isa 11:10 , Isa 42:1 , Isa 42:6 , Isa 49:6 , Isa 49:22 , Isa 54:3 , Isa 60:3 , 
Isa 60:5 , Isa 60:11 , Isa 60:16 , Isa 61:6 , Isa 61:9 , Isa 62:2 , Isa 66:12 , Isa 66:19 
, Jer 4:7 , Jer 14:22 , Jer 16:19 , Jer 46:1 , Lam 2:9 , Eze 4:13 , Hos 8:8 , Joe 3:9 , 
Mic 5:8 , Zec 1:21 , Mal 1:11.

The NASB translates "etnos" as "nations(s)" while the KJV translates it as 
"gentile(s)" in Luk 21:24 , Act 7:45 , 1Ti 3:16 , Rev 11:2.

Concerning passages where the NT quotes the OT we see this subjective method 
of translating very clearly proving that the English words "gentile(s)" and 
"nation(s)" are synonymous.

The KJV NT quotes the following verses from the OT where the word "goy" is 
translated "nation(s)" with the Greek word "etnos" being translated "gentile(s)." 
(The OT verse will follow the NT quote verse separated by a hypen).

Mat 4:15-Isa 9:1, Mat 12:18-Isa 42:1, Rom 15:10-Deut 32:43, Rom 15:11-Psalms 
117:1.

The NASB NT quotes the following verses from the OT where the word "goy" is 
translated "nation(s)" with the Greek word "etnos" being translated "gentile(s)." 
(The OT verse will follow the NT quote verse separated by a hypen).

Luke 2:32-Isa 49:6, Acts 4:25-Psalms 2:1, Acts 13:47-Isa 42:6, Rom 15:9-2 Sam 
22:50, Rom 15:10-Deut 32:43, Rom 15:11-Psalms 117:1.

So with the above, I submit that the Hebrew word "goy" and the Greek word 
"ethnos" is properly and should be translated "nation(s)." To make this conclusion 
even further a literal translation of the Scriptures by Hebrew and Greek scholar 
Young (Young's Literal Translation, the YLT) never translates either word or any 
word into the English word "gentile(s)."

With this understanding allow me to present certain verses that use "goy" and 
"ethnos."

(Gen 17:4-5 KJV) "As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be 
a father of many NATIONS. {5} Neither shall thy name any more be called 
Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many NATIONS have I 
made thee."

The above passage translates the Hebrew word "goy" as "nations."

(Rom 4:17-18 KJV) "(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many 
NATIONS,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, 
and calleth those things which be not as though they were. {18} Who against 
hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many NATIONS, 
according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be."

The passage above translates the Greek word "ethnos" as "nations."

As you can see the latter passage is simply an NT quote of the former OT 
passage. And these Scriptures say that Abraham is the father of many "goy" or 
"ethnos." As I have shown, the translators could have just as easily translated 
these words as "gentiles."

This means that Abraham is the father of many "gentiles." The word "gentile(s)" 
is simply a transliteration of a Latin word "gentilis." It means virtually the same 
thing as "ethnos" or "goy". If the translators had translated this word instead of 
using a Latin transliteration, we wouldn't be having this confusion today.

Yes the offspring of Abraham are "gentiles" or "nations", if you will. And as I 
explained, with Scripture references, in my first affirmative, Israel was divided 
into two houses, Judah & Israel. The House of Israel was divorced by God and 
sold into Assyrian captivity and scattered or "diasporaed" them amongst the 
heathen (Joel 3:2). The majority of the House of Judah was also sold into 
Assyrian captivity. That left a remnant of the House of Judah in Jerusalem. This 
remnant was taken into Babylonian captivity, but was allowed to return and 
rebuild the Temple.

This remnant of the original House of Israel, now known as the House of Judah or 
"Jews." These Israelites were still in a covenantal relationship with God as they 
had not been divorced (Hosea 1:7). Even though God had divorced the majority of 
the Israelites, He prophesied that these divorced Israelites would once again be 
His and He would be married to them forever (Hos 2:19).

So the scenario, in the time frame of the beginning of the NT is the Israelites that 
are still in a covenantal relationship with God are from the remnant of the House 
of Judah mostly in Jerusalem. The divorced Israelites are still among the heathen 
without God in the world (Hos 3:4). They are sold into sin by God and they are 
awaiting redemption (Isa 52:3). Remember "redeem" mean to "buy back." Only 
Israel was sold and only Israel can be bought back. Non-Israelites would not need 
redeeming as they were never God's before. All they would need is for God to 
make a covenant with them as He did Israel in Ex 19:5-8. They weren't in a 
covenantal relationship with God therefore they were never "lost" because they 
were never His.

Mr. Mowery, you imply that Christ had to come to others other than Israel 
because He had other sheep that were not of "this fold" as John 10:16 says. You 
claim these sheep are the "gentiles." Considering the explanation of "gentile(s)", I 
gave, above, I agree with you. But these "gentile(s)" are Israelites.

Who, in the Bible are called the sheep of God and God said He drove into 
Assyrian and Babylonian captivity? Israel (Isa 50:17)! Were these Israelites "lost 
(Hos 2:19)?" Where they prophesied to be joined again with the House of Judah 
(Hos 1:11)? And who was Jesus speaking to in John 10:16? Judahites or "Jews!" 
These were people of the House of Judah. Therefore the sheep Christ is speaking 
of is the soon to be redeemed "lost" Israelites. To make this even clearer, notice 
what else Christ said in John 10:16. He said, "...them also I must bring, and they 
shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

Now notice an OT prophecy about this very thing:

(Ezek 37:21-24 KJV) "...Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I WILL TAKE THE 
CHILDREN OF ISRAEL FROM AMONG THE HEATHEN...BRING them into 
their own land: {22} And I WILL MAKE THEM ONE NATION...one king shall 
be king to them all: and THEY SHALL BE NO MORE TWO 
NATIONS...DIVIDED INTO TWO KINGDOMS ANY MORE AT ALL...so 
shall they be my people, and I will be their God. {24}...THEY ALL SHALL 
HAVE ONE SHEPHERD: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my 
statutes, and do them."

Above you have the very thing spoken of by Christ in John 10:16. Both passages 
say that God will BRING someone and join them with someone and they will 
have one shepherd. This is about Israel coming out from the heathen from where 
she was scattered. If the sheep in Eze 37:21-24 are Israel and Christ came only to 
the lost sheep of Israel (Mat 15:24), how can the sheep in John 10:16 be anyone 
other than Israel? And Israel is called a lost sheep in the OT also (Jer 50:6).

Mr. Mowery you also use Eph 2:11-22 to "imply" that those spoken of are not 
only "Jews" but non-Israelites. But are there any non-Israelites amongst them? 
Let's take a closer look please! How did Paul describe these people in Ephesus?

(Eph 2:11-12 KJV) "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in 
the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision 
in the flesh made by hands; {12} That at that time ye were without Christ, being 
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of 
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:"

We see that these people were considered uncircumcised. Was Israel, after her 
divorce from God, considered uncircumcised (Jer 9:26)? Were they without God 
in the world (Hos 3:4)? Since God is the Hope of Israel (Joel 3:16), and they were 
without God in the world, did they have no hope? Was Israel considered 
"strangers" (Jer 14:8)?

Now one very important point, these Ephesians were "aliens" FROM, NOT TO, 
the commonwealth of Israel. The word translated "aliens" is from the Greek word 
"apallatrioo" and it means "estrange." The English word "estrange" means "to 
remove from an accustomed place or set of associations."

Therefore these people had to have been at one time a part of the commonwealth 
of Israel in order to be aliens FROM it. And who was a part of it and divorced 
from it? Israel and no other! Non-Israelites would be aliens TO Israel not FROM 
Israel. And as the Ephesians are "gentiles", we know they were nations and Israel 
was nation of a company of nations. Each tribe was it's own nation. And a nation 
and company of nations was to come from Abraham (Gen 35:11). And here is 
how the YLT renders Eph 2:11:

YLT Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore, remember, that ye were once the NATIONS IN 
THE FLESH, who are called Uncircumcision by that called Circumcision in the 
flesh made by hands,

Going on in Eph 2, in v. 13 we're told that these people were afar off and made 
near by Christ's blood. Who does the Bible describe that fits this? Israel! We see 
in Dan 9:7 that Daniel describes Israel as this because of where God put her 
because of her trespasses.

In v.v. 14-15 we see that Christ has made the two peoples both "Jew" & "gentile" 
one by removing something that separated them which Paul calls a middle wall of 
partition, the law or ordinances, which is the physical sacrificial & ceremonial law 
of the OC.

Who does the Bible show coming back with Judah under one shepherd and the 
two being one? Israel (Hos 1:9-11, Ezek 37:22)!

In v. 16 we see that Christ did this to RECONCILE both unto God as one. The 
word "reconcile" means to re-establish a close relationship. In order for this 
relation of these people to be re-established, there by necessity, must have been 
such a relationship before. And who had been in such a relationship. Israel before 
the split.

Mr. Mowery, I ask you, considering the above points, how can this be about 
anyone, but Israel?

You used Acts 10:34-35 to "prove" that the Great Commission went to those 
other than Israelites because it says, "in every nation he that fears him and works 
righteousness is accepted by Him." But only those called by God can do this. 
Therefore only those the Apostles went to could receive the Truth. And to whom 
did the Apostles go to?

Every where, in Acts, the Apostles went preaching the word of God, they 
preached to both Jew and Greek. And everywhere they preached they spoke to 
both Jew and "Greek" alike referring to the fathers of Israel as "our fathers" (Acts 
3:13 , 3:25 , 5:30 , 7:11 , 7:12 , 7:15 , 7:19 , 7:38 , 7:39 , 7:44 , 7:45 , 13:17 , 
15:10 , 22:14 , 26:6 , 28:17 , 28:25).

We see that Paul was sent to nations and kings which was Israelites:

YLT Acts 9:15 And the Lord said unto him, 'Be going on, because a choice vessel 
to Me is this one, to bear My name before nations and kings -- THE SONS ALSO 
OF ISRAEL;

Remember Israel was to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex 19:6).

This is why Paul writes to the saints at Rome and says they are fleshly 
descendants of Abraham Rom 4:1). That why when speaking to the same people, 
he referred to Isaac as "our father (Rom 9:10)." That's why when he wrote to the 
Corinthians, he refers to their fathers as the Israelites that came out of Egypt (1 
Cor 10:1-4). That's why when explaining to the Romans whom, other than the 
Jews, God was calling, he said "of the "gentiles" also (Rom 9:24)." And then he 
quoted Hosea to show what prophecy these people were fulfilling (Rom 9:25-26). 
That quotation from Hosea is Hos 1:9-10. And that passage is clear that the 
"gentiles" being called other than the Jews was Israel.

So Mr. Mowery, we're in agreement that the Gospel went to both Jews and 
"gentiles." We just differ as to who these "gentiles" are. They are Israelites!