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

Brian states in his third affirmative: 
“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.”

 
Dub here:
I am well aware of whom the name “Jew” was originally given. The descendants 
of the southern kingdom of Judah, that had existed prior to their Babylonian 
captivity and the Assyrian captivity of the northern kingdom of Israel, were 
primarily the only Israelites that still existed in the first century A. D. (Hosea 1:1-
11). The prophet Hosea revealed that Judea would be restored, but the ten tribes 
of Israel would lose their identity. In reading Hosea 1:1-11, we learn in verses 1 to 
3 that Hosea describes by a parable the whoredom of Israel. At verses 4 and 5 he 
states that God would “cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.” And 
then in verse 6 he declares that God would “no more have mercy upon the house 
of Israel” but would “utterly take them away.” In verse 9 God said to Israel, “ye 
are not my people, and I will not be your God.” And at verses 10 and 11, the 
prophet reveals that after the captivities physical Israel would be no more. And 
that God would have mercy on Judah, but not on Israel. The people remaining 
after the return from captivity would be united as Judah and their king would be 
God. In the place of physical Israel there would be spiritual Israel. The scripture 
states, “Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, 
which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the 
place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said 
unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” Note that in the place of physical 
Israel that the previous verses said: “cause to cease the kingdom of the house of 
Israel,” that God would “no more have mercy upon the house of Israel,” that He 
would “utterly take them away,” and “ye are not my people, and I will not be your 
God” there would be a Israel made up of those in whom it was “said unto them, 
Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the 
living God.” 

Brian further stated concerning the name “Jew”: 
“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.’”

 
Dub here:
Brian, again in all due respect to you, you are misapplying scripture in order to 
uphold your unfounded doctrine that the gospel of Christ was for only the 
physical descendants of Jacob. The old expression: “What proves too much 
proves nothing at all” comes to my mind. The Apostle Paul did not say that in his 
day there was no more “Jew.” The context was stating that in Christ there is no 
racial distinction, social distinction, nor gender distinction in respect to their 
spiritual status before the Lord. It was not referring to society at large. A parallel 
passage is I Cor. 12:13. That verse declares, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized 
into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and 
have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” That passage makes it plain that the 
means of redemption is the same for everyone. To take the words “neither Jews” 
to prove that Jews cease to be Jews when they obey the gospel of Christ is going 
beyond what the Apostle Paul was emphasizing in Galatians 3:28 and its context. 
To be consistent, you would have to contend that a person would cease being a 
Greek when he or she obeys the gospel. To be consistent, you would have to say 
that a person ceased being free or in bondage after obeying the gospel. And yet, 
we know that some who obeyed the gospel were still in bondage to their slave 
masters (the book of Philemon, Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4:1). To be consistent, you 
would have to say that when a person became a Christian that person ceased being 
a male or female. And yet, in the church, a person does not cease being of a 
particular gender. Specific instructions were given either to male or to female, to 
men or to women (Titus 2:1-6; also First Corinthians the 11th chapter). In reality, 
a person does not cease being of a particular race when he or she obeys the 
gospel. The Apostle Peter, as a Christian, did not cease being a Jew, and Gentiles 
did not cease being Gentiles after their conversion (Gal. 2:11-16). 

Brian went to great lengths to limit such terms as “all men” (Titus 2:11), “every 
man” (Heb. 2:9), “not willing that any should perish” (2 Pet. 3:9), “the power of 
God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom. 1:16), “to the Jew first, and 
also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16) to Israelites. 

He stated, 
”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.”

 
Dub here:
Brian, you are going to great length to discredit what is plainly taught in those 
passages. At John 3:16, the Son of God declared, “For God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not 
perish, but have everlasting life.” The word “world” as used in that passage is 
derived from the Greek word “Kosmos.” Joseph Thayer in his Greek lexicon 
includes a definition of this word as meaning the human family. Therefore, it is 
not limited to the Israelites, but rather to “whosoever believeth in him.” That 
believing has to do with an obedient faith. At Mark 16:15, the Words of Jesus are 
recorded as follows: “…Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every 
creature.” The term “world,” as used in this passage means to go unto all of the 
inhabitants (mankind) and “preach the gospel to every creature.” The emphasis 
upon “every creature” has reference to every human being that has the mental 
capacity to distinguish between what is morally right or wrong, good or evil. And 
at Acts 10:34-35, the Apostle Peter declared, “…Of a truth I perceive that God is 
no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh 
righteousness, is accepted with him.” However, for you to limit salvation to the 
physical Israelites would make God a respecter of persons. I was amazed to read 
Brian’s attempt to explain how salvation was limited unto fleshly Israelites. In 
referring to a statement made by me, he said, 

”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.”

 
Dub here:
Brian, you are not rightly dividing (handling aright) the Word of God in this 
matter. Certainly the Mosaic Law was not given unto any nation but the nation of 
Israel. However, even the Gentiles were under law unto God. In fact, all mankind 
have been under law to God from the beginning of time. Adam and Eve sinned in 
the sight of God and were driven out of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3). Mankind 
became so wicked that Jehovah God determined to destroy them from off the face 
of the earth (Gen. 6:5-8). Because the inhabitants of the cities of Sodom and 
Gomorrah became so wicked, the Lord destroyed them (Gen. 19). After the 
children of Israel entered into the promised land of Canaan, the inhabitants of the 
land were driven out or of it or destroyed because their abomination was so great 
(Deut. 9:1-5). Herod the tetrarch was under the moral law pertaining to marriage 
in that John the Baptist had said in reference to Herodias, “…It is not lawful for 
thee to have her” (Matt. 14:4). 

Dub Mowery