Windham/Mowery Debate on Who is Subject to the Gospel

 
 
 Proposition: 
All accountable humans (both Jews and Gentiles) are subject 
to the new covenant.

Affirm:  Dub Mowery
Deny:  Brian Windham

Thank you Mr. Mowery for your 1st affirmative that all humans are subject to the 
New Covenant (NC).

I appreciate your definitions you've given, but I cannot agree with some of them. 
Please allow my correction and additional comments of your following 
statements:

"The phrase "all humans accountable" has reference to their ability to morally 
understand right from wrong, good and evil."

I must, humbly, disagree with the above. The only ones that can be held 
accountable are the ones that have been given what determines "good" and "evil."

What decides "good" and "evil?" God through His Law. The Law is "good" (Rom 
7:12). Therefore the breaking of the Law is "evil."

Mr. Mowery claims that all peoples on the globe are subject to the NC. This is in 
spite of the fact that the NC is twice stated, by God (Jer 31:31-33; Heb 8:8-10) to 
be with physical Israel (Emphasis in caps mine). This is made clear in both 
passages by the statement "Not according to the covenant that I MADE WITH 
THEIR FATHERS in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of 
the land of Egypt."

As one can easily see, the Israel that God is speaking of is physical Israel. This is 
made clear by the phrase "their fathers." This indicates a direct physical lineage 
from with whom God made the Old Covenant (OC).

And we know that God gave His Law only to the nation of Israel (Amos 3:1-2). 
Therefore, anyone not having the Law is not held accountable for breaking it 
because without Law there is no sin imputed (Rom 5:13).

Mr. Mowery says,
 
"The term "Gentiles" has reference to anyone who is not a descendant of Jacob."

I must totally disagree with this assessment. No where in all the Bible is the word 
"gentile(s)" defined as such. The Greek word "ethnos" and the Hebrew word 
"goy" are the primary words from which the English translators haphazardly 
translated into "gentile(s)."

The Hebrew word "goy" is defined by the TWOT as "nation(s)" or "people(s)." 
The Greek word "etnos" is defined by the Friberg Lexicon as "nations(s)" or 
"peoples." In my third affirmation, I went into detail as to how the Hebrew word 
"goy" and the Greek word "ethnos" is properly translated "nation(s). I gave verses 
from the NT quoting the OT with the English words "gentile(s)" and "nation(s)" 
used interchangeably. I showed how between versions, i.e., the KJV and the 
NASB these words were translated "gentile(s)" and "nation(s)" interchangeably.

I'll give another example of how the word is properly translated "nation(s)." 
Notice the following NT passage:

(Mat 4:14-16 KJV) "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the 
prophet, saying, {15} The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the 
way of the sea, beyond Jordan, GALILEE OF THE GENTILES; {16} The people 
which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and 
shadow of death light is sprung up."

We see that Matthew is giving a quote from Isaiah saying something was fulfilled. 
What was that something? Matthew had made it known in the previous two 
verses:

(Mat 4:12-13 KJV) "Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he 
departed into Galilee; {13} And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in 
Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and 
Nephthalim:"

We see that Jesus' going into Zabulon and Nephthalim was the fulfillment of this 
prophecy:

(Isa 9:1-2 KJV) "Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her 
vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of 
Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, 
beyond Jordan, in GALILEE OF THE NATIONS. {2} The people that walked in 
darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of 
death, upon them hath the light shined."

As you can see, by the words in caps in the two passages, the word's "nations" and 
"gentiles" are one and the same.

And if we look at the context of Isa 9:1-2, we can see that Isaiah is speaking of 
Israel. We need only go to the chapter just previous to it to find this out:

(Isa 8 KJV) {1} "Moreover the LORD said unto me...{4}...the spoil of Samaria 
shall be taken away before the king of Assyria...{7}...the Lord bringeth up upon 
them the waters of the river... {8} And he shall pass through Judah...{9}...give 
ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird 
yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces...{13}...the LORD ...{14}...shall 
be...for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence TO BOTH THE HOUSES 
OF ISRAEL, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem...{17}...the 
LORD...hideth his face from the house of Jacob...{22}...and they shall be driven 
to darkness."

As one can easily see, this is about the houses of Israel and how God was to drive 
them into darkness. Then beginning with the quoted passage in Isa 9:1, we see 
God saying that the affliction would not be like the affliction of Naphtali and 
Zebulun, but more severe and that affliction would be on the nations that were 
beyond Jordan, in the way of the sea and Galilee. And the Light, which was to be 
Jesus Christ, would go to them.

Think about it please! Jesus abided in Galilee (Mat 2:23; 21:11; John 18:4-7)! All 
of His Apostles were Israelites. Almost all of His apostles were from Galilee. This 
was one of the places Christ was to shine.

The gist of the above is that the English word "gentiles" simply means "nations." 
And we know that the offspring of Abraham was to be a nation of a company of 
nations (Gen 35:11). To say that the word "gentile(s)" means non-Israelites is to 
say something the Bible doesn't say.

Mr. Mowery states, 
"...The name Israel...was given...to all believers in Christ (Rom. 9:6)."

I must again object to Mr. Mowery's supposition. I say that the Scripture Mr. 
Mowery gives to support his hypothesis says nothing of the kind. I pray you will 
bear with me as we analyze this verse within its context. Let's begin with Rom 9:3 
and see if we can ascertain to whom Paul is speaking about in v. 6.

In v. 3, Paul says he would give up his place for his fleshly kinsmen who are 
through Jacob or Israel. In v.v. 4-5, he says because they too, like he are Israelites. 
And it's to Israel that the promises and the covenants belong. How can one read 
these verses and not believe what Paul is saying here? He's telling us, point blank, 
that the promises and covenants are to fleshly, physical Israel. In v. 6, Paul says, 
but this doesn't mean the Scripture is wrong because some Israelites don't make it. 
The reason being is not all Israelites who descended from Jacob are considered 
Israel.

Is Paul saying that non-Israelites are now a part of the covenants and promises? 
There's no mention of such in these verses. He's simply saying there are some 
descendants of Jacob that are not included in the chosen lineage. The Israelites 
through Judah who had a descendent through a Canaaniite, Shelah (Gen 38:2-5) 
are not considered Israel (Deut 7:1-3).

Then, in v. 7, He says neither are all descendants of Abraham considered the 
children of Israel. And then he shows who are. It's the descendents of Abraham 
through Isaac and then Jacob. There were descendents of Abraham, e.g., through 
his other sons like Ishmael that were not in this lineage. These people are not 
considered Israel. But the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and then the 12 
tribes excluding Shelah are considered Israel. And these are physical, fleshly 
Israelites.

In v. 8 Paul says, "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the 
children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Now 
on the surface, this verse taken alone might seem to be saying what Mr. Mowery 
contends. However, we must take this verse within the context it's intended.

We know that this verse is within the context of the previous verses touched upon 
above. Therefore we know that Paul is speaking about Israelites that are through 
the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, excluding Shelah and his descendants."

Paul explains what constitutes "children of the flesh" as opposed to "children of 
God" in his letter to the Galatians:

In Gal 4, beginning with v. 22, we find Paul saying that Abraham had two sons. 
One was by a "bond woman (Hagar)" and the other by a "free woman (Sarah)." In 
v. 23, he says the son (Ishmael) of the "bond woman" was after the flesh. He says 
the son (Isaac) of the "free woman" was after the promise. In v. 28 Paul says, they 
in Galatia are as Isaac being children of the promise and not of the flesh. This is 
further attested to by Peter:

(1 Pet 1:1 ASV) "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners 
of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,"

As you can see Peter is writing to the "Dispersion." As you can see some of the 
"Dispersion" are in Galatia where Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians The 
Dispersion are the Israelites that were dispersed by God into heathen nations. This 
is made clear by James:

(James 1:1 ASV) "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the 
twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion, greeting."

We can see from the above that James calls the Dispersion, "The Twelve Tribes." 
And who are the Twelve Tribes, but Israel (Mat 19:28; Rev 21:12)?

Therefore the children of the flesh are simply those descendants of Abraham that 
were not through the lineage of promise by God. They were products of fleshly 
desires and not of God's promises. And Paul couldn't be clearer that this is 
through the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Mr. Mowery says,

"Those in the New Testament, who are in covenant relationship with God, are 
called Israel...whether or not those obedient believers are physical descendents of 
Jacob."

While I understand this is Mr. Mowery's position, I have yet to see it proven. I 
know of no place within the Bible such a thing is stated. This supposition is, 
IMHO, a product of hearsay and has no solid foundation.

While Mr. Mowery gives Rom 2:28-29; 9:6-8 as "evidence" for this belief, he, if 
he's to apply those verses to his assumption, must overlook that the NC is stated, 
without doubt, to be with physical Israelites. This is made clear as I showed 
above. The NC is with the offspring of the fathers with whom the OC was made 
(Heb 8:8-10). It seems he must believe that Christ was mistaken when He said He 
was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel (Mat 15:24).

As I have explained Rom 9:6-8 above to be physical Israelites, I'll only deal with 
Rom 2:28-29 at this juncture. The passage says, "For he is not a Jew, which is one 
outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: {29} But he 
is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, 
and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

We must understand what is being spoken of in the context of this statement. Paul 
tells us when he says, in v. 29, "circumcision is that of the heart...and not in the 
letter." In v.v. 25-28, we see Paul saying that physical circumcision is of no 
Spiritual benefit if one breaks the Law.

What is going on here and Paul was addressing to both the "saints" in Rome and 
in Galatia (Gal 2-6) is the fact that the "Jews" or "Judahites", those of the House 
of Judah were saying the "Greeks" or "gentiles", if you will, were not justified 
until they had been physically circumcised.

And Paul was saying, in so many words, "hey guys, do you think that God's 
people, which you Jews or Judahites are, are made such by a physical outward 
sign? Don't you know that the physical sign was a type of the Spiritual sign of the 
circumcision of the heart, which comes from keeping the Law of God (Deut 
10:12-16) that God gave to your fathers at Sinai?"

No this is not about becoming a Spiritual Jew. It's about a Jew becoming 
Spiritually circumcised as opposed to being physically circumcised. This passage 
is to those of house of Judah that were implying their physical circumcision was 
what justified them and Paul is saying, it's not the physical circumcision that 
makes you a Judahite, the chosen of God, but the Spiritual circumcision of the 
heart of which the physical is only a type.

Mr. Mowery says,

"...In the new covenant, those two terms ("Israel" and "Jew(s)") are used 
symbolically to include all who are in covenant relations with God, regardless of 
their race.

I contend this is nothing more than conjecture and is not supported by the Bible. 
Mr. Mowery, if this is true why, when in the Acts of the Apostles, do the 
Apostles, when speaking to the "Greeks" or "gentiles", if you will, refer to the 
Patriarchs of Israel as "our fathers" (Acts 7:11,12,15,19,38-39, 44-45; 13:17; 
15:10; 22:14; 26:6; 28:17,25)?

Why does he say to the Romans that they are the descendants of Abraham 
ACCORDING TO THE FLESH (Rom 4:1)?

Why does he, when speaking to the Romans and referring to Abraham, call 
Abraham "OUR FATHER (Rom 4:12)?"

Why does he in writing to the Romans, when speaking of the Israelites say these 
are the fathers AS CONCERNING THE FLESH Christ came (Rom 9:4-5)?

Why does he, in his epistle to the Romans, refer to Isaac as "OUR FATHER 
(Rom 9:10)?"

Why does he when writing to the Corinthians refer to the Israelites that God 
brought out of Egypt as "OUR FATHERS (1 Cor 10:1)?"

Why is the NC with the people whose "FATHERS" were under the OC, who were 
Israelites (Heb 8:8-9)?

Why did James, when writing to the Twelve Tribes (James 1:1) refer to Abraham 
as OUR FATHER (James 2:21)?"

Where is the term "Spiritual Israel" ever used in the Bible?

Mr. Mowery quotes 1 Cor 12:13 to support his supposition that Christ came for 
everyone on the whole globe because it says, "by one Spirit are we all baptized 
into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free." 
However we see Paul saying these people's fathers were physical Israelites (1 Cor 
10:1).

And as God promised the Israelites, He divorced, one day they would be 
redeemed from their slavery and again be married to Him (Hosea 1:10) along with 
the Jews under one Head (Hosea 1:11) it is obvious that 1 Cor 12:13 is about this 
very thing. The "ethnos" of Israel was sold into captivity, but redeemed by Christ 
and rejoined with Judah under Christ. Therefore there is no more division in 
Israel. And regardless of whether an Israelite is free or a servant, they are simply 
Israelites and not divided into two houses anymore.

A note here. Mr. Mowery, in his last rebuttal, claimed that Hosea showed the 
House of Israel "ceasing." He used Hosea 1:4, which says, in the KJV, "...I 
will...cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel." However that verse does 
not say that the house of Israel will "cease." It says the kingdom of that house will 
"cease." If the House of Israel was to cease, how could God say they would 
continue to grow until they numbered as the sand of the sea (Hos 1:10)?

How could Hosea 1:10, as Mr. Mowery contends, be about non-Israelites when 
it's clear that God is speaking to the same "THEM" that He said "you're not my 
people" to? How could God say of this very thing, in Ezek 37:21-22, "I will take 
the children of Israel from among the heathen...I will make them one nation in the 
land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they 
shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any 
more at all?"

Btw, the Hebrew word from which "cease" was translated in Hosea 1:4 does not 
mean to "stop existing." It simply means "put away" and is so translated in Psalms 
119:119 (KJV). And we know that God put away Israel (Jer 3:8).

Mr. Mowery says,
 
"All mankind, beginning with Adam and Eve, who have reached the age of 
accountability, have sinned."

But if that's so, why are verses in the Bible, e.g., Rom 3:20 & 5:13, which say 
there's no sin imputed where there's no Law? Who, by Mr. Mowery's account 
wouldn't have the Law? And how does this coincide with the fact that God said 
He knew ONLY Israel and would punish her only for her sins (Amos 3:1-2)? 
Why does His Word say that He gave His Word, statutes and judgments to the 
NATION of Israel ONLY and has not done so with any other NATION (Psalms 
147:19-20)? Where is it mentioned that God gave His Law to anyone other than 
Israel? If God has not given His Law unto any other NATION, how could they 
sin?

Yes Adam did have the Law, but that lineage of Adam from which Israel and 
Christ sprang is the only people mentioned that had the Law. And that lineage 
spread the Law, but God did not give to any other nation of people. Else Psalms 
147:19-20 is wrong.

Mr. Mowery claims the Greek word "kosmos", which has been translated "world" 
in such verses as John 1:29 "has reference to the inhabitants of the earth, men, the 
human family."

I do not understand how this can be ascertained from the definition of "kosmos." 
Strong defines it simply as "orderly arrangement." As Paul said the Gospel had 
been taken to all the world and preached unto every creature under heaven (Col 
1:5-6, 23). And we know from the Bible's description of Paul's travels he didn't go 
into every nation on the globe.

It seems that "kosmos" can be used to indicate something other than the globe. 
We see it used in 1 Pet 3:3 as "adorning (KJV)." In John 12:19, the Pharisees said, 
concerning the people that came to Jesus after hearing of His raising of Lazarus 
from the dead, "the world (kosmos)" is gone after him (KJV)." James says the 
tongue is a "world (kosmos)" of iniquity (James 3:6). Can this apply to all peoples 
on the globe? I don't think so!

The word "kosmos" means "orderly arrangement" not "the world" in the sense of 
all people on the globe.

Mr. Mowery says,
 
"The human family began with Adam and Eve, not with Abraham and Sarah. 
If God selected one race to be eternally saved over all other nations then He would be a respecter of persons."

If Mr. Mowery truly believes that God's choosing one people over all the others is 
being a "respecter of persons" I wonder what he thinks God was in the OC when 
He chose Israel from all the nations on earth to be His people ABOVE all others 
(Ex 19:5). I won't go into it now, but the term "respecter of persons" doesn't have 
to do with God choosing one people over all the others. It has to do with God 
respecting one persons sacrifice or way of worshipping Him on the same level as 
someone else who worships Him differently. A case in point would be the 
Judahite Israelites saying "justification" comes from physical sacrifice and Paul's 
preaching "justification" comes from the faith of Christ. There is one way to God 
(Col 3:25).

Mr. Mowery uses Acts 10:9-17 to say that God chooses "races" other than Israel. 
The only person mentioned in this passage is Cornelius (v. 17). Cornelius was a 
Roman. And when Paul wrote to the Romans he said they were physical 
descendants of Abraham (Rom 4:1). There is no mention of any race in this 
passage. While Israel was of one race of people, they weren't in and of themselves 
a race. Abraham and Isaac were of the same race as Israel, but were not Israelites.

The dream Peter had was to depict one thing. That was whatever God had 
cleansed, he should not call common (Acts 10:15). And we know that Israel had 
been considered uncircumcised after her divorce from God (Jer 9:26). And we 
know that God said He would gather her again with Judah (Hos 1:10-11). And we 
know that Christ was sent only to Israel (Mat 15:24). And we know Cornelius was 
a Roman (Acts 10:1). And we know that Paul called the Romans, he wrote to, 
physical children of Abraham (Rom 4:1). Therefore Cornelius was one of the 
redeemed of the "lost" House of Israel.

Mr. Mowery, you say,
 "...in every nation those who fear (reverence) Him and works righteousness is 
accepted by Him. The term righteousness has reference to God's standard of right 
in contrast to that which is sinful (Rom. 10:1-3)."

Another way of putting this is God's Law determines what's right or righteous 
(Psalms 119:172). And since God only gave His Law to Israel (Psalms 147:19-20) 
only Israel can work righteousness.

Mr. Mowery uses the promises God gave Abraham (Gen 12:3; 22:15-18; 28:10-
15) as "evidence" that all nations on the globe are included in the NC. He rightly 
states that all nations would be blessed through Abraham's seed, but this is not the 
same as being included in the NC. The very fact that the nations would be blessed 
THROUGH Abraham's seed shows that all nations weren't the same as Abraham's 
seed. It was through the making of Abraham's seed a nation of a company of 
nations and above all peoples that these other peoples were blessed.

With this notion Mr. Mowery uses Gal 3:16 to say that the seed that is Abraham's 
is Christ. But is that what's really said in that verse? Let's look at it please!

(Gal 3:16 KJV) "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith 
not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

We see that the promises were made to Abraham and his seed. And we find out 
that Abraham's seed was to be as the dust of the earth (Gen 13:16) and the stars of 
heaven (Gen 15:5; 22:17; 26:4) . God said in those promises that He would 
establish a covenant with Abraham's seed (Gen 17:7). Would Christ fit the 
description of those verses? I don't think so.

So what does Gal 3:16 mean? To understand that verse you must understand that 
the "Jews" (Judahites) were insisting that the "Greeks" (redeemed House of Israel) 
be physically circumcised for justification (Gal 2:3; 5:2-6; 6:12-15). This act was 
a sacrificial work that was required under the OC. It was a work of the law of 
works (Rom 3:27) that had been added to God's Law in the OC (Gal 3:19). 
However these acts had been replaced in the NC through Christ. And It was 
through the Faith of Christ that these formerly "lost" Israelites had been redeemed 
or made right (Gal 2:16).

So there was a rift between the two factions as to what was necessary to be 
justified. Paul was saying there was only one way to be justified and that was 
through Christ. He's saying there's not two ways to God. He's saying God made 
the promise to Abraham and his seed not "seeds" as if there's two different ways 
to God. One being the way of the works of the law (Judahites or Jews) and the 
other through the faith of Christ (Paul or Greeks). Yes the word "seed" is singular 
in Gal 3:16. However when speaking of Abraham's seed being as the dust of the 
earth and the stars of heaven, the word "seed" is singular also. He's not saying that 
Christ is the seed of Abraham to whom the promises were made. He saying that 
seed to whom the promises are made is Christ's seed. He was making it clear that 
it wasn't through the work of the law, i.e., circumcision that justification came. It 
is through Christ.

Mr. Mowery quotes Gal 3:26-29 to say,
"Paul then reveals how those of all nations and families of the earth can be 
blessed through Abraham's seed Jesus Christ."

But we must understand that Paul is speaking to those people at Galatia and not to 
the entire globe. He's reiterating what he said earlier. That those people were 
justified to God through the Faith of Christ (v. 26) and not sacrificial works, e.g., 
physical circumcision. And that what is required to claim that justification is 
baptism into Christ (v. 27). And as this is the redeeming of the formerly lost 
House of Israel or the Greeks, if you will, there is no more divisions in Israel. 
There is no more Jew Israelite or Greek Israelites! And as the lost Israelites had 
been redeemed from the bondage of sin, there is no more free Israelite in contrast 
to Israelites in bondage. And there is no division of Israel in any other way, e.g., 
male and female. There is just Israel. And this is in accordance with the NC as 
laid out in Heb. 8:8-10 where the covenant is with both houses (v. 8) and then 
"after those days" (after the redemption of Israel) it is with the House of Israel 
ONLY. Therefore this is in accordance with what Paul said. There is no more 
divisions in Israel fulfilling God's prophecy:

(Ezek 37:22 KJV) "And I will make them one nation in the land upon the 
mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no 
more two nations, NEITHER SHALL THEY BE DIVIDED INTO TWO 
KINGDOMS ANY MORE AT ALL:"

Mr. Mowery says,
 
 "We can be thankful that God is not a respecter of persons and therefore provides 
the means of redemption for all who are accountable."

Mr. Mowery, I agree that all who are accountable were redeemed. And that is 
Israel. God does not need to redeem people He's never had a covenant with. He 
need only to make a covenant with them as He did Israel in Ex 19:5-8. To redeem 
something means to buy it back. Only Israel was sold and only Israel can be 
redeemed. And in Galatians, which you were using to support your supposition, 
we find who was redeemed:

(Gal 4:4-5 KJV) "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his 
Son, made of a woman, made under the law, {5} TO REDEEM THEM THAT 
WERE UNDER THE LAW, that we might receive the adoption of sons."

Mr. Mowery, do you think non-Israelites were under the Law?