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

Note! Mr. Mowery, in his last affirmative has reused much Scripture to "support" 
his proposal that the NC is to all peoples on globe. I have rebutted all of these 
"reused" Scriptures. Mr. Mowery has yet to attempt a counter to this rebuttal. 
Therefore I am forced to "re-rebut" his claims via these same Scriptures. I am 
aware that this will make for a rather large rebuttal. I apologize for any 
inconvenience due to the size of my response, but I see no alternative, but to re-
counter Mr. Mowery's reusing of Scriptures.

Rather than counter my rebuttal point by point, Mr. Mowery, seemingly disposes 
of my entire effort with this one statement, "Brian's entire contention that only the 
physical descendants of Jacob are subject to the new covenant is based upon a 
false premise."

If what I have presented is simply based on false premise, I would think Mr. 
Mowery could go through each point, I made, explaining exactly how that is so, 
rather than just making a blanket statement to that effect.

Mr. Mowery says,
 
"In attempting to uphold that concept, he is compelled to explain away several 
passages of scripture which plainly teaches that the new covenant is not limited to 
physical Jews and Israelites."

I find this to be a rather interesting statement considering the fact that Mr. 
Mowery has attempted to explain away very clear Scriptures that show the NC to 
be only with physical Israel, Jesus being sent only to Israel, Jesus sending His 
disciples only to Israel, Paul's letters being only to Israelites, Paul explicitly 
saying the covenants are to Israelites according to the flesh and prophecies that 
clearly show physical Israel being redeemed and rejoined with the House of 
Judah.

Mr. Mowery states, 
"While the old covenant was in effect, a person born of one of the physical tribes 
of Israel entered into covenant relation with God. However, under the new 
covenant, only obedient believers are children of God (John 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:23).

I think much is revealed in Mr. Mowery's above statement. He admits that being a 
physical Israelite was a necessity for a covenant relationship with God. However, 
Mr. Mowery's statement implies that obedience to God was not necessary under 
the OC. However obedience to God's Law was the basis of the Covenant (Ex 
19:5-8). The very first Commandment required one to be, in Mr. Mowery's words 
of what's required to be a "child of God" under the NC, an "obedient believer." 
Why would God choose a people in the first place if He was eventually, as Mr. 
Mowery seems to imply, going to make a covenant with all peoples? Mr. 
Mowery, what was wrong with the OC? Why would a New Covenant be 
necessary?

Concerning the two verses Mr. Mowery has given as support for his statement, we 
see in the former Christ saying nothing of the NC being with anyone other than 
physical Israel. However in the same Gospel we see Christ saying that He was 
come for sheep and to bring them into the same fold as Judah so they might have 
one shepherd (John 10:16).

Mr. Mowery, who, other than Israelites is called "sheep" in the Bible (1 Kings 
12:17; 2 Chron 18:16; Jer 50:17)? And who other than Israel is prophesied to 
rejoin Judah under one Shepherd (Ezek 37:21-24)? If Christ said He came only 
for the lost sheep of Israel (Mat 15:24) and only Israel fits the definition of lost 
sheep and His lost sheep is to be joined together with Judah as prophesied for 
Israel, and Christ is speaking to an Israelite in John 3:5, why would Christ be 
talking about all peoples on earth?

As for Peter's statement in 1 Pet 1:23, it is very clear that Peter is speaking to the 
Diaspora (Dispersion):

(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,"

This is the same "Diaspora" that James identified as the twelve tribes:

(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."

Therefore what is said in this verse, that Mr. Mowery gives to support his 
supposition, can only apply to physical Israel. This is why we must consider to 
whom what is said. We cannot apply specifics universally and grasp the truth of 
the Scriptures.

Mr. Mowery says,
 
"There is not a stipulation under the new covenant that a person has to be of a 
particular race."

The NC is very clear that it is with physical Israel:

(Heb 8:8-10 KJV) "...saith the Lord...I will make a NEW COVENANT WITH 
THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH: {9} NOT 
ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR 
FATHERS...{10}...THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH 
THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL...I will be to them a God, and THEY SHALL BE TO 
ME A PEOPLE:"

Mr. Mowery do you see anyone other than physical Israel mentioned by God as to 
with whom He would make the NC? Tell me Mr. Mowery, if the NC was with all 
peoples, why would Israel be mentioned? Wouldn't all peoples include Israel?

According to Paul, to whom belonged the covenants?:

(Rom 9:3-4 KJV) "...MY KINSMEN ACCORDING TO THE FLESH: {4} WHO 
ARE ISRAELITES; TO WHOM PERTAINETH...THE COVENANTS..."

Mr. Mowery, do you see anyone other than flesh and blood Israelites that Paul 
says the covenants pertain? Where is there one Scripture that says the NC is with 
anyone other than physical Israel?

Mr. Mowery says,
 
"Romans 2:28-29 reveals that a person is not required to be a Jew outwardly or to 
have been circumcised of the flesh to become a spiritual child of God under the 
new covenant.

Of course I couldn't agree more with Mr. Mowery on this point. The NC does not 
require one to be a Jew or to be physically circumcised. It requires one to be a 
physical Israelite (Heb 8:8-10).

Mr. Mowery, would you please explain via Scripture just how one could be Jew 
any other way than "outwardly?"

Mr. Mowery says,
 
"A person's race is not the criteria in becoming a child of God, but rather a 
spiritual conversion. Each individual must obey from the heart (Rom. 6:17-18)."

This passage brings to mind several questions. Paul, speaking to those in Rome, 
says, "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." 
Mr. Mowery, since sin is the breaking of God's Law (1 John 3:4) and without the 
Law there is no sin (Rom 5:13) and since only Israel had the Law (Psalms 147:19-
20), how could these people be anyone but Israel since they sinned?

And since Paul stated that those to whom he was writing in Rome were physical 
descendants of Abraham (Rom 4:1), how can the people to whom Paul is 
directing Rom 6:17-18, be anyone but physical descendants of Abraham? And 
since Paul stated, in this same epistle that the covenants are with Israelites 
according to the flesh (Rom 9:3-4), how can these people Paul is addressing in 
this passage be anyone but Israelites?

Mr. Mowery says,
"The Lord, in speaking to Abram (Abraham), said, ".in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:3).

I fail to see how Mr. Mowery can use this and related passages to support his 
supposition. It would seem to me that this Scripture disproves his very hypothesis. 
If Israel is on a par with all nations, how could all nations be blessed through 
Israel? If Israel is on a even keel with all nations, why did God says He would 
raise Israel up ABOVE all other nations (Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18-19; 28:1; Ex 19:5-
60)? If Israel is no different than the other nations to God, why did He separate 
her from them (Lev 20:24-26; Ex 33:16)?

Mr. Mowery says,
"And in the New Testament, 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" (Acts 10:34-35)."

Again Mr. Mowery is applying universally a specific. He is, obviously, without 
considering what Peter said here within the context of the Bible. Because he sees 
the term "every nation" he obviously thinks that applies to every nation on the 
globe. But did Peter say every nation on the globe? I don't think so! If Peter were 
talking about the nations of Israel, would not the phrase "every nation" also 
apply? And what other nations would Peter think God meant here? Remember 
Peter and the other Apostles spent 3 1/2 years with the Greatest Teacher ever. So 
would it not stand to reason that Christ told them what nations His word was to go 
to? I would think so!

With that in mind consider the scenario laid out in Acts 1:4-6 when Christ, after 
His resurrection, appeared unto the Apostles. They asked Him, "Lord, wilt thou at 
this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" Mr. Mowery, do you doubt that 
after 3 1/2 years with the Master, these Apostles thought that Israel was to have 
her kingdom restored?

If Israel was to "cease", as in stop existing, as you seem to think Hosea 1:4 says, 
why wouldn't the Apostles know this after 3 1/2 years with Christ? And when 
asked this question, did Christ tell them, something to the effect, "No, Israel will 
never have her kingdom restored"? Of course He didn't. But He did say, "...ye 
shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be 
witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto 
the uttermost part of the earth (Acts 1:8)."

Mr. Mowery, since Christ did not correct the Apostles when they asked this 
question, but instead gave them a time and job to do, do you not find it 
conceivable that Christ was saying the kingdom would be restored to Israel at that 
time?

No the Apostles knew that Israel was to have her kingdom restored. In fact they 
knew they were to "judge" the twelve tribes of Israel (Mat 19:28). The restoration 
of the kingdom of Israel was common knowledge among even the Judahites 
(Jews). When Christ had told the Jews that they would seek Him and not find Him 
and where He was they couldn't come, they said to each other "...Whither is this 
one about to go that we shall not find him? -- to the dispersion of the Greeks is he 
about to go? and to teach the Greeks (YLT John 7:35)"

Yes the Jews knew the Diaspora (Dispersion) of Israel, known also as Greeks 
because of the language they spoke, existed and had been prophesied to be 
redeemed. And as Paul made it clear the offspring of Abraham was many 
"nations" (Rom 4:17-18), it is quite clear that the "every nation" phrase that Peter 
used in Acts 10:34 applied only to the nations of Israel.

Mr. Mowery continues to claim that Romans 9:6-8 is evidence that under "the 
new covenant it is not essential that a person be a physical Israelite to be in 
covenant fellowship with God."

I find this most amazing considering that in that passage we find Paul saying, "In 
Isaac shall thy seed be called (v. 7)." How much more evidence do we have 
before one believes that the Israelite lineage of Abraham through Isaac is very 
essential in being considered the seed of Abraham?

And leading up to that passage we have Paul saying, "...my kinsmen according to 
the flesh: who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth...the covenants... (Rom 9:3-4)".

Mr. Mowery, does Paul say that the covenants pertain to Israelites according to 
the flesh?

Mr. Mowery further states, concerning Rom 9:6-8, 
"The Apostle Paul states, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." He is 
plainly telling us that under the new covenant it is not essential for a person to be 
a physical descendant of Jacob in order to be an Israelite."

I find this statement to be a bit convoluted. If we're to believe Mr. Mowery's 
assertion that Paul's statement actually is saying that it's not "essential for a person 
to be a physical descendant of Jacob in order to be an Israelite", does it not seem 
that Paul should have said, "For they that are Israel are not all of Israel?" But it 
doesn't say that! It says all that is OF ISRAEL is not Israel. This means that not 
every physical offspring through Israel is not considered Israel.

Mr. Mowery says,
"Under the new covenant emphasis is upon spiritual Israel rather than physical 
Israel."

This is simply conjecture and is not supported by the Scriptures. There is no 
phrase "spiritual Israel" anywhere in the Bible. There is not even anything similar 
to that phrase. How would one become a spiritual lineage of a physical people? 
How is that accomplished? And why would anyone want to become spiritually 
what Israel physically was? Israel's sin got her divorced from God (Jer 3:8)! Who 
wants to be spiritually that?

Mr. Mowery gives Col 3:10-11 as "evidence" that "under the new covenant being 
a physical descendant of Jacob is not a required stipulation for a person to be a 
child of God."

This particular passage says nothing of any nations other than Jew or Greek. And 
we know that Jews are Israelites and as shown above in John 7:35 the "Greeks" 
were the "Diaspora" of Israel. In fact The Loew-Nida Lexicon defines the Greek 
word "Diaspora" as "the nation of Israel which had been scattered throughout the 
ancient world." And since Col 3:10-11 is speaking of the House of Judah (Jew) 
and the House of Israel (Greek) and Christ's DBR fulfilled prophesies, e.g., Hosea 
1:11, then this passage makes all the sense in the world because there is no more 
divisions of "Jew" Israelite and Greek Israelite. There is just Israelites of the 
House of Israel. There are no more divisions at all including those of 
circumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond, free, male, female or what have you.

There is, however, a NT passage that is very clear as to whom the adoption of 
sons of God belong:

(Rom 9:3-4 NASB) "...my kinsmen according to the flesh, {4} who are Israelites, 
to whom belongs the adoption as sons..."

Mr. Mowery, does the above passage not say that the adoption of sons belongs to 
Israelites according to the flesh?

Mr. Mowery uses Phil 3:3-9 to say it's not the flesh we're to trust in. I don't quite 
see the purpose of implying this. I am not saying that God is to be worshipped in 
the flesh. Paul is saying the flesh is not to be trusted. That's because as Paul said 
in the flesh is the law of sin which vies with the Law of God (Rom 7:25). This has 
nothing to do with whom the NC is with. It has to do with faith as opposed to 
"works" of the law, e.g., circumcision.

Mr. Mowery, again refers to Gal 3:16 as "proof" of his stand without countering 
what I had presented on this very point in my previous rebuttal. He seems to think 
that verse is saying that Abraham's seed is not his offspring through Isaac and 
Jacob, but Christ. But think about such a thought. Christ is an offspring through 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And Mr. Mowery would seemingly have us believe 
that because Paul says Abraham's seed was singular and not plural that it means 
Christ and not all those that were to be as the promises said, as numerous as the 
stars of heaven.

With all the Scriptures revealing the promises to Abraham and his seed, we're 
suddenly to believe that these promises were not to Abraham's seed that was to be 
innumerable (Gen 13:16;15:5; 22:17; 26:4; 28:3; 32:12; 35:11)? I mean all these 
promises in the OT Scriptures and the application of these promises in the NT 
(Rom 9:4; Luke 1:72; Acts 2:39; 3:25; 13:32; Eph 2:12) we're just supposed to 
believe that Paul not only has the right to contradict these Scriptures, but himself 
(Rom 9:4) as well? I don't think so!

Think about it! Who was it that made the promises to Abraham? It was God! And 
who was it that was with Israel? It was God! And who was this God? He is Christ 
(1 Cor 10:1-4). Are we to believe that God made the promises to Himself? As I 
showed, in my last rebuttal to this same conjecture of Mr. Mowery's, the seed in 
the verses of the promises is also singular. This singular seed was to become as 
innumerable as the stars of the heaven. Yet somehow all this is made null and 
void by one verse in Gal 3:16 which is taken to mean that God made the promise 
to Himself and not to Abraham's singular seed that was to be as innumerable as 
the dust of the earth? Such a thought has no Biblical backing.

What's being said, as I showed before, is there was a squabble going on between 
the "Jews", those of the circumcision, and Paul about what constituted 
justification (Gal 2:16). The Jews were saying it was through physical 
circumcision. Paul was saying it was through the Faith of Christ (Gal 2;16). In 
Gal 3:16 Paul is simply saying, in so many words, "hey guys, you are now no 
longer two groups. There's not two ways to God. There's not the physical 
circumcision way and the way through the Faith of Christ. There's only one way. 
You are now one people, undivided in any way as the prophecy foretold (Ezek 
37:22). Thus the promise is made to Abraham's offspring which is not divided and 
therefore one. After all the promises were to Abraham's seed, which is a singular 
people, not a divided people with each group having it's own way to God. God 
does not respect the differ ways a person wants to be justified. He only respects 
His way, which is Christ."

But somehow Mr. Mowery has taken this verse (Gal 3:16) and made it not be to 
Abraham's seed, but to everyone on the earth through Christ. Which is an 
impossibility because if everyone on the earth were heirs to the promise and thus 
Abraham's seed, who would be the nations of the earth to be blessed by 
Abraham's seed? In Gal 3:26-29 Paul is simply saying to these Galatians, not the 
entire globe, that they all are children of God justified via of Christ and not via 
physical circumcision. And he's also saying that they are the fulfillment of 
prophecies, e.g., Ezek 37:22 and they are divided no more AT ALL. There's no 
more Greek Israelite and Jew Israelite. There's just Israelite because they are now 
one again (Eph 2:14-15). There are no divisions in Israel anymore. There's no 
"bond" Israelite vs. free Israelite. There's no female Israelites vs. male Israelite. 
The Israelites are now ALL children of God through Christ.

Mr. Mowery says,
"Of course, a person who is the seed of Abraham both physically and spiritually is 
doubly honored."

I must wonder how Mr. Mowery can believe this when he obviously thinks God's 
choosing one people to bless over others is the respecting of persons.

Mr. Mowery says,
"The theory that only the physical descendent of Jacob are under law to God is 
foreign to what is actually taught in the scriptures."

The fact of the matter is what is foreign to the Scriptures is what Mr. Mowery is 
teaching. He must take plain and clear Scriptures, e.g., Mat 10:5-6; 15:24 & Heb 
8:8-10 and spiritualize them in order to even make a vain attempt to advocate his 
stand. How can the thought that the NC is with physical Israel be foreign to 
Scripture when Mr. Mowery has to spiritualize Israel, when the Scripture never 
mentions "spiritual Israel", to counter the thought?

Mr. Mowery, contrary to Psalms 147:19-20, uses the "wickedness" of "man" in 
the time of the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and Herod's sin to "prove" that God 
really didn't give His Law only to Israel as a nation because these people were 
sinners, to say the entire globe had the Law of God.

The Scripture doesn't say that God's Law didn't exist until the nation of Israel 
became reality. It says no nation other than Israel was given God's Law. However 
God did give His Law to the lineage that resulted in the nation of Israel. It was 
given to no other. However, this is another subject entirely and to do it justice 
must be a debate of it own. However, either Psalms 147:19-20 is true or it's not. 
And either Rom 5:13 has a purpose for existing or it doesn't. If all peoples have 
the Law, then there's can be no time when sin is not imputed. And if all peoples 
do not have the Law, then, those that don't, cannot sin.

Yes God's Law existed prior to Israel, but it was not given to any peoples other 
than the lineage given in Luke 3. And we know in the case of the flood that Noah, 
who was of this lineage, was of the same people that was flooded. The flood 
wasn't worldwide. It was local, but that's a subject for another day. We also know 
that it was the sons of God that was wicked in Noah's day (Gen 6:1-4). And in the 
case of Sodom, we know that this lineage was there also because of Lot and 
Abraham's wanting to spare those people. And in the case of Herod, we know he 
was the ruler over Israel and Israel was not to have a sinner ruling over it.

Mr. Mowery, in response to my question of whether he thought non-Israelites 
were under the Law, says, "No, Brian, the Mosaic Law was not given to non-
Israelites."

Then Mr. Mowery, when Paul said in Gal 4:5 that Christ died to redeem those 
under the Law, how could those not under the Law be in this number?

However to contradict this fact, he says, "However, they were allowed to become 
proselytes to that law provided that they submitted to specific commandments 
regulating this matter"

To "support" this supposition Mr. Mowery gives Ex 12:48-49; 20:10. However, 
these verses say nothing of proselytes. They speak of strangers. Israel was to be 
separate from all peoples, not to proselyte (Lev 20:24-26). Whatever Mr. Mowery 
thinks these "strangers" were, they were not under the Law of God in the sense of 
God giving them His Law. What these verses say is Israel was to enforce God's 
Law in their land even on "the stranger" they allowed there. The proselytes in the 
NT were proselytes to the "none effect of God's Law religion" of the Jews (Mat 
15:1-9; 23:15). This has nothing to do with whom God gave His Law. Even if it 
included these people as being "under the Law", this would by no means include 
all peoples on the earth. Therefore Christ didn't die for them according to Gal 4:5.

Mr. Mowery states,
"...the specific passages of Jer. 31:31-33 and Heb. 8:8-10 had reference to the 
physical descendants of Israel....This does not, however, prove that only Israelites 
are subject to the new covenant."

Mr. Mowery says this knowing that there are no other peoples mentioned in the 
these statements. He should know that if all peoples were included then the 
mentioning of Israel is in vain because they would be considered in "all peoples" 
would they not? He says this in spite of the fact Christ said He was sent ONLY to 
Israel (Mat 15:24). He says this in spite of the fact that Paul said the covenants 
were with Israelites according to the flesh (Rom 9:3-4).

And to seemingly counter these clear Scriptures, Mr. Mowery says,
 "The new covenant is the same as the New Testament."

While the words "covenant" and "testament" are the same in the sense the KJV 
translators translated the Greek word "diatheke" both "covenant" and "testament", 
this does not mean all the Scriptures that man has labeled as "The New 
Testament" is the actual New Covenant. All a covenant is, is an agreement 
between two parties. The OC was an agreement with Israel and God (Ex 19:5-8) 
and the NC is an agreement with Israel and God (Heb 8:8-10).

Mr. Mowery continues,
"There are also other terms that refer to the new covenant. These include: "the 
gospel of Christ" (Rom. 1:16) and "the faith" (Jude 3).

Mr. Mowery, the gospel of Christ was preached to the Israelites in the OT (Gal 
3:8; Heb 4:2). And the Law of God is faith (Psalms 119:138) and that is what was 
once delivered to the Israelites in the OT.

Mr. Mowery also says,
"The gospel of Christ, which is the new covenant, is to be preached to every 
creature (person) in the world (Mark 16:15-16). That is, every person who is 
capable of understanding God's standard of righteousness (Eph. 5:17)."

I have explained this in previous posts. We know that the Gospel was preached to 
all the world and every creature in Paul's day (Col 1:5-6, 23). We know from the 
Bible that Paul didn't go into all the known nations even then. This is another 
example of applying universally a specific. Christ was speaking of every nation of 
Israel that had been scattered and every creature that was called of those nations.

Mr. Mowery says,
"Certainly the old covenant was given specifically unto the nation of Israel. But 
this is not true concerning the new covenant."

If Christ died to redeem those under the Law (Gal 4:5) and only Israel had the 
Law (Psalms 147:19-20) and the NC is with Israel only (Heb 8:8-10) and Christ is 
sent to Israel only (Mat 15:24), then no one other than Israel could be included 
under the NC.

Mr. Mowery said, 
"Brian was not able to refute my comments on Hosea 1:1-11 in that he made an 
attempt of explaining away one phrase while ignoring the entirety of my exegesis 
of that passage."

While I made no attempt to address his entire presentation on this, I don't think 
just Mr. Mowery's just saying this proves that I didn't prove the point I intended to 
prove. It seems to me that it's Mr. Mowery that hasn't even attempted to show 
where I was wrong in what I said, not only about this passage, but about many 
other things.

Since Mr. Mowery has reiterated his supposition on Hosea 1, I will respond in 
detail.

Mr. Mowery says,
 "....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...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."

Of course what we have here is Mr. Mowery's commentary and not what's 
actually said in this passage.. Let's look at the passage and see if what Mr. 
Mowery says is true.

In Hosea 1:9 God says to Israel "for ye are not my people, and I will not be your 
God." In v. 10 we see God saying that even though He had divorced Israel and He 
was no longer her God, she would increase as the sand of the sea:

(Hosea 1:10 KJV) "Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of 
the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered..."

So who is being spoken of here? Physical Israel that would physically increase in 
number to the point they were innumerable. Then God says:

(Hosea 1:10 KJV) "...it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto 
them, Ye are not my people..."

Who is the "them" here? It is physical Israel!:

(Hosea 1:9-10 KJV) "Then said God...ye are not my people, and I will not be your 
God. {10} Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the 
sea..."

Then Hosea says:

(Hosea 1:10 KJV) "...it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living 
God."

Does anyone see a subject change here? Where in this verse does the subject of 
the pronoun "them" change? Where is the term "spiritual Israel" in all of the 
Bible, much less Hosea? Mr. Mowery is changing the rules of the English 
language. The pronoun "them" in Hosea 1:10 must modify physical Israel as no 
other subject has been introduced.

As I showed before, which Mr. Mowery has not countered, God did not say that 
physical Israel would cease to exist. He said the KINGDOM of physical Israel 
would cease:

(Hosea 1:4 KJV) "And the LORD said...I...will cause to cease THE KINGDOM 
of the house of Israel."

But Mr. Mowery seems to believe that God said Israel would cease to exist. Yet 
we know this simply is not true as God said:

(Hosea 1:10 KJV) "Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of 
the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered..."

Does this "sound" like Israel ceased to exist? Quite the contrary! It was the 
kingdom of Israel that ceased. That's why the Apostles, who had been taught by 
Christ for 3 1/2 years said:

(Acts 1:6 KJV) "...Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to 
Israel?"

If Israel ceased to exist, how could they even think the kingdom could be restored 
to Israel? And why didn't Christ say, "Hey guys, don't you know Israel doesn't 
exist anymore?"

The Apostles surely thought physical Israel, not only existed, but was to have the 
kingdom restored. Considering they were under the tutelage of the Great God in 
the flesh, and He didn't correct them, I would think they knew a bit about what 
they were saying.

We know, from Hosea that Israel was to exist without God:

(Hosea 3:4 KJV) "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, 
and without a prince..."

(Hosea 10:1-3 KJV) "Israel...{3}...shall say, We have no king, because we feared 
not the LORD..."

We also know, from Hosea, that these same physical Israelites would RETURN to 
God:

(Hosea 3:5 KJV) "Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the 
LORD their God...and shall fear the LORD..."

Mr. Mowery how could a "spiritual" Israel, whatever that is, RETURN to God 
when they've never TURNED to God in the first place?

Now Mr. Mowery has attempted to spiritualize Israel with no authority to do so. 
This was what I, in my opening affirmative, said was necessary to hold to his 
stand. But, Mr. Mowery, what do you do with all the many Scriptures that tell of 
this same returning of Israel back to God?

Below are just a few of them:

(Isa 11:11-12 KJV) "And it shall come to pass...that the Lord 
shall...{12}...ASSEMBLE THE OUTCASTS OF ISRAEL, AND GATHER 
TOGETHER THE DISPERSED OF JUDAH from the four corners of the earth."

(Jer 3:14-18 KJV) "Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD...{15} And I 
will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with 
knowledge and understanding. {16} And it shall come to pass, WHEN YE BE 
MULTIPLIED AND INCREASED IN THE LAND...{17} ...they shall call 
Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto 
it...{18} IN THOSE DAYS THE HOUSE OF JUDAH SHALL WALK WITH 
THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL..."

(Jer 30:3 NNAS) "'...declares the LORD...I WILL RESTORE THE FORTUNES 
OF MY PEOPLE ISRAEL AND JUDAH...I will also bring them back to the land 
that I gave to their forefathers and they shall possess it.'"

(Jer 31:1-10 KJV) "At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the 
families of Israel, and they shall be my people...{8} Behold, I will bring them 
from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth...{10} Hear 
the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, 
HE THAT SCATTERED ISRAEL WILL GATHER HIM, AND KEEP HIM, as a 
shepherd doth his flock."

(Ezek 37:19-28 KJV) "...Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I WILL TAKE...THE 
TRIBES OF ISRAEL...AND WILL PUT THEM...WITH THE STICK OF 
JUDAH, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. {20}...I 
WILL TAKE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL FROM AMONG THE HEATHEN, 
whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into 
their own land: {22} 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: {23}...so shall they 
be my people, and I will be their God. {24}...and they all shall have one shepherd: 
they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do 
them...{26} Moreover I WILL MAKE A COVENANT OF PEACE WITH 
THEM; IT SHALL BE AN EVERLASTING COVENANT..."

Mr. Mowery, how do you spiritualize all the above away?

Sincerely,

Brian