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

I appreciate the opportunity to have had a part in this debate with Mr. Brian 
Windham. In personal contact with him, I suggested that we refer to one another 
on a first name bases rather than being more formal with a “Mr.” before our 
surnames. However, it was the choice of each one of us to address the other as we 
have done. I do appreciate Brian’s input in this discussion.

With this last post for me in this debate, I am confident that the truth that all races 
of humanity are subject to the new covenant has been upheld in my presentations. 
At the same time, I realize that others could have been more effective in 
presenting this truth.

Brian and I should have limited our responses (affirmatives and rebuttals) to 
3,000 words. Both of us went well beyond that amount in some of our posts. 

In my second affirmative, I stated, “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).”

Brian responded: 
”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.”

Dub here:
 Brian, re-read my statement! I had reference to the old covenant in respect to 
entering into covenant relationship with God by physical birth. The new birth 
under the new covenant is spiritual in nature rather than physical.

Brian continued: 
”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.’”

Dub here:
Brian, the truth of the matter is that under the old covenant a person was born 
physically into covenant relationship with God and then taught about the Lord and 
their responsibility unto Him (Jer. 31:33-34). Under the new covenant a person is 
first taught about God and what is essential in the new birth (a spiritual birth, John 
3:5; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Brian inquired: 
”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?”

Dub here:
I am glad that you asked those two questions. God chose Abraham, Isaac, Jacob 
and the direct descendants of Jacob to full fill His means of redeeming mankind 
through Jesus Christ (Gen. 12:1-3; 22:15-18; 28:10-15; Gal. 3:16). The old 
covenant’s weakness was in the individuals who lived under it. Its weakness was 
not on God’s part, but rather in the weakness of the flesh of man (Heb. 7:18-19; 
8:6-7; 9:12-15).

Brian attempts to prove that specific inspired letters were only for Israelite 
Christians. Several passages in the New Testament emphasize that principles 
applying to one congregation applies to all congregations of the Lord’s church 
(First Cor. 4:17; 7:17; 16:1-2; Col. 4:16, etc.). Whether or not a congregation was 
made-up primarily of descendants of Jacob or of Gentiles, or a mixture of the two, 
the same principles applies to all.

The Great Commission reveals that the gospel of Christ is to be extended unto the 
entire human race (that is those who have the mental capacity to understand the 
inspired Word of God). Matt. 28:18-20 places emphasis upon reaching all nations, 
and Mark 16:15-16 stresses the need to teach every person in the world the gospel 
of Christ. 

Brian quotes me and then comments: 
”Mr. Mowery says, ‘The Lord, in speaking to Abram (Abraham), said, ‘…in thee 
shall all families of the earth be blessed’ (Gen. 12:3).” Brian then comments, “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?”

Dub here:
Brian fails to appreciate that the Apostle Paul clarifies the specific seed 
(offspring) in which all families of the earth will be blessed. At Gen. 22:18, in 
referring to the seed of Abraham in which all nations would be blessed, the 
scripture states, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 
because thou hast obeyed my voice.” The Hebrew word “zera”, meaning 
offspring, is translated as “seed” in that passage. Concerning this promise given to 
Abraham, the Apostle Paul uses the Greek word “sperma”, which means 
offspring, to refer to Christ. That passage states: “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” (Gal. 3:16). This inspired passage clarifies that 
Jesus Christ is the specific offspring of Abraham in which all nations would be 
blessed, not the nation of Israel. Brian, you will have to dispute with the Apostle 
Paul instead of me concerning the offspring in which those of all nations would be 
blessed.

Brian denies that the Greek word “kosmos” carries the definition of the 
inhabitants of the earth, the human family. In quoting me, he states, “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).” Brian further states, “The word ‘kosmos’ means ‘orderly 
arrangement’ not ‘the world’ in the sense of all people on the globe.”

Naturally Brian is forced to exclude one of the definitions of the Greek word 
“kosmos” that means the inhabitants of the earth, the human family. It would 
disprove his attempt to limit the new covenant to the physical descendants of 
Jacob. Strong’s Concordance does include the inhabitants of the earth in the 
definition of “kosmos.” Thayer’s Greek lexicon includes eight different 
definitions of “kosmos.” One of its definitions is the inhabitants of the earth, men, 
the human family. The text in which it is used determines which of the eight 
definitions is intended. It would not make sense to understand “kosmos” in John 
1:29 to mean the physical universe. That passage states, “The next day John seeth 
Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away 
the sin of the world.” Nor would it make sense to understand the term “world” in 
John 3:16 to mean the physical universe. That passage states, “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.” In referring to the physical world, the 
inspired Word of God warns us to love not the world or the things therein. After 
all, the physical world will be burned up (I John 2:15-17; 2 Pet. 3:10). The truth 
of the matter is that the Son of God died for the entire human race.

Brian speaks of the physical kingdom of Israel being restored. As to whether or 
not the physical kingdom of Israel will be restored does not pertain to the present 
proposition. However, Brian, if you would like to discuss that subject in another 
debate then I would be glad to oblige you.

Nevertheless, as to whether or not physical Israel will be restored as a distinct 
nation has been included in our present discussion. Moses spoke unto the nation 
of Israel, before it was divided in the days of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12), that God 
would bless them if they would obey His commands given unto them by Moses. 
But if they disobeyed those commandments they would be cursed and driven off 
of the land in which He had given them (Deut. 28-29). However, the Lord made a 
conditional promise unto the Israelites that He would re-unite them after their 
dispersion “unto the outmost parts of heaven” (Deut. 30:4). Notice, that I said the 
Lord made a conditional promise unto the Israelites. That condition as declared by 
Moses is as follows: “If thou shalt hearken, unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to 
keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in the book of the law, 
and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul” 
(Deut. 30:10). The condition was that they keep the law of God given by Moses 
(Read carefully Deut. 30:1-10). Those, as a whole, who had made-up the northern 
kingdom of Israel failed to keep the Mosaic Law. Many of them worshipped 
idols. Their time for meeting this condition has run out because the old covenant 
has been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14-17; Eph. 2:14-16). However, the southern 
kingdom of Judah, as a whole, met the condition and was restored to their 
homeland after the Babylonian captivity. Nehemiah, who lead some of those who 
had been of the southern kingdom of Judah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, said 
unto God, prior to that, “We have dealt very corruptly against thee, and have not 
kept the commandments, nor the statutes, nor the judgments, which thou 
commandedst thy servant Moses. Remember, I beseech thee, the word that thou 
commandest thy servant Moses, saying, If ye transgress, I will scatter you abroad 
among the nations: But if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do 
them; though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, yet 
will I gather them from thence, and will bring them unto the place that I have 
chosen to set my name there. Now these are thy servants and thy people, whom 
thou hast redeemed by thy great power, and by thy strong hand” (Jer. 1:7-10). 

Brian refers to such passages of scripture as Jeremiah 3:14-18 and Ezekiel 37:19-
28 as proof texts that the southern kingdom of Judah and the northern kingdom of 
Israel would be re-united. However, that promise was conditional the same as the 
passages mentioned in the above paragraph. In fact, Brian includes the condition 
as follows: “Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto 
you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to 
Zion: And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you 
with knowledge and understanding” (Jer. 3:14-15). Also, the two previous verses 
of 12 and 13, which were not mentioned by him, places emphasis upon returning 
unto the Lord by hearing His voice (His commandments). Since the Mosaic Law 
has been nailed to the cross, Israelites cannot meet that condition for the divided 
kingdom to be brought back together again. 

Brian failed to discredit the truth taught at Hosea 1:1-11 that the northern 
kingdom of Israel would never return to the land given to their forefathers and be 
re-united with the southern kingdom of Judah. My comments are reiterated as 
follows: 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.” Both the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter quoted the latter part 
of the tenth verse of the first chapter of Hosea and applied it to Gentiles becoming 
sons of God with Jews. The Apostle Paul could not be referring to the 
descendants of those who had made-up the northern kingdom of Israel, but rather 
to those who were not physical descendants of Jacob. He wrote, “Even us, whom 
he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in 
Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, 
which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was 
said unto them, ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the 
living God. (Rom. 9:24-26). Also, Peter made the same application. “But ye are a 
chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye 
should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his 
marvelous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of 
God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy” (1 Pet. 2:9-
10). Brian’s conclusion that those addressed by the Apostle Peter in his epistle of 
First Peter has to be only those who are fleshly descendants of Jacob has not been 
proven by him. Those addressed were located throughout Pontus, Galatia, 
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. These localities were where both descendants of 
Jacob and other races were converted to Christ. The converts were strangers and 
pilgrims in the sense that this physical world is not their permanent home (I Pet. 
2:11).

Brian quotes me in referring to those who were not Israelites by race: 
However, they were allowed to become proselytes to that law provided that they 
submitted to specific commandments regulating this matter.” 
Brian then responds by saying, 
”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 strangers’ they allowed there.”

Dub here:
 The strangers among them were foreigners, sometimes translated as aliens or 
sojourners. Their keeping of the Mosaic Law was not of none consequential 
matters. Those of other races were allowed to partake of the Passover if they had 
been circumcised. “And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the 
passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near 
and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised 
person shall eat thereof” (Ex. 12:48). These circumcised foreigners were allowed 
to offer sacrifices unto God (Lev. 17:8).

Brian commits on the term proselyte found in the New Testament: 
”The proselytes in the NT were proselytes to the ‘none effect of God’s Law 
religion’ of the Jews (Matt. 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 people as being ‘under the Law’, this would be no 
means include all peoples as being on the earth. Therefore Christ didn’t die for 
them according to Gal. 4:5.”

Dub here:
Brian’s statement about proselytes being subject to “none effect of God’s Law 
religion” does not make sense! The passages that he gave above had to do with 
prohibiting perversion of the Mosaic Law. If proselytes were held responsible for 
violating the Mosaic Law by adding traditions then they were subject to that Law. 
I ask Brian, is the keeping of the Passover and offering sacrifice unto God “none 
effect of God’s Law religion”? Was being circumcised “none effect of God’s Law 
religion”? Your approach to the matter of strangers/proselytes observing 
ordinances of the Mosaic Law is illogical. 

At least Brian seems to be backing up a bit, when he said, 
“Even if it included these people as being ‘under the Law’, this would by no 
means include all peoples being ‘under the Law’, this would by no means include 
all peoples as being on the earth. ”

Dub here:
Of course, I never claimed that all people of the earth lived under the Mosaic 
Law. However, this is a far cry from saying that no one who was not a physical 
descendent of Jacob did not live under it. Even those of other nations who did not 
live under the old covenant were subject under law unto God. The statements 
concerning this matter in my second affirmative proved that. Here is what I said 
concerning this matter. The theory that only the physical descendent of Jacob are 
under law to God is foreign to what is actually taught in the scriptures. During the 
antediluvian period, the scripture reveals, “And God saw that the wickedness of 
man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart 
was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). As a result of their wickedness, the human 
race at the time of the flood, except Noah and his family were destroyed. “And 
spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of 
righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;” (2 Pet. 2:5). 
Also, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were so ungodly that the inhabitants 
thereof practiced homosexuality. “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha 
into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto 
those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy 
conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in 
seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful 
deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to 
reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:” (2 Pet. 2:6-9). Notice 
that in that passage it speaks of “their unlawful deeds.” This reveals that the 
inhabitants of those two cities were under law to God. The scripture further states 
concerning them, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in 
like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, 
are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7). Not 
only were their physical lives consumed by fire from heaven, but they suffer with 
the eternal fire of Gehenna. Concerning Herod the tetrarch, he had married the 
wife of his brother Philip. John the Baptist told Herod that, “it is not lawful for 
thee to have her.” (Matt. 14:1-4; Mark 6:17). He was subject to the moral law of 
God in respect to marriage. 

There has never been a time that mankind was without law unto God. If men were 
not under some kind of a law to God, they would not be sinners. Sin is 
transgression of God’s law (I John 3:4), so “where there is no law, neither is there 
transgression” (Rom. 4:15). The scripture states, “sin is not imputed when there is 
no law” (Rom. 4:15). The very fact that all men sin reveals that he has been under 
some kind of law to God since the beginning of time. In addition to the examples 
above, others beside the nation of Israel was under some kind of law unto God. 
Pharaoh and Egypt were under some kind of law from God (Gen. 12:10-20). 
Abimelech and the Philistines also were under law to God (Gen. 20:1-20). 
Melchizedek and Salem were under some kind of law before God (Gen. 14:18-
20). Jethro and the Midianites were under law unto God (Exo. 3:1). These should 
suffice to prove that the entire human race has always been subject to law from 
God. 

 Now, we shall look at the "two-fold" promise of God to Abraham, BC. 1921 
(Gen. 12:1-3). The natural promise pointed to Sinai and the giving of the Old 
Covenant, while the spiritual promise pointed to Christ. The physical promise to 
make of Abraham "a great nation" was fulfilled at Sinai, when the law of Moses 
was given and the Hebrew kingdom was perfected (Exod. 19:3-6); Mal. 4:4). The 
subsequent promise predicated upon this -- to give him the land of Canaan for a 
possession, was fulfilled when Israel entered Canaan (Gen. 15:17-21; Josh. 1:11). 
The spiritual promise, that is, that in Abraham "shall all the families of the earth 
be blessed," refers to the Christ, and was fulfilled when individuals of all nations 
shared alike the Gospel blessings. Note the chart below: (1) FIRST PROMISE: "I 
will make of thee a --> FULLFILLMENT: (Exod. 19, 20) great nation (Gen. 12:2) 
SINAI (Hebrew Nation 1491 B.C. Palestine (Gen. 13:15; 17:5; 50:24; Exo. 33:1; 
Acts 7:4-5) THIRTEEN TRIBES 

Asher, Gad, Zebulun, 

Issachar, Levi, Simeon, Reuben, Benjamin, Joseph, Napthali, Dan, Manasseh, 
Judah (Gen. 17:21; Gen. 28:2-4) ISAAC AND JACOB (Rom. 9:7-8; Mat. 1:2) (2) 
SECOND PROMISE: "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 
12:3; compare Rom. 9:3-13; Gal. 3:15-17).

(Heb. 7:14; Gen. 49:10) DAVID (Psa. 132:1; Rom. 1:3; Fulfillment of Matt. 1:2, 
17; 22:42) Gen. 12:3

CHRIST

(Gal. 3:15-17) It has been my pleasure and honor to have had a part in this all 
important subject. 

Dub Mowery