Longhenry/Billingsley Debate on The Sermon on the Mount

 
 
Proposition: 
The Scriptures teach that the "Sermon on the Mount," Matthew chapters 5 through 7, contains both Old and 
New Testament doctrine.
 
Affirm: Ethan R. Longhenry
Deny: Dan Billingsly

Hello to Dan and Religious Debates.
 
I hope this message finds everyone well.  It is my desire that this debate should go on smoothly and in a completely 
Christian character.
 
It is always proper to begin such a discussion by defining the terms of the proposition so that all will understand the 
issues under discussion.
 
"The Scriptures teach:" The Scriptures are to be recognized as the books represented commonly as the "Old 
Testament" (Genesis-Malachi) and the "New Testament" (Matthew-Revelation).  I am aware that Dan disagrees 
about the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as being a part of the "New" Testament, but I am defining the 
terms by common usage so it is understood that neither of us are referring to any apocryphal or deutero-canonical
books in this discussion.  "Teach" is a term to demonstrate that the contents of the Scripture demonstrate for us the 
following truth.
 
"'The Sermon on the Mount,' Matthew chapters 5 through 7:" The passage of Scripture in the Gospel of Matthew, 
described as the "Sermon on the Mount" due to the first two verses of the fifth chapter:
 
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into the mountain: and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him:  
and he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
 
Hence, the "Sermon on the Mount."  This sermon of Jesus ends with Matthew 7:28-29 with the following words:
 
And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching: for he 
taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.
 
Therefore, this discussion will focus on the words of Jesus found between Matthew 5:3 and Matthew 7:27.
 
"contains both Old Testament and New Testament doctrine:" Within the discussion we deem the "Sermon on the 
Mount" we shall find teachings that conform to the teachings given by Moses in the Law yet also teachings that 
conform to the message of the Apostles and others spoken after the death of Christ which we deem the "Gospel."
 
Having defined our terms, let us begin our discussion.

When we examine the Sermon on the Mount, we see clearly that a large portion of the discussion involves what I 
deem "universals:" patterns of behavior that ought to be true of all people who have followed the LORD God, those
under the Law of Moses and now those under the Kingdom of Christ.  The discussion of Christ in Matthew 5:3-16 and 
then from Matthew 6:1-7:27, to me, fit this description.  The teachings of Christ in these passages pertain equally to 
those under the Law of Moses as to those under the Kingdom of Christ.  Now, having said this, we see certain clues 
in portions of these discussions which point to a primarily Jewish audience, which is appropriate considering that it is 
the Jews to whom Christ is speaking to in this sermon, demonstrated by verses 1 and 2.  In Matthew 6:7 and 6:32 
Christ refers to the "Gentiles" and their actions, which are to be understood as separated from the Jews.  
Furthermore, Jesus speaks in Matthew 7:12 concerning the following:

All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the 
law and the prophets.
 
Jesus here is clearly explicating on the Law (and the Prophets), stating that what we deem the "Golden Rule" (all 
things that you would want a man to do to you, do that to him) is essentially the message of the Law and the 
Prophets.  This form of discussion, therefore, clearly refers to the Old Testament Law, a point at which both Dan and 
I agree.
 
Now, it is my contention that we see clearly in other parts of the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus is pointing to a 
higher ideal that goes beyond the Law and conforms to the new covenant created in His blood, that which we deem
the New Testament and the doctrines associated with it.  Let us first, however, examine the nature of the Law before 
we examine these portions of Jesus' sermon.
 
Moses spoke to the Israelites thus in Deuteronomy 4:1-2:
 
"And now, O Israel, hearken unto the statutes and unto the ordinances, which I teach you, to do them; that ye may 
live, and go in and possess the land which Jehovah, the God of your fathers, giveth you.  Ye shall not add unto the 
word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your 
God which I command you."
 
And again in Deuteronomy 12:32:
 
"What thing soever I command you, that shall ye observe to do: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
 
We see that these commands given through Moses are no small matter: in 1 Kings 12 and 13, we see that Jeroboam 
adds to the worship of the LORD God, and he is punished by having the kingdom of Israel taken away from his
family.  The Kingdom of Israel (and also the Kingdom of Judah) further add strange actions to their worship services, 
and this, along with their idolatry, led to God's vengeance: the former were taken into captivity, never to return, and 
the latter were exiled for a time.
 
Such errors are lamented by the prophets, as seen in Jeremiah 7:25-27:
 
Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day, I have sent unto you all my servants 
the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them: yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but 
made their neck stiff: they did worse than their fathers.  And thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will 
not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee.
 
This is also further seen in Ezekiel 44:6-10:
 
And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, "Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: O ye house of Israel, 
let it suffice you of all your abominations, in that ye have brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and 
uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to profane it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the 
blood, and they have broken my covenant, to add unto all your abominations.  And ye have not kept the charge of 
my holy things; but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves."  Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, 
"No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any foreigners
that are among the children of Israel. But the Levites that went far from me, when Israel went astray, that went astray 
from me after their idols, they shall bear their iniquity."

Therefore, we conclude from this short examination of the Law and the Prophets that it is evident that the LORD God 
did not look kindly upon any addition to or detraction from the Law given by angels to Moses, and that He sent the 
prophets to the Israelites to bring them back into the fold.  Therefore, if we accept that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
God, He would assuredly recognize that the Law is not to be taken away from or added to, and that the prophets had 
spent many years in toil attempting to bring Israel back to God.
 
This supposition, however, does not need to rest on mere logic, for Jesus has said the same in Matthew 5:17-18:
 
"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, 
Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be 
accomplished."
 
Therefore, it is evident that Jesus recognized the nature of the Law.  However, at this point in His discussion, He 
begins to comment on certain portions of the Law and then speaks about them, either to add thoughts to them or to 
speak to their contrary.  Let us examine these portions of the discussion.
 
It is said in Matthew 5:21-22:
 
"Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, 'Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of 
the judgment:' but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and 
whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall 
be in danger of the hell of fire."
 
We find the reference to that which Jesus speaks of in Exodus 20:13, that the Jews were not to kill (understood as 
murder).  Jesus is satisfied with this, yet He says that there is more: anyone who is angry with his brother is in danger 
of judgment.  Is there any Old Testament law that forbids being angry with one's brother?  We certainly see that they 
are to love their neighbor, and respect their property, but where specifically are any of the cases mentioned by Jesus 
condemned in the Law?   We read the following, however, under the New Testament, in 1 John 3:15:
 
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Does this statement by John not parallel precisely the statement by Jesus that anyone who hates his brother is in 
danger at the Judgment?

Jesus speaks further in Matthew 5:31-32:
 
"It was said also, 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:' but I say unto you, 
that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and 
whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery."
 
This statement is even more direct in being in opposition to the Law of Moses.  The statement Jesus is referring to is 
found in Deuteronomy 24:1, 3, and is used in Jeremiah 3:1 as explaining the relationship of Israel to the LORD God.  
So far nothing is seen in Jesus' statement that contradicts the Law specifically, until we read Deuteronomy 24:2:
 
And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
 
Moses says: If a woman is divorced by her husband, she may go out and be another man's wife.
Jesus says: I say unto you, anyone who puts away his wife makes her an adulteress, and anyone who marries her is 
an adulterer.
 
Are these statements in harmony?  By no means.  The statements of Moses and Jesus are in complete contradiction, 
and while certainly one could follow the message of Jesus and still be within the bounds of the Law of Moses, there 
are many who would follow the Law of Moses and divorce their wives and the latter would remarry who are 
condemned by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.  Since the words of Jesus would condemn some who would 
otherwise conform to the Law of Moses, Jesus cannot be giving "Old Testament doctrine" in verse 32 at all.  If He 
attempted to posit verse 32 as Old Testament doctrine, He would incur the wrath of God for adding to the Law which 
was given to Moses, as outlined in Deuteronomy 4:1-2.  If we accept Jesus as the Christ, therefore, we must 
recognize this verse as not being a part of the Law of Moses but as doctrine applicable to those within the Kingdom 
of Christ.
 
Regardless, we have more evidence in Matthew 5:33-37:
 
"Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the 
Lord thine oaths:  but I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the 
earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by
thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and 
whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one."
 
Jesus is referring to statements made in Leviticus 19:12, Numbers 30:2, and Deuteronomy 23:21, 23.  IF the Jews 
were to make an oath, it was required of them to fulfill them.  Jesus, however, says that they ought not make any
oath at all.  Again, surely a Jew could not make any oath and still be within the bounds of the Law of Moses, but, a 
Jew who made an oath is also within the bounds of the Law yet not approved here by Jesus.  Therefore, as we have 
seen above, we see again that either Jesus is incurring the wrath of God for adding to the Law of Moses or He is 
pointing to a truth that will mark His Kingdom.  Assuredly the latter is true, for we see the following words of James in 
James 5:12:
 
But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let 
your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment.

Again, does this statement not parallel with Jesus' words?  Where in the "Old Testament" doctrine do we find this 
position on oaths?  It is surely not present since oaths were allowed in the Law of Moses, yet Christ says to let "your 
yea be yea and your nay, nay," and this is confirmed by James in what is universally accepted as the New 
Testament.

Our final example is Matthew 5:38-42:
 
"Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, resist not him that is 
evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man would go to law with 
thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.  And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with 
him two.  Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."
 
Jesus here refers to the laws contained in Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:19-20, and Deuteronomy 19:21.  Here God 
commands the Israelites very specifically to render unto any man what he has done to another: an eye if an eye was 
lost, a tooth if a tooth was lost, etc.  But what does Jesus say? The exact opposite!  Do not harm anyone who has 
harmed you.  Instead, do well to them.  We read the following in Deuteronomy 19:21:
 
And thine eyes shall not pity; life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
 
God here specifically says to NOT have pity, as Jesus would have us. Is mercy against the Law?  By no means, yet 
one who would take an eye for an eye would not be justified in the sight of Jesus.  We read the following in Romans 
12:17-21:
 
Render to no man evil for evil. Take thought for things honorable in the sight of all men.  If it be possible, as much as 
in you lieth, be at peace with all men. Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is 
written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord.  But if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he 
thirst, give him to drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.  Be not overcome of evil, but 
overcome evil with good.
 
Does this sound like the message of God in Deuteronomy 19 or the message of Christ in Matthew 5?  The message 
of Paul and Christ stand together.  Can one not repay an eye for an eye but show mercy and be within the bounds of
the Law?  Assuredly.  However, it is evident that the teachings of Christ are not completely in harmony with the Law 
of Moses, and point to the new covenant inaugurated by His death and resurrection.
 
Therefore, it is evident that while Jesus is assuredly teaching many commandments of the Law and many doctrines 
which should be shared by all, it is also evident that many of the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are 
in opposition to the Law: Jesus teaches many times for those who listen to Him to rise above some of the properties 
of the Law. Although they would not go beyond the parameters of the Law, the teachings would condemn many who 
would not be condemned by the Law in those regards.  Therefore, can they be considered a part of the Law, or "Old 
Testament doctrine?" By no means; for if they were, Jesus is not the Christ but a fraud, one deservedly incurring the 
wrath of God for His hypocrisy by first claiming that the Law is not to pass away until all is fulfilled and to condemn 
anyone who annuls any commandment of the Law (Matthew 5:17-19), and then Himself adding to the Law and thus 
annuls portions of the Law Himself.  Jesus is teaching the truth of God that is established forever and the principles 
that will guide His disciples until His return, for His teachings that we have examined in this affirmative have much 
more to do with the teachings of the later Apostles and elders of the church than they do with the Law of Moses.
 
Therefore, it is evident that Jesus is teaching not only Old Testament doctrines in the Sermon on the Mount, but 
many New Testament doctrines also.
 
Ethan (ELDV)