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
 
Dan Billingsly, 1st Denial: I accept Ethan's definition of terms. At the same time, I look forward to answering and 
denying his arguments.  While I will offer straight-forward, hard-hitting and devastating scriptural answers as I defend 
and support the New Testament teaching of Christ, I will respond to Ethan's arguments with and in complete 
Christian behavior and character.
 
Ethan's "Universals"
 
From the beginning of his first affirmative, Ethan leaves the Scriptures and goes into what he refers to as 
"universals."  
Ethan states: 
"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 Scriptures do not mention "universals" in either the Old or New Testaments, therefore Ethan's argument is both 
unscriptural (not mentioned in the New Testament scriptures) and therefore false. Ethan has no scriptural argument. 
This debate is really over!
 
I am not interested in what Ethan (or anyone else thinks, believes, or dreams up), I intend to discuss what the 
Scriptures teach: what Christ revealed to the Holy Spirit, what the Holy Spirit revealed to the apostles, and what is 
found in "the apostles' doctrine" of "all" New Testament "truth" written in Acts 2 through Revelation 22.
 
It is clear from the Scriptures that "all" New Testament "truth" was revealed by Christ, the Holy Spirit and the apostles 
to the 1st century church of Christ in the New Testament of Acts 2 through Revelation 22. 
 
What Ethan must do to prove his proposition is to find at least one instance in MMLJBC where either Jesus, his 
disciples or the Scripture declare that he was teaching and/or revealing New Testament doctrine. However, there is 
not one example or instance in MMLJBC where Jesus or anyone else makes such a statement.
 
There is no New Testament doctrine of Christ revealed in the Old Testament of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- 
before the cross (MMLJBC). Christ declared more than 100 times in MMLJBC, (including many times in Matthew, 
chapters 5 through 7), that he was teaching only the Old Testament law of Moses to the "last" generation of Jews in 
old covenant Israel. The Old Testament Jewish disciples of Christ  declared several hundred times in MMLJBC that 
Jesus was teaching only the Old Testament law of Moses.
 
Not once in MMLJBC did Christ or any of his disciples ever state that he was teaching New Testament doctrine at 
any time, including the "sermon on the mount."
 
If a doctrine is not revealed by Christ, the Holy Spirit and preached by the apostles in Acts 2 through Revelation 22, it 
is not New Testament doctrine!
 
Ethan follows what every sectarian preacher and denomination does when it seeks to establish their doctrinal 
"creeds" and "traditions" on what they perceive to be "universal" doctrine in the Bible.  For example, they see that the 
"sabbath" was observed in the Patriarchal age, in the Mosaical age and what they perceive to be the New Testament 
age in MMLJBC. 

The Seventh Day Adventists see Christ and his Jewish disciples observing the Sabbath in the Old Testament age 
and doctrine of MMLJBC, and they conclude that Christians should observe the Sabbath in this New Testament age. 
They are wrong, wrong, wrong!
 
The Baptist denomination, as do all Calvinists, see the "universal"concept of "faith" demonstrated in every covenant 
and covenant age of the Bible, and they contend that man is saved from sin by "faith only" regardless of all other 
conditions for salvation revealed in each different covenant. This "universal" concept of non-covenant "faith" has led 
these people into another gross error described as the "universal" doctrine of "once saved always saved."  Both 
Ethan and the Baptists are wrong, wrong, wrong on all counts.
 
There is no "universal" doctrine that is included in every covenant and covenant age for all covenant people! Each 
covenant is separate, independent and different in doctrine, religious life and practice and in people to whom each 
covenant applies. Just as the Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists and Calvinists are in error, Ethan is in error in his 
"universals."
 
There simply are no divinely inspired doctrinal "universals" revealed in the Bible! Ethan's "universals" are his way of 
attempting to justify a doctrine which is not revealed or taught in the Scriptures -- especially the New Testament.
 
This debate may continue out of courtesy to all concerned, but Ethan has departed from the Scriptures with his 
"universals," he is traveling in a doctrinal wilderness and cannot prove his proposition by "universals" because 
"universals" are not mentioned or taught in the Scriptures by Christ, the Holy Spirit, apostles or 1st century church.
 
Christ Did Not Modify Or Change The Law Of Moses In MMLJBC
 
Ethan quotes numerous Old Testament passages about God's jealousy over his divine law given to Israel and 
warned against modifying the law of Moses (i.e., Deut. 4:1-2; 12:32; Jer. 7:25-27; Ezek. 44:6-10). Ethan contends 
that Christ observed and taught the same jealousy about "taking away from or adding to" the divinely inspired law of 
Moses (Matt. 5:17-18), but in the same breath Ethan speaks of Jesus teaching "higher ideals" than those ideals 
taught in the law of Moses. Ethan clearly has Jesus violating the Old Testament "will" of God, something that Jesus 
denied many time.
 
Contradicting Ethan, Jesus said, "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent 
me" (Jn. 6:38). And again, "...My doctrine is not mine, but his is sent me" (Jn. 7:16). In fact, Jesus made the same 
point some fifteen (15) times in the book of John alone.
 
As with most all sectarian thinking, Ethan has completely missed the meaning of Christ's Old Testament mission and 
work in Israel described in MMLJBC. When Jesus arrived in Israel to teach, fulfill and complete the Old Testament 
law of Moses (Matt. 5:17-18),  he was met by false teaching sectarian Jews with  almost 400 years of false rabbinical 
"traditions" or teaching about the law of Moses and a generation of Jews who knew little more about the old covenant 
"will of God" than these false rabbinical "traditions" (Matt. 15:1-14). 
 
Unfortunately, Ethan has fallen into the same doctrinal trap as the denominational world in interpreting Christ's 
teaching in MMLJBC as a contrast between Moses' Old Testament teaching of the law and Christ's New Testament 
teaching, when in fact it was Christ contrasting his true teaching of the law of Moses with the false rabbinical 
"traditions" (Matt. 15:1-15).
 
More than 120 times in MMLJBC, Jesus described his teaching of the Old Testament law of Moses  to Israel with the 
false rabbinical "traditions" of his day with this or a similar statement: "Ye have heard it said of them of old time (the 
"traditional" teaching of the rabbis)...but I say unto you...(Christ's true teaching of the law of Moses)." 
 
Notice the following examples of Christ contrasting his true teaching of the law of Moses with the false rabbinical 
"traditions"  in "the sermon on the mount" in Matthew, chapters 5 through 7. Not only does Christ refer to and quote 
the law of Moses, but he also gives his divine interpretation of and/or explanation of the law.
 
Matthew 5:21 "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall 
be in danger of the judgment: 22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be 
in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but 
whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
 
Matthew 5:27 "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto 
you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Matthew 5:31 "31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 
32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to 
commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
 
There are two things that should be remembered about Christ and his quoting of the Old Testament law of Moses:
 
1. He seldom quoted passages "verbatim" from the law and the prophets. He did, however, always quote the "heart" 
of the passage and then gave his interpretation of that passage from the law of Moses. 
 
Matthew 5:38 "38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto 
you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
 
2. He often quoted the false rabbinical "tradition" and/or the law on which the "tradition" had been established.

Matthew 5:43 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I 
say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which 
despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven:" 
 
Ethan will not tell you, but I will, not once in all of Christ's revelation of the New Testament as revealed in "the 
apostles' doctrine" of Acts 2 - Revelation 22 did any inspired writer ever quote Christ's teaching from MMLJBC 
in Acts 2 - Revelation 22. 
 
Ethan quotes Matthew 5:21 -22 and speaks of the similarity with 1 John 3:15, but he does not finish the passage. 
Ethan tell us where is the "danger" of the New Testament "council"? What is the "gift" we should offer? Where is 
the "altar" on which that "gift" should be offered? Ethan, when is the last time that you left your gift at the altar?
 
You see, Ethan just "picks and chooses" which phrases of a passage from the Old Testament law of Moses that suits 
his fantasy about "universals" -- then rips it out and calls it New Testament teaching. Ethan's "universals" are as wide 
and high as his mind can soar -- there is no end, limit or boundary to them.
 
No one, to my knowledge, has ever denied that there are similarities in teaching between the Old and New 
Testaments, but Old Testament teaching of the law of Moses is never New Testament doctrine -- regardless of the 
similarity.
 
Marriage, Divorce And Remarriage In The Law Of Moses
 
Ethan now enters the modern "spin zone" on marriage, divorce and remarriage and immediately adopts the 
"traditional" error of our day. Ethan tries to "spin" the false doctrine that the law of Moses allowed the wife who was 
put away "lawfully" (for some "sexual uncleanness" Deut. 24:1-4; Lev. 19:11, 21) to go and be another man's wife, 
but that Jesus forbids such in Matthew 5:31-33. 
 
Ethan now has Jesus denying the divine law of Moses! Not so! Jesus was discussing what was "lawful" and what was 
"unlawful" in the law about many things, including what was "lawful" and "unlawful" in marriage, divorce and 
remarriage in Israel.
 
What Ethan and many others fail to recognize is the difference between a wife in Israel being divorced "lawfully" as 
in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and then a wife in Israel being divorced "unlawfully" according to the false "traditional 
causes" for divorce as taught by the rabbis as discussed in Matthew 5:31-33 and 19:3, 9. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is 
talking about Old Testament "apples" and Matthew 5:31-33 is talking about Old Testament "oranges."
 
Jesus taught that he "lawfully" divorced wife in Israel could go and be the wife of another Israelite, but the wife 
divorced "unlawfully" (according to the false rabbinical "causes" for divorce) could not go and be the wife of another 
man without being an adulteress. Once again, Jesus was condemning -- not the true law of Moses -- but the false 
rabbinical "traditions" of his day (Matt. 15:1-15).
 
Hear it again: The Jewish wife divorced "lawfully" could go and be another man's wife in Israel (Deut. 24:1-4), but a 
wife divorced "unlawfully" in Israel and then married another man would be an adulteress (Matt. 5:31-33; 19:3,9).
 
What The New Testament Teaches On Marriage, Divorce And Marriage
 
There are only two verses of Scripture in the New Testament that sets forth Christ's new covenant "will" for divorce 
and marriage among Christians. "...Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife (in this time of distress, v. 26). 
28But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned..." (1 Cor. 7:27-28, parenthesis mine, D.B.).
 
The Old Testament teaching of the law of Moses in Matthew 5 and 19 does not apply, in any sense, to New 
Testament "Christians" in the new covenant "church."
 
Old Testament "Oaths"
 
Once again Ethan fails to recognize the two different things Jesus is discussing within the law of Moses. The law of 
Moses taught that each Jew should keep his "word," "promise" or "oath," and Jesus upheld the law in Matthew 5:33-
37.
 
What Jesus was condemning in Matthew 5:33-37 was insincere  oaths or perjury advocated and permitted in/by the 
false rabbinical "traditions" of the day. Jesus was not denying forswearing according to the law of Moses.  Jesus' 
teaching in this passage was Jewish "truth" versus "perjury."
 
In this passage Jesus deals with the Pharisiacal "traditions" in deductions, extensions, and exceptions to the law. He 
simply teaches that it was better for a Jew not to lie or perjure himself in attempting to dodge the ninth 
commandment in the Decalogue. The Pharisees taught that Exodus 20:16 was a divine prohibition against 
"swearing" a lie. In practice the Pharisees "tradition" taught that a Jew, as long as he had not been "sworn" to 
an oath, could tell as many lies as he wanted without incuring guilt under the law of Moses.
 
The ninth commandment in the "ten commandments" of the law of Moses taught the Jews, "Thou shalt not bear false 
witness against thy neighbor" (Ex. 20:16), and Jesus uses this passage as a basis for his interpretation of the law of 
Moses.
 
We should remember that the earlier law of Moses and the prophets did not refer to the false rabbinical "traditions" of 
Jesus' day for the rabbinical class in Israel did not arise until the Babylonian bondage of the fifth century BC. This 
means that John the baptizer of Israel and Jesus the Messiah in MMLJBC were the only two Old Testament 
"prophets" that ever had to face the false rabbinical "traditions" in Israel.

Did The Law Of Moses Forbid "Mercy"?
 
Once again Ethan shows that he takes the denominational "party line," for his arguments are coming right out of 
denominational commentaries.  It is clear that Ethan does not understand the Old Testament law of Moses. Ethan 
would have us believe that the law of Moses forbid "mercy" and demanded revenge.
 
Passages such as Exodus 21:23-25 and Leviticus 24:19-20, as Jesus taught in Matthew 5:38-42, set the "LIMITS" on 
revenge -- they did not demand revenge.
 
The law of Moses demanded "mercy" between brethren in Israel. God demanded that the Jews of Israel extend 
"mercy" to their brethren in Israel! "He hath showed thee , O man, what is good; and  what doth the Lord require of 
thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (Micah 6:8). 
 
In fact, in order to provide "lawbreakers" in Israel with "mercy," God provided "six cities of refuge" to which the 
"offenders" could find "mercy" (Num. 35:6, 13, 15). Once again, Ethan is wrong, wrong, wrong!
 
In Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus emphasized the "mercy" over the "revenge" demanded in the law of Moses. He did not 
reveal New Testament doctrine to Old Testament Jews.
 
Ethan, I have been a member of the church of Christ since 1946 and a gospel preacher for over fifty years. Will you 
please tell us the church to which you belong?
 
Conclusion
 
Let us pray for Ethan, that he will cease twisting, perverting and uncripturally interpreting and applying the teaching 
of the Old Testament law of Moses in Matthew, chapters 5 through 7 in his attempt to prove his proposition. Ethan 
cannot teach the "truth" of the "sermon on the mount" and prove his proposition in a 1000 years.