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
 
Let us now attempt to dig underneath the rhetoric and ad hominem language used by Dan and find if there is any 
substance in the rebuttal given.
 
Dan began with the following:
 
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!
 
ELDV: Dan, are you here asserting that the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount have no applications to 
Christians at all?  We are not supposed to "seek His kingdom first," and trust that God will take care of us?  We are 
not supposed to believe that we are to do well to each other and the multitude of other things spoken of by Christ in 
the Sermon on the Mount because they belong to the "Old Testament?"
 
Dan then continued:

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.
 
ELDV: I would love for Dan to please provide the Scripture that teaches that our only source of "New Testament" 
doctrine comes from Acts 2 and beyond.
 
Dan continued:
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.

ELDV: There is not?
 
Hebrews 1:1-2:
God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the 
end of these days spoken unto us in his Son.
 
God has spoken to us in His Son!  How can this mean that nothing His Son stated has no bearing on what Christians 
today believe and practice?
 
Dan:
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 onlythe Old Testament law of Moses.
 
ELDV: He was teaching "only" the Old Testament law?  Despite the fact that He repudiated no less than three 
commandments given under the "Law of Moses" in the Sermon on the Mount alone?
 
Dan: 
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."
 
ELDV: He is not?  Then how come the following phraseology occurs time and time again in the Sermon on the 
Mount?
 
"Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time... but I say unto you"
 
Jesus is saying that "Moses said this, BUT I SAY TO YOU..."  How can this be anything but a demonstration of a new 
and higher path?
 
Dan then posits the following:
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!

ELDV: I would challenge Dan and everyone watching this debate to find where I have affirmed that we should follow 
the Sabbath as the Jews did.  Furthermore, I would challenge Dan to provide any shred of evidence that I have ever 
taught this.  I further implore Dan to stop bringing up strawman arguments and diversionary tactics and discuss the 
matter at hand: the teachings seen in the Sermon on the Mount.
 
Dan again:
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.

ELDV: Again, I challenge Dan to first find any evidence of me teaching any such thing, and secondly, to stop bringing 
up these strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the Sermon on the Mount.
 
Dan:
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 on his 
"universals."

ELDV: There are not?
 
Genesis 2:4: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be 
one flesh.
 
Matthew 19:4-5:  And he answered and said, "Have ye not read, that 'he who made them from the beginning made 
them male and female,' and said, 'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife;
and the two shall become one flesh?'"
 
Ephesians 5:31: For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall  become one flesh.
 
Here we see that the exact same statement is made in Genesis, by Jesus, and by Paul.  Is this not a universal  
commandment, applicable to every marriage covenant that has ever existed?  If not, which marriage covenant has  
this rule not been applicable?
 
There are certainly many truths of God that have endured throughout the ages and can rightly be deemed "universal."
 
Dan continued:
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 ofMoses. Ethan clearly has Jesus violating the Old Testament "will" of God, something that Jesus denied many 
time.
 
ELDV: I clearly do?  Dan has completely neglected the portions of my first affirmative that demonstrate clearly that 
Jesus was not advocating any departure from the Law of Moses by making His statements in the Sermon on the 
Mount.
 
Therefore, I ask the following questions to Dan, and ask for his response:
 
1. Could a man not swear an oath and be justified by the Law of Moses?
 
2. If a man does swear an oath, is he justified by Jesus' teaching?
 
3. If a man is injured in some way by another man, and forgives him, is he justified by the Law of Moses?
 
4. If the man demands equal recompense, "an eye for an eye," is he justified by Jesus' teachings?
 
Dan:
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.
 
ELDV: Absolutely-- the Father's will is the same as the will of the Son.  We have seen the parallels between the 
statements of Christ and those of the Apostles.  There is no contradiction here.
 
Dan:
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).

ELDV: There is a "tradition" of "an eye for an eye" when this was clearly a law given by Moses?  There is a "tradition" 
about swearing when this law was given by the angels to Moses?  Where is the evidence in the Sermon on the Mount 
that Jesus is speaking of rabbinical traditions alone?
 
Dan:
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).
 
ELDV: Yet many of the quotations of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are basically verbatim quotations of many of 
the laws given to Moses!  And then He will go on and show the higher path.  How can Jesus be teaching the 
"true...law of Moses" when it is Moses' very words He uses in His contrasts?
 
Dan:
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)."

ELDV: This is certainly true for many of the times Jesus teaches, but you have yet to demonstrate that this is not so 
for the specific passages in the Sermon on the Mount mentioned.  Many of the very "ye have heard it said of them of 
old time" refer specifically to laws given to Moses.  Your generalization does not hold.
 
Dan then quotes many passages and says:
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.
 
ELDV: Interestingly many of the passages in the Sermon on the Mount under discussion are basically verbatim.  And 
many of them come from the Law itself.
 
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."
 
ELDV: And Moses did say "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."  Then Jesus points to a higher path.  Funny, 
that's my position! :)
 
Dan: 
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:"
 
ELDV: Hey, I am not denying that many times Jesus does this very thing.  You have not yet sufficiently demonstrated, 
however, that this applies to every example Jesus gives.
 
Dan:
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.
 
ELDV: This statement refers back to a long discussion held concerning the passages in the Scripture that will now be 
given.
 
Luke 10:7
And in that same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give:for the laborer is worthy of his hire. Go 
not from house to house.
 
1 Timothy 5:18
For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his 
hire.
 
I am sure that Dan will say that the first example is a quotation from Deuteronomy, and he is correct.  However, the 
second example comes from Luke 10:7 and Luke 10:7 alone-- no other Scripture in the Bible reads that way. 
Therefore, it is certain that the words of Christ are quoted as Scripture.
 
Dan:
Ethan quotes Matthew 5:21 -22 and speaks of the similarity with 1John 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?
 
ELDV: I find it saddening that Dan must resort to argumentum ad absurdum to bolster his claims.  Does Dan believe 
that our doctrines must hinge on "if" statements?  Jesus gives an example of His point by declaring "IF, therefore, 
thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee,  leave there thy 
gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift (emphasis 
mine)."
 
Since I have never been to an altar in this manner, the example is not directly binding upon me.  If, however, I know 
that a grievance is against me by my "brother," and I desire to worship God, it would behoove me to reconcile with my 
brother before offering worship to the Father.  The point? Love should abound between brothers and neighbors.  
Where is this stated? Matthew 5:21-22, and John says the exact same thing in 1 John 3:15.  Therefore, the example 
stands.
 
Dan:
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.

ELDV: The authority for which we determine what we must do is the only thing that has changed for many, many 
laws.  As seen in the Genesis/Matthew/Ephesians example, the language of many laws has not changed over the 
centuries.
 
Dan says the following: 
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.
 
ELDV: I have said such things?  I have demonstrated that Moses taught that a man could divorce his wife with a 
certificate of divorce, as seen in Deuteronomy 24, and that Jesus repudiates this in Matthew 5:31-33.  These are the 
words of Christ, not mine.
 
Dan:
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.

ELDV: Jesus is denying the divine law of Moses?  Jesus Himself says that the reason for the law given by Moses was 
the "hardness of [the Israelites'] hearts" in Matthew 19:8, and declares that "from the beginning, it has not been so."  
Therefore, I am not teaching anything of which you say: I am simply giving you the words Christ Himself has spoken.  
A man is justified in following Jesus' teachings on marriage under the Law of Moses, yet there are many who would 
be justified by the Law of Moses but not by Jesus' teachings.  If this is not a clear demonstration of a New Testament 
doctrine, affirmed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, what is?
 
Dan:
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."
 
ELDV: Really?  Where do we see this in the passages of Scripture?  Jesus only said this:
 
"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."
 
Who is the "whosoever" in this passage, Dan?  Did the law of Moses allow for divorce for any other reason but 
immorality?  I can tell you today that it certainly did-- otherwise, the message of Jesus in Matthew 19:8 is a strange
statement.
 
Dan:
Jesus taught that the "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).
 
ELDV: Again, Matthew 19:8 clearly demonstrates that the law given to the Israelites by Moses concerning divorce was 
not according to the way that "it has always been."
 
Dan:
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.).

ELDV: I find it strange, Dan, that you have completely neglected 1 Corinthians 7:10-11:
 
But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband  (but should she 
depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.
 
This is not even Paul's commandment, but that of the Lord-- Jesus Christ Himself!  Or is this "Old Testament" doctrine 
also?
 
Dan:
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.
 
ELDV: This is very, very interesting.  To whom is Jesus speaking in the Sermon on the Mount?
 
Matthew 5:1-2:
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.
 
The disciples and the "multitudes."  Furthermore, what is the language of 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."
 
Let us examine what Dan said:
 
"Jesus was not denying forswearing according to the law of Moses."
 
Jesus said:
 
"but I say unto you, swear not at all"
 
And He even continued at the end:
 
"But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one."

Dan would have us believe that Jesus is teaching only against Pharisaical traditions, yet it is evident to anyone 
reading this passage that Jesus teaches against making ANY oath whatsoever.
 
Now, the questions are given again:
 
1. Could a Jew say "yea" and "nay" in all circumstances and be justified by the Law of Moses?
 
2. Could a Jew "swear an oath unto the Lord" and be justified by Jesus' teachings?
 
I await Dan's answers to these questions.
 
Dan:
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. 
 
ELDV: Interesting.  Dan, could you please provide a definition of "swear not at all" and "whatsoever is more than  
these is of the evil one?"  Thanks.
 
Dan:
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.
 
ELDV: Who is saying that the Law of Moses forbids mercy?  Are you denying that Moses gave the commandment 
concerning "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?"
 
Dan:
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!
 
ELDV: I am wrong?  Again, the questions must come forth:
 
1. If a man loses an eye, and forgives the one who took it, is he justified by the Law of Moses?
 
2. If a man loses an eye, and demands an eye in repayment, is he justified by the teachings of Christ?
 
Dan:
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.
 
ELDV: Compare Matthew 5:38-42 with Romans 12:19-21.
 
Dan:
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?
 
ELDV: I do not know what bearing this has on anything, but I worship with the church in Rochelle, Illinois.
 
Dan ended:
Let us pray for Ethan, that he will cease twisting, perverting and unscripturally 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 1000 years. 
 
ELDV: Dan has done nothing but brought forth extrabiblical commentary in attempting to brandish a broad brush over  
the Sermon on the Mount, teaching that everything Jesus taught was only against rabbinical traditions when really He 
demonstrates the limitations of the Law given through Moses.  Anyone can read the many Scriptures given by Jesus 
in the Sermon on the Mount, refer them back to the Old Law, and then see how Jesus teaches a higher path 
concerning them.
 
Dan has by no means sufficiently demonstrated any error in the original affirmative, and we must wait to see if he will 
answer the questions provided in his second rebuttal.
 
ELDV
Ethan R. Longhenry