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's 2nd Denial: Readers, it is evident that Ethan has left his affirmation of the proposition and is now 
asking me to defend his proposition. I will not leave my denial role in this debate to prop-up Ethan's inability to 
affirm his belief.  

First, let me ask again, Ethan, by what rule of biblical interpretation do you determine from Christ's teaching in 
MMLJBC what is the Old Testament teaching of the law of Moses and what is the New Testament teaching of Christ.
Ethan has not aswered this question and cannot, for there is no rule of interpretation that shows how that in the same 
chapter or verse Christ includes both Old and New Testament doctrine. Ethan, what is the rule of interpretation that 
you follow?  For By The Works Of The Law Of Moses Shall No Flesh Today Be Justified

Ethan asks, 
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'"?

Yes, Ethan, that is exactly what I am saying. The New Testament teaches that none of Christ's teaching of the Old 
Testament law of Moses for Jews only in MMLJBC is New Testament doctrine. 

God' old covenant promises in Matthew, chapters 5 through 7, were for God's old covenant people in Israel. In this 
section of Scriputure, God promised to take care of all Old Testament Jews in Israel who sought to do his old 
covenant will in the law of Moses in "seeking first" the Old Testament kingdom of God in Israel.

Readers, if Christ teaches in Galatians 2:16 that a New Testament "Christian" cannot be justified by observing the 
Old Testament law of Moses, why does Ethan insist that a "Christian" can disobey God and be justified by keeping 
the Old Testament law of Moses? 
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed 
in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of 
the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16).

In fact, in Galatians 5:4, Christ teaches that any Jew who became/becomes a New Testament "Christian" and who 
seeks to go back under the Old Tesament law of Moses and be justified by the Old Testament law of Moses will "fall 
from grace" (Galatians 5:4).

Among the many things that Ethan does not understand about the Old Testament age and Christ's teaching of the 
law of Moses in MMLJBC is that the Mosaical covenant was not made with Gentiles but with the Jews of Israel only. 

In his first affirmative Ethan made this very argument on page 3, that the Old Testament law of Moses taught that the 
law was not intended for non-Jews or  Gentiles (Ezekiel 44:6-10, but now Ethan wants to apply the Old Testament 
law of Moses to the New Testament church and to all Gentiles or alien sinners of this New Testament age. 

Ethan is terribly mixed-up and confused, but that becomes the state of mind when "tradtional" brethren like Ethan try 
to bind the Old Testament law of Moses from MMLJBC on everyone in this New Testament age. The teaching of the 
law by Christ in Matthew, chapters 5 through 7, applied only to that "last" generation of Old Testament Jews in Israel.

"Seek Ye First The Kingdom Of God" 
In the Old Testament age and teaching of MMLJBC, Christ, the Jewish Messiah in Matthew 6:33, taught the "last 
generation" of Jews in Old Testament Israel, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all 
these things shall be added unto you." Jesus did not teach any or all of the things in Matthew, chapters 5 through 7, 
for or to all future generations of Jews and Gentiles. All teaching in this section of Scripture was limited to only the 
"last generation" of Jews in Old Testament Israel.

Again, Ethan sins grieviously in his erroneous interpretation of what he and the sectarians call "the sermon on the 
mount," for he attempts to apply Matthew 6:33 to everyone in this New Testament age. Ethan is wrong, wrong, 
wrong. This passage was spoken to only Jews in the "last generation" in Israel, and it directed these Old Testament 
Israelites to "seek first the (Old Testament) kingdom of God, and his righteousness (in the law of Moses), and 
all these things (old covenant blessings discussed in Matthew 5 through 7) shall be added unto you."  The phrase 
"kingdom of heaven" and/or "kingdom of God" in Matthew 6:33, as in other passages in MMLJBC does not, as the 
sectarian world and Ethan Longhenry believes, refer to the New Testament church. It does refer to the Old 
Testament "kingdom of God" and its "righteousness" under the law of Moses which Christ encouraged the Jews to 
pursue then and there in the 1st century.  

Ethan Needs Just One Reference In MMLJBC
When challenged to produce just one instance in MMLJBC where either Jesus, his disciples or the Scripture declare 
that Jesus was teaching and/or revealing New Testament doctrine, Ethan responded with 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."

What a gaffe, doctrinal mistake,  error, blunder, faux pas! Hebrews 1:1-2 does not refer to Christ revealing New 
Testament doctrine. This passage designates Christ, as the "last" Old Testament prophet sent to Israel -- just like all 
of the Old Testament prophets before him -- teaching the law of Moses "at the end" of the Old Testament age in 
MMLJBC.

We have not reached the "end" of the New Testament age, so Hebrews 1:1-2 cannot refer to the New Testament 
age.  The book of Hebrews, as the title "book of Hebrews" suggests, was Paul's inspired New Testament writing of 
the doctrine of Christ addressed specifically to Jews. From start to finish it references the Old Testament history, law 
of Moses, Levitical priesthood, temple worship and hope of Israel from Exodus 20 through the "end" of the Old 
Testament age and Mosaical covenant described in Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23 and John 19.

God spoke through his Son, the "last" Old Testament prophet sent to Israel (Matt. 15:24), just like God spoke to 
Israel through all of the other Old Testament prophets before Christ. Christ had the same Old Testament 
"inspiration" as a prophet as did John the baptist and all other prophets from Moses through Malachi.

Here is Ethan's problem and the basis of his error. Ethan believes that only Christ's Old Testament teaching in 
MMLJBC is the only teaching of Christ recorded in the Scriptures.

Ethan does not believe, as the Scriptures teach, that all of the teaching in the New Testament of Christ in Acts 2 
through Revelation 22 is Christ's own personal revelation of New Covenant doctrine. Ethan believes that Acts 2 
through Revelation 22 is the New Testament teaching of the apostles -- not the new covenant teaching of Christ.

Does Ethan really believe that only MMLJBC represent the New Testament teaching of Christ in the Bible? Does 
Ethan really believe that Acts 2 through Revelation 22 is not Christ's personal revelation of  the New Testament? We 
shall see.

Ethan Believes That Christ "Repudiated" The Law Of Moses In MMLJBC
Ethan said, 
"Jesus repudiated no less that three commandments given under the `law of Moses' in the Sermon on the Mount 
alone." (Page 2 of 2nd affirmative.)

It is absolutely astounding that Ethan believes that Christ, as the "last" Old Testament prophet and Messiah that God 
sent to Israel, "repudiated" the "law of Moses." What in the "blue-blazes" is Ethan thinking? Jesus, the Son of God, 
"repudiating" -- rejecting, denying and blaspheming the Old Testament law of Moses?

Jesus said that he came not to "repudiate," reject, deny or blaspheme the Old Testament Word of God in the law of 
Moses, but to glorify God as he"fulfilled" and praised the law of Moses (Matt. 5:17-18). 

What kind of atheistic doctrine is Ethan teaching?
"Ye have heard it said of them of old time...but I say unto you..."
Ethan  enters again into the "dark abyss" of  denying and rejecting the teaching of Christ, the Old Testament 
Messiah, in MMLJBC. Ethan takes the clear teaching of Jesus, the Old testament Messiah sent "only" to old 
covenant Israel, as he contrasted the 500 year old false teaching of the rabbis with his true teaching of the law of 
Moses in MMLJBC. 

More than 120 times in MMLJBC, six times in Matthew, chapters 5 through 7,  Jesus made this contrast between the 
false rabbinical "tradtions" and his true teaching of the Old Testament law of Moses by saying, "Ye have heard it 
said of them of old time...but I say unto you..."  Every time Jesus was contrasting the old time "traditional" teaching 
of the rabbis with his teaching of old covenant "truth" of the Old Testament law of Moses. 

Not once in MMLJBC did he contrast the Old Testament law of Moses with his revelation and teaching of the New 
Testament law of Christ.  Jesus told the Jews that if a they continued in his word, the true teaching and interpretation
of the law of Moses, versus the false teaching of the rabbis, that they would"know the truth of the law" and that 
knowledge of the truth "would make them free" from the sectarian teaching of the rabbis.  "Then said Jesus to those 
Jews who believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, 
and the truth shall make you free" (Jn. 8:30-32).

Ethan's problem is that he thinks that in these 120 passages of the law of Moses, Jesus is contrasting, rejecting and 
denying the "old time" teaching of Moses and the prophets with his revelation of New Testament doctrine, rather 
than contrasting the false rabbinical "tradtions" of the Jews with the his teaching of the true law of Moses. 

This is just more of Ethan's sectarian and denominational upbringing.  Ethan, you better get rid of all those sectarian 
commentaries and sermon outline books that have led you so far astray from the truth of the two covenants. Once 
again Ethan is wrong, wrong, wrong.

More On Ethan's "Universals"
Ethan contends that Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5 and Ephesians 5:31 proves his contention about what he deems 
as "universal" doctrine in all covenants.  However, while there are similarities in God's law for marriage in all 
covenants, there are also many doctrinal differences between the laws for marriage among the various covenants.

For example, God's law for marriage in the Mosaical covenant was for Jews only, it did not include marriage between 
Jews and Gentiles as does the New Testament of Christ(Heb. 13:4). As  I stated in my first denial, there is no 
"universal" doctrine in all covenants that contain the same conditions, commandments and promises for all covenant 
people.

Once again Ethan's misunderstanding of the covenants goes down in flames.

What is Ethan Thinking?
Ethan states that God's Old Testament "will" was the same as Christ's New Testament "will." What is Ethan thinking? 

Readers, surely you can see the multitude of differences between the Old Testament "will of God" in the law of 
Moses and Christ's New Testament "will of God."

Ethan Asks: "Where Is The Evidence..."
Ethan asks, "Where is the evidence in the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus is speaking of rabbinical traditions 
alone?"

Dan's reply, "There are only two things mentioned in Matthew, chapters 5 through 7, the law of Moses and the Jew's 
false rabbinical "traditions." Jesus never mentions New Testament doctrine in Ethan's "sermon on the mount." There 
is the evidence Ethan seeks.
 
Ethan's Question On 1 Corinthians 7:10-11
 
Ethan offers no objection to my comments on 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 as the only two verses of Scripture in the New 
Testament of Christ on marriage, divorce and marriage for Christians. I assume, therefore, that he agrees.
 
Ethan does, however, offer 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 as a "tradtitional" prohibition for divorce among Christians.
 
No, No, No, 1 Corinthians offers no prohibition for divorce among Christians.  This passage teaches that when a 
Christian couple is separated and their marriage is in danger of being severed, while they are attempting 
"reconciliation" they are not to marry others while still married to each other.
 
Paul does not teach one doctrine on marriage, divorce and marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and another doctrine in 
verses 27-28.
 
Ethan, Tell Us
 
Ethan states, 
"Did the law of Moses allow for divorce for any other reason than immorality? I can tell you today that it certainly did 
-- otherwise, the message of Jesus in Matthew 19:8 is a strange statement."

Ethan, tell us where, for the general population of Israel, does the law of Moses teach that divorce for reasons other 
than immoraltiy was acceptable in Israel?
 
Conclusion
We have answer every major argument that Ethan has raised, therefore his minor quibbles and questions are not for 
me to answer. Because we have demolished his major arguments, his simple questions do not merit an answer. 

Tell us Ethan, by what rule of interpretation to you find both Old and New Testament teaching in any verse of Scripture 
in Matthew, chapters 5 through 7?
Why won't you answer this question?