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

This is the third and last affirmative for me on this portion of this debate.
 
In this discussion, I have asked Dan a series of questions, the answers to which have not been forthcoming.  This is 
hardly surprising to me, because their answers, when given in harmony with what the Scriptures teach, would 
demonstrate the error of Dan's position.
 
Regardless, let us examine Dan's second rebuttal first and see if there is any merit yet in his argumentation.
 
Dan:
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.
 
ELDV: I generally use the rule of Biblical interpretation that is known as "read the text objectively and determine what 
Jesus was attempting to communicate to the disciples and the multitude."  It appears that such reading is not in 
fashion at this time.
 
The easiest demonstration, of course, is seen in the following:
 
In Matthew 5:31-32, for instance, we see the following demonstration:
 
"It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement"
 
Jesus is quoting from the Law of Moses.
 
"but I say unto you,"
 
Jesus gives words of contrast.
 
"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."
 
Jesus then speaks a statement that is different from the Law of Moses.
 
Dan, would you have us believe that Jesus is here not showing something different than what Moses spoke?  After all, 
in Matthew 19:8, Jesus says the following:
 
He saith unto them, "Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it 
hath not been so."
 
Is this not a demonstration that Jesus is teaching something involving at least some form of difference from what 
Moses taught?
 
The question should not be that Jesus is teaching different things than Moses-- this is made evident in the Gospels, 
unless you want to pervert the holy words of the Christ Himself.  The question that I have raised constantly, and to 
which you have not yet responded, is whether or not a Jew listening to Christ could follow Him and still be justified by 
the Law.  Moses certainly never legislated that divorce ought to happen, but certainly allowed for it for more reasons 
than Jesus spoke of.
 
This is merely one demonstration of many that can be made in the Sermon on the Mount that demonstrates clearly 
that Jesus is teaching something that is different from that which was taught in olden times by Moses.
 
Dan:
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.
 
ELDV: If this is so, would you please point to the New Testament verse that says that Christ's teachings are not a part 
of New Testament doctrine?
 
Dan:
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.

ELDV: It is made evident in many translations that the "end of these days" is also referred to as the "end times," which 
this period is most certainly so.  The Hebrew author is not declaring anything of which you state here-- Christ has 
spoken to US in His Son.  Dan says the following, however:
 
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.
 
ELDV: Dan, I thought that you taught that Acts-Revelation is the New Testament?  Is not Hebrews in the New 
Testament, and thus does it not contain New Testament doctrine?  If the Hebrew author says that Christ has spoken 
to US in His Son, does not the "us" refer to "Christians?"  Or is Paul lying to us in Galatians 3:28?
 
There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all 
are one man in Christ Jesus.
 
Dan spoke:
"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.
 
ELDV: Dan keeps saying this yet does not actually give any evidence that this must be the case.  I will ask Dan and 
the Religious Debates community the following:
 
1. What texts are quoted by Jesus in Matthew 5:21, 27, 33, and 38?
 
2. Who is the author of those texts?
 
3. Does Jesus teach that these laws, as quoted, are what He is teaching directly?
 
4. Does Jesus say that He is only teaching against the way these texts are used?
 
Let us see if these questions are answered.
 
Dan: 
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.

ELDV: Again, I agree that SOME of the time Jesus was discussing rabbinical tradition-- when He is quoting said 
tradition.  This tradition is exemplified in the quotations Christ made that do not come from the Law itself.  However, 
as noted multiple times, on three occasions at the least Christ is quoting DIRECTLY from MOSES.  There is 
absolutely no indication given in the discussion on the Sermon on the Mount that allows us to believe that Jesus 
speaks only of rabbinical tradition in these texts.
 
Dan:
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.

ELDV: This is evidently wrong when we see that in Matthew 5:33-37, Jesus teaches to make no oath, despite what 
Moses has said, and His words are exactly what James teaches us in James 5:12.  Or do you deny that Jesus and/or 
James teaches us to not make oaths in these passages?
 
Dan: 
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.
 
ELDV: This is fairly interesting-- Jesus' "true teaching" of the Law of Moses versus the rabbinical traditions?
 
Matthew 19:8
He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it 
hath not been so.
 
If Jesus is teaching the true "Law of Moses," then even Moses himself was not correct in the Law!  No, Jesus is 
teaching that there is a higher path, one not contradictory to the Law but higher than the Law, and each of these 
teachings is reflected in the New Testament.
 
Dan: 
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.

ELDV: This also is very interesting-- in the passage in Genesis, or in Matthew, or in Ephesians, who talks about who 
is being married?  No one.  I am not speaking about the laws concerning marriage covenants, am I?  By no means.  I 
quoted a passage in Genesis that is further quoted by Jesus in Matthew and by Paul in Ephesians.  Therefore, for the 
sake of simplicity, I will ask the following of Dan, and I expect a reply in yes/no terms from him:
 
Do Moses, Jesus, and Paul teach in Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5 and Ephesians 5:31, respectively, that "a man 
[shall] leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh?"
 
Dan:
Dan's reply, "There are only two things mentioned in Matthew, chapters 5 through 7, the law of Moses and the Jew's f
also rabbinical "traditions." Jesus never mentions New Testament doctrine in Ethan's "sermon on the mount." There is 
the evidence Ethan seeks.
 
ELDV: So it is admitted that Jesus does quote the Law in Matthew 5?  If this is so, and Jesus teaches something that 
is higher than the Law, that Jesus is really teaching something different than what Moses taught?
 
Dan:
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.
 
ELDV: Your assumption is completely wrong, as is your flawed interpretation of the passage in question.  This debate 
has nothing to do with 1 Corinthians 7; if you wish to debate about that passage, we can take that up at another time.
 
Dan:
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?
 
ELDV: Deuteronomy 24:1:
 
When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found 
some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of 
his house.
 
The acceptable reason in the eyes of Moses for divorce was "no favor because of unseemly thing in her."  Jesus 
teaches that this was given because of the "hardness of heart" of the Israelites.
 
Here is a question for you:
 
If Jesus is teaching in Matthew 19:8 what Moses taught in Deuteronomy 24:1, why does He say that "Moses for your 
hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so?"
 
I think that it is still fairly evident that Dan is more interested in avoiding the questions presented to him about the 
Sermon on the Mount and merely spewing forth his rhetoric.  Therefore, in this final affirmation of mine in this 
discussion, I will offer him a final opportunity to answer the following questions:
 
1. If a Jew follows the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5:32, and will only divorce a spouse on grounds of sexual 
immorality, is he justified by the Law of Moses?
 
2. If a Jew follows the teachings of Moses as demonstrated in Deuteronomy 24:1 and Matthew 5:31, and divorces his 
wife because of an unseemly thing, is he justified by the teachings of Christ in Matthew 5:32?
 
3. If a Jew follows the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5:37, and will only say "yes" and/or "no," is he justified by the 
Law of Moses?
 
4. If a Jew follows the teachings of Moses as demonstrated in Leviticus 19:12 and Matthew 5:33, and makes and 
fulfills an oath to the Lord, is he justified by the teachings of Christ in Matthew 5:37?
 
 5. If a Jew follows the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5:39 and turns the other cheek, is he justified by the Law of 
Moses?
 
6. If a Jew follows the teachings of Moses as demonstrated in Leviticus 24:20 and Matthew 5:38, and demands the 
loss of an offender's eye because his own was lost, is he justified by the teachings of Christ in Matthew 5:39?
 
I await Dan's last rebuttal and first affirmative, for possibly in his response he may actually get to refuting the main 
principle of what has been spoken to him three times now.

The proposition stands affirmed: Christ assuredly taught principles in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapter 5, 
that show a contradiction with the teachings of Moses yet are exemplified in New Testament teachings.  It requires 
perversion of the words of Christ and a severe unwillingness to see the truths of God presented in the gospels to 
reject such plain and forward evidence as is given to us by Christ in Matthew 5.  It is my hope that Dan and all on 
Religious Debates see the truth of the message of Christ, the many truths presented to us by Christ in Matthew 5, and 
that we may pattern our lives to conform to Him.
 
 Ethan R. Longhenry {ELDV}