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's 3rd Denial: Although I have met, attacked and defeated each of  Ethan's arguments in this debate,  I  continue 
to hold Ethan in esteem and  with respect as a fellow Christian.  

What we have demonstrated in this discussion, really, is the difference in our personal knowledge and application of 
the New Testament of Jesus Christ. 
 
Because we differ sharply, one of us holds the unscriptural position. I hope that all readers of this debate will weigh all 
arguments carefully, and grow in knowledge of  the new covenant of Christ in Acts 2 through Revelation 22.
 
It is clear that Ethan does not understand the role of the affirmative and the denial in a debate, for he keeps on asking 
me to answer questions that affirm his proposition.  Answering questions is the work of the affirmative not the 
negative.   In the next debate, when I am in the affirmative, I will answer all questions relating to my affirmative 
arguments.

Ethan Offers No New Arguments In Third Affirmative
While it is Ethan's job to offer new arguments in affirming his proposition in each affirmative, I find no new arguments 
in his 3rd affirmative. It is  just a re-hash of  earlier material we have already discussed.  However, before the debate 
began, I knew that Ethan would not be able  to prove his proposition by the Scriptures and would quickly run-out of  
his "traditional" arguments. Ethan's Answer Here is Ethan's answer to my question, "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."

Here was my answer to Ethan: More than 120 times in MMLJBC, six times  in Matthew, chapters 5 through 7, Jesus 
made this contrast between the...
1. The false rabbinical "traditions" -- "Ye have heard it said of  them of old time..." 
2. And his true teaching of the Old Testament law of Moses by  saying. "...but I say unto you..." 

Each and every time Jesus was contrasting the old time "traditional" teaching of the rabbis with his teaching of old 
covenant "truth" from the original  Old Testament law of Moses. 

Jesus never contrasted his teaching of the Old Testament law of Moses with his revelation of New Testament doctrine 
in MMLJBC.

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: Moses, the prophets and Jesus taught Old Testament  Jews not to lie or make "perjured" oaths under the law of 
Moses (Lev. 19:11; Ps. 63:11; Pro. 19:5).  James teaches New Testament Christians to make no "perjured" oaths and 
do not lie (Col. 3:9; James 5:12). But these are different commands from different  covenants for different old and new 
covenant people. Once again, Ethan is wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
Ethan: "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?

Dan: Nope, there is no difference in what Moses taught in Deuteronomy 23:1-4 and what Jesus taught in Matthew 19.
Moses taught that the only reason for divorce in Old Testament Israel  was the Hebrew "ervah dabar" --  "sexual 
immorality." Jesus taught the same in the  Greek, "except it be for fornication." 

"In the beginning..." (Gen. 2:24),  there was no sin or divorce. This  was God's plan "in the beginning." But "sin 
entered the world" and corrupted the  marriages of mankind. With the giving of covenant law God legislated on 
divorce and  remarriage in Israel (Deut.24:1-4; Matt. 19:3-12), and in the New Testament church (1 Cor.  7:27-28).

Why Ethan attempts to bind the Old Testament law of Moses in Matthew  19 on the New Testament church is a 
mystery to me. No one but Old Testament Jews  were ever under the Old Testament law of Moses.

Ethan: Moses certainly never legislated that divorce ought to happen, but certainly allowed for it for more reasons 
than Jesus spoke of.
 
Dan: I repeatedly asked Ethan were Moses allowed divorce in Israel for more than one reason -- "sexual immorality" 
(Deut. 24:1-4), but Ethan never gave us an answer.

Let's Answer Ethan's Questions
Since we are looking for something to work with, and since Ethan offers no new arguments, let's answer some of 
Ethan's questions.

Ethan: 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?

Dan's answer: As the final or "last" Old Testament "prophet" of the law of Moses that God sent to Israel, Jesus both 
taught the "law and the prophets" from the earlier revelation of the law, and as an Old Testament "prophet" himself --  
he quoted, commented and/or explained the real meaning of the law of Moses and condemned the "tradition" in many 
passages to that "last" generation of Jews in Israel.

In Matthew 5:21, Jesus quoted Moses Exodus 20:13 and then the false rabbinical
 "tradition" that the rabbis had added to Moses,  "...and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment." Then 
Jesus  explained why the teaching of  the false rabbinical "tradition" was error in verse 22.

In Matthew 5:27, Jesus quoted Moses from "Thou shalt not commit adultery..." from Exodus 20:14, and then explained 
the meaning of that law and the false rabbinical "tradition" based on that law in verses 28-30.

In Matthew 5:33, Jesus quotes Moses and the prophets and their teaching about "lawful" forswearing" in "bearing 
witness" in  Israel (Ex. 22:11; Num. 5:19;  Deut. 6:13). He also taught the Jews to  keep their  "oaths" truthful  and the 
danger and  condemnation of "exaggeration," "perjury" and attaching a false oath to the name of  God or that which 
was holy in Israel  (Ex. 20:7; Lev. 19:12).

In Matthew 5:38, Jeus quotes Moses from Exodus 21:23-24; Lev. 24:20;  Deut. 19:21, and then he exposed and 
explained how the rabbis had corrupted this law  and gave his commentary on this law in Matthew 5:39-42.
 
2. Who is the author of those texts? 

God, Moses and the prophets authored these laws and Christ upheld and explained the "righteousness" of the law in 
these commandments.

3. Does Jesus teach that these laws, as quoted, are what He is teaching directly?

Jesus was contrasting the "true" law of Moses with the false rabbinical "traditions" of the Jews.
 
4. Does Jesus say that He is only teaching against the way these texts are used?
 
By the contrast between the "true" law of Moses and the false rabbinical "traditions" of the Jews, Jesus was teaching 
and upholding the "truth" of the law of Moses that governed the Jews of Israel.

More Of Ethan's 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?

 Dan's answer: Yes.
 
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?

Dan's answer: Yes.

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?

 Dan's answer: Yes.
 
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?

Dan's answer: Yes. 

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?

Dan's answer: Yes.
 
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?

Dan's answer: Yes.
 
That was easy!
 
Conclusion
Now, let's get on with the second part of this debate on Matthew, chapters 5 through 7, where I will affirm that all of 
the teaching in these chapters is the  Old Testament law of Moses.