Longhenry/Billingsley Debate on the Sermon on the Mount

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the "Sermon on the Mount," Matthew chapters 5 through 7, is exclusively Old 
Testament doctrine.

Affirm: Dan Billingsly
Deny: Ethan R. Longhenry

Argument #1: Understanding The Old Testament "Age" And "Doctrine" Of The Law Of Moses In "The Sermon On The 
Mount" In Matthew, Chapters 5 Through 7

Was the teaching of Christ in "the sermon on the mount" really different from the teaching of the law of Moses under 
which both Jesus and the people of Israel lived at the time of Matthew, chapters 5 through 7? Was this sermon really 
new covenant "doctrine" from Christ for the New Testament "age," or was Jesus merely "restating" the true principles 
for "righteousness" already found in the Old Testament law of Moses for the past 1500 years? Was Jesus revealing 
New Testament "doctrine," or was he attempting to turn the Jews from the false "traditions" and” righteousness" of the 
rabbis and "restore" them to faith in the "true" teaching and promises of God in the old Mosaical covenant? Had John 
the Baptist really "established" the New Testament "age" and "church" earlier in Matthew, chapters 3 and 4? Was 
Jesus really trying to "convert" those Old Testament Jews of Matthew 5-7 into New Testament "Christians" by 
teaching them the new covenant "gospel" plan of salvation in "the sermon on the mount”? At the time of Matthew, 
chapters 5 through 7, was Jesus an Old Testament "prophet" or New Testament "evangelist"? Was Jesus an Old 
Testament "Israelite" or a New Testament "Christian”? Why do New Testament "Christians" today have so much 
difficulty in understanding and applying the doctrine of "the sermon on the mount" to the New Testament "church"?

Argument #2:    This study will reveal that all of the teachings in "the sermon on the mount" -- were originally given 
only to Old Testament Israel in the old Mosaical covenant by Moses and the prophets in Exodus 20 through Malachi 
4. This study will reveal that Jesus concluded and summarized "the sermon on the mount by stating that his teaching 
in Matthew, chapters 5-7 -- was in fact -- "the law and the prophets" -- not New Testament "doctrine."

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and 
the prophets" (Matt. 7:12).       

This study will also reveal that all of the Old Testament commandments in "the sermon on the mount" for obtaining old 
covenant "righteousness" in Israel, had their application in the old Mosaical covenant -- not in the New Covenant of 
Christ. This study will reveal that these old covenant "commandments" were specifically given only to Jews of Israel 
under the Old Testament law of Moses. This study will reveal that these teachings and commandment were not given 
as new covenant "doctrine" for this New Testament "age" and "church."

This study will reveal that Jesus had come as God's last Old Testament "prophet" sent to Israel in the Old Testament 
"age," and according to divine "prophecy" -- Jesus would teach the old covenant law of Moses just as God had 
originally revealed and taught the law through Moses in Exodus 20 through Deuteronomy 33.       

"The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye 
shall hearken... I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his 
mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him" (Deut. 18:15, 18).    

This study will reveal that Jesus stated publicly in his personal ministry to Israel as described in Matthew, Mark, Luke 
and John -- before the cross (MMLJBC) -- that he came only to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). It 
will reveal that during this period he commanded his Jewish disciples to go "only to the lost sheep of the house of 
Israel" (Matt. 10:5-6). Why? Because as the Old Testament Messiah, his old covenant mission and work was to "fulfill" 
the "prophecies" and promises that God had made to Israel in the old Mosaical covenant. This study will show that 
Christ did not establish the New Testament "age” or "reveal" new covenant "doctrine" in "the sermon on the mount" 
before the New Testament age "began."    "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the 
house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24).    "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to 
destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass 
from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:17-18).    "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye 
continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you 
free" (Jn. 8:31-32).

The apostle Paul declared that Christ came as an Old Testament "minister" to the "circumcision" of Israel -- not a New 
Testament "evangelist" to the lost world of alien sinners.

"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made 
unto the fathers" (Rom. 15:8).

Argument #3:    This study will reveal that in MMLJBC, Jesus came preaching the "truth" about the Old Testament law 
of Moses to that "last generation" of Jews in Israel, to "save" this old covenant people by "restoring" them back to 
"faith in and obedience to" God's old covenant with Israel (Matt. 1:21; 17:9-13; 21:43; Jn. 1:11-12; 8:31-32). This 
study will reveal that Jesus did not come to preach New Testament "doctrine" to those Old Testament Jews and 
"convert" them into New Testament "Christians."      

When Jesus preached "the sermon on the mount" as the Old Testament Messiah sent only to old covenant Israel, his 
mission was to "restore" and "save" the "preserved” remnant of Israel by "restoring" them from unfaithfulness to 
faithfulness in keeping their old covenant with Jehovah (Matt. 1:21). His mission was not to "save" alien sinners of the 
world.

". . . It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the 
preserved of Israel . . ." (Isa.49: 6).

In his work of "restoring" unfaithful Israel in MMLJBC, Jesus "forbid" his Jewish disciples, who were still under the Old 
Testament law of Moses, to go to  any other people or nation  during his  mission and ministry among the Jews .    
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them saying, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city 
of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 10:5- 6).      

Both John and Jesus, and the people of Israel whom they taught in MMLJBC, lived their entire earthly lives "under" 
and "subject" to the old Mosaical covenant -- not the new covenant of Christ. Because the old covenant law of Moses 
was the only covenant law "in force" at the time Jesus preached "the sermon on the mount," his teaching was of 
necessity related to Israel and the old Mosaical covenant -- not to this New Testament "age" and new covenant law of 
Christ.    The specific "laws" and "religious" observances taught by Christ in "the sermon on the mount" could only 
have applied to Old Testament Israel and could only have found "application" within the old Mosaical covenant 
between Jehovah and Israel (i.e., Matt. 5:23- 24; 6:1-4, 9-10, 33; 7:12, 28-29).  They could not possibly be applied to 
the New Testament "church."

Let us remember, the New Testament "age" did not "begin" nor was new covenant "doctrine" revealed or the new 
covenant "church" established until some three years after Jesus delivered "the sermon on the mount" in Matthew, 
chapters 5 through 7. Argument #4: The Old Testament "Age" And "Doctrine" Of Matthew, Mark, Luke And John – 
Before The Cross

Understanding the Bible does not depend on which translation one uses or if one understands the original languages 
of the Hebrew Old Testament or Greek New Testament. It does not depend on one's level of education or how long 
they have been reading or studying the Bible and/or attending church services.

More than any other factor, it depends on understanding the Old Testament "age" and "doctrine" of Matthew, Mark, 
Luke and John -- before the cross (MMLJBC), and Christ's teaching of the old covenant law of Moses in these four 
books.

Understanding the Bible depends on whether or not one understands the scriptural difference between the Old and 
New Testaments and when and where the Scriptures -- not the Roman Catholic church -- teach that the Old 
Testament age really "ends" and the New Testament "age" and "revelation" of new covenant "doctrine" really 
"begins."

We ask, because millions of people world-wide are studying the Bible to understand its message, why is there so 
much misunderstanding of the Bible?

Unfortunately, (and a fact that many do not know), in 1486 AD and the "beginning" of the Protestant Reformation in 
Europe, when the Roman Catholic church attempted to maintain and defend "papal (Pope) authority" as the 
Protestants were clamoring for "Bible authority," Roman Catholic translators, publishers and printers of the Bible -- on 
the basis of earlier "apostate" lists and canons of Scripture compiled during the infamous "dark ages" -- arbitrarily 
"inserted" an unauthorized New Testament "title page" between the book of Malachi and Matthew to divide between 
the Old and New Testaments.

Of course, this Roman Catholic "heresy" of 1486 denies and contradicts what the Scriptures teach on where the Old 
Testament "ended" and the New Testament "began," and subsequently has misled millions of people who seek to 
know "God's will" for this New Testament "age."

Without question, this erroneous Roman Catholic "title page" is the most misunderstood "page" in the Bible. It has 
become the fundamental "cause" of most of the misunderstanding of the Bible and religious division among those who 
would "follow" Christ. Its sectarian spirit has created untold "false" doctrine about Christ and his new covenant 
"church."

Has this false "title page" also misled you in your efforts to understand the Bible and do God's "will" in this New 
Testament age? You may be completely unaware of how this fallacious Roman Catholic "title page" has affected your 
efforts to understand the Old and New Testaments.

If, as the Scriptures teach in numerous passages, Christ was the last Old Testament "prophet" that God sent to Israel 
(Deut. 18:15- 18; Lk. 13:33; Acts 3:22), if MMLJBC describe the last thirty-three years of the Old Testament "age," if 
the Jews and Israel became "dead to the law" by the body of Christ on the cross (Rom. 7:4), and if Christ was the 
"end" of the Old Testament age and authority of the law of Moses by his death on the cross (Rom. 10:4), then Malachi 
-- who lived some 430 years before the cross of Christ -- could not possibly have been the last Old Testament 
"prophet" sent to Israel, the last book of the Old Testament or the "end" of the Old Mosaical covenant.

The Jews, including Christ and his Jewish disciples in MMLJBC, practiced the old covenant "religion" of Israel and 
kept the law of Moses in Israel for 430 years after the time of Malachi. The Scriptures teach that Christ in MMLJBC, 
not Malachi, was the last Old Testament "prophet," that Christ in MMLJBC, not Malachi, describe the last thirty-three 
years of the Old Testament age, and that Christ in MMLJBC, not Malachi, was the "end" of the Old Testament age 
and old covenant authority of the law of Moses.

 Argument #5: Biblical Manuscript "Authorities “Confirm" The Roman Catholic "Origin" And "Erroneous Placement" Of 
The New Testament "Title Page"

The following quotations from biblical manuscript authorities on the text and canon of the Bible show clearly that the 
New Testament "title page" -- the page that divides between the books of Malachi and Matthew -- was first arbitrarily 
placed in the Bible by Roman Catholic translators and publishers, and was first printed by Pruss of Strasbourg in 1486 
AD.

This means that from the time of the 1st century apostles to 1486, there was no inspired division authorized or made 
between the books of Malachi and Matthew. If we are going to "rightly divide" between the Old and New Testaments 
by the teaching of Christ in MMLJBC and the New Testament apostles in Acts 2 through Revelation 22, then these 
four books must be placed in the Old Testament as did Christ, the Holy  Spirit  and the apostles -- not in the New 
Testament as done by the Roman Catholic church.

HARDING GRADUATE SCHOOL OF RELIGION "Dear brother Billingsly, The sort of information I understood you to 
be looking for is likely to be found in the set: T.H. Darlow and H.F. Moule, HISTORICAL CATALOGUE OF PRINTED 
EDITIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. It appears that the Gutenburg Bible (1455 AD) did not have a `title page.' Our 
copies of the Sinaiticus (4th century manuscript)  and Alexandrius (5th century manuscript) do not have a New 
Testament `title page.'" Jack P. Lewis, Professor of Bible

BIBLIOTECA APOSTOLICA VATICANA, Vatican, Rome, Italy
"Dear Mr. Billingsly, With regard to when the title-page was inserted between 2 Maccabees and the beginning of the 
Gospel according to Matthew, I call your attention to p. 421, of THE CAMRIDGE HISTORY OF THE BIBLE, Vol. 3, it 
states: 'In 1486 Pruss of Strassburg printed the first Bible with a title-page.'"
REV. William J. Sheehan, C.S.B.

BRITISH MUSEUM/LIBRARY DEPARTMENT OF MANUSCRIPTS "Dear Sir, The oldest manuscripts of the Greek 
Bible were not produced with such a title-page at the beginning of St. Matthew's Gospel as we find in our modern 
printed editions."

Dr. Scot McKendrick, Curator Of Classical, Byzantine and Biblical Manuscripts AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY
"Dear Mr. Billingsly, The first printed edition of the Bible was a copy of the Latin Vulgate printed about 1455 by Johan 
Gutenberg....The first known example of a title-page is the 1486 edition of the Bible in Latin published by Pruss of 
Strassburg, which carried the words `Textus Biblie.'"
Erroll F. Rhodes, Assistant Director, Bible Study Helps

OKLAHOMA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY "Dear Brother Billingsly, The first "Title Page" to the Bible was added in 1486 
to a Latin Bible published by Pruss of Strassburg...The authority for its insertion was that of the printer...Second, there 
were no title sheets in the oldest and best manuscripts...The first known examples of an entire Bible in book form 
come from around AD 350 (and these included the Apocrypha in the Old Testament like first and second Maccabees, 
Tobit, Judith, and additional books in the New Testament like the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and 
the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles)."
Curt Niccum, Professor of the College of Biblical Studies

We can see from the above statements that the apostate Roman Catholic church of the "dark ages" took great steps 
to confuse and denigrate the written word of God in both the Old and New Testaments. The New Testament "title 
page" was just one of their many doctrinal "heresies" regarding the Bible.
How will Ethan deny these Biblical and historical facts?
How will Ethan prove that the "teaching" of MMLJBC show that these four books belong to the New and not the Old 
Testament?
Ethan's "proof" will consist of Roman Catholic "heresy"!
Dan Billingsly