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

Dan and Religious Debates-
 
Greetings.
 
It is Dan's duty now to attempt to demonstrate the truth of the proposition:
 
I have seen from Dan's first affirmative that it is clearly not his intent to actually follow his proposition-- he would rather 
speak of all the Gospels.  I hope in future affirmatives he will remember that the Sermon on the Mount-- and the 
Sermon of the Mount alone-- is the text under discussion.
 
Regardless, let us examine his first "affirmative" to see if he actually proves his proposition:
 
Dan actually begins to speak remotely concerning the Sermon on the Mount here:
 
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).
 
ELDV: Does Dan have us believe that this quotation of Matthew 7:12 proves that the whole Sermon on the Mount is 
the "law and the prophets?"  I disagree completely with this idea.  Certainly the idea that "all things whatsoever ye 
would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" is the law and the prophets, for Jesus will say in Matthew 22 
that loving God and loving your neighbor represents the whole law and the prophets.  Will the proposition that 
Matthew 7:12 refers to the whole Sermon on the Mount stand up to critical examination?  By no means!
 
If the Sermon on the Mount conforms to the Law and the Prophets, we should certainly see all the teachings of Jesus 
being teachings that may be found in the Law and the Prophets.  Perchance Dan can help us in an examination of the 
Law and the Prophets, but when I examine these Scriptures, I do not see the following statements made:

1. "that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his 
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of 
fire."
 
2. "that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. "
 
3. "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. "  (In fact, with this quotation, the teachings of 
the Law concerning remarriage are plainly evident in Jeremiah 3:1, which is in complete opposition to what Jesus said 
in this quotation).
 
4. "but I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God"
 
5. "but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other 
also."
 
6. "but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you."
 
It is my hope that perhaps Dan will provide us the quotations from the Law and the Prophets that specifically teach 
these principles laid down by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.  After all, if the Sermon on the Mount is the Law and 
the Prophets, this should be an easy task indeed.
 
Dan continued:
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 fulfil. 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).
 
ELDV: First, I will note that it is interesting to see that although Dan holds Jesus to the comment that He came to the 
lost sheep of Israel only, the Scriptures document that He assisted Gentiles (the centurion in Matthew 8:5) and spoke 
with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4).  Likewise, while Jesus certainly upheld the Law for the Jews at the 
time, He most definitely taught the principles that would guide the Christian's lifestyle in the new covenant.
 
Regardless, Dan quotes Matthew 5:17-18 as proof that the Sermon on the Mount is completely in harmony with the 
Law.  We have seen in the last debate that Dan affirmed that any Jew who followed the words of Jesus in the Sermon 
on the Mount would be justified by the Law yet he also declared that Jews who acted beyond the words of Jesus 
(adhering to the Law over the statements made by Christ) were justified by His teachings, despite the fact that of the 
six teachings listed above that are present in the Sermon on the Mount, NONE are found specifically in the Law of 
Moses and are actually to be regarded as further limitations on human activity than which were given by God to 
Moses.  I agree with Dan that all Jews who followed the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount are still justified 
by the Law-- which means that the words of Christ are not abrogating the Law or changing the Law for the Jew.  A 
Jew who follows the Law despite the six contrasts listed above that were given by Jesus, however, would not be 
justified in the sight of the latter.  A man can follow the words of Christ in the Sermon and be justified by the Law but 
may not be so in the contrary-- this most definitely represents new words that are affirmed in the new covenant, not 
the old.  Put simply, when Jesus says to let one's yes be yes and no no, we do not see this in the Law or the 
Prophets, but we most assuredly see this in the letter of James.  Therefore, it is easy to see that such doctrine is not 
of the Old Testament, but anticipates the New.
 
Dan continues with the following:
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.
 
ELDV: This is a fairly interesting statement when we read the Scriptures and see that Jesus most assuredly declares 
portions of the Law given by Moses as not being the will of God but done by the "hardness of heart" of the Jews. The 
whole portion of the Sermon on the Mount in question clearly shows that while certain portions of the Law guided men 
to act in a certain manner, Jesus is teaching them to take a higher path regarding those laws.  The only restorative 
work being performed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is guiding people to follow the will of God-- which can, 
and does, come at some variance with the Law of Moses.  These variants have been demonstrated many times and 
in much detail, and Dan has simply not provided any evidence that such is not the case.

Dan then brought forth many arguments about placement of the books of the Bibles, as if that has anything to do with 
the proposition at all.  I agree with him in some regards-- the Gospels are not truly the "New Testament." But I can 
guarantee you, and this is made clearly manifest in the discussion above, that the Gospels are not the "Old 
Testament" either.  The Gospels ought to represent the "Middle Testament," the period of time where the Jews were 
exhorted to return to conformity to the will of God, revealed by Jesus the Christ, who verified proper teachings of the 
Law and demonstrated the will of God that differed from the precepts delivered by Moses.  This, however, has little if 
anything to do with the proposition at hand, and it should be fairly evident by now that I have had little if anything to 
refute in regards to argumentation, because, quite simply, Dan has failed to actually affirm his proposition!
 
Let us hope that perhaps in his second affirmation Dan will actually begin to discuss the Sermon on the Mount, the 
point of this whole debate, and perhaps give arguments on how they must definitively be the "Old Testament."
 
Ethan R. Longhenry