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 Billingsley
Deny: Ethan Longhenry

This is the third and last rebuttal to the proposition that Dan has affirmed.

In order for Dan to have affirmed this proposition and to demonstrate its veracity, he would have to prove that all the 
comments made by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are "Old Testament" doctrine, and he would have to defend 
this with proof that definitively shows that this is the case.
 
Dan, however, has not done this.  Twice I have asked him to give us the Old Testament Scriptures from the Law and 
the Prophets that show definitively that the contrasts made by Jesus in Matthew 5 are truly a part of the Law. Twice 
Dan has not been able to give these scriptures, but instead has created a smokescreen by asking me to show where 
they are in the New Testament!  Dan, this is not my time to prove anything, but yours!  This debate has nothing to do 
with what comments of Christ are of the New Testament (although I believe that the readers can see that the 
statements in question made by Christ are assuredly confirmed in the New Testament), but this debate has everything 
to do with you proving that they are from the Old Testament!  I have asked what I believe was a very simple 
question—give the proof that Jesus' six contrasts are of Old Testament doctrine, and you have not provided any such 
proof!  Your silence speaks volumes about your doctrine-- it is unsupportable by the Scriptures!
 
Regardless, let us now look at Dan's final argumentation:

In Matthew 7:12, Jesus is referring to all of the  teaching in Matthew, chapters 5 through 7. Jesus declares in this 
verse that all of his teaching in the "sermon on the mount"  is "the law and the prophets."
 
ELDV: This is Dan's assertion; in my first rebuttal, I explained how we ought to examine verse 12 of chapter 7, to see 
if it makes sense that Jesus speaks the Law and the Prophets throughout the Sermon on the Mount.  We have seen 
that Jesus has made six contrasts in Matthew chapter 5 (concerning one's attitude toward one's brother, adultery, 
marriage and divorce, oath-swearing, justice, and loving one's enemy), and if these were a part of the Law and the 
Prophets, Dan could have very easily given us the Scriptural references that prove that this is so.  Yet twice he has 
not!  There are no Old Testament Scriptures that show that any of the six contrasts listed above are a part of the Old 
Testament Law or Prophets!  Therefore, it is evident that Dan's assertion is false, and that "the Law and the Prophets" 
under discussion in verse 12 of chapter 7 refers only to the statement made in verse 12, "All things therefore 
whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them."
 
Dan then asserts the following:
If the Old Testament Mosaical age and covenant "ended" at the cross (Rom. 10:4), and the New Testament did not 
"begin" until Acts 2, then the above statement is true according to the teaching of the Scriptures.
 
At the cross and death of Christ, God "cast away" Israel as his Old Covenant nation as Christ prophesied (Matt. 
21:43), and as Paul teaches in the New Testament (Rom. 11:15). All 1st century Jews lost their Old Testament 
covenant with God at the cross and all Jews at that time lost their old covenant relationship with God. At the cross, all 
Jews became "alien sinners" with the non-covenant Gentiles. The whole world became "guilty" of sin at that time, 
there were none "righteous" by covenant law (Rom. 3:19). The 1st century Jews became "alienated" from God, they 
joined the millions of Gentiles who had for more than 1500 years been without covenant,  without God and without 
hope in the world (Eph. 2:12). There was no covenant hope between the cross and Acts 2. Ethan is wrong again.
 
ELDV: This is fairly interesting, considering that Acts 15 and Acts 21 show that the "Jewish Christians" in Jerusalem 
held fast to the Law of Moses and Christ and there is never once any word of condemnation of this breathed by Paul 
or any other apostle-- in fact, Paul seems to affirm this by taking a Nazi rite vow in Acts 21!  The only condemnation 
came to those Jewish Christians who wished to bind the Jewish Law upon the Gentiles!  The time of the Jewish Age 
only truly ended with the destruction of the Temple and the fulfillment of prophecy in Daniel 9!  Anyone who denies 
that there is an overlapping of the Mosaical and Christian Era has a lot of explaining to do, and Dan's only solution is 
to condemn any soul who died between the Friday of Passover and the day of Pentecost to Hell!

Let it be known that this is my premise for the covenants: after the day of Pentecost, salvation only came to those that 
believe in Christ, although for a time (until 70AD) God forgave the hardness of the Jews who accepted Christ yet still 
followed the Law of Moses.  This is the overlap of the covenants of which I speak.

Dan's answer: No, Ethan, I did not say that the false "rabbinical traditions" defined `ervah dabar' (some uncleanness) 
in Deuteronomy 24:1-2. I said that Jesus defined "some uncleanness" as "sexual immorality" or "fornication" as he 
taught the truth of the law of Moses in Matthew 19. Jesus defined "ervah dabar" as "sexual immorality" just as Moses 
did in Leviticus, chapters 18 through 20.
 
ELDV: Dan, Moses defined it as sexual immorality in those passages?  Where is the evidence from this?  The term 
used in Deuteronomy 24:1-2, "ervah," is NEVER used as defining "fornication" in the Old Testament-- whose tradition 
are you following, Dan?  Well, good readers, the evidence is that Dan is following after the school of Shammai as 
opposed to the school of Hillel, both of whom are Jewish rabbis!  Dan here proves definitively that he is using the 
definitions of Jewish rabbis in order to attempt to demonstrate that Jesus is refuting ONLY Jewish rabbis!  Further, 
why would Jesus bring Moses into the equation in Matthew 19:8 if Moses taught that fornication was the only reason 
for divorce?  Jesus makes it extremely clear when the Pharisees are following after their own traditions and not the 
Law-- Matthew 15:3-9 prove this definitively.  In Matthew 19:8, if Jesus were attempting to refute the Pharisees on a 
part of their tradition, He would NOT bring Moses into the equation!  Yet He says that "Moses suffered you to divorce 
your wives!"  Readers, Dan is forcing Jesus to look like a fool and a hypocrite in order to prove his doctrine!
 
Dan then gives Scriptures to show "similarity" between what Jesus says and the words of the Law:
 
Forgiveness   Ex. 32:32; Num. 14:19 Matt. 5:23-26
 
Let us examine these:
 
Exodus 32:32
Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin-; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
 
Numbers 14:19
Pardon, I pray thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy lovingkindness, and according as 
thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.

Matthew 5:23-26
If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave 
there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.   
Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art with him in the way; lest haply the adversary deliver thee to the 
judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no 
means come out thence, till thou have paid the last farthing.
 
These are teaching the same thing?  Dan attempts to show that God forgiving Israel is proof that Jesus' words about 
one who ought to be reconciled to those he may have sinned against are "Old Testament" doctrine!  These two, while 
speaking of a similar topic, are completely different in regards to application!  Further, Dan omits the following verse, 
Matthew 5:22:
 
but I say unto you, 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.
 
...which is the contrast being given with the words of the Law!  Dan, how come you have not provided any verses 
showing similarity with Matthew 5:22? Possibly because it is not from Old Testament doctrine?

Dan continues:
Lust-Adultery  Ex.20:14,17;1Sam.25:28 Matt. 5:27-30
 
 ELDV:
Exodus 20:14,17
Thou shalt not commit adultery...Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, 
nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.
 
1 Samuel 25:28
Forgive, I pray thee, the trespass of thy handmaid: for Jehovah will certainly make my lord a sure house, because my 
lord fighteth the battles of Jehovah; and evil shall not be found in thee all thy days.
 
Matthew 5:27-30:
Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery:  but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a 
woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.  And if thy right eye causeth thee to 
stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not 
thy whole body be cast into hell.  And if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is 
profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell.
 
Dan has quoted the very verse that Jesus quotes in his attempt to prove Jesus' words as being from Old Testament 
doctrine!  Jesus provides a contrast with Exodus 20:14, and yet Dan believes this proves that the contrast is Old 
Testament doctrine?  This is very strange!  Neither the verses in Exodus nor 1 Samuel teaches that "every one that 
looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."  Yet again, these verses 
do not prove that Jesus' contrast is of the Old Testament!
 
Dan:
Divorce   Deut. 24:1; 7:3 Matt. 5:31-32

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.
 
Deuteronomy 7:3
neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt 
thou take unto thy son.
 
Matthew 5:31-32
It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, 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.
 
Dan yet again uses the very verse that Jesus gives to provide the contrast in his attempt to prove that Jesus' words 
are of the Old Testament! Further, Deuteronomy 7:3 is a discussion about how the Israelites are not to marry with the 
native Canaanites!  How do either of these verses teach that one who puts away his wife for any reason save sexual 
immorality makes her an adulteress and anyone who would marry her an adulterer?  This is a complete difference 
from Deuteronomy 24:2, which teaches that such a woman COULD remarry!!  Yet again, Dan fails to provide the 
evidence that Jesus' contrast is of the Old Testament!

Dan:
Oaths   Ex. 20:7;  Deut. 6:13 Matt. 5:33-37

ELDV:
Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name 
in vain.
 
Deuteronomy 6:13
Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as 
Jehovah, the God of thy fathers, hath promised unto thee, in a land flowing with milk and honey.
 
Matthew 5:33-37
Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the 
Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the 
earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.  Neither shalt thou swear by 
thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black.  But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and 
whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.
 
The only possibility that exists for these verses to prove the words of Christ are of the Old Testament would be to not 
take the name of the LORD in vain, but even then, Christ says not to swear at ALL, not by heaven nor earth nor 
Jerusalem nor thy head or anything, because such oaths are of the evil one!  Dan has even provided a verse that 
shows that the Israelites swore to follow God, which is all well and good-- but not one comment is made at all in these 
verses about not swearing at all!  Again, Dan fails in attempting to show that the contrast Jesus provides is of the Old 
Testament.
 
Dan:
Revenge   Lev. 19:18 Matt. 5:38-42

ELDV:
Leviticus 19:18
Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself: I am Jehovah.
 
Matthew 5:38-42
Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 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.  And if any man would go to law with thee, 
and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.  And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him 
two.  Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
 
Now Dan is at least getting somewhere-- he provides a verse that shows that there ought to not be vengeance taken 
upon one another under the Old Testament!  Unfortunately for Dan, however, the verse in Leviticus does not provide 
any proof that under the Law, one ought to turn the other cheek, or to give a man your coat and your cloak, or to go 
"an extra mile" for someone.  Yet again, in the end, Dan fails to prove that the contrast is of the Old Testament.
 
And for the last contrast, Dan provides the following:
Brotherly Love  Lev. 19:18 Matt. 5:43-48

The same verse in Leviticus!  Yet Christ has said,
 
Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, love your 
enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh 
his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. For if ye love them that love you, 
what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?  And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more 
than others? do not even the Gentiles the same? Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
 
There is not to be vengeance taken under the Old Law, according to Leviticus 19:18, and also one should not bear a 
grudge-- but does this automatically mean that one must love his enemies?  Or that the Jews should of all things pray 
for those that persecute them?  By no means!  Dan, for the sixth time, has failed to give definitive proof that the 
specific words of Christ that He gave in contrast to the Law are still actually a part of the Law.
 
I have given specific references from the New Testament which actually affirm directly three of the six contrasts listed 
above-- yet Dan has given none!  Let this suffice to show the error of Dan's proposition.
 
Dan now attempts to show that the "principles" are the same:

Let us show, by several  comparisons, that the principles for Old Testament "faith" and the practice of  "religion"  
which Jesus taught in "the sermon on the mount" were a restatement  of the truth in the law of Moses -- not the 
revelation  of New Testament doctrine.

THE LAW OF MOSES: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his 
manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's" (Ex. 20:17).

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT: ". . .That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery 
with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:28).

ELDV: These principles are the same?  Jesus says to not only avoid the physical action of adultery but also the 
mental action of lusting!  These principles are different indeed!

Dan:
The principle of BROTHERLY LOVE.

THE LAW OF MOSES: "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and 
not suffer sin upon him. Thou shall not avenge , nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt 
love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord" (Lev. 19:17-18).

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine 
enemy.  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray 
for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matt. 5:43-44).
 
ELDV: Again, these are the same principles?  Moses says to love your brother, and Jesus says the same.  Does 
Moses at any time, however, affirm that the Israelites ought to love their enemies or pray for those that persecute 
them?  Where are these affirmations, Dan?  Not present in yours!
 
Dan now attempts to reconcile Jesus' contrasts yet again with the Law:
 
CHRIST'S TEACHING ON "ENEMIES" IN MATTHEW 5:43-44: It has been suggested by some that the teaching of Jesus in "the sermon on the mount" with regard to how God's old covenant children should treat their old covenant 
"enemies" within Israel was revolutionary, a totally new concept, never before heard by Israel or the world.  However, 
we point out that the teaching of Christ on the Jew's  "enemies" in Israel in Matthew5:43-44 was the same in principle 
as the teaching of  Moses on this issue in Leviticus 19.
 
ELDV: Dan has certainly asserted that the teachings are the same in principle, but he has assuredly not proven it!  
Leviticus 19 does not speak a word about loving one's enemies, nor blessing those that curse you, nor praying for 
those that persecute you!
 
Dan:
Let us notice that the "enemy" of Matthew 5:43-44 was not an "enemy" Gentile or alien sinner, but a covenant Jew's 
personal "enemy"  among his covenant brethren in Israel.  Because every Jew had both friends and  "enemies" in 
Israel, Jesus was emphasizing in "the sermon on the mount" how the law of Moses taught the Jews to treat their 
"enemies" within Israel -- not how Christians should treat their "enemies" inside or outside of the church.
 
ELDV: Really?  Where does Jesus say this?  I must confess, when I read Matthew 5:43-44, I do not see Jesus giving 
a strict definition of who "those" are!  Who were the persecutors of the age?  Jew or Gentile? Gentile, most assuredly.  
More fluff without substance from Dan!

Dan:
CHRIST'S USE OF THE WORD "WHOSOEVER" IN MATTHEW 5:31-32 AND 19:9: Another misconception of 
Christ's teaching in MMLJBC  is seen in the way that some interpret his use of the word "whosoever."  Many interpret 
Christ's use of "whosoever" to include "anyone" or "everyone" in the world, rather than "whosoever in Israel" as the 
context demands.  Please consider the following.
 
ELDV: Hey, Jesus is quoting Moses who was giving a law to Israel-- therefore, the beginning part of verse 31 is 
assuredly to the Jews.  Yet Jesus provides a contrast and a new saying-- does this new saying apply only to Jews?  If 
so, is not Jesus condemned by the Law for taking away from what Moses has said?  Methinks Dan does not tread 
carefully enough concerning the words of Christ!

Another item Dan has enjoyed saying without proof is exemplified below:

There are many distinctively Mosaical laws, concepts, and teaching concerning the Jews' Old Testament religion in 
"the sermon on the mount" that are not part of New Testament doctrine.  This sermon shows Jesus making a strong 
contrast between the truth of Moses' law and the false rabbinical "traditions" that had arisen among the Jewish rabbis 
-- not the revelation of New Testament doctrine.  Jesus makes this plain when he contrasts what was said of "them of 
old time" (the rabbinical traditions and perversions of the law), and the truth that Jesus was restating from the law of 
Moses in MMLJBC.

ELDV: We have seen time and again that Dan asserts that when Jesus speaks of that which was said "of them of old 
time" that this means the traditions of the rabbis.  Yet, when we read the Scriptures in Matthew 5, this very phrase (for 
example, in verse 33) opens up a verse of the Law spoken by Moses!  I have shown twice that Jesus is quoting 
Moses and speaks about Moses in these contrasts in Matthew 5, yet Dan continues to assert that Jesus is refuting the 
rabbis!  Dan has not provided any evidence for this assertion either, which further demonstrates the error of his 
proposition!

Dan:
In Matthew, chapters 5 through 7,  Jesus makes constant reference to the Jewish religion and the law of Moses, the 
Pharisees, Jewish covenant brethren, and temple worship (Matt. 5:20-26).  He speaks of Jerusalem the holy city of 
Israel (Matt. 5:35), and that only the Israelites were the old covenant children of God (Matt. 5:47-48).  He teaches on 
Jewish almsgiving, synagogues and prayer (Matt. 6:1-7).
 
ELDV: Jesus most certainly uses the examples of the people to whom He speaks-- but this somehow proves that the 
message spoken is only for the Old Testament?

Let us continue this "logic" of Dan to its fullest extent: in the letter to the Hebrews, Jesus is compared to the High 
Priest and his action of offering atonement for the people.  Since the Hebrew author is using Jewish terminology and 
Jewish cultural understandings, does this mean that the message of the Hebrew author is of the Old Testament?  Dan 
himself does not believe this!  Therefore, the examples Christ uses to describe His message is not suitable evidence to prove that His message is of Old Testament doctrine.

Finally, Dan concludes with the following:
My proposition that the "sermon on the mount" is exclusively Old Testament doctrine is affirmed by the teaching of 
Christ and the Scriptures.
 
ELDV: I find it highly interesting that you declare that the Scriptures teach your proposition when you have twice 
refused to give the scriptures that would prove your proposition!  Let the following be known:

1) Dan has not provided any scriptures from the Old Testament Law and Prophets that demonstrate that the six 
contrasts of Christ are truly Old Testament doctrine.
 
2) Dan has asserted that the statements Jesus has made to introduce the contrasts are actually what is spoken by the 
Jewish rabbis, yet the text itself shows that Jesus quotes Moses himself to introduce the contrasts. Dan has not 
provided any proof that Jesus is refuting the rabbis in these contrasts.
 
3) Dan has asserted that Moses meant fornication only as reason for divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1, an assertion 
which you will never find in the Old Testament: you will only find it in the works of the Jewish rabbis, the very group 
which Dan asserts Jesus is refuting.
 
4) Dan is forced to argue on the basis of "principles" and upon the "examples" Christ gave in His speech, which 
shows that he has no specific evidence that proves his assertion.
 
On the basis of these evident demonstrations, clearly prevalent throughout the three affirmatives of Dan and my three 
rebuttals, I declare that Dan's proposition has not only been not proven, but has been demonstrated to be completely 
false: Jesus has made statements in the Sermon on the Mount which are not in harmony with the Law of Moses, 
therefore, it is not possible for the Sermon on the Mount to be only Old Testament doctrine.
 
Ethan R. Longhenry