Wednesday, September 13, 2000
A Response by Al Maxey to
Broking's Additional Comments
Darrell wrote, "If this writer wanted to engage in a one sided discussion, he would simply quote
from Maxey's material, answer it and be done with it. Why does this writer's opponent continue
to avoid discussing what needs to be discussed?"
Perhaps "this writer" needs to remind "this writer's opponent" of the original purpose of this
discussion, which seems to have been forgotten along the way. Charges were made in public
against both my book and me; it was maintained that both it and I promoted false doctrine. I
insisted upon my "day in court," and in time was "permitted" to offer a defense of
my book Down, But Not Out. This discussion was to be a chapter by chapter critical
review of that work by Darrell Broking, with my defense from God's Word to each of his objections
that he raised pertaining to the chapter in question.
I have attempted to keep this on track, but it has been a battle. Even now, Darrell wants to jump
ahead to a passage in I Cor. 7, and demands I explain that passage before he will go on. However,
that is Chapter Seven of my book, and we have not even yet approached Chapter
Five. He is wanting in-depth exegesis of something Paul said, when we have yet to examine
what Jesus said. To fully understand Paul, we must first tackle the difficulties he
perceives to be in my book with respect to the statements of Jesus.
This discussion is now only vaguely a critical review of my book (which was the original intent
of the whole thing). In his first post (April 7th) Darrell pledged, "In this discussion, I will examine
each chapter of Maxey's book and comment on some of Al's statements which are out of harmony
with the Bible." That is all I have ever asked of Darrell. He insists my book is filled with false
doctrine, and I just want him to show me!! In the course of him doing that we can and
will discuss "theology."
In his second post (April 24th) Darrell observed, "A discussion on these matters is really premature
at this point. It may be best to discuss each of these elements as the chapter in which they are found
is discussed." As one can see, early on Darrell understood the purpose of this discussion and
chose not to depart from it. I only ask that we continue that course. We are not yet to the teaching
of Paul. We have not yet even begun the teaching of Jesus. We are at Chapter Five.
As Darrell himself observed above, it is premature to tackle a passage in the writings of Paul
when we have not yet tackled the foundational teaching of Jesus Christ.
Darrell, I am not continuing "to avoid discussing what needs to be discussed." I am only sticking
to the purpose of this discussion, which in your quotes above you clearly perceived at one time.
We're at Chapter Five now, Darrell. Let's focus on that. We WILL get to the statement
of Paul in I Cor. 7, but we are not there yet. It WILL be discussed, but it is premature to do so
now (your words).
Darrell wrote: "At this juncture this writer requests that his opponent explain why, after Herod
and Herodias divorced from their former mates and were married, God called Herodias Philip's
wife?" This pertains to Chapter Five, so I will be happy to address this issue.
It was important to the context of the passage, and for the information of the readers, to establish
the nature of the offense committed by Herod and Herodias. They were guilty of having virtually no
regard for God's IDEAL, and their many unions, separately, were an abomination (not only to
God, but to those about them ..... but who was going to criticize Herod?!!). Their numerous
marriages and divorces were "the talk of the town." Before Herod Antipas, for example, Herodias
was the wife of his brother Philip, and before that she was the wife of her own step-brother!! Thus,
it was common knowledge that she was the wife of two different relatives prior to marrying her
uncle Herod Antipas.
It is not uncommon to characterize such prior unions in the language used in Scripture. We
use the same terminology today. Just the other day a man was talking about someone who
had recently remarried. He said, "He is now married to his best friend's wife." That is just common
usage; it does not mean that the woman is STILL the wife of the previous husband (any more
than addressing President Ford as such means he is still President). The passage was merely
commenting on the previous relationship of Herodias, and commenting on the fact that Herod had
married "the wife of his brother Philip." To read that as though it means she was still married to
Philip is incorrect and misses the point entirely. After all, Darrell, would she not technically
(according to your thinking) have still been the wife of her step-brother, to whom she was married
before Philip? By your reasoning, therefore, she was not even the "wife of Philip."
I think you are making more of this phrase than was ever intended. If I say, "That man married
his best friend's wife" I am not even remotely suggesting she is still married to the man from whom
she is divorced (or who may even now be dead), but rather am simply indicating the nature of
her relationship with that individual. What was she to this man's best friend? --- his wife!! To
try and build a doctrine from such a phrase is truly a case of constructing theology "ex
nihilo" (out of nothing).
Darrell, we have finally arrived at the point where we are ready to discuss the teaching of Jesus
Christ, and oddly enough you seem reluctant to do so. I don't understand. You were "straining
at the leash" to get to what Jesus said, and now you declare "it is not possible to go forth until
these points are answered from God's word" --- the "points" being, in part, an in-depth exegesis
of what PAUL has written to the Corinthian brethren in a particular passage. Darrell, let's take
this in its logical order, as was the original intent of this discussion, which you yourself acknowledged
early on. It is "premature" (your word) to deal with what Paul said until we have examined what
Jesus said. The former cannot be fully understood without an awareness of the latter.
Thus, I continue to await your critical review of Chapter Five of my book, and the things
you believe to be out of harmony with God's Word contained therein.