Maxey - Broking Discussion
A Critical Review and Defense of
Down, But Not Out

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.

Home Index