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

Friday, November 3, 2000

A Summary On Matthew 19:6
By Darrell Broking

Al Maxey writes, "Darrell titled his latest post Still Focusing On Matthew 19:6 And Related Material, and then proceeded to focus almost entirely upon I Corinthians 7. I find it amazing that Darrell thinks it is I who need to be corralled, and yet it is he who is leaping from pasture to pasture. It's absolutely dizzying!!"

The verses being considered in this thread were Matthew 19:6 and I Corinthians 7:10-11. Paul's comments in I Corinthians 7:10-11 are inspired commentary on the Lord's prohibitive statement recorded in Matthew 19:6. These verses need to be considered together. I realize that if I were teaching a doctrine in conflict with the Lord's will that I would not want an inspired commentary shedding light on my error. Al either cannot give an answer for his teaching here, or it is too dangerous for his doctrine of demons to put Matthew 19:6 in the same setting with I Corinthians 7:10-11.

Al admits that he will not deal with the Lord's truth as presented in these verses: "He's right. I didn't deal with them. Nor will I deal with them now. We have been over this several times before, Darrell. There is a logical progression which needs to be followed here." Well Al, it would be consistent to keep Matthew 19:6 right in line with its parallel passage and inspired commentary.

For the remaining posts in this discussion I will expose the error in Al's progressive list:

  1. Matthew 19:6b

  2. The "Exception Clause"

  3. The Present Indicative in Matthew 19:9

  4. Definition of "Fornication"

  5. Definition of "Adultery"

  6. Prohibitions Concerning Remarriage

Any passages shedding light on these issues will be introduced at that time. This will give us an exit plan and help move this discussion to its closure.

In summary of the material introduced on Matthew 19:6 and related passages, let me mention a few points. When Al was corralled he first attempted to say that he and I were very close on that issue: "Once again, I do not disagree with anything Darrell has stated here." It appears that when Al gets backed into a corner that he attempts to gloss over it by saying that we are really close on these matters. The readership is aware of this ploy as it was used elsewhere in this discussion. When the fact that Maxey's doctrine and the Bible doctrine are as far apart as the North Pole is from the South came out, Al simply threw in the towel and refused to answer what he teaches.

Al was offended because I marked him as a false teacher, so he pushed and pushed to have an opportunity to vindicate his teaching. When the opportunity looks him square in the eyes, he refuses to even attempt to answer his doctrine of demons. Al, the reason I mentioned your lean toward an anti-hell doctrine is because when a man teaches error that is the doctrine of demons, he will eventually have to deny that hell even exists. This is what many of your predecessors have done, so I look for it from you too.

I will now begin to work on your doctrine of demons as it relates to the exceptive clause. Yes Al, I am going to use any passage of scripture which pertains to the exceptive clause. I will post again in a few days. I hope that in the next section of this discussion that you will do a better job of debating the issues which divide us and make you a false teacher.

In Him,

Home Index