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

Wednesday, April 26, 2000

A Response by Al Maxey
To Broking's Post #2

Darrell wrote: "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."

I happen to agree with this assessment. To begin an in-depth examination of some of the issues Darrell raised relevant to what he believes I have taught in later chapters of my book is indeed premature. As Darrell points out, he only raised them at this juncture to "illustrate what I meant by the statement: 'However, we disagree about the standard men are to follow on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage.'"

What Darrell has done is point out that he and I differ on matters of interpretation of certain passages of Scripture. And he gave a few illustrations. However, I would like to just state for the record that differing on a few matters of interpretation is a much different matter than differing on the *Standard* to be employed.

My *Standard* is the Word of God. Darrell and I may not agree on what certain words in a select passage signify, but that does not mean I have rejected the Standard of the inspired Word of God. There is a tendency in the church today to accuse those with whom one disagrees on some issue of rejecting the Word of God as their Standard of authority. I do not! I fully accept His inspired Word as my authority in all matters, and as my ONLY authority. I believe that in these inspired writings we have *everything* that pertains to life and godliness revealed to us. ALL that our Lord desires for us to know about marriage, divorce and remarriage is contained in Scripture. Thus, I still must take exception to Darrell's characterization that I employed some other Standard.

Darrell wrote: "I am pleased to follow the New Testament pattern on this subject." I personally don't care for the term "pattern," but I know what Darrell is saying here, and I agree. I too follow the doctrine revealed in the inspired NT writings. The fact that he and I do not always agree on matters of interpretation in no way suggests that one of us has cast off the inspired writings as our standard or authority. It simply means that we have come to differing interpretations.

Darrell pointed out that "The writers of the New Testament were guided in all truth by the Holy Ghost." I agree. He wrote, "Men today come to know Jesus through the writings of these inspired men." Again, I agree. In the writings of the NT canon we do indeed find the will and mind of our Lord. I fully accept that. I also believe that nothing written by any of the NT writers in any way contradicts or conflicts with the teaching of Jesus Christ. In fact, I went to great lengths in my book to make this very point. The teaching of the NT writings is completely consistent with the recorded teaching of Jesus Christ. Further, I sought to demonstrate that the teaching of Jesus and His inspired writers is also very consistent with the truths about MDR proclaimed in the OT writings.

Darrell wrote: "All authority on the subject of Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage is found in the New Testament, and it is all Jesus' teaching." I would agree with this up to a point. I think, however, that we must not discount the inspired writings of the OT in our search for the FULL counsel of our God on this subject. Although I do not believe we are under the old law today, nevertheless we can gain much insight from the writings of the 39 books of the OT. I do not believe they in any way negate or overrule, nor are they inconsistent with, the teaching of Jesus Christ and the inspired NT authors. Indeed, we appreciate and comprehend the writings of the latter much more by understanding the writings of the former. Thus, I would encourage Darrell, and any other student of this subject, not to discount out of hand or too quickly the testimony of the OT writings. They are vital to our understanding of MDR.

With regard to such words as "Adultery" and "Fornication," Darrell writes, "Al Maxey says that these words really mean something different than what the Bible says they mean." Readers, may I caution you early on in this discussion not to take too seriously what another person says *I* believe until you see it in direct quotes. Darrell has *said* that I believe certain things, but has yet to provide the direct quote from my book where I allegedly made such a statement. Short of direct quotes, all one has is the *impressions* of another as to what they *think* the author intended or meant. I can assure you that I do NOT believe some of the things which Darrell has claimed that I believe. But, this will come out in our discussions.

The fact is, I do NOT state in my book that these words mean something different than what the BIBLE says they mean. I do believe they may have deeper biblical significance and meaning than some MEN claim they have. But that is a far cry from what Darrell alleges with regard to my beliefs and teaching. In my discussion of these words in the book (and in my discussion of them when we get to that point in our exchange), you will see that I provide solid and sound biblical exegesis, and in-depth examination of the Greek, for everything I say. It has been thoroughly researched so as to be entirely consistent with the entirety of God's inspired Word. So, I would ask you to reserve judgment on his charges concerning what I believe and teach until you have examined the evidence for yourself.

Darrell wrote: "Actually Al, by attempting to say that Jesus did not mean 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery' (Matt. 19:9), you deprive yourself and others the full counsel of God's word."

Darrell, I have nowhere in my writings or teachings ever stated that Jesus "DID NOT MEAN" what He said in Matthew 19:9. I think He did indeed mean what He said there, every single word of it!!! Darrell, my difference is with YOU, not with JESUS CHRIST. I differ with your interpretation of what He said there. Differing with YOU does not mean that I differ with Jesus Christ!! In my opinion, *you* have failed to interpret correctly what Jesus said there. In your opinion, you believe that *I* have failed to correctly interpret what Jesus said in that passage. Hopefully, in the course of our discussions we can both provide the reasoning behind our interpretations, and then the reader can decide which of us (if either) is closer to capturing what Jesus intended by His words, and which of our views (if either) is more consistent with the remainder of Scripture.

Darrell wrote: "Al Maxey's IDEAL implies that if your first marriage does not succeed, get a new wife and try, try again. If that does not work, then by all means try again. Al Maxey's IDEAL actually encourages people to live in the sinful state of adultery."

Once again, you will note the absence of any quote from my book. I have never taught such a thing, and do not teach it in my book. Darrell's *impression* of what I teach is a far cry from my actual teaching. I think our discussion will make this abundantly clear.

I look forward to getting into the substantive teachings of God's Word, and I also look forward to Darrell's presentation of those things he believes to be contrary to that Word in each of my chapters. I'm assuming this will begin with Darrell's next post, as he evaluates Chapter One of Down, But Not Out. I trust that once you hear the objections raised by Darrell, and then the reasoned responses by myself, you will have a much different view of Al Maxey's views of MDR than those with which you have been presented (and without substantiation) thus far.

I believe in this "trial" we have reached the point where the opening statements have now been made! We both know something of the other's thinking processes and intentions, and it is time for the presentation of the evidence and the defense. I look forward to this discussion with Darrell, and pray that God will richly bless each of you who will be reading it.

Home Index