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

Saturday, December 23, 2000

Continuing Comments & Criticisms
By Darrell Broking

Al writes: "My critic also alludes to II John 9: 'Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.' ...... A careful reading of the context, however, clearly declares (as biblical scholars will overwhelming attest) that the 'teaching of/about Christ' from which one must not depart is that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (vs. 7), something which was being denied by many at the time of the writing of this brief epistle."

Yes Al, as I have pointed out before, this discussion details many of the areas over which division occurs. Contrary to Al's allegation, biblical scholarship does not overwhelmingly hold to the objective genitive position on Second John 9. Liberal scholarship holds to that position. Liberal scholarship also denies the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible, but that does not make the Bible an uninspired book.

John's material deals with Gnostic error much broader than just the denial that Jesus came in the flesh. Those liberals, just like the liberals of our day, made the claim that they were the enlightened ones. The progressiveness of the Gnosticism resulted in an advance beyond the clearly defined lines of truth. The idea that the phrase "this doctrine" (vs. 10) limits "the doctrine of Christ" to an objective genitive (the doctrine about Christ), is an idea without solid foundation in John's writings. The given context of Second John, and the overall context of John's writings, supports the subjective genitive position on "the doctrine of Christ." Jesus called this teaching "my doctrine" (John 7:16), and he called it "the doctrine." When Jesus called his doctrine "the doctrine" he refuted the liberal position that the word "the" in 2 John 9 and the word "this" in 2 John 10 limits the "doctrine" to doctrine about Christ. Christ's doctrine is the only source of true enlightenment. By following the progressive error of Gnosticism, an advancement was made beyond the only sphere allowing one to fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. The doctrine is "the" gospel or "the faith," of which there is only one (Acts 6:7; Eph. 4:5). No Al, faithful brethren have been using 2 John 9-11 correctly all along, and we are not about to follow liberal scholarship now! The teaching from which one must not depart is all of Jesus' doctrine (John 12:48). No wonder John said: "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked" (1 John 2:3-6). The Bible student is well aware of the fact that John connects keeping Jesus' commandments, that is keeping his word or his doctrine, with abiding in Christ!

Al says: "I continue to contend that I am in no way teaching anything contrary to the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, I do indeed present truths in conflict to the doctrine of Darrell." Al, is this doctrine mine (subjective) or is it about me (objective)?

Al says: "I'm sorry, Darrell, but your 'logic' here totally escapes me, as I tried to point out in our recent question and answer exchange. The passage you mention has absolutely nothing to do with a person no longer being subject to God's law. It talks about one who willfully chooses to sever himself from obedience to God's law, but that certainly does not mean that person is now free from God's law in the ultimate sense. God's law applies to that person whether he chooses to obey it or not."

My point exactly, Al. You argue that the forms of luo used to denote divorce mean a total release. But you deny the same when it comes to a form of luo used to denote a violation of God's law. The violator wants a release from the law and makes his best effort to have that release; but, he is still bound by God's law. The same is true with all divorce, except when an innocent person divorces because his spouse fornicated. I know that many do divorce and the Bible even acknowledges this. The Bible is also clear that God does not recognize and allow the release, just as one who shall "luse mian ton entolon" (Matt. 5:19) is still bound to that one commandment! Al, the honest reader of this discussion can easily see that I just applied your standard of luo to another subject and blew your subjective opinion right out of the water! Furthermore, one could use Al Maxey on "luse main ton entolon" to expose Al Maxey's false doctrine on "apoluse" (apo + luse) in Matthew 19:9. Well, I guess that is what I just did, and the honest readers of this discussion see it!

Al, "apoluse" means no more total freedom from marriage than "luse" results in total freedom from God's law! God's law must determine when "apoluse" will result in that total freedom, and it does because Jesus said that all "apoluse me epi porneia kai gamese allen moikatai" (shall divorce not upon fornication and shall marry another keep on committing adultery). This class is no more free from their first marriage than the law breaker is free from God's law. No Al, according to the doctrine of Christ, in the case of unscriptural divorce, the divorced have not "finally and fully terminated their covenant of marriage" as alleged in the teaching that is authored by Al Maxey!

I know that you see this Al, at least in principle for you say, "Yes, Darrell, some do indeed 'loose, unbind, break, nullify, sever' (luo) the force of law in their own lives, and indeed teach others to do so. Are these people thereby no longer subject to God's law, simply because they have chosen to sever themselves from it? Of course not. The law stands; it is not one bit diminished by our willful dismissal of it and disobedience to it." It is also Al Maxey's position that "the word luo does indeed denote a complete severing. The severing is NOT of the universal force of God's law over mankind; only God can sever that, and I doubt that He intends to do so. The law stands, whether men heed it or not." Al, the same thing is true with divorce. Two people get an unscriptural divorce and separate, but the law stands and the one who made the twain one flesh has not separated that union. Al, my prayer to God for you is that you will acknowledge your inconsistency and repent of your heresy before it is too late.

Al, your view of Matthew 19:6 is that total separation takes place in all divorce because Jesus simply said to stop divorcing; thereby acknowledging that actual separations were in progress. However, this view does not help your case at all. In reality there is no difference between the prohibition view of Matthew 19:9 and cessation of activity already in progress view. The reason this is true is because Jesus said that Moses allowed the behavior in question (Matt. 19:9) and now he, that is Christ Jesus the lawgiver, said that it was to stop. Regardless of how you slice it and dice it Al, while the Lord acknowledges that divorces take place according to man's laws, he does not allow it (except when the exception denoted in Matthew 19:9 is followed), nor does he release the two married persons from their covenant of marriage. Separations were permitted under Moses' law and not permitted under Jesus' law.

Al writes, "With regard to the statement of Jesus concerning eunuchs (Matthew 19:12), Darrell continues to promote a form of religious self-abuse and mutilation in promotion of his false theory ..... It is an extreme, and in my view completely indefensible, and frankly ludicrous, theory which would lead people to actually mutilate themselves in order to appease a handful of rigid religionists. Such is unconscionable!!"

Al, I guess that in your estimation Jesus was extreme and unconscionable when he said: "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" (Matt. 5:29-30). Bible students understand that Jesus did not refer to literal mutilation here. Just as he did not refer to literal mutilation when he spoke of those "which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Matt. 19:12). At one point in this discussion I tried to get you to apply your logic about all persons embracing the right to physical "knowledge" (see Gen. 4:1), to one married to a person who has been rendered unable to partake in that "knowledge." You avoided it then as you may do here again. However, I wish that you could see what your vain theory does to people in those cases. Those persons, like the unscripturally divorced, would have to, in a figure, make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom's sake. Al, if this position is so "ludicrous," why did our Lord say what he did in the context of adultery? By the way, you have not disproven that the adultery in Matthew 19:9 is continuous. You will get your chance. I plead with you though, that you will stop lining up a majority of liberal scholars in an attempt to prove what you teach, and deal with the doctrine.

Instead of dealing with the material I presented on Matthew 19:9, as Al often does when he is pressed to deal head on with an issue, Al just presented some material from his book in an attempt to redefine what the Bible teaches about adultery. Al, I am going to go through this again, and I plead with you to at least try to refute it in your next post. Many of our readers are growing weary of your weave and dodge exercises.

Al says: "In every divorce there is a broken covenant (moicheia). What Jesus has done in His teaching is not only condemn the breaking of covenant, but also assign responsibility for the breakdown. A person who casts off the other spouse is the one guilty of breaking covenant, EXCEPT in a case where the casting off was due to the other mate's unfaithfulness, in which case the other partner was the one responsible for the breakdown of the covenant of marriage. THIS is the significance of the so-called 'exception clause.'"

Al, redefining the word "moicheia" will not make your case for you. In every case where divorce and remarriage is discussed in the doctrine of Christ, except for one putting away a spouse because of porneia, "moicheia" is not entered until the remarriage has taken place.

In the doctrine of Al Maxey Matthew 5:32 and Mark 10:11 are made to say the same thing. There is a tremendous difference between committing adultery against one's wife and making one's wife commit adultery. As the reader of the English Bible easily understands, the wife's adultery is not simultaneous with her being divorced, as required by Al Maxey's doctrine.

Al Maxey also makes much ado over the passive voice of moicheuthenai. Maxey says, "The verb is not active; it is passive! The divorced woman is guilty of nothing! She is a victim! To victimize her further, in the name of 'sound doctrine,' is unconscionable!" Subscribing to Maxey's theory demands the position that New Testament baptism is forced against one, completely against his will. Why is this the case? It is the case because the passive voice does not necessarily imply that the subject is totally passive in relation to the verb under consideration. For example, "be baptized" (Acts 2:38), translates a passive verb. However, Bible students are aware that no one is scripturally baptized until that one, of his own free will and volition, submits himself to burial with Christ! Yes, men are "to be baptized," but only after submitting to all that Jesus taught about this subject.

Here in Matthew 5:32 Jesus states one condition making her an adulteress, the other condition is implied in the word "moicheuthenai." Until these two conditions are met, the woman in question is not made to be (denoting the passive voice here) committed adultery with. Friends, in Jesus' day adultery was a capital crime. Jesus did not even imply that a divorced woman is stigmatized as an adulteress. Nor, with the use of this word, which meant the death sentence to the convicted violator, did Jesus mean covenant breaking in general terms. In the scriptures the normal meaning of adultery is the act of porneia, when one of the participants is married to another (see John 8:4). This meaning has been understood by God fearing men and women throughout the ages. That is, until some Johnny come lately liberal "scholars" set out to make adulterated marriages as pure as the purest gold. Al, by now many readers of this discussion have learned that you lean toward the liberal position (by liberal I mean that you loose where God has bound) on many matters of Biblical obligation. Just as you are doing in the case of marriage, divorce and remarriage.

As far as Matthew 5:32a is concerned, a woman guilty of porneia makes herself an adulteress. A divorced woman, innocent of porneia, is not made to be committed adultery with (the passive simply denotes the fact that the male is usually the more active sexual partner) until she engages in porneia. The verb under consideration herein is often transitive, so it can have a direct object or it can be passive. The English usually employs a generic verb -- "do," "commit," "perform" -- with the noun adultery to express this idea; and then resorts to the prepositional phrase "with someone" instead of using a direct object. The Greek idiom using the transitive active voice is: "The man adulters, adulterizes or adulterates the woman." The English idiom is: "The man commits adultery with the woman." The Greek idiom is based on the fact that the man is usually the more aggressive sexual partner. The English passive idiom, "makes her to be committed adultery with," is so strange to the English speaker that it is replaced with an active paraphrase, "makes her to commit adultery." Because adultery is a consensual relationship between two people, the use of the passive idiom is insignificant. Maxey denies that the word "adultery" normally indicates the act of fornication when one of the partners is married to another; therefore, he must invent a new meaning for the word and force it into the act of divorce.

In the case of Mark 10:11, a man who puts away an innocent woman and marries another commits adultery against his put away wife. By now many of our readers have acknowledged that it is easier to read the New Testament passages dealing with divorce and remarriage, than to try to follow Al Maxey's unbinding of these eternal truths; and his repackaging efforts geared toward the reinterpretation of words to make an unpopular doctrine disappear. Al, there are at least 7000 of us who have yet to bow the knee to Baal. Al, what I proved here from Matthew 5:32 is the same thing that I proved to you in my last post from Matthew 19:9. You did not even attempt to answer the doctrine then, can we expect you to answer it now? All of Jesus' statements on this subject teach the same eternal truth.

Al Maxey's doctrine says, "The passive voice indicates the put away wife, and any man she may marry in the future, are both affected by the wrongful actions of the first husband. They are victims, not victimizers. Jesus neither indicts nor condemns either of them. Neither was in any way responsible for the dissolution of the first covenant of marriage. They were not in the wrong; rather, it was they who had been wronged."

But the doctrine of Christ says in Matthew 5:32b "hos ean .... gamese" (a conditional relative clause introducing a present general condition). "Apolelumenen" a substantive participle used as a direct object, meaning a having been put away woman. This participle is also passive. Under the law of Moses, the husband had to write the woman a bill of divorce; therefore, in the case of divorce, the woman "became" a divorced woman; hence, the use of the passive voice again. The Savior's implication here is that the having been put away woman's previous marriage commitment is still intact. Action which was allowed under Moses' law is disallowed under Christ's law! Remember Al, Jesus said that it was to STOP!!!! And then we have the contract verb "moichatai." Al doesn't like the fact that this verb is in the present tense because the normal usage denotes the linear aspect (continuing, repeated or habitual action).

Admittedly, the verb may depict the punctiliar aspect (aorist present). Therefore the force of the verb must be interpreted in light of the fulfillment of the protasis and the continuing validity of the first marriage by divine law, not by man's law. (This may be the reason Al Maxey did not even attempt to deal with the material I presented to him in my last segment on Matthew 19:9.) In the present general conditional sentences under consideration (see Matt. 5:32: 19:9; Mark 10:11, and Luke 16:18), each apodosis contains a present tense which contemplates the future as well as the present. When the protasis is fulfilled, that is when one divorces or is divorced not upon fornication (the improper preposition "parektos" in Matthew 5:32, meaning except, is equivalent to the statement recorded in Matthew 19:9, "not upon fornication") and marries another, then and only then is the apodosis true, "commits adultery." As long as the protasis is fulfilled, the apodosis is true. Therefore, the only true interpretation of the apodosis is "keeps on committing adultery." The divine law regulating marriage demands it to be so!

Notice that Paul said, "How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom. 6:2). He also said, "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, ..... which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them" (Col. 3:5-7). Yes friends, Jesus denoted "living in sin" in each of these divorce and remarriage passages, wherein the protasis is fulfilled; and, the duration is for as long as the protasis is fulfilled. Hence, repentance demands the unscripturally remarried to un-fulfill the protasis, which means that the unscripturally divorced and remarried must dissolve their adulterous marriage.

Al says: "Darrell, it seems to me that this would make Jesus far more concerned with remarriage than divorce. I find that rather irrational." Al, the purpose of the Lord's doctrine on this matter was to warn that what was allowed in the Mosaic dispensation is no longer allowed. In the Christian economy, what was allowed by Moses now results in adultery!

Al asks, "What if a person divorces his/her spouse and then NEVER gets remarried? Has that person committed adultery according to your theory?" Not according to the Bible. That is, if he refrains from fornication.

Al asks, "What if the divorce had nothing to do with infidelity?" This I answered above.

Al, as you know, the time consideration in these divorce and remarriage passages is when the protasis is fulfilled. Days, weeks, months or years, it matters not.

Al, once again I have proved that your error, that is your doctrine, is not part of the doctrine of Christ. You also brought up 1 Cor. 7:28 again. I have answered that before, and I will be happy to do it again. But first, I would like to see you honestly deal with the material I have presented to you in the last two posts. Like myself, much of our readership wants to see you get away from your dodge and weave measures and deal with what we are actually discussing.

For the cause of Christ,

Home Index