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

Friday, June 9, 2000

Comments by Darrell Broking
On the Focal Point of the Discussion

What Is The Focal Point Of The Maxey-Broking Discussion?

In my first post in this discussion I wrote, "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." I would never consider reviewing Al's book and publicly commenting on all of the good words contained therein, any more than I would comment on all of the good ingredients in rat poison. Like rat poison, Maxey's teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage has just enough poison to kill; therefore, my duty is to warn people about the damning dangers of Al Maxey's doctrine. This is not to say that the approximately 98% of chapter one is sound. As I pointed out in my post on chapter 1, much of the material written by Al is in the category of opinion. Al, to put this in words you may understand, it is academic. Academic debate among brethren does more damage than good in my estimation. For this reason I will focus my attention on the spiritual strychnine dripping from the corn of Maxey's doctrine.

Al, we could skip all of your Old Testament work and get right to the point of division, without changing the outcome of this discussion one iota. Whatever happened in old times in regard to divorce, God said that he hated it (Mal. 2:16). Then King Jesus arrived on the scene and gave his law, which was not based on the law of Moses, nor is it the same as the teaching on divorce and remarriage in the law of Moses.

Al, if you want your good name vindicated, then the answer is simple. Agree with Christ that God created one man for one woman for life; and, the only reason a divorced person may remarry and live in that marriage without sin is if that person was innocent of fornication, having put away a party guilty of fornication. He would also have to be married to one with the Biblical right of marriage. I know that you are not ready to get to this point in our discussion yet, so we will proceed. However, at any time you want to agree with the Bible Al, just take the Lord's position on this subject and your name will indeed be vindicated in regard to this subject.

The focal point of this discussion is doctrinal, salvation orientated, not academic! It is my earnest prayer that all holding your liberal view on marriage, divorce and remarriage will repent and stand with Christ on this matter.

Why Would Broking Bring Up Deuteronomy 24 Anyway?

In Al's last post he wrote, "In his first paragraph Darrell has implied that I 'used' Deuteronomy 24:1-4 'as a pattern for Jesus' doctrine of marriage, divorce and remarriage.' Let me clearly state for the record that I have *nowhere* stated in my book that this passage is 'a pattern' for the teaching of Jesus Christ with respect to MDR. Indeed, I do not believe it is!!! Further, I have gone to some lengths to try and demonstrate that our Lord does NOT base His teaching on this passage, but rather seeks to direct the hearts and minds of those who hear Him back to God's original intent; His IDEAL. When His antagonists that day sought to pin Jesus..."

Al, at times when I read your work and then listen to you in other places on that same subject, I am compelled to ask you what your definition of "is" is! It is interesting to me that you would place so much emphasis on the precise wording you used to write about Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and then seem to try to distance yourself from the implication of your teaching. For this reason I thought to ask you the three questions I did on May 29th.

Because you left out pertinent details of the discussion on May 29th from your web page, I want to add those details to this post. When you upload this post to your web page, please respect our terms of agreement and do not delete anything from this post. I hope that you will honor our agreement. Yes Al, I am already questioning your honesty in this discussion because of your response when I asked you those questions. When I looked for those posts on your page, only two of them were posted there. In case one questions my patience, I looked for the posts on June 9th. Your readership needs to read your response to my questions in order to get the full picture of this discussion.


(**NOTE --- Click on the above E-Mail Files icon to go to the full, unedited text of the posts to which Darrell alluded in the above paragraph. These "pertinent details of the discussion" are a series of four e-mails which were exchanged between Darrell and me with respect to certain details concerning the conditions previously set forth for our discussion. I do not regard these posts as pertinent to the discussion itself. Darrell, however, does, and out of respect for his wishes I am including them in full and unedited. --- Al Maxey)

Back To Deuteronomy 24

One of the things I appreciate about discussing things with you Al, is that you have really helped me to be sharper in my thinking. To me criticism is a blessing because it really helps me pay closer attention to what I am doing. For instance, you are correct when you say that "Let me clearly state for the record that I have *nowhere* stated in my book that this passage is 'a pattern' for the teaching of Jesus Christ with respect to MDR." What I should have pointed out is that according to your words, you look at Deuteronomy 24 and Matthew 19:9 as following the same pattern. Al, contrary to your philosophy, the Old Law was nailed to the cross. Legally it is passť.

Al wrote: "You made an interesting statement in your concluding remark. You stated that your post 'centered on Al's view of Old Testament doctrine and Deuteronomy 24 being consistent with New Testament doctrine' on MDR. There is no way anyone, from reading your post, would ever know WHAT my view of OT doctrine was, and certainly not whether it was consistent with NT doctrine or not."

Al, now that the readers of this discussion can read your answers to the questions I posed to you, they can get a good sense of the import of your doctrine. That is if they really were not able to get that sense from my last post. Among other things you said, "Were all the cases dealt with by Jesus during His ministry 'like as in the case of' the specific scenario of Deut. 24? Some probably were; many probably were not. Yes, Jesus acknowledged that marriages were ending and that other unions were taking place. Were they 'allowed' or 'permitted'? Well, obviously they were ...." Al, it is evident that you see an "IDEAL" or crux of the Lord's teaching that is the beau ideal for which men are to attempt to conform, but most cannot or will not realize that goal. Therefore, to your mind that IDEAL is a kernel within the confines of a broad paradigm or archetype which allows men to fall short of that almost unreachable kernel and attempt to reach that kernel again with someone else. However hard you might try to get those Old Testament passages, which may or may not have allowed scriptural remarriage, into your paradigm, it just is not possible. Because, Al, the Old Law is passť (no longer in favor or use) as far as law is concerned. Al, there is as much authority for the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship, based on the Old Law, as there is for remarriage based on the Old Law.

When answering my third question Al wrote: "Yes, God does 'allow' those who are divorced to remarry, however if the union violates a clear prohibitive command (homosexual unions, for example) then that marriage would NOT be accepted by God. More detail will follow as we reach that point in our discussion."

Al, I know that you feel that discussing this is premature. I disagree with you. Al, this is the reason I have marked you as a false teacher. This is the reason we are having this discussion. This is the reason that I refuse to endorse any part of your book. Yes we will discuss this with a fine toothed comb as these posts continue to unfold. But, I am determined to keep the pressure on this point. It is the reason we are divided on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. Al this doctrine is opium for the soul. When the opium wears off, there will be unending pain (Heb. 11:25). No one, no matter how smooth he is, can change the aforementioned, damnable error, into pure Son light. Al, this is the issue!

In Him,

Home Index