Al Maxey writes --- "My critic maintains, 'the immediate context of I Corinthians 7, and the overall context of the New Testament writings, will not allow the usage for which my opponent contends.' Needless to say, I couldn't disagree more. Just the opposite is true, in my view. I am personally convicted that Darrell's theory is totally at odds with biblical Truth. In his third paragraph, Darrell attempts an exegesis of I Cor. 7:10-11, but fails miserably to perceive the actual meaning of the passage, and also the meaning of key words within the passage. Again, that will be made abundantly clear when we get to our discussion of the teaching of Paul."

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?

Al Maxey writes --- "Darrell correctly points out that 'God recognized their marriage as unlawful.' The Law of God, as given through Moses, clearly declared it unlawful for a man to take his brother's wife. This is exactly what Herod Antipas had done. But not only was this an unlawful marriage in that sense, it was also an incestuous one. Herod Antipas was also the uncle of Herodias! This relationship was morally wrong on several counts. Darrell seems to imply the major factor in God's rejection of this present marriage is that they were both 'unscripturally divorced' and thus not 'scriptural candidates' for remarriage. However, it was not the simple fact that they were divorced that caused their current union to be regarded as unlawful, as Darrell implies, it was rather the treacherous and unlawful way in which they had severed their covenants in order to join themselves together, and with WHOM they had joined themselves together: they were uncle & niece, and brother-in-law & sister-in-law."

Dear reader, please notice in this writer's last post that incest was acknowledged. It may be that this writer is not as ignorant and unlearned as often portrayed by his opponent. In fact, this writer has been diligent to stay with the doctrine under consideration. 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? If this writer wanted to engage in a one sided discussion he would have just quoted from Down, But Not Out and gave answer.

Al Maxey writes --- "This was a despicable act from numerous angles; it can hardly be appealed to as any kind of 'norm' in establishing NT doctrine on MDR. It was a most unique case, and an especially abominable one. Because of the power of the participants in this union, and the sensitivity of Herod to criticism, it was the perfect setting for the critics of Jesus to seek His downfall."

Please give the readership of this discussion a Bible reason for this position.

Al Maxey writes --- "Darrell believes God forbids remarriage to all but a select handful of approved candidates. The passages to which Darrell appeals for this theory of his simply do not teach this, in spite of his impassioned professions to the contrary. He has assumed far more than is actually there."

This writer calls upon his opponent to give a Bible answer for this charge, and any future charges he desires to make. After all, this is suppose to be a joint discussion is it not?

Al Maxey writes --- "We are right at the threshold of these vital teachings of Jesus Christ, and we will undoubtedly be discussing them in-depth in our next few posts."

It is now time to discuss these matters. This writer calls on his opponent to answer the material presented from First Corinthians 7:10-11 and Mark 6:17. Casting doubt about a man's learning is not answer to Bible doctrine. It is not possible to go forth until these points are answered from God's word. Will Bible answers be forthcoming?

• Darrell Broking

Home Index