I live with my boyfriend whom I have known for five years; I moved in with him eight months ago.  Everything was good and happy the first few months.  Now he stops taking me out and goes places alone.  He sits on his computer and IMs a girl he is planning to go see… but told me at first it was a guy.  He is paying for weekend airfare to Texas from Florida, but can’t take me to dinner.  I love him but don’t know what I should do.  Can you help me get him off the computer and away from a weekend fling and back to our happiness?  It's really all I'm asking for.

Sincerely,
The Way It Was

Dear The Way It Was,

You aren’t happy because you aren’t feeding the needs of your soul.  Human beings are physical creatures as well as spiritual creatures.  The physical part of us wants to fulfill whatever desires we have at the moment – the need for companionship, sexual desires, hunger, anger release, etc.  The problem is that if we live like we are only physical creatures, we destroy our lives.  We aren’t only flesh and blood – humans are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27).  We have souls, and when we make choices that are sinful, we harm ourselves.  It is only when we depart from evil that we preserve our souls (Pr 16:17).

God intends for a man and a woman to live together only when they are married (Heb 13:4).  Living with your boyfriend erodes the relationship instead of bolstering it.  Living with your boyfriend is sinful, and it is no surprise that you are having problems because of it.  Living with your boyfriend was a fleshly decision, not a spiritual one.  Only in marriage will God bless you with happiness.  Since your boyfriend hasn’t committed to be your husband, it stands to reason that he isn’t committed to you.

You need to move out.  You are sinning (1 Cor 6:18).  Only when you begin to live your life by God’s standard will you feed the needs of your soul and be truly happy.  Jesus said that He is life (Jhn 14:6).  Only by following Jesus’ teachings found in the Bible will you find true happiness and eternal life.  Flee from immorality and begin to live by God’s standards.  Feel free to write us back at askyourpreacher@mvchurchofchrist, and we will be happy to teach you how to start a new and happy life in Christ.

I was reading the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and in Luke, and I realized that they were different!  I never realized this before; does that mean that there is an error in God’s Word?

Sincerely,
Counting Noses

Dear Counting Noses,

How very perceptive of you to compare those two genealogies.  Yes, there is a difference between the Matt 1:1-16 and the Lk 3:23-38 accounts.  Matthew starts the genealogy at Abraham, and Luke starts the genealogy all the way back at Adam.  The genealogies really begin to differ once you hit the generation after David.  Matthew traces the history from David’s son Solomon (Matt 1:6), while Luke follows David’s son Nathan (Lk 3:31).

The most likely explanation for this is that each book is tracing a different side of Jesus’ family tree.  Matthew is tracing the legal family tree through Jesus’ foster father Joseph.  Luke is tracing the maternal side through Jesus’ mother, Mary.  We often forget, but Jesus (like all humans) has two family trees, both his mother’s and his father’s.

Are the stories in Genesis true (Adam and Eve, Tower of Babel, Noah and the Flood) or etiological stories to explain the importance of Sabbath and marriage?

Sincerely,
Myth Buster

Dear Myth Buster,

The Genesis stories are true.  God never gives any indication that these are just fable stories – instead, quite the opposite.  Adam was a real person, the very first human created from dust (Gen 2:7).  Adam is listed in Jesus’ genealogy (Lk 3:38); if Adam wasn’t real, neither was Jesus.  Adam is listed as the one who introduced sin.  If Adam isn’t real, we aren’t really dead in our sins (1 Cor 15:22).  Adam is also listed in a specific genealogy of people who lived for a specific amount of years and had specifically named offspring (Gen 5:3-8).  The detail with which Adam’s life and genealogy is explained makes it clear that this story is intended to be treated as fact, not fable.

The Great Flood of Noah’s day is also intrinsically tied to the rest of the Bible.  Baptism saves us from sin just like the flood saved Noah and his family from a sinful, violent society (1 Pet 3:20-21).  No flood salvation, no baptismal salvation.  The two stand or fall together.  Jesus treated the Noachian Flood as fact when He discussed it (Matt 24:38).

If we read the Bible plainly without inserting cultural values or modern scientific ideas (yes, they are just guessing like the rest of us; today’s scientists weren’t at the Creation.  In fact, many scientists believe that science backs up the Bible account), we see that the Genesis account is treated as a fact, not a myth.  God, who cannot lie (Tit 1:2), told us the truth when He said that He created the world in six days (Gen 1:31, Gen 2:1).  He really is that powerful.

My wonderful husband and I are expecting our first child.  His parents are hoping for a biblical name.  My husband and I would like to name this baby after one of my grandparents, and none of them have names from the Bible.  My husband remembers his mother once saying that if a person doesn't have a biblical name, God doesn't approve of them.  There can't be any truth to this, can there?

Sincerely,
Hoping for Henry Or Pearl

Dear Hoping For Henry Or Pearl,

No, there isn’t any truth to this.  Many people name their children after people from the Bible, but our names do not define us; our actions do.  It is the memory of the choices we make in our lives that determine who we are; a name in and of itself is just window-dressing (Pr 10:7).  Even the church in Sardis relied too much on the reputation their name brought and was condemned for it (Rev 3:1).  Inversely, John the Baptist was given a name that had no meaning whatsoever to his family (Lk 1:60-63), and yet he was considered the greatest prophet of his day (Matt 11:11).  Name your children whatever you like, but make sure and train them up in God’s ways (Pr 22:6).  If they grow up and live faithfully, their name shall become a blessing.

If it is wrong to kill, why do so many people eat meat?  Hamburger isn't from cows who died of old age.  How do people justify this?

Sincerely,
PETA Pal

Dear PETA Pal,

This is a great example of how context comes into play.  When we are told not to kill (Rom 13:9, Jas 2:11), we have to understand what the word ‘kill’ is referring to.  Context is the only way to do that.  Both of those verses refer to other sins as well – adultery, stealing and coveting.  Rom 13:9 also refers to a positive command to “love your neighbor as yourself”.  The context tells us that we are talking about interacting with people, not animals.  Adultery, coveting, stealing and loving your neighbor all reference human-to-human relationships, not human-to-animal relationships.  The one time killing is referred to in the context of animals is Acts 10:13 when, God comes to Peter in a vision and tells him to, “Kill and eat”.  Context is key.  The type of killing that is wrong is the murdering of a fellow human created in the image of God (Gen 1:27).