Does the Bible say anything about interracial marriage?

Both the Bible and science concur: there is no such thing as interracial marriage. The subdivisions of mankind that we refer to as "races" do not genetically exist. There is exactly one race of human beings. There are ethnic and cultural differences, but the biological differences are so slight that they cannot be said to represent a different life form.

In spiritual terms, there are two races of humans: Jesus-followers and everyone else; those with a heart of stone, and those with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19). Second Corinthians 6:14 prohibits Christians from marrying non-Christians. This law was paralleled in Israel in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 7:3-4) which forbade the Israelites from marrying foreigners of a different religion. But there are many marriages and children of mixed ethnicity that are held up with honor. Caleb's father is called a Kenizzite (Numbers 32:12)—descended from one of the nations of Canaan. Rahab was from Jericho (Joshua 2). Moses' wife was a Cushite from Midian (Exodus 2:16-21)—as was her father who served as a counselor for Moses (Exodus 18:17-27). Ruth the Moabitess has an entire book dedicated to her and her faithfulness to her Jewish mother-in-law. In the New Testament, Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother and a Greek father, and a leader in the early church.

There seems to be a general pattern among interethnic marriages in societies. A group of men, whether explorers, traders, job-hunters, or refugees, will enter another country. They will intermarry with local women, to varying degrees. Such marriages will be socially acceptable until the arrival of one or more factors: fear that the local culture will become diluted, the introduction of slavery of others of the men's nationality, or possibly the introduction of women of the ethnic minority. Sex slavery of girls and women generally leads to a great amount of interethnic marriages, as does the combination of war with refugees. When native men are killed in war and refugees from that war immigrate in, interethnic marriages become common.

Barring the outside influence of foolish prejudice, native culture is a much bigger issue in relationships than skin color. A couple's ancestry does not matter as much as the individual's family upbringing. When things such as conflict resolution and expectations differ greatly, ethnicity takes a back seat—and such issues can certainly strain a marriage between two people of the same ethnic background.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to mixed-ethnic relationships. Family and culture may prove to be difficult. But the more interethnic marriages a society witnesses, the more normalized they become. And it has been hypothesized that children of mixed parentage may have genetic benefits as damaging recessive genes are minimized.

There is nothing unbiblical about interethnic relationships. In fact, when Miriam challenged her brother Moses' authority by criticizing his mixed-ethnic marriage, God not only backed Moses and Zipporah, He gave Miriam leprosy for her disloyalty (Numbers 12). As God told Samuel, "… the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7).

---

What is a concubine? Why did God allow men to have concubines in the Bible?"

Answer: A concubine is a female who voluntarily enslaves and sells herself to a man primarily for his sexual pleasure. Concubines in the patriarchal age and beyond did not have equal status with a wife. A concubine could not marry her master because of her slave status, although, for her, the relationship was exclusive and ongoing. Sometimes concubines were used to bear children for men whose wives were barren. Concubines in Israel possessed many of the same rights as legitimate wives, without the same respect.

Although it’s true the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns concubinage, a condemnation can be found implicitly from the beginning of time. According to Genesis 2:21-24, God’s original intent was for marriage to be between one man and one woman, and that has never changed (Genesis 1:27). As a matter of fact, a study of the lives of men like King David and King Solomon (who had 300 concubines; 1 Kings 11:3) reveals that many of their problems stemmed from polygamous relationships (2 Samuel 11:2-4).

The Bible never explains why God allowed men to have concubines. He allowed divorce and polygamy, too, although neither was part of His original plan for marriage. Jesus said God allowed divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts (Matthew 19:8). We can assume the same hardness of heart led to polygamy and concubinage.

We can also surmise a reason based on the culture of the day. Unmarried women in ancient times were completely dependent on their family members, such as their fathers, brothers, etc. If for some reason a woman had no family members or her husband had died or divorced her, she would be left with few options for survival. Most women in ancient times were uneducated and unskilled in a trade. Providing for themselves was very difficult, and they were vulnerable to those who would prey upon them. For many women in dire situations, becoming a concubine was a much more suitable option than prostitution, homelessness, or death. At least a concubine would be provided a home and afforded a certain amount of care.

It appears God allowed the sin of concubinage, in part, to provide for women in need, although it was certainly not an ideal situation. Sin is never ideal. Christians should be reminded that, just because God allows a sin for a time, it does not mean God is pleased with it. Many Bible narratives teach that God can take what some people mean for evil and use it for good (e.g., Genesis 50:20).

Why did God allow polygamy in the Bible?

Despite the many examples of polygamy in the Bible, it was never God's intent for people. He created Adam and Eve to cleave together, the two becoming one (Genesis 2:24). He also gave them the joint mission to rule over and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28). Once sin entered the world, that mission and the way in which it could be fulfilled, was warped. People began to value God's gifts less. One of those gifts was a committed marriage relationship between a man and woman who were devoted to each other and God.

Other concerns started to take priority. The once fertile ground was covered with weeds, leading families to value children who could work in the fields. Cain's murder of Abel set the precedence for selfishness and violence instead of dedication to God's calling. Women lost standing as joint-heirs of God's blessing and instead served to witness man's ambition (Genesis 4:23-24) and provide sons to advance it.

Several centuries later, society had degraded even further. Many cultures taught that men were to rule God's creation. Women became almost superfluous except as a means to make baby men. A woman on her own was thought to have no contribution to society. She had no protection from violence. No role in the community. And often the only way she could provide for herself was through prostitution.

Men, on the other hand, worked toward God's mission to rule by acquiring and holding onto land and property. In the patriarchal society, this was done through sons who could work the land and daughters whose marriages could cement political alliances. In many cultures, there was no socio-political value to unmarried, unrelated women.

This was not God's intent. God created women to, married or not, join with men in the mission to subdue and fill the earth. Only after Eve was created did God look over creation and say it was "very good" (Genesis 1:31). But God also gave mankind the free will to be able to warp His plan. He could not have reached in and corrected culture's view of women without retracting that free will. So He worked within the culture instead.

As strange and odd as it sounds, polygamy in the Bible protected women. A second or third wife would be far more cared for than an unmarried woman. She would have the opportunity to bear children—especially sons who would be responsible for supporting her in her old age. She would have protection from abuse from strangers. And she would have a home. She might also have the chance to rescue a family. If the first wife was barren, her sons could continue the family name (1 Samuel 1:2).

On rare occasions, the Bible shows how God even used polygamy as a reward of protection for a faithful woman. David married Abigail after she showed great wisdom in the face of her foolish husband, who later died (1 Samuel 25). It's been speculated that Ruth was significantly younger than Boaz because he called her "daughter" (Ruth 2:2). If so, such a powerful land-owner surely would have had other wives.

Although the Bible hints that protection of women is probably the main reason why God allowed polygamy, most polygamous marriages were not so altruistic. Marriages were very often contracts between families. Solomon surely loved women (1 Kings 11:3), but it's safe to say most of his wives were given to him to gain political favor. And they were not beneficial for Solomon's walk with God or Israel.

The Bible tells us that polygamy was not God's original plan. It is not the ideal of marriage. The fact that it was deemed necessary to protect women and maintain the holdings of men is a commentary on humanity's ability to twist God's plan. God did not intend for women to be useless and worthless without a man. When society decided they were, God acted to protect His daughters.

Why are both Jesus and Satan referred to as the morning star?

Answer: The first reference to the morning star as an individual is in Isaiah 14:12: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” (NIV). The KJV and NKJV both translate “morning star” as “Lucifer, son of the morning.” It is clear from the rest of the passage that Isaiah is referring to Satan’s fall from heaven (Luke 10:18). So in this case, the morning star refers to Satan. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus unmistakably identifies Himself as the morning star. Why are both Jesus and Satan described as the “morning star”?

It is interesting to note that the concept of the “morning star” is not the only concept that is applied to both Jesus and Satan. In Revelation 5:5, Jesus is referred to as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. In 1 Peter 5:8, Satan is compared to a lion, seeking someone to devour. The point is this, both Jesus and Satan, to a certain extent, have similarities to lions. Jesus is similar to a lion in that He is the King, He is royal and majestic. Satan is similar to a lion in that he seeks to devour other creatures. That is where the similarities between Jesus, Satan, and lions end, however. Jesus and Satan are like lions in very different ways.

The idea of a “bright morning star” is a star that outshines all the others. Satan, as perhaps the most beautiful creation of God, probably the most powerful of all the angels, was a bright morning star. Jesus, as God incarnate, the Lord of the universe, is THE bright and morning star. Jesus is the most holy and powerful “light” in all the universe. So, while both Jesus and Satan can be described as “bright morning stars,” in no sense is this equating Jesus and Satan. Satan is a created being. His light only exists to the extent that God created it. Jesus is the light of the world (John 9:5). Only Jesus’ light is self-existent. Satan may be a bright morning star, but he is only a poor imitation of the one true bright morning star, Jesus Christ, the light of the world.

Why were Michael and Satan disputing over the body of Moses (Jude 9)?"

Answer: Jude verse 9 refers to an event which is found nowhere else in Scripture. Michael had to struggle or dispute with Satan about the body of Moses, but what that entailed is not described. Another angelic struggle is related by Daniel, who describes an angel coming to him in a vision. This angel, named Gabriel in Daniel 8:16 and 9:21, tells Daniel that he was “resisted” by a demon called “the prince of Persia” until the archangel Michael came to his assistance (Daniel 10:13). So we learn from Daniel that angels and demons fight spiritual battles over the souls of men and nations, and that the demons resist angels and try to prevent them from doing God’s bidding. Jude tells us that Michael was sent by God to deal in some way with the body of Moses, which God Himself had buried after Moses’ death (Deuteronomy 34:5-6).

Various theories have been put forth as to what this struggle over Moses’ body was about. One is that Satan, ever the accuser of God’s people (Revelation 12:10), may have resisted the raising of Moses to eternal life on the grounds of Moses’ sin at Meribah (Deuteronomy 32:51) and his murder of the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12).

Some have supposed that the reference in Jude is the same as the passage in Zechariah 3:1-2, “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, O Satan!’” But the objections to this being the same incident are obvious: (1) The only similarity between the two passages is the expression, “the Lord rebuke you.” (2) The name “Michael” does not occur at all in the passage in Zechariah. (3) There is no mention made of the “body of Moses” in Zechariah, and no allusion to it whatever.

It has also been supposed that Jude is quoting an apocryphal book that contained this account, and that Jude means to confirm that the account is true. Origen (c. 185–254), an early Christian scholar and theologian, mentions the book “The Assumption of Moses” as extant in his time, containing this very account of the contest between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses. That book, now lost, was a Jewish Greek book, and Origen supposed that this was the source of the account in Jude.

The only material question, then, is whether the story is “true.” Whatever the origin of the account, Jude does in fact seem to refer to the contest between Michael and the devil as true. He speaks of it in the same way in which he would have done if he had spoken of the death of Moses or of his smiting the rock. And who can prove that it is not true? What evidence is there that it is not? There are many allusions in the Bible to angels. We know that the archangel Michael is real; there is frequent mention of the devil; and there are numerous affirmations that both bad and good angels are employed in important transactions on the earth. As the nature of this particular dispute over Moses’ body is wholly unknown, conjecture is useless. We do not know whether there was an argument over possession of the body, burial of the body, or anything else.

These two things we do know, however: first, Scripture is inerrant. The inerrancy of Scripture is one of the pillars of the Christian faith. As Christians, our goal is to approach Scripture reverently and prayerfully, and when we find something we do not understand, we pray harder, study more, and—if the answer still eludes us—humbly acknowledge our own limitations in the face of the perfect Word of God.

Second, Jude 9 is the supreme illustration of how Christians are to deal with Satan and demons. The example of Michael refusing to pronounce a curse upon Satan should be a lesson to Christians in how to relate to demonic forces. Believers are not to address them, but rather to seek the Lord’s intervening power against them. If as powerful a being as Michael deferred to the Lord in dealing with Satan, who are we to attempt to reproach, cast out, or command demons?

How could there be light on the first day of Creation if the sun was not created until the fourth day?

Answer: The question of how there could be light on the first day of Creation when the sun was not created until the fourth day is a common one. Genesis 1:3-5 declares, "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light 'day,' and the darkness He called 'night.' And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day." A few verses later we are informed, "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.' And it was so. God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the fourth day" (Genesis 1:14-19). How can this be? How could there be light, mornings and evenings on the first, second, and third days if the sun, moon, and stars were not created until the fourth day? This is only a problem if we fail to take into account an infinite and omnipotent God. God does not need the sun, moon, and stars to provide light. God is light! First John 1:5 declares, "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all." God Himself was the light for the first three days of Creation, just as He will be in the new heavens and new earth, “There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever” (Revelation 22:5). Until He created the sun, moon, and stars, God miraculously provided light during the “day” and may have done so during the “night” as well (Genesis 1:14). Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). Much more important than the light of day and night is the Light who provides eternal life to all who believe in Him. Those who do not believe in Him will be doomed to “outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12).

Audio/MP3/Podcast   Random Page   Got App?   Contact Us   Serve with Us   Survey   Promote Us   Donations Follow us on ? of the Week Is it a sin for a Christian to drink alcohol? Verse of the Week "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit." Ephesians 5:18 Preferred Bible Version: Got Books?

ite Map

Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

Answer: Jesus' genealogy is given in two places in Scripture: Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph's father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph's father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27).

Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

Another explanation is that Matthew is tracing the primary lineage while Luke is taking into account the occurrences of “levirate marriage.” If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man's brother to marry his wife and have a son who would carry on the man's name. While possible, this view is unlikely as every generation from David to Jesus would have had a “levirate marriage” in order to account for the differences in every generation. This is highly unlikely.

With these concepts in view, most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).

Where was Joseph when Jesus was an adult?

Answer: The last time Joseph is mentioned in the Bible is when Jesus was twelve years old. Returning from a trip to Jerusalem, Jesus became separated from His parents, who eventually found Him in the temple in the midst of the teachers. Ironically, it was at that time—when Jesus announced that He had to be about His heavenly Father’s business—that all mention of his earthly father ceases (Luke 2:41-50).

Because Joseph is not mentioned again, most scholars assume he died sometime before Jesus began His public ministry. By the time we get to the wedding at Cana (John 2), Joseph is conspicuously absent. We see Mary there, but no mention is made of Joseph. Perhaps a part of the reason why Jesus remained at home until He was 30 is that He had the ultimate responsibility for caring for the family.

The theory that Joseph had died by the time Jesus was an adult is given further credibility by the fact that Jesus, when He was on the cross, made arrangements for His mother to be cared for by the Apostle John (John 19:26-27). Joseph must have been dead by the time of the crucifixion, or Jesus would never have committed Mary to John. If Joseph were still alive, Jesus wouldn't say, "Now, Mother, I'm going to commit you to John." Joseph would have rightly responded, "Wait a minute, it is my responsibility to take care of her." Only a widow could have rightly been given into the care of someone outside the family.

It is thought by some that perhaps Joseph died sometime after Jesus began His public ministry. This is unlikely, because if Joseph had died during the three-year ministry of Christ, that would have been a major event; Jesus undoubtedly would have gone to the funeral with His disciples, and at least one of the Gospel writers would have recorded it. Although we don’t know for sure, the most likely scenario is that Joseph died sometime before Jesus began His earthly ministry.

How young is too young to be in a romantic relationship?

Answer: How young is “too young” to start a relationship depends on the individual’s level of maturity, goals, and beliefs. Often, the younger we are, the less mature we are due to a lack of life experience. When we are just beginning to figure out who we are, we may not be firmly grounded enough spiritually to form solid romantic attachments and may be more prone to making unwise decisions that can leave us with emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual damage.

Being in a relationship puts one in almost constant temptation, especially as emotions begin to develop and the attraction to the other person deepens. Young teens—even older teens—are besieged by hormonal and societal pressures that seem at times almost unbearable. Each day brings new feelings—doubts, fears, and confusion coupled with joys and exhilaration—which can be very confusing. Young people spend much of their time just figuring out who they are and how they relate to the world and the people around them. To add the pressure of a relationship at this stage seems almost too much to ask, especially when the other person is experiencing the same upheaval. Such early relationships make it more difficult to avoid damage to the delicate and still-forming self-image, not to mention the problem of resisting temptation. If being marriage-minded is still far off, it is probably too early to begin dating or courtship. Much safer for all concerned are group activities where young people can develop social skills and friendships without the pressure and inherent difficulties of romantic attachments.

No matter when a person decides to begin a romantic relationship, this should be a time of building on the foundation of faith that he or she has been taught, of growing and figuring out what God wants him or her to do. We are never too young to begin this exciting process. “Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity” (1 Timothy 4:12).

When is the right time for marriage?

Answer: The right time for marriage is different for each person and unique to each situation. Maturity levels and life experiences are varying factors; some people are ready for marriage at 18, and some are never prepared for it. As the U.S. divorce rate exceeds 50 percent, it is obvious that much of our society does not view marriage as an everlasting commitment. However, this is the world's view, which will usually contradict God's (1 Corinthians 3:18).

A strong foundation is imperative for a successful marriage and should be settled before one even begins to date or court a potential life mate. Our Christian walk should include much more than just attending church on Sundays and being involved in Bible study. We must have a personal relationship with God that comes only through trusting in and obeying Jesus Christ. We must educate ourselves about marriage, seeking God's view on it, before diving in. A person must know what the Bible says about love, commitment, sexual relations, the role of a husband and wife, and His expectations of us before committing to marriage. Having at least one Christian married couple as a role model is also important. An older couple can answer questions about what goes into a successful marriage, how to create intimacy (beyond the physical), how faith is invaluable, etc.

A prospective married couple also needs to make sure that they know each other well. They should know each other's views on marriage, finances, in-laws, child-rearing, discipline, duties of a husband and wife, whether only one of them or both will be working outside the home, and the level of the other person’s spiritual maturity. Many people get married taking their partner's word for it that they are a Christian, only to find out later that it was merely lip service. Every couple considering marriage should go through counseling with a Christian marriage counselor or pastor. In fact, many pastors will not perform weddings unless they have met several times with the couple in a counseling setting.

Marriage is not only a commitment, but a covenant with God. It is the promise to remain with that other person for the remainder of your life, no matter whether your spouse is rich, poor, healthy, sick, overweight, underweight, or boring. A Christian marriage should endure through every circumstance, including fighting, anger, devastation, disaster, depression, bitterness, addiction, and loneliness. Marriage should never be entered into with the idea that divorce is an option—not even as the last straw. The Bible tells us that through God all things are possible (Luke 18:27), and this certainly includes marriage. If a couple makes the decision at the beginning to stay committed and to put God first, divorce will not be the inevitable solution to a miserable situation.

It is important to remember that God wants to give us the desires of our heart, but that is only possible if our desires match His. People often get married because it just “feels right.” In the early stages of dating, and even of marriage, you see the other person coming, and you get butterflies in your stomach. Romance is at its peak, and you know the feeling of being “in love.” Many expect that this feeling will remain forever. The reality is that it does not. The result can be disappointment and even divorce as those feelings fade, but those in successful marriages know that the excitement of being with the other person does not have to end. Instead, the butterflies give way to a deeper love, a stronger commitment, a more solid foundation, and an unbreakable security.

The Bible is clear that love does not rely on feelings. This is evident when we are told to love our enemies (Luke 6:35). True love is possible only when we allow the Holy Spirit to work through us, cultivating the fruit of our salvation (Galatians 5:22-23). It is a decision we make on a daily basis to die to ourselves and our selfishness, and to let God shine through us. Paul tells us how to love others in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” When we are ready to love another person as 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 describes, that is the right time for marriage.

1. 
   

---

who are the 144,000?

Answer: The book of Revelation has always presented the interpreter with challenges. The book is steeped in vivid imagery and symbolism which people have interpreted differently depending on their preconceptions of the book as a whole. There are four main interpretive approaches to the book of Revelation: 1) preterist (which sees all or most of the events in Revelation as having already occurred by the end of the 1st century); 2) historicist (which sees Revelation as a survey of church history from apostolic times to the present); 3) idealist (which sees Revelation as a depiction of the struggle between good and evil); 4) futurist (which sees Revelation as prophecy of events to come). Of the four, only the futurist approach interprets Revelation in the same grammatical-historical method as the rest of Scripture. It is also a better fit with Revelation’s own claim to be prophecy (Revelation 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19).

So the answer to the question “who are the 144,000?” will depend on which interpretive approach you take to the book of Revelation. With the exception of the futurist approach, all of the other approaches interpret the 144,000 symbolically, as representative of the church and the number 144,000 being symbolic of the totality—i.e., the complete number—of the church. Yet when taken at face value: “Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel” (Revelation 7:4), nothing in the passage leads to interpreting the 144,000 as anything but a literal number of Jews—12,000 taken from every tribe of the “sons of Israel.” The New Testament offers no clear cut text replacing Israel with the church.

These Jews are “sealed,” which means they have the special protection of God from all of the divine judgments and from the Antichrist to perform their mission during the tribulation period (see Revelation 6:17, in which people will wonder who can stand from the wrath to come). The tribulation period is a future seven-year period of time in which God will enact divine judgment against those who reject Him and will complete His plan of salvation for the nation of Israel. All of this is according to God’s revelation to the prophet Daniel (Daniel 9:24-27). The 144,000 Jews are a sort of “first fruits” (Revelation 14:4) of a redeemed Israel which has been previously prophesied (Zechariah 12:10; Romans 11:25-27), and their mission is to evangelize the post-rapture world and proclaim the gospel during the tribulation period. As a result of their ministry, millions—“a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language” (Revelation 7:9)—will come to faith in Christ.

Much of the confusion regarding the 144,000 is a result of the false doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that 144,000 is a limit to the number of people who will reign with Christ in heaven and spend eternity with God. The 144,000 have what the Jehovah’s Witnesses call the heavenly hope. Those who are not among the 144,000 will enjoy what they call the earthly hope—a paradise on earth ruled by Christ and the 144,000. Clearly, we can see that Jehovah’s Witness teaching sets up a caste society in the afterlife with a ruling class (the 144,000) and those who are ruled. The Bible teaches no such “dual class” doctrine. It is true that according to Revelation 20:4 there will be people ruling in the millennium with Christ. These people will be comprised of the church (believers in Jesus Christ), Old Testament saints (believers who died before Christ’s first advent), and tribulation saints (those who accept Christ during the tribulation). Yet the Bible places no numerical limit on this group of people. Furthermore, the millennium is different from the eternal state, which will take place at the completion of the millennial period. At that time, God will dwell with us in the New Jerusalem. He will be our God and we will be His people (Revelation 21:3). The inheritance promised to us in Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14) will become ours, and we will all be co-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17).

Why did God strike Uzzah dead for touching the Ark of the Covenant?

Answer: The story of Uzzah and the Ark of the Covenant is found in 2 Samuel 6:1-7 and 1 Chronicles 13:9-12. As the ark was being transported, the oxen pulling the cart stumbled, and a Levite named Uzzah took hold of the ark. God’s anger burned against Uzzah and He struck him down and he died. Uzzah’s punishment does appear to be extreme for what we might consider to be a good deed. However, there are the reasons why God took such severe action.

First, God had given Moses and Aaron specific instructions about the Tent of Meeting and the movement of the Ark of the Covenant. "After Aaron and his sons have finished covering the holy furnishings and all the holy articles, and when the camp is ready to move, the Kohathites are to come to do the carrying. But they must not touch the holy things or they will die. The Kohathites are to carry those things that are in the Tent of Meeting” (Numbers 4:15). No matter how innocently it was done, touching the ark was in direct violation of God’s law and was to result in death. This was a means of preserving the sense of God’s holiness and the fear of drawing near to Him without appropriate preparation.

Notice how David took men with him to collect the ark, rather than allowing Abinadab and his sons to bring it to him. That was a great mistake, since it ought never to have been put upon a cart, old or new. It was to be borne upon men's shoulders, and carried by Levites only, and those of the family of Kohath (Exodus 25:12-14; Numbers 7:9), using the poles prescribed. Failing to follow God’s precise instructions would be seen as (a) not revering God’s words when He spoke them through those such as Moses, whom He had appointed; (b) having an independent attitude that might border on rebellion, i.e., seeing and acting on things from a worldly, rather than a spiritual, perspective; or (c) disobedience.

Second, the ark had stayed for a period of time at Abinadab’s house (2 Samuel 6:3), where his sons, Uzzah and Ahio, may well have become accustomed to its presence. There’s an old saying, “familiarity breeds contempt,” that could apply in this case. Uzzah, having been around the ark in his own home, could very likely forget the holiness that it represented. There are times when we, too, fail to recognize the holiness of God, becoming too familiar with Him with an irreverent attitude.

Third, the account tells us the oxen stumbled. The cart didn’t fall and neither did the Ark, just as the boat carrying Jesus and the disciples rocked fiercely in the storm, though it wasn’t necessarily in danger of sinking (Matthew 8:24-27). And yet, just as with the disciples who failed to put their faith in their Master, Uzzah, for a moment, felt it was his responsibility to save the integrity of God, and that our almighty God somehow needed Uzzah’s assistance. He presumed that, without his intervention, God’s presence would be dealt a blow. As Job asks, “Can you fathom the mysteries of God?” (Job 11:7). “His greatness no-one can fathom” (Psalm 145:3). “His understanding no-one can fathom” (Isaiah 40:28). Moses lost his right to enter the promised land because he felt his intervention was needed when he struck the rock, instead of speaking to it as God had commanded (Numbers 20:7-12). We need to listen carefully to what God has to say to us, and in obedience strive to do all He commands. Yes, God is loving and merciful, but He is also holy and He defends His holiness with His power, and affronts to His holiness sometimes bring about His holy wrath. “It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31).

Something of God’s presence in the Ark of the Covenant seems to be lost in the church today. In the time of Moses, the people knew the awesomeness of God’s absolute holiness. They had witnessed great miracles when the ark was with them. They respected that God’s ways and thoughts are much higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9). In truth, the more we try to bring God down to our worldly way of thinking or reasoning, the further away He will seem to us. Those who would draw near to God and have Him draw near to them are those who approach Him in reverence and holy fear. Uzzah forgot that lesson, and the consequences were tragic.

Why did David choose five smooth stones before going to fight Goliath?

Answer: Some presume that David took five smooth stones instead of just one because he had some doubt. However, there is no indication in the story of David and Goliath that by picking up five stones instead of one that David was doubting God. Rather, David was simply being prepared. What if the Philistines attacked him after he killed Goliath? How would he have defended himself? David was simply being prepared when he took the four additional stones. Also, he couldn’t have known that one stone would be enough to kill the giant. God had not promised that David would kill Goliath with the first stone.

David had experience in defending the sheep he guarded with his sling and stones. It would seem that the animals David had faced were far braver than the men with Goliath, because they all turned and ran away (1 Samuel 17:51). David told Goliath that he (Goliath) came with spear and sword, but his weapon was God the Father (1 Samuel 17:37). He trusted God with all his heart, believing that God would tell him exactly what to do and how. And so He did.

Others speculate that David chose five stones because Goliath had four brothers, but this is without biblical basis. There is no reason to believe that David thought if he killed Goliath that he would have to fight the giant’s brothers. Further, the Bible does not specifically say that Goliath had four brothers, although he had at least one (2 Samuel 21:19). David’s faith was in the Lord, and he knew from experience God’s faithfulness. David’s faith was born out of his experience of God’s grace and mercy in his life up to that point. The Lord had delivered him out of dangerous situations in the past, proving His power and trustworthiness, and David relied on Him to deliver him from the Philistine. Whether it took one stone or five, David recognized that the power was not in his sling, but in the Lord of hosts. As David wrote later in Psalm 21:13, “Be exalted, O LORD, in your strength; we will sing and praise your might.”

Why was God so angry at David for taking the census?

Answer: The parallel account of the incident surrounding the census reveals it was Satan who incited David to take the census: “Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel” (1 Chronicles 21:1). However, the wording of 2 Samuel 24:1 says that it was God who “moved David” to take the census. This discrepancy can be explained by the understanding that sometimes God sovereignly permits Satan to act in order to achieve His purposes. God uses Satan in various ways, among them the refining, disciplining and purification of disobedient believers (Luke 22:31-32; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 2 Corinthians 12:7-10). Such is the case with David. God allowed Satan to tempt him, and David sinned, revealing his pride and allowing God to deal with him for it.

As to why God was angry at David, in those times, a man only had the right to count or number what belonged to him. Israel did not belong to David; Israel belonged to God. In Exodus 30:12 God told Moses, “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them.” It was up to God to command a census, and if David counted he should only do it at God's command, receiving a ransom to "atone" for the counting. This is why God was angry again with Israel and is also why David was “conscience-stricken” after he counted Israel. David knew it was wrong and begged God to take away the guilt of his sin (2 Samuel 24:10).

God gave David a choice of three punishments for his sin—three years of famine, three months of fleeing before his enemies, or three days of plague. David chose the third, and the Lord then punished Israel with a plague which killed 70,000 men from Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south. As for why God punished the whole nation for the sin of the king, that is exactly the question David asked in v. 17. Why, when he was the one who had sinned, did the people have to suffer? He even requested that God’s hand be against him and his family only, and that God would spare the people. But as with the account of Job, God chose not to give a reason for His actions. Perhaps it was because of Israel’s multiplied sins and rebellion against God throughout the centuries. Perhaps it was a lesson to the people (and to us as well) that the people suffer when their leaders go astray. The reality is that God didn’t justify His actions with a reason, nor does He have to.

The psalmist tells us, “As for God, His way is perfect” (Psalm 18:30). If God’s ways are “perfect,” then we can trust that whatever He does—and whatever He allows—is also perfect. This may not seem possible to us, but our minds are not God’s mind. It is true that we can’t expect to understand His mind perfectly, as He reminds us “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9). Nevertheless, our responsibility to God is to obey Him, to trust Him and to submit to His will, whether we understand it or not.

As we see in 2 Samuel 24:16 God was grieved because of the things that were happening to His people and called off the punishment. Even through His rebuke God still shows His love and mercy.

why do we dream?

This is one question that only God has the answer. We are aware that dreams, though a natural exercise, have far more tremendous spiritual wave than we can explain. The Bible teaches that God often speaks via dreams as well as visions. But are all dreams messages from God? If not, then what causes the rest of our sleep time voyages? According to science, the human brain is a mysterious little ball of gray matter. After all these years, researchers are still baffled by many aspects of how and why it operates like it does. Scientists have been performing sleep and dream studies for decades now, and we still aren't 100 percent sure about the function of sleep, or exactly how and why we dream. We do know that our dream cycle is typically most abundant and best remembered during the REM stage of sleep. It's also pretty commonly accepted among the scientific community that we all dream, though the frequency in which dreams are remembered varies from person to person.
The question of whether dreams actually have a physiological, biological or psychological function has yet to be answered. But that hasn't stopped scientists from researching and speculating. There are several theories as to why we dream. One is that dreams work hand in hand with sleep to help the brain sort through everything it collects during the waking hours. Your brain is met with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of inputs each day. Some are minor sensory details like the color of a passing car, while others are far more complex, like the big presentation you're putting together for your job. During sleep, the brain works to plow through all of this information to decide what to hang on to and what to forget. Some researchers feel like dreams play a role in this process.
It's not just a stab in the dark though -- there is some research to back up the ideas that dreams are tied to how we form memories. Studies indicate that as we're learning new things in our waking hours, dreams increase while we sleep. Participants in a dream study who were taking a language course showed more dream activity than those who were not. In light of such studies, the idea that we use our dreams to sort through and convert short-term memories into long-term memories has gained some momentum in recent years.
Another theory is that dreams typically reflect our emotions. During the day, our brains are working hard to make connections to achieve certain functions. When posed with a tough math problem, your brain is incredibly focused on that one thing. And the brain doesn't only serve mental functions. If you're building a bench, your brain is focused on making the right connections to allow your hands to work in concert with a saw and some wood to make an exact cut. The same goes for simple tasks like hitting a nail with a hammer. Have you ever lost focus and smashed your finger because your mind was elsewhere?
Some have proposed that at night everything slows down. We aren't required to focus on anything during sleep, so our brains make very loose connections. It's during sleep that the emotions of the day battle it out in our dream cycle. If something is weighing heavily on your mind during the day, chances are you might dream about it either specifically, or through obvious imagery. For instance, if you're worried about losing your job to company downsizing, you may dream you're a shrunken person living in a world of giants, or you're wandering aimlessly through a great desert abyss.
There's also a theory, definitely the least intriguing of the bunch, that dreams don't really serve any function at all, that they're just a pointless byproduct of the brain firing while we slumber. We know that the rear portion of our brain gets pretty active during REM sleep, when most dreaming occurs. Some think that it's just the brain winding down for the night and that dreams are random and meaningless firings of the brain that we don't have when we're awake. The truth is, as long as the brain remains such a mystery, we probably won't be able to pinpoint with absolute certainty exactly why we dream.

why we forget

I'm going to try and answer this question scientifically because though I believe that all forms of mental illness, there is equally natural/scientific explanation to this situation. In order to combat forgetfulness, it is important to understand some of the major reasons why we forget things. Elizabeth Loftus, one of the world's most renowned experts on human memory, has identified four major reasons why forgetting occurs. One of the most common explanations is a simple failure to retrieve the information from memory. This often occurs when memories are rarely accessed, causing them to decay over time.
Another common cause of forgetting is interference, which occurs when some memories compete with other memories. For example, imagine that a woman just started a new school year as an elementary school teacher. She spends some time learning the names of each of her students, but over the course of the year she finds herself constantly calling one particular girl by the wrong name. Why? Because the girl's older sister was in the same class the year before, and the two look remarkably similar. It is the memory of the older sister that makes it so difficult to recall the younger student's name.
Other causes of forgetting include failing to store the information in memory in the first place, or even intentionally trying to forget things associated with a troubling or traumatic event.
Amnesia is a common plot device in the movies, but these depictions are often wildly inaccurate. For example, how often have you seen a fictional character lose their memory due to a bump on the head only to have their memories magically restored after suffering a second knock to the skull?
There are two different types of amnesia:

• Anterograde amnesia: Involves the loss of the ability to form new memories.


• Retrograde amnesia: Involves losing the ability to recollect past memories, although the ability to create new memories may remain intact.

While most movie depictions of amnesia involve retrograde amnesia, anterograde amnesia is actually far more common. The most famous case of anterograde amnesia was a patient known in the literature as H.M. In 1953, he had brain surgery to help stop the seizures caused by his severe epilepsy. The surgery involved the removal of both hippocampi, the regions of the brain strongly associated with memory. As a result, H.M. was no longer able to form any new long-term memories.
Popular movies and television programs tend to depict such memory loss as fairly common, but true cases of complete amnesia about one's past and identity are actually quite rare.
Some of the most common causes of amnesia include:

• Trauma: A physical trauma, such as a car accident, can cause the victim to lose specific memories of the event itself. Emotional trauma, such as being a victim of childhood sexual abuse, can cause the individual to lose memories of specific situations.


• Drugs: Certain medications can be used to cause temporary amnesia, particularly during medical procedures. Once the drugs wear off, the individual's memory returns to normal functioning.

Can a Christian be cursed? Will God allow a curse on a believer?

Answer: The Bible tells us that “like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, an undeserved curse does not come to rest” (Proverbs 26:2b). This means that foolish curses have no effect. God does not allow His children to be cursed. God is sovereign. No one has the power to curse one whom God has decided to bless. God is the only One able to pronounce judgment.

“Spells” in the Bible are always described negatively. Deuteronomy 18:10-11 numbers those who cast spells with those who commit other acts “detestable to the LORD” such as child sacrifice, witchcraft, sorcery, divination, or necromancy (consulting with the dead). Micah 5:12 says that God will destroy witchcraft and those who cast spells. Revelation 18 describes spells as part of the deception that will be used by the antichrist and his “great city of Babylon” (v. 21-24). Though the end-times deception will be so great that even the elect would be deceived if God did not protect us (Matthew 24:24), God will utterly destroy Satan, the antichrist, and all who follow them (Revelation chapters 19-20).

The Christian has been born again as a new person in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), and we are in the constant presence of the Holy Spirit who lives within us and under whose protection we exist (Romans 8:11). We do not need to worry about anyone casting any sort of pagan spell on us. Voodoo, witchcraft, hexes, and curses have no power over us because they come from Satan, and we know that “the one who is in you [Christ] is greater than the one [Satan] who is in the world” (1 John 4:4). God has overcome him, and we have been freed to worship God without fear (John 8:36). “The Lord is my light and my salvation—whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life—of whom shall I be afraid? ” (Psalm 27:1).

why do we care what people think of us?

In many of my sessions with clients I see a common theme that disrupts their happiness and sense of self worth. Many people care too much about what other people think and it greatly impacts the choices they make. To start, here are some of the reasons we may care too much about what others think:

• We don't want to disappoint someone
• We want to fit in
• We were wounded in some way in our early years if being different or being authentic was responded to in a negative way
• Messages we received from significant people in our lives let us feel that our self-worth was tied to external factors and status
• We want to be accepted, validated, and loved
• We didn't feel accepted, validated or loved unless we conformed to what other people thought was right instead of following our own path

Of course it is normal to care about what other people think of us and everyone does to an extent. However, when we care to the point that our own happiness and well being is suffering, or making choices that are best for us result in extreme guilt, it reaches an unhealthy point. It's not easy to just decide, "ok, I don't care what anyone thinks of me anymore." It's a long process to stop caring so much about what others are thinking and to start caring more about what personally makes us happy and fulfilled in life. It has always been hard for me to put into words how strongly I feel about people being able to just be themselves without shame, guilt, or judgment. Then, recently I read a brilliant blog in the online magazine, Psychology Tomorrow called "Learning to Think for Ourselves" and it helped me formulate the words for this post. Here are some of my favorite nuggets from the piece that resonated with me. I hope they resonate with you too:My point is, as far as we know, we only get one shot at this life. As far as I know, happiness comes when we are in a place of being our true authentic selves and making choices that are in line with who we are as an individual. Who we are is completely different from the next person and what is right for one person is definitely not right for another person. There is no ONE path. There is no "normal" and there is no universal advice that will work for all people. There is no one definition of success. The only person who truly knows what's best for you is YOU. Sometimes that journey is about a lot of information gathering. It's about knowing all your options, self exploration and self awareness and when that's in place we are best equipped to make those powerful decisions that dictate the course of our lives. What we do for a living, who we choose as a partner and the type of lifestyle we lead are all extensions of ourselves and who we are as unique individuals. Finding the balance of living for yourself in a way that feels comfortable and right to you is an art form but it is achievable. My hope is that people will be able to give themselves the gift of trusting and honoring their own unique beliefs and talents without letting others dictate choices that may be wrong for them.

do the souls of aborted babies go to heaven?

Answer: Abortion as we know it today was not practiced in biblical times, and the Bible never specifically mentions the issue of abortion. It is clear from the Scriptures that an unborn baby is known by the Lord, even from the time of conception (Psalm 139:13-16). Although the Bible does not mention abortion or aborted babies, we do have two keys to help us unlock the answer to the question of whether the souls of aborted babies go to heaven.

The first key is from the only passage in the Bible where something specific is said about the death of infants. In 2 Samuel 12 we learn of David’s affair with Bathsheba, another man’s wife. David was informed by the prophet Nathan that the child produced by that union would die. David then began to fast and pray, asking the Lord to not carry out His judgment. When the child did die, David got up from praying and fasting and ate something.

When asked about this behavior, David uttered the words recorded in 2 Samuel 12:23, “Now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” David’s words reflect a clear understanding that the child could not come back to earth, but David would be with his child one day in heaven. This indicates not only David’s assurance of his own future in heaven (Psalm 23:6), but also the assurance that his child would share that future. From this account, we can conclude that infants who die are destined for heaven.

The second key to dealing with this issue is an understanding of the character and attributes of God. A God of justice must punish sin, for the Bible teaches us that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Neither an unborn child nor an aborted baby has had the opportunity to willfully sin; however, every child conceived bears the sin nature inherited from Adam (Psalm 51:5) and is therefore subject to judgment. At the same time, God reveals Himself as a God of goodness and mercy (Psalm 136:26). He is “gracious in all His works” (Psalm 145:17). It could very well be that God, in His grace, applies the sacrifice of Christ to the unborn victims of abortion. We know Christ’s blood is sufficient for such a thing. After all, Jesus died “for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

The Bible does not specifically say whether or not an unborn child who dies goes to heaven. Without a clear passage, we can only speculate. However, we know of God’s love, goodness, and compassion. We know of David’s confidence that he would be with his child again. And we know that Jesus invited the children to come to Him (Luke 18:16). Based on these sureties, we believe it is appropriate to conclude that the souls of children are immediately in the presence of God when their lives are cut short by abortion.

HOW CAN SIBLINGS BE SO DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER?

For most of history, psychologists thought of the study of siblings as backwater: Parenting was important — siblings were not.
Then in the 1980s, a researcher named Robert Plomin published a surprising paper in which he reviewed the three main ways psychologists had studied siblings: physical characteristics, intelligence and personality. According to Plomin, in two of these areas, siblings were really quite similar.
Physically, siblings tended to differ somewhat, but they were a lot more similar on average when compared to children picked at random from the population. That's also true of cognitive abilities.

Tom Hoebbel (left) became an artist, while Eric (right) chose finance.

Courtesy of Tom Hoebbel

"The surprise," says Plomin, "is when you turn to personality."
Turns out that on tests that measure personality — stuff like how extroverted you are, how conscientious — siblings are practically like strangers.
"Children in the same family are more similar than children taken at random from the population," Plomin says, "but not much more."
In fact, in terms of personality, we are similar to our siblings only about 20 percent of the time. Given the fact that we share genes, homes, routines and parents, this makes no sense. What makes children in the same family so different?
Separating Genes From Environment
To come up with an answer, Plomin and other researchers did study after study. They were trying to tease out what role genes played in the personality differences they saw, and what role the environment played in those differences. When they began, they assumed, like everyone else, that being raised in the same environment would be one of the things that made children similar. This, however, is not what they found.
"The environment works in a very odd way," says Plomin. "It's making two children in the same family different from one another. Not similar to one another — different."
The question was: Why is it that being raised in the same family pushes children in opposite directions in terms of personality?
No one knows for sure, but there are three major theories.
Theory One: Divergence
The first is a view popularized by a Darwin scholar named Frank Sulloway. In Sulloway's view, competition is the engine that pushes evolution — just as in the wild. Therefore, in the context of a family, one of the main things that's happening is that children are competing for the time, love and attention of their parents.
"And when organisms compete," says Sulloway, "there tends to be a phenomenon that Darwin long ago identified in the origins of species called the principle of divergence. The role of divergence is basically to minimize competition so it's not direct. And that leads to specialization in different niches."
So if one child in a family seems to excel at academics, to avoid direct competition, the other child — consciously or unconsciously — will specialize in a different area, like socializing.
Sulloway says he saw a small version of this happen in his own family. His elder brother was a great tennis player, and he eventually became a professional tennis player. Sulloway says he never in his life was able to take a set from his brother. "And in the course of my high school experience, I discovered I was much better in track than in tennis," Sulloway says. So he switched. "It was a very conscious decision. I just was never going to be as good in tennis as he was."
Theory Two: Environment
The second theory has a slightly confusing name; it's called the non-shared environment theory, and it essentially argues that though from the outside it appears that we are growing up in the same family as our siblings, in very important ways we really aren't. We are not experiencing the same thing.
"Children grow up in different families because most siblings differ in age, and so the timing with which you go through your family's [major events] is different," says Susan McHale, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University. "You know, a parent loses a job, parents get divorced. If you are three or five years behind your sibling, the experience of a 5-year-old whose parents get divorced is very different from the experience of a 9-year-old or a 10-year-old."
Also, McHale says, children in the same family are rarely treated the same by their parents, even if parents want to treat them the same.
"Children have different needs," McHale says. "They have different interests. They have different personalities that are eliciting different treatment from parents."
Theory Three: Exaggeration
The final theory is the comparison theory, which holds that families are essentially comparison machines that greatly exaggerate even minor differences between siblings.
Imagine, says McHale, two friendly children born in the same family. "One of those children is incredibly extroverted, and the other is just very sociable," says McHale. In the context of any other family, says McHale, the second child would be considered an extrovert. "But in this family," says McHale, "she's the introvert."
And once the introvert label is assigned — even if in an absolute sense it's not really true — it influences the choices that the child makes.
"And so we pick different groups of friends, we spend our time in different ways that only reinforces what may have been a very small difference to begin with," McHale says. "And, you know, once you get these forces feeding on one another, differences escalate over time."

Tom and Eric Hoebbel with their father, who died in 1982.

Courtesy of Tom Hoebbel

Different Homes
So, why are Tom and Eric Hoebbel so different?  Both said the answer was clear. In their case, it wasn't Darwinian. Eric especially was convinced he didn't gravitate toward the path he's on to be different from his brother.
"No, I don't think it was a reaction to him at all," Eric says.
Tom agrees.
Instead they point to the death of their father. When their father died, Tom was 17 and heading off to college — but Eric was only 12. So, in a sense, they grew up in different homes. Tom, the radical, grew up in a secure, two-parent home.  But Eric the financial planner, as Tom points out, spent many years as the only man in a house destabilized both emotionally and financially by death.
"And as he grew and went to college, I think maybe that was for him his primary motivation — is to be the provider," Tom says.
So, this Thursday as you eat your turkey, look across the table. There, you may see a brother, a sister, a step-sibling, a twin. And maybe they're your friend, and maybe they're your enemy, but one thing is for certain: Their very existence has had a profound influence on your life.

can people have psychic powers?

Answer: Telepathy (the ability to read another’s thoughts) and telekinesis (the ability to move an object with one’s mind) are stalwart tools in the realm of superheroes. From Star Wars to the X-Men, mental powers seem to be ubiquitous. But what does the Bible say about such “super powers”?

The Bible actually has quite a bit to say about knowing another’s thoughts. Genesis 6:5 says, “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” In 1 Chronicles 28:9, David tells his son Solomon, “The LORD searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts.” Psalm 94:11 says, “The LORD knows the thoughts of man.” And Jesus knew the thoughts of the scribes in Matthew 9:4. But we cannot know the thoughts of another. First Corinthians 2:11 says, “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?” God did not create humans to be able to communicate simply through thought. Instead, he gave us forms of communication that require much more work and humility, forms that breed community instead of simple, quick information transfers.

There are those who seem to have abilities that resemble telepathy. Mothers are particularly good at this. But it isn’t anything mysterious. It’s simply knowing others well enough, and knowing their situation well enough, to be able to make an accurate, educated guess about their motives. Job exemplifies this in Job 21:27 when he tells one of his “comforters,” “Behold, I know your thoughts, and the plans by which you would wrong me.” He knows his friend well, and he’s sat through enough lectures to be able to figure out where Zophar is coming from. That’s not telepathy. That’s just paying attention.

The Bible also mentions cases of objects moving or changing into something else. In Genesis 5:24 “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.” In I Kings 17:15, a widow’s flour and oil miraculously continue to provide throughout a long drought. In the next chapter, fire falls from heaven to consume a water-saturated sacrifice. In John 2, water turns into wine. But in all these cases, the purpose of the transformation or movement of materials was to glorify God and authenticate His messenger. At no time was it used merely for convenience or for frivolous purposes.

It is possible, however, for the enemy to use similar signs to draw attention to himself. Moses faced this when Pharaoh’s magicians turned their staffs into snakes (Exodus 7:12) and brought up frogs (Exodus 8:7). It is possible even now for people to make strange things happen. But we must examine what exactly is going on. Humans cannot use their minds to move or create objects. Those in the spirit realm can. So, every mysterious occurrence must be powered either by God or the enemy. If God is glorified through the event, if He caused the event to occur to validate His prophet, we can deduce the event occurred through Him. If, however, the event was frivolous and had nothing to do with God’s glory, it must have come through another source. And the Bible makes it clear that witchcraft and sorcery are to be avoided at all costs.

God made humans to interact in specific ways, ways that foster community and glorify Him. Some people may be blessed with a keen insight, but that doesn’t mean they have telepathy. The prophets of old were given the ability to ask God to act on their behalf in miraculous ways, but they didn’t have powers of psycho-kinesis. We are to look to the Holy Spirit for our strength. Trying to read another’s thoughts, move objects around a room, or create an energy ball takes time and effort away from the business of loving God and loving others and opens a dangerous door into the world of the occult.

If you have a lot of debt, can you temporarily stop tithing while paying off the debt?

Answer: It is permissible to stop tithing while paying off debt. Paying debts is a duty; tithing is "optional." Please do not misunderstand—giving to the Lord's work is very important. Sacrificial financial giving is part of God's calling for every Christian. If it is truly impossible to pay off the debt and continue tithing at the same time, it would not be wrong to decrease giving, or stop giving entirely, temporarily, in order to pay off the debts that are owed.

Our one unalterable duty toward other people is that we love them, dealing with them as we want them to deal with us (Matthew 7:12). All of us want people to pay the debts they owe us. Therefore, as Christians, we should “let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:8-10).

The tithing law of the old covenant was God’s provision for meeting the material needs of the priests from the tribe of Levi. They needed support in order to minister in the temple and meet the needs of the poor (Numbers 18:26; Deuteronomy 26:12-15). Therefore, when the Israelites failed to give the temple tithe, God warned, "Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, 'How have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings” (Malachi 3:8).

The writer of Hebrews revealed that the tithe was a tenth of a man’s income: “Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, their brothers—even though their brothers are descended from Abraham” (Hebrews 7:5). The Levitical priesthood continued to serve in the temple throughout the earthly lifetime of Jesus. But after the death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus, the structure of leadership changed: "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law" (Hebrews 7:12). Christ is now our High Priest. Christians are now God's temple and His royal priesthood (Hebrews 4:14-15; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; 1 Peter 2:9-10).

Our High Priest ministers the new covenant to us (God's law written on our hearts) by giving us the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 12:24; 10:16). This law operates powerfully, causing us to love others with Spirit-produced love (Galatians 5:22-23). That is why John writes, "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" (1 John 3:17-18). Because God’s love compels a true Christian to give, none of the New Testament epistles command or recommend that Christians pay a tithe. Rather than being a requirement, giving results from a Christian’s love.

Christians may, if they choose, give a tenth of their income to the church, meeting spiritual and material needs in their needy world. Some will choose to give less than a tenth; some will choose to give much more than a tenth. Paul recommends giving to the church on Sunday: “On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income” (1 Corinthians 16:2a).

Christians shouldn’t hoard but give as much as God directs. It is God’s money. His rewards outweigh the cost. “Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work” (2 Corinthians 9:6-8).