This is not a common question. It’s not likely something you’ve thought about too often. However, embedded in this question is a significant doctrine concerning the overall power of Satan.

It has been suggested many times before that God and Satan are at war with one another. God, of course, desires to save us while Satan longs to destroy us. If that were true, I suppose the war would be decided when the bodies are counted at the end of time.

But the Bible paints another picture altogether concerning this spiritual struggle. The most important difference is that God and Satan are not on an even playing field according to scripture.

As it relates to the crucifixion in particular, what was the role of Satan? Did Satan want the crucifixion to happen so that he might kill God in the flesh? Or did he want to stop it, knowing that the blood of Christ would atone for sins and save a multitude?

The origin of Satan

Satan was a murderer from the beginning and the father of lies (John 8:44). Peter said, “For God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment” (2 Pet. 2:4).

Jude said, “The angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude 1:6).

As far as our world is concerned, Satan has always existed as the originator of sin and an evil force at work in our lives. But it would seem that he and his devils were created by God, dwelt in heaven, and later lifted themselves up against God (Is. 14:12-15).

Once fallen, Satan took to this earth and managed to persuade Eve to break the sole commandment of God (Gen. 3:1-6). Adam followed suit, though Paul later said that he was not deceived (1 Tim. 2:14). In other words, he willingly committed that sin.

Adam was given dominion over the earth in the beginning (Gen. 1:26). But after he sinned, it was Satan who became the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4). 

The desire of Satan

Using the Bible, it is not difficult to determine the driving force behind Satan and his devils. Even the name of Satan bears out his mission which to oppose God. His name literally means, adversary.

Peter may have said it best when he wrote, “Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). He is hellbent–no pun intended–on destroying the works of God as well as God’s people.

His desire for destruction is so great, in fact, that when a legion of devils was cast out of one man by Christ, they begged Christ to allow them to enter into a herd of swine. When Jesus allowed it, the devils drove the swine over a cliff to their demise (Mark 5:12-13).

Satan even gave his best effort for a full forty days to tempt Jesus himself to sin and ruin the plan of salvation God had for his people (Matt. 4:1-11). Of course, he ultimately failed.

It would seem the last thing Satan would ever want is for Christ to be crucified. Yet, it was Satan that entered into the heart of Judas Iscariot who then turned over Jesus to be crucified (John 13:2).

The limitation of Satan

If it is Satan’s greatest desire to oppose God, why would he assist in the Lord’s crucifixion when it was during that crucifixion that Christ drove the final nail in Satan’s coffin (Heb. 2:14)?

There are two possibilities. First, it could be that Satan was ignorant. Second, it could be that Satan was powerless.

The first possibility is not likely since God told Satan long ago that Christ would strike the final blow against him (Gen. 3:15). Also, when the legion of devils were confronted by Christ, they immediately confessed his authority over them (Mark 5:6-7).

That leaves us with the second possibility that Satan is simply powerless. In other words, he has certain limitations.

When Satan desired to overthrow Job’s faith, he was forced to stand before God and seek permission (Job 1:6-12). It is an unfortunate myth that Satan wars with God and we await the results. Satan is little more than a dog on God’s leash.

James said, “Submit yourselves to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). Satan doesn’t even have power over God’s born again people. He cannot do anything which God does not explicitly allow and he knows it.

In the crucifixion of Christ, the devil was merely seeking destruction anywhere God would permit it. His desire may have been to stop the atonement, but the most he could actually accomplish was the suffering of God in the flesh.

If you have your own Bible question, I’d love to try and answer it. Visit JeremySarber.com/BibleHelp

Have you ever taken one of those magazine or online quizzes where you answer questions about yourself and they label you with a personality type or provide you insight into who you are?

I imagine you have at some point. You either agreed with the results or you disagreed. Maybe you even carefully answered the quiz so that you might get the results you wanted.

I remember when I first learned what the term, introvert, meant. I was excited to know that my personality type was shared by others and recognized by even more. But why would that excite me?

We all crave identity. We not only want to know who we are but we also want to define ourselves. More than that, we want to be a part of a larger group. Psychology calls it the social identity theory. 

I suppose our social identity helps us to build our self-image. Even among those who long to be unique and different, long to be unique and different with others who are also unique and different.

In short, we want to know that we’re not alone. We want to be a part of a tribe. Unfortunately, this is a dynamic of human behavior which has negative impacts on us.

First, we often identify with the wrong groups. Second, we have a propensity to pit our own group against other groups.

Tribal clashing and warfare

We are Republicans or Democrats. We are conservatives or liberals. We are Calvinists or Arminians. We are Baptists or Methodists. We are Red Sox fans or Yankees fans. We are Team Jacob or Team Edward. We are–well, you get the idea.

We even identify ourselves by the music we like, the style of clothing we wear, or the kind of car we drive.

This type of social identity may appear harmless on the surface, but it often breeds divisiveness. It generates the us-and-them mentality. Even worse, it can produce the us-versus-them mentality.

We should strive to stay as far away from fighting and hostility as possible. Solomon said, “The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with” (Prov. 17:14).

Imagine trying to carry water in a bucket that has a small hole. There will not be water in that bucket for long. According to the wisdom of Solomon, even a small amount of strife will eventually lead to much greater contention. We should avoid it altogether.

The early church faced its share of contention between Jewish and Gentile converts. It would seem that the Jewish Christians were largely responsible for it as they felt their social identity was supreme over the social identity of the Gentiles.

More than once Paul reiterated the point that we are neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ. He said, “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles” (1 Cor. 12:13).

Even so, our fighting continues. Our tribal culture has led to some of the most abominable hatred, discrimination, and even violence.

The wrong social identity

Of course, it will always be difficult to avoid the pitfalls of social identity if we continually identify ourselves with the wrong groups.

Christ did not call any of us to be Republicans or Democrats, Baptists or Methodists, or to be a part of any other movement, social group, or fanatical cause–even those of this world which claim to stand on righteous principles.

In fact, Christ called us out of this present world. Peter said, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9).

As long as we allow ourselves to be bound by the social identities of this world, we might as well remain in darkness. 

In case that sounds overly dramatic, let me clarify my point. 

Socially, I’m an introvert. Religiously, I’m Primitive Baptist. Politically–if I had to choose–I’m libertarian. Recreationally, I’m a fan of the Atlanta Braves. Musically, my favorite is Bob Dylan.

My point is, I’m not denouncing social identity. Inevitably, we all fall into certain segments of society. Naturally, birds of a feather flock together. However, social identity can present problems.

Our identity in Christ

Not only can it lead to unnecessary division, it also becomes easy for us to lose sight of the only identity that really matters.

The  Bible uses the phrase, in Christ, 73 times. Our faith is in Christ (Acts 24:24). Our redemption is in Christ (Rom. 3:24). The truth is in Christ (Rom. 9:1). We are one body in Christ (Rom. 12:5).

Paul wrote, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).

In other words, the most satisfying social identity we can have is in Christ because we’ve been placed into his family by God himself. No tribe on earth should have our unyielding commitment like that of believers in Jesus Christ our Lord.

In case some of you are not familiar with the seeker-friendly or seeker-sensitive movement throughout churches, let me try and explain it from my own perspective.

In the most simple terms, a seeker-friendly church strives to give the unchurched exactly what they want. The aim is to draw them into the church with the hope they will be converted.

However, this model for the church begins with a misguided priority of simply getting warm bodies in the pews on Sunday. I do understand their reasoning. After all, Jesus said that heaven rejoices over every sinner that repents (Luke 15:7).

Even so, the end result tends not to be the conversion of sinners, but the conversion of the church for the worse.

CEOs and coffee bars

There is not a pastor alive–at least not a good one–who doesn’t want to see God’s people make a home in the local church. We want to see lives transformed. We want to see people deny themselves and take up their crosses to follow Christ (Luke 9:23).

This desire has led some pastors and churches to inject the marketing practices of successful companies like Apple or Ikea into the missional efforts of the church. Pastors have ceased to be servants and teachers. Instead, they become chief executive officers.

Churches have taken harmless secular activities, given them a Christian theme, and repackaged them for the general public.

They have provided everything from movie showings to music concerts to coffee bars to game nights to book clubs to speed dating for Christians. They have encouraged casual dress and have adopted an overall come-as-you-are mantra. 

What makes this issue so challenging is that the church–that is, the people–participate in these things all of the time. What harm is it if we were do these things together as a church and promote it?

Well, the real damage is beneath the surface.

Seeker-friendly mistakes

Seeker-friendly churches use these seemingly harmless practices to attract new visitors in order to later see them converted. That is their first mistake. No successful entity can operate that way.

Imagine if you saw a new Chinese restaurant advertised and you went. Their food was excellent. But when you returned a second time, they weren’t serving Chinese food anymore. Instead, they had replaced the menu with Italian food or something else altogether.

If people don’t come to church for biblical teaching and Christ-centered worship, why would they stay for biblical teaching and Christ-centered worship? If they come for coffee and a show, that’s what they expect to get–now and in the future.

Hoping they will stick around for the Jesus stuff later on is not a good strategy. When the entertainment ceases, so will the people.

The seeker-friendly model has been tried with much success. (I use that term loosely.) But in recent years, many have seen its shortcomings. This leads us to their second mistake.

While seeker-friendly churches have been able to draw large crowds in the past, attendees have since discovered–or will discover–that they can get what the church offers, minus the Jesus stuff, elsewhere. Why bother going to church at all? 

There is a third mistake which is perhaps the greatest of all. Since people are not drawn to the church as the result of the gospel or sound teaching, the pastor is forced to accommodate them.

In other words, the pastor either has to always teach for babes or, even worse, he has to scratch the itching ears of those who cannot endure sound doctrine (2 Tim. 4:3).

Rather than converting sinners, the seeker-friendly church is more likely to do irreparable spiritual harm to their own flock.

Becoming seeker-friendly

The question is, how can a church be seeker-friendly without making these mistakes? I suppose it would be helpful if we identified who the seekers are that we are supposed to befriend.

The short answer is believers. On the day of Pentecost when 3,000 people were baptized, it was only after they believed in the gospel and repented that they were added to the church (Acts 2:37-41).

Church worship was never meant to be a Christian-themed production for the general public. It is an intimate gathering of believing disciples for the purpose of fellowship and praising God.

The unconverted person needs the same thing all of God’s people need which is the preaching of the gospel and the teaching of Bible. If that’s not what they want, the church is not for them.

Even when Jesus drew a crowd described as an innumerable multitude of people, the Bible narrative says he spoke to his disciples (Luke 12:1). Ironically, he warned them about the false teachings of the most prominent religious leaders of the day.

Jesus often taught using parables. Some think that parables were used to simplify the teachings. That’s true but parables were also used to conceal those teachings from unbelievers (Matt. 13:10-17).

If the seekers are not seeking Christ alone, we have nothing to offer them. As Paul said, “I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2).

It should also be pointed out that believers in the church are to grow in God’s word (Col. 1:9-10). That can’t happen if the pastor-CEO is always coddling the so-called seekers. He will either deliver smiley-face discourses or stray altogether from sound doctrine.

The church needs the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). As a matter of fact, a church that grows in the word of God will inevitable grow in size as well (Acts 6:7).

Accommodating the babes

At the same time, I believe it’s entirely appropriate to bear in mind that babes in Christ are going to be immature in understanding and shallow in perspective. In other words, they may very well focus on things that are not that important in the church.

For example, I have known churches which had slightly dated, white frame buildings–think Little House on the Prairie–that were not even well kept. Where the church meets shouldn’t matter, but it will to the immature Christian. 

It would not be bending to the whims of the sinful world around us if we avoid such a trivial stumbling block as an outdated, poorly-kept building. Stumbling blocks should be avoided (1 Cor. 8:9).

Meeting cultural standards is not necessarily wicked. When Paul addressed head coverings among men and women in the Corinthian church, he instructed women to follow society’s standards, but he told slave men to disregard them (1 Cor. 11:2-16).

As a general rule, the church should never violate scripture and should strive to follow biblical examples with only minor cultural variations. Some would suggest that we should have no variations, but that’s not realistic. Even Paul tweaked his preaching style depending on his audience in the moment (1 Cor. 9:19-23).

I should also point out that having the liberty to do something, doesn’t always mean we should (1 Cor. 10:23). Let’s focus on helping babes in Christ to grow rather than keeping them comfortable in their current state (Heb. 5:11-14).

Last but certainly not least, if we want to attract true seekers of Christ, then Christ should be magnified in us. One sure way to accomplish this is to have love and compassion for one another.

Even the most spiritual person has no desire to fellowship with those who cannot keep the most fundamental commandment of the Bible which is to love one another (John 13:34).

If you have your own Bible question, I’d love to try and answer it. Visit JeremySarber.com/BibleHelp

A few weeks ago, my truck was involved in an accident. I had parked in the road to retrieve my dog who had followed me out of the drive when another truck came down the road and hit mine.

Thankfully, I managed to step back far enough to avoid being hurt. The other driver also managed to walk away unscathed.

When the dust settled, I did what most people would do in that situation–I began to worry.

Worry over money

I thought about how only recently the last payment on the truck had been made. I thought about insurance and whether the damage would be covered. I wondered how my wife and I would manage with only one vehicle.

Typically, I worry very little. That is especially true when it comes to money and material things. Some might even say that I’m too laid back. Perhaps they’d say that I don’t worry enough.

On one hand, there are far more important things than money. On the other hand, I have a responsibility to provide for my family. Failure to do so would make me worse than an infidel (1 Tim. 5:8).

Being the pastor of a small church is immensely rewarding. But I don’t guess it’s any big secret that small church pastors usually do not rake in the big bucks. If the congregation is fifty or so people and they give the American average of two percent to the church, subtract expenses and helping the poor–well, you do the math.

I’m not complaining about my income. But I’m no different than anyone else. I think about money. Sometimes I even worry about money. Sometimes I think, if only I had more, I would be satisfied.

Limited satisfaction

However, Solomon said, “He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver” (Eccl. 5:10). Silver, of course, represents money, wealth, and material gain. But can Solomon’s words be true?

It sounds a lot like idealistic hogwash. After all, anyone who has ever bought a new toy, a new car, a new house–especially if it’s a significant upgrade–knows how exciting and, dare I say, satisfying it can be to gain more silver, as Solomon put it.

Scientific research seems to bear that out. I don’t have any particular studies to cite, but I’ve come across many essays that have been written on the subject and they all say the same things.

First, poor people are generally unhappy. Second, poor people who manage to obtain more money and more stuff become happier.

Before we write off those studies as psychological nonsense, let’s consider what else the researchers have supposedly discovered.

If you’ve ever seen the documentary, Happy, then you’ve already heard that money does buy happiness but only to a point. Once the essential needs of a person are met, money stops providing satisfaction. In fact, it begins to increase dissatisfaction.

The exact dollar amount is relative. One researcher says it’s $50,000 a year. Another says it’s $75,000 a year. I guess it would depend on where you live and what you consider to be essential.

The point is, there’s a cap on the amount of money that will provide any level of satisfaction in a person’s life.

Increase doesn’t help

Solomon said, “He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: this is also vanity” (Eccl. 5:10).

Even if Solomon had not been divinely inspired to write such things, he still knew what he was talking about. He spoke from experience. Solomon was a very wealthy man.

Have you ever heard the of the video game, The Sims? The premise of the game may seem silly to you, but it’s a very popular game that is little more than a strategic life simulation.

In the game, you can look however you want, dress however you want, be anyone you want, and live anyway you want. Your character grows up, gets a job, gets married, and so on. You simply navigate the day-to-day activities of a digital person.

I know it sounds like a ridiculously uneventful game, but it allows a person to live a life that perhaps they could never live in the real world. The first edition of the game came out when I was in high school and I remember it being very addictive.

However, once you reach the peak of your career path, do all that life has to offer in the game, and make more money than you can actually spend, the game quickly becomes boring and tedious.

It’s difficult for us to see this, but wealth accumulation in real life has the same problem. Once our basic necessities are met, there is no lasting satisfaction with material things. We’ll always crave more. If we get more, there’s no satisfaction in the increase either.

Even if we know this is true, we still struggle with it. The desire to have more and the misconception that more will make us happier is ingrained in us by our very nature (Eph. 4:17-19).

Competing with others

But our love of money goes even further than simply wanting to have it or have as much of it as possible. The Bible says more about covetousness than it does about greed in general.

In one study I read, a group of people was offered a choice. They could either make $50,000 a year while everyone they knew made only $30,000 or they could make $100,000 while everyone they knew made $200,000. The vast majority of them chose to make $50,000 if it meant they would have more than everyone else.

We don’t just want money. We don’t just want more money. We want as much or more than the people around us. It is that compulsion which distorts our perspective on what is a necessity, what really makes us happy, and it drives us get more stuff.

If everyone we know has two nice cars, a nice home, a big screen TV, satellite TV, goes out to eat multiple times a week, and the list goes on, we naturally feel inadequate if we don’t have those things as well. We may feel envious. We may even feel ashamed.

Converting our passion

Do we trust in God? If so, we must trust in his word. No matter how confident we feel that more money and more stuff will bring us greater satisfaction, it’s simply not true. 

Perhaps it could even be said that less money and less stuff is actually liberating. Once our basic needs are met, additional income only intensifies our desire to buy more. Once we own more, we quickly become dissatisfied and we want even more. 

It’s never-ending unless we make a conscience decision to identify our needs and refrain, as much as possible, from continually pursuing more. Instead, we could convert our passion for material things into a passion for spiritual things. Rather than buying more for ourselves, we could give to those who actually have needs.

I don’t believe anyone should feel guilty about the prosperity they’ve been blessed with nor should anyone be despised for it. But we could spare ourselves much sorrow and worry if only we treasured material things less and spiritual things more.

When Jesus entered into Jerusalem during the last week of his life, he created quite a stir when he overthrew the tables of the moneychangers and healed the blind and lame (Matt. 21:12-16).

He left for the night to stay in the town of Bethany. When he returned to the city the next morning, he was confronted by the chief priests who demanded to know by what authority he was doing such things (Matt. 21:23).

Jesus proceeded to deliver a series of parables. The statement you’ve asked about is found at the conclusion of the third parable. Jesus said, “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14).

The Jews decline the invitation

The historical context in this case is significant. Over the course of the Lord’s ministry, the Jews’ opposition became greater and greater. Its climax came just a few days after this parable was spoken when the Jews turned Jesus over to be crucified.

In order to describe what was taking place in the relationship between Christ the King, the Jews of Israel, and the Gentiles throughout the world, Jesus told the story of a marriage feast.

The marriage feast, especially one hosted by royalty, was the greatest celebration within Jewish culture. To be invited to the wedding of a king or his children was the highest honor.

Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding, and they would not come” (Matt. 22:2-3).

This was a shocking story. No one in their right mind would refuse this kind of invitation. Yet, those invited would not go when the king’s servants went to tell them it was time.

The king in this parable represents the King of Kings, Jesus Christ. The servants are his apostles and his preachers. Those invited to the wedding are the Jews who were God’s covenant people. But when it came time to feast with the King, they declined.

Rejection leads to destruction

Jesus said, “Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage” (Matt. 22:4).

This king had patience and long-suffering with those originally invited to the wedding. He sent his servants a second time to draw them to him and they still refused.

Some made light of it by ignoring the call altogether and returning to their normal lives (Matt. 22:5). A few went as far as to become so angry that they killed the servants (Matt. 22:6).

In the next chapter of Matthew, Jesus said the Jews claimed they were not like their forefathers who persecuted God’s prophets. However, they were no different at all (Matt. 23:30-37).

Not only would they crucify Christ just a few days from then, they would murder most of the apostles and many others throughout the life of the early church.

But their actions did not go without consequence. In the parable, Jesus said, “When the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city” (Matt. 22:7).

That is precisely what happened to the nation of Israel and the city of Jerusalem in particular. Jesus later said to the Pharisees, “Behold, your house is left desolate” (Matt. 23:38).

In 70 AD, the city of Jerusalem as well as the temple itself was destroyed by the Romans. Their house was left desolate.

The Gentiles are invited

In the parable, the king then sent out his servants to find anyone and everyone that would be willing to come to the wedding. They gathered both good and bad (Matt. 22:9-10).

By all appearances, the Jews were good, but truly they were unworthy (Matt. 22:8). It was time for the invitation to extend to the Gentiles who mostly appeared bad in their moral conduct.

As one might expect, when some of the Gentiles with their ungodly beginnings, backgrounds, and beliefs arrived to the wedding, they had not prepared themselves for such an occasion.

Jesus said, “When the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how calmest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless” (Matt. 22:11-12).

The man had not changed before coming to the wedding. Though the parable speaks of his clothing, I believe it relates to that call to repent that is given to disciples before entering the church.

The king was so displeased that the ill-dressed was thrown out (Matt. 22:13). This mirrors what Paul instructed the church to do with unrepentant sinners among us (1 Cor. 5:1-8).

Many are called, few are chosen

Then came the Lord’s conclusion to the parable. He said, “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14).

What likely confuses us about this verse is simply the lexicon. Typically, when we think of someone being called or chosen, we think of the internal call of the Spirit and the sovereign election of God as described by Paul, for instance (Rom. 8:30).

God did choose his people before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:3-6). He also calls his people by his Spirit (2 Tim. 1:9). However, that type of election and calling is accomplished by God alone and has always been and will always be 100 percent successful.

But there is another type of calling which has a very small success rate. That is the call of the gospel. When the gospel is preached, it calls us to believe and repent which many who hear it will not do.

In the Lord’s day, most of Israel had been called by the gospel. That is why Jesus said, “Many are called.” Of course, very few answered the call so Jesus said, “Few are chosen.”

But what does it mean to be chosen in this case? In the parable, those chosen were those who accepted the king’s invitation and were prepared upon arrival. The ultimate goal for them was to sit at the king’s table and dine with him.

Today, many have heard the call of the gospel. Unfortunately, only a remnant of God’s people will embrace the gospel and seek to win Christ, as Paul said (Phil. 3:8).

Beyond eternal life which has been given to us, we have an opportunity to commune with Christ and receive a multitude of blessings from it while here on earth.

This is a special audio-only edition of Discovering Grace. I recently had the opportunity to speak at a church in Virginia on the subject of personal evangelism and this is that discourse.

In John 4:35, Jesus said, “Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.”

Jesus attempted to teach his disciples to be active in the conversion of God’s people in this world. We have the same responsibility today. But some do not understand this task or simply do not understand how exactly we are to accomplish it.

Paul’s preaching to the men of Athens in Acts 17 provides us a wonderful example of how we might reach unbelievers. Evangelism might seem intimidating to us, but there are many blessings in it, if we only we learn how to do it from day to day.

This question comes up every now and then. Some want to know about the wedding ceremony itself and others want to know if a ceremony is even necessary. I’ll attempt to address both.

It should be understood from the start that the Bible gives no clear instructions on wedding ceremonies. Most of the customs we read about were merely cultural and not by commandment of God.

However, there are governing principles contained in scripture that would be helpful to us. At the same time, the emphasis is always on the marriage itself rather than the wedding ceremony.

Before the wedding

First, let’s consider some of the ancient customs that were practiced prior to the actual wedding. Marriages were very much a family affair, starting with the initial arrangement.

The first step in marriage was generally taken by the future groom’s parents. For instance, Isaac was forty years old and still his father sent a servant out to find him a wife (Genesis 24).

The servant was given strict instructions to find a woman who was not a Canaanite and was willing to leave her home and dwell in the land God had given them. Typically, the bride would come to live near the groom’s family rather than the other way around.

He then made the final arrangements with the would-be bride’s family who had to consent to the marriage. Finally, the agreement was sealed by a gift being given to the bride and her family.

For the most part, this is how marriages among God’s people were done. There are exceptions such as in the case of Jacob and Esau who both chose their own wives. It should be noted that Esau’s bride of choice caused his parents much grief (Gen. 26:34-35).

Today in Western culture, most people find their own spouses, of course. I see no harm in that practice so long as we understand a couple of very fundamental principles.

The first is that love is not a fleeting emotion as Hollywood depicts. According to the Bible, love is a choice we make to sacrifice for others, regardless of the present circumstances (John 15:13).

Therefore, choosing a spouse should be a rational decision which overlooks emotion to consider more important things like shared values, morals, faith, and a general understanding of marriage.

The second is that family approval does matter. While a man leaves his father and mother to marry (Gen. 2:24), he still has an obligation to honor his father and mother (Eph. 6:1-3).

Wedding ceremony customs

As for wedding ceremonies, you may wonder if a ceremony is even necessary. When exactly does God consider a couple married?

The answer to this question may be difficult for some. In my experience, some people won’t accept any practice that is not explicitly commanded by God. Others find biblical examples to be sufficient. For the most part, I fall into the latter group.

There is no commandment concerning wedding ceremonies. However, the biblical pattern is that marriages always begin with some kind of ceremony or wedding. The most notable would be that of Jesus Christ and his bride (Rev. 19:7-9).

Wedding traditions have evolved over the course of time. The biggest change is probably the emphasis we now place on the bride as opposed to the groom.

The groom learns early in the process of planning the wedding that the wedding day is the bride’s day. After all, she’ll be the one that causes everyone in the room to stand when she enters.

Following the example of the Lord’s marriage to the church, it was once the groom which received the greatest attention. That makes sense given he will become the head of the wife (Eph. 6:23).

Even so, it was always the bride who adorned herself with precious jewels and beautiful clothing much like today (Ps. 45:13-15).

Both the bride and groom would have attendants to serve them through proceedings (Judg. 14:11). Generally, the groomsmen and bridesmaids, as we call them today, were still unmarried. 

Last but not least, the wedding feast is perhaps the most mentioned custom throughout the Bible. Most of the time, it was the bride’s family that hosted the feast. But there were some exceptions.

The wedding feast was essentially the reception and honeymoon rolled into one. I have read where the celebration would continue for days with both the bride and groom’s families present.

Keep it God-honoring

It would seem that the fundamental elements of wedding ceremonies have not changed all that much. But allow me to add one additional note. Marriage is a sacred, God-ordained covenant. I strongly believe a wedding ceremony should reflect that.

Frankly, it is disturbing to me how sacrilegious some weddings can be even among believers. I have seen far more weddings where the ceremony itself was kept in good taste, but all bets were off when it came time for the wedding reception.

The wedding should be a time of joyful celebration. But it should never dishonor God in its rituals or activities. If the wedding truly is the beginning of a marriage, should it not possess the same qualities and values as what you desire for the marriage itself?

It is no secret that churches have split over some of the silliest things. I heard one story where a church divided into two after a debate over whether or not installing a lightening rod displayed a lack of faith in the providential protection of God.

I’m sure volumes could written on stories similar to that one.

It is apparent when such trivial matters become so-called justified points of division among disciples of Christ that the church has failed to keep the most repeated and reiterated commandment of the Bible which is to love one another as ourselves.

We’re all sinners

But there is nothing more important than truth, right? We must defend the truth, no matter what the cost, right?

There in lies the problem. If we feel authorized to make such judgments of others, we must first assume without hesitation or question that we what we believe in all points is the truth. There is a fine line between boldness and pride.

When controversy struck the Galatian churches after false doctrine was taught among them, Paul said, “If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).

Even with such a weighty matter as a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Bible instructs us to gently restore those deceived by it. Yet, some are guilty of casting out their brethren over the installation of lightening rods on their houses.

Paul also wrote, “In nothing shall I be ashamed, but that with all boldness, Christ shall be magnified in my body” (Phil. 1:20). Our boldness in Christ is commendable. But if we have no love or compassion, we cannot say that Christ is magnified in us.

I am quite confident in the things I believe and I will often speak them with boldness. But I must also readily confess that I am a sinner with less than perfect understanding. After all, what reason do I have to believe in Christ the Savior if that was not the case?

Finding the balance

The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). She is the light of the world and the salt of the earth (Matt. 5:13-14). At the same time, there is none that is righteous (Rom. 3:10). We all see through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13:12).

In matters of judgment, we must lightly tread. First, we have no place at all to judge the world (1 Cor. 5:13). Second, we are commanded to put on the bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, and longsuffering (Col. 3:12-13).

We are commanded to forbear one another and forgive as Christ forgave us (Col. 3:14). Above all, we need charity (or love) which is the very bond of perfectness (Col. 3:15).

That is not to say we can or should overlook every transgression and disagreement among us in the church. When writing to the Corinthians, Paul was upset with the church for not removing the moral decay from among them by removing the guilty (1 Cor. 5).

Perhaps we have not always made the helpful distinction between someone doing the wrong thing, someone doing the right thing in the wrong way, and someone simply failing to do the right thing.

Circumstances are different

With those formerly faithful disciples who stray into immorality and sin, we have a responsibility to deal with them. We begin by lovingly guiding them. Paul said, “Warn the unruly” (1 Thess. 5:14). Despite the negative connotation, he meant gently caution them.

If they are committing blatant sin and do so unrepentantly over time, there does comes a point when they must be removed (1 Cor. 5:4-8). But even then, we should still perceive that person to be a brother and not our enemy (2 Thess. 3:14-15).

However, other matters are not so clear. Some will violate scripture without committing such an obvious moral offense. Think of Peter who refused to allow Jesus to wash his feet (John 13:8). His heart was in the right place, but he was denying the will of the Lord.

When some of the members of the Roman church insisted on keeping parts of the old law by abstaining from certain meats and observing certain holy days, Paul told the others, “Let us follow after the things which make for peace” (Rom. 14:19).

Sometimes people strive to do the right thing in the wrong ways or they do the wrong things for the right reasons. Maybe they’ve simply missed a detail in biblical instruction. Maybe they’ve not carefully examined the biblical examples.

Regardless, there is little more we should do with these brethren than encourage them and help guide their understanding. There is no reason to destroy the church’s harmony over these things.

Lastly, we have those who are not guilty of following the works of the flesh, but they are not doing what the Bible would have us to do. Some are tempted to label their actions–or inactions–sinful.

For instance, Jesus instructed the church to wash one another’s feet (John 13:14). However, I’ve known a few that refused to participate in foot-washing for a variety of reasons. Is that truly sinful?

It would be a great mistake to categorize these individuals the same way we would unrepentant sinners. If we choose to judge rather than love in this case, we essentially make ourselves lords over God’s heritage (1 Pet. 5:3).

As Peter instructed pastors to do, it would be better to leave it be and lead them by example. In other words, let them miss out on the blessings of good works while they sit back and watch you receive those blessings. Eventually, they may come around.

Slow to judge

There are times when passing judgment is in order. More times than not, it would seem we are called to compassion, from one sinner to another. In any case, we should not be quick to judge.

In an era of gospel liberty, there is no excuse for the behavior of so many of us in the church today. The way we have divided and condemned one another over so many trivial matters is shameful.

I pray we can learn to show the kindness and forgiveness that Christ has certainly shown us (Eph. 4:32).

As the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ drew to a close, the threat by those wanting to take his life became greater and greater. The Lord’s disciples were well aware of that fact.

John 11 contains the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. In the midst of an event which revealed the glory of God and the ability of Christ to give life, a minor subplot is easily missed.

The disciples’ vain fear

Once Jesus learned of Lazarus’ sickly condition, he and his disciples stayed where they were for two days before traveling again to Bethany and the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha.

Before they left, the disciples were understandably worried. Just a short time before, they had been near Bethany in Jerusalem when some of the Jews’ attempted to stone Jesus for blasphemy (John 10:31-33). It stands to reason that the Jews might try again.

The disciples questioned Jesus and asked, “Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?” (John 11:8)

It is in the response of Jesus that we see the lesson contained within the more obvious lesson of John 11.

The Lord’s reassuring parable

Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbles not, because he sees the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbles, because there is no light in him” (John 11:9-10).

This is a brief parable which teaches something greater. With parables, the story itself is easy to understand. It is the meaning or application of the story which can be difficult.

In this parable, the story is simple. It merely describes the relative ease of walking in the daytime as opposed to walking in the dark of night when there is no light to see where you’re going.

As for the parable’s application, we can safely assume it has something to do with the context of the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. In other words, it’s a parable about life and death.

I’ve heard these words of Christ used in relation to spiritual life and death. I suppose that’s possible as the Bible contains many parallel teachings between the natural and the spiritual. However, I’m prone to believe this relates specifically to natural life and death.

The disciples feared that the life of Jesus would be cut short by the Jews as though wicked men had such power over Christ. But as he reminded his disciples before, his time had not yet come (John 7:6-8). He knew he would be led as a lamb to the slaughter, but it would not happen until his foreknown and predetermined time.

Perhaps the same could be said for any person. God knows when we will die and it will not happen a second before or after that time. Some would not agree with that because it seems dangerously close to what is called fatalism. That’s a debate for another day, but the point remains that God knows when we’ll die and we don’t.

Regardless, Christ knew when he would die and that was made obvious by his words just before his capture (Matt. 26:45-46). It stands to reason that Christ knew when he would die.

In John 11, Jesus knew it was not his time to be crucified. He did not fear the Jews in Judea in the way his disciples did. According to his parable, there was still light in the day. 

The disciples’ growing faith

Jesus gave his disciples time to reflect on his words before telling them that Lazarus had died though he would not stay that way for long. He then said, “I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent you may believe” (John 11:15).

What did Jesus mean by that? Wasn’t the belief of his disciples already apparent? Weren’t they already following him?

The faith of the apostles may have been stronger than most in Israel, but it was not without room to grow. Perhaps this concept can be seen most vividly in the life of Peter.

The night before the Lord’s crucifixion, Peter vowed to follow Christ even to death (John 13:37). But only few hours later, Peter found himself denying his relationship with Jesus (Matt. 26:69-75). 

Jesus had told Peter, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32). In other words, Peter still had some growing to do before he could fully accomplish what the Lord had called him to do.

In John 11, Jesus waited for Lazarus to die so that his disciples could see his glory and his power when he raised Lazarus from the dead. He wanted their belief to be strengthened.

The love of Thomas

It was then that Thomas said to the other disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him” (John 11:16). In other words, “Let’s go with Jesus to Bethany so that he won’t die alone at the hands of the Jews.” This is the verse you’ve asked me about.

We should immediately recognize how Thomas had missed the point of the Lord’s parable which is not surprising at all. A parable is nothing but a mystery unless its meaning is either explained or revealed to the person who hears it.

Ultimately, we see a lack of faith on the part of Thomas. He failed to believe that Christ had power both to protect them and himself. It further indicates why Jesus wanted them to witness the raising of Lazarus from the grave. They needed to see his power over death.

However, we should not be too quick to judge Thomas for his unbelief. While his lack of faith is apparent, his tremendous love for Christ is also expressed in what he said.

He loved Jesus so much that, even though it seemed foolish to the disciples, he was willing to follow Jesus to their deaths. He even encouraged the others to go with them and die.

Before we knock his faith, perhaps we should consider ourselves and whether we can match his love. Like Peter, his words proved to be somewhat vain in that he scattered with the rest when Jesus was captured, but his intentions were good.

Would we be willing to die for Christ? I’m afraid that too many of us aren’t even willing to live for Christ.

If you have your own Bible question, I’d love to try and answer it. Visit JeremySarber.com/BibleHelp

For the last couple of years, I’ve been subscribed to more than thirty audio sermon feeds or podcasts. At times, I’ve been subscribed to more than fifty. Needless to say, I listen to a lot of sermons from a wide variety of pastors.

Being a pastor myself, I have a tendency to do more than listen to sermons. I usually find myself dissecting them. I try to determine the method of teaching as well as the style used by the pastor.

It’s not always obvious and most of you have probably never given much thought to it. 

4 sermon methods

By the method, I’m talking about the type of teaching employed by the pastor. I have found there are four basic teaching methods.

1) Expository teaching

This is my preferred method. This is where the pastor digs into scripture, line by line, chapter by chapter, through an entire book of the Bible. It’s not accomplished all in one sermon, by the way.

I prefer this method for two reasons. First, it allows the Word of God to dictate the next sermon as opposed to the pastor. Second, it allows the church to see each verse in context of the entire book.

2) Textual teaching

This is my second favorite method. It falls somewhere between expository teaching and the next method which is topical teaching. This is where the pastor builds his sermon on a single verse or passage without studying through the entire book.

This method gives the pastor the freedom to move from place to place in the Bible while still grounding him in that anchor text.

3) Topical teaching

This is probably the most common method. This is where the pastor begins with a thought or subject and builds his case using assorted passages from several places in the Bible.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this method but it should come with warnings. It is often impossible to provide the needed context for each passage read so it has the potential to mislead. 

4) Narrative teaching

This method can just barely be called teaching. This is where the pastor merely tells a story from the Bible as opposed to reading it.

This method may be helpful at times but I would personally discourage it. Like I often tell young people, if you watch a movie about a Bible story, be sure to read it in the Word of God itself to verify the details. Storytellers may have it wrong.

Pastors are to teach

Regardless of the method used by a pastor, it is absolutely imperative that he is teaching and teaching the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). As a matter of fact, a man is not qualified to be a pastor if he is not able to teach the Word of God (1 Tim. 3:2).

Christ told Peter, “Feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17). Paul told the Ephesian elders, “Feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).

Many people have many ideas about what a pastor’s role is but there is none more important than his responsibility to teach the Bible. I’ve told my own church, if you’re not learning anything from me, there’s a significant problem here.

Perhaps you’ve noticed that I haven’t used the word, preach, at all. It’s a harmless word but it also has the wrong connotations.

Biblically speaking, the word, preach, is used in reference to the gospel being declared primarily to the unconverted. Think of Paul Revere riding through the streets and shouting, “The British are coming.” He was making a declaration to the masses.

John the Baptist preached the coming kingdom of God as did Christ. The apostles, the evangelists, and many other disciples of the early church also preached the gospel as they travelled–often in places where the gospel had never been heard before.

Paul listed four gifts of the ministry in the early church: apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11-12). You might notice that pastors and teachers are lumped together as their role is one and the same.

Apostles and prophets were made able to speak the unfiltered Word of God. There are no more apostles and prophets because we have the Word of God in its entirety, that is, the Bible.

Evangelists play an increasingly minor role as the so-called great commission given to the early church has been accomplished in large part. The gospel has been carried to the uttermost part of the earth (Acts 1:8). There is still a place for evangelists or preachers, but most evangelism today happens on a personal level.

That just leaves pastors who are obligated to teach or expound on and explain the Word of God to God’s people. This is slightly different than preaching though there may be some overlap.

Keep in mind, Paul was the only one in the New Testament to refer to himself as a preacher (1 Tim. 2:7).

We typically use preaching and teaching as synonyms. But there is a difference and that difference is more than just a style. 

Maybe we think of preaching as loud, passionate, and emotional while teaching is calm, methodical, and articulate. But these could be styles of either teaching or preaching.

Style does matter

Every pastor has his own style. He may have developed it on his own, adopted it from his father figures in the ministry, or simply began emulating others. A pastor’s teaching style is quite often the cultural standard in his church or his geographical area.

On one hand, style doesn’t matter. If the Word of God is being taught to the church, it hardly makes a difference how it is presented. We may even have our favorite styles, but that should never get in the way of learning. Perhaps the Corinthian church was divided because they deemed style too important (1 Cor. 1:12).

On the other hand, style does matter. I would go as far as to say that pastors should examine their own styles of teaching and tweak it for the sake of the church.

I suspect objections would be raised to that notion. I’ve known of pastors to claim that the presentation doesn’t matter at all because it is the Spirit of God that moves them when they speak. To them I would say, be very careful. You are dangerously close to claiming a gift reserved for only prophets and apostles.

In fact, I’ve known pastors to disregard any study of the Bible for the same reason. In their minds, God will deliver their sermon. No preparation on their part is required. But Paul told the minister, Timothy, to devote himself completely to study (1 Tim. 4:13-16).

Style matters because some styles do not accommodate learning. Some styles make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the church to learn from the teacher.

For instance, I’ve heard pastors who teach with aggression and anger. They scream, pound the lectern, and practically foam at the mouth. You’d think they were warning of hellfire and brimstone, but they could be talking about the compassion of Christ.

It’s a style I don’t understand at all. When we are afforded the opportunity to teach the good news of Jesus Christ, I don’t know how it could generate such harsh tones. I have a really hard time believing they are being led by the Spirit to sound that way.

Some pastors go the other way with their style. Some try to sound overly sensitive and emotional. Some try variations of volume and tone. Some even attempt to emulate Spurgeon by waxing poetic.

All too often, the pastor’s style can actually get in the way for the people who are listening and hoping to learn from him.

I once heard a child ask, “Why don’t preachers talk like normal people?” That’s an astute observation. Why don’t pastors talk like normal people? I think sometimes we try too hard to sound like what we think a pastor should sound like rather than focus on our primary objective which is to teach the Word.

Paul apparently adjusted his style depending on his audience (1 Cor. 9:20-23). He never taught anything but truth. However, he always delivered that truth is a way that could be consumed and digested. He did that, as he said, for the gospel’s sake.

If pastors are to feed the flock, then it is imperative that we do as Paul and give it to them in an easily consumable way.