Is there anything wrong with having a church be the social center for members’ families as well as a place to worship God? Many churches believe this configuration is totally wrong but in reality most, if not all, churches are to one degree or another clubhouses as well as churches.  Some believe the church/clubhouse is the core of the 21st century religious establishment. Should having fun be unrelated to doing church or to what extent should they be related? That is the basic question to be answered and it seems to have many different answers.

I don’t see anything wrong with being happy and having fun while praising God. But I’m sure many of you more stodgy Protestants think otherwise. To you praising God is a very serious thing and should not be a joy for us but a very serious event. This was also pretty much the case with Catholics up until the 2nd Vatican council that finally at least put the mass in native languages and then that was followed by the dreaded guitar masses :). I don’t think anyone can deny that most mega churches make praising God a happy and family centered event. Some have coffee bars and some even have McDonalds restaurants to enjoy between events. Is this wrong? I am beginning to think not!

In studying the words of Jesus it is obvious that he had a sense of humor and was not opposed to having fun. After all the very first miracle he preformed was to make wine for a marriage celebration! So, it is obvious that he was not against taking drink in moderation or dancing or other such things that go on at wedding celebrations. Yes we should take praising God seriously but that does not exclude having fun doing it. To me celebrating my salvation through Christ is a joyous thing! As long as the church and its events are Christ centered and not people centered they will accomplish their task and allow the Christian family to have an enjoyable time doing it.

I will let the last post represent those parallel verses that are very similar to each other. In my studies those were somewhat typical of the conflicts of words. I know there are many places in the Old Testament that people report conflicting verses. I did not attempt to cover any of these but instead concentrated on Gospel accounts.  What I found were all somewhat like the previous posts.  The overall message was consistent but the words varied.

One final area of parallel verses that give me some reasons for concern is the last supper. Let’s look at those parallel verses. They appear in all four Gospel text:

Matt 26:26-29

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.“

Mark 14:22-26

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Luke 22:17-23

After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.” They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.

John 13:1-8

It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love. The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

The Eucharist, as it later came to be called, became one of the basic foundations of the Christian church. Unless this event was reported in a text that was not eventually included in the canon (I think the Gospel of Thomas may have a report of the Last Supper) these are the only words we have of institution of this sacrament.

• Matthew includes the reason for the blood covenant is for the forgiveness of our sins. The other three writers do not mention this as a reason.
  
• Luke reverses the event to do the cup first and then the bread. Luke is also the only writer that mentions that we are to do this in remembrance of Jesus. I find it strange that something that eventually became so foundational was only mentioned by one of the four witnesses and then only for the bread?
• The apostle John as shown in the last text does not even mention anything about the sharing of the bread or wine. Did he think it was not of significant importance? Did he just decide not to mention it because is was already covered by the others? I just don’t know. But I do take notice that he instead replaced it with a call to service. Jesus came to serve and so should we.

When Martin Luther started the massive Protestant Reformation, or you could say revolt from the Catholic church, he adamantly spoke against five of the then seven sacraments that were being practiced. The only two he left standing was the Communion and Baptism. Should the bread/wine event have also been on his drop list or was it just too embedded by that time?

Quakers read the above words to mean that every time we partake of a meal we are to remember what Jesus did for us. They do not believe that Jesus intended to make this event some ceremonial thing as was typical of Jewish traditions at the time. While most Quakers don’t condemn the practice per say they say it is not dictated by God. They also take the words that John used to record this event are of equal importance, or maybe even more important, than the ceremonial sharing of bread and wine. I tend to believe that the Quakers again pretty much have it right. But having said that I do appreciate taking of the Eucharist as a time of special remembrance. But then again Jesus’ sacrifices should be in my daily thoughts and not just those times I am at the altar. I must alwasys remember that Jesus is constantly with me; not just those time where I share the ceremonial bread and wine with my fellow congregants.

Before we look at a few of the parallel verses in the Gospel accounts let’s see where there are no parallel accounts. John Chapters 1 through 4 have many of Jesus’ words that are not reported anywhere else. I don’t know if part of that is because John’s Gospel was written several years after the others so John could read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, before he wrote his. Of course the theologians over the years have noted that difference and have not included John as a synoptic gospel.

Enough of that; let’s look at some typical parallel verses.

Matthew 8:1-4

When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him.2 And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”3 And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.4 And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.” 

Mark 1:40-45

And a leper came to him, imploring him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.”41 Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.”42 And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean.43 And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once,44 and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.“45

Luke 5:12-16

While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”13 And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him.14 And he charged him to tell no one, but “go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”15 But now even more the report about him went abroad, and great crowds gathered to hear him and to be healed of their infirmities.16 But he would withdraw to desolate places and pray.

It seems pretty obvious that like many of the other parallel verses these reported the same incident. The words are pretty close to each other both in letters and intent but they are not exact. So, which words if any of them did Jesus actually speak? If the Bible is totally inerrant in all it’s words then the only explanation would be that he said the same thing three times; slightly different for each of the three witnesses. Since this seems pretty far fetched I am more inclined to believe that the writers simply wrote the words they best remembered. This seems to be the case for many similar instances of parallel verses. Let’s move on to the next one.

Matt 9:1-2

Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2 Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”

Mark 2:3-5

4 Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Luke 5:19-20

19 When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus. 20 When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”  

I suppose it is possible that these three verses were from different times but I don’t think that is the case. Except for the beginning phrase and the surrounding text they are the same.

From my study of parallel verses it seems to me that the vast majority the variations are simply as the example above indicates a lack of being able to remember the exact words between the years they were said and then written down. Many antagonists of Scripture like to point out all the inconsistencies in the Bible. After studying this topic I, for the most part, simply did not find the difference to be that significant. Since I take the Bible to be inspired text written by men for men these minor inconsistencies just don’t bother me that much. Yes, there are some parallel texts that seem to say different things if that is what you are looking for. But for the most part the underlying messageremain the same.

Due to having frequent discussions with my “inerrant and literal” bible friend lately the Gospel messages have been on my mind. I know there are several places in the bible that supposedly report on the same event. If, as my friend, believes, every word in the bible is literally true and directly from God’s mouth (through the totally obedient hands of men’s pens) then why do the places that supposedly report the same thing use different words and sometimes seem to convey quite different meanings? I, personally take this to enforce my belief that the words are from men who either didn’t understand what Jesus was really saying or just forgot the exact words he used. The Gospels were generally written at least twenty years after the events reported so I can see where the events lost some clarity over the years. I know that is generally the case for me when I look back twenty years in my life. I can’t remember the exact words but do remember “some” of the events that I think played a significant part in my life. 

I think most Christians believe that Jesus is the absolute center of the Bible and the Gospels are about the only place where his direct words are recorded. So to me they take front and center in my study of what it means to be a disciple of Christ. I certainly don’t as my friend seems to say often believe that the Gospel writers were lying because they didn’t use the same words. They, like many of us today, were just at different stages of their understanding of what Jesus being Lord was all about. Even though they were inspired by God to write what the did doesn’t mean that their understanding of the events were from an identical mindset. The diversity of the reporting I believe adds to our understanding of the words of Jesus instead of taking away from it. We learn that different men saw things from different perspectives. I haven’t done much study the other writings of the times that were not included in the Bible but it certainly would have been interesting to hear a woman’s perspective of the Gospel accounts. It’s is a shame that Mary (Jesus’ mother) or Mary Magdalene did not get a spot in the New Testament list. They were both very involved in Jesus’ ministries and would have been faithful reporters.

Ok, so starting with the next post I will be spending some time looking at the parallel reports of the same events in the Gospels to see what I can glean from them. I will try to learn the different messages that the Gospel writer took from Jesus’ words. I will be using the NIV Bible for this study. I pray the Holy Spirit will guide me through this study to learn the messages that Christ intends. All glory and honor be to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.