I usually don't complain, on this blog at least, but I can't help but be miffed by the way the daily Scripture readings are often presented. For instance, today's first reading is from the Acts of the Apostles
Acts 5:27-32, 40b-41 When they had brought them in and made them stand before the Sanhedrin, the high priest questioned them, "We gave you strict orders (did we not?) to stop teaching in that name. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and want to bring this man's blood upon us." But Peter and the apostles said in reply, "We must obey God rather than men. The God of our ancestors raised Jesus, though you had him killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as leader and savior to grant Israel repentance and forgiveness of sins. We are witnesses of these things, as is the holy Spirit that God has given to those who obey him." +++++ They ordered them to stop speaking in the name of Jesus, and dismissed them. So they left the presence of the Sanhedrin, rejoicing that they had been found worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name. +++++What happened to verses 33-40a? Why is verse 42 removed even though it is the last sentence of the chapter? In what is presented we read that the disciples "[rejoiced] that they had been found worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name." From what I read here I don't see too much suffering unless you are counting a good tongue lashing. However, in the verses that are absent we read this, "When they heard this, they became infuriated and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee in the Sanhedrin named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up, ordered the men to be put outside for a short time, and said to them, "Fellow Israelites, be careful what you are about to do to these men. Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be someone important, and about four hundred men joined him, but he was killed, and all those who were loyal to him were disbanded and came to nothing. After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census. He also drew people after him, but he too perished and all who were loyal to him were scattered. So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God." They were persuaded by him. After recalling the apostles, they had them flogged,..." These men were ready to put the disciples to death. They weren't messing around. We also read that they were flogged. It is no wonder they were rejoicing and having been able to suffer for the name of Jesus. We are told in verse 42 that, "
And all day long, both at the temple and in their homes, they did not stop teaching and proclaiming the Messiah, Jesus." Their suffering did not deter them one little bit!
I just don't understand why these important parts were left out. Why do we do this all the time? I find today that the parts that are missing are vital and offer a great connection to the Gospel. Jesus asked Peter three time if he loved Him and we know what Peter said. Yet in this section of Acts we see that Peter was not just a man of words but a man of deeds as well. What is the proof of his change of heart, his devotion to Christ the Lord? Is it not his relentless
proclamation of the Christ
and his fearless suffering for the sake of the Gospel?
Anyway, if anyone can explain why we read John 3:16c, 17b, 18-19a, 21 instead of John 3:16-21 for example I would surely appreciate it!
Comments