The theme of today's readings is identical to last Sunday: the contrast between the rich and the poor and the responsibility the former has for the latter. The first reading from Amos contains the most colourful condemnation to be found in the entire scriptures. It would do justice to Ian Paisley in one of his anti-Roman rants. Amos was from Judah, the northern Kingdom. The country was enjoying a prosperity that the people had never before experienced. A whole new merchant class had emerged who had grown enormously rich. From this class emerged the new political leaders. This is where Amos saw problems. This new class had grown self-indulgent. The prophet paints a colourful picture of a thoroughly hedonistic society. The political leaders have taken their eye off the ball. It is only a matter of time before the country is invaded and its people carried into exile. possessed great wealth. Twenty five years after the death of AmosJudah is ravaged by war, conquored by the invading Assyrian empire. The ruling elite are exiled and replaced by colonists. The judgment of Amos is vindicated.
The third reading is the well-known parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which is found only in the Gospel according to Luke. The parable is another variation on the theme of riches. The rich man is anonymous; the poor man is called Lazarus, 'God is my helper'; Like several of Jesus' parables, this one has two very distinct parts, and its purpose is to make two related but distinct points, The first part of the parable belongs to a tradition of stories that are concerned with the fate that befalls people in the after-life and which may be in sharp contrast with the condition of their life in this world. In the case of this parable, the situations of two men are absolutely reversed in the after-life. One of them, the nameless one, is a typical figure of rich self-indulgence. Although his fate after death is to undergo torment, we are given no account of his judgment nor any specification of his sin. The other character in the story is a beggar, whose name, Lazarus, means "God helps," and is presumably symbolic. Although his fate after death is a happy one, his judgment too is left to our imagination, and there is no suggestion that he is conspicuous for sinlessness or virtue. In traditional Jewish morality wealth was a sign of God's favour. The books of the Old Testament are filled with promises of prosperity to those who follow God's law. The other side of the coin of course was that those who fell on hard times were seen by society as being punished by God for some misdeed or other. This parable undermines that traditional understanding. In fact it reverses this view of the world.
The whole contrast is between luxury and misery, not between moral failure and moral success, and the after-life simply reverses the relationship between the "haves" and "have-nots" of this world. Thus the story makes the point, so typical of Jesus, that worldly status is no index of divine favor nor any guarantee of salvation. The second part of the parable, in which God refuses to show the rich man's fate to his surviving brothers, makes the further point that refusal to hear God's word cannot be altered merely by a more sensational mode of revelation. Even if someone should rise from the dead, they refuse to believe. This position will of course be borne out in his own subsequent resurrection. Belief is never dependant upon empirical evidence. Faith is itself a mysterious gift from God.
Home