26th Sunday in Ordinary Time
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 of old. For a long time, the territory we call the Holy Land was divided between a northern kingdom called Israel and a southern kingdom known as Judah. Israel was prosperous, at least for the upper classes, in the 8th century B.C.E., and the Bethel priests were comfortable cronies of the king.
This was the situation Amos addressed. He was street-wise and a savvy observer of the human condition. He knew his tradition. Amos remembered how his people's God had chosen a rag-tag band of slaves in Egypt, made them his own, and led them to freedom. Amos knew that this God of the poor was not happy with the current neglect and exploitation of the poor by the powerful. So he spoke up.
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. Twenty five years after the death of Amos, both Israel and Judah are ravaged by war, conquered 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 Luke's gospel. The rich man is anonymous; the poor man is called Lazarus. This parable has two distinct parts. The first part deals with the fate that befalls people in the after-life, which contrasts greatly with the condition of their life in this world. In the case of this parable, both men receive a reversal of fortune in the after-life, literally. Although the fate of the rich man after death is to undergo torment, we are given no account of his judgment or no information on the nature of his sin. While the fate of Lazarus after death is a happy one, his judgment too is left to our imagination; 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 Gods 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 favour 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. Luke is telling his community: the scriptures are sufficient. Extraordinary revelations and visions are not only dubious but useless. Even if someone should rise from the dead, they refuse to believe. Belief is never dependant upon empirical evidence. Faith is itself a mysterious gift from God.