The Sánchez Archives TWENTY-SIX SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME Year C

By
Patricia Datchuck Sánchez

Rich Man, Poor Man

Amos 6:1, 4-7
1 Timothy 6:11-16
Luke 16:19-31

In a world where the “haves” and the “have nots” are easily distinguished, Christianity has not yet made an impact (Amos). Generous sharing of the goods of the earth, of talents and resources is the necessary result of Christian commitment (1 Timothy). When the idle are moved to serve the burdened poor, the message of Christ is proclaimed and the universal love of the kingdom is mirrored upon the earth (Luke).

Amos 6:1, 4-7.

Because they enjoyed the lion’s share of the earth’s riches, the wealthy upper class of Israelite society assumed that they were especially favored by God. Chosen by God, created as his people, they believed they were reaping the deserved benefits of their holy alliance with the God of their ancestors. Moreover, the wealthy entertained the idea that the Lord would come among his people at the appointed time and crown their achievements with even greater blessings. To that end, they looked forward to the “Day of the Lord” with joyful anticipation. Amos had an entirely different perception of the situation. He did not deny the special vocation of God’s people or the fact there would indeed be a Day of the Lord. But Amos rightly understood Israel’s special election as a call that involved responsibility and demanded accountability from those who had been so blessed. In a dramatic twist of thought, he acknowledged Israel’s special position while at the same time warning that this special position would be the cause of its downfall, e.g., “You only have I known of all the peoples of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). In the same manner, the prophet assured Israel that the Day of the Lord in whose glory they longed to share would be for Israel “all gloom without a single ray of light” (5:20).

Structurally, Amos’ message was couched in a series of oracles, words and woes, and visions. In the oracles against the nations, the prophet curried the attention of his audience by prophesying doom upon the hated enemies of Israel and Judah. Once he had gained their sympathy, the prophet concluded his series of oracles (1-2:16) with an oracle for each of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Here the prophet included his coreligionists among those heathens who displeased the Lord and he promised them a similar fate.

Following the oracles the prophet enumerated a list of words and woes directed at Israel. Today’s first reading is from the third woe concerning self-indulgence (6: 1-14). An excellent companion text to today’s gospel, the Amos pericope, contrasting the difficult situation of the poor with the extravagant lifestyle of the rich ensconced upon their ivory beds, is a vivid one. Similarly elaborate furnishings, such as beds inlaid with ivory panels, have recently been excavated at the site of Arslan Tash in northern Syria, east of Carchemish. No doubt similar pieces existed in Israel, in drastic contrast to the straw pallets upon which the poor rested.

Where the poor rarely ate meat and were fortunate occasionally to add fish to their simple diet of bread, the rich feasted on tender young lambs. In addition, they also had a penchant for calves fed only with milk and confined to their stalls lest their meat become toughened (v. 4). (Veal was as popular and controversial then as now!) Untroubled by financial worries, the rich were free to while away their leisure time making up their own songs and devising their own accompaniments Probably the reference to David (v. 5) was an ironic comparison; while the great king had made music as a prayer to God, the rich used it for their own enjoyment. Wine drunk from bowls and anointing with fine oils added to the luxuriating atmosphere of the exorbitant lifestyle.

As God’s prophet, Amos viewed these extravagances as divinely intolerable. What the people perceived as evidence of political stability, Amos understood as religious complacency and imbalance. The prophet’s words virtually drip with the disgust he felt at such insensitivity.

1 Timothy 6:11-16.

Because of its formal structure and solemn exhortatory style, today’s second reading (the conclusion of the letter) is thought by most scholars to be a liturgical formulation. E. Kasemann contends that the pericope is part of an ordination ceremony. Timothy, the ordained in this particular instance, has been reminded of the faith he confessed at his baptism and is called to bear witness to Christ as a loyal teacher of that faith. The charge to keep God’s command (v. 14) may be the actual ordinational consecration and is reminiscent of Moses’ commission to Joshua at his ordination (Numbers 27:19). According to R. Fuller, Joshua’s consecration was the Old Testament type that provided both the synagogue and the early church with the model for their ordination ceremonials. Other scholars, taking a more general view of the periscope, regard the exhortation in I Timothy 6 as a reference to Timothy’s baptismal commitment. In either case, the text presents an appeal to live a life in accord with the faith that has been professed. As such, it contains timely advice and inspiration for all believers.

As a model of faith the author of 1 Timothy offered the image of the accused Jesus appearing before Pontius Pilate (v. 13). Probably the reference here is to Jesus’ confession, “I was born for this, I came into the world for this: to bear witness to the truth and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice” (John 18:39). However, the author of 1 Timothy may also have had in mind Jesus’ “noblest profession” of faith, proclaimed by his death on the cross.

Charged with “fighting the good fight of faith” (v. 12) and remaining loyal to his initial commitment at baptism, Timothy (and with him all Christians) was to prepare for Jesus’ appearance at the chosen time (v. 15). “Appearance” or “epiphaneia” referred primarily, of course, to Jesus’ coming in glory at the parousia. Epiphaneia was a Greek term that frequently referred to the manifestation in glory of the pagan gods and emperors who claimed divine honors. No doubt, the author used the term apologetically here and applied it to Jesus Christ, who alone was divine and deserving of every honor and glory. Significantly, the second century Christian author of 1 Timothy understood that the appearance of Jesus would occur at God’s “chosen time” (v. 16). “Kairos idios” (proper time) was not a chronological indication but, like Jesus’ “hour” (in John’s gospel), referred to the moment in which God would work out his plan of salvation. The third and fourth generations of Christians had to come to grips with delayed eschatology and had learned to direct their efforts toward living dedicated and productive faith lives. For modem believers, who experience the same delay and anticipate the same appearance of the Lord, the pastoral advice to Timothy and his church is valid and timely.

Luke 16:19-31.

Stories like that told in today’s gospel parable have been found among ancient Egyptian folkloric tales and in the legends of the rabbis. But there is nothing legendary or folkloric about the serious message Jesus communicated. Particular to the Lucan gospel, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was addressed primarily to an audience of Pharisees (vv. 14, 18) but the point of the parable was later reinterpreted by the early church and carries a message for all would-be disciples. A rich man (erroneously named Dives in some translations due to a mistranslation of the Vulgate) indulged in a very comfortable life in this world. His clothing of purple and linen indicates that his means and life-style were comparable to that enjoyed by kings and princes. Purple garments were usually of fine wool, dyed with murex from Tyre; the fine linen referred to elegant undergarments only the very rich were able to afford.

While the rich man “feasted splendidly every day,” Lazarus experienced the hardships of life. A diseased indigent unable to defend himself even from the dogs that licked his sores, Lazarus was ritually unclean in several aspects and represented all that was abhorrent to Jesus’ Pharisaic audience. Moreover, the very fact of his difficult situation led the self-righteous to presume (albeit erroneously) his sinfulness, and therefore his condition of moral uncleanness as well! The contrast between the two men is a drastic and dramatic one. Lazarus was shunned as a sinner while the rich man was honored. His wealth was looked upon as a sign of divine favor and reward for a life lived in accordance with God’s law.

Enter the “grim reaper,” death, and the situation of the two men was radically changed. The reversal was both a shock and a challenge to Jesus’ audience. In death, Lazarus was without human consolation. With none to attend him, God’s angels came to carry him to Abraham’s bosom. Traditionally in Judaism, the death of a just person was described as “going to Abraham” or “being gathered unto Abraham.” Both ideas were probably an outgrowth of the Old Testament passages (Genesis 15:15, 47:30) that referred to being “gathered to the fathers,” i.e., to the patriarchs. Abraham’s bosom was also a symbol of the eschatological banquet (Luke 5:34) where the righteous would preside in seats of honor at the right hand or near the bosom (kolpos) of the host.

The rich man, on the other hand, received a proper burial but then found himself in Sheol’s place of torment. Most of the Old Testament texts referring to Sheol or the underworld (Hades, Tartarus) depict it as a dark, gloomy place where both the good and the evil were relegated to a nebulous, joyless existence. But, approximately two centuries B.C.E., there emerged a doctrine of resurrection and of retribution after death, due largely to the influence of Persian and Zoroastrian cults. At that time the notion of Sheol also evolved, until it was conceived of as a place with two separate compartments, one for the just who were awaiting the resurrection of the dead and the other for the evil who were already being punished.

According to Enoch 22, the two compartments were adjoining in order that the inhabitants of one area could see those in the other and vice versa. This notion is reflected in today’s Lucan parable; while the poor man enjoyed the solace of Abraham’s bosom, the rich man looked on from afar. The association of tortuous flames with the retribution of the evil after death is a late scriptural notion but has survived to create much of our medieval and modern imagery concerning hell.

The rich man’s first request for relief (“send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water”) and Abraham’s subsequent denial of the request illustrate the finality of death and serve to elaborate the first major point of the parable. Like so many of Jesus’ teachings, the parable enunciated the fact that worldly status is no indication of divine favor. Nor does worldly status guarantee salvation. Moreover, the parable underscored the universality of the kingdom’s composition; all were called to enter, even the unclean beggars like Lazarus.

In the rich man’s second request, the second point of the parable has been clarified. Not wishing his five brothers to suffer similar consequences, the rich man asked that Lazarus be sent to warn them to mend their ways. In response, Abraham declared that the brothers had the teachings of Moses and the prophets. Knowing the obtuseness of his brothers, the rich man asked that Lazarus himself be sent with a call to repentance. Abraham answered that those who ignored the law and the prophets would not be moved even by the testimony of a messenger from the abode of the dead.

The fact that this is the only gospel parable in which a character has been named, plus the fact that the person has been named Lazarus (“he whom God helps”), inclines the reader to associate this figure with the Lazarus of the Johannine gospel (John 11: 1-44). In both instances, even the resurrection of a person from the dead failed to convince the obdurate who refused to hear God’s word. R. Bultmann has associated this parable with Deuteronomy 30:11-14 where Moses insisted that the keeping of the law is not difficult and does not need someone to go to the heavens or travel the sea to make its word known or clarify its message.

No doubt the early church related the parable to the resurrection of Jesus as well. Those who had refused the message of the earthly Jesus remained unconvinced even by the fact of his resurrection from the dead. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus provides a warning and a challenge to all who hear it. Awareness of God and conversion are possible only on this side of the grave. To refuse the chance for repentance is to refuse the invitation to live and the opportunity for everlasting happiness in the kingdom.

1. Creature comforts should be shared blessings, not status symbols that separate rich from poor (Amos).

2. The noble profession of faith by a committed Christian inspires others to similar dedication (1 Timothy).

3. Those who refuse to see the truth in the routine and ordinary circumstances of life will probably overlook it in the extraordinary and sensational moments as well (Luke).

[NOTE TO USERS: This archive is available for use without charge, but it remains the property of the author and under copyright with Celebrations Publications. Users are permitted to print individual Sunday commentaries for pastoral use, but are prohibited from downloading or copying files or printing any portion of this for sale or distribution.]