26th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Sept.

26, 2010
(Amos 6:1a,4-7; 1 Tim 6;11-16; Lk. 16:19-31)

Amos continues to pronounce judgment against his own society, as he did in

last week’s selection. Here he contrasts the situation in Samaria where the relatively
well-off inhabitants lounge about on comfortable furniture (“beds of ivory”), eating
fine meat dishes, with musical entertainment to distract them from the suffering
going on around them. The finest of oils for personal grooming is a sign of their
comfort. All the while “Joseph” (symbolizing other northern tribes) collapses,
presumably after invasion by Assyria. The prophet denounces this uncaring and
debonair attitude on the part of “the complacent in Zion,” noting that they will be
first to go into exile. In other words, they shall pay for their “wanton revelry” when
a similar fate befalls them.
Amos prophesied probably beginning about 750 BC, and although he came
from Judah (the southern kingdom), he prophesied against the northern kingdom
with its capitol in Samaria. So when he uses the expression “complacent in Zion” he
is actually referring to Samaria, not Jerusalem. Some commentators think that the
prophets generally were reluctant to ever concede the historical validity of the
separation of Israel into north and south ( Israel/Judah), after Solomon had died in
922 BC, thus explaining why Amos would have used “Zion” here, which Amos
clarifies in the next line (missing from Sunday’s reading ), “You confident on the
hill of Samaria.”
This has been a very complicated explanation for a few short verses, but
without understanding his history, we can hardly understand his harangue. It would
be easy (and tempting) to fast forward to twenty-first century America and let Amos
direct his words towards us as we watch the Middle East fester on the brink of
collapse while we loll about in our luxury. Some preachers might actually make that
jump.
But Amos had his own time and place to address and he did it in no uncertain
terms. He would likely have told this generation to ask the Lord for its own “tender
of sycamores” (Amos 7:14). Hear them!
When we pair this with Luke’s story of Lazarus and the rich man we have a
double whammy thrown our way. There is no way a Christian who takes seriously
the teaching of Jesus can remain unmoved by the story. It has many of the favorite
themes most humans love...reversal of fortunes for the suffering and the needy, a
happy ending for the innocent and proper punishment for the guilty.
The story has some unique features. Lazarus, a poor beggar, had what the rich
man did not have, a name. That means Lazarus had an identity and standing. Even
his name had meaning and purpose. In Hebrew Lazarus would have been Eliezer
meant literally “My God is helper.” Thus, especially in Luke, God takes care of the
poor and reverses their misfortune in this life, even as Mary had prayed in the
Magnificat in Lk.1:53: “The hungry he has filled with good things, while the rich he
has sent away empty.”
The wealthy, who ignore the needy, no matter how they came by their wealth,
are in for a severe judgment. The warnings are present everywhere and they are
real. It depends on them, whether they heed the warnings or not. Jesus does not
dwell on the pitiable state of Lazarus, so badly off that even the dogs licked his
sores. The focus remains on the rich man, who retains his condescending attitude
towards Lazarus even in death, when he tries to order Abraham to send Lazarus to
his brothers! The rich man never caught on. Does he ever?

Fr. Lawrence L. Hummer