The Lectionary and Scripture Interpretation for Ordinary Time
Click here for more information.
Overview and Connections
If today’s readings don’t make you squirm at least a little, then you probably need to spend more time asking God how they apply to you. Because every person has blind spots around our complacencies, and we are apt to subconsciously resist any challenges to them.
Amos 6:1a, 4-7
A good title for this passage was suggested by my AI tool: “Comfortable in Crisis: When Privilege Blinds Us to Pain.” I think this is an excellent title, and it’s also a great example of how these minor prophets still speak powerfully to us today.
Assyria is advancing on the northern kingdom, and things are bad – ask any poor person. And yet, Amos looks around and sees people living the high life with absolutely no concern for those who are most vulnerable to the coming destruction. Amos says that the life they are now living will end abruptly, and they will be the first to feel the effects of the exile.
The minor prophets remind us over and over again that our spiritual life is deeply intertwined with social justice. How we care for the poor and needy among us is a good indicator of how deep and vibrant is our relationship with God.
The reading begins speaking to Zion (the center of power in the southern kingdom) and Samaria (the center of power in the northern kingdom.) It addresses, in particular, the political and religious leaders. These are the people charged with taking care of the poor. And they have grown “secure,” a word with textual variants in the Hebrew. Other manuscripts use words meaning “at ease” or “complacent.”
A nuance to pay attention to here: Amos does not denounce wealth per se. Wealth can be used for good things. What he denounces is the lack of care for others that all too frequently accompanies being comfortable and secure. One easily begins to think that everyone else has the same level of security, or, if they don’t, they’ve done something wrong.
Like the Luke parable, we get a detailed description of how these people use their wealth. Lambs and calves should have been set aside for sacrifice. Only the very wealthy would be able to afford things like ivory beds and a couch and meat. Lambs, calves, music, wine, oil – all of these things were used in the sacred liturgies, suggesting almost a scandalous parody of religious actions.
V6 mentions Joseph, whose story begins in Genesis 37. He was sold into slavery by jealous brothers. The mention of him here emphasizes the peril of the unfortunate and how little control they have over what happens to them.
The passage ends on the theme of divine reversal, common in Luke, and we will also see it in today’s Gospel parable.
It is all too easy to dismiss Amos’ message. After all, don’t we support social justice? Didn’t we intentionally join a faith community that has a vital and active outreach to those on the margins? We want to justify where we are, but Amos invites us to something deeper. He challenges our complacency and suggests that, no matter where we are, God is always deeper and wider than that. We might think of luxury as “spiritual anesthesia.” It can blind us to the needs of others, and it is those needs that can oftentimes help us focus most clearly on Christ. Again, don’t be too quick to dismiss “luxury” as not applicable to you. Luxury is mostly relative. I may sometimes struggle to pay the bills, but air conditioning (I write this during the heat-wave of June 2025!) and electronic equipment and fast internet access are undreamed-of luxuries to much of the world.
This passage makes a good one for rewriting into modern-day terms. This technique of engaging more deeply with scripture is something I call “transposing,” and you can read more about it here.
1 Timothy 6:11-16
The letter to Timothy is actually sort of a form letter to a pastor beginning a new position of church leadership. It describes expectations and responsibilities. Today’s passage lists some of the qualifications expected of the person assuming this role. It describes a life consciously oriented toward the manifestation of the Lord. Although the letter is addressed to those assuming pastoral office, the instructions can easily apply to any baptized Christian
In the verses preceding this passage, the author has spoken of those who teach false doctrine (v3) and thereby create envy and strife in the community (vv4-5). Now the positive model is given.
“Man of God” in v11 echoes an Old Testament title of the prophets, a leader who possesses power that comes from God. Significant Old Testament references include Deuteronomy 33:1 (Moses); 1 Samuel 2:27 (an unnamed prophet); 1 Kings 17:18 (Elijah).
In v12, taking hold of eternal life implies active participation in one’s salvation. Grace offers much, but we have to accept it, take hold of it.
The word ephiphaneia is used in v14, a Greek word referring to the manifestation or appearing of a deity. Jews often used it to apply to God. The use of the word here was later used to support arguments for Jesus’ divinity. Some take this use of ephiphaneia to refer to the second coming of Christ, but it can also evoke the union with God to which all Christians are called.
V11 gives a list of virtues to be cultivated. Which one speaks most to you in this moment? Pray for the grace to have this virtue cultivated more deeply in you.
Luke 16:19-31
This is yet another parable unique to Luke. It’s important to know some cultural expectations that underlie this parable. Most important is that excess wealth was not to be hoarded; rather, it was to be used to care for others. Another important facet of ancient life was the idea that wealth meant favor by God, whereas poverty indicated that someone had done something wrong and incurred God’s punishment.
The basic storyline of the rich man/poor man and the reversal of fortunes after death was a common one in that time across many cultures.
In v14, the Pharisees have just heard the parable of the unjust steward and the sayings on money. They don’t just reject Jesus; they mock him. They scoff at him, and then he turns around and tells this parable, which questions whether these lovers of money and observers of the law can themselves even hear Moses and the Prophets. This parable is a direct attack on who they are and the core of their beliefs.
There are many ways to look at this parable:
- It gives hope to the poor that they will ultimately receive justice.
- It portrays poverty not as a curse or as God’s disfavor, but as the result of greed and inequitable systems of distribution.
- It challenges the notion that an abundance of possessions is a sign of God’s blessing.
Like the Amos reading, this parable is not necessarily a denunciation of wealth in and of itself, but a critique of the complacency that often accompanies that wealth. This parable follows on the heels of the parable of the shrewd / unjust steward. We might be tempted to read that parable and think money is pretty good, that it’s legitimate to invest ourselves in building wealth. As Luke often does, today’s parable provides a counterpoint to that thought: the idea that wealth means nothing in eternity.
Some faith traditions that treat the Bible fundamentally will see in this parable a literal description of the afterlife. They see in it the finality of death and judgment as well as a strict divide between heaven and hell. Catholic scholarship reads the parable more symbolically, stressing the importance of actions in this lifetime on the afterlife, in particular, highlighting one’s attitude towards the poor.
I think one interesting thing about the description of Lazarus is what’s not there: we are told nothing of his moral character. He might have been an honest, hardworking man who fell into hard times because there was no social safety net. Or he may have been a thief or murderer. We just don’t know and it was not important enough for Jesus to mention. The only important thing about Lazarus in this story (it seems from Jesus’ point of view) is the way he was treated by someone with means. And, as Luke will emphasize a number of times, it’s not that wealth in and of itself is evil – it’s what is done with wealth that matters. I think that’s why, in this parable, the descriptions about the man’s clothes and feasts are lengthy – to emphasize exactly what he is doing with his wealth.
Setting the Scene: the contrast of the rich man and Lazarus
The Rich Man
The parable begins in v19, like the two parables preceding it, with a reference to “a certain man” who is “well sourced.”
He has purple clothes. Purple at that time had to be extracted from shellfish, and it took over 10,000 shellfish to produce a single gram of dye. The resulting robes had a strong odor as well as a color that could not be duplicated. These were ostentatious accoutrements of royalty and wealth.
The word used in this verse for feasting was something done on special occasions, but this man does it every day! It’s the same word for the feast given by the prodigal father in 15:23,29. And it was a “sumptuous” feast, a word translated elsewhere as “merry,” which brings to mind other parables in Luke that evoke the proverb in Ecclesiastes 8 to “eat, drink, and be merry.”
If Jesus stopped right here, his listeners might be thinking of the rich man the hero since wealth was often interpreted as a sign of God’s favor.
Lazarus
Lazarus lay at the rich man’s door, or, more accurately, his gate. Middle Eastern houses generally have a wall around them with a gate. Lazarus is at the outer gate. And he wasn’t just lying there; the word is more literally translated that he was “thrown down.” He’s been discarded here. It doesn’t say that the poor man was necessarily holy or moral; just that he was poor.
It is highly unusual for a parable to name someone; even more unusual for the poor man rather than the rich one to be named. Lazarus is the Greek form of Eliezer, which means “my God helps.” The name would seem ironic to the audience given the man’s condition.
I’m always struck by the proximity of rich and poor. I often think about this parable when I drive somewhere that the obviously poor section suddenly gives way to a richer one just by crossing a street. Jesus said you always have the poor with you (Matt. 26:11, Mark 14:7, John 12:8); this parable encourages us to see those poor close by.
Lazarus would gladly have eaten the refuse from the rich man’s house. In many Mediterranean cultures, food is eaten with a piece of pita bread which functions as a fork. Poor people will eat the “fork” along with the food. Rich people can afford enough food that they don’t have to eat their fork and so they would throw it under the table when it got too soggy to eat with. After dinner, these scraps would be thrown out the gate, another display of wealth. The dogs would probably have scavenged the droppings and beat Lazarus to anything of substance.
The original audience would have judged Lazarus to be under divine punishment. He’s lost status and he’s not even begging. The rich listeners at this point are probably still thinking of the rich man as the hero and Lazarus is getting what he deserves. The poor listeners, on the other hand, are identifying with Lazarus: life sometimes just isn’t fair.
Death: The Great Equalizer
In the setting for the parable, the rich man is listed first. Don’t we generally tend to list the most important person first? In life, the “important” people are those with wealth and means. In v22, however, they both die and who is listed first but Lazarus! He is carried by the angels straight into Abraham’s lap. This language evokes Old Testament examples of the patriarchs dying and being “gathered to their fathers” (see Genesis 49:33, Numbers 27:13, and Deuteronomy 32:50.) Notice that the rich man gets a burial but the poor man apparently didn’t.
The rich man ends up in Hades. The Old Testament speaks of a place called Sheol as the realm of the dead. There was no strong belief in the afterlife but a belief in Sheol indicates people did not believe a person simply “disappeared.” In Greek thought, this equated to Hades – the realm of the dead. Neither Sheol nor Hades implies punishment; they were something more akin to our idea of purgatory. Hades was the Greek Septuagint translation of Sheol.
The rich man and the poor man have been separated into their realms, which are divided and apparently unbridgeable. This could be interpreted as the finality or permanence of moral decision in this life for the next. And it could also be more symbolic, to emphasize the impact and importance of the choices we make in this life on the next.
Surely, thought the rich man, his Jewish standing would carry some weight. But remember back in chapter 3, John the Baptist told his followers: “Do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’” (3:9). Earthly heritage is not going to count in the coming kingdom.
V24 always brings to me a sense of anger. Lazarus lay on this man’s doorstep, and it’s easy to think the rich man knew nothing of him personally. And yet, he calls Lazarus by name. He knew his name, which held weight and meaning in that culture. He was connected enough with Lazarus to call him by name. To add insult to injury, in his earthly life, the rich man did nothing to alleviate Lazarus’ suffering, but here he is, demanding that Lazarus alleviate his. The rich man finally sees Lazarus not as a brother but as someone to serve his needs. This is doubly ironic because Lazarus is with Abraham, the father of the Jewish people.
Hades was mentioned in the previous verse, but v24 evokes more the idea of Gehenna, a valley outside Jerusalem where trash was burned. It was also associated with idolatrous practices, including child sacrifices to the god Molech (2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 7:31). Jewish tradition held that it was a place of fiery torment for the wicked. By the time of the New Testament, Gehenna had become a symbol of divine judgment and eternal damnation.
In v25, we see Lazarus as being “comforted,” the Greek word parakaleó. This is the same word used in the gospel of John for the Holy Spirit.
V26 uses plural pronouns: “between us and you all a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those people who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.” The chasm in some ways parallels the rich man’s gate, symbolizing the barrier he had already erected between him and Lazarus in his earthly life.
How do we get people’s attention?
The rich man considers what Abraham has told him, and, perhaps, realizes the futility of trying to improve his own situation. So he turns to the possibility of saving his family, or at least the men in his family! In vv27-28, he asks Abraham to send Lazarus as a messenger (again, using the poor man for his own gain) to the rich man’s five brothers.
The rich man asks that they be “warned,” a word related to the Greek word martus. To warn means “to give solemn evidence; testify; bear witness” and is a word used throughout the book of Acts in connection with the risen Christ. The desired response is always to repent (v30) and believe (v31).
Abraham says in v29 that The Law and the prophets already spelled out how to take care of the poor. Luke always uses this phrase “the law and the prophets” to denote the whole of the Old Testament scriptures.
The rich man assures Abraham that if someone were to rise from the dead, his brothers would then believe and be transformed. The word “repent” is a key word for Luke – the Greek word metanoia. This statement is generally seen to be an oblique, post-resurrection reference to Jesus’ death and resurrection. The Pharisees don’t really listen to the Law and the Prophets, but, rather, use them to their own advantage. They’re not going to believe Jesus either. In the book of Acts, Luke will show all the people who didn’t listen after the resurrection. Miracles are only convincing to those who already have some level of faith.
This parable also highlights an important principle in Catholic Social Teaching known as the preferential option for the poor.
The rich man was completely blind to Lazarus’ situation. What are we blind to that we will someday be called to account for?
We might not interpret the parable fundamentally, but the fact remains that, at some point in time, we will be judged for our actions. Ask God to bring to mind one single thing for which you will be judged. Maybe it’s an incident where you were not your best self. Or perhaps you passed by an opportunity to help someone else. The very first thing to do when considering something like this is to ask for and then receive God’s forgiveness. Forgiveness has already been granted, but so many times we refuse to receive it, and this is a kind of pride. The next step is to let this experience motivate positive metanoia or transformation. What kind of person do you wish you had been? What grace do you need to ask God for in order to be transformed? Notice, this is not a self-help path of pulling yourself up and making yourself better through sheer will or effort. This is about being open to God’s transforming power, and I assure you, this path is much more challenging than doing it yourself will ever be! Sometimes the starting point is asking for the desire to desire it.
Who is languishing at your gates right now? You might even know their name. What are you being called to do in this moment? And how are you being called to do it? God desires that we relate to God through love of neighbor, not out of fear, but out of love for God. If your actions are motivated by fear of judgment and punishment, then a better starting point than action is to ask for the grace of coming to know God’s love for you.
Copyrights and source information
© 2025 Kelly Sollinger