Amos and Jesus Rejected by the “Official Church.” If the official church rejects the prophets, who will we listen to? The Word often comes “from below,” rarely “from above”…
AMOS 7:12-15
And Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, said to Amos, “O seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, and earn your bread there, and prophesy there, but never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom.” Then Amos answered and said to Amaziah, “I was no prophet, nor a prophet’s son, but I was a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore figs. But the Lord took me from following the flock, and the Lord said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel.’”
Amos, born in the Southern Kingdom around 750 BC, begins to speak in the name of God in the Northern Kingdom, announcing the impending punishment of God (the destruction of the kingdom) and is reprimanded by Amaziah, the priest of the sanctuary of Bethel, which is the national sanctuary, controlled by the king (the northern kingdom has its own cult and priests, independent of Jerusalem).
There is a guild of prophets, also “official,” associated with the temples, but Amos does not belong to it, and he speaks to the people announcing God’s punishment for their sins and the destruction of the kingdom. The official priests reject the unofficial prophet, who is not part of the prophetic colleges, but speaks because God has chosen him.
It is common for prophets to be in this condition of “marginals.” They are not priests, nor do they belong to recognized prophetic colleges. They are chosen by God freely, taken from their trades and called to announce the Word. And it is even more common that they are the ones who communicate the true Word of God, while those who are prophets by profession do not.
Amos reprimands the people and the king for their sins and announces their punishment. The official priest denounces him to the king, for he cannot tolerate that such a dangerous doctrine (for the prophet and for himself, responsible for the temple) be proclaimed in the royal temple, but (it is a sign of delicacy on the part of Amaziah) he warns the prophet to flee and save his life.
The text raises a delicate problem, present in religions and especially in those that have something official: to disturb the people or the king, even by saying true words, even the Word of God, can be a crime, it carries a risk. In the Church we have hundreds of cases that prove it.
But “the official” may not be the king but the Church itself. It is very easy for any authority of the Church not to tolerate any word of criticism because it takes for granted that the Word of God cannot criticize the authority (backed by God).
Such was also, it should not be forgotten, the situation of Jesus, innovator of what was understood as the Word of God, without any personal authority recognized by his studies or by his status, critic of the Pharisees and doctors and finally murdered by the legitimate priests of the Temple.
But for us, ordinary people, another problem arises, much more important: who should we listen to?
If the official authority, for the time of Jesus the doctors and the priests, for us the Pope and the bishops, can be subject to criticism by a herdsman who cultivates figs or by an undocumented carpenter from Nazareth…
And worst of all is that the officially accepted Scripture by Israel and by the Church gives reason to Amos and Jesus and considers them the Word of God, in front of the official Religion.
The subject is too much to develop here, but it is necessary to raise it. What criteria do we have to have some security? Is it enough that the legitimate authority says it? And with respect to the “unofficial” prophets, is it enough to disqualify them that the legitimate authority rejects them?
EPHESIANS 1:3-14
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
[With Christ we too have inherited. We were destined for this by the decision of him who does everything according to his will. And so, we who already hoped in Christ will be to the praise of his glory. And you also – who have heard the Truth, the extraordinary news that you have been saved, and have believed – have been marked by Christ with the promised Holy Spirit, who – until the complete redemption of the people, the property of God – is the guarantee of our inheritance.]
We have finished reading the second letter to the Corinthians. From now until Sunday the 21st, we will read the letter to the Ephesians. The most general opinion among specialists is that it is not a letter, but a treatise, nor is it by Paul, but by a disciple who imitates his style, nor was it originally addressed to the Christians of Ephesus.
More than a letter, it is a treatise, many of whose expressions differ strongly, in content and form, from the more solidly Pauline writings. It has strong parallels with the letter to the Colossians, whose Pauline authenticity is also strongly debated today.
Today we read the beginning, a solemn introduction or prologue, a kind of hymn in which the author gives thanks to God for the gifts received, for the supreme gift of being children, by the Spirit. Of this text, the Bible of the Pilgrim says that “it is an extremely difficult paragraph, probably the most difficult in the New Testament,” and qualifies it as “a grammatical boast – or tangle.”
I refuse to accept that this pseudo-Pauline tangle be read at the Eucharist. Neither will the people understand it (who will hear it without more and without understanding anything) nor will the vast majority of priests explain it because they will not understand it either, nor is it worth it for some sublime theologian to dedicate ten minutes of sermon that will end up confusing everyone (including himself although he does not confess it).
Jesus spoke in parables so that everyone could understand him. And one day Jesus, “full of joy in the Spirit,” gave thanks to the Father because “you have hidden these things from the wise and revealed them to the simple.” And our great Catholic theology is based more on the extremely complicated John and Paul than on the parables. It is not good to correct Jesus’ style. It is not good, but we have done it. And that’s how it goes for us.
José Enrique Galarreta