The Good Samaritan had money, and why that’s important

“No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions. He had money as well.”

I don’t know in which context these words were uttered by Margaret Thatcher, but this quote caught my attention because it points to two interesting ideas: 1) Kingdom work often requires money, and 2) the Good Samaritan was a private individual, not a publicly funded social welfare programme.

So, what do these two ideas mean for us as Christians?

Do this and you will live

We read about the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 in which an Israelite goes on a journey, gets attacked by bandits and is left to die on the side of the road. A priest and a Levite both pass by, and both ignore the man. But then a Samaritan comes along and helps him, lodges him, and pays for his care.

The cultural context is that the Samaritans were considered enemies of the Jews, and the point Jesus was making with this story was that the way to eternal life is to love God and love your neighbour, and that those two things cannot be divorced from one another. The Jews would not inherit eternal life simply by being Jewish. They had to actively change their thinking (in other words, repent) in order to understand and be part of God’s kingdom: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself…. Do this and you will live.” (Luke 10:27-28)

Now let’s look at this story through a generosity lens. Once we’ve changed our thinking, we can delve deeper and explore the way God’s generous character shines through in this story and what the larger implications are for us.

Whose responsibility is it?

I’ve written previously about how generosity ties in with the ministry of reconciliation, and this is essentially what we see in this story. Through his generosity and care, the Samaritan breaks with a pattern of enmity and builds a bridge to his Jewish brother. But there’s more to it.

Margaret Thatcher was onto something when she observed that good intention – picking the man up off the street and bringing him to shelter – would likely not have been memorable enough in itself. It’s the fact that he also engaged his wallet. He gave of his money, the thing that most tangibly gives him power, to see this man – his presumed enemy – through to full recovery. That’s powerful!

There’s an additional element to this generosity that is worth exploring, one that we might even call wasteful or irresponsible. Innkeepers at that time had a shady reputation (perhaps not to the level of Les Miserables’ Mr. Thénardier, but something in that direction). The Samaritan had no way of knowing that the innkeeper wasn’t going to take advantage of him, and yet he made the point to say, “Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I return” (verse 35). 

It makes me wonder: Can we be truly generous the way Jesus spoke about without engaging our wallets? Can we be generous without giving up our power to help someone else? How much control over the outcome do we expect or desire to have when we give money to charities or individuals? And not to get political, but is paying our taxes in order to fund the state’s social welfare programmes enough? Is it really the government’s responsibility to take care of people….or is it ours?

The individual should be the fount of generosity

Throughout Scripture, we see clear examples of God calling His people to use their private resources to promote (read fund) the flourishing of society. In the Old Testament, the chosen people of Israel were called to be a blessing wherever they settled. God’s go-to solution wasn’t a government system that would provide services, it was his people whom he resourced in order to meet societal needs and be a blessing (see Genesis 12, Deuteronomy 28). In fact, we see God actively discouraging his people from clamouring for a king (essentially, a government) and warning them about what it would mean for their own flourishing (see 1 Samuel 8).

In the New Testament, we see the early church collating private resources to pay for all kinds of things: feeding the poor, caring for the widows, funding apostolic mission, etc. Nowhere in these examples do we see the government being looked to as a source of provision and protection. It was all down to individuals’ wealth and generosity.

Most western countries have some sort of social welfare system in place. This isn’t a bad thing necessarily, but as we see the Church’s influence declining, we see the government’s influence expanding as it shoulders an increasingly vast responsibility to look after the less fortunate. Is this really how God intended things to be? Again, I don’t want to get political, but Christians do need to be mindful about how and to whom we assign responsibility. And that really should begin with us.

How to be truly alive

Harkening back to what Jesus said with regards to the Good Samaritan, he inferred that the Samaritan was truly ‘alive’ because he gave of his money to bring healing and reconciliation. On the flip side, Jesus also inferred that the priest and the Levi were not.

When I am truly alive, I love my neighbour and am willing to put the resources I have at my disposal where my heart is, without the desire for control.

If I’m a Christian and I’ve got money (which we all do, to varying degrees), then I must take it as given that I will be prompted to use my resources to bring healing and reconciliation to a world that desperately needs to know God. What we see in Scripture is that it’s not the government’s responsibility to look after people. It’s mine, it’s ours, it’s the Church’s. We can all be the Good Samaritan to different people and in different ways. Do this and you will live. 

More on money and the Bible

We have an array of blogs that focus on biblical stewardship and charitable giving, as well as a range of resources to help you think more clearly about money.