Editorial: Faith in the Future?
Anna Rankin

From the director: Finding ourselves in the City
David W Porter

Traveller, the road is made by walking it
Martin Johnstone

The Word made Flesh: A Sign and Foretaste in Limerick
Peter McDowell

Comment: The Architecture of Faith
Michael Whitley

The Word made Flesh: Down and Out in Dublin
Peter McVerry

The Word made Flesh: Cork Methodist Church, Ardfallen
Laurence Graham

The Word made Flesh: Reflections from the Maiden City
Pat Storey

Cathedral Quarters: Interviews with Rev Dr Houston McKelvey and Very Rev Hugh Kennedy
Anna Rankin

Review: Journey Towards Holiness
Claire Martin

Economics and the economy: what are they for?
Tony Weekes

Bible Study: Beyond Silver Coins
Glenn Jordan

Reflection: The 'F' word
Celine Lefebvre

Review: Christianity, Climate Change and Sustainable Living
Ethel White

Difficult Conversations: Looking for God in the City...
Lynda Gould

New Resource
New Loyalties
Divided Past: Shared Future

< Past Issues Archive

When it comes to the parable of the Good Samaritan it’s almost as if there is nothing new to say. We are so familiar with the story that we seem to know it from every angle and it’s hard to be surprised by something we think we already know. Not only that, the language of the story has entered common parlance. Even those who’ve never read the Bible are familiar with the phrase “Good Samaritan”; there is a vague sense that it has some connection with doing good.

BIBLE STUDY

Beyond Silver Coins
The Parable of the
Good Samaritan

GLENN JORDAN

Luke 10: 25-37

THE DIFFICULTY IS that our very familiarity with “doing good” drains all colour and nuance from Jesus’ teaching.

As I have understood this parable in the past, the story ends when the Samaritan leaves the injured man at the inn. And at this point, the preacher normally urges us to act like the Samaritan.

Here is my confession: I am no longer sure this story requires us to be the Good Samaritan, to lay this burden on us is too much. I do find myself in the story, however, just not in the character of the donkey owner.

At the end of the story Jesus asks, “Which of these three was a neighbour to the man?” But there is nothing in the story that compels us to consider the Samaritan as one of the three. Our role model lies elsewhere, I think.

Jesus’ question to the expert in the law is intriguing:
Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?’ He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.” Luke 10:36-37

Who had mercy on the man? Of course the Samaritan did, we can take that as a given. But there is someone else in the story, and we don’t know what he did, we don’t know how he responds when he is faced with the choice of living mercifully.

You see, the story continues after the Samaritan reaches the inn. And, just like in the Prodigal Son story, new ambiguities are introduced that cause us to puzzle a little. The story of the Prodigal introduces the elder son; this story introduces the innkeeper. I am convinced that these closing sentences are the climax, maybe even the whole point, of the story.

The innkeeper only appears in one verse.
The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. “Look after him,” he said, “and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.” Luke 10:35

Let me tell you one thing about innkeepers. They were crooks. Everybody knew it. No better than Samaritans, even though they were Jewish. Like shepherds who were unclean, like tax collectors who were thieves, innkeepers were rogues. No doubt when Jesus introduced this character into the story the people laughed.

How gullible could a man be, this stupid Samaritan? Now we have proof that good-living people are naïve: giving money to an innkeeper in advance of service! We all know what he’ll do with the money and with the poor unfortunate who is injured. Money into pocket; victim onto the street.

Now, two silver coins represents a considerable amount of care. It appears that this man wasn’t going to get better any time soon. The Samaritan is expecting the innkeeper to look after him for several weeks on the back of a down payment. But he may not be back in those weeks, so he asks the innkeeper to look after him on the basis of a promise. “When I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have” (v35).

Notice these three things:
1) There will be some cost to the innkeeper, some sacrifice (“extra expense”)
2) This will be repaid (“I will reimburse”)
3) The Samaritan is coming back (“when I return”)

There is a dilemma facing the innkeeper which the crowd has probably already resolved for him. It is this: will he act in such a way as to merit reimbursement?

He has three choices:
1) THE ROGUE: He will confirm the stereotype, steal the money, eject the victim, and perhaps even lie to the Samaritan when he returns and get more money.
2) THE LEGALIST: He will care for him for those few weeks. After that his obligations are completed. He has fulfilled the law and with a clear conscience he can put the man out on the street. After all, who would trust the word of a Samaritan?
3) THE MERCIFUL: He will care beyond the two silver coins. Trusting the promise of the Samaritan that he will return and reimburse.

The genius of this story is that we just don’t know how he will react. There is always the possibility that the innkeeper will surprise us. But it’s his choice.

The central issue in the story is the law. The expert in the law who questioned Jesus has kept the law impeccably, but what Jesus highlights is that compliance with the law cannot deliver mercy. Mercy cannot be commanded. Mercy is several steps beyond the law and if you want to inherit eternal life (which was the lawyer’s original question) then one must go beyond law.

The innkeeper is promised reimbursement to the equivalent of the distance he travels beyond the law. On the eve of the day the money runs out, the innkeeper has a choice: will he go on caring into the following week? To do so is to live with mercy and to live in faith that the Samaritan is coming again, which introduces a fascinating eschatological dimension to the story.

I think the challenge for the reader, for the individual and for us corporately as God’s people, is the same one that the innkeeper faced. You see, the Good Samaritan is the only one in the story who acted mercifully out of his own resources. It was his donkey, his oil and wine, his money. I believe that such love is beyond us. This is why I think we are not called to love like him. We are called to love and be merciful like the innkeeper, who does it all out of the given and promised resources of the Samaritan. This is life by faith.

It is also the kind of life that is lived out in faithful obedience to a promise. The Samaritan says he is coming again and will bring payment with him. We are called to live today in the confident expectation that our Lord is returning, and he brings our reward with him. Till then we live with the resources he has left us, principally his Holy Spirit.

But it is also a life we must choose. Every day. Because every day we face a multitude of choices in which we can decide to live eschatologically, legalistically or roguishly. And, goodness knows, the church has done a good job of the latter two.

One way of dealing with the implications of this story is to see the church as the innkeeper, left here by God with a responsibility and a call to love and care for the vulnerable and injured. Our call is to do so in a way that is sacrificial and which goes beyond the extent of the law. Caring for those who have been broken and bruised by this world’s values, through disappointment, broken relationships, unemployment, debt, bereavement, empty ambitions… The church has always sought to do this, but how easily the vision is lost.

Too often we extend programmes to people and expect them to feel indebted to us, in return they must give, or join or support. But in the economy of this parable the injured man is never indebted to the innkeeper. The transaction is solely between innkeeper and Samaritan. The innkeeper must not require the victim to pay in any way because the repayment for mercy comes from another source. (In fact in the story repayment by the injured man is impossible - remember he had been robbed of everything.) And even if the Samaritan tarries till long after the man has recovered, still the innkeeper must wait. He cannot seek payment.

The challenge of the parable to the church, therefore, is to love people and voluntarily relinquish control over what they do with that love. Extending love without any obligations or any expectations over how people will act. Are we prepared to keep loving if nobody ever joins us, or pays us, or says good things about us?

Now that’s tough, because we somehow believe institutional survival depends on us having some measure of authority over the recipients of our good works. But that’s not eschatological living.

GLENN JORDAN, originally from Bray in Co Wicklow, is married to Adrienne and dad to Philippa and Christopher. He works for the Skainos Project, an urban regeneration project on the Newtownards Road, part of East Belfast Mission.

|