A man was stripped and beaten by robbers. A priest passed by the injured man. So did a Levite man. The Good Samaritan described in Luke 10: 30-37 stopped to help the man. But the Samaritan did more than offer immediate comfort. He took the injured man to an inn and told the inn keeper he would cover expenses incurred while the victim recovered.
In a sense the Samaritan saved the injured man twice; once by stopping the bleeding, again by using resources in a way that allowed him to heal.
I think there is a connection between the economic concept of profit and the love of neighbor illustrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Economic profit involves the idea of a residual, a benefit after all costs have been paid. It is a reward paid to entrepreneurs who act on risky ideas. If the risky idea to launch a new enterprise works, the entrepreneur reaps the reward. If the risky idea fails, or the new product or service does not meet needs faster, better, or cheaper, the entrepreneur bears the costs.
It is interesting to read that the Samaritan used some of his own money to pay the victim’s costs during recuperation. Maybe the Samaritan’s mind said something like this: I can and should help stop that poor man’s bleeding now, but I can and should also help him heal over the next few days.
The Samaritan did more than feel mercy for the victim. Maybe the priest and Levite felt this too as they passed by. But the Samaritan put his feelings into action. He accepted the risky idea that he could help the man now and in the future. This is voluntary compassion for neighbor. It is also effective compassion, effective because the Samaritan chose to define part of his wealth as a surplus to be shared voluntarily.
At the end of the parable Jesus asks if the priest, Levite, or Samaritan is the neighbor. “The expert in the law” answered that the Samaritan was the neighbor. Jesus then says go and do likewise.
