The Parable of the Good Samaritan is a New Testament parable appearing only in the Gospel of Luke.^[1] (Also known as The Good Neighbor). The majority view indicates this parable is told by Jesus in order to illustrate that human kindness and fellow feeling must be available to all, and that fulfilling the spirit of the Law is just as important as fulfilling the letter of the Law, see also Letter and spirit of the law. Jesus puts the definition of neighbor into an enlarged context, beyond what people usually thought of as a neighbor.^[2] See the minority view also.

Contents 1 The parable 2 Historical contexts and modern recasting 3 Theological analysis 3.1 Holiness Code Connection 3.2 Priestly Cleanness 3.3 Minority view 3.4 Allegory of the Fall and the Redemption 4 See also 5 Notes 6 References

The parable

The parable is found in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 10, verses 25–37.

[the preceding context of the parable here]

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?". "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" asked Jesus. The man answered: " '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 neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

[the parable starts here]

In reply Jesus said:

"A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead with no clothes. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 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.' "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise." New International Version

Historical contexts and modern recasting

Samaritans were hated by the story's target audience, the Jews, to such a degree that the Lawyer did not mention them by name but as "The one who had mercy on him." The Samaritans in turn hated the Jews. Thus the parable, as told originally, incorporated the current religious and ethnic tension to teach, "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice: and the knowledge of God more than burnt sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6). But as the story reached those who were unaware of the oppression of the Samaritans, this aspect of the parable became less and less discernible: fewer and fewer people ever heard of them in any context other than as a description. Today the story is often recast in a more modern setting where the people are ones in equivalent social groups known to not interact comfortably^{[citation needed]}.

Thus cast appropriately, the parable regains its message to modern listeners: namely, that an individual of a social group they disapprove of can exhibit moral behaviour that is superior to individuals of the groups they approve; it also means that not sharing the same faith is no excuse to behave poorly, as there is a universal moral law. Many Christians have used it as an example of Christianity against racial and ethnic prejudice.^[3][4][5]

Theological analysis

One of the most culturally pervasive of Jesus' parables, the Parable of the Good Samaritan has a variety of interpretations that reflect the communities which have shaped them.

Holiness Code Connection

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (September 2008)

This parable is noted for its social implications, especially in our modern world. Apart from possible spiritual readings, this teaching has very practical elements that date to the transmission of Levitical Law. Jesus answers the lawyer's question as to which of the commandments is greatest -- and the narrator states that the lawyer is looking for a way around the twin command to love. So Jesus tells a parable to explain who a person's neighbor is -- who should this man love? By turning to Leviticus 19:33-34, one can see that as early as this time, the responsibility of caring for other nations when their paths cross was given to God's people. In fact, a large part of the Holiness Code in this chapter deals with the practical implications of loving the aliens in the land, even modifying the process by which a farmer may harvest crops so that those who are without food can glean from the edges.

Priestly Cleanness

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (July 2008)

While this parable is known for its social implications in our modern world, it also presents a very important contextual spiritual message. During his ministry Jesus was often accused of associating with the publicans and sinners by the Scribes and Pharisees (Luke 5:30). In the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus reaffirms his reasons for doing so, which are also reported in Luke 5:31–32. The stricken figure in the parable represents all those who are spiritually sick, such as the gentiles and the sinners. That it was a priest and then a Levite who first passed by is significant beyond the irony of the situation: people who were expected to help, did not, while someone whom the victim (and Jesus' audience) despised, did. The priest may have had an "excuse" not to help since touching a dying or badly wounded person for someone so "holy", while not forbidden, would be, in our modern vernacular, distasteful due to all the necessary cleansing rituals prescribed by Mosaic Law. The priest therefore decided that being ritually clean and "priestly" was more important than saving someone else's life. Jesus' unspoken challenge to all seems to be: would we help only if it is convenient, or are we willing to go out of our way to show compassion to a stranger?

Minority view

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)

According to the minority view^[who?], understanding this parable requires recognizing the importance of the Lawyer's perspective. He began to test Jesus in Luke 10:25. His particular goal of questioning was to determine what he might do himself to obtain eternal life. Jesus answers with the call to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, the Shema, as well as loving your neighbor as yourself, the Great Commandment. He says do this and you will live, that is, you will have eternal life. Now the key comes in Luke 10:29 where it is revealed that the lawyer wanted to justify himself. In other words, he wanted to be able to claim he had accomplished what was required by the standard Jesus cited. He wanted to feel like he was good enough to qualify for eternal life. In order to do this, this man wanted a definition of neighbor that was not too challenging for him to say that he loved that person. Now, the minority view presents a divergence of interpretation.

On one hand, in presenting the Parable, Jesus provides an answer that is intended to set the standard high. The one you should consider your neighbor is the person you believe is the most undesirable. You have to love that person as yourself if you want to qualify yourself for eternal life. The point of Jesus' statements was to drive this lawyer to despair of his own efforts to qualify for eternal life. This conclusion is applied to all people. None can be that good or meet God's standard. Instead, the good news points us to another source for our righteousness and goodness that qualifies us for eternal life once we give up on finding it in ourselves.^{[citation needed]} See also: Divine grace.

On the other hand, in presenting the Parable, Jesus provides to the scholar an answer that serves as a model for the scholar to emulate in learning who is and who is not his neighbor. By verse 37, Jesus and the scholar have agreed on the first commandment, the second commandment, and that the Samaritan was the neighbor to the victimized traveler. The victim was not the neighbor to the Samaritan. Jesus then challenges the scholar to resolve his self-doubt by commanding him to follow the Samaritan's behavior. Verse 37, "Go and do likewise," reads as an elaborated single-sentence paraphrase: Go and find someone [an innocent victim you may despise, yet who touches your heart (?)], and [generously (?)] meet his needs [not wants (?)], and then proceed with your life [your help beyond needs is not necessary for your learning who your neighbor is (?)]. The point of Jesus' statements was to compassionately meet the scholar's presenting need. Here Jesus is answering a self-revealing question. ^[6], p.34. For theological implications, see text preceding and following this paragraph.

Allegory of the Fall and the Redemption

According to John Welch:^[7]

"This parable’s content is clearly practical and dramatic in its obvious meaning, but a time-honored Christian tradition also saw the parable as an impressive allegory of the Fall and Redemption of mankind. This early Christian understanding of the good Samaritan is depicted in a famous eleventh-century cathedral in Chartres, France. One of its beautiful stained-glass windows portrays the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden at the top of the window, and, in parallel, the parable of the good Samaritan at the bottom. This illustrates “a symbolic interpretation of Christ’s parable that was popular in the Middle Ages.”^[8] ... The roots of this allegorical interpretation reach deep into Early Christianity. In the second century A.D., Irenaeus in France and Clement of Alexandria both saw the good Samaritan as symbolizing Christ Himself saving the fallen victim, wounded with sin. A few years later, Clement’s pupil Origen stated that this interpretation came down to him from earlier Christians, who had described the allegory as follows:

The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience, the beast is the Lord’s body, the [inn], which accepts all who wish to enter, is the Church. … The manager of the [inn] is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents the Savior’s second coming.^[9]

"This allegorical reading was taught not only by ancient followers of Jesus, but it was virtually universal throughout early Christianity, being advocated by Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen, and in the fourth and fifth centuries by Chrysostom in Constantinople, Ambrose in Milan, and Augustine in North Africa. This interpretation is found most completely in two other medieval stained-glass windows, in the French cathedrals at Bourges and Sens."

See also

• The parable of the Good Samaritan has been the main motive for many collectors’ coins and medals. An example is the Austrian Christian Charity coin, minted in March 12, 2003. The coin shows the Good Samaritan with the wounded man, on his horse, as he takes him to an inn for medical attention.

• The Jewish Encyclopedia suggests that the parable was changed:^[10]

One of these parables deserves special mention here, as it has obviously been changed, for dogmatic reasons, so as to have an anti-Jewish application. There is little doubt that J. Halevy is right ("R. E. J." iv. 249–255) in suggesting that in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke x. 17-37) the original contrast was between the priest, the Levite, and the ordinary Israelite—representing the three great classes into which Jews then and now were and are divided. The point of the parable is against the sacerdotal class, whose members indeed brought about the death of Jesus. Later, "Israelite" or "Jew" was changed into "Samaritan," which introduces an element of inconsistency, since no Samaritan would have been found on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem (ib. 30).

• Dramatic film adaptations of the Parable of the Good Samaritan include Samaritan[5], part of the widely acclaimed^[11] Modern Parables DVD Bible study series[6]. Samaritan, which sets the parable in modern times, stars Antonio Albadran[7]in the role of the Good Samaritan.^[12].

• Ethic of reciprocity
• Samaritanism
• Bystander intervention
• Good Samaritan Law
• Expounding of the Law
• Samaritans (charity)
• Samaritan's Purse - Christian charitable organization
• Christian-Jewish reconciliation

Notes

1. ^ Luke 10:25-37
2. ^ Kilgallen 122
3. ^ The Good Samaritan In African American Culture by Brad Ronnell Braxton
4. ^ Christianity and Equality
5. ^ Christian Teachings on Racial Harmony
6. ^ http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_parables_bailey.html
7. ^ http://byustudies.byu.edu/Shop/PDFSRC/38.2Welch.pdf
8. ^ Malcolm Miller, Chartres Cathedral (1985), 68.
9. ^ Origen, Homily 34.3, Joseph T. Lienhard, trans., Origen: Homilies on Luke, Fragments on Luke (1996), 138.
10. ^ Jacobs, Joseph; Kohler,Kaufmann; Gottheil, Richard; Krauss, Samuel (1901). "Jesus of Nazareth". Jewish Encyclopedia. Funk & Wagnalls. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=jesus#999. 
11. ^ See e.g., [1],[2], [3]
12. ^ See IMDB[4]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: The Good Samaritan

References

• Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. Doubleday, 1997. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
• Brown, Raymond E. et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice Hall, 1990. ISBN 0-13-614934-0.
• Kilgallen, John J. A Brief Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Paulist Press, 1988. ISBN 0-8091-2928-0.
• Miller, Robert J. The Complete Gospels. Polebridge Press, 1994. ISBN 0-06-065587-9.
• Welch, John W. The Good Samaritan: The Forgotten Symbols. Ensign, February 2007. p.40–47.
• Welch, John W. The Good Samaritan: A Type and Shadow of the Plan of Salvation. Brigham Young University Studies, spring 1999, 51–115.

v • d • e Parables of Jesus Assassin • Drawing in the Net • Empty Jar • Faithful Servant • Fig Tree • Friend at Night • Good Samaritan • Good Shepherd • Growing Seed • Hidden Treasure • Lazarus and Dives • Leaven • Lost Coin • Lost Sheep • Master and Servant • Mustard Seed • New Wine into Old Wineskins • Pearl • Pharisee and the Publican • Prodigal Son • Rich Fool • Sower • Strong Man • Talents • Tares • Ten Virgins • Two Debtors • Two Sons • Unjust Judge • Unjust Steward • Unmerciful Servant • Vine • Wedding Feast • Wicked Husbandmen • Wise and Foolish Builders • Workers in the Vineyard