The Good Samaritan by Jacob Jordaens
The parable of the Good Samaritan is a parable told by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. It is about a traveller who is stripped of clothing, beaten, and left half dead alongside the road. First a priest and then a Levite comes by, but both avoid the man. Finally, a Samaritan happens upon the traveller. Samaritans and Jews despised each other, but the Samaritan helps the injured man. Jesus is described as telling the parable
in response to the question from a lawyer, "And who is my neighbour?".
In response, Jesus tells the parable, the conclusion of which is that
the neighbour figure in the parable is the man who shows mercy to the
injured man—that is, the Samaritan.
Some Christians, such as Augustine, have interpreted the parable allegorically, with the Samaritan representing Jesus Christ, who saves the sinful soul. Others, however, discount this allegory as unrelated to the parable's original meaning and see the parable as exemplifying the ethics of Jesus.
The parable has inspired painting, sculpture, satire, poetry, photography, and film. The phrase "good Samaritan", meaning someone who helps a stranger, derives from this parable, and many hospitals and charitable organizations are named after the Good Samaritan.
Narrative
In the Gospel of Luke, the parable is introduced by a question, known as the Great Commandment: Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"
He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."
But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?"
— Luke 10:25–29, World English Bible
Jesus replies with a story:
Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he travelled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"
He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
— Luke 10:30–37, World English Bible
Historical context
Road from Jerusalem to Jericho
In
the time of Jesus, the road from Jerusalem to Jericho was notorious for
its danger and difficulty, and was known as the "Way of Blood" because
"of the blood which is often shed there by robbers". Martin Luther King, Jr., in his "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech, on the day before his death, described the road as follows:
As soon as we got on that road I said to my wife, "I can see why Jesus used this as the setting for his parable." It's a winding, meandering road ... In the days of Jesus it came to be known as the "Bloody Pass." And you know, it's possible that the priest and the Levite looked over that man on the ground and wondered if the robbers were still around. Or it's possible that they felt that the man on the ground was merely faking, and he was acting like he had been robbed and hurt in order to seize them over there, lure them there for quick and easy seizure. And so the first question that the priest asked, the first question that the Levite asked was, "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?"
Samaritans and Jesus
Jesus' target audience, the Jews, hated Samaritans to such a degree that they destroyed the Samaritans' temple on Mount Gerizim. Due to this hatred, some think that the Lawyer's phrase "The one who had mercy on him" (Luke 10:37) may indicate a reluctance to name the Samaritan.
Or, on another, more positive note, it may indicate that the lawyer has
recognized that both his questions have been answered and now concludes
by generally expressing that anyone behaving thus is a (Lev 19:18) "neighbor" eligible to inherit eternal life. The Samaritans in turn hated the Jews. Tensions were particularly high in the early decades of the 1st century because Samaritans had desecrated the Jewish Temple at Passover with human bones.
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 not to interact comfortably. 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 behavior that is
superior to individuals of the groups they approve. Christians have used
it as an example of Christianity's opposition to racial, ethnic, and
sectarian prejudice. For example, anti-slavery campaigner William Jay described clergy who ignored slavery as "following the example of the priest and Levite". Martin Luther King, Jr., in his "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech, described the Samaritan as "a man of another race". Sundee Tucker Frazier saw the Samaritan more specifically as an example of a "mixed-race" person. Klyne Snodgrass
wrote: "On the basis of this parable we must deal with our own racism
but must also seek justice for, and offer assistance to, those in need,
regardless of the group to which they belong."
Samaritans appear elsewhere in the Gospels and Book of Acts. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus heals ten lepers and only the Samaritan among them thanks him (Luke 17:11–19), although Luke 9:51–56 depicts Jesus receiving a hostile reception in Samaria. Luke's favorable treatment of Samaritans is in line with Luke's favorable treatment of the weak and of outcasts, generally. In John, Jesus has an extended dialogue with a Samaritan woman, and many Samaritans come to believe in him. In Matthew, however, Jesus instructs his disciples not to preach in heathen or Samaritan cities (Matthew 10:5–8). In the Gospels, generally, "though the Jews of Jesus' day had no time for the 'half-breed' people of Samaria", Jesus "never spoke disparagingly about them" and "held a benign view of Samaritans".
Many see Chronicles 28:8–15
as the model for the Samaritan's neighborly behavior in the parable. In
Chronicles, Northern Israelite ancestors of Samaritans treat Judean
enemies as fellow-Israelite neighbors.
After comparing the earlier account with the later parable presented to
the expert in Israel's religious law, Evans concludes: "Given the
number and significance of these parallels and points of correspondence
it is hard to imagine how a first-century scholar of Scripture could
hear the parable and not think of the story of the merciful Samaritans
of 2 Chronicles 28."
Priests and Levites
In Jewish culture, contact with a dead body was understood to be defiling. Priests were particularly enjoined to avoid uncleanness.
The priest and Levite may therefore have assumed that the fallen
traveler was dead and avoided him to keep themselves ritually clean.
On the other hand, the depiction of travel downhill (from Jerusalem to
Jericho) may indicate that their temple duties had already been
completed, making this explanation less likely, although this is disputed. Since the Mishnah made an exception for neglected corpses, the priest and the Levite could have used the law to justify both touching a corpse and ignoring it. In any case, passing by on the other side avoided checking "whether he was dead or alive".
Indeed, "it weighed more with them that he might be dead and defiling
to the touch of those whose business was with holy things than that he
might be alive and in need of care."
Interpretation
Allegorical reading
In this folio from the 6th-century Rossano Gospels, the cross-bearing halo around the Good Samaritan's head indicates an allegorical interpretation. The first scene includes an angel.
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.
John Welch further states:
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."
The allegorical interpretation is also traditional in the Orthodox Church. John Newton refers to the allegorical interpretation in his hymn "How Kind the Good Samaritan," which begins:
How kind the good Samaritan
To him who fell among the thieves!
Thus Jesus pities fallen man,
And heals the wounds the soul receives.
Robert Funk
also suggests that Jesus' Jewish listeners were to identify with the
robbed and wounded man. In his view, the help received from a hated
Samaritan is like the kingdom of God received as grace from an
unexpected source.
Ethical reading
Parable of the Good Samaritan by Balthasar van Cortbemde (1647) shows the Good Samaritan tending the injured man while the Levite and priest are also shown in the distance.
John Calvin was not impressed by Origen's allegorical reading:
The allegory which is here contrived by the advocates of free will is too absurd to deserve refutation. According to them, under the figure of a wounded man is described the condition of Adam after the fall; from which they infer that the power of acting well was not wholly extinguished in him; because he is said to be only half-dead. As if it had been the design of Christ, in this passage, to speak of the corruption of human nature, and to inquire whether the wound which Satan inflicted on Adam were deadly or curable; nay, as if he had not plainly, and without a figure, declared in another passage, that all are dead, but those whom he quickens by his voice (John 5:25). As little plausibility belongs to another allegory, which, however, has been so highly satisfactory, that it has been admitted by almost universal consent, as if it had been a revelation from heaven. This Samaritan they imagine to be Christ, because he is our guardian; and they tell us that wine was poured, along with oil, into the wound, because Christ cures us by repentance and by a promise of grace. They have contrived a third subtlety, that Christ does not immediately restore health, but sends us to the Church, as an innkeeper, to be gradually cured. I acknowledge that I have no liking for any of these interpretations; but we ought to have a deeper reverence for Scripture than to reckon ourselves at liberty to disguise its natural meaning. And, indeed, any one may see that the curiosity of certain men has led them to contrive these speculations, contrary to the intention of Christ.
Francis Schaeffer
suggested: "Christians are not to love their believing brothers to the
exclusion of their non-believing fellowmen. That is ugly. We are to have
the example of the good Samaritan consciously in mind at all times."
Other modern theologians have taken similar positions. For example, G. B. Caird wrote:
Dodd quotes as a cautionary example Augustine's allegorisation of the Good Samaritan, in which the man is Adam, Jerusalem the heavenly city, Jericho the moon – the symbol of immortality; the thieves are the devil and his angels, who strip the man of immortality by persuading him to sin and so leave him (spiritually) half dead; the priest and Levite represent the Old Testament, the Samaritan Christ, the beast his flesh which he assumed at the Incarnation; the inn is the church and the innkeeper the apostle Paul. Most modern readers would agree with Dodd that this farrago bears no relationship to the real meaning of the parable.
The meaning of the parable for Calvin was, instead, that "compassion,
which an enemy showed to a Jew, demonstrates that the guidance and
teaching of nature are sufficient to show that man was created for the
sake of man. Hence it is inferred that there is a mutual obligation
between all men."
In other writings, Calvin pointed out that people are not born merely
for themselves, but rather "mankind is knit together with a holy knot
... we must not live for ourselves, but for our neighbors." Earlier, Cyril of Alexandria had written that "a crown of love is being twined for him who loves his neighbour."
Joel B. Green writes that Jesus' final question (which, in something of a "twist," reverses the question originally asked):
... presupposes the identification of "anyone" as a neighbor, then presses the point that such an identification opens wide the door of loving action. By leaving aside the identity of the wounded man and by portraying the Samaritan traveler as one who performs the law (and so as one whose actions are consistent with an orientation to eternal life), Jesus has nullified the worldview that gives rise to such questions as, Who is my neighbor? The purity-holiness matrix has been capsized. And, not surprisingly in the Third Gospel, neighborly love has been concretized in care for one who is, in this parable, self-evidently a social outcast
Such a reading of the parable makes it important in liberation theology, where it provides a concrete anchoring for love and indicates an "all embracing reach of solidarity." In Indian Dalit theology, it is seen as providing a "life-giving message to the marginalized Dalits and a challenging message to the non-Dalits."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
often spoke of this parable, contrasting the rapacious philosophy of
the robbers, and the self-preserving non-involvement of the priest and
Levite, with the Samaritan's coming to the aid of the man in need. King also extended the call for neighborly assistance to society at large:
On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
Other interpretations
In
addition to these classical interpretations many scholars have drawn
additional themes from the story. Some have suggested that religious tolerance
was an important message of the parable. By selecting for the moral
protagonist of the story someone whose religion (Samaritanism) was
despised by the Jewish audience to which Jesus was speaking, some argue
that the parable attempts to downplay religious differences in favor of
focusing on moral character and good works.
Others have suggested that Jesus was attempting to convey an
anti-establishment message, not necessarily in the sense of rejecting
authority figures in general, but in the sense of rejecting religious
hypocrisy. By contrasting the noble acts of a despised religion to the
crass and selfish acts of a priest and a Levite, two representatives of
the Jewish religious establishment, some argue that the parable attempts
to downplay the importance of status in the religious hierarchy (or
importance of knowledge of scripture) in favor of the practice of
religious principles.
Modern Jewish view
The following is based on the public domain article Brotherly Love found in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
The story of the good Samaritan, in the Pauline Gospel of Luke x.
25-37, related to illustrate the meaning of the word "neighbor,"
possesses a feature which puzzles the student of rabbinical lore. The
kind Samaritan who comes to the rescue of the men that had fallen among
the robbers, is contrasted with the unkind priest and Levite; whereas
the third class of Jews—i.e., the ordinary Israelites who, as a rule,
follow the Cohen and the Levite are omitted; and therefore suspicion is
aroused regarding the original form of the story. If "Samaritan" has
been substituted by the anti-Judean gospel-writer for the original
"Israelite," no reflection was intended by Jesus upon Jewish teaching
concerning the meaning of neighbor; and the lesson implied is that he
who is in need must be the object of our love.
The term "neighbor" has not at all times been thus understood by Jewish teachers.
In Tanna debe Eliyahu R. xv. it is said: "Blessed be the Lord who is
impartial toward all. He says: 'Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor. Thy
neighbor is like thy brother, and thy brother is like thy neighbor.'"
Likewise in xxviii.: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God"; that is, thou
shalt make the name of God beloved to the creatures by a righteous
conduct toward Gentiles as well as Jews (compare Sifre, Deut. 32). Aaron
b. Abraham ibn Ḥayyim of the sixteenth century, in his commentary to
Sifre, l.c.; Ḥayyim Vital, the cabalist, in his "Sha'are Ḳedushah," i.
5; and Moses Ḥagis of the eighteenth century, in his work on the 613
commandments, while commenting on Deut. xxiii. 7, teach alike that the
law of love of the neighbor includes the non-Israelite as well as the
Israelite. There is nowhere a dissenting opinion expressed by Jewish
writers. For modern times, see among others the conservative opinion of
Plessner's religious catechism, "Dat Mosheh we-Yehudit," p. 258.
Accordingly, the synod at Leipzig
in 1869, and the German-Israelitish Union of Congregations in 1885,
stood on old historical ground when declaring (Lazarus, "Ethics of
Judaism," i. 234, 302) that "'Love thy neighbor as thyself' is a command
of all-embracing love, and is a fundamental principle of the Jewish
religion"; and Stade, when charging with imposture the rabbis who made
this declaration, is entirely in error (see his "Geschichte des Volkes
Israel," l.c.).
Authenticity
The Good Samaritan by Aimé Morot (1880) shows the Good Samaritan taking the injured man to the inn.
The Jesus Seminar voted this parable to be authentic, with 60% of fellows rating it "red" (authentic) and a further 29% rating it "pink" (probably authentic). The paradox of a disliked outsider such as a Samaritan helping a Jew is typical of Jesus' provocative parables, and is a deliberate feature of this parable. In the Greek text, the shock value of the Samaritan's appearance is enhanced by the emphatic Σαμαρίτης (Samaritēs) at the beginning of the sentence in verse 33.
Bernard Brandon Scott, a member of the Jesus Seminar,
questions the authenticity of the parable's context, suggesting that
"the parable originally circulated separately from the question about
neighborliness" and that the "existence of the lawyer's question in Mark 12:28–34 and Matthew 22:34–40, in addition to the evidence of heavy Lukan editing" indicates the parable and its context were "very probably joined editorially by Luke." A number of other commentators share this opinion, with the consensus of the Jesus Seminar being that verses Luke 10:36–37 were added by Luke to "connect with the lawyer's question." On the other hand, the "keen rabbinic interest in the question of the greatest commandment" may make this argument invalid, in that Luke may be describing a different occurrence of the question being asked. Differences between the gospels suggest that Luke is referring to a different episode from Mark and Matthew, and Klyne Snodgrass
writes that "While one cannot exclude that Luke has joined two
originally separate narratives, evidence for this is not convincing." The Oxford Bible Commentary notes:
That Jesus was only tested once in this way is not a necessary assumption. The twist between the lawyer's question and Jesus' answer is entirely in keeping with Jesus' radical stance: he was making the lawyer rethink his presuppositions.
The unexpected appearance of the Samaritan led Joseph Halévy to suggest that the parable originally involved "a priest, a Levite, and an Israelite", in line with contemporary Jewish stories, and that Luke changed the parable to be more familiar to a gentile audience."
Halévy further suggests that, in real life, it was unlikely that a
Samaritan would actually have been found on the road between Jericho and
Jerusalem, although others claim that there was "nothing strange about a Samaritan travelling in Jewish territory".
William C. Placher points out that such debate misinterprets the
biblical genre of a parable, which illustrates a moral rather than a
historical point: on reading the story, "we are not inclined to check
the story against the police blotter for the Jerusalem-Jericho highway
patrol. We recognize that Jesus is telling a story to illustrate a moral
point, and that such stories often don't claim to correspond to actual
events."
The traditionally understood ethical moral of the story would not hold
if the parable originally followed the priest-Levite-Israelite sequence
of contemporary Jewish stories, as Halévy suggested, for then it would
deal strictly with intra-Israelite relations just as did the Lev 19:18
command under discussion.
As a metaphor and name
The injunction to "go and do likewise" has led to the "Good Samaritan" name being applied to many hospitals, such as the Legacy Good Samaritan Medical Center in Portland, Oregon.
The term "good Samaritan" is used as a common metaphor: "The word now
applies to any charitable person, especially one who, like the man in
the parable, rescues or helps out a needy stranger."
The name has consequently been used for a number of charitable organisations, including Samaritans, Samaritan's Purse, Sisters of the Good Samaritan, and The Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong. The name Good Samaritan Hospital is used for a number of hospitals around the world. Good Samaritan laws encourage those who choose to serve and tend to others who are injured or ill.
Art and popular culture
The Good Samaritan by Rembrandt
(1630) shows the Good Samaritan making arrangements with the innkeeper.
A later (1633) print by Rembrandt has a reversed and somewhat expanded
version of the scene.
This parable was one of the most popular in medieval art.
The allegorical interpretation was often illustrated, with Christ as
the Good Samaritan. Accompanying angels were sometimes also shown. In some Orthodox icons of the parable, the identification of the Good Samaritan as Christ is made explicit with a halo bearing a cross.
The numerous later artistic depictions of the parable include those of Rembrandt, Jan Wijnants, Vincent van Gogh, Aimé Morot, Domenico Fetti, Johann Carl Loth, George Frederic Watts, and Giacomo Conti.
In his essay Lost in Non-Translation, biochemist and
author Isaac Asimov argues that to the Jews of the time there were no
good Samaritans; in his view, this was half the point of the parable. As
Asimov put it, we need to think of the story occurring in Alabama in
1950, with a mayor and a preacher ignoring a man who has been beaten and
robbed, with the role of the Samaritan being played by a poor black
sharecropper.
The story's theme is portrayed throughout Marvel's Daredevil.
The parable of the Good Samaritan is the theme for the Austrian Christian Charity commemorative coin,
minted 12 March 2003. This coin shows the Good Samaritan with the
wounded man, on his horse, as he takes him to an inn for medical
attention. An older coin with this theme is the American "Good Samaritan
Shilling" of 1652.
Australian poet Henry Lawson wrote a poem on the parable ("The Good Samaritan"), of which the third stanza reads:
He's been a fool, perhaps, and would
Have prospered had he tried,
But he was one who never could
Pass by the other side.
An honest man whom men called soft,
While laughing in their sleeves —
No doubt in business ways he oft
Had fallen amongst thieves.
John Gardiner Calkins Brainard also wrote a poem on the theme.
Dramatic film adaptations of the Parable of the Good Samaritan include Samaritan, part of the widely acclaimed Modern Parables DVD Bible study series. Samaritan, which sets the parable in modern times, stars Antonio Albadran in the role of the Good Samaritan.
The English composer, Benjamin Britten, was commissioned to write a piece to mark the centenary of the Red Cross. His resulting work for solo voices, choir, and orchestra, Cantata Misericordium, sets a Latin text by Patrick Wilkinson that tells the parable of the Good Samaritan. It was first performed in Geneva in 1963.
In a real-life psychology experiment, seminary students in a rush
to teach on this parable, failed to stop to help a shabbily dressed
person on the side of the road.
