BIBLE HISTORY DAILY

Understanding the Good Samaritan Parable

Who were the Samaritans?

arrival-of-the-good-samaritan-at-the-inn

Gustave Dore, The Good Samaritan. Dr. Amy-Jill Levine of Vanderbilt University explains how getting an accurate answer to the question “Who were the Samaritans?” can shed light on how shocking the Good Samaritan parable would have been to Jesus’ audience.

The Good Samaritan parable is one of the most beloved gospel stories for young and old alike. The story is told in Luke 10:29–37: A man going from Jerusalem to Jericho is attacked by robbers who strip him and beat him. A priest and a Levite pass by without helping him. But a Samaritan stops and cares for him, taking him to an inn where the Samaritan pays for his care.

As Dr. Amy-Jill Levine discusses in a column in the January/February 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, the story has proven a popular one for sermons over the years, and it has been interpreted in many different ways—ranging from a tale about ritual purity to lessons about personal safety and even freedom fighters or universal healthcare. These sometimes-unusual interpretations are no doubt an attempt to find meaning in the parable for the times and concerns of a changing audience. And although that may be a worthy cause, Levine notes that in order to grasp the full import of the story, one must understand the times and concerns of first-century Judea, where Jesus and his followers lived. To do this, one must understand the relationship between Jews and Samaritans. This is sometimes hinted at in modern interpretations of the parable but rarely fully grasped.

So who were the Samaritans, really? Levine explains that they were not simply outcasts: They were the despised enemies of the Jews. Yet where listeners would have expected a Jew to be the hero of Jesus’ story, instead they would have been shocked to hear that it is a Samaritan. As Levine explains, only by understanding this reality does the powerful message of the parable come through:

The parable offers … a vision of life rather than death. It evokes 2 Chronicles 28, which recounts how the prophet Oded convinced the Samaritans to aid their Judean captives. It insists that enemies can prove to be neighbors, that compassion has no boundaries, and that judging people on the basis of their religion or ethnicity will leave us dying in a ditch.

Read more from Dr. Amy-Jill Levine about interpreting the Good Samaritan parable in Biblical Views, “The Many Faces of the Good Samaritan—Most Wrong,” Biblical Archaeology Review, January/February 2012.

Not a subscriber yet? Join today.


The Galilee is one of the most evocative locales in the New Testament—the area where Jesus was raised and where many of the Apostles came from. Our free eBook The Galilee Jesus Knew focuses on several aspects of Galilee: how Jewish the area was in Jesus’ time, the ports and the fishing industry that were so central to the region, and several sites where Jesus likely stayed and preached.


Related reading in Bible History Daily:

The Parables of Jesus

Inn from the Good Samaritan Parable Becomes a Museum

The Samaritan Schism

Dating of the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim

Ancient Samaria and Jerusalem


All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library:

The Samaritans: A Jewish offshoot or a pagan cult?
Biblical Views: The Many Faces of the Good Samaritan—Most Wrong
Bells, Pendants, Snakes & Stones: A Samaritan temple to the Lord on Mt. Gerizim
Samaria: Capital of Israel
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.


This article was originally published in Bible History Daily in January 2012.


Become a Member of Biblical Archaeology Society Now and Get More Than Half Off the Regular Price of the All-Access Pass!

Explore the world’s most intriguing Biblical scholarship

Dig into more than 9,000 articles in the Biblical Archaeology Society’s vast library plus much more with an All-Access pass.

access

Related Posts

The Bible with and Without Jesus Cover
Mar 22
The Bible With and Without Jesus

By: Marc Zvi Brettler and Amy-Jill Levine

Jan 23
The “Gabriel Stone” on Display

By: James Tabor


29 Responses

  1. Jonathan Emerson-Pierce says:

    To me, William Barclay’s interpretation remains the most textually and theologically viable.

    Sometimes Jews religious leadership understood to be rebellious and ritually “unclean” were labeled “Samaritan” in order to punish and marginalize them.

    Obviously, Jesus and his disciples were so judged and intentionally relativized by authorities. However, much of what they were criticized for was demonstrably wrong since they were actually fulfilling the Law as intended.

    In context, when Jesus told the parable, the primacy of the Great Commandment was in view. And, the story powerfully served to illustrate that it was he and his disciples, rather than their ceremonially focused critics, who actually embodied and lived it out.

    Thus, if the Great Commandment was indeed understood to distill the whole of the Law, Jesus and his disciples were clearly far more faithful to the Law than their many ecclesiastical detractors. A point Jesus made again and again.

    In the end, this point was also what the teacher speaking to Jesus was then forced to admit. And it was yet another example of Jesus’ superior authority in matters of the Law and why one should always listen rather than presumptuously debate him.

  2. Colin says:

    The more one reads the New Testament, the more apparent it becomes that Jesus was a Jew preaching Judaism — albeit an austere brand of it, probably influenced by “The Sons of Light”, as the Masada community writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls referred to themselves” — to the Jews.

    In this context, His singling out a Samaritan, an outgroup despised by his audience, as setting a good example in contrast to the ingroup is the equivalent of a Confederate preacher exhorting his audience “even a n… would ~etc”.

  3. […] was the last one leaving Casablanca for Paris that evening. Luckily, a friendly airport official, a good Samaritan, guided me to where they dropped unclaimed luggage. I discovered that my previous flight had […]

  4. […] And as the Lord indicated in a famous parable, our neighbor is whomever we meet who needs compassion and healing. That would be every human […]

  5. Rex says:

    Good interpretation, what might have been the meaning of 2 pence paid?

  6. Veloo says:

    LDS, that’s a superb explanation.thanks.

  7. LDS Christian says:

    There are many levels of understanding for this parable, and it is sad to see the deeper meanings have been lost. Yes, we can see the obvious one about our own need to be compassionate and care for those who are hurting. But, early Christians knew another one, a deeper one. Writers like Irenaeus, Clement, Ambrose, Origen, and others taught that Jesus was the Good Samaritan and that the wounded man represented each of us individually, and also all of mankind entirely.

    The priest (“the Law”) and the Levite (“the prophets”) did not (or could not) save mankind in their sins. It was the “outcast” (Jesus) that bound his wounds, “anointed” him with oil and wine, and carried his burden to the inn (the Church) where he would be safe (literally saving the man from spiritual death). In the end, he left the man in the innkeeper’s care, and promised to come again to his “church”.

    Hey, don’t argue with me about the interpretation, I’m just sharing what the first Christians believed. It would do others good to learn more about them…

  8. Steven R says:

    Thanks for this gesture ! ..

  9. Michael says:

    I think that this is message meaning no matter who they are love them

  10. Sunday omoghene 1 says:

    A good person can be any body.Be a Samaritan,Jew or whatever doesn’t count..Though today we expect the Levites (priest or pastors) to be “good ,showing love to others,many of them are doing contrary to inclination.If you are not from same nation,denomination with them them mistreat you.Jesus said we should love everybody no matter what because Love is of GOD.When we love others,cares for them it shows we are of GOD.That’s what the”good Samaritan did.

  11. Rick Carpenter says:

    Has the charge of Samaritan syncretistism been proven? I’ve seen the charge many many times, but some scholarship describes the schism in terms of differing interpretation and practice. Remember, the winners write the history.

  12. Hope says:

    A modern day interpretation.

    A welfare recipient is beaten and left on the side of the rd. A pastor and a PTO soccer mom, fresh home from adopting her missionary African baby, walk by the beaten victim. A gay man dressed to the nine in his most Fabulous pride parade costume stops and exclaims OMG… (yes…just a word…don’t give it power…duh) He takes the welfare recipient to an inn and pays for her care. Through his compassion he awarded the kingdom of heaven ( Its within and cannot be accessed without the key of love)

    I simply cannot understand how followers can’t get this. Then again I can’t expect a small child to grasp quantum physics. I beg for a change of mind, a rebirth of spirit, and for Childish (consciousness) to be put away..You see only in part now…Please….head to the then…the complete. ……
    if you find this offensive, please read Corinthians 13 twenty times or until you understand. This is a message of love and absolute frustration with the lack of love and discernment of spirit in the Christian community.

  13. E.T.V. says:

    Jesus came to teach the New church Nation. yet the Old Church Nation also teaches the same thing. Love God with all your soul and strength. love thy neighbor as thyself. no matter what religion they are. teach the coming of Christ to all.

  14. Alethea Loree says:

    The lawyer answered his own question The one that showed mercy and Jesus said go and do the same. What is so hard to understand!
    Remember Jesus was from the line of Judah and the line of Aaron the high Priest. He was a King and a Priest.

  15. Eleanor Kelman says:

    At least twice Jesus affirms the election of the Jews by God through whom salvation for the world comes (himself) to the (Samaritan) woman at the well and the (Phoenician) woman who is willing to accept the leftover crumbs from Jews. Jesus weeps (in love) over Jerusalem. In reference to himself as the bridegroom on many occasions he is alluding (within the understanding of his hearers) to the betrothed relationship between God and his people, the Jews. Jesus loves his Jewish people and is heartbroken by their rejection, as in later times by his grafted in bride, the “Church.” So be thankful for his forgiveness, grace, love and salvation, that you will live forever in his presence in the glorious marriage to come.

  16. Parable of the Good Samaritan: Meaning, Summary and Commentary says:

    […] they see man as being a “Good Samaritan” who goes above and beyond where most people would go. A Good Samaritan as opposed to most Samaritans in their minds…pagan, […]

  17. Actos class action says:

    I constantly spent my half an hour to read this web site’s articles or reviews
    every day along with a cup of coffee.

  18. Alexandra says:

    Interesting discussion. I now see more clearly that the parable is about about our utter need for God’s mercy. (yes, we are the victim). But we are also challenged to be like the Samaritan. The parable is clearly a warning to us that we should not let our own power and prestige (priest and Levite ) make us cold to the needs of others. We need to be humble, like a warefaring stranger despised and neglected (Samaritan). That is, we need to have compassion on others, as Jesus (represented by the Samaritan) does on us. One more thing. Do you notice that the innkeeper agrees to in effect lend his own money ,relying on a promise from a travelling Samaritan that he (a total stranger and a foreigner), will pay him back? The innkeeper too is a good neighbor.

    1. Lavona says:

      This message is a great discussion oa time such an as this

  19. Arlon says:

    Maybe a correction, it’s not a gospel. It’s a parable. Jesus is the gospel. He is the good news. 🙂

  20. Allan Rchardson says:

    To Robert (13), the parable is NOT making Jews as such the “bad guys” (or “misguided guys”), but the people in charge of the Jewish nation. Poor Jews who could not afford the “props” to put their religion on display were despised by those who could. Jews who had certain disabilities or diseases (such as “leprosy,” which may or may not be what modern medicine calls Hansen’s Disease) were “ritually impure” for life, so they were not “acceptable” in the Temple. In Jesus’ audience the poor would have understood the moral faults of the Priest and the Levite, because many of them were treated the same way as the injured man was by Priests and Levites. The Samaritan was a surprise because the Jewish power structure had long (since the return from Babylon) taught that EVERY Jew should hate EVERY Samaritan, yet this “enemy” was treating the man in the story the way every poor Jew in the audience would have WANTED to be treated himself, but would not have EXPECTED a Samaritan to treat him.

    This allowed Jesus to make the point that having a HEART turned toward God was more important than making lists of commandments and checking off the ones that had been obeyed and the ones that had not. This made the message of Jesus acceptable to Gentiles (that is, the rest of the world) as a universal message. Unfortunately, later generations used parables like this and twisted them into hatred of Jews in general. Obviously Jesus never meant this nor did Matthew, who was writing as a Jew to Jews (primarily Hellenistic Jews outside Judea, since he wrote in Greek, and the Greek does not read “like a translation” from an Aramaic original, which has never been discovered) about who should lead the Jewish faith.

  21. Bob says:

    I find it interesting that famous parables in the New Testament need to be explained in a way to validate their meaning. Historical facts and scientific facts have proved that many things in the new testament were written by persons who were not present or even alive at the time the events took place. The writers obviously were enemys of the Jewish religion or people or they wouldn’t be making the Jews the bad guy or scape goat. It’s easy to dismiss the fact that early Christian Emperors murdered thousands of non christians sometimes in a day, burned heritics to death,and many unfair and disgraceful practices continued for two thousand years right up to the present day. The Jews of biblical times were taught to obey 613 commandments. It seems highly unlikely that they were such bad people. The evidense isn’t there. The mass burial sites,concentration camps,gettos,destruction of houses of worship,desecration of graves,burning of books,and stealing of property by Christians and their leaders is swept under the carpet. There is alot of evidence showing who the criminals are. However, smoehow we seem to focus on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

  22. Matt says:

    After looking at some of the comments I can see what the article author meant about so many interpretations! If you look at the context, it’s a direct explanation of “love your neighbour as yourself”, not an extended metaphor.

  23. Daniel says:

    It’s shocking to see how misinterpreted this parable is. The man who is robbed and beaten within an inch of his life represents us, as in mankind. The fact that a Samaritan, an enemy of the Jews had to help the man means that the man was absolutely incapable of doing anything to save himself. This parable shows us that we are helpless beings as sinners and we are in a position that makes us receive aid even from our most hated enemies. We are to rely on God’s grace only as we are in no position to do ANYTHING for ourselves. This also tells us that we cannot do anything to earn our salvation, or even add to it. God does everything for us and we are to just acknowledge this and trust that he will make us into beings that are holy in His eyes. I emphasize the point that HE, as in God, makes us into the people he really wants us to be, which are perfect people.

  24. Henry Miller says:

    The Good Samaritan story proves that one does not have to be a Christian, Jew, or a member of any religion to know right from wrong. The Good Samaritan acts because he knows it is the right thing to do and not from the expectation of a reward or the fear of punishment. . He doesn’t need the Ten Commandments or a priest or a religious leader to tell him what to do when he comes upon a fellow human being in distress. In that sense he is a secular humanist acting out of love.

  25. Viorel Lingurar says:

    Viorel Lingurar
    The Good Samaritan parable:
    Just like everything in the Bible the minute you take it out of context you further yourself from the intended meaning.. The entire parable is an answer to a question, also understanding the historical political, economic, situation of that time gives a deeper meaning
    When we read the Bible we have to let the Bible tell us its message

  26. The Parables of Jesus: Recovering the Original Meaning of Matthew’s Parables | The Ginger Jar says:

    […] famous parables of Jesus is the Good Samaritan parable, yet it is frequently misunderstood. Read Understanding the Good Samaritan Parable in Bible History […]

  27. Allan Richardson says:

    The story may have been adapted to an anti-Jewish purpose, but remember, Matthew was a Jewish Christian writing AFTER the fall of the Temple, when Sadducee leadership was no longer viable (without literal sacrifices) and the Pharisees were contending with the Messianic Jews for influence. Matthew’s view was that Judaism should proceed with Messianic rabbis in charge, but this did not happen because the influx of Gentiles took the Jewishness out of the church. Christian era Judaism evolved, therefore, from the Pharisees, most of whom were actually reasonable and would have endorsed this parable.

    Nevertheless, in the form that Jesus may have told it, the parable is less anti-Jewish than anti-ESTABLISHMENT. The powerful men in Judaism were MORE concerned with ritual purity than with compassion, and they condemned Samaritans because of their LACK of purity as seen by Jews and because of differences in theology (e.g. Samaritans believed in pre-Davidic practices of worship). Jesus is saying that ritual purity and theology were irrelevant when the situation called for loving kindness (chesed), so the impure heretic was the true righteous (tzedek) man. Some American retellings (in the 1960’s South) had a black person as the Samaritan. Today it might be a GAY black MUSLIM!

    John’s metaphorical interpretation (3 above) also has some good points. In this case, it could be an expansion on the Prodigal Son, in which the victim of the robbers is the RETURNING Prodigal. But Neil (7) sums up the way I understand it. The religious establishment, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim or whatever, sometimes gets in the way of the basic teaching.

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


29 Responses

  1. Jonathan Emerson-Pierce says:

    To me, William Barclay’s interpretation remains the most textually and theologically viable.

    Sometimes Jews religious leadership understood to be rebellious and ritually “unclean” were labeled “Samaritan” in order to punish and marginalize them.

    Obviously, Jesus and his disciples were so judged and intentionally relativized by authorities. However, much of what they were criticized for was demonstrably wrong since they were actually fulfilling the Law as intended.

    In context, when Jesus told the parable, the primacy of the Great Commandment was in view. And, the story powerfully served to illustrate that it was he and his disciples, rather than their ceremonially focused critics, who actually embodied and lived it out.

    Thus, if the Great Commandment was indeed understood to distill the whole of the Law, Jesus and his disciples were clearly far more faithful to the Law than their many ecclesiastical detractors. A point Jesus made again and again.

    In the end, this point was also what the teacher speaking to Jesus was then forced to admit. And it was yet another example of Jesus’ superior authority in matters of the Law and why one should always listen rather than presumptuously debate him.

  2. Colin says:

    The more one reads the New Testament, the more apparent it becomes that Jesus was a Jew preaching Judaism — albeit an austere brand of it, probably influenced by “The Sons of Light”, as the Masada community writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls referred to themselves” — to the Jews.

    In this context, His singling out a Samaritan, an outgroup despised by his audience, as setting a good example in contrast to the ingroup is the equivalent of a Confederate preacher exhorting his audience “even a n… would ~etc”.

  3. […] was the last one leaving Casablanca for Paris that evening. Luckily, a friendly airport official, a good Samaritan, guided me to where they dropped unclaimed luggage. I discovered that my previous flight had […]

  4. […] And as the Lord indicated in a famous parable, our neighbor is whomever we meet who needs compassion and healing. That would be every human […]

  5. Rex says:

    Good interpretation, what might have been the meaning of 2 pence paid?

  6. Veloo says:

    LDS, that’s a superb explanation.thanks.

  7. LDS Christian says:

    There are many levels of understanding for this parable, and it is sad to see the deeper meanings have been lost. Yes, we can see the obvious one about our own need to be compassionate and care for those who are hurting. But, early Christians knew another one, a deeper one. Writers like Irenaeus, Clement, Ambrose, Origen, and others taught that Jesus was the Good Samaritan and that the wounded man represented each of us individually, and also all of mankind entirely.

    The priest (“the Law”) and the Levite (“the prophets”) did not (or could not) save mankind in their sins. It was the “outcast” (Jesus) that bound his wounds, “anointed” him with oil and wine, and carried his burden to the inn (the Church) where he would be safe (literally saving the man from spiritual death). In the end, he left the man in the innkeeper’s care, and promised to come again to his “church”.

    Hey, don’t argue with me about the interpretation, I’m just sharing what the first Christians believed. It would do others good to learn more about them…

  8. Steven R says:

    Thanks for this gesture ! ..

  9. Michael says:

    I think that this is message meaning no matter who they are love them

  10. Sunday omoghene 1 says:

    A good person can be any body.Be a Samaritan,Jew or whatever doesn’t count..Though today we expect the Levites (priest or pastors) to be “good ,showing love to others,many of them are doing contrary to inclination.If you are not from same nation,denomination with them them mistreat you.Jesus said we should love everybody no matter what because Love is of GOD.When we love others,cares for them it shows we are of GOD.That’s what the”good Samaritan did.

  11. Rick Carpenter says:

    Has the charge of Samaritan syncretistism been proven? I’ve seen the charge many many times, but some scholarship describes the schism in terms of differing interpretation and practice. Remember, the winners write the history.

  12. Hope says:

    A modern day interpretation.

    A welfare recipient is beaten and left on the side of the rd. A pastor and a PTO soccer mom, fresh home from adopting her missionary African baby, walk by the beaten victim. A gay man dressed to the nine in his most Fabulous pride parade costume stops and exclaims OMG… (yes…just a word…don’t give it power…duh) He takes the welfare recipient to an inn and pays for her care. Through his compassion he awarded the kingdom of heaven ( Its within and cannot be accessed without the key of love)

    I simply cannot understand how followers can’t get this. Then again I can’t expect a small child to grasp quantum physics. I beg for a change of mind, a rebirth of spirit, and for Childish (consciousness) to be put away..You see only in part now…Please….head to the then…the complete. ……
    if you find this offensive, please read Corinthians 13 twenty times or until you understand. This is a message of love and absolute frustration with the lack of love and discernment of spirit in the Christian community.

  13. E.T.V. says:

    Jesus came to teach the New church Nation. yet the Old Church Nation also teaches the same thing. Love God with all your soul and strength. love thy neighbor as thyself. no matter what religion they are. teach the coming of Christ to all.

  14. Alethea Loree says:

    The lawyer answered his own question The one that showed mercy and Jesus said go and do the same. What is so hard to understand!
    Remember Jesus was from the line of Judah and the line of Aaron the high Priest. He was a King and a Priest.

  15. Eleanor Kelman says:

    At least twice Jesus affirms the election of the Jews by God through whom salvation for the world comes (himself) to the (Samaritan) woman at the well and the (Phoenician) woman who is willing to accept the leftover crumbs from Jews. Jesus weeps (in love) over Jerusalem. In reference to himself as the bridegroom on many occasions he is alluding (within the understanding of his hearers) to the betrothed relationship between God and his people, the Jews. Jesus loves his Jewish people and is heartbroken by their rejection, as in later times by his grafted in bride, the “Church.” So be thankful for his forgiveness, grace, love and salvation, that you will live forever in his presence in the glorious marriage to come.

  16. Parable of the Good Samaritan: Meaning, Summary and Commentary says:

    […] they see man as being a “Good Samaritan” who goes above and beyond where most people would go. A Good Samaritan as opposed to most Samaritans in their minds…pagan, […]

  17. Actos class action says:

    I constantly spent my half an hour to read this web site’s articles or reviews
    every day along with a cup of coffee.

  18. Alexandra says:

    Interesting discussion. I now see more clearly that the parable is about about our utter need for God’s mercy. (yes, we are the victim). But we are also challenged to be like the Samaritan. The parable is clearly a warning to us that we should not let our own power and prestige (priest and Levite ) make us cold to the needs of others. We need to be humble, like a warefaring stranger despised and neglected (Samaritan). That is, we need to have compassion on others, as Jesus (represented by the Samaritan) does on us. One more thing. Do you notice that the innkeeper agrees to in effect lend his own money ,relying on a promise from a travelling Samaritan that he (a total stranger and a foreigner), will pay him back? The innkeeper too is a good neighbor.

    1. Lavona says:

      This message is a great discussion oa time such an as this

  19. Arlon says:

    Maybe a correction, it’s not a gospel. It’s a parable. Jesus is the gospel. He is the good news. 🙂

  20. Allan Rchardson says:

    To Robert (13), the parable is NOT making Jews as such the “bad guys” (or “misguided guys”), but the people in charge of the Jewish nation. Poor Jews who could not afford the “props” to put their religion on display were despised by those who could. Jews who had certain disabilities or diseases (such as “leprosy,” which may or may not be what modern medicine calls Hansen’s Disease) were “ritually impure” for life, so they were not “acceptable” in the Temple. In Jesus’ audience the poor would have understood the moral faults of the Priest and the Levite, because many of them were treated the same way as the injured man was by Priests and Levites. The Samaritan was a surprise because the Jewish power structure had long (since the return from Babylon) taught that EVERY Jew should hate EVERY Samaritan, yet this “enemy” was treating the man in the story the way every poor Jew in the audience would have WANTED to be treated himself, but would not have EXPECTED a Samaritan to treat him.

    This allowed Jesus to make the point that having a HEART turned toward God was more important than making lists of commandments and checking off the ones that had been obeyed and the ones that had not. This made the message of Jesus acceptable to Gentiles (that is, the rest of the world) as a universal message. Unfortunately, later generations used parables like this and twisted them into hatred of Jews in general. Obviously Jesus never meant this nor did Matthew, who was writing as a Jew to Jews (primarily Hellenistic Jews outside Judea, since he wrote in Greek, and the Greek does not read “like a translation” from an Aramaic original, which has never been discovered) about who should lead the Jewish faith.

  21. Bob says:

    I find it interesting that famous parables in the New Testament need to be explained in a way to validate their meaning. Historical facts and scientific facts have proved that many things in the new testament were written by persons who were not present or even alive at the time the events took place. The writers obviously were enemys of the Jewish religion or people or they wouldn’t be making the Jews the bad guy or scape goat. It’s easy to dismiss the fact that early Christian Emperors murdered thousands of non christians sometimes in a day, burned heritics to death,and many unfair and disgraceful practices continued for two thousand years right up to the present day. The Jews of biblical times were taught to obey 613 commandments. It seems highly unlikely that they were such bad people. The evidense isn’t there. The mass burial sites,concentration camps,gettos,destruction of houses of worship,desecration of graves,burning of books,and stealing of property by Christians and their leaders is swept under the carpet. There is alot of evidence showing who the criminals are. However, smoehow we seem to focus on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

  22. Matt says:

    After looking at some of the comments I can see what the article author meant about so many interpretations! If you look at the context, it’s a direct explanation of “love your neighbour as yourself”, not an extended metaphor.

  23. Daniel says:

    It’s shocking to see how misinterpreted this parable is. The man who is robbed and beaten within an inch of his life represents us, as in mankind. The fact that a Samaritan, an enemy of the Jews had to help the man means that the man was absolutely incapable of doing anything to save himself. This parable shows us that we are helpless beings as sinners and we are in a position that makes us receive aid even from our most hated enemies. We are to rely on God’s grace only as we are in no position to do ANYTHING for ourselves. This also tells us that we cannot do anything to earn our salvation, or even add to it. God does everything for us and we are to just acknowledge this and trust that he will make us into beings that are holy in His eyes. I emphasize the point that HE, as in God, makes us into the people he really wants us to be, which are perfect people.

  24. Henry Miller says:

    The Good Samaritan story proves that one does not have to be a Christian, Jew, or a member of any religion to know right from wrong. The Good Samaritan acts because he knows it is the right thing to do and not from the expectation of a reward or the fear of punishment. . He doesn’t need the Ten Commandments or a priest or a religious leader to tell him what to do when he comes upon a fellow human being in distress. In that sense he is a secular humanist acting out of love.

  25. Viorel Lingurar says:

    Viorel Lingurar
    The Good Samaritan parable:
    Just like everything in the Bible the minute you take it out of context you further yourself from the intended meaning.. The entire parable is an answer to a question, also understanding the historical political, economic, situation of that time gives a deeper meaning
    When we read the Bible we have to let the Bible tell us its message

  26. The Parables of Jesus: Recovering the Original Meaning of Matthew’s Parables | The Ginger Jar says:

    […] famous parables of Jesus is the Good Samaritan parable, yet it is frequently misunderstood. Read Understanding the Good Samaritan Parable in Bible History […]

  27. Allan Richardson says:

    The story may have been adapted to an anti-Jewish purpose, but remember, Matthew was a Jewish Christian writing AFTER the fall of the Temple, when Sadducee leadership was no longer viable (without literal sacrifices) and the Pharisees were contending with the Messianic Jews for influence. Matthew’s view was that Judaism should proceed with Messianic rabbis in charge, but this did not happen because the influx of Gentiles took the Jewishness out of the church. Christian era Judaism evolved, therefore, from the Pharisees, most of whom were actually reasonable and would have endorsed this parable.

    Nevertheless, in the form that Jesus may have told it, the parable is less anti-Jewish than anti-ESTABLISHMENT. The powerful men in Judaism were MORE concerned with ritual purity than with compassion, and they condemned Samaritans because of their LACK of purity as seen by Jews and because of differences in theology (e.g. Samaritans believed in pre-Davidic practices of worship). Jesus is saying that ritual purity and theology were irrelevant when the situation called for loving kindness (chesed), so the impure heretic was the true righteous (tzedek) man. Some American retellings (in the 1960’s South) had a black person as the Samaritan. Today it might be a GAY black MUSLIM!

    John’s metaphorical interpretation (3 above) also has some good points. In this case, it could be an expansion on the Prodigal Son, in which the victim of the robbers is the RETURNING Prodigal. But Neil (7) sums up the way I understand it. The religious establishment, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim or whatever, sometimes gets in the way of the basic teaching.

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Send this to a friend