Parable of the Good Samaritan

← Encyclopedia

A man goes down from Jerusalem to Jericho and falls among robbers, who strip him, beat him, and leave him half-dead by the road. A priest comes down the same road, sees him, and passes by on the other side. A Levite does the same. Then a Samaritan, traveling that way, comes to where the man lies, and is moved with compassion: he binds the wounds, pours on oil and wine, sets the man on his own animal, brings him to an inn, and cares for him. The next morning he leaves two denarii with the innkeeper, charging him to spend what the care requires, and promises to repay any excess on his return. The whole story occupies a dozen verses in the tenth chapter of the Gospel of Luke, and it has done more to shape what charity means in the West than almost any other passage of comparable length.

The parable is told in answer to a question. A lawyer — an expert in the Mosaic law — stands up to test Jesus, asking what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus turns it back: what is written in the law? The man answers correctly, with the double command to love God with all one’s heart and one’s neighbor as oneself. Then, in Luke’s phrasing, the lawyer seeks to justify himself and asks the question that the parable exists to answer: and who is my neighbor? The story follows. And it ends not with an answer to that question but with its reversal. Jesus asks which of the three proved neighbor to the man who fell among robbers; the lawyer, who cannot quite bring himself to say the word Samaritan, replies that it was the one who showed mercy; and Jesus tells him to go and do likewise. The question that opened the exchange — who qualifies as the object of my obligation, where is the boundary of the people I must love — has been dissolved. The parable does not draw the boundary in a better place. It abolishes the drawing of it.

A story only Luke tells

The Good Samaritan appears in no other gospel. It has no parallel in Matthew, in Mark, or in John — a feature it shares with the other great example stories of the third gospel, among them the Prodigal Son and the rich man and Lazarus. Luke gathers it into the long central section of the narrative, the journey toward Jerusalem that runs from the ninth chapter onward, in which much of the gospel’s distinctive teaching is set down as the road itself. The placement matters. The road to Jerusalem frames a parable whose own road runs the other way — down from Jerusalem to Jericho, the steep seventeen-mile descent through the wilderness of Judea, a route notorious for bandits, dropping some three thousand feet from the holy city to the city of palms in the Jordan valley. The geography is not decorative. A first-century audience knew exactly how dangerous that descent was, and knew that a man left bleeding on it might well die before another traveler chose to stop.

The form is what scholars call an example story rather than a metaphor: it does not say the kingdom of God is like something, as most of the parables do, but presents a case and asks the hearer to judge it. The case is constructed with a craftsman’s economy. Two travelers pass before the third arrives, and the listener, schooled in the threefold rhythm of folktale, expects the pattern priest, Levite, and then — the natural completion — an ordinary Israelite layman. A Judean lay audience would have been set up to identify with that third figure, the one who finally does the right thing where the religious officials failed. Instead the third man is a Samaritan. The expected sequence is broken at precisely the point where the hearer was preparing to recognize himself.

Why the Samaritan

The force of the story rests entirely on who the Samaritan was, and that is the part most easily lost across two thousand years of retelling. Samaritans and Judeans were not strangers to one another. They shared the God of Israel, the patriarchs, and the Torah — the Samaritans holding the five books of the Pentateuch as their only scripture, in their own textual recension, with Mount Gerizim rather than Jerusalem named as the place God chose for worship. They were, in the terms of the period, close kin divided by a deep and ancient quarrel. The biblical account in 2 Kings traces the Samaritans to peoples resettled in the northern land after the Assyrian conquest; the Samaritans understood themselves as the faithful remnant of Israel and the Judeans as the apostates who had wandered after a sanctuary in the wrong place. The rupture hardened into the institutions of the Second Temple period: a rival temple stood on Gerizim from roughly the fifth century BCE until the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus destroyed it around 128 BCE — an act remembered as a wound. By the first century the enmity was a fixed feature of the landscape, sharp enough that the fourth gospel can summarize it in a single aside, that Judeans have no dealings with Samaritans.

So the parable does not pit a kind outsider against indifferent insiders in any general sense. It puts the help in the hands of the one figure the audience would have been least willing to credit with virtue — the enemy near at hand, the heretic cousin. And it withholds help from exactly the figures whose station should have guaranteed it. The priest and the Levite are not minor functionaries; they are the personnel of the temple, the men whose vocation is the service of God and, by extension, the care of God’s people. Their failure is the more pointed for their office. Much ink has been spent excusing them — the danger of the road, the laws of corpse impurity that would have defiled a priest who touched what he took for a dead man — and the text leaves room for such calculations precisely so that it can refuse them. Whatever the reasons, the men who should have stopped did not, and the man who had every reason to walk past did not. The parable hands mercy to the wrong person.

This is why a strong line of modern scholarship reads the Good Samaritan as a deliberately disorienting story rather than an illustration of a tidy rule. On this reading its work is to break a category the hearer holds dear, not to refill it with better contents. The lawyer asked for a definition of neighbor — a way to know in advance the limits of the demand on him. The parable answers a different question, the only one it allows to stand: not who is the neighbor I am obliged to love, but to whom can I become a neighbor by acting? Mercy is no longer something owed within a boundary; it is the thing that erases the boundary in the doing. Read this way the most uncomfortable move in the text is not that a Samaritan helps a Judean, but that Jesus makes a Samaritan the moral exemplar to a Judean lawyer — and leaves that lawyer unable to repeat the word, conceding only that it was the one who showed mercy.

The plain reading and its long afterlife

At its surface the parable became, across nearly every Christian tradition, the governing image of compassion owed to any human being in need, regardless of who that person is or whether any prior bond connects the helper to the helped. It supplied a permanent vocabulary. To be a good Samaritan is to stop for a stranger; the phrase entered ordinary speech and never left it. Hospitals, relief societies, and aid organizations took the name. So did a whole class of statutes: a Good Samaritan law, in the legal systems descended from the English common law, is a provision shielding from liability someone who comes to the aid of an injured stranger in good faith — a body of legislation that all fifty American states and many other jurisdictions now possess, named directly for the man who poured out oil and wine on the Jericho road. That the common law had long held there was no general duty to rescue, and that the gospel’s exemplar acts under no duty at all but only out of compassion, is the irony folded into the name. The parable supplies the ideal precisely where the law declines to compel it.

The figure beneath the letter

Alongside this plain reading ran a second life, older than any modern hospital and nearly as old as the gospel itself: the parable read as a coded account of salvation. The reading is a classic case of allegorical exegesis, the habit of treating the surface of a sacred text as the shell of a concealed meaning, and it received its enduring form from Origen of Alexandria in the third century. In a homily on Luke, Origen sets out a near-complete decoding, which he is careful to credit to one of the elders before him rather than to his own invention. The man going down is Adam — humanity itself, descending from paradise. Jerusalem is paradise; Jericho is the world into which he falls. The robbers are the hostile powers that set upon the soul. The wounds are sins, or disobedience. The priest is the Law and the Levite the prophets, the old economy of revelation, which see the fallen man but cannot save him and pass by. The Samaritan — whose name Origen and those after him linked to the sense of guardian or keeper — is Christ, who alone stops, who binds the wounds, who lifts the injured nature onto his own beast, his own body, and carries it to the inn. The inn is the Church, which receives all who come. The two denarii are read as the knowledge of the Father and the Son, or the two Testaments. The innkeeper is the one set over the Church, charged with its care. And the Samaritan’s promise to return and settle the account is the second coming of Christ.

The reading became close to universal in the patristic centuries. Versions of it appear in Irenaeus and in Clement, in John Chrysostom at Constantinople, in Ambrose at Milan. Its most influential Latin form is the one Augustine gives in the second book of his Questions on the Gospels, where he tightens and extends the scheme. For Augustine the man is Adam; Jerusalem the heavenly city of peace from whose blessedness he fell; and Jericho — by the etymology that linked the name to the moon — signifies mortality itself, the condition that is born, waxes, wanes, and dies. The thieves are the devil and his angels, who stripped the man of his immortality and beat him into sin. The priest and Levite are the priesthood and ministry of the old covenant, which could avail nothing for salvation. The Samaritan, again read as guardian, is the Lord; the binding of wounds is the restraint of sin; the inn is the Church; the innkeeper the Apostle. Through the medieval centuries this figural reading was the parable as Christians chiefly heard it — carved into cathedral glass, set out in the standard biblical commentary of the schools, woven into the grace theology that made the wounded traveler the very type of the soul that cannot heal itself and waits for a rescuer who has no obligation to come. In that scheme the story is no longer about what one human being owes another on a dangerous road. It is about what the one who descends from heaven does for a nature too broken to ask.

Two ways of hearing one story

The relationship between the readings is uneasy, and the unease is old. The allegory turns an account of acting toward a wounded stranger into a drama of cosmic descent and ransom — and many later interpreters have argued that, in doing so, it quietly disarms the ethical sting of the original, replacing the demand go and do likewise with a doctrine to be believed. The disorienting example story asks the hearer to become the Samaritan; the figural reading invites the hearer to be the man in the ditch, rescued by another. The first hands over a task; the second offers a gift. Both have been carried, side by side, in the same liturgies and the same preaching, often within a single sermon.

But the lawyer’s reversed question runs underneath both. Whether the wounded man is a stranger on the Jericho road or fallen humanity on the road from paradise, the one who stops is in every telling the one no one expected to stop — the enemy in the surface story, the divine rescuer under no compulsion in the allegory. The parable never names a class of people owed compassion. It names an act, and a single command attaches to it: that the one who hears the story, having seen mercy come from the quarter least likely to supply it, go and be the source of it. The question who is my neighbor is never answered, in either reading, because the story was built to take it away.

Texts, readings, and the scholarly record

The parable’s Greek text stands at Luke 10:25–37; the standard critical study of its meaning and history sits within the wider literature on the parables of Jesus. Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Eerdmans, 2008), gathers the historical and exegetical evidence and surveys the readings; Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable (Fortress, 1989), develops the case that the parable functions by upending its hearers’ categories rather than confirming them. Amy-Jill Levine, Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi (HarperOne, 2014), presses the point that the Samaritan was not a generic outsider but a hated enemy, and that domesticating him into a kindly stranger drains the story of its scandal; her public argument that the parable insists enemies can prove neighbors is set out in accessible form through the Biblical Archaeology Society. On the parable’s two-thousand-year reception, David B. Gowler, The Parables after Jesus (Baker Academic, 2017), traces the line from the patristic allegory through the medieval centuries to modern art and politics.

For the historical setting of Samaritan–Judean relations, the archaeology of the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim and the textual evidence are summarized for general readers at Bible Odyssey; the account of the rival temple and its destruction draws on Josephus and on the excavations of the precinct. The Samaritans persist as a small living community to the present day, centered near Nablus and on Gerizim itself, custodians of their own ancient recension of the Pentateuch — a continuity that should temper any reading of them as a mere foil in someone else’s parable. A scholarly revisiting of the parable from a Jewish–Christian relations standpoint is available through the Council of Centers on Jewish–Christian Relations. The Greek commentary tradition is best approached through François Bovon’s Luke in the Hermeneia series; the patristic allegory in its sources can be read in Origen’s homilies on Luke and in Augustine’s Quaestiones Evangeliorum, both available in standard critical and translated editions.

→ Related: Jesus Christ · Gospel · New Testament · Parable Of The Prodigal Son · Origen · Augustine Of Hippo · Allegorical Exegesis · Second Temple Judaism · Grace In Christianity · Christianity · Gospel Of St Matthew · Preaching