Editing Parable of the Good Samaritan (section)

==Interpretation==

===Allegorical reading===
[[File:RossanoGospelsFolio007vGoodSamaritan.jpg|thumb|upright=1.0|In this folio from the 6th-century [[Rossano Gospels]], the cross-bearing [[Halo (religious iconography)|halo]] around the Good Samaritan's head indicates an allegorical interpretation. The first scene includes an angel.]]

[[Origen]] described the allegory as follows:
{{blockquote|The man who was going down is Adam. [[Jerusalem in Christianity|Jerusalem]] is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the [[613 Commandments|Law]], the [[Levite]] is the [[Neviim|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 body|Church]].{{nbsp}}[...] 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 of Christ|second coming]].|source={{harvnb|Origen|1996|p=136|loc=Homily 34, para 3}} }}

John Welch further states:
{{blockquote|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 of Alexandria|Clement]], and [[Origen]], and in the fourth and fifth centuries by [[John Chrysostom|Chrysostom]] in Constantinople, [[Ambrose]] in Milan, and [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] in North Africa. This interpretation is found most completely in two other medieval stained-glass windows, in the French cathedrals at [[Bourges Cathedral|Bourges]] and [[Sens Cathedral|Sens]]."|source={{harvnb|Welch|2007|pp=26–33}} }}

The allegorical interpretation is also traditional in the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]].{{sfn|Schönborn|2008|p=16}} [[John Newton]] refers to the allegorical interpretation in his hymn "How Kind the Good Samaritan", which begins:

{{poemquote|
How kind the good Samaritan
To him who fell among the thieves!
Thus Jesus pities fallen man,
And heals the wounds the soul receives.<ref name=JohnNewton />
}}

[[Robert W. Funk|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.{{sfn|Theissen|Merz|1998|pp= 321-322}}

===Ethical reading===
[[File:Balthasar van Cortbemde - The Good Samaritan.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|''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:

{{blockquote|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).<ref>{{bibleverse|John|5:25}}</ref> 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.|source={{harvnb|Calvin|1845|p=54}} }}

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."{{sfn|Calvin|1845|p=54}} In other writings, Calvin pointed out that people are not born merely for themselves, but rather "mankind is knit together with a holy knot{{nbsp}}[...] we must not live for ourselves, but for our neighbors."{{sfn|Calvin|1844|p=531}} Earlier, [[Cyril of Alexandria]] had written that "a crown of love is being twined for him who loves his neighbour."{{sfn|Cyril of Alexandria|1859|p=311|loc=Sermon 68}}

[[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."{{sfn|Schaeffer|2006|p=}}

Other modern theologians have taken similar positions. For example, [[G. B. Caird]] wrote:
{{blockquote|[[C. H. Dodd|Dodd]] quotes as a cautionary example [[Augustine of Hippo|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.|source={{harvnb|Caird|1980|p=165}} }}

[[Joel B. Green]] writes that Jesus' final question (which, in something of a "twist",{{sfn|Barton|Muddiman|2001|p=942}} reverses the question originally asked):

{{blockquote|[The question] 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|source={{harvnb|Green|1997|p=432}}}}

Such a reading of the parable makes it important in [[liberation theology]],{{sfn|Hays|2010|p=21}} where it provides a concrete anchoring for love{{sfn|Rowland|2007|p=43}} and indicates an "all embracing reach of solidarity."{{sfn|Carroll|1987|p=57}} 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."{{sfn|Gnanavaram|1993|pp=59–83}}

[[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.{{sfn|Branch|2007|p=302}} King also extended the call for neighborly assistance to society at large:

{{blockquote|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.|source=[[Martin Luther King Jr.]], "A Time to Break the Silence", quoted in {{harvnb|Hicks|Valeri|2008|p=31}} }}

===Catholic view===
[[Thomas Aquinas]] states that there are three points to be noted in this parable: Firstly, the manifold misery of sinners: "A certain man went down from Jerusalem." Secondly, is shown the manifold pity of Christ to the sinner: "A certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw him he had compassion on him." Thirdly, the rule which is given for imitation: "Go, and do thou likewise."<ref>{{cite book|chapter=[[s:Ninety-nine Homilies of S. Thomas Aquinas Upon the Epistles and Gospels for Forty-nine Sundays of the Christian Year/Homilies for the Sundays From Trinity to Advent (Part 2)#45|Homily XXVI: The sinner succored]]|title=Ninety-nine Homilies of S. Thomas Aquinas Upon the Epistles and Gospels for Forty-nine Sundays of the Christian Year|year=1867|publisher=Church Press Company|first=Thomas|last=Aquinas|author-link=Thomas Aquinas}}</ref>

[[Justus Knecht]] gives the deeper interpretation of this parable, according to the Church Fathers, writing:

{{blockquote|Jesus Himself is the Good Samaritan, as proved by His treatment of the robbed and wounded human race. Sin and the devil are the robbers who have despoiled man of his robe of innocence and all supernatural gifts, and grievously wounded him in his natural gifts. Thus man lay, weak, helpless, and half-dead. He still, it is true, possessed his natural life, but he had lost the supernatural life of grace, as well as the prospect of eternal life, and was powerless to raise himself from the misery of sin by any effort of his own. Neither priest nor Levite, i. e. neither sacrifice nor law of the Old Covenant, could help him, or heal his wounds; they only made him realize more fully his helpless condition. Then the Son of God, moved by compassion, came down from heaven to help poor fallen man, living at enmity with God. He healed his wounds with the wine of His Most Precious Blood and the oil of His grace, and took him to the inn, His Church. When He left this earth to return to heaven, He gave to the guardians of His Church the twofold treasure of His doctrine and His grace, and ordered them to tend the still weak man, until He Himself came back to reward every one according to his works.<ref>{{cite book|chapter=[[s:A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture/XLII. The Doctor of the Law — The Good Samaritan|XLII. The Doctor of the Law — The Good Samaritan]]|title=A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture|year=1910|publisher=B. Herder|first=Friedrich Justus|last=Knecht|author-link=Justus Knecht}}</ref>}}

===Other interpretations===
[[File:William Bruce Almon monument by Samuel Nixon, St. Paul's Church, Halifax, Nova Scotia.jpg|thumb|upright=1.8|Parable of the Good Samaritan by [[Samuel Nixon (sculptor)|Samuel Nixon]], [[St. Paul's Church (Halifax)|St. Paul's Church]], [[Halifax, Nova Scotia|Halifax]], [[Nova Scotia]]]]

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.{{sfn|Smith|1884|p=136}}{{sfn|Clarke|1886|p=346}}

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.{{sfn|Andrews|2012|p=117}}{{sfn|Wilson|2014|p=88}}

====Modern Jewish view====
{{Further|Jewish views on love|Chesed}}
{{Undue weight|date=July 2022|reason=Why this is supposed to be the whole "modern Jewish view"? And why this is just reported as it was, without a minimum paraphrase?}}
{{hatnote|The following is based on the public domain article "Brotherly Love"<ref>[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1509&letter=B&search=great%20commandment "Brotherly Love"]</ref> 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 love.

The term "neighbor" has not at all times been thus understood by Jewish teachers.{{efn|name=Stade}} 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.&nbsp;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 {{harvnb|Stade|1888|p=510a}}, when charging with imposture the rabbis who made this declaration, is entirely in error.