Is Jesus the Good Samaritan?

Question

It seems clear that in at least some parables there is an analogical correspondence between some character in the parable and Jesus. For instance, in the parable of the tenants in Luke 20, most would interpret the character of the son in reference to Jesus.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37, two characters stand out as potential analogies to Jesus. The man attacked by robbers has clear parallels to Jesus as the one who suffers and who is rejected by the priests. But also the Samaritan seems to have analogy to Jesus in the gospel as the one who brings salvation and who bears the costs of the other.

Obviously the parable has meaning on the ethical level in relation to the "who is my neighbor" question. But does the parable also have an analogical meaning? And if so, does one of these characters fit better into that level of meaning?

Answer 1

The question is whether the author known to us as Luke intended to portray Jesus by analogy as either of the characters in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Unfortunately there's no way of knowing the author's intent in this case.

The New World Encyclopedia reference to Parable of the Good Samaritan offers some allegorical opinions, saying that according to John Welch the parable can be read as an allegory of the Fall and Redemption, with evidence that this was a popular interpretation in medieval times. Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria both saw the good Samaritan as symbolising Christ Himself saving the fallen victim, wounded with sin. Origen reported an elaborate interpretation that somewhat syncretised both interpretations. He stated that this interpretation came down to him from earlier Christians:

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.

The ease with which multiple meanings can be read into this popular parable suggests eisegesis, rather than an exegetical interpretation of Luke's intentions. The parable has meaning on the ethical level in relation to the "who is my neighbor" question, but only has further analogical meaning if we choose to read one of these possibilities into the passage. Some of those who have done so have viewed Jesus as the Samaritan.

Answer 2

Since our purpose is to seek answers, rather than just discussion, I would say the answer is NO, the good Samaritan does not represent Jesus, even if some early church fathers and medieval preachers (who typically over-used allegory) interpreted it that way.

(BTW, the reason for this overuse of allegory was that the Greeks were famous for it, and so it was quite ingrained in the literary culture of the times. Obviously Jesus' parables were, many of them, allegories, and so it's safe to say it was Jewish as well. Allegorical interpretations are still often meaningful and good, but this hermeneutic is quite out of favor in our times, or so it seems from hermeneutical works of the last century.)

Of course, it won't do to just answer yes or no. So here are some reasons why I would never use that allegorical interpretation for this parable:

1. Jesus didn't. This parable has been allegorized often, but allegory where it isn't intended is bad hermeneutics. Had Jesus started off, "The kingdom of God is like ..." we might be justified in treating this as allegory, but He didn't. He used it as an illustration of his teaching that every man is our neighbor, if we take the commandment "love your neighbor" seriously, and that there is no room in God's people for prejudice or avoiding our duty to help others in distress.
2. Jesus was not a Gentile nor Samaritan. I don't think the Lord was prejudiced either, but that's beside the point. He came (as Paul often repeated) "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile". THAT meaning is implied here, if you wish to expound on it. I think even "They are not all Israel that are of Israel" [Ro 9:6] could be brought out here.
3. The literary mode of the parable is not allegorical, and this should be a guide to us in our interpretation. When the speaker or writer's intent isn't allegorical, allegorical interpretations MUST be eisegesis, which usually leads to a forced or even silly interpretation, if not also an erroneous (heretical) one, though not always.

Answer 3

One commentary notes:

Probably no parable has been allegorized more often than this one. The most famous allegory is that of Augustine.49 The irony of Augustine’s and similar allegorical interpretations is that the parable is introduced (10:29) and concludes with (10:36) questions about what it means to be a neighbor, whereas the allegorical interpretations do not deal with this issue at all. Clearly, Luke’s main point in retelling the parable must have been what it means to be a neighbor. Jesus and Luke sought to illustrate that the love of one’s neighbor must transcend all natural or human boundaries such as race, nationality, religion, and economic or educational status.[Stein, R. H. (1992). Luke (Vol. 24, pp. 318–319). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.]

Parable's are not allagories of salvation, though some may be teaching soteriological themes and as such they might have characters in them who can be directly equated to the Lord Jesus Christ. That is to say we shouldn't always be looking to find Jesus in that direct fashion in every parable.

Furthermore contrary to the opinions of some, one cannot read any hostility towards the Samaritans in Jesus' character. It is reading a lot into Matt 10:5 to assume that means that Jesus is hostile to Samaritans, especially when we consider other things that Jesus does and says, for example:

1) We have the incident with the Samaritan women in John and

2) We also have his instruction to the same disciples in Acts 1:8 to go to Samaria.

Furthermore, in this writers opinion, it is exegetically untenable to link Matt 10:5 with the parable of the good Samaritan¹.

However returning to the parable of the good Samaritan it is important to understand the context of what is being said.

A 'lawyer' has come to Jesus with a question about how to inherit eternal life (v25) and Jesus has responded with a question of his own (v26) the lawyer responds by reciting Deut 6:8 and Leviticus 19:18 and Jesus agrees with him and tells him to do those things, the men then asks, 'who is my neighbour' (v29) and Jesus answers that question with the parable.

In the Parable a man (presumably Jewish) is set upon and left for dead. Two respected men who have positions of responsibility in society and who might be expected to offer some aid ignore the man's plight however another man, who is a Samaritan does stop and does help the man.

What is remarkable about this story is that if the roles were reversed it is incredibly unliekly that the Jewish man would help him, and he probably knows that but he doesn't care. Rather he sees a man in need and he goes out of his way (at some personal expense) to help that men.

After telling the story Jesus then asks the lawyer another question.

"So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?" (Luk 10:36 NKJ)

To which the man replies:

"He who showed mercy on him." (Luk 10:37 NKJ)

Then we read:

Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise." (Luk 10:37 NKJ)

The good Samaritan is a fictional character, however the direct application of what Jesus is saying is that if this lawyer wants to gain eternal life through his own efforts this is what he will have to be like.

See for example:

All that remains is that men should put this into effect. With authority Jesus commands the lawyer to go away and begin to follow the Samaritan’s example; the command in v. 28 cannot be evaded.[Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 450). Exeter: Paternoster Press.]

Now, in regards to the Lord Jesus Christ one might go from the parable to the character of Jesus and find many parallels between him and the good Samaritan in the light of such passages as Phil 2:5-9 but that is not the same as saying Jesus was speaking about himself, he wasn't, he was speaking about the lawyer.

---

Notes ¹ The only reason this writer can see to link the two passages together is in an effort to set scripture against scripture for the purpose of showing contradictions or errors.

Answer 4

This is a question I'm debating. Here is some evidence for Jesus using the Good Samaritan to represent himself. Look at the context in A.T. Roberson's harmony of the Gospels, especially in parallel with the Gospel of John. Before but near then time Jesus gave this parable is the verse:

The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” (John 8:48, ESV)

This parable may have been an indirect response to being called a Samaritan.

In roughly the same time as the parable is the passage in John 10 with the verses:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. (John 10:1)

All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. (John 10:8, ESV)

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. (John 10:10, ESV)

The robbers are usually interpreted to be the false messiahs that preceded Jesus. If these are connected to the Parable of the Good Samaritan, then Jesus was saying that the Jewish leaders represented by the two who passed the injured man by did little to protect the people from them. Note the Pharisee's statement:

But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.” (John 7:49, ESV)

While the parable has a priest and Levite, they also were more concerned about themselves and did not reach out to help.

Another connection is the Hebrew word from the Old Testament passage (Lev. 19:18) translated neighbor rēaʿ [רֵעַ]. This was the most common word for friend in the Old Testament. The Greek word translated friends in John 15:15 and the surrounding versus is φίλος. The Septuagint (LXX) uses this word most often to translate rēaʿ [רֵעַ], which is very likely the original Hebrew/Aramaic word Jesus used. Since modern Hebrew is based on Biblical Hebrew, it gives insight on how our thinking has changed from the first century of which the early church fathers were closer. Modern Hebrew translations translate φίλος as יָדִיד (beloved) in John 15:15. While modern Hebrew falls back on the Old Testament passage and uses rēaʿ [רֵעַ] in Luke 10:25, the common word for neighbor in modern Hebrew is שָׁכֵן based on the root meaning dwell, more in line with the person next door.

Figure 1. The Hebrew words that φίλος translates in the LXX (generated with Logos Bible Software).

This is a question not easily discarded.

See the following:

Who is my neighbor?

Given the dynamics of the words πλησίον and רֵעַ, what did Jesus illustrate with the Good Samaritan?

Is there a connection between Luke 10:25-37 and John 21:15-17?

Answer 5

Yes, Jesus is also a "Good Samaritan". Though we are the ones that are supposed to learn from this parable. It's for our sakes he told it.

Remember that God is "I Am", which is to say He is everything good and complete. This includes roles as a good neighbor and even a servant. If being a good neighbor is something good (which it is) then it's source is God.

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. - 1 Corinthians 8:6

Answer 6

The person beaten could represent Adam after sin came into the world. The priesthood (priest) couldn’t save him. The law of Moses (Levite) couldn’t save him. Jesus was the only savior (the Samaritan).