Lk 10:25 Now an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus, saying, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 10:26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you understand it?” 10:27 The expert answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.” 10:28 Jesus said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
10:29 But the expert, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 10:30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him up, and went off, leaving him half dead. 10:31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, but when he saw the injured man he passed by on the other side. 10:32 So too a Levite, when he came up to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 10:33 But a Samaritan who was traveling came to where the injured man was, and when he saw him, he felt compassion for him. 10:34 He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 10:35 The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever else you spend, I will repay you when I come back this way.’ 10:36 Which of these three do you think became a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” 10:37 The expert in religious law said, “The one who showed mercy to him.” So Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”

Where is Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan?

John Calvin was, perhaps, the first to challenge allegorical interpretations of the parable, insisting rather on the ethical interpretation that has been generally favoured since:

‘I acknowledge that I have no liking for any of these [allegorical] interpretations; but we ought to have a deeper reverence for Scripture than to reckon ourselves at liberty to disguise its natural meaning.’

For Calvin, then,

‘The chief design is to show that the neighborhood, which lays us under obligation to mutual offices of kindness, is not confined to friends or relatives, but extends to the whole human race.’

But, if we are to reject allegorical interpretations, is there a danger of going to the opposite extreme, and stripping the parable of any Christological significance; of refusing to see in it any connection with the wider NT message of sin and salvation?

(i) Klyne Snodgrass – there is no Christological significance in this parable:

‘It is unfair to inject Jesus (and the rest of a salvation scheme) allegorically into the parable. It is one thing to say that the theology of the parable is also the theology that drives much of Jesus’ actions but quite another to say that he intended a self-representation with the story. Nor is he to be identified with the victim.142 All attempts to find Jesus (or Israel) mirrored in the parable are illegitimate allegorizing.’

(ii) Leon Morris – this is a legitimate inference, but not the meaning Jesus intended

(iii) Ian Paul – there is a hint in the structure of the parable

Ian Paul notes that the turning point in the story occurs when the Samaritan ‘had pity’ on the man.  The word – splagchnizomai – occurs just two other times in Luke’s Gospel – Lk 7.13 (The raising of the widow’s son) and Lk 15.20 (The parable of the two sons and the forgiving father).  In both these cases, writes Ian Paul, ‘it is Jesus who is moved to compassionate action’  Moreover, in all three instances, the word in question comes at the precise numerical mid-point of the pericope, emphasising its importance.  All of this, it is claimed, suggests that we should see the Samaritan as representing Jesus himself (with ourselves as those who have been beaten and bruised by sin).

The parable then enables us to say, with 1 Jn 4:19f, ‘We love, because he first loved us.’

This is a fascinating suggestion.  However, it is weakened by the fact that (as far as I can tell), the father in the story of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:20) does not represent Jesus, but rather God the Father.

(iv) Craig Blomberg – Jesus, even more than the Samaritan, is a model worth imitating

Blomberg (Preaching the Parables) thinks that we might do well to see Jesus presented in this parable as our supreme example:

‘One insight that Augustine received, one that many others agree is worth pondering, is the Samaritan as a picture of Christ. Even that was probably not Jesus’ primary intention, in light of everything we’ve already said about the passage. But it’s certainly true that Jesus himself was the one and only perfect model of compassion for those in need of mercy in his day, and in every day, and only he will ever show us complete and perfect mercy. Jesus, even more than the Samaritan, is the model worth imitating.’

(v) William Hendriksen – Where is the gospel of salvation in this parable?

Hendriksen writes:

It may be asked, “Does this answer of our Lord shed any light on the law-expert’s original question, ‘What must I do to inherit everlasting life?’ ” The answer would have to be, “Yes, it does.” Not as if “being a good neighbor” would all by itself assure salvation. But proving oneself to be a neighbor, and doing this to perfection, and besides, loving God with a love that is also perfect, would indeed result in everlasting life.
We hasten to add, however, that such perfection is impossible on this sinful earth. Yet, the demand of God’s law is not abrogated. The solution of this problem has been furnished by God himself. Jesus Christ, by the substitutionary sacrifice of himself and by his life of perfect obedience, has done for us what we ourselves would never have been able to do. See Rom. 8:1–3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13. Therefore:
a. We must sincerely confess that it is forever impossible for us, by our own action, to fulfil the demands of God’s law: “By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2:16).
b. We must, by God’s grace and the power of his Spirit, place our trust in Christ (John 3:16, 36).
c. Out of gratitude for the salvation which, because of Christ’s merits, we have received as a free gift, we must now, guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit, live a life to the glory of God Triune. This means that even though while on earth we cannot love God and the neighbor perfectly, yet in principle we will begin to live in accordance with his law. The law of love has not been abrogated. See Rom. 13:8–10.

(vi) Nolland – The central character is not the Samaritan, but the ‘man in the ditch’.

Nolland (WBC) regards as ‘attractive’ the view that

‘in the original setting in the ministry of Jesus the parable was provoked by unease stirred by Jesus’ own practice of compassion (cf. Luke 15). However, this too is finally to be rejected because it can do no justice to the presence of the Samaritan figure in the parable.’

The same writer suggests that the principal character in the parable is the ‘man in the ditch’, and it is he who provides the perspective through which we should understand its teaching:

‘It is from the perspective of the ditch where one lies helpless and battered, and in desperate need of help, that one should reflect upon the question “who is my neighbor?” Then one will know how wide the reach of neighbor love should extend when one is in a position to be handing out favors.’

Nolland makes the point that the kindness of the Samaritan is not exceptional.  It is was any ‘law-abiding’ person would do.  So,

‘What is being commended is the victim’s perspective, not the example of the Samaritan. What he does is commendable, but from the perspective of the desperate victim it is self-evident that the law’s demand for love of neighbor should bridge to any needy human being; that its practice should not be restricted to a closed community, even if that closed community is the community of the divine covenant…From a victim’s perspective, if his situation is desperate enough, even a despised Samaritan is a welcome neighbor.’

Snodgrass, however asserts that the parable is not told from the victim’s perspective:

‘The issues raised from the victim’s perspective are helpful: Will one allow oneself to be ministered to by an enemy? And when one understands being a victim, might one have a chance to understand the kingdom? But all this is meditation on the parable, legitimate theologizing spawned by the parable, but not Jesus’ intent in telling the story.’