Luke 10:30–37 — The Good Samaritan

Augustine’s Allegorical Interpretation

The traveler going down from Jerusalem = Adam, representing the human race.

Jerusalem = means “the city of peace” in Hebrew, that is, the heavenly city, from whose blessedness man fell.

Jericho = means “the city of the moon” in Hebrew, and since the moon waxes and wanes, it stands for our mortality.

The robbers = the devil and his demons.

The priest and Levite = the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament, which are unable to save.

The Samaritan = means “keeper” in Hebrew, and represents Christ.

The care the Samaritan gave to the wounded traveler: Binding his wounds = restraining sins. Pouring in oil and wine = the comfort of forgiveness, and the exhortation to work with fervent Spirit. Putting him on a donkey = believing in the Incarnation of Christ.

The inn = the Church, “where travelers, returning from exile, are refreshed on their way to the eternal homeland.”

The innkeeper = the Apostle Paul or the bishops.

The two denarii = not clear; several possibilities were floated by church fathers and medieval commentators: The two commandments of love: love for God and love for neighbor The two rewards: in the present life and in the life to come (Lk 18:30) The two testaments (old and new)

The weakness of this allegorical interpretation is obvious. It is all so arbitrary. There is no obvious reason from the internal logic of the parable or from the context of the Gospel of Luke as a whole to take the inn as the church or the innkeeper as Paul. It reads later ecclesiastical structures into Jesus’ Palestinian setting. It ignores the historical setting of Jesus’ ministry.

However, we must applaud Augustine for reading it in a Christocentric way. I believe he is correct on the main point - the Samaritan represents Christ. And the sacrificial care the Samaritan gave represents the redemptive work of Christ in rescuing sinners.

Better Interpretation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan

Literary structure

• Highly stylized:
  • Three characters (priest, Levite, Samaritan)
  • Function as types (not typology types but character types)
• Dramatic contrast built through repeated phrase: “when he saw him…”
• Climax highlights the Samaritan’s compassion.
• Sets up moral and theological contrast with the priest and Levite.

Symbolic contrast

• Priest and Levite represent ritual purity without love.
• Samaritan represents true fulfillment of the law through compassion.
• The contrast is ceremonial, not racial.
• The lawyer’s closing phrase “the one who showed mercy” uses eleos—covenant language of loyal love.

Clues within the parable that the Samaritan stands for Christ:

• When the Samaritan saw the man left for dead, he “had compassion” (σπλαγχνίζομαι), which is what Jesus does in response to human need in the Gospels (e.g., Mt 9:3; 14:14; 15:32; 20:34; Mk 1:41; Lk 7:13).
• The way the parable goes into excessive detail describing what the Samaritan did to help the man who had been attacked by robbers and left for dead:
  • Oil, wine, animal, inn, open-ended repayment
  • The aid rendered is excessive, over-the-top
  • Seems to be more than a good example
  • It points rather to the sacrificial, self-emptying love of Christ and his redemptive work:
    • Jesus gives costly resources.
    • Jesus bears burdens.
    • Jesus becomes surety for another’s debt (financial imagery = sin and forgiveness): “Take care of him … when I return I will repay.”
• Jesus was derisively called a “Samaritan” (John 8:48).
• Thus, the Samaritan = the despised Redeemer.

Purpose of the parable in context - Jesus aims to expose the lawyer’s self-righteousness. - The command “Go and do likewise” is meant to drive him to despair of self-justification and seek grace from the true Samaritan. - The lawyer must see himself as the wounded man, not the benefactor. - The lawyer must abandon self-justification and accept mercy. - This is followed by the story of Mary and Martha (Lk 10:38–42): Mary’s posture parallels the wounded man—receiving, not achieving.