The parables Jesus used are mostly based on everyday life, which makes them easy to understand and relate to the audience and readers of the time. Since the parables Jesus used are based on situations that could actually happen or have happened, not on impossible scenarios, therefore, there’s no inherent difficulty in understanding the parables.
Nevertheless, Jesus often refrained from providing contextual information or character explanations within the parables, leaving the reader curious. This approach preserves the brevity of the parables. The absence of superfluous details and descriptions condenses the characters’ actions. But it can also serve as a way to invite readers to fill in the gaps. Ultimately, this encourages deeper contemplation of the core meaning of the parables. This means that in interpreting these parables, the reader must rely heavily on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the author of the Bible. However, if misused, this can lead to distorted interpretations of the parables.
The parable of the Good Samaritan, a unique material in the Gospel of Luke, is a complete story itself. Reading it without considering the intentions of Jesus and the literary composition of Luke can cause readers to lose its original meaning and interpret it arbitrarily.
The interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan has taken a new turn since Jülicher. As a result, the parable has been approached from a moral perspective. The moral approach to the parable of the Good Samaritan has become almost orthodox. But at the same time, a feeling of discomfort arose in my heart as I questioned whether this interpretation was intended by the narrator, Jesus, or whether it was the intention of the Gospel of Luke.
The parable of the Good Samaritan is a unique material in the Gospel of Luke, exclusive to this particular Gospel account. In particular, it is a self-contained narrative with a fully developed plot, making it an autonomous story. Consequently, this parable can be interpreted independently of its surrounding context. This detachment often leads to different interpretations that may diverge from the original intentions of both the speaker, Jesus, and the gospel writer, Luke. In order to avoid this potential misinterpretation, it is imperative to place the parable within the context of the Old Testament, which allows for a more comprehensive and contextual understanding.
Ezekiel chapter 34 is a text that says that God Himself will come as a shepherd. The Hebrew word for “to bind up” in Ezekiel 34, “חבש” is translated as “καταδέω” in the Septuagint. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, “καταδέω” is used only once for the word “to bind up. Therefore, the parable of the Good Samaritan is a parable introduced by Jesus with the image of the shepherd and the sheep of Ezekiel 34 in mind. Once you accept this, you cannot interpret the parable of the Good Samaritan arbitrarily, but must apply the metaphorical image of the shepherd and the sheep. If you accept that the parable of the Good Samaritan reveals a metaphorical image of a shepherd and a sheep, then the person who fell into the hands of the robber represents a wounded sheep. The Good Samaritan who heals the robbed man represents the shepherd who heals the wounded sheep. The wounds treated by the Good Samaritan expressed as trauma, represent the wounds, that are caused by Adam, which inevitably bring death to human beings.
In interpreting the “go and do likewise” passage from the story of the Good Samaritan, you should apply the parable of the Good Samaritan rather than refer to Leviticus chapter 18 or 19. The traditional moral interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan is one that equates the lawyer with the Good Samaritan. But Jesus, the narrator, does not allow this in the narrative of the lawyer’s eternal life. So you have to take the interpretation that equates the lawyer with the man who fell into the hands of the robbers. This interpretation implies a Christological approach.