Jesus used parables to draw his audience or readers into the story, encouraging them to engage with the parable. For the audience to participate in a parable, it must be based on situations that could actually happen, rather than being impossible scenarios. This is why Jesus chose the subjects of his parables from the everyday life of that time. The parables Jesus used were fresh, unique, and creative to such an extent that they should be treated as a completely new genre, distinct from the parables found in literature. Nevertheless, we often miss the intentions of Jesus, the narrator, by approaching his parables too simplistically.
A prime example of this is the parable of the Good Samaritan. The common interpretation of this parable is to understand it morally, encouraging the audience to act like the Good Samaritan who helped someone in need rather than turning away. However, this approach can be seen as a reader-centered interpretation that overlooks the intentions of Jesus, the narrator, and the narrative techniques employed by Luke. Some messages in the Bible can be dealt with simply and straightforwardly, but others require a more sophisticated approach. We should not approach all messages in a one-dimensional, simplistic way. For this reason, it is worth considering the question posed by the title of the book, “Why do Christians need literacy?”
Although the existing interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan may seem plausible, if it does not use Luke’s literary devices, it can be seen as ignoring the intentions of Jesus and Luke. The moral interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan has become deeply entrenched. After writing my dissertation, I was faced with the challenge of how to easily dismantle this false interpretation and establish a new one.
In my reflections I realised that it would be beneficial to approach the parable of the Good Samaritan through Luke’s literary devices. This was because whenever I developed my argument using the word “καταδέω” as a link, there were voices questioning whether my logic was too far-fetched. What was needed was an approach that was universally acceptable, one that no one could dispute. This led to the creation of the paper entitled “The Parable of the Good Samaritan Approached Through Luke’s Literary Devices.”
Luke links the parable of the Good Samaritan with two other stories to ensure it is interpreted according to the intentions of Jesus, the narrator. One story is about the raising of the dead son of the widow of Nain, and the other is the story of Jesus’ coronation at Bethany. While it is common to connect one story with another, Luke connects the parable with these two stories to eliminate any potential for misunderstanding. The central focus of wo stories connected to the parable of the Good Samaritan is Jesus Christ. Through this approach, Luke asks the mathematical question of who is the central character in the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is linked to these two stories.
Luke’s meticulous preparation in linking the parable of the Good Samaritan with these two stories leaves no room for alternative interpretations. This suggests that Luke attaches great importance to the correct interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan. Until now, interpretations have been made freely without considering Luke’s literary devices. If we accept that Jesus Christ is at the center of the parable of the Good Samaritan, it is clear that the word “καταδέω” used by Jesus in the parable creates an intertextuality with Ezekiel 34.
In this book, the concept of a ‘window’ is used to further explore the aspect of intertextuality. Although the concepts of intertextuality and a window are similar, they can be referred to as a window when the depicted image is the same. This concept is borrowed from the idea of a camera lens. This book demonstrates that the parable of the Good Samaritan paints the image of Ezekiel 34 in the lawyer’s mind through a forward-direction window. This interpretation reflects the intentions of both Jesus, the narrator, and Luke the author, and provides a correct understanding of the parable that has eluded interpretation for two thousand years.