LUKE 10:29–37
THE PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN
BRIEF INTERPRETATION
Text – Luke 10:29–37
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead.”
31 “Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side.”
32 “So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.”
33 “But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion.”
34 “He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.”
35 “And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’”
36 “Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?”
37 He said, “The one who showed mercy on him.” And Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
Historical and Jewish Context
Jesus tells this parable in response to a scholar of the law who wanted to clarify the limits of the command to “love your neighbor.” The road from Jerusalem to Jericho was steep, rocky, and notorious for attacks, making the story immediately relatable. Priests and Levites were respected religious figures, but ritual purity laws and personal safety may have influenced their behavior. Samaritans and Jews in that era had longstanding religious and cultural differences, yet both communities valued acts of mercy. Jesus’ choice of a Samaritan as the compassionate helper would have surprised His listeners, demonstrating that kindness and neighborly love can be found across cultural boundaries.
Catholic Theological Perspective
This parable expresses the heart of the Gospel: love of God and love of neighbor are inseparable. The Samaritan becomes a model not because of his group identity but because of his compassion—mercy expressed through concrete action. Catholic tradition also reads this parable allegorically: Christ is the true Good Samaritan who approaches wounded humanity, heals through the sacraments (oil and wine), and entrusts us to the care of the Church until His return. This story teaches that every person in need is our neighbor and that authentic discipleship requires mercy, generosity, and crossing boundaries of prejudice or fear.
Parallels in Scripture
Lv 19:18 – Love your neighbor as yourself.
Mt 5:43–48 – Love of enemies and universal charity.
1 Jn 3:16–18 – Love shown in deeds, not only words.
Key Terms
Neighbor – Anyone whom God places on our path who needs mercy or compassion.
Samaritan – A member of a community related to Israel but separated by historical and religious differences; here presented positively as an example of mercy.
Mercy – Love that responds to suffering with concrete actions of care.
Catholic Liturgical Significance
This parable appears frequently in the lectionary because it is foundational for Christian life. It is central to Catholic social teaching, inspiring works of mercy, charitable institutions, and pastoral outreach. It shapes the Church’s understanding of moral responsibility, reminding believers that love is active, universal, and inclusive. The parable challenges Christians to recognize Christ in the wounded and to act with compassion regardless of social, cultural, or religious distinctions.
Conclusion
Jesus expands the definition of “neighbor” beyond boundaries of group identity. True neighborliness is defined not by affiliation but by compassion. The parable invites all believers to imitate the Samaritan’s mercy and to reflect God’s love in practical, sacrificial service to those in need.
Reflection
Do I recognize the wounded person on my path? What fears or prejudices keep me from acting with compassion? Jesus invites me to a love that is active, inclusive, and courageous—reflecting His own merciful heart.
Prayer
Lord Jesus, Good Samaritan and healer of our souls, open my eyes to the wounded around me. Fill my heart with compassion, remove every barrier to love, and help me act with generosity and mercy. Heal my wounds with Your grace and make me an instrument of Your care in the world. Amen.
DETAILED INTERPRETATION
INTRODUCTION
Luke 10:29–37 presents the Parable of the Good Samaritan in response to a lawyer’s question, “Who is my neighbor?” In first-century Jewish society, relationships were often defined by religious purity, ethnicity, and social boundaries. Samaritans, who shared some ancestral roots with Jews but differed in worship and practice, were regarded with deep hostility and suspicion. By making a Samaritan the central figure of compassion, Jesus deliberately challenges entrenched prejudices and narrow interpretations of the Law.
Historically, the road from Jerusalem to Jericho was known to be dangerous, symbolizing vulnerability and risk. The priest and Levite, both respected religious figures, pass by the wounded man—likely motivated by fear of ritual impurity or personal safety. Jesus does not condemn the Law itself but exposes a failure to live its deepest command. The Samaritan’s actions—seeing, being moved with compassion, approaching, and caring—reflect the Jewish biblical understanding that true love of God is inseparable from concrete mercy toward others.
Luke 10:29 — “But he, desiring to justify himself, said to him, ‘And who is my neighbor?’”
The lawyer, seeking self-justification, narrows the commandment by questioning “neighbor” boundaries, probing love’s scope amid affirmed orthodoxy. This reveals heart-issue: intellectual grasp yields to evasive rationalization, testing charity’s universality.
Luke exposes legalism’s dodge: right answers evade personal conviction, launching Good Samaritan parable to expand neighbor-love beyond ethnic/ritual limits.
Historical and Jewish Context
“Who is my neighbor?” echoes Lev 19:18 debates—Pharisees restricted to fellow Jews, Samaritans excluded as heretics. Question seeks halakhic loopholes, contrasting Deut 10:19’s alien-love mandate.
Catholic Theological Perspective
Catholic social teaching universalizes here: neighbor encompasses all in need, especially enemies (CCC 1931-1933, Gaudium et Spes 27). Justification by works demands indiscriminate mercy, fulfilled in Christ’s cross embracing sinners.
Spiritually, believers confront self-justification: love expands through encounter, not definition.
Key Terms
Desiring to justify himself — self-righteous evasion.
Who is my neighbor — boundary-testing query.
But he — contrastive heart-revelation.
Conclusion
Luke 10:29 unveils lawyer’s dodge: self-justification queries neighbor limits, prompting parable’s expansive mercy.
Reflection
Do I justify selective love? Who needs my Samaritan mercy today?
Prayer
Lord Jesus, expose our self-justifications. Expand neighbor-love to all wounded on life’s road. Amen.
Luke 10:30 — “Jesus replied, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead.’”
Jesus launches the Good Samaritan parable with a traveler assaulted on the perilous Jerusalem-Jericho road: robbers strip, beat, and abandon him near death, setting crisis for neighbor-love’s test. This stark scene exposes human vulnerability, priming priest/Levite/Samaritan responses amid lawyer’s boundary question.
Luke unveils mercy’s drama: descending road symbolizes spiritual peril from holy city, where ritual purity confronts raw suffering demanding immediate charity.
Historical and Jewish Context
Jerusalem-Jericho descent (3,000 ft drop, 17 miles) was notorious bandit territory; “half dead” (hemithanē) blurs life/death status, paralyzing ritual purity concerns for priests (Lev 21:1). Half-dead ambiguity tests Torah’s corpse-defilement vs. life-preservation priorities.
Catholic Theological Perspective
Catholic moral theology centers here: works of mercy supersede ritual (CCC 2447, Mt 25:35-40). Victim’s anonymity universalizes need; parable incarnates neighbor-command, fulfilled in Eucharist’s self-emptying for dying humanity.
Spiritually, believers recognize roadside wounds: own brokenness demands receiving/ giving Samaritan mercy indiscriminately.
Key Terms
Going down from Jerusalem to Jericho — literal/spiritual descent.
Fell among robbers — sudden violence exposing fragility.
Half dead — ambiguous crisis demanding risk.
Conclusion
Luke 10:30 stages mercy test: roadside victim stripped/beaten tests neighbor boundaries beyond ethnic ritual limits.
Reflection
Where do I pass “half dead” brothers on my Jericho road? Does purity paralyze my mercy?
Prayer
Lord Jesus, Roadside Revealer, open our eyes to stripped sufferers. Grant priestly hearts Samaritan courage. Amen.
Luke 10:31 — “Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side.”
A priest encounters the roadside victim during his descent but crosses to the opposite side, bypassing mercy for presumed purity risk. This shocking inaction from Torah’s mediator exposes religious formalism’s failure when confronted with suffering’s ambiguity.
Luke indicts ritual priority over life: priest’s evasion—despite Deut 6:5’s love-command—contrasts lawyer’s orthodoxy, priming Samaritan subversion of ethnic expectations.
Historical and Jewish Context
Priests descending from Jerusalem Temple service faced corpse-defilement (Num 19:11-13), rendering “half dead” man untouchable for seven days. Road’s isolation amplified purity calculus over Lev 19:16’s “do not stand idly by blood.”
Catholic Theological Perspective
Catholic teaching condemns cultic legalism here: mercy trumps sacrifice (CCC 2447, Hos 6:6; Mt 12:7). Eucharist ministers must embody Samaritan risk, as Christ’s priesthood heals defiled sinners directly.
Spiritually, believers confess priestly paralysis: ritual excuses evade neighbor-love, demanding incarnational descent to wounds.
Key Terms
By chance — providential encounter testing heart.
Passed by on the other side — deliberate avoidance.
Priest — ironic religious failure exemplar.
Conclusion
Luke 10:31 exposes priestly evasion: purity calculus bypasses half-dead neighbor, subverting sacred office’s mercy mandate.
Reflection
Do my religious duties justify passing sufferers? What “purity” excuses my inaction?
Prayer
Lord Jesus, Great High Priest, forgive our roadside evasions. Teach us Samaritan descent over ritual distance. Amen.
Luke 10:32 — “So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.”
A Levite similarly encounters the victim, observes, and crosses to the opposite side, doubling religious evasion amid suffering’s call. This reinforces institutional failure: Temple functionaries prioritize ritual distance over life-preserving mercy, amplifying lawyer’s neighbor boundaries.
Luke compounds indictment: priestly/Levitical tandem bypass exposes cultic system’s compassion deficit, heightening Samaritan’s shocking intervention against ethnic prejudice.
Historical and Jewish Context
Levites assisted priests in Temple (Num 18:1-7), sharing corpse-impurity strictures; “came to the place” suggests deliberate inspection before calculated avoidance, fulfilling lawyer’s halakhic loophole while violating Deut 22:1-4’s lost-property rescue.
Catholic Theological Perspective
Catholic doctrine prioritizes corporal works of mercy over liturgical formalism (CCC 2447, Mt 23:23): Levite mirrors Pharisees’ tithing without justice. New Covenant priesthood demands Samaritan solidarity with afflicted.
Spiritually, believers reject clericalism: all baptized share merciful priesthood, compelled to touch the unclean.
Key Terms
So likewise — repeated religious failure pattern.
A Levite — secondary cultic official evasion.
Passed by on the other side — uniform institutional avoidance.
Conclusion
Luke 10:32 doubles religious dodge: Levite mirrors priestly bypass, exposing Temple system’s mercy-blindness.
Reflection
Do my “Levitical” duties excuse neighbor neglect? What institutional alibis paralyze my compassion?
Prayer
Lord Jesus, who condemned Levitical distance, purge religious evasion from us. Compel us to Samaritan embrace. Amen.
Luke 10:33 — “But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion.”
The Samaritan traveler discovers the victim, sees his plight, and feels visceral compassion, shattering ethnic/religious barriers with immediate mercy. This pivotal reversal—despised outsider as true neighbor—subverts lawyer’s prejudices, embodying love-command beyond tribal limits.
Luke unveils parable’s shock: post-priestly/Levitical failure, Samaritan’s gut-response (esplanchnisthē) fulfills Deut 10:19’s alien-love, modeling gospel catholicity.
Historical and Jewish Context
Samaritans, hybrid post-exile cult (2 Kings 17), faced Jewish contempt as heretics; border journey plausibly places him on road. Compassion echoes Hosea 6:6’s mercy over sacrifice, inverting purity hierarchies.
Catholic Theological Perspective
Catholic social doctrine crowns Samaritan as universal neighbor model (CCC 1931-1933): compassion transcends division, prefiguring Church’s outreach to marginalized. Eucharist forms hearts for such visceral mercy toward enemies.
Spiritually, believers cultivate Samaritan eyes: compassion compels action where religion recoils.
Key Terms
But a Samaritan — shocking ethnic reversal.
Had compassion — inward mercy impulse.
Came to where he was — providential encounter.
Conclusion
Luke 10:33 reveals true neighbor: Samaritan’s compassionate gaze succeeds religious bypass, launching mercy’s cascade.
Reflection
Whose “Samaritan” compassion do I disdain? Does my heart move at roadside suffering?
Prayer
Lord Jesus, Samaritan Lord, ignite compassion in us beyond prejudice. Grant us merciful journeys to the wounded. Amen.
Luke 10:34 — “He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him.”
The Samaritan acts decisively on compassion: approaches the victim, bandages wounds with oil and wine, loads him onto his donkey, delivers to an inn, and tends overnight. This comprehensive mercy—touching uncleanness, sacrificing time/resources—models neighbor-love’s costly concreteness beyond ritual evasion.
Luke details Samaritan praxis: oil/wine evoke healing balm and disinfection, fulfilling Isaiah 1:6’s wound-binding promise while inverting priestly distance through incarnational solidarity.
Historical and Jewish Context
Oil (soothing) and wine (antiseptic) were first-century remedies; inn (pandocheion) served pilgrims/caravans. Samaritan risks impurity/contact with possible corpse, embodying Lev 19:34’s “love alien as self” against ethnic taboo.
Catholic Theological Perspective
Catholic works of mercy incarnate here: bind wounds, shelter strangers (CCC 2447, Mt 25:35-36). Eucharist prefigures Samaritan table—wine/oil transubstantiated—nourishing Church’s healing mission to society’s discarded.
Spiritually, believers emulate tactile charity: approach, touch, sacrifice for roadside humanity.
Key Terms
Bound up his wounds — hands-on healing.
Oil and wine — practical remedies/symbols.
Set him on his own animal — personal sacrifice.
Took care of him — sustained attention.
Conclusion
Luke 10:34 embodies mercy’s cost: Samaritan’s wound-binding, transport, inn-care surpasses religious inaction with lavish charity.
Reflection
What wounds do I bind with my oil/wine? Am I willing to sacrifice my “donkey” for strangers?
Prayer
Lord Jesus, Wounded Healer, form us as Samaritans: binding, sacrificing, sustaining the roadside broken. Amen.
Luke 10:35 — “On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’”
The Samaritan sustains long-term mercy: next day, pays innkeeper two denarii (two days’ wages), entrusts victim care, and promises reimbursement for extras upon return. This forward-thinking generosity—financial sacrifice plus accountability—perfects neighbor-love’s extravagance beyond immediate aid.
Luke crowns Samaritan exemplar: economic risk and future commitment fulfill lawyer’s “as yourself” command, modeling covenant fidelity amid transient encounter.
Historical and Jewish Context
Two denarii equaled laborer’s daily wage (Mt 20:13); innkeeper (pandocheus) managed extended lodging. Samaritan’s blank-check pledge echoes Joseph’s provision (Gen 45), inverting priestly parsimony with prodigal charity.
Catholic Theological Perspective
Catholic social teaching lauds here subsidiarity and solidarity: empower caregivers while assuming costs (CCC 2443-2449, Rerum Novarum). Eucharist’s banquet prefigures inn’s table, where Christ reimburses Church’s mercy mission eternally.
Spiritually, believers commit future resources: love demands planning, reimbursement symbolizes eschatological reward.
Key Terms
Two denarii — substantial, sacrificial provision.
Take care of him — delegated ongoing mercy.
I will repay you — accountable extravagance.
Conclusion
Luke 10:35 completes Samaritan perfection: prepaid inn-care with reimbursement pledge embodies total neighbor-love.
Reflection
Do I budget mercy extravagantly? What future repayments seal my roadside commitments?
Prayer
Lord Jesus, Generous Samaritan, teach us costly entrustment. Fund our mercies through Your reimbursement promise. Amen.
Luke 10:36 — “Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?”
Jesus reverses the lawyer’s question, forcing self-confrontation: among priest, Levite, Samaritan—which proved neighbor through action? This interrogative pivot compels acknowledgment that mercy defines relationship, not ethnicity or status, fulfilling love-command via Samaritan exemplar.
Luke sharpens parable’s sting: post-extravagant mercy, Jesus demands verdict, exposing lawyer’s boundaries as mercy-blind while affirming praxis over theory.
Historical and Jewish Context
Rabbinic style of counter-question (cf. Hillel’s methods); “proved to be” (gegonen) emphasizes demonstrated character. Forces lawyer to affirm despised Samaritan, subverting Deut 23:6’s enmity toward such “aliens.”
Catholic Theological Perspective
Catholic moral theology extracts here: neighbor status earned through mercy received/given (CCC 1932, Gaudium et Spes 27). Eucharist forms reciprocal neighborliness—Christ first Samaritan to us—impelling indiscriminate charity.
Spiritually, believers answer daily: prove neighbor through wounds bound, not pedigrees claimed.
Key Terms
Which of these three — forced verdict among failures/success.
Proved to be a neighbor — action-defining relationality.
Do you think — personal conviction demand.
Conclusion
Luke 10:36 flips inquiry: Jesus compels lawyer to crown Samaritan neighbor, privileging mercy over ritual/ethnic limits.
Reflection
Who proves neighbor in my stories—ritualists or risk-takers? Do I let mercy redefine my boundaries?
Prayer
Lord Jesus, Questioner of hearts, make us Samaritan neighbors through merciful proof. Compel our verdicts to action. Amen.
Luke 10:37 — “He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘You go, and do likewise.’”
The lawyer concedes the Samaritan as true neighbor through mercy shown, prompting Jesus’ imperative: imitate this compassionate action yourself. This climactic commission transforms dialogue into mandate, universalizing Samaritan praxis as eternal life’s fulfillment beyond intellectual assent.
Luke concludes parable masterfully: self-justifying lawyer silenced by mercy’s verdict receives missionary call, embodying gospel’s “go and do” ethic fusing knowledge with charity.
Historical and Jewish Context
Lawyer’s evasive “the one” (ekeinos) avoids naming despised Samaritan, yet affirms action over ancestry. Jesus’ “go, do likewise” echoes rabbinic “go study” (Avot 2:5), elevated to mercy-imperative fulfilling Micah 6:8’s justice/mercy/walk humbly.
Catholic Theological Perspective
Catholic moral teaching distills here: imitate Christ-Samaritan through corporal/spiritual mercies (CCC 2447, Mt 25:31-46). “Go and do” commissions laity as mercy’s extension, sacraments empowering indiscriminate charity as judgment criterion.
Spiritually, believers receive daily dispatch: every roadside encounter demands Samaritan response, proving neighbor-love.
Key Terms
The one who showed him mercy — action-defining verdict.
You go, and do likewise — personal missionary imperative.
He said — reluctant Samaritan affirmation.
Conclusion
Luke 10:37 crowns Good Samaritan: lawyer crowns mercy-giver neighbor, Jesus commissions imitation—love’s praxis perfected.
Reflection
Am I “going and doing likewise” daily? Whose mercy do I imitate amid roadside needs?
Prayer
Lord Jesus, Mercy-Commander, propel us as Samaritans to every wounded stranger. Empower “go and do” charity in us. Amen.
CONCLUSION
For believers today, Luke 10:29–37 confronts us with a searching question: whom do we consider our neighbor? Jesus redefines neighborliness not by proximity, similarity, or obligation, but by mercy in action. This passage challenges comfortable boundaries and invites us to see every suffering person as someone entrusted to our care, regardless of difference or inconvenience.
The parable also reveals the heart of discipleship. Knowing the commandment is not enough; it must be lived. Jesus’ final instruction—“Go and do likewise”—calls us to an active faith that risks compassion. When we choose mercy over indifference, we participate in God’s healing work and reflect the love that Christ Himself shows to the wounded world.
PRAYER
Lord Jesus, You teach us that true love is shown through mercy in action. Open our eyes to see those who suffer along our path and soften our hearts to respond with compassion. Break down our prejudices and fears, and give us the courage to love without limits. May we go and do likewise, living the Gospel through deeds of mercy and love. Amen.