Editing Parable of the Good Samaritan (section)

===Ethical reading===
[[File:Balthasar van Cortbemde - The Good Samaritan.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|''Parable of the Good Samaritan'' by [[Balthasar van Cortbemde]] (1647) shows the Good Samaritan tending the injured man while the Levite and priest are also shown in the distance.]]
[[John Calvin]] was not impressed by [[Origen]]'s allegorical reading:

{{blockquote|The allegory which is here contrived by the advocates of [[free will]] is too absurd to deserve refutation. According to them, under the figure of a wounded man is described the condition of Adam after the fall; from which they infer that the power of acting well was not wholly extinguished in him; because he is said to be only half-dead. As if it had been the design of Christ, in this passage, to speak of the corruption of human nature, and to inquire whether the wound which Satan inflicted on Adam were deadly or curable; nay, as if he had not plainly, and without a figure, declared in another passage, that all are dead, but those whom he quickens by his voice (John 5:25).<ref>{{bibleverse|John|5:25}}</ref> As little plausibility belongs to another allegory, which, however, has been so highly satisfactory, that it has been admitted by almost universal consent, as if it had been a revelation from heaven. This Samaritan they imagine to be Christ, because he is our guardian; and they tell us that wine was poured, along with oil, into the wound, because Christ cures us by repentance and by a promise of grace. They have contrived a third subtlety, that Christ does not immediately restore health, but sends us to the Church, as an innkeeper, to be gradually cured. I acknowledge that I have no liking for any of these interpretations; but we ought to have a deeper reverence for Scripture than to reckon ourselves at liberty to disguise its natural meaning. And, indeed, any one may see that the curiosity of certain men has led them to contrive these speculations, contrary to the intention of Christ.|source={{harvnb|Calvin|1845|p=54}} }}

The meaning of the parable for Calvin was, instead, that "compassion, which an enemy showed to a Jew, demonstrates that the guidance and teaching of nature are sufficient to show that man was created for the sake of man. Hence it is inferred that there is a mutual obligation between all men."{{sfn|Calvin|1845|p=54}} In other writings, Calvin pointed out that people are not born merely for themselves, but rather "mankind is knit together with a holy knot{{nbsp}}[...] we must not live for ourselves, but for our neighbors."{{sfn|Calvin|1844|p=531}} Earlier, [[Cyril of Alexandria]] had written that "a crown of love is being twined for him who loves his neighbour."{{sfn|Cyril of Alexandria|1859|p=311|loc=Sermon 68}}

[[Francis Schaeffer]] suggested: "Christians are not to love their believing brothers to the exclusion of their non-believing fellowmen. That is ugly. We are to have the example of the good Samaritan consciously in mind at all times."{{sfn|Schaeffer|2006|p=}}

Other modern theologians have taken similar positions. For example, [[G. B. Caird]] wrote:
{{blockquote|[[C. H. Dodd|Dodd]] quotes as a cautionary example [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]]'s allegorisation of the Good Samaritan, in which the man is Adam, Jerusalem the heavenly city, Jericho the moon – the symbol of immortality; the thieves are the devil and his angels, who strip the man of immortality by persuading him to sin and so leave him (spiritually) half dead; the priest and Levite represent the Old Testament, the Samaritan Christ, the beast his flesh which he assumed at the Incarnation; the inn is the church and the innkeeper the apostle Paul. Most modern readers would agree with Dodd that this farrago bears no relationship to the real meaning of the parable.|source={{harvnb|Caird|1980|p=165}} }}

[[Joel B. Green]] writes that Jesus' final question (which, in something of a "twist",{{sfn|Barton|Muddiman|2001|p=942}} reverses the question originally asked):

{{blockquote|[The question] presupposes the identification of "anyone" as a neighbor, then presses the point that such an identification opens wide the door of loving action. By leaving aside the identity of the wounded man and by portraying the Samaritan traveler as one who performs the law (and so as one whose actions are consistent with an orientation to eternal life), Jesus has nullified the worldview that gives rise to such questions as, Who is my neighbor? The purity-holiness matrix has been capsized. And, not surprisingly in the Third Gospel, neighborly love has been concretized in care for one who is, in this parable, self-evidently a social outcast|source={{harvnb|Green|1997|p=432}}}}

Such a reading of the parable makes it important in [[liberation theology]],{{sfn|Hays|2010|p=21}} where it provides a concrete anchoring for love{{sfn|Rowland|2007|p=43}} and indicates an "all embracing reach of solidarity."{{sfn|Carroll|1987|p=57}} In Indian [[Dalit theology]], it is seen as providing a "life-giving message to the marginalized Dalits and a challenging message to the non-Dalits."{{sfn|Gnanavaram|1993|pp=59–83}}

[[Martin Luther King Jr.]] often spoke of this parable, contrasting the rapacious philosophy of the robbers, and the self-preserving non-involvement of the priest and Levite, with the Samaritan's coming to the aid of the man in need.{{sfn|Branch|2007|p=302}} King also extended the call for neighborly assistance to society at large:

{{blockquote|On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.|source=[[Martin Luther King Jr.]], "A Time to Break the Silence", quoted in {{harvnb|Hicks|Valeri|2008|p=31}} }}