Setting: Peraean ministry. A lawyer (Greek νομικός nomikos, Torah-expert) tests Jesus with "what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus turns it back to him: "what is written in the Torah?" Lawyer cites the Great Commandment (Deuteronomy 6:5 + Leviticus 19:18). Jesus: "you have answered right." Lawyer presses: "Who is my neighbor?", and Jesus tells the parable. Citation: Luke 10:25-37
The parable itself (Luke 10:30-35)
A man traveling Jerusalem → Jericho is robbed, beaten, left half-dead. A priest passes by on the other side. A Levite likewise. A Samaritan stops, treats wounds (oil + wine), transports on his own animal, takes to an inn, pays two denarii + promises balance on return.
Jesus's payoff (Luke 10:36-37)
Jesus turns the lawyer's question around: not "who is my neighbor?" but "which proved to be neighbor?" The lawyer answers: "the one who showed mercy on him." Jesus: "Go and do likewise."
Historical context that gives the parable its bite
Samaritans were despised by 1st-c. Jews. The schism dated to the Assyrian deportation of Northern Israel (722 BCE) and the resettlement of Samaria with mixed populations. Religious differences hardened after the post-exilic period: Samaritans built a rival temple at Mount Gerizim (John 4:20-21), kept only the Pentateuch (rejecting Prophets + Writings), and held disputed-ethnic-status with Jews. By Jesus's day mutual hostility was deep, Jews shortcut around Samaria via the Jordan Valley rather than walk through; "Samaritan" was a slur (John 8:48).
Jericho road context. The 17-mile Jerusalem-to-Jericho road descended 3,300 feet through wilderness, known historically as bandit-infested ("the Bloody Way").
Priest + Levite refusal isn't mere indifference. The two avoid the wounded man to avoid ritual impurity (touching a corpse-or-near-corpse would disqualify them from temple duty per Numbers 19:11-13; Leviticus 21:1-4). The parable's punch: ritual purity is a category their compassion sacrificed. The half-pagan Samaritan, free of those categories, acts as the neighbor.
Theological framing (multiple views)
One-main-point reading (Jülicher, Jeremias, mainstream modern), the parable's primary thrust is the lawyer's question reframed: who acts as a neighbor? Answer: anyone whose need you can meet, regardless of ethnic/religious boundary. Application: love-of-neighbor extends across the deepest social boundaries.
Christological allegorical reading (Augustine, Origen, much of patristic), the wounded man = humanity (or Adam, fallen); priest + Levite = Torah/Law cannot save; Samaritan = Christ; oil + wine = sacraments (or Spirit + blood); inn = Church; two denarii = Old + New Testaments (or baptism + eucharist); promise to return = Second Coming. The reading is recorded here as a historic one; most modern interpretation treats it as importing meaning not in the text but recognizes its devotional fruitfulness.
Practical-ethics reading, emphasizes the action-imperative ("Go and do likewise"). The parable + lawyer-dialogue together teach that "doing the law" means concrete mercy-action, not just doctrinal-affirmation of the Great Commandment.
Anti-religious-establishment reading, emphasizes the priest + Levite's failure as critique of 1st-c. Jewish religious system; the Samaritan as the unlikely hero. Applied today as critique of insider-religion's failure of mercy.
The "go and do likewise" application
The lawyer's original question was about eternal life; the parable's answer reframes "neighbor" but leaves the eternal-life question implicit. The mainstream reading: love-of-God + love-of-neighbor is the path to eternal life (cf. lawyer's own answer); the parable shows what love-of-neighbor concretely looks like. This raises a soteriological question (justification by faith vs. works?) that the parable doesn't resolve, different traditions weight it differently.