Luke continued his unique story. Jesus said that this Samaritan went to or approached this wounded man (καὶ προσελθὼν), instead of crossing over to the other side of the road. He bandaged his wounds (κατέδησεν τὰ τραύματα αὐτοῦ) and poured oil and wine on them (ἐπιχέων ἔλαιον καὶ οἶνον). Apparently, oil and wine were like medicine to heal the wounds. Then he put him on his own animal (ἐπιβιβάσας δὲ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον κτῆνος), either a horse or a mule. He then brought him to an inn (ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς πανδοχεῖον). This Samaritan really took care of this wounded man (καὶ ἐπεμελήθη αὐτοῦ). This underclass Samaritan stepped up. He helped the wounded half dead man by the wayside. He apparently was ready for this kind of thing, because he had bandages, oil, and wine with him. He even was traveling with an animal, probably a mule. There was no mention of any animal with the priest or the Levite. Thus, we have the famous saying about Good Samaritans, based on this story, someone unrelated, who shows up and helps a person in need. This Good Samaritan story has become part of our contemporary secular cultural language. Thus, this story has reached beyond a pure religious context. However, the assumptions are always that the helping person was motivated by a higher calling. Have you ever been a Good Samaritan?
Luke indicated that Jesus said that the hungry people now (οἱ πεινῶντες νῦν) would be blessed or happy (μακάριοι) and satisfied (ὅτι χορτασθήσεσθε), using the second person plural. This is somewhat equivalent to Matthew, chapter 5:6, perhaps indicating that these beatitudes may be from the Q source. There Matthew said the happy, blessed, and fortunate ones (μακάριοι) were those who hungered and thirsted for righteousness (οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην). They would not go away empty handed. They would be satisfied or filled (ὅτι αὐτοὶ χορτασθήσοντ). Isaiah, chapter 55:1-2 had an invitation to those without money to come to drink and eat. They could have water, wine, milk and bread. They would enjoy themselves at this banquet. Matthew may have been referencing Psalm 107:4-9, where Yahweh had helped a small group of lost Israelites who were hungry and thirsty, while wandering in the desert. He satisfied their thirst and filled their hunger with good food. Thus, they gave thanks to Yahweh. So too, those who hungered and thirsted for righteousness, the right way of doing things, would be satisfied or filled with this righteousness. However, here Luke was talking about real hunger for food that would be satisfied. Luke is more concrete, less spiritual. You are poor and hungry, plain and simple. You would be blessed, fortunate, happy, and satisfied.
This is similar to Matthew, chapter 26:58, and Luke, chapter 22:54-55, but Peter was there to warm himself and not see what was happening. In John, chapter 18:15-16, Peter was with another disciple, who helped him to get into the courtyard. Here Mark said that Peter had followed Jesus (καὶ ὁ Πέτρος… ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ), but at a distance (ἀπὸ μακρόθεν). Peter even went as far as right into the courtyard of the high priest (ἕως ἔσω εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως). Then he sat with the guards or servants of the high priest (καὶ ἦν συνκαθήμενος μετὰ τῶν ὑπηρετῶν). Instead of being there to see what was going to happen to Jesus, as Matthew indicated, Mark said that Peter was there to warm himself (καὶ θερμαινόμενος) at the fire (πρὸς τὸ φῶς) in the courtyard. Thus, Peter was careless in entering the courtyard and sitting with the servants and guards of the high priest, since this might be a problem for him.
This is unique to Mark, who said that Jesus took the boy by the hand (ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ). He lifted him up (ἤγειρεν αὐτόν) so that he rose up, able to stand up by himself (καὶ ἀνέστη). The boy was not dead. Jesus helped him to get to his feet.
This is similar to Mark, chapter 14:54, and Luke, chapter 22:54-55, but Peter was there to warm himself and not see what was happening. In John, chapter 18:15-16, Peter was with another disciple, who helped him to get into the courtyard. Here Matthew said that Peter had followed Jesus (ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ), but at a distance (ἀπὸ μακρόθεν). Peter even went as far as the courtyard of the high priest (ἕως τῆς αὐλῆς τοῦ ἀρχιερέως). Then he went inside the courtyard (καὶ εἰσελθὼν ἔσω) and sat with the guards or servants (ἐκάθητο μετὰ τῶν ὑπηρετῶν) of the high priest in order to see what was going to happen in the end (ἰδεῖν τὸ τέλος), since he was curious to see what was going to happen to Jesus. Yet at the same time, he was careless in entering the courtyard with the servants and guards of the high priest. This could be trouble for Peter.
This last judgment section is unique to Matthew. Jesus said that the king or the Son of Man would answer them (τότε ἀποκριθήσεται αὐτοῖς) with a solemn proclamation (λέγων Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν). They had not helped the least of these people or the small ones as he called them (ἐφ’ ὅσον οὐκ ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων). No longer is this just about family members or brothers, they were neglecting or not helping him (οὐδὲ ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε) these not important people. The weak or the lesser people were part of God’s family. Failure to treat them correctly was a failure to treat Jesus correctly.
Haggai used the same formula titles for all his oracles. Everyone was to have courage, including Governor Zerubbabel, the high priest Joshua, and all the people of the land. They were to get to work. Yahweh was going to be with them, just as he helped them to come out of Egypt. They were not to be afraid, because he had promised that his Holy Spirit would abide with them.
Yahweh was going to curse Ephraim. They had strayed from him. Thus, destruction was coming to them. They had rebelled against Yahweh. They had spoken lies about Yahweh. He would have helped them, but instead they lied.
The second time that King Antiochus IV attacked Egypt, he was not as successful as the first time. The ships of Kittim, or the ships of the Romans, came against him. Kittim was the name for Cyprus and thus applied to all western troops. Once again, on his way home, in 167 BCE, he attacked Jerusalem. This time, there was a clear explanation of what he did. He turned against the people of the covenant. He even helped those who had forsaken the covenant, taking sides in a dispute there as explained in 2 Maccabees, chapters 3 and 4. He occupied the Temple and the fortress citadel in Jerusalem. He even profaned the Temple by abolishing the regular burnt offerings. These invaders even set up abominations in the Temple to make it a desolation.
Once again, there is a reference to Darius the Mede, also mentioned in chapter 9. As far as we can tell, there was no such person. Somehow, he comes between the Babylonian King Belshazzar and the Persian Cyrus the Great. Perhaps, he was the first Persian general who entered Babylon after its fall in 539 BCE, but there are no indications of that. He appears to be a literary fiction, perhaps based on the later Persian King Darius I, the 3rd ruler after Cyrus, from 522-486 BCE, who acted very favorably towards the returning Jews to Jerusalem. This time it is the angel Gabriel referring to how he helped Darius the Mede in his first year as the ruler, by supporting and strengthening him.