IF this occurred, I cannot help but wonder if there is a quantum physics kind of explanation for how it happened. Like, was it a certain frequency their shouts hit that caused a response from the wall?

This must have been incredibly encouraging for those Jews who so feared death. To think that they could stand the chance of not experiencing death and be taken up for being faithful, this would definitely encourage more acts of faithfulness.

I feel like Jesus is comforting her in a way. The importance that was placed on the proper location, I imagine, was overwhelming for an outsider like this Samaritan woman. To have hope that one day this won't be an issue must have been encouraging. I can't help but think that hope caused her to rethink how God feels about her, and maybe softened her heart against the Jews who may have been unkind to her at times.

This appears to show that Jesus had some respect for the political nature of religiosity. Sometimes, it is more simple to avoid confrontation maybe? I think this is wisdom.

I like the idea that when Jesus was at his spiritually strongest, this even occurred. To be challenged and prove himself to himself was clearly life transforming.

I appreciate Jesus' response. I believe that the devil is a personification of our egoic desire to survive, and this is a reminder of how intimidating that voice can be.

Yeah, I would have been really embarrassed if I were Peter. This statement, that Jesus made it to Peter while allegedly looking at his disciples...ouch. This was a lesson for each of them. Peter, it seems needed a "pull up" in that manner as it seems that his personality type with what appears to be its intensity, required this level of sternness.

This reminds me of Acts 20 -21 when, after Paul was discouraged to go to Jerusalem, he went anyway and the apostles allowed him to be apprehended by zealous Jews who sought to kill him had he not been rescued through Roman arrest. It makes me sad that the apostles would allow that to happen to Paul, but given their different theological positions along with the influence that Paul was starting to have with the people, it makes sense.

I love this ~ I believe this means to behave in such a manner that people see the evidence of the turning away from the path of shortcomings.

I understand this to mean a public commitment to turn away from one's own shortcomings.

I cannot help but wonder if this was inserted later by someone with imperial sympathies. I just don't think it gets much more manipulative than this.

This is like an oxymoron ~ this makes me think that the writer is painting a picture as though there is a cosmic drama unfolding and he has the interpretation of the narrative.

LOVE his heart! Having so many churches spread out and being concerned about their welfare as well as having to deal with knowing that he would have to wait some amount of time to find out about any struggles because I'm sure correspondence took some time to arrive. Long sentence... I can only imagine how hard he prayed about each church's well-being because he was a father to them.

Paul seems to be freeing the audience from the concern over whether or not to follow the law as they understood it. This must have reassured them that in whatever state they were in, they were just fine. I would imagine that some who tended to be more legalistic would really have a hard time with the idea of whether or not to become circumcised. I like that this was explicitly stated.

I love Paul's pastoral heart ~ ensuring that he covers his bases. Grief can be a mighty force that causes some to give up/be overtaken for some time. His encouragement of their hearts in this practical manner is endearing to me,

I appreciate how Paul indicates his post-resurrection encounter with Jesus. This was endearing to him and certainly held him together after he was rejected by the disciples in Jerusalem in Acts 21.

The oppression and affliction came from the hands of the Roman occupiers and would serve as a tell-tell sign of what the Jews understood as the Messianic figure who would become their new leader. I think that the "being led to the slaughter" was indicative of his kind of death. This narrative would be appealing to early Christians because under Roman authority, they were suffering persecution and often death because of accusations that were far from true. To believe that their leader experienced the same suffering and was able to empathized with them, not only inspired hope, but the willingness to suffer likewise.