Conference yukon::christian_v7

 
Mark 7:24-30 
 
"The Syrophoenician Woman's Faith" 
 
    "From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre.  He entered
    a house and did not want anyone  to know he was there.  Yet he could
    not excape notice, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean 
    spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his
    feet.  Now the woman was a  Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin.She
    begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter.  He said to her, 
    "let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the
    children's food and throw it to the dogs."  But she  answered him,
    "Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."  Then
    he said to her, "For  saying that, you may go-the demon has left your
    daugher.:  So she went home, found the child lying on  the bed and the
    demon gone. "
 
Matthew 15:21-28 
 
"The Canaanite Woman's Faith" 
 
    "Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 
    Just then a Canaanite woman from  that region came out and started
    shouting, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is 
    tormented by a demon."  But he did not answer her at all.  And his
    disciples came and urged him saying,  "Send her away, for she keeps
    shouting after us."  He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of
    the  house of Israel"  But she came and knelt before him saying, "Lord,
    help me"  He answered, "It is not fair  to take the children's food and
    throw it to the dogs."  She said, "yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the 
    crumbs that fall from their masters' table.  Then Jesus answered her,
    "Woman, great is your faith!  Let it  be done for you as you wish.  And
    her daughter was healed instantly."  
    
     (end scripture) 
 
 
    These passages are two passages that intrigue me.  I inserted the
    passage from Mark first and then   the Passage from Matthew based on my
    agreement with the many scholars that  Mark was written first  and
    available along with a collection of sayings called "Q" to the writer 
    of the Gospel of Matthew. 
 
    Two things intrigue me about this passage. 
 
    First of all it is the only instance in the Bible that I recall when
    someone successfully morally challenges  Jesus. 
 
    The woman asks for help.  Jesus says no, calling her a "dog" because
    she is not from the house  of Israel, The women offers a perfect
    retorts "Even Dogs get to eat the scraps from the children's table."  
    Jesus changes his mind and helps her. 
 
    Second, it shows the fallibility of Jesus.  Jesus is tired and weary
    and responds to a woman asking for  help with an insult.  "I
    can't help you.  You are a dog.  I came to help the lost sheep of the
    house of  Israel."  The woman's response out of faith caused Jesus to
    respond from his more powerful self. 
 
    As a woman, I find this passage wonderfully  powerful for many reasons. 
    The hero of the passage truly is  the woman.  She is strong, determined
    and powerful.  Even Jesus responded to her Faith and her sense of 
    moral justice. 
 
    I also find this passage inspiring in  its description of a very real,
    human Jesus.  Jesus for me saves by  being a role model.  Jesus portrays
    the power of a human life lived in obedience to the will of  the
    divine.  Some people need Jesus to be infallible to portray Divinity.  I
    need Jesus to be fully human to  potray how a human life can respond to
    Divinity.  In the Epistles, Paul describes Christ  as the "first fruit" 
    By adoption each one of us can become like Christ, a son or daughter of
    the Divine.   Jesus, in his life lived shows us how. 
 
    This passage shows that the Divine is present in each one of us, and
    the divine spark in the  Syrophoenician Woman, was even able to inspire
    Jesus to his more powerful self. 
 
 
                                        Patricia  

    >Second, it shows the fallibility of Jesus.  Jesus is tired and weary
    >and responds to a woman asking for  help with an insult.  "I
    >can't help you.  You are a dog.  I came to help the lost sheep of the
    >house of  Israel."  The woman's response out of faith caused Jesus to
    >respond from his more powerful self. 
    
    Was Jesus responding from His own preconceptions, or was He trying to
    teach His disciples (and others) something about the character of God. 
    I believe He was trying to show that God loves all people.  He loves us
    whether we are male or female, black or white, Jew or gentile.  The
    bible says that Jesus was without sin.
    
    In Christ,
    
    Bing
    

Interesting and unorthodox interpretation of Jesus' motives and dealings.

Do you also think Abraham changed God's mind about the number of righteous 
people He would use to spare Sodom and Gamorrah?

Mark

    Yes, I do thinkg that Abraham changed God's mind.
    
    God for me is "Creative/Responsive Love"
    
    I understand how Platonic philosophy merged with Christianity to get a
    doctrine of God as the "Unmoved Mover".  I do not agree with that
    classical Greek theology of God. 
    
    The Bible shows many instances where God is responsive to humanities
    questions, sufferings, and in this case, assuming we see Jesus as God,
    to changing his mind based on Human questioning.  Tom, your example of
    Abraham is another example.
    
                                 Patricia

>    Yes, I do think that Abraham changed God's mind.

It sounded as if you might think so.

>    God for me is "Creative/Responsive Love"

God is God no matter how we perceive Him.  God responded "I AM that I AM"
because there is no comparison.  I AM unique; there is no other.

>    The Bible shows many instances where God is responsive to humanities
>    questions, sufferings, and in this case, assuming we see Jesus as God,
>    to changing his mind based on Human questioning.  Tom, your example of
>    Abraham is another example.

If we understand God to be Omniscient, then how is God surprised by 
what we will say or do?  This "responsiveness" is seen from the child's
eyes and not from the eyes of the Parent.  If you are a parent, you may
recognise times where you have led your children into revelations, about
yourself, or about themselves.  Then you can glimpse a bit of seeing through
God's eyes in these "instances of [seeming] responsiveness to humanity."

By the way, God's interaction with Abraham was to reveal and demonstrate
God's justice and righteousness in pronouncing judgment on Sodom and
Gamorrah.  By wiping out the cities without this interaction, Abraham
(through the child's eyes) might think God was a monster, wiping out
the righteous with the unrighteous.  God demonstrated that He would
not do this, but because Sodom became so wicked, it demanded a righteous
judgement on the city.

Mark

    God is omniscent in that he knows all  that he can know.
    
    God gave to humanity true human freedom.  True human freedom means that
    the outcome of the human decision cannot be known until the decision is
    made. 
    
    God is responsive to humanities freedom of action.
    
    To say that God knows what has not been yet decided is to say that God
    can create a rock to heavy for him to pick up!
    
                                        Patricia

    re: .6
    
    That is not scriptural.  Scripture states clearly that God's ways are
    not our ways, that He is outside of our linear time, and that he is not
    confined to our reality.
    
    There are certainly things that to us, seem to contradict each other. 
    For instance, predestination and free will.  In our limited logic,
    these two cannot coexist, yet they do according to the Bible.  Is God a
    liar, or are there some things that our logic simply cannot explain and
    must be taken on faith?
    
    To try and limit God via our limited logic (like 'God creating
    something even He can't move') is not in our best interest.  Some
    things we cannot understand due to our limited concept of "reality".
    
    
    -steve 

    And Jesus also says, that unless we are like little children we will
    never inherit the kingdom of heaven!
    
    We can read the story of the Syrophoenician Women in its simplicity. 
    We don't need to make up duplicity or anything else.
    
    Jesus was weary and tired and he responded out of his weariness.  The
    women reminded him of her value even as a non Jew.  He recognized her
    great faith even as a non Jew and responded to that faith.
    
    The story is a lot more simple without all the Platonic Philosophy
    anchored to it.

Use concentric rings of context, Patricia.

>    The story is a lot more simple without all the Platonic Philosophy
>    anchored to it.

Focusing on a pixel on your screen might cause you to think
the whole screen is one color.

Mark

Hello Patricia!  Thanks for the your thoughts here.  My perception is 
rather different, so I hope you don't mind an alternative view!
[ in the time it took me to enter,  I see there's been a bunch more entries 
- so here's another ;-]

The relative ordering of the gospels, I don't see as an important issue,
though I understood that recent scholarship (last few years) had moved to
put Mark as a later record.  You prefer to stay with the earlier view of 
this.  ok with me!

The more significant aspect is the meaning of the texts considered.  I
thought we had looked at these in this conference not so very long ago.
Ah!  I located the discussion in 469.*.  It is also refered to in 559.10, 
which discusses only the lady's nationality.  As the relevant point, I'm
pulling in a part of my reply from 469.5. 

	=======================================================

Do you see how the woman addressed Jesus - from Matthew 15:22?  She called 
him "Son of David".  A specifically Jewish title.  She was not a Jew, and 
was effectively saying :
	"As You are *their* holy person, will you do something for me?
	 - can your power extend beyond the borders of Judaism?"

Now if Jesus was an ordinary man, whose primary mission on earth was, say, 
just to help individuals living around him to have an easier life, this
wouldn't have mattered.  He could have said : 
	"Sure!  Consider it done!" 
		- and it would have been done!

However, Jesus wanted to draw a greater faith out from her, to realise that
He could be *her* Lord.  The 'worship' evoked in verse 25 isn't to gratify
delusions of grandeur (Hey, how *could* God have that - He already *is* the
ultimate... ;-) - the worship is so that she can receive the greater
blessing.  No - the GREATEST blessing.  Jesus cared enough for her to spend
that little time with her to give, not just a temporal / physical blessing,
but - to give a glimpse of what He really came for - the ultimate way to
the glory of God.... 

	=======================================================

Now to your points :

�    First of all it is the only instance in the Bible that I recall when
�    someone successfully morally challenges Jesus. 

I rather see this as a challenge that she rose to, and passed with flying 
colours.  As He saw she could (John 2:25 "...He knew what was in a man"

�    The woman asks for help.  Jesus says no, 

Can you point to where Jesus explicitly says initially that He will not 
help her?  He tells her His priority, and she accepts this and still 
requests His blessing.

I think that Jesus was as delighted with this womans response as He was 
with the centurion of Matthew 8:5-10.

� Even Jesus responded to her Faith and her sense of moral justice. 
To her faith, certainly.... !

� Jesus for me saves by being a role model.  

This is not the way the Bible indicates how Jesus saves.  But perhaps we 
have a different understanding of 'being saved'.  'Saving' is generally
'from' something.  In this case the wrath of God (eg Romans 5:8-9, where we 
are told that Jesus Christ died to save us from God's wrath, while we were 
still sinners).  This salvation is from a 'wrath', into eternal life.  ie, 
it has a dimension and perfection which takes us into God's presence for
eternity.  Such a change doesn't need just a role model, but a radical
change of nature.  More than that; it needs total erasure of an 
imperfection built into our very nature.  That goes beyond us following an 
example.  In fact, it takes it way out of our reach.  But it doesn't take 
it our of God's reach.  That's why Christianity has no good news if Jesus 
isn't God as well as man.  It had to be God, to achieve such a feat on our 
behalf.  It had to be Man to stand in our place fully and take our guilt.
Jesus was both, and did both.

� Some people need Jesus to be infallible to portray Divinity.

Exactly.  I neither accept nor worship a fallible god.  The evidence of 
creation (for a start) tells me that the One Who conceived and made this 
environment was loving, glorious, pure and holy beyond mortal imagination.

� This passage shows that the Divine is present in each one of us

Now there, I have to pick a bone ;-)  Where does the passage say that?
I know that your interpretation would find it in the syrophoenician woman,
but even if I accepted that (which I don't ;-), there is no implication 
that it extrapolates to all mankind. 

However, there is a sense in which I would say that the Divine is present 
in us.  That is in the image in which we are created.  Each of us is made 
in the image of God, as is clear from Genesis 1:26,:27, 9:6, James 3:9
We have been given that image, and we have the responsibility of using that 
image with honour, to honour Him.

�    To say that God knows what has not been yet decided is to say that God
�    can create a rock to heavy for him to pick up!

That one has been discussed at length before too...  But who defines what
has or has not been decided?  Matthew 24:36 indicates that God the Father
knows the precise timing of the end of the world; knowledge which Jesus set
aside when He came to earth.  Ephesians 1:4 tells us that God chose us to
be saved before the creation of the world.  What is left undecided?  If
anyone wants to pursue this one, I'll look up the relevant note number
again, but I really think it was hammered out rather thoroughly ;-) 


					God bless
							Andrew

    how do you know Jesus wasn't testing her so that she would step out in
    faith?

    I think I will focus on Jesus' simple message to love God with all
    one's heart, soul, and mind, and to love one's neighbor as oneself.
    
    A pixel, perhaps even well worth focusing on!
    

More on the Pharisees.  (Cf. 45.46)  Jesus used His most strong language 
against the  Pharisees because of all people they knew the Scriptures and deliberately
attempted to hinder the coming of God's kingdom.  Thouhg not a Pharisee,
Herod epitomizes this attitude by searching the Scriptures to ascertain
where and when the Promised Child was to be born and plotted to kill the
child in a vain attempt to secure his throne.

This is not ignorance, but cunning.  Jesus had patience with ignorance.
He spoke with Nicodemus who came to ask Jesus questions.  In another note,
we are talking about exchanges between God and humanity where God asks
questions as if He doesn't know the answer, but any good teacher knows that
the best learned knowledge is discovered through revelation rather than
by dictum or lecture.  And teachers often employ a method of asking
questions - even when they are tired (as if this would catch someone
off guard; yes, Jesus got tired, but it didn't change His Godhood or
His ability to teach in this manner).

Jesus employed this method with the woman at the well.  And He was tired
and thirsty at the time.  It drew the person into the discussion and 
revelation and it also taught the disciples as it teaches us to this
day through its demonstration.

The Syrophoenician woman (705.*) who was healed because of her faithand
Jesus was demonstrating that by this, it doesn't matter if you are a
Jew or a Gentile, EVEN THOUGH Jesus came to the world through Israel.
The essential element is faith.

Mark

    Andrew,
    
    Thanks for your response.  Although we have a lot of disagreements in
    our theologies, it is a pleasure reading your note.  I'm sure we can 
    discuss some of differences you raise as time goes on and in other
    notes.  
    
    How Jesus saves is a good one.
    
    All
    
    Although we disagree on some of the interpretation of the story, isn't
    it a wonderful story.
    
                                          Patricia

    Andrew,
    
    the incarnation of the divine in each of us is another one that I will
    have to do some research on.
    
                                        Patricia

>    I think I will focus on Jesus' simple message to love God with all
>    one's heart, soul, and mind, and to love one's neighbor as oneself.
>    
>    A pixel, perhaps even well worth focusing on!
 
This verse isn't a pixel, Patricia.  Jesus said that on this the whole
of the law and prophets hinged.  It is an all-encompassing endeavor.
And remember that "God is a rewarder of those who *diligently* seek
Him."  We have to seek God and know who He is to love him with all
of our heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Mark   

Other women in the Bible:

Eve
Sarah
Ruth
Naomi
Esther
Jael
Michal
Dinah
Bathsheba
Jezebel
Mary (Jesus' mother)
Mary Magdalene
Priscilla
Woman at the well
Rahab
Mary (Martha's Sister)
Martha (Mary's Sister)
Woman caught in adultery
Salome
Delilah
Rachel
Leah
Rebecca

This is from memory.  What is shows to me is that there are good, bad, and
ugly on boths sides of the gender gap.  I hope we can look at each of these
people in the light that Scripture casts them.  In other words, let's
endeavor to cast off the filters.

Mark

>    How about some other great women in the Bible and their significant

Notes clash, Mike.  :-)

>    Jesus shows the Old Covenant is invalid by deliberately
>    talking to her.

I would not use the word "invalid" because Jesus never invalidates the
old covenant, but shows that the old covenant is a shadow of the 
reality to come.  When Jesus came, he fulfilled the law and never
negated (or invalidated) it.  Instead, he supercharged the law by 
writing the law on our hearts instead of on tablets of stone and scrolls
of paper.

Mark

    Maybe "invalid" is a poor choice of words.  Hebrews 8:13 says the Law
    is "obsolete."
    
    Mike

Mike, I wouldn't use "obsolete" either.  How about unfulfilled?

Patricia,  I have a problem with some of 3, 4, some of 5, 6, 7, and some of 8.
But I don't have a problem with you.

Mark

    re: .14
    
    Yes, I agree with you here.  It is a wonderful story.
    
    -steve

Interesting note, but its late & I'm hungry and I want to go home, so
I've jotted the note number down for another time when I 've got more
time.

Leslie

		 
    The Anointing at Bethany
 
    Mark 14:3-9
 
    "While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at
    the table, a woman came with an  alabaster jar of very costly ointment
    of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his 
    head.  But some were there who said to one another in anger, "Why was
    the ointment wasted in this way?  For this ointment could have been
    sold for more  than three hundred denarii, and the money given to the
    poor.�  And they scolded her.  But Jesus said, "Let  her alone;  why do
    you trouble her?  She has per formed a good service for me.  For you
    always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them 
    whenever you wish;  but you will not always have me.  She has done what
    she could; She has anointed my  body beforehand for its burial.  Truly
    I tell  you , whenever the good news is proclaimed in the whole world,
    what she has done will be told in  remembrance of her."
 
 
    In remmbrance of the women, without a name!
 
    Perhaps the first disciple to truly understand the Messianic secret. 
    First to annoint Jesus as the messiah,  and first of the disciples to
    fully understand how Jesus had redefined what it means to be a messiah.   
    The annointing of the Messiah was the annointing for his burial.  The
    Messiah comes to  serve and pursuade, rather than to lead and to
    coherce.
 
 
    Patricia 

I haven't caught up on the preceding entries to this note - being in a
different time zone, etc...  But I do find the event referred to in 705.43
particularly interesting.  

� The Messiah comes to serve and persuade, rather than to lead and to coerce.
This I do agree with as a wonderful revelation of Who Jesus was, though I
would probably use 'drive' rather than 'lead', and would prefer to use
attract, rather than persuade, though even that doesn't have quite the
force I want either.  Drawing through an irresistable love, where only the
utterly selfish and stony hearted can resist the irresistable...  'Entice' 
nearly gets it, but has bad overtones which are inappropriate.

This is also recorded in Matthew 26:2-16, and in John 12:1-8.  This last
passage shows that the house of 'Simon the Leper' was also where Jesus'
particular friends, Martha, Mary and Lazarus lived, and the dinner was
given in honour of Jesus - the implication is that it was in recognition of
the raising of the brother, Lazarus from the dead, as recorded in John 11. 
In John 12:3, it indicates that Mary was the one who performed this
memorable act.  My assumption is that on this occasion both head and feet
were anointed, Matthew and Mark focussing on the head being anointed, and
John on the feet being anointed, in accordance with the specific emphases
of these gospels. 

The focus on this being the home of Martha, Mary and Lazarus is natural, in 
that they have been mentioned before, when Jesus visited their house.   
However it would appear that the master of the house (presumably their 
father) was 'Simon the Leper'.  If he were still a leper, he would not be 
permitted to mix in society, and the house would probably be known 
exclusively as the dwelling of Martha, Mary and Lazarus.  I only know of 
one person around at that time who was able to bring the outcast leper back 
into the heart of his family, and of society in general.  My own
opinion is that this family had at least two very big personal reasons to 
welcome Jesus into their home, though presumably the raising of Lazarus, as 
the recent event, was that being honoured on this occasion.


In contrast is the event in Luke 7:36-50, where a similar anointing occurs, 
but in the house of Simon the Pharisee, someone who most certainly did not 
worship the LORD Jesus, but rested his pride in his own supposed 
righteousness, reflected physically in his worldly wealth.  He thought 
himself worth more at any valuation than the woman who did this anointing - 
she had a deservedly bad reputation.  On this occasion, Jesus told a 
parable which thinly veiled their positions - demonstrating that the woman's 
action was evidence of a very real repentance, acceptable to God, and 
brought her into forgiveness of sin, while the self-righteous pharisee, 
who apparently had not even realised his need for forgiveness, could not 
be bothered to show common courtesy to One he considered beneath him (in 
that he did not arrange for Jesus' feet to be washed on entry).

There is another 'Simon' loosely associated with the anointing recorded in 
Matthew, Mark and John.  The abundant generosity of the love poured out by 
Mary triggered revulsion in the heart of someone who was to play a key part 
on the events of the next week.  This was Judas, the son of (another) Simon.

Imagine what it must have been like to have lived at the time of Jesus, and 
around the same district.... The impossible, half heard rumours, the 
outlandish claims; then the glimpse of of a well body previously *known* to 
be impossibly crippled.  Who wouldn't put their business on hold, to go and 
find out more?  Then - to drink in His words, watch in amazement as He 
repaired broken bodies, opened sealed eyes, remade lives wasted from sin, 
banished demons....  But so much more than that - the integrity of
character that led the lowest of the low, the vulgar, unclean, rejected, to
come to Him and see their foulness shrivel away in the conviction of His
presence, without tainting what He was...  The sort of thing for which we 
hunger and thirst, yet are toally unable to even start to do for ourselves. 
 And He has made it available to us all through his death....

						Thank You LORD....

    Earlier notes in this string have been moved to a new topic, 708, 
    on Patriarchy, which they were moved to discuss.

							Andrew
							co-mod

    
    
    A Woman Healed
    
    (Mark 5:21-34)
 
    When Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great
    crowd gathered around him: and he was by the sea.  Then one of the
    leaders of the synagogue named Jairus came and when he saw him, fell at
    his feet and begged him repeatedly, "My l ittle daughter is at the
    point of death.  Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be
    made well, and live."  So he went with him.
 
    And a large crowd followed him and pressed in on him.  Now there was a
    woman who had been suffering from hemorrhages sfor twelve years.  She
    had endured much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had;
    and she was no better, but rather g rew worse.  She had heard about
    Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, for
    she said, "If I but touch his clothes, I will be made well.: 
    Immediately her hemorrhage stopped; and she felt in her body that she
    was healed of her di sease.  Immediately aware that power had gone
    forth from him Jesus turned about in the crowd and said, "Who touched
    my clothes?"  And his disciples said to him, "You see the crowd
    pressing in on you; how can you say,  "Who touched me?'"  He looked all
    a round to see who had done it.  But the woman, knowing what had
    happened to her, came in fear and trembling, fell down before him and
    told him the whole truth.  He said to her,  "Daugher, your faith has
    made you well; go in peace and be healed of your disease."
 
    
    End Scripture
 
    Yes,  Jesus was truly a radical Feminist.  He came and redefined all
    the traditional rules even those rules that made women somehow less
    than men.
 
    According to ritual Purity laws, women were considered unclean at the
    time of menstruation and  after childbirth.  Men were also considered
    unclean after having sex with women.  It was forbidden to touch a woman
    during her times of impurity.
 
    Hemorhaging for twelve years, this woman was an outcast.  perpetually
    unclean.  Jesus has no concern whatsoever that this woman by touching
    him in her time of impurity had violated one of the cultural taboos of
    womanhood.  What was evident to Jesus was this woman's tremendous
    faith.
 
    "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of
    your disease."
 
    These are words of inspiration from Jesus of Nazareth which each of us
    can hold with us, now and always.
 
    "Daughter, your faith has made you well!"
    
    
                                             Patricia

 Jesus a radical feminist?





 Jim

Hi Patricia,

Good note.  Jesus certainly cut across all the taboos which made one class 
of person out to be superior to another.  He touched lepers and made them 
whole; the pharisees looked down on Him because He associated with
collaborators with the enemy (tax collectors for the Roman occupation), and
prostitutes. 

The law prevented the spreading of disease, etc.  Jesus, as the perfect
Creator, was not susceptible to disease or infection, either of the body or
of the spirit.  In fact, those which approached Him were healed...

The one sentence I would query (there had to be one ;-) is :
�    Yes,  Jesus was truly a radical Feminist.

As I understand it, the expression 'radical Feminist' of today has a
radically different significance from the quality represented in the
passage you quote. 

Now I may well not understand what 'radical Feminist' means, as a
conviction, stance or movement, and rely on you to clarify thisif I am in
error here, but my impression is that 'radical Feminism' holds the view
that men and women should occupy the same roles and functions in society.
It often gives the impression (to me) of regarding 'female' as 'superior',
but I think that this is probably just a reaction to the erronious opposite
view which has prevailed in some circles. 

Now the practical teaching of Jesus in this area was certainly radical.  He 
demonstrated that women are an essential functional portion of the image of 
God on earth.  However, Jesus did not deny that they have a personal and 
unique role in creation, distinct from that occupied by men.  That is where 
I see His teaching being very different from today's 'radical Feminism'.

I also find it interesting that the woman had been suffering from
hemorrhages for twelve years, and the little girl that Jesus was on the way 
to heal was twelve years of age.  All her life, this woman had been
suffering, and Jesus was to touch them both with new life on the same day...

						God bless
								Andrew

Depends on your definition of feminism, Jim.

Most modes of feminism are as much bigotry as chauvinism.  But there
are some aspects of feminism that can be embraced, just as there are 
platforms of the opposite political party that one can embrace, but 
not vote for that candidate in a presidential election.

In my definition, Jesus was no radical feminist.  (A nit: men were not
unclean only by having sex with a woman, but by their emission - a woman
didn't have to be in the equation.)

Jesus did, however, step out of the cultural norms by speaking with 
a Samaritan woman, and this woman who was "diseased."  Jesus healed
lepers, too.  Jesus was radical.  I would come up short with the idea
that he was a feminist, but would eagerly embrace the idea that Jesus
treated women in the manner that is an example for us all to emulate.

Mark

    The vast majority of the writing on feminism deals with the elimination
    of hierarchical thinking and not the changing of the hierarchy. 
    Feminists believe that all persons are equal and should be treated
    equally.  Most of the writings I read acknowledge that men are being
    oppressed at the exact same time that women are being oppressed.  It is
    oppressing to men when they are expected to be the 100% breadwinners of
    the family.  It is oppressing to men, when they are treated as failures
    when they cannot support their family in the manner which society deems
    necessary.  It is oppressing to men when they are denied the equal
    ability to bond with their children.  The cultural taboos and rules
    that asign roles to women and men in fact oppress both women and men. 
    The feminism in which I am involved means standing up for the rights of
    all women and all men regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual
    orientation, social status, family wealth, etc.  This is to me what
    Radical feminism is about.
    
    What I have learned and experienced is that once I understood the
    nature of oppression, then my efforts to eliminate oppression involve
    the elimination of all oppression and not just the specific example.
    
    What is amazing about the Gospels stories is not the instances in which
    the stories parallel the traditional cultural beliefs about the roles
    of women and men in 1st century society.  What is truly amazing is the 
    degree to which Jesus eradicates these traditional cultural beliefs. 
    Given the radical direction Jesus began 2000 years it is not difficult
    to extrapolate where the Living Christ stands today regarding the
    equality of all people.
    
    Andrew,
    
    I will be entering the related story of the healing of the young
    daughter.  It is deeply related to the healing of the older woman.
    
                                Patricia 

�    The vast majority of the writing on feminism deals with the elimination
�    of hierarchical thinking and not the changing of the hierarchy. 

I often get an impression that feminism represents a reversal of the
hierarchy, but that is an observation of behaviour, rather than of
principle.  However the point I was making earlier was that feminism does
not merely appear to eliminate hierarchy; it would seem to ignore or
obscure the individuality, distinction and quality of the different sexes. 

							Andrew

The gospel of Jesus Christ is to salvation.  The example and ministry of
Christ is to selflessness.  If one follows God's hierarchy which is
God->others->yourself, then the problems of man's hierarchy are 
eliminated.

The goals of equality attempt to equalize things that were never meant to 
me "equal" but instead *complementary*.  Equality among complementary facets
is counterproductive in society.

The problem with complementary facets is that some people deem one facet
as more important than another, hence the reaction to make all things 
"equal."

The word perfect can mean flawless, or it can mean "fit for the purpose it
was intended to perform."  A screwdriver can open a can of paint just fine,
but when it turns a screw that fits the head of the screwdriver, it is
performing perfectly.  Another flat piece of metal can open up the
same can of paint, and the screw driver and piece of metal are equals
for that task.  But the fact remains that the screw driver has capabilities
that a piece of metal may not, and vice versa.  This is where complementary
facets come into play.

The amelioration of the inequities that are caused by someone thinking
more of themself than they ought is a noble endeavor.  However, the
evening of disparate qualities for the sake of equality does a disservice
to the individual and therefore to all of society.

In Christ, we should not "think more highly of ourselves than we ought"
but consider ourselves in light of how God has made us and for what
purpose.  When we fulfill that purpose, we are perfect (up to the 
specifications needed to accomplish the purpose).

And so while we can show that doing something different is neither better
nor worse than something else, neither is it cause to become "equals"
when equality is worse that being perfectly suited for our purposes in
life.

Mark

    Mark,
    
    Your argument is one in which Feminist thinkers have particular concern
    because the Over Developed EGo seems to be a male problem and not so
    much a female problem.  With women the bigger problem is often the lack
    of self esteem.  Men may be convinced that they can do anything on
    there own while all to often too many women do not feel they can
    adequately do anything on there own.  There the message for a person to
    think less of their personal achievements and more about what they can
    contribute to the whole will mean something radically different to men
    and to women.  Women have traditionally found their self worth in
    contributing to others often at the expense of their own selves.  There 
    contribution has often been to their children and their husbands.  Men
    have more often found there self worth in pursuits outside the home
    often at the expense of their wives and their children.
    
    Many Feminists believe that the containment of the Individualized Ego
    is a message mainly for men and it leads to a worsen state when applied
    to women who may not have a highly individualized Ego.  That is why men
    and women need to read the Bible differently.  The messages in the
    Bible that Jesus gave to the Pharisees, to the tax collectors, to the
    male disciples where different than the messages he gave to the various
    women. 
    
    YOu and other men in here insist that Jesus wanted men and women to be
    radically different.  I believe that the message clearly there is that
    he wanted women and men to be more alike.
    
    Men and women are different mainly in physical strenghth and in woman's
    unique ability to birth children.  with the average american family 
    producing two children, it takes 18 months of pregancy and perhaps 
    another 2 years of breast feeding to accomplish those tasks which are 
    uniquely female tasks.  that is 3 1/2 years out of the average life 
    expectancy of 80 years for a women.  Even in that 3 1/2 years that a
    women is specializing in the procreation tasks, that women can also
    participate in almost every other aspect of modern life.  Men who would
    have women subordinated to them, put far too much emphasis on the
    unique role of women.  Instead of this unique contribution that only
    women can make becoming an asset, it is used against women to keep them
    out of all kinds of roles that have nothing whatsoever to do with
    gender.  Keeping women from any vocation to which God calls that women
    is evil.  It prevents a human being from responding to God's call.
    
                              Patricia 

>    Your argument is one in which Feminist thinkers have particular concern
>    because the Over Developed EGo seems to be a male problem and not so
>    much a female problem.

I had a manager once who wrote that women make better managers because
they are mothers.  I think that females don't have an over-developed ego
is fallacious.

>With women the bigger problem is often the lack of self esteem.

I agree with this, but it is also true of men.  Men may behave differently
than women, but consider that an over-developed ego and low-self-esteem
are two sides of the same coin: self focus.

There is still the argument as to what is culture conditioning of roles
and what is inante to the species.  We know that studies show girls playing
games with no winner or loser (jumping rope, for example) and boys playing
games with clear cut rules of engagement with winners and losers.  Is this
primarily a conditioning of culture or something inate?  Or, perhaps
conditioning over the millenia causes indistinguishable cues that are
only seen as inante behavior?

>    The messages in the
>    Bible that Jesus gave to the Pharisees, to the tax collectors, to the
>    male disciples where different than the messages he gave to the various
>    women. 

Careful.  The method was different but the message was always the same.
What was the message?  "You are in a wrong relationship with God and I
provide a way to right relationship with God."  There are many different
ways to have this presented, as Jesus did, but it is always the same
message.

>    YOu and other men in here insist that Jesus wanted men and women to be
>    radically different.  I believe that the message clearly there is that
>    he wanted women and men to be more alike.
 
I don't think you've heard the message then.  
More alike in what ways?  Different in what ways?
Can we be alike in some ways and different in others?  I think so, but
the other questions and answers that determine what things are appropriate
differences and similarities are the important ones.

>    Men and women are different mainly in physical strenghth and in woman's
>    unique ability to birth children.  
...and man's unique ability to fertilize the egg.

>Men who would
>    have women subordinated to them, put far too much emphasis on the
>    unique role of women.  

Perhaps this is true.

>    Instead of this unique contribution that only
>    women can make becoming an asset, it is used against women to keep them
>    out of all kinds of roles that have nothing whatsoever to do with
>    gender.  Keeping women from any vocation to which God calls that women
>    is evil.  It prevents a human being from responding to God's call.

It is used... is a sweeping generalization.  In the Christian notes conference,
all "truths" are measured by His Truth.  Jesus, as you have asserted, did not
use it against women.  

The trouble is taking the "using the unique ability" approach and applying
it to "any vocation" by which I am guessing you mean female priests?  The
Church of the Nazarene permits female Pastors (and one is featured in note
703.*).  And unless you equate association with the Roman Catholic organization
to Christianity (and I know some do... and some RCs dont!), I can see how this
might stick in the craw of a woman who feels a call to be a priest.

However, there is a royal priesthood for all the saints.  Just as marriage
is not a function of an official service, this priesthood we share
with Christ is not a function of office.  Let me be quick to add that 
I think there is something to the office, but for most people the office
has become a greater focus than the responsibility of being preist.
We are not all clergy, but we are all [supposed to be] ministers to
one another.

We can grant forgiveness, bind things, and loose things.

Mark

As for RC women preists, the options are as follows:

(1) accept the RC views
(2) continue to fight them and cause strife and division
(3) separate from the church to pursue what you believe is truth
     - that's how protestanism started
     - it's also how heresy can be easily introduced
        (not an invitation to start a doctrinal war, folks).

I wanted to clip this out to give it a more focused attention:

>    YOu and other men in here insist that Jesus wanted men and women to be
>    radically different.  I believe that the message clearly there is that
>    he wanted women and men to be more alike.
 
Can we be alike in some ways and different in others?  I think so, but
the other questions and answers that determine what things are appropriate
differences and similarities are the important ones.


More alike in what ways?  


Different in what ways?


The answers to these question varies from person to person, yet it
is the answers that determine whether "equal" is fair and right or
unfair and inefficient; that determine whether "complementary" is
fair and right ot unfair and ineffective.

Mark

    Mark,
    
    I believe that God calls each of us to a vocation regardless of whether
    that be professional ministry or not.  God calls each of us to be the
    best we can be.
    
    Any manmade rules that keep persons from being the best they can be,
    is oppression.
    
                                    {atrocoa
    
                      

    Re: Hemorrhaging Woman
    
    I'd like to interject something else about the cultural significance of
    that event.  She reached out and grabbed the tassle of Christ's tallit
    (prayer shawl) when she was healed.
    
    This tallit was prescribed by God in Numbers 15:37-41.  There are many
    types and symbols pointing to God in the tallit, but I'll just mention
    a couple that deal with this event.  In the original Hebrew of Numbers 
    15:38, it says, "...and He will be to you as a tassel, and you will see 
    *HIM*, so you will remember" rather than "you will see it."   Couple
    this with Malachi 4:2 "...to those who fear His name, the Son of 
    Righteousness will arise with healing in His wings; and you shall go out 
    and grow fat like a stall fed calf."  If you've ever seen one being
    worn, it is obvious why the tallit is often referred to as "wings" in
    the Bible (numerous references available upon request).  
    
    As a young girl, she was well taught in all of the Messianic symbols. 
    I'm confident that she was fully aware of Numbers 15:37-41 and Malachi
    4:2.  She wasn't just reaching out in desperation alone.  She *knew* 
    Jesus was the Messiah from all her learning as a youngster.  It was
    this faith in Jesus as the Messiah that healed her.
    
    Another interesting event related to women and the tallit is how Ruth
    proposed to Boaz using his tallit, but maybe another time if anyone is
    interested.  It's very romantic!
    
    Mike

>                                    {atrocoa

Nasty typo, there, Patricia.  ;-)

>    Any man-made rules that keep persons from being the best they can be,
>    is oppression.

I think I agree with this!  :-)

>    As a young girl, she was well taught in all of the Messianic symbols. 

Yes, I understand the Jewish girls were educated, despite fulfilling
different roles than their male counterparts.

MM

    Correct, Mark.  The instructions for Israel in Deuteronomy 6 (as well
    as other passages), including the Sh'ma in verse 4, was for the 
    *children* to be taught all things concerning the Lord.
    
    Mike

    re: .53
    
    Physical strength and birthing are only the beginning of the
    differences between men and women.  It is shown that men and women
    think on different levels (which not coincidentally, complement each
    other).
    
    The radical feminist movement is trying to blur all distinctions, which
    cannot be good for society, IMO.
    
    
    -steve

>    The radical feminist movement is trying to blur all distinctions, which
>    cannot be good for society, IMO.

I would rather say that some elements of the radical feminist movements
are attempting to blur the distinctions perhaps out of ignorance of those
distinctions or ignorance of how the distinctions are complementary instead
of superior/inferior.  We are right to destroy misconceptions surrounding
areas of dominance and submission and promote the proper perspectives 
surrounding the strengths and weakness of each gender.  Trouble is that
few have been able to define what differences are good (and complementary)
and what differences are bad (which leads to oppression).

When we come to the table suspecting one another, we will accomplish 
little.  But if we get down to some basic fundamentals of definition, 
we can build a better understanding.  Ultimately, it will be borne out
that the Biblical model apart from the projections onto it will show itself
to be the most fair, the most complimentary and complementary, the most
effective, the most efficient, and the most valuing of the human being.
But I'm willing to rediscover this from the Word of God every time.

mark

    re .61
    
    Can you explain for me how you think women and men think differently?
    
    I wouldn't want to take your statement out of context!
    
    
                                       Patricia
    

Dunno about thinking but brain studies who that brains develop 
differently.  For example, Women duplicate certain processes in
both hemispheres and men seem to specialize in one hemisphere or
the other (not better or worse, but different).

This has a curious result in a man and a woman who have a stroke
(on the left? side) of the brain.  (wherever the speech center is
located)  In men, they have a very difficult recovery rate of speech;
almost nil.  In women, they have a pretty good chance of recovering
speech.  Why?  Because of the duplication in both hemispheres;
sort of like a backup!

However, there is a trade off for both.  Men seem to have better spatial
relations than do women (in general).  But since men don't "backup" on
both hemispheres (generally speaking only), if they lose the data they
are in more trouble.  Anyone familiar with "volume shadowing" knows that
the down side to duplication is duplication - crowding out room for
other things.  I'm not impressed by this argument since they estimate
we don't use our brain capacities anyway.

I do not think, for example, that women are incapable of thinking 
with the best men thinkers.  However, these brain studies still 
seem to indicate that the XX combination has many subtle differences
from the XY combination; many differences we may never fully grasp.

The Bible says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.  I'll buy that!

Mark

    
    RE: .56
    
    > Any manmade rules that keep persons from being the best they can be,
    > is oppression.
    
    I assume that goes for womanmade rules as well.  ;^)
    
    Jill

 :-)

Jael,
  Miles of smiles.

    
    OUTSRC::HEISER "next year in Jerusalem!"
    
    >> Another interesting event related to women and the tallit is how Ruth
    >>proposed to Boaz using his tallit, but maybe another time if anyone is
    >> interested.  It's very romantic!
    
    
    	Proceed please.
    

    >Your argument is one in which Feminist thinkers have particular concern
    >because the Over Developed EGo seems to be a male problem and not
    >so much a female problem.  With women the bigger problem is often the
    >lack of self esteem.  
    
    I think I agree with you on this to a point.  However, I believe if I'd
    said this in another conference, I'd been eaten alive for sexism. :-)
    
    In reality people male and female have problems in both areas.  And to
    base all feminism points of view on this argument lends towards
    superiority wars versus true equality, imo.
    
    Nancy
    

    My wife said at dinner that men and women do think differently.
    She said that men think in pictures and women think in words.
    Men insist on a picture representing a thousand words; women
    insist on speaking all 1,000 words.  (Her words, not mine.)  ;-)
    
    Seriously, though, she emphasized speaking in picture words (for both 
    sexes), such as Nathan's analogy to King David and Jesus' many parables.
    
    Mark

    
    :')
    

I read this to my wife one night substituting the third person for the 
second person.  "Who can find a virtuous woman? *your* price is far 
above rubies.  I do trust in you, so that I have no need of spoil.  
You do me good and not evil all the days of your life...."

Husbands, try it some night.  And don't let your wife's low self esteem
stop you!  Ask her to allow you to love her with these words.

Mark



Proverbs 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above
    rubies.
 11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have
    no need of spoil.
 12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
 13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
 14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
 15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household,
    and a portion to her maidens.
 16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she
    planteth a vineyard.
 17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
 18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by
    night.
 19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
 20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her
    hands to the needy.
 21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household
    are clothed with scarlet.
 22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and
    purple.
 23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of
    the land.
 24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the
    merchant.
 25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to
    come.
 26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of
    kindness.
 27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread
    of idleness.
 28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he
    praiseth her.
 29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.
 30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the
    LORD, she shall be praised.
 31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in
    the gates.

    Amen!!! 
    
    Absolutely, I have to admit as a woman who has suffered low self
    esteem, the HARDEST thing was when one kind man wanted to love me with
    his words.  I couldn't receive them.  This rejection created an
    insecurity in the relationship that was never repaired and was a great
    loss to me.
    
    Women, listen to what Mark says...don't have false humility when
    complimented.  Receive it...  My son Clayton taught me this last night.
    
    I've been under a lot of pressure with work and other things and the
    tension had begun to show in my face.  Clayton said Mom I want to give
    you a massage on your shoulders.  And I said son No its late don't do
    it, it's okay.  I felt guilty for my son to "give" to me, when I should
    have offered his poor tired baseball body the massage. 
    
    He got big tears in his eyes and he said this,
    
    "Mom, it makes me feel really good inside when I can give to you. 
    Please don't take that away from me."
    
    

>    He got big tears in his eyes and he said this,

Me, too.

:-)

    re: .73
    
    That's precious, Nancy.  It's wonderful that your son is so "aware" of
    these things at his age.  
    
    It reminds me of "It is better to give than to receive..." 
    ...it's harder to be on the receiving end.
    
    Karen

My dad told me that to refuse to receive is to rob the giver of 
the blessing.  Don't rob people!

Mark

    I read Proverbs 31 to my wife under the tallit every Sunday night.

    In our home, my husband reads Proverbs 31 to me and I read Psalm 112
    which begins "Hallelujah, happy is the man who reveres Adonai" to him.
    Both of these are reminders of who and how we ought to be.  We've been
    doing a study on Proverbs 31 in a group fellowship that meets in our
    home.  We've been using some material which looks at this poem parable
    both on a direct or plain meaning level, and as a parable of spiritual 
    truths.  I've been learning quite a bit about faith and behavior as part
    of the process of looking a bit deeper at this poem, known as Eshet
    Chayil - Woman of Valor.

    In Genesis, when Chava is created, she is called an aizer k'negdo.
    This is translated helpmeet in some versions, but it really should be
    translated as a "parallel power" or "power equal to".  The Revised 
    English Bible, which I enjoy for just reading because it flows so 
    nicely and elegantly, translates it as a "suitable partner".  I think 
    suitable partner is a good way to put it.

    Anyway, that partnership is not simply one of being able to partner in
    physical and mental tasks and endeavors, but spiritual ones as well.
    Man and woman, wife and husband, both have important and valuable 
    contributions to make to each other, their families, their communities, 
    and the world.  These contribtutions encompass both the material and the 
    spiritual realms.  It really does take two committed partners to make a 
    shalom bayit - peaceful home, characterized by wholeness and integrity 
    rather than strife, dissension, and disfunctionality.  

Psalms 112:1 Praise ye the LORD. Blessed is the man that feareth the LORD,
    that delighteth greatly in his commandments.
  2 His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall
    be blessed.
  3 Wealth and riches shall be in his house: and his righteousness endureth
    for ever.
  4 Unto the upright there ariseth light in the darkness: he is gracious, and
    full of compassion, and righteous.
  5 A good man sheweth favour, and lendeth: he will guide his affairs with
    discretion.
  6 Surely he shall not be moved for ever: the righteous shall be in
    everlasting remembrance.
  7 He shall not be afraid of evil tidings: his heart is fixed, trusting in
    the LORD.
  8 His heart is established, he shall not be afraid, until he see his desire
    upon his enemies.
  9 He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor; his righteousness endureth
    for ever; his horn shall be exalted with honour.
 10 The wicked shall see it, and be grieved; he shall gnash with his teeth,
    and melt away: the desire of the wicked shall perish.

    Leslie, is Psalm 112 typically read to the man on Shabbat or is that
    something started by the Messianics.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    Mike,

    It is not something started by Messianic Jews.  Other Jewish families
    would also use it, however not all families would.  Every family 
    develops their own traditions based on a general sort of format which
    includes candle lighting, kiddush & the blessing over the bread, family 
    blessings, remembering creation & the exodus from Egypt, and other
    things.  I can recommend a couple of books for those who are interested.
    I'll have to get the information from home though as I don't have it with
    me right now.

    Leslie

Book recommendations are in topic 382.

Leslie

The book of Ruth provides us with an example of how the bride and groom stood
under the tallit while the wedding ceremony was performed.  From the opening
chapter we know that Ruth's mother-in-law, Naomi, lost her husband and her two
sons (one of which was Ruth's husband).  Ruth made a vow to stay with Naomi and
take care of her and to worship her God and to live in her land.

In Ruth 1:9, the word "rest" actually means "covering, shelter, or haven" which
marriage was intended to provide for the wife.  The idea here is to find rest
and covering under love ("...His banner over me is love...").  This is later
confirmed in Ruth 3:1.  The word "rest" is taken as an indirect reference to the
tallit.

In Ruth 2 we have the establishment of the Goel - "Kinsman Reedemer," the
romance of redemption - a foreshadowing of how Christ redeemed us.  The Goel is
prescribed in Leviticus 25:23-28.  The basic idea here is that if you became
poor for any reason, your closest and willing relative (Goel) had the choice
of offering to buy out your debts in court for an agreed upon price and making
you debt free.  Also, in the year of Jubilee (every 50 years) all debts were
automatically forgiven.

In this case, Boaz (means "strength") was the Goel, and was also from
Bethlehem, and would also take a Gentile bride (all pictures of Christ).  This
was confirmed by Naomi herself in 2:20.  Interesting to note how he blesses
his future Gentile bride, Ruth, in 2:4 when they meet for the first time.
Also, as Jesus commanded the servants in John 2 at the wedding, and offering
the Gentile woman a drink in John 7:37, we see Boaz treating Ruth the same way
in 2:9 and Ruth accepting his grace in 2:10.

In 2:12, we now have a direct reference to the tallit in the word "wings," which
is again used in 3:9.  We know now that Christ has brought us this rest and
covering, which is symbolized in the tallit.

In 2:14-16 there are some more interesting parallels.  Verse 14 sounds an awful
lot like Jesus feeding the 5,000 in the fact that they ate until satisfied and
had plenty left.  Then we see Boaz continuing to care for his future bride by
having the servants treat her with respect and pulling grain for her.

In chapter 3 we finally get to the marriage proposal.  Again, Naomi states in
verse 1 that she wishes to seek that security for Ruth.  She lets Ruth know
where Boaz will be in the evening.  Incidentally, they winnowed the wheat at
night so that the evening winds would separate the chaff from the wheat.  Naomi
then instructs Ruth what she must do.  As a Gentile, she may not have been
familiar with all the customs.  It becomes clear that a relationship has
blossomed in chapter 2.  In 3:9 we see Ruth's marriage proposal.  She covered
herself with Boaz's tallit ("covering"), which you may recall they get married
under.  As you continue on, you see that Boaz accepted the proposal of his
Gentile bride.  They later became a key stepping stone in the lineage of Jesus
Christ.  Their son Obed was King David's grandfather!

The romance of redemption part of Ruth continues on in 3:18 and peaks in chapter
4.  As Christ, Naomi tells us in 3:18 that Boaz is a determined person.  The
Hebrews states, "Until he has finished the matter,"  which sounds similar to
Christ's last words on the cross.  It turns out in the early part of chapter 4
that there was another relative closer than Boaz who could've been the Goel.
However, like Christ, the Goel had to be willing to save as well as having to be
able to pay the price.  In verse 6, it appears that this other relative didn't
really want a Gentile bride, which was part of the deal in verse 5.  In verse 8,
the removal of the sandal was saying, "Stand in my shoes and take my place."  In
verse 11, the blessing said by the court is a traditional Shabbat (Sabbath)
blessing that fathers say over their daughters.  The romance of redemption is a
glorious view of Christ taking the Church as His Gentile Bride.

More tallit references can be found in Psalm 17:8, 36:7, 57:1, 61:4, and
Ezekiel 16:8.  There's also a reply on the types found in the tallit in the
    "Pictures of Jesus" topic.
    
    Mike

    
    Thank you most kindly.

    My pastor's wife started an in-depth study on this subject a couple
    years ago.  I started going through the tapes recently and they're very
    good.  She's about half-way through the NT now (about 30 or so tapes). 
    If you're interested in getting some let me know.
    
    Mike