Rebuke from Gospel Artist over out of wedlock baby

[JaneBond007]

Welp!

Seriously, something has been taken out of context. Just because the Torah didn't mention 'pre-marital' sex, it does emphasize Marriage and sex is only mentioned within the context of Marriage and never mentioned outside of Marriage. Which concludes that sex is for Marriage only and between a man and a woman.

Further meaning that it is clearly understood that sex before marriage is not permissible.

Disclaimer: This comment is not towards you. Again, this comment is not towards you. I need to make this perfectly clear, Jane, the following comment is not about you. Am I clear?

Okay, here's my comment:

Folks stay tryin' to make something out of what something is not, just because the Bible did not make a specific mention of a particular word or term. Example: gay marriage. According to the gays and their supporters, because Jesus did not speak against gay marriage, it means that he validated it. That 'reach' is so long that they're falling overboard into the murky waters with the sharks.

I just sayin'....

Folks be steady tryin' and reachin' for stuff that's not even there just to validate their sin.

Joseph and Mary were engaged; had they been married she would not been a Virgin in the sense of never haven been touched (never have had intercourse) outside nor inside of Marriage. The Word of God is clear that Mary was indeed a Virgin. Therefore premarital sex was indeed a sin in the eyes of God or He would not have chosen her womb to carry His Son.

The 'name' Wife was always associated with sex... 'he knew his wife.. etc.

I was to share more but I'm at my desk...

@Iwanthealthyhair67, @MrsHaseeb, @Laela,

Help... Please.

I do not see where pre-maritial sex was not considered a sin in the Old Testament. It was always a sin. God designed sex to be between marriage only.

I don't know that that's entirely true, though. "Help!!" I know, right? Yes, Mary was a Virgin, but "married" in the sense that the ketuba was signed, or something to that effect. Or did the ketuba come later? I dunno. They were in a state of engagement leading to marriage but she was definitely set apart for Joseph. I'm asking a trusted orthodox scholar right now and will relay what he says on the permissibility of premarital sex. He's very, very thorough and so, I'll just paste and copy the whole thing. I know it's gonna be verbose!

Now, regarding the sin, again, it was mostly cultural and evidently, they had a problem with it. Concubinage wasn't banned. A man could have more than one wife. I'm assuming that around the time of St. Paul, monogamy was mostly the norm. In one of the articles, it raises a point that premarital sex was occurring to the extent that they culturally addressed it, long before Jesus. But it's not specifically prohibited. I think a key to (my) understanding it would be the symbolism of the "furnace" mentioned all through scripture as it evidently has a very significant presence throughout scripture. I want to know the levels of meaning of that, sexual energy in regards to how it regulates our relationship with G-d (life force, creation etc.) and why the church deemed it necessary to prohibit it. Lastly, I want to know the specific time that orthodoxy in judaism prohibited it.

Um, that was a joke about wondering if I'm going to be Jewish or christian come Friday evening.

 

[Shimmie]

All one needs to do is look around at society and see the destruction premarital sex had caused. I'd call that God's judgment and partially a lack of education, sometimes lack of education in church. STDs, fatherless youth (especially the black youth), hurt angry women becoming lesbians, etc.

The only person who could try to justify fornication is one who has no understanding of God's nature nor His original design. But we are under the new covenant where we have access to the Holy Spirit to empower us to live like Christ and the new testament IS NOT silent about the matter. The Bible reveals God's nature, so if it's a sin now, why would God have ignored it then? Views like that really irk me. That's all some weak minded believer needs to read to end up in fornication.

But isn't the Old Testament clear about premarital sex being a sin... ?

 

[JaneBond007]

All one needs to do is look around at society and see the destruction premarital sex had caused. I'd call that God's judgment and partially a lack of education, sometimes lack of education in church. STDs, fatherless youth (especially the black youth), hurt angry women becoming lesbians, etc. The only person who could try to justify fornication is one who has no understanding of God's nature nor His original design. But we are under the new covenant where we have access to the Holy Spirit to empower us to live like Christ and the new testament IS NOT silent about the matter. The Bible reveals God's nature, so if it's a sin now, why would God have ignored it then? Views like that really irk me. That's all some weak minded believer needs to read to end up in fornication.

I'm just talking about the legality or illegality of it as it regards scripture and implicitly so. I'm not at all promoting it (my children were conceived and born in a state of marriage).

But isn't the Old Testament clear about premarital sex being a sin... ?

You know, I often wondered about the Puritans. Biologically, I understand completely about them shacking until a child was born to secure viability of a family union. Religiously? Wouldn't they have trusted G-d?

 

[Iwanthealthyhair67]

lemme see if I get this right, being alone with an unmarried woman is wrong, touching her is wrong however, having sex with her is not...oh my, sounds more like bending over backward not reaching.


This reminds me of the shacking up question, does the bible say no 'shacking' before marriage...

I didn't read the attachment in it's entirety but it sounds like just another way to justify sin.

 

[Iwanthealthyhair67]

the bible covers sexual immorality, sex before marriage falls under sexual immorality

 

[JaneBond007]

^^^I think what they are saying is that there is no implicit evidence of the Torah saying that it, in specific, is wrong. And I think it raises many other questions about why it was not. There certainly were some sexual acts considered under sexual immorality and this is the question - why "premarital sex" was not specifically mentioned and if we have come to prohibit it based upon culture. Mind you, I'm talking about stemming from thousands of years. Why was it not specified? In a bad analogy, this is like the dinosaur thing versus 6,000 years of creationism.

 

[Shimmie]

I'm just talking about the legality or illegality of it as it regards scripture and implicitly so. I'm not at all promoting it (my children were conceived and born in a state of marriage).



You know, I often wondered about the Puritans. Biologically, I understand completely about them shacking until a child was born to secure viability of a family union. Religiously? Wouldn't they have trusted G-d?

Jane, you're making me

 

[Shimmie]

lemme see if I get this right, being alone with an unmarried woman is wrong, touching her is wrong however, having sex with her is not...oh my, sounds more like bending over backward not reaching.


This reminds me of the shacking up question, does the bible say no 'shacking' before marriage...

I didn't read the attachment in it's entirety but it sounds like just another way to justify sin.

O' my goodness... I forgot about the 'shacking up' thread. That thread was a mess...

See that's what I'm saying. Shacking up is still sexual sin, cause folks be shackin'. erplexed It's still under the category of fornication.

The Old Testament speaks clearly about 'defiling a woman's virtue, and the penalty that is paid to the woman's father as she has been ruined for marriage.

And I want to be clear again, that my comments are not against 'JB' (Janebond) I'm definitely speaking upon the sin of sex outside of marriage.

JaneBond007. Do you hear me loud and clear? My comments are not against you. You've shared something that needed to be addressed; something other folks may have wondered about or tried to use it to validate pre-marital sex.

 

[Kurlee]

loving the convo and thanks for expanding fornication

 

[Shimmie]

loving the convo and thanks for expanding fornication

Kurlee

That's all I got is Kurlee.

I wasn't expecting this

 

[JaneBond007]

I've got a little tidbit. Then, if you slept with someone who wasn't married, then you instantly married that person. That might be the cultural basis for it? I'm still awaiting a scholar to answer that question for me.

 

[JaneBond007]

And I want to be clear again, that my comments are not against 'JB' (Janebond) I'm definitely speaking upon the sin of sex outside of marriage.

@JaneBond007. Do you hear me loud and clear? My comments are not against you. You've shared something that needed to be addressed; something other folks may have wondered about or tried to use it to validate pre-marital sex.

Don't worry, mine is a theological question as to why it was not separately singled out like other sexual sin.

 

[MrsHaseeb]

I'm just talking about the legality or illegality of it as it regards scripture and implicitly so. I'm not at all promoting it (my children were conceived and born in a state of marriage).

You know, I often wondered about the Puritans. Biologically, I understand completely about them shacking until a child was born to secure viability of a family union. Religiously? Wouldn't they have trusted G-d?

I know you're not promoting it my comments were not directed to you but to the fact that people try to use the old testament to justify fornication.

 

[JaneBond007]

I haven't actually seen people attempting to justify it, if not, to explain why it wasn't explicitly expressed in the OT. I've been saying "not implicitly"...it's my meds eating my language up today. LOL. I mean explicit reference.

 

[Shimmie]

I haven't actually seen people attempting to justify it, if not, to explain why it was implicitly expressed in the OT. I've been saying "not implicitly"...it's my meds eating my language up today. LOL. I mean explicit reference.

Kurlee, Iwanthealthyhair67, MrsHaseeb, Laela, JaneBond007

Jane had me 'clutching my pearls' big time...

You all know my tolerance level is nil to nothing....

 

[MrsHaseeb]

But isn't the Old Testament clear about premarital sex being a sin... ?

I thought that if they committed fornication they had to marry. If they were already married then it was adultery and the sentence was death. I suppose fornication was not discussed much was due to the fact that they had to marry. That was grace even in the old covenant.

 

[Laela]

My thing is, people will always talk, criticize, etc..for as long as we live; who is really in control of how we feel? I'm including myself.. On a spiritual level, the "reminders" come from the devil..he just uses people to do it.

I sympathize with her to an extent and hopefully this was just a vent and not something she carries for the rest of her life because she's not the first person to have a child OOW. We all carry our pain differently and at our own pace; I believe she and her beautiful child will be just fine.

Agreed. But how can she move on, if people keep reminding her of her sin and keep criticizing her about it? The child will be here until the day she dies, so unless people intend on her being "sorry" and humble for the next 60 years . . . what is she really supposed to do except be the best mother she can be and learn from her sin? *shrugs*

She seems too through. You can't move on from any issue if people keep rubbing it in your face.

 

[JaneBond007]

@Kurlee, @Iwanthealthyhair67, @MrsHaseeb, @Laela, @JaneBond007

Jane had me 'clutching my pearls' big time...

You all know my tolerance level is nil to nothing....

I got a few questions but it's not explicitly mentioned...however, by presumption, there are some answers on from orthodoxy. I can't send them in right now and will wait until tomorrow, unless I can get back to this computer later this evening. People ask me all sorts of things and if I'm not prepared, well...what to say? "Dunno."

 

[Shimmie]

I thought that if they committed fornication they had to marry. If they were already married then it was adultery and the sentence was death. I suppose fornication was not discussed much was due to the fact that they had to marry. That was grace even in the old covenant.

They did You are correct MrsHaseeb I have to pull up the scriptures to back this up. It was basically a 'shot-gun' wedding.

 

[Shimmie]

@Kurlee, @Iwanthealthyhair67, @MrsHaseeb, @Laela, @JaneBond007

Jane had me 'clutching my pearls' big time...

You all know my tolerance level is nil to nothing....

I got my 'Pearls' back...

Exodus 22:16-17

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins."


Deuteronomy 22:13-21~

If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate.

The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity."

Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite Virgin a bad name.

She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.

She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

--------------

Okay, bottom line, Here it is in God's Word that Pre-marital sex was also forbidden in the Old Testament.

Thank God for Jesus for His Grace over us all.

 

[Laela]

^^Amein, Amein and Amein!

 

[Shimmie]

^^Amein, Amein and Amein!

Amein... and Amein!

I knew the scriptures. I better had with all of those years of Bible Study But I was at work and then I was typing from my phone. I had to come home and pull them up.

But there's more as these came from the 'Laws of Moses'. I have to research the book of Numbers and Leviticus as well.

There was always a law against pre-marital sex in the Old Testament. It originated with Adam and Eve whom God joined together as man and wife.

Adam prophesied God's intent of Marriage:

"So shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and whom God hath joined together no man can put asunder."

 

[JaneBond007]

Deut. 22
I think it's culturally based but when G-d handed the law, He realized this was something that was important to the people. If we look at circumcision, Libyans did it long before Egyptians and Hebrews and Chaldeans (Abraham). It was transformed into something that was culturally important. So, I get where they are saying it was the result of culture and not explicitly prohibited, which it's not - read, "do not have premarital sex." Here's the thing, it's prohibited by presumption based upon the other prohibitions resulting in punishments. Virginity was important to the community culturally before the law was handed and was expected. I'm sure it was rampant and had many social implications. But for the Jewish perspective, which formed the christian one, here's something further explaining it (and that's what I was looking for) :

in Deuteronomy 22: a) sexual relations should be for marital purposes – i.e., to establish or maintain a marriage; b) an unbetrothed, unmarried woman who has a sexual relationship before marriage (and the man who has sexual relationships with her) are not in violation of a severe prohibition on the level of adultery and other major sexual violations listed in Leviticus 18:6-23; it is a violation of the sanctity expected of sexual relations within marriage which can best be corrected after the fact by formalizing a marriage between the parties.
Since sexual intercourse is one of the three ways by which a man can legally sanctify a marriage, the intention of the parties to the act is crucial. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage with no intent to sanctify a marriage is defined as zenut – fornication. According to Rabbinic sources, God hates zenut (Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin ch. 10, 28d; Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer, parashah 18, p. 335-6; Eichah Rabba 5). However, since intention cannot be easily discerned by anyone other than God, the Rabbis of the Talmud operate under the presumption that a person does not have intercourse for the purpose of zenut, but rather has marital intentions (Gittin 81b; Tosafot there, s.v. Beit Shammai). Thus a single woman who is known to have engaged in sexual intercourse with a single man to whom she was not married is presumed not to have engaged in an act of zenut (opinion of the Sages in Yebamot 61b as opposed to the opinion of R. Elazar there), unless there is decisive contextual evidence to the contrary.
Irrespective of intention, a more severe prohibition most likely applies to almost all cases of premarital sex these days. Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18 forbid intercourse with a menstruant woman, stipulating a severe penalty. Talmudic law considers the severe penalty to apply even to an act of intercourse which occurs long after the cessation of the menstrual flow so long as the woman has not immersed herself fully in a mikveh or natural body of water for purification (Shabbat 64b; Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 4:3; Shulhan Arukh YD 197:1, ). Since unmarried women generally do not immerse themselves seven days after their menstrual periods as mitzvah-observant married women do, it must be presumed that any act of premarital sex will violate this severe prohibition.


While the prohibitions against premarital sex may not be equal in severity of the legal or moral consequences of violating the prohibition(s) depending on the circumstances, premarital sex is equally forbidden by Jewish Law in all circumstances.
When faced with the temptation to engage in sex before fully entering marriage, we should seek to emulate the disciplined behavior of Boaz in Ruth 3:13, as understood by the Rabbis (Sifrei Bemidar, Beha’alotekha, pisqa 88). Boaz was sleeping by his grain on the threshing floor when he noticed that a woman was laying by his feet. When Ruth answered Boaz’s inquiry by identifying herself and indicating that she would be willing to marry him in order that he could redeem the estate of her deceased husband and father-in-law, Boaz said, “By the life of Hashem, lie here until morning.” The Rabbis understand Boaz to have made two separate statements, only the second of which was addressed to Ruth. “Since the evil inclination was troubling Boaz all night, telling him, ‘you are unmarried and seeking a wife, and she is unmarried and seeking a husband, and you know that a wife can be acquired through intercourse, get up and have intercourse with her, and she will become your wife,’ and Boaz said (swore) to the evil inclination, ‘By the life of Hashem, I will not touch her,’ and to the woman he said, ‘lie here until morning.”

 

[JaneBond007]

Shimmie

Separately as not to get lost in the long post, but someone raised the question of why Israel was referred to as adulterers and fornicators - meaning, lacking in commitment to G-d. I thought that was an interesting perspective. If someone still asks me why there is not direct law against it as such as found in others :

Lev. 20:10-21

10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

11 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14 “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

15 “‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

16 “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

17 “‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

18 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.

19 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

20 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.
21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.


I don't know what my answer would yet be if someone asked me why it was not a direct law. Maybe, "There's the cliff. There's not direct law to run off it with no parachute but it is just 'understood' that it's not the thing to do." Or something to that effect. I'm going to probably write the author of the article that resulted in my question and response and see what he has to say.

 

[Shimmie]

@Shimmie

Separately as not to get lost in the long post, but someone raised the question of why Israel was referred to as adulterers and fornicators - meaning, lacking in commitment to G-d. I thought that was an interesting perspective. If someone still asks me why there is not direct law against it as such as found in others :

Lev. 20:10-21

10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

11 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14 “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

15 “‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

16 “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

17 “‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

18 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.

19 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

20 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.
21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.


I don't know what my answer would yet be if someone asked me why it was not a direct law. Maybe, "There's the cliff. There's not direct law to run off it with no parachute but it is just 'understood' that it's not the thing to do." Or something to that effect. I'm going to probably write the author of the article that resulted in my question and response and see what he has to say.

JaneBond007, I'm here I'll promise to come back to read and respond as soon as I can. I just wanted to acknowledge and thank you for your post.

It's busy at my desk; so I'll be back when I have lunch. Okay Angel?

 

[Iwanthealthyhair67]

This scripture taken from Genesis lets us know that sex is for the parameters of marriage and vice versa, which I believe that @Shimmie posted earlier, this was the intent that woman and man should be married before having sex. Gen 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. In my personal humble opinion I believe that sex was for the sole purposes of procreation the fact that it is pleasurable is just an added bonus, (the Lord considers all things, amen).

“One” flesh, I believe that sex is sacred, and should only be between husband and wife the joining together becoming one flesh, so everyone that you/me slept with prior to marriage we became ‘one’ with, (Lord help!) Paul speaks of this in 1 Corinthians being one with a prostitute, surely if we are one with a prostitute then we are one with all our sexual partners. The results of sex prior to marriage is not only having a child but also sickness and disease as @MrsHaseeb touched on in the up thread.

I don’t know by the word premarital sex is not mentioned specifically or why some other word wasn’t used however, the bible speaks enough about of adultery, fornication and sexual immorality throughout. Though an interesting topic, for the believer sex before marriage should be a non-issue meaning based on what the bible does say. For some we need to still hear/read “Thou Shall Not” to know that this is wrong, I say; let HS guides us into all truth.

 

[Shimmie]

This scripture taken from Genesis lets us know that sex is for the parameters of marriage and vice versa, which I believe that @Shimmie posted earlier, this was the intent that woman and man should be married before having sex. Gen 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. In my personal humble opinion I believe that sex was for the sole purposes of procreation the fact that it is pleasurable is just an added bonus, (the Lord considers all things, amen).

“One” flesh, I believe that sex is sacred, and should only be between husband and wife the joining together becoming one flesh, so everyone that you/me slept with prior to marriage we became ‘one’ with, (Lord help!) Paul speaks of this in 1 Corinthians being one with a prostitute, surely if we are one with a prostitute then we are one with all our sexual partners. The results of sex prior to marriage is not only having a child but also sickness and disease as @MrsHaseeb touched on in the up thread.

I don’t know by the word premarital sex is not mentioned specifically or why some other word wasn’t used however, the bible speaks enough about of adultery, fornication and sexual immorality throughout. Though an interesting topic, for the believer sex before marriage should be a non-issue meaning based on what the bible does say. For some we need to still hear/read “Thou Shall Not” to know that this is wrong, I say; let HS guides us into all truth.

@Iwanthealthyhair67...

Thank you for 'Saving my Pearls'...

You've said it all and much more in your post and there's really nothing more that I can add, other than thanking God for the pure and precious and sacred gift of Marriage... between One Man and One Woman... whom God hath joined together.

I love all of you, my sisters. Thank you for coming to 'my rescue' and I am sooooo serious about this; Healthy Hair, Laela, MrsHaseeb, Kurlee, TraciChanel...

And as for you @JaneBond007...














Girl, you are dear to my heart. The one thing that you and I will never disagree upon.

Now.... leave my pearls in one piece. These theories you post are pearl crushers.

 

[JaneBond007]

For some we need to still hear/read “Thou Shall Not” to know that this is wrong, I say; let HS guides us into all truth.

I don't think that's necessarily true, especially when people are inquisitive and want to know their faith fully. People can ask the strangest of things and if you don't have a concrete answer, you go searching for it. Some of us are not afraid to wonder and ask. Others of us don't want to touch those with a 10 foot pole. Then there's everyone in-between.

What's funny, someone came in trying to pray for me. I had to explain to that person 3 separate times that it was not a spiritual problem that prompted the question. I still think we are so uptight about sex. Incredible.

Girl, you are dear to my heart. The one thing that you and I will never disagree upon.

Now.... leave my pearls in one piece. These theories you post are pearl crushers.

LOL. Well, they're not meant to be pearl crushers, but to get people to think about it. If I find something interesting like that, believe I'm going to ask about it. There are many things in scripture that, for lack of the deeper meanings about them, look like contradictions. I won't hide my head about them, I go right there. I've concluded that it was a cultural value (polygamy was exercised and men were allowed to go to a prostitute...but women had to be virgins ) that G-d preserved and protected for us...and all that has transformed into something much higher and protective of women. Rather than it just being something natural you fell into (and then visited prostitutes, which was very common then ), it's been transformed to represent Israel and the body of believers with their husband, G-d, like Christ and the church. The marital relationship has been elevated and made into a sacrament. In order to protect that sacred thing, behavior had to be such that it didn't disturb the sanctity of the marriage, thus, those prohibitions.

 

[Shimmie]

While the prohibitions against premarital sex may not be equal in severity of the legal or moral consequences of violating the prohibition(s) depending on the circumstances, premarital sex is equally forbidden by Jewish Law in all circumstances.

When faced with the temptation to engage in sex before fully entering marriage, we should seek to emulate the disciplined behavior of Boaz in Ruth 3:13, as understood by the Rabbis (Sifrei Bemidar, Beha’alotekha, pisqa 88).

Boaz was sleeping by his grain on the threshing floor when he noticed that a woman was laying by his feet.

When Ruth answered Boaz’s inquiry by identifying herself and indicating that she would be willing to marry him in order that he could redeem the estate of her deceased husband and father-in-law, Boaz said, “By the life of Hashem, lie here until morning.”

The Rabbis understand Boaz to have made two separate statements, only the second of which was addressed to Ruth. “Since the evil inclination was troubling Boaz all night, telling him, ‘you are unmarried and seeking a wife, and she is unmarried and seeking a husband, and you know that a wife can be acquired through intercourse, get up and have intercourse with her, and she will become your wife,’

...and Boaz said (swore) to the evil inclination,

‘By the life of Hashem, I will not touch her,’ and to the woman he said, ‘lie here until morning.”

@JaneBond007...

The bolded above are 'Precious Pearls' to cherish. Thank you so much for posting this about Boaz. He was indeed an honorable man of God. He loved Ruth so much that he treasured her 'virtue' and he was willing to be her 'Kinsman Redeeemer'.

He honored God's laws. Sexual intimacy is indeed honored between the Husband and Wife and honored by God, Himself who ordained it from His heart for Marriage.

Therefore, it is final -- this issue is closed --- that pre-marital sex is indeed a sin and not acceptable even in the Jewish law which was and is still God's law.

Sex is a sacred gift and Marriage between a Man and a Woman is God's evidence of it. A sacred gift which no counterfeit can ever be.

"Father God, in the name of Jesus, thank you for the Love that you have placed in Marriage between a Man and Wife to enjoy for life. I pray for all Marriages to bud, blossom and bloom and to endure in spite of the challenges in life. Only you, Father God shall prevail and the enemies of Marriage shall fail."

In Jesus' Name, I thank you... Always,

Amen and Amen