Behaviour Revolution Scriptures

B R S   S T U D Y - G U I D E   S I T E 

PREVIOUS CHAPTER    😎    NEXT CHAPTER

CONFUSION (DEUT.22) . . . . . . Illegal Mixtures

TODAY WE NEED TO DEAL WITH SOME `SAUCY’ ISSUES THAT MANY PEOPLE CONSIDER TOO OFFENSIVE FOR OUR WESTERN SENSIBILITIES. HOWEVER WE MUST, BECAUSE AT THE MOLTEN CORE OF THIS CHAPTER, AND MUCH MORE OF THE SCRIPTURE THAN YOU MIGHT THINK, IS THE MATTER OF HUMAN SEXUALITY. MOST OF THE TRANSLATORS OF THE SCRIPTURES WERE HOYTEE-TOYTEE, REFINED URBAN EUROPEANS WHO (DESPITE TAKING THE GREATEST OF CARE) COULD ONLY CARRY THE MEANING OF THE INK ON THE PAGE FROM ONE LANGUAGE TO ANOTHER (WITHOUT YAHUSHA'S RUACH-INSPIRATION REVEALING THE TRUE MEANINGS). THESE WORLDLY TRANSLATORS BROUGHT WITH THEM THEIR RESERVED AND PURITANICAL EUROPEAN CHRISTIAN MINDSET (ie we don't talk about sex!) AS WELL AS A NOT-SO-HIDDEN HATRED FOR ALL THINGS HEBREW.

THEREFORE SO MUCH OF THE SEXUAL CONTENT IN YAHUSHA’S WORD IS GREATLY MASKED, AND WE MISS IT. IN OUR DAY (IN THE WEST ESPECIALLY) THE HANDLING OF SEX GENERALLY SITS AT TWO ENDS OF A SPECTRUM AND THERE’S VERY LITTLE MIDDLE GROUND. IT’S EITHER DEALT WITH IN A VERY STERILE AND PURELY SCIENTIFIC, MEDICAL WAY; OR AS SOMETHING SO INTENSELY SENSITIVE, PRIVATE AND UNCOMFORTABLE THAT MOST GOOD RELIGIOUS-FOLK SIMPLY WANT TO TIPPY-TOE THEIR WAY AROUND THE SUBJECT. LATELY OF COURSE WE’VE SEEN THE PROGRESSIVE/SECULAR MOVEMENTS AND LIBERAL LEFTS USE THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO NORMALISE AND CELEBRATE ALL THE SEXUAL BEHAVIOURS THAT YAHUSHA CLEARLY CALLS AN ABOMINATION IN SCRIPTURE.

MOST OF US HAVE COME OUT OF SOME FORM OF RELIGION AND THE REALITY IS THAT THE ANCIENT HEBREWS VIEWED SEXUALITY VERY DIFFERENTLY TO HOW WE DO. THEY WEREN’T EMBARRASSED OR INDIGNANT ABOUT IT, FOR SEX WAS MERELY A PART OF EVERYDAY LIFE AND NOT HIDDEN AWAY IN SECRET HUSH-HUSH CONVERSATIONS. AND BECAUSE HAVING LARGE FAMILIES WAS CRITICAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE CLAN AND TRIBE, EVERYTHING THAT SURROUNDED HUMAN REPRODUCTION WAS AN OPEN AND PUBLIC SUBJECT THAT CHILDREN BEGAN TO UNDERSTAND AT THE EARLIEST AGE. BECAUSE VIRTUALLY EVERY HEBREW FAMILY LIVED (QUITE LITERALLY) AMONG DOMESTICATED FARM ANIMALS, THE FUNCTION OF SEX WAS CONSTANTLY VISIBLE AND UNDERSTOOD AND PEOPLE WERE NOT SQUEAMISH ABOUT IT AT ALL.

HAVING SAID THAT THOUGH, PEOPLE OF THAT ERA WERE MUCH MORE MODEST ABOUT THEIR SEXUALITY WHILE OUT IN PUBLIC THAN WE ARE TODAY (IN FACT THE HIJAB THAT MUSLIM WOMEN WEAR, ACTUALLY COMES FROM A HEBREW TRADITION). WE’RE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE LARGE FAMILIES WERE CRAMMED INTO TINY ONE-ROOM HUTS OR AS NOMADS. THEY WERE CRAMMED TOGETHER INTO THEIR TENTS MADE OUT OF ANIMALS SKINS. SO IF A COUPLE WANTED TO ENGAGE IN SOME HORIZONTAL BOOGIE-WOOGIE, THERE WASN’T A LOT OF PRIVACY TO DO THE ACT AND RARELY WAS COMPLETE PRIVACY EVER POSSIBLE. INTERESTING COMPARED TO TODAY, EH!

HERE’S WHAT WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE MOVE FORWARD. THROUGHOUT THE SCRIPTURES FROM BEGINNING TO END, SEX AND ITS ROLE IN HEBREW SOCIETY NOT ONLY PLAYED A CENTRAL ROLE BUT IS WOVEN IN TO THE VERY LANGUAGE AND CULTURE OF SCRIPTURE IN SO MANY DIRECT AND INDIRECT WAYS. IN FACT, HEBREW IDIOMS CONNECTED TO HUMAN SEXUALITY ARE OFTEN USED TO TEACH AND DEMONSTRATE SPIRITUAL PICTURES AND PRINCIPLES. THAT’S RIGHT! PHYSICAL SEX IS USED TO TEACH SPIRITUAL TRUTHS. BUT SINCE IT’S (FOR THE MOST PART) HIDDEN FROM OUR VIEW, WE CAN’T RECOGNISE THEM IN THE SCRIPTURES. WHY? BECAUSE OF THOSE SEXUALLY REPRESSED PURITANICAL UPPER-CLASS EUROPEAN SCRIPTURE TRANSLATORS WHO USED LANGUAGE TO MASK WHAT THEY CONSIDERED TO BE TOO EXPLICIT AND OFFENSIVE. FOR EXAMPLE, LOOK AT THESE FEW TEXTS:

“There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.” EZEKIEL 23:20 

NOW HERE’S THE EASY-TO-READ ENGLISH VERSION

“She remembered her lover with the penis like a donkey and a flood of semen like a horse.” EZEKIEL 23:20

NOW COMPARE THIS TO THE FRIGIDLY REPRESSED KJV VERSION:  

“For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.” EZEKIEL 23:20 . . . . . HUH? . . . WHAT THE?

. . . .OR HAVE YOU EVER READ THE SONG OF SOLOMON (ABOUT SOLOMON’S 141st WIFE INCIDENTALLY)? SOME OF THE CONTENTS COULD ALMOST BE CLASSIFIED AS PORNOGRAPHIC:

“While the king was at his table, my perfume spread its fragrance. My beloved is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts. My beloved is to me a cluster of henna blossoms from the vineyards of en gedi". SONG OF SOLOMON 1:12-14

REMEMBER THE ABOVE VERSES COME STRAIGHT FROM THE PAGES OF SCRIPTURE, SO LET’S NOT FORGET THAT YAHUSHA CREATED SEX, IT’S BOTH SET-APART AND SPECIAL AND IT PLAYS A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN HIS PURPOSES FOR MANKIND. SO WHAT WE’LL BE STUDYING TODAY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH “SEX EDUCATION” OR "HPE" AS IT'S CALLED IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS. RATHER IT HAS TO DO WITH YAHUSHA’S CREATION OF MANKIND AND THE SET-APART AND SACRED NATURE OF YAHUSHA’S DEFINED ROLES FOR MALES AND FEMALES. IT ALSO HAS TO DO WITH CERTAIN DUTIES THAT ONE SEX HAS TO THE OTHER, THE CONCEPT OF LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL UNIONS, AND HOW THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN SEXUALITY PLAY OUT IN BOTH A PHYSICAL AND A SPIRITUAL WAY IN A MUCH WIDER CONTEXT THAN WE TYPICALLY THINK ABOUT IT OR EVEN RECOGNISE.

MOSES CONTINUES:

Now if you see a cow or a sheep wandering around lost, take the animal back to its owner, and if the owner lives too far away, or if you don’t know who the owner is, take the animal home with you and take care of it. The owner will come looking for the animal, and then you can give it back. That’s what you should do if you find anything that belongs to someone else. Do whatever you can to help, whether you find a cow or sheep or donkey or some clothing. Oxen and donkeys that carry heavy loads can stumble and fall, and be unable to get up by themselves. So as you walk along the road, help anyone who is trying to get an ox or donkey back on its feet.

YAHUSHA, JAMES AND PAUL ALL EXPLAINED THAT TRUE BELIEF IS NOT ABOUT MECHANICAL OBEDIENCE TO A SET OF INSTRUCTIONS BUT RATHER IT'S THE SPIRIT, (THE ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOUR ONE ADOPTS WHILE OBEDIENTLY FOLLOWING THOSE DIVINE LAWS) THAT MATTERS. It is the obedience accomplished (within the context of love and trust for Yahusha) that produces the kind of fruit (behaviour) that Yahusha seeks from His Bride.

THERE IS A LEGAL SAYING WHEREBY WE RUN THE RISK OF SEPARATING THE LETTER OF THE LAW FROM THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. WHEN ONE SEEKS JUSTICE ACCORDING TO THE LETTER BUT WITHOUT THE REQUIRED SPIRIT, THEN LOVE, MERCY, AND JUSTICE CAN BE LOST. IF THAT IS TRUE IN OUR MAN-MADE JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT IS FAR MORE SO IN YAHUSHA’S LEGAL SYSTEM.

THEREFORE THE INSTRUCTIONS REVOLVE AROUND THE OVERALL ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOUR OF THE BELIEVER. HERE, WE DON’T SEE THE TYPICAL FORMULA OF THE DIVINE LAWS OF CRIMINALITY THAT WE’RE MORE USED TO SEEING IN SCRIPTURE. WE DON’T SEE, “IF YOU DO THIS, THEN THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO YOU, AND TO RETURN TO PEACE WITH YAHUSHA YOU HAVE TO ATONE BY MEANS OF THIS AT THAT SACRIFICE”. NO, THESE DIVINE LAWS HERE ARE DONE IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT YAHUSHA SAYS IS THE BASIS FOR ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS AND LAWS: TO LOVE YAHUSHA YOUR ALAHIM WITH ALL OF YOUR BEING, AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF”.

LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOUR IS NOT A RULE OR REGULATION; IT IS NOT A DIVINE LAW THAT HAS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE FOR VIOLATION; IT IS A CALL TO YAHUSHA'S BRIDE TO HAVE A SET-APART MINDSET. IT IS A REMINDER THAT STRIVING TO BE SET-APART IS THE GOAL OF THE DIVINE LAWS AND THAT THIS KIND OF SET-APARTNESS IS EXPRESSED ON EARTH (IN THIS AGE OF HUMAN HISTORY), BY LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF. ALSO PLEASE NOTICE SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS EMPHASISED HERE: LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOUR ISN’T HAVING AN EMOTIONAL “CONCERN” OR WARM FEELING FOR YOUR NEIGHBOUR, IT IS JUMPING IN TO ACTIVELY HELP YOUR NEIGHBOUR IN THEIR TIME OF NEED (and `neighbour' is of course a fellow Yisharalite).

REMEMBER WE RECENTLY DISCUSSED BEING `ALL THINGS FOR ALL PEOPLE' IN LOVING-KINDNESS, SO AS TO WIN EVEN A SMALL FEW ?

REMEMBER THE 3 RULES, WHICH TRAIN US TO LOVE AND OVERCOME?

A woman must never think she’s a man (or pretend to be one either) by wearing men’s clothing, and likewise a man must never think he’s a woman (or pretend to be one either) by wearing a woman’s clothing, for this behaviour is an abomination to Yahuah your Alahim and He’s disgusted with people who do that.

WELL HERE WE GO . . . THIS INSTRUCTION IS ONE THAT'S CAUSED A LOT OF DEBATE. SOME OF THE DEBATE IS, FRANKLY, HOLLOW ACADEMIC NONSENSE AND OTHER HELPS TO BRING CLARITY. YAHUSHA EXPLAINS THAT A MAN IS NOT TO WEAR THINGS THAT A WOMAN NORMALLY WOULD, AND VICE VERSA. MOST TRANSLATIONS SAY THAT THIS IS REFERRING TO CLOTHING BUT THE MORE ACCURATE TRANSLATION IS NOT MERELY CLOTHING, BUT IS THE MORE BROAD “THINGS PERTAINING TO” BEING A MAN OR A WOMAN. THEREFORE, PARTICULARLY IN REGARDS TO THAT ERA, IT COULD MEAN WEAPONS OF WAR, JEWELLERY, HAIRSTYLES, OR (OF COURSE) GARMENTS OF CLOTHING.

FOR SURE TRANSVESTISM IS AT THE CENTRE OF THIS (A TRANSVESTITE IS A PERSON WHO WEARS THE CLOTHING OF THE OPPOSITE SEX). BUT THAT IS MAINLY HOW WE SEE IT TODAY; MORE CORRECTLY IT IS REFERRING TO A PERSON OF ONE SEX TAKING ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX WHETHER IT'S APPEARANCE, MANNERISMS, ROLES, OR CLOTHING. EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE NO OFFICIAL SEX CHANGE OPERATIONS BACK IN ANCIENT TIMES, THIS INSTRUCTION OF COURSE RELATES AND APPLIES TO THE WHOLE GENDER FLUID MOVEMENT TODAY, WHERE TRANSVESTISM IS TAKEN TO THE FURTHEST DEGREE. OF COURSE AT THE CORE OF THIS INSTRUCTIONS IS THE IDEA OF CONFUSION AND DECEPTION, ABOUT PRETENDING TO BE, OR IDENTIFYING YOURSELF AS, THE SEX THAT YOU’RE NOT. THE GENDER YOU WERE GIVEN AT CONCEPTION BY YAHUSHA.

NOW THE HOLLOW ACADEMIC, PROGRESSIVE, LIBERAL SCHOLARS WOULD LIKE TO PROVE THAT YAHUSHA NO LONGER SEES THESE SORTS OF DEVIANT BEHAVIOURS THAT THE SCRIPTURE CALLS AN ABOMINATION IN THAT WAY ANYMORE. JUST AS IT HAS BECOME PREVALENT IN RELIGION THAT HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD NO LONGER BE SEEN AS EVIL EITHER, SO THESE PARTICULAR SCHOLARS WANT TO SAY THAT SUCH BEHAVIOUR (AS LGBTQI) WAS STRICTLY CONFINED TO A CERTAIN ERA, AMONG A CERTAIN CULTURE, AND BESIDES, YAHUSHA’S NEW “LAWS OF LOVE” MEANS THAT ANY BEHAVIOUR THAT IS PERSONAL AND THAT DOESN’T HARM ANYONE ELSE IS NOW OK IN HIS EYES. OR THAT THE COMMENT BY PAUL IN GALATIANS 3 THAT "UNDER YAHUSHA THERE IS NO MALE AND NO FEMALE” MEANS THAT YAHUSHA HAS VOIDED THAT WHOLE CONCEPT OF SEXUALITY. HOWEVER AS WE KNOW, THAT COMMENT IN GALATIANS SIMPLY MEANT THAT THE SPIRITUAL STATUS OF A HUMAN BEFORE YAHUSHA (WHETHER A PERSON WAS ACCEPTABLE OR UNACCEPTABLE TO HIM) DEPENDED ON HIS OR HER RELATIONSHIP WITH YAHUSHA, NOT ON WHETHER A PERSON WAS A MALE OR FEMALE.

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN IT IS INTERESTING TO SEE FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW WHERE THIS IDEA FIRST PLAYED A ROLE IN ANCIENT SOCIETIES. WE HAVE HISTORICAL RECORDS THAT AMONG THE MESOPOTAMIAN CULTURES IT WAS CUSTOMARY FOR A MALE PRIEST TO DON CERTAIN FEMALE GARMENTS, OR TO WEAR EXPRESSLY FEMALE JEWELLERY, OR EVEN TO BE PAINTED USING FEMALE COSMETICS WHEN THE DEITY HE WAS WORSHIPPING WAS A GODDESS. THE IDEA WAS TO “DISGUISE” HIMSELF AS A FEMALE TO IDENTIFY WITH THE FEMININE ATTRIBUTES OF THE FEMALE DEITY. ANOTHER WELL ATTESTED CIRCUMSTANCE OF ANCIENT TIMES WAS OF MEN WHO WOULD DRESS LIKE WOMEN AND HIDE IN PLAIN SIGHT IN HOPES THEY WOULDN’T BE DRAFTED INTO THE MILITARY. ALTERNATIVELY WE HAD WOMEN WHO CUT THEIR HAIR SHORT, WORE MEN’S CLOTHING AND ARMOUR, AND USED MAN-SIZED WEAPONS IN HOPES OF BEING TAKEN FOR A MAN SO THAT THEY COULD FIGHT IN BATTLES. SO THIS INSTRUCTION COVERS ALL OF THESE SORTS OF PRACTICAL CULTURAL THINGS, AND MIGHT HAVE EVEN BEEN USED QUITE OFTEN TO DIRECTLY COUNTER MEN AND WOMEN WHO ATTEMPTED THEM. HOWEVER THE REAL PURPOSE WAS MORE BROAD AND DEEP THAN THE FEW EXAMPLE ABOVE. AND SOME OF THAT IS CLEAR WHEN WE SEE THE CONTEXT OF THE DIVINE LAWS THAT SURROUND THIS ONE IN DEUTERONOMY 22.

This Divine Law against transvestism is speaking to behaviour and a condition of the heart; it speaks to the spirit of obeying Yahusha’s Instructions and staying true to the sovereign way He ordered the universe. It also speaks to DECEPTION and CONFUSION that is always bad in Yahusha’s economy, because the LGBTQI mindset and lifestyle is a matter of attitude and morality, choosing to be an abomination in Yahusha's eyes.

As you walk along the road, you might see a bird’s nest in a tree or on the ground. If the mother bird is in the nest with either her eggs or her baby birds, you are allowed to take the baby birds or the eggs, but not the mother bird. Let her go free, and Yahuah will bless you with a long and successful life.

FIRSTLY, A WILD BIRD HAS LITTLE TO NO VALUE WHEN COMPARED TO THE SIZABLE ECONOMIC VALUE OF A SHEEP OR A DONKEY OR AN OX TO AN YISHARALITE. THEREFORE YAHUSHA IS DEMONSTRATING THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITARIANISM EXTENDS TO ALL OF YAHUSHA’S CREATURES, AND THEIR ECONOMIC VALUE IS TO BE HELD AS SECONDARY. EVEN MORE, JUST AS JAMES SAYS THAT TRUE BELIEF IS DEMONSTRATED IN CARING FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE AND LEAST VALUABLE OF HUMAN SOCIETY (ORPHANS, WIDOWS ETC), THIS SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO THE MOST VULNERABLE AND LEAST VALUABLE OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. THE REVERENCE TO A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT END WITH HUMANS. REMEMBER THE REASON FOR THE STRANGE LAW OF DEUTERONOMY 14:2 THAT SAYS A KID (A BABY GOAT) IS NOT TO BE BOILED IN ITS MOTHER’S MILK. WE CAN BE SURE OF THE LINK BETWEEN THE MOTHER BIRD AND HER CHILDREN, AND HUMANS AND OUR CHILDREN, BECAUSE THE AUTHOR OF DEUTERONOMY STRUCTURED HIS NARRATIVE IN A WAY THAT CONNECTS THE TWO TOGETHER IN A FAMILIAR FORM. IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THOUGHT IN BASICALLY THE SAME LANGUAGE AS THE 5TH COMMANDMENT; THAT BY SHOWING PROPER RESPECT TO THE VALUE OF THE PARENT AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR OFFSPRING (SPARING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER BIRD) YOU WILL LIVE LONG AND THINGS WILL GO WELL WITH YOU (YOU WILL EXPERIENCE YAHUSHA’S SHALOM).

If you build a house, make sure to put a low wall or railing around the edge of the flat roof, so that if someone falls off the roof and is killed, it won’t be your fault. If you plant a vineyard, don’t plant any other fruit tree or crop in it. If you do plant something else there, you must bring everything you harvest from the vineyard to the Tabernacle. Don’t hitch an ox and a donkey to your plow at the same time. When you weave cloth for clothing, you can use thread made of flax or wool, but don’t weave them together and dress like a prostitute. And when you make a coat, sew a tassel on each of the four corners.

THESE FEW VERSES GIVE US THREE DIVINE LAWS ON WHAT IS COMMONLY CALLED “ILLICIT MIXTURES.” WE’VE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN ONE ILLICIT MIXTURE BUT IT WAS SPOKEN OF IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT: TRANSVESTISM. ILLICIT MEANS UNAUTHORISED, UNACCEPTABLE, UNCLEAN AND NOT APPROVED. IT IS A GROSS MISUSE OF SOMETHING. SO THE IDEA OF THESE FORBIDDEN MIXTURES IS THAT THESE ARE COMBINATIONS THAT CREATE UNIONS THAT MUST NEVER BE PERMITTED. THESE VARIOUS UNIONS FLY IN THE FACE OF YAHUSHA’S ORDER OF CREATION AND ARE A SEVERE FORM OF REBELLION. IT’S NOT JUST THE ACTION THAT IS THE ISSUE; IT IS THE BLASPHEMOUS ATTITUDE OF THE VIOLATOR THAT IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER. THE FIRST OF THIS GROUP IS A FARMER WHO IS NOT TO SOW 2 KINDS OF SEEDS IN THE AREA OF SOIL THAT IS LOCATED BETWEEN THE ROWS OF GRAPE VINES IN HIS VINEYARD. THE SECOND IS AN OX AND A DONKEY SHOULD NOT BE YOKED TOGETHER TO PULL A PLOW. AND THE THIRD IS THAT ONE IS NOT TO WEAR CLOTHING MADE OF TWO DISTINCT KINDS OF THREAD THAT HAVE BEEN WOVEN TOGETHER: WOOL AND LINEN. THESE 3 LAWS ARE REPEATS AND EXTENSIONS TAKEN FROM LEVITICUS 19.

Now suppose a man starts hating his wife soon after they are married. He might tell ugly malicious lies about her, and say, “I married this woman, but I think she’s a whore-bag, for when we slept together, I discovered she wasn’t a virgin.” If this happens, the bride’s father and mother must go to the town gate to show the town leaders the proof that the woman was indeed a virgin (the blood). Her father will say, “I let my daughter marry this man, but he started hating her and now he’s accusing her of not being pure. But he’s the dirty whore-bag and soooo wrong, because LOOK! Here’s proof that we offered her to him pure!” Then the bride’s parents will show them the bed sheet from the woman’s wedding night. The town leaders will then beat the lying man with a whip because he accused his bride of not being a virgin. Then he’ll have to pay her father one hundred pieces of silver and will never be allowed to divorce her. But if the husband was right in his accusation and there is no proof that his bride was a virgin, the men of the town will take the woman to the door of her father’s house and stone her to death, for this woman brought evil into your community by having sex with someone else before she got married, and you must get rid of that evil by killing her.

TO PUT IT MORE DIRECTLY, A HUSBAND MARRIES A WOMAN AND DECIDES TO ACCUSE HER OF HAVING SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH ANOTHER MAN PRIOR TO THEIR ENGAGEMENT. NOW IN OUR SOCIETY THAT IS CONSIDERED VIRTUALLY NORMAL AND GENERALLY SPEAKING IS NO REASON FOR CONCERN BY THE NEW BRIDEGROOM. IN FACT A GIRL WHO HAS NOT HAD RELATIONS PRIOR TO ENGAGEMENT IS TODAY SEEN AS A LOSER, PATHETIC, A PRUDE, AND A BIT BACKWARD (NOT AT ALL COOL AND FASHIONABLE). SHE IS MADE FUN OF AND OFTEN SCORNED BY HER FRIENDS, CONSIDERED STRANGE AND ABNORMAL, AND SO IN OUR TIME A GIRL LIKE THIS MIGHT ACTUALLY KEEP HER VIRGINITY A SECRET SO THAT SHE IS NOT EMBARRASSED. NOTHING COULD BE MORE OPPOSITE OF YAHUSHA’S COMMANDS, SCRIPTURAL REALITY, AND WHAT WAS EXPECTED IN EARLY YISHARALITE SOCIETY.

THIS FIRST EXAMPLE IS FASCINATING: A MAN MARRIES A WOMAN AND DECIDES HE DOESN’T WANT HER ANY MORE. WHEN IT SAYS HE HATES HER, HATE DOESN’T MEAN THAT HE HAS DEVELOPED AN INTENSE EMOTIONAL DISLIKE FOR HER; IT MEANS THAT HE REJECTS HER FOR WHATEVER REASON. SINCE THE LAW HAS ONLY THE NARROWEST OF REASONS FOR PERMITTING A DIVORCE, AND APPARENTLY THE HUSBAND DOESN’T HAVE ONE OF THOSE REASONS TO USE, HE MAKES UP A FALSE ACCUSATION. AND IF THIS ACCUSATION WERE ACTUALLY TRUE (WHICH IN THIS CASE IT WAS NOT), IT INDEED CONSTITUTES A LEGAL REASON TO GET RID OF HIS WIFE. AND THE HUSBAND’S REASON FOR WANTING A DIVORCE IS THAT HE DISCOVERED THAT THIS WOMAN WAS NOT A VIRGIN WHEN HE MARRIED HER. HE DEFAMES HER, HE ANNOUNCES PUBLICLY HIS COMPLAINT, AND OF COURSE THIS CAUSES AN ENORMOUS LOSS OF HONOR FOR BOTH HIS WIFE AND HER FAMILY (AND ESPECIALLY FOR THIS GIRL’S FATHER).

WE FIND THE TERM “VIRGIN” IS USED OFTEN IN THE SCRIPTURE. IN THE MODERN ERA THE TERM REFERS TO A WOMAN WHO HAS NEVER HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH A MAN. IN THE SCRIPTURE IT MEANT PRIMARILY THAT THIS WOMAN HAS NEVER BEEN MARRIED. OF COURSE WHAT IS PART AND PARCEL OF A GIRL NEVER BEING MARRIED IS THAT A) SHE HAS NEVER HAD SEX, AND B) SHE IS STILL LIVING AT HOME UNDER HER FATHER’S AUTHORITY. BECAUSE GIRLS USUALLY MARRIED BY AROUND THE AGE OF 15 YEARS, IT ALSO MEANT THAT THESE WERE YOUNG GIRLS (ONLY RARELY MIGHT A GIRL HAVE REACHED HER 20’S AND STILL BE SINGLE AND LIVING WITH HER PARENTS).

SECOND IS THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE CLOTH, IN HEBREW CALLED SIMLAH. IN YISHARALITE CULTURE AND ACCORDING SCRIPTURAL LAW THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS MARRIAGE WAS FOR IT TO BE ARRANGED BETWEEN THE FATHER AND THE POTENTIAL BRIDEGROOM, AND A PRICE WAS PAID. ONCE THE AGREEMENT WAS REACHED AND THE MONEY EXCHANGED HANDS THE COUPLE WAS OFFICIALLY BETROTHED. THE STATUS OF BETROTHED MADE THE COUPLE, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, MARRIED. BETROTHAL WAS NOT EXTENDED OR SERIOUS DATING. THIS WAS NOT A TIME WHEN THE PARTIES COULD REASONABLY CHANGE THEIR MINDS. TO BREAK AN ENGAGEMENT REQUIRED A VERY GOOD LEGAL REASON. ONLY ONE THING SEPARATED THE BETROTHED FROM THE OFFICIALLY MARRIED…….CONSUMMATION. USUALLY A VERY SIMPLE AND QUICK MARRIAGE CEREMONY OCCURRED ON THAT DAY AND THEN THE MAN TOOK HIS BRIDE AND THEY HAD SEXUAL UNION. ONLY UPON THIS WAS THE COUPLE LEGALLY MARRIED.

DURING THE WEDDING NIGHT THE CONSUMMATION WAS TO OCCUR WHILE THE COUPLE LAY TOGETHER UPON A CLEAN CLOTH; IN EARLIER TIMES IT WAS NOT A CLOTH, LIKE A SHEET OR A BLANKET, BUT SIMPLY A NEW AND CLEAN UNDERGARMENT THAT THE NEW BRIDE WORE DURING CONSUMMATION. ONLY LATER DID IT BECOME USUAL TO HAVE A SPECIAL CLOTH USED FOR THIS PURPOSE. BEFORE IT’S INTENDED USE OCCURRED THE CLOTH, OR GARMENT, WAS TURNED OVER TO SPECIALLY SELECTED ELDER WOMEN TO VERIFY THAT IT WAS COMPLETELY CLEAN, UNSOILED (AND MOST IMPORTANTLY) UNSPOTTED WITH ANYTHING THAT COULD EVEN REMOTELY PASS FOR BLOOD BECAUSE THIS MARRIAGE CLOTH WAS ABOUT TO BECOME A PERMANENT PIECE OF LEGAL EVIDENCE.

BECAUSE THE GIRL WAS YOUNG AND NEVER HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS BEFORE, IT WAS EXPECTED THAT SOME BLEEDING WOULD OCCUR. THE BLOOD SMEAR WOULD BE ON THE CLEAN WEDDING CLOTH, AND VOILA, WE HAVE PROOF THAT THE GIRL WAS INDEED A SEXUAL VIRGIN. AHHHHH. BUT WHAT HAPPENED IF IN THE MORNING IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD SMEAR? TO THE HUSBAND OF THAT ERA IT WAS PROOF THAT HIS NEW WIFE HAD NOT REMAINED PURE PRIOR TO THEIR BETROTHAL. NOW THE TROUBLE STARTS.

THE FOLLOWING MORNING IF ALL WENT AS PLANNED, THE GIRL WOULD PROUDLY PRESENT THE BLOOD-STAINED MARRIAGE CLOTH TO HER MOTHER AND FATHER AS PROOF THAT SHE HAD BEEN A GOOD AND FAITHFUL DAUGHTER. THE PARENTS WOULD IN TURN PROUDLY DISPLAY THE CLOTH IN THEIR HOME AND SHOW ALL WELL-WISHERS AND FRIENDS AND FAMILY THAN AN HONORABLE MARRIAGE HAD OCCURRED. TODAY WE PARENTS HAVE WONDERFUL 8 BY 10 GLOSSIES HUNG ON OUR WALLS AS REMINDERS OF THE WEDDING. IN THAT DAY THE PARENTS LAID OUT THE STAINED MARRIAGE CLOTH AS A MARRIAGE MEMENTO. IMAGINE TAKING THAT TO THE FRAMING SHOP TODAY!!

AFTER A TIME THE CLOTH WAS CAREFULLY STORED AWAY AS A KIND OF EVIDENTIARY DOCUMENT JUST IN CASE SUCH A THING AS THIS PARTICULAR CASE THAT IS ENVISIONED HERE IN DEUTERONOMY 22 ACTUALLY HAPPENED. THAT EXPLAINS THE NEED FOR THE ELDER WOMEN TO CONFIRM THE UNSTAINED NATURE OF CLOTH BEFORE IT WAS USED SO THAT IF NECESSARY THEY COULD TESTIFY TO IT. AFTER ALL, THE WOMEN KNEW FULL WELL IF SHE WAS A VIRGIN OR NOT, AND MIGHT HAVE PREPARED A PRE-STAINED CLOTH FOR USE IN THIS CASE; AT LEAST THAT WAS THE MINDSET.

THE CLOTH IS ALL THE PROOF THAT THE ELDERS NEEDED; THE HUSBAND IS JUDGED A LIAR AND HIS PUNISHMENT IS APPROPRIATELY SEVERE. FIRST, BY DEFINITION HIS DISHONESTY AND UNTRUSTWORTHINESS IS EXPOSED FOR ALL TO SEE. SECOND, HE IS TO BE PUBLICLY PUNISHED BY BEING WHIPPED. NEXT HE IS TO PAY THE FATHER A PENALTY OF 100 SILVER SHEKELS, A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THAT ERA.

THE CRIME THE GIRL COMMITTED IS CALLED BEHAVING AS A ZONAH; IT MEANS BEHAVING AS A WHORE, A PROSTITUTE. AND WHILE WE IN THE WEST GIVE THIS ACT THE DESIGNATION OF FORNICATION (AND A LOT OF SCRIPTURES TRANSLATE IT THAT WAY) IN FACT THAT WORD COVERS OVER THE POINT. THE VERY MEANING OF THE ACT OF PROSTITUTION IS ABOUT AN ILLICIT PHYSICAL SEXUAL UNION. IT IS ALL ABOUT ILLICIT MIXTURE, AN UNAUTHORIZED UNION. AND ALL ILLICIT UNIONS ARE A FORM OF ADULTERY. SO WHILE WE TEND TO MAKE A DISTINCTION IN MODERN SOCIETY BETWEEN FORNICATION AND ADULTERY IT’S ALL CONTAINED UNDER THE SAME SCRIPTURAL YAHUSHA-PRINCIPLE AND IS PART OF THE 7TH COMMANDMENT.

People of Yisharal, if a man is caught having sex with someone else’s wife, you must put them both to death. That way, you will get rid of the evil they have done in Yisharal. If a man is caught in town having sex with an engaged woman who isn’t screaming for help, they must both be put to death, for the man is guilty of having sex with a married woman and the woman is guilty because she didn’t call for help, even though she was inside a town and people were nearby. So take them both to the town gate and stone them to death. You must get rid of the evil they brought into your community.

If an engaged woman is raped out in the country, only the man will be put to death. Do not punish the woman at all for she has done nothing wrong, and certainly nothing deserving death. This crime is just like murder, because the woman was alone out in the country when the man attacked her. She screamed, but there was no one to help her. Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and he can never divorce her.

THE FINAL CASE IS OF A MAN WHO HAS SEX WITH A GIRL WHO IS NEITHER MARRIED NOR BETROTHED AND WE SEE AN INTERESTING SHIFT IN THE PENALTY; DEATH IS NOT PRESCRIBED FOR EITHER. THE BEST WAY TO COMPARE THIS TO MODERN TIMES IS THAT AN UNATTACHED TEENAGE GIRL, LIVING AT HOME, HAS A DATE WITH A GUY AND THEY DECIDE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS. WHILE THIS IS ANYTHING BUT THE IDEAL AND THIS SEXUAL UNION IS NOT AUTHORIZED, IT DOES NOT CARRY THE SAME WEIGHT AS FOR A PERSON WHO WAS MARRIED, BETROTHED, OR WAS RAPED. TWO WILLING, UNMARRIED PARTNERS, NOT LIVING UNDER THEIR FATHERS ROOF, HAVE SET THEIR COURSE, HAD SEX, NO PUNISHMENT REQUIRED, HOWEVER, THEY MUST MARRY. WHY? BECAUSE BY YAHUSHA’S RULES SUCH A WILLING UNION BY A MAN AND WOMAN (CONSUMMATION) INDICATES MARRIAGE. A GIRL HAS DECIDED SHE WANTS TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY OVER HER TRANSFERRED FROM HER FATHER TO A HUSBAND. YAHUSHA SAYS THAT A MAN WHO HAS SEXUAL UNION WITH A WOMAN WHO IS OTHERWISE NOT COMMITTED TO ANOTHER MAN HAS ENGAGED IN MARRIAGE AND NOW HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HER. THEREFORE THE MAN MUST PAY THE FATHER A BRIDE PRICE AND IT SETS THE PRICE AS 50 SILVER SHEKELS. THIS IS A HIGH PRICE, PROBABLY HIGHER THAN USUAL. NOT AS HIGH AS THE PENALTY THE HUSBAND PAID FOR FALSELY ACCUSING HIS NEW WIFE OF HAVING NOT BEEN A VIRGIN WHEN THEY MARRIED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE MAN IN THIS CASE HAS FOREVER TAKEN AWAY THIS GIRL’S VIRGIN STATUS; THEREFORE THERE IS VERY LITTLE CHANCE THAT THE FATHER COULD EVER MARRY THIS GIRL OFF IN THE FUTURE AND THAT WOULD MEAN HE WOULD NEVER RECEIVE MONEY FOR A BRIDE PRICE.

PREVIOUS CHAPTER    😎    NEXT CHAPTER

RESOURCES & INFO