# Crossdressing and Rape



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jun 29, 2017)

Some questions for those of you who are Old Testament smart. I read through Deuteronomy last night, and two things were puzzling. 1. Why was the penalty more strict towards crossdressers than rapists? The crossdressers were killed when the rapists just paid money. 2. All the children of conquered cities were to be killed, but in another place they are referred to as those who have no knowledge of right from wrong. Why did the little ones have to die?

Thanks!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 29, 2017)

Sometimes, the penalty-statement is a _maximum, _and not a _mandatory _penalty. The task of law-interpretation and law-application was one of _wisdom, _and not a job of accurate third-grade reading skills.

In the most obvious of rape-cases, the criminal was liable to death, see Dt.22:25. But, on the other hand, if the story was he-said/she-said and the case was inconclusive, there was a way to obtain a modicum of justice in a murky situation.

If God--who knows all things--was willing for those children to perish, he had a sufficient moral-justification for it. He did not always so command it; in fact, he made provision at times for mercy. Oddly (to our sentiments, at times) sometimes death (and swift at that) is _mercy. _Frankly, if an Israelite just left the city and its dead, with a few orphans wandering around in the desolation (hard to bear the thought, yes?) all would likely be dead soon anyway; or enslaved by some other party.

Suppose a case where all able-bodied persons are combatant, and all such persons are judged of God as irreparably corrupt. Stipulated: all of these adults _deserve _to die, and the warfare is just. Whose _responsibility _is it to care for their offspring? The Israelites? Why? If at times, when permitted of God, some of these were spared _and taken care of_ by Israelites (not the case in e.g. 1Sam.15:3), this too was _mercy; _and, importantly, the kindness was not _deserved._

We tend to gauge conditions in an ancient setting--or even in some other, rougher part of the world today--by our local standards: be that in sanitation, cuisine, justice, warfare, servitude, etc. We tend to like those parts of our own system that seem to have some _sanction _of God by loose conformity with our interpretation of the ancient world as we engage with it in the pages of the Bible. We are quick to make absolute connections with more than the moral-law, as if that were a simple task, and unconnected with time or place.

Life was (and sometimes still is) nasty, brutish, and short; mainly on account of sin and a resultant reduction of civility to a minimum. Bridges between societies are notoriously difficult to build and maintain; however much of an ideal it may be. The Ancient Near East was a place without much civility. Societies kept their standards and law within them; but beyond them was a world of conflict. "What's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable."

Such was the chaos into which God saw fit to introduce a new nation, a covenanted people; while at the same time he judged the Canaanite society to be unfit to remain in the world. God *personally *had brought more, and more complete, ruin on an entire world--of men, women, and children--only a few generations prior by a flood. Drowning is a frightful and painful way for anyone to die.

God takes numerous children out of this life, who "have no knowledge of right from wrong." Is he evil or unjust for it? If we (rightly) say "No," then if he determined for Israel to be his instrument at one time in world history, he does not need any more justification than his commandment. I have proposed some rationalization in the above commentary, but do not mistake that for theodicy. God needs no such rational defense for his morally perfect will.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jun 29, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Sometimes, the penalty-statement is a _maximum, _and not a _mandatory _penalty. The task of law-interpretation and law-application was one of _wisdom, _and not a job of accurate third-grade reading skills.
> 
> In the most obvious of rape-cases, the criminal was liable to death, see Dt.22:25. But, on the other hand, if the story was he-said/she-said and the case was inconclusive, there was a way to obtain a modicum of justice in a murky situation.
> 
> ...



Praise the Lord! Thank you!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 29, 2017)

In the ancient world a maiden who wasn't a virgin was considered damaged goods. Killing the rapist, while admirable and praiseworthy, wouldn't change that. Making him pay up, however, added "status" to the woman.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jun 29, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> In the ancient world a maiden who wasn't a virgin was considered damaged goods. Killing the rapist, while admirable and praiseworthy, wouldn't change that. Making him pay up, however, added "status" to the woman.



That is an interesting thought. I'm thankful for you all on this board. Reading through the Old Testament can definitely leave us with lots of questions. It's good to hear solid answers.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 29, 2017)

While I am not a Reconstructionist, some of them have thought hard about these issues. 
http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/tools_of_dominion.pdf


----------

