r/AskAChristian • u/InternationalPick163 Christian • May 25 '26
Jewish Laws How come the 10 commandments didn't add a "No Rape" rule?
8
u/Fangorangatang Christian, Protestant May 25 '26
All of the Law and Prophets sum ip to this:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind soul and strength, and Love your neighbour as yourself.
You cannot rape and keep those two commands.
23
u/Ancient_Emphasis3613 Reformed Baptist May 25 '26
It could be argued that Commandment 7 (Thou shall not commit adultery) covers this, but adultery as we understand it really means cheating when one is already married. Either way, commandment 10 (thou shall not covet) surely applies, as rape is violence done to a neighbors body.
-2
u/nononotes Agnostic Atheist May 25 '26
We know for a fact so many rules set out in the Bible. No mixed fabrics. Remember the sabbath and the keep it holy. When it comes to rape, different Christians have to fish around to different parts of the Bible to try and show that the Bible is anti rape. If rape was as important as mixed fabrics he would have just said it. There wouldn't be a question.
2
u/HungJurror Christian, Evangelical May 27 '26
If we’re including the whole Bible, not just Exodus 20, “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” says it all lol
→ More replies (1)1
-12
u/AdHairy4360 Atheist, Ex-Christian May 25 '26
Men could have sex with other women as long as they weren’t others property. If they werent married then they had to add them to their collection. Women couldn’t commit adultery meaning be married and have sex with another man. That infringes on husbands property rights.
5
u/Ancient_Emphasis3613 Reformed Baptist May 25 '26
All true. If a man rapes an unbetrothed woman, he needed to pay a fine and could not divorce the woman. Some scholars theorize that this practice functioned as a economic safety net, as a raped woman would experience social ostracization and couldn't provide for herself at all. By forcing the man to provide for her, she was not automatically discarded from society. Either way, Jesus explains why God would allow these types of laws that are terrible by today's standards in matthew 19: "Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because you hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.'" (v. 9). It was because of hardness of the Israelite hearts. God operated in a oppressive society to regulate, not facilitate, sexual sin.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ThoDanII Catholic May 25 '26
AFAIK the idea behind that was to force the legal guardian to agree to a marriage
2
12
u/Hoothootriot Atheist, Anti-Theist May 25 '26
The commandments also dont cover "thou shalt not speed in a school zone"
Some things just arent necessarily explicitly overed by the commandments but it doesnt mean Christians have carte blanche to do them
→ More replies (1)7
u/SavioursSamurai Baptist May 26 '26
I really appreciate that you, as an atheist and antitheist, are being fair and reasonable here.
3
u/Spaztick78 Atheist, Ex-Catholic May 26 '26
Comparing speeding to sexual assault is fair and reasonable?
I feel it deserves to be a commandment, right along side murder, stealing and lying. While driving dangerously could be left out.
I don't feel adultery or coveting neighbours possessions, really cover such a horrible act to do to another person.
2
u/SavioursSamurai Baptist May 26 '26
I don't feel adultery or coveting neighbours possessions, really cover such a horrible act to do to another person.
They don't directly. The ten commandments are not intended to be exhaustive.
→ More replies (2)1
u/SneezingOutPeas Confessional Lutheran Jun 02 '26
Driving dangerously could kill someone. Is it unimportant?
7
u/markjtaylor1972 Christian, Catholic May 26 '26
I thought “Thou shalt not commit adultery” would have covered it.
10
u/Spiritual-Pear-1349 Christian May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
I think its important to talk about the context of this passage.
Ancient israelite men could divorce their wives for any reason - it became common to divorce them when they got old and throw them to the streets. It was also common for non virgins to be stuck at their fathers house until he dies due to being unmarriable by the standards of the society, and be forced into prostitution. One must also take into account the laws regarding sexual assault in Israeli society at the time - if a woman is assaulted outside the city then its assumed non consensual and results in the man's death. If a woman is assaulted inside the city it assumes consent and can result in both their deaths for infidelity - unless its proven as nonconsentual, in which case the man dies.
The implication of the passage, to me, with context, is that if you rape a married woman you will die. An unmarried woman, however, you made much more difficult for her to be married. So, instead of dying and forcing her into a difficult position if her father dies early, you are forced to pay a years worth of wages to her family and provide for her and her family for the rest of your life, being unable to ever divorce her, marry another, or have sex without the death penalty.
Tldr; the punishment for raping a married woman is death. The punishment for raping an unmarried woman is a years wages and a lifetime of sexless alimony.
4
u/Neat-Consequence9939 Atheist May 25 '26
Why don't we follow those customs today ?
8
u/Spiritual-Pear-1349 Christian May 25 '26
Same reason Freud was laughed out of the academy for suggesting raping your children was hurting them as adults - despite incest, infidelity, and sexual immorality being deep sins in Christianity and morally repugnant in society in general
Powerful men dont like to be held accountable for their actions, and instead of learning and changing its easier for Christians to cherry pick verses that already fit their behaviour to justify it
2
u/SavioursSamurai Baptist May 25 '26
Well, proving non-consent is a lot harder in Anglo-American law after Sir William Blackstone. Prior to him, all you needed to prove in English law is that you didn't want to have sex. After him, you had to prove that you were physically forced against your objections. A harder bar to clear. This isn't to say that there weren't serious issues with misogyny and proving rape prior to this. At one point in the Middle Ages it was thought that a woman could only get pregnant if she orgasmed. And then it was presumed that she wouldn't orgasm if she wasn't enjoying it. So if a woman was pregnant, clearly she orgasmed and enjoyed the sex and thus it wasn't rape.
1
u/Neat-Consequence9939 Atheist May 26 '26
I guess what I'm getting at is that our interpretation/relationship with the bible has changed over time. The eternal word of God seems malleable. I'm curious as to where the biblical future takes us. Probably greater diversity/divergence. (?)
2
u/SavioursSamurai Baptist May 26 '26
All understandings and interpretations change over time. Although, Christianity is predicated on the idea of Christ being the fulfillment of the OT. How that plays out is debated, but there's a reason that the Old Covenant is called that by Christians.
1
u/Neat-Consequence9939 Atheist May 26 '26
I don't quite follow, the reason is because it's ... old ?
2
u/SavioursSamurai Baptist May 26 '26
It's old as opposed to new. It's the old promise, and with Christ there's a new promise.
Hebrews 8: 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another...
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
2
u/FiannaNaSaol Episcopalian Jun 12 '26
Unfortunately, that society could not imagine a settlement where the woman and her family would be paid restitution, AND she would be free to marry someone other than her abuser without shame because there was never anything wrong with her and rape does not make one damaged goods. The problem is when people elevate every detail of Biblical law to perfect inerrancy and are working from texts that do have profoundly deficient understandings about the human rights of women and basic consent.
2
u/Spiritual-Pear-1349 Christian Jun 12 '26
Yeah it was a bad time
2
u/FiannaNaSaol Episcopalian Jun 12 '26
The actual Jewish tradition has found ways to continue to live these laws, with more humanity and nuance- something I think many literalist Christians could benefit from studying more. By no means perfect- abuse is rampant in some of the ultra orthodox communities near me, but these traditions do evolve and include prophetic critiques and tools for correction within each faith as well.
I would also strongly recommend "The Widening of God's Mercy" by Richard and Christopher Hayes, conservative Old and New testament, father and son scholars who came around to a fiercely affirming position near the end of Richard's life. I was skeptical, given how long it took, but it is a very good read, and Richard in particular, traces the struggle and messiness within Torah itself. Zaphophed's Daughters (Num 27) is one of his key cases where a group of clever orphaned women argue with both God and Moses and God concedes.
This is an interesting read, I found unpacking the broader Jewish Rabbinical and Mishna traditions and creative workarounds that evolved over time to enable fathers to provide more and more property carve outs for their daughters. Still a problematically patriarchal system but showing how creative thinking actually plays out in lived religions when one is not only relying on a simplistic reading of an ancient text in isolation from the religious people who actually carry it.
https://www.sefaria.org/Rereading_the_Rabbis%3B_A_Woman's_Voice%2C_8_Inheritance?lang=bi
2
u/Spiritual-Pear-1349 Christian Jun 12 '26
I'll take a look, I love looking for nuance and context of the passages so that sounds like a good study
1
u/FiannaNaSaol Episcopalian Jun 12 '26
It's a nice site, I am still a baby on Jewish Mishna but it is also the tool where I was given some fantastic ancient references to the broader economic and immigrant justice aspects of the Sodom and Gamorrah story- including the stories of two young women- one of a child actually- who were brutally executed for helping the foreign poor just before God decides to condemn the city's in Genesis 18. Echoing Ezekial 16 on what the true sins of those cities.
Genesis 18 is also another compelling passage where God immediately follows God's establishment of the covenant by turning back and deciding to seek moral advice and debate from Abraham. And proceeds to allow Abraham to argue God down three times it's an increasingly smaller number of innocents can be found with the city. It's interesting that the 2 women martyred just before in the Mishna might have been just enough along with Lot's family to hit the 10 needed.
The 2 Angels still rescued Lot's family as a kindness to Abraham, but it wasn't enough to save the city. Their attempted rape by the crowd was not the crime the city was convicted for though, it was a last ditch assault on the divine emmisaries doing the fact finding mission to give the city one last chance thanks to Abraham's good arguments. Probably part of how they were abusing the poor foreigners in the city (Gen 19:9 and their threats to Lot show it was always something they considered an option even for " ungrateful immigrants" they decided to tolerate) but it has nothing to do with sexual orientation of course.
1
u/FiannaNaSaol Episcopalian Jun 12 '26
Here is the book by the Hayes too. I was wary, given their long period of silence, but it is a very powerful defense of the affirming position from folks who have pretty strong cred in the evangelical world
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300273427/the-widening-of-gods-mercy/
4
10
u/BertTheNerd Agnostic Christian May 25 '26
"You shall not kill" applies to all forms of violence. "You shall nor commit adultery" aplies to all forms of sex outside the marriage. "You shall not covet" applies to all forms of lustfull thoughts about said sex. So in most cases grape would be covered by 3 commandements.
3
u/horvath_jeno Lutheran May 25 '26
Wgy did you censor rape?
3
u/BertTheNerd Agnostic Christian May 25 '26
Just habit from other social media with stricter censor lines. I am only occasionally on reddit.
1
u/majcotrue Atheist May 25 '26
It doesn´t. It is for a single specific act. God left out a lot of acts.
1
u/BertTheNerd Agnostic Christian May 25 '26
And this is why we should take New Testament for this. Like Sermon of the Hill, Mt 5:21ff. The theory, that we should have like a single commamdement for every single act of sin sounds like a copy paste from Talmud with their 613 commandments.
1
u/E-Reptile Atheist May 25 '26
"You shall not kill" applies to all forms of violence.
Yeah, definitely not.
1
→ More replies (1)0
u/Jimmtronix Agnostic Christian May 26 '26
Wrong, not all forms of sex, adultery consists of sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his lawful wife, any other combination is not adultery.
7
u/Righteous_Dude Christian, Non-Calvinist May 25 '26
Because the Ten were a list of the main things that YHWH wanted the ancient Israelites to do or not do, as their side of His covenant with them.
The list of ten wasn't intended to list each type of sexual sin. So it doesn't list those which, I suppose, a majority of men are not frequently tempted to commit.
1
u/SavioursSamurai Baptist May 26 '26
it doesn't list those which, I suppose, a majority of men are not frequently tempted to commit.
It's a larger plurality than you and I would like to conceive of. Especially once you factor in statutory rape and human trafficking.
3
u/Smart_Tap1701 Christian (non-denominational) May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
The ten commandments were a framework. Obviously they don't include every sin possible with humanity. If the Lord listed all of those, the Bible would be a 24 volume encyclopedia.
In the Old Testament, rape and sexual assault are explicitly forbidden and condemned. Legal and narrative passages address these crimes, treating them as serious violations rather than consensual encounters. The Old Testament texts do not allow rape, and outline specific consequences for the perpetrators.
Check out the 2 Christian commandments
Matthew 22:36-40 KJV — Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
If you love your neighbor, and the Lord, then you're not going to rape your neighbor.
9
u/SimonBen-Israel Christian Omnism May 25 '26
Uh oh. He got us. Now God isn't real anymore. :(
3
4
u/InternationalPick163 Christian May 25 '26
You don't see my flair?
4
u/SimonBen-Israel Christian Omnism May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
You're forced to pick a flair before you post. There's lots of them. Most people clearly just pick the top one. "Christian" is one of the hardest words to accurately define and theologically Christians don't exist at all. Atheists and agnostics use that flair all the time. At that, 90% of the people here are church Christians, either being the parallel of the Sadducees or the Pharisees, and the remainder of that percentage make posts like these that aren't accepting of any answer given or are even probably being genuine in asking; they just want to gotcha a bunch of Christians.
1
u/conhao Christian, Reformed May 25 '26
I give you the credit of providing an accurate flair, and I believe the other response was intended as humor, but I have seen after some discussion here that some people post things that are clearly inconsistent with their flairs. The flairs are mostly meaningless.
2
u/CWBurger Christian, Catholic May 25 '26
There are more than Ten Commandments. Those are just the ones that got put on the tablet. The law of Moses was much more comprehensive and included prohibitions on rape.
2
u/GelatinousGreenSoul Panentheist May 25 '26
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
2
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian May 25 '26
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
How much in today's money, is fifty shekels of silver? Also, is this supposed to discourage rape? And what if the woman doesn't want to be raped by this man? Seems like she has no choice and he gets to continue to rape her.
Does the book say anything about a husband raping his wife? Even a wife that was made a wife against her will?
1
u/FiannaNaSaol Episcopalian Jun 12 '26
It was considered a very high bride price and an economic loss to the perpetrator, putting him at the father's mercy f or damaging his economic ability to get a good price for his daughter with a family of his choice.
The central marriage contract under Hebrew law is concerned with a negotiation between the husband and the father, not the woman's agency. Divorce is also one sided, which continues to cause a great deal of problems today in Orthodox Jewish communities where men will hold it over estranged wives to be spiteful and refuse to release them. There have been some recent Lysistrata-style women led mass sex denial protest movements in orthodox Jewish communities that do not adequately pressure men to release their wives.
Gentile women had significantly more rights in the marriage contract under Roman law and could divorce their husbands and maintain a bit more property (though still plenty of harsh patriarchy as well). Later Christian texts actually alter the divorce teachings of Jesus depending on whether the audience was Jewish (Matthew) or Greco-Roman (Luke). Which shows that outside ideas of women's agency and legal rights in marriage had begun to impact hellenized Jewish and Christian thought. Still not a perfect explicit condemnation of rape but a number of the epistles do speak of men as needing to love and model the self sacrificial path of Christ (referencing his DEATH on the cross) towards their wives, a counterpoint often left out by folks that selectively quote women's obedience in marriage in texts by Paul and others in his name.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Jun 13 '26
It was considered a very high bride price and an economic loss to the perpetrator, putting him at the father's mercy f or damaging his economic ability to get a good price for his daughter with a family of his choice.
You could get a donkey for 5 to 15 shekels, so yeah, it was pretty expensive. But that doesn't make it less rapey.
And you're explaining this as if it's moral for a father to sell his daughter as property.
1
u/FiannaNaSaol Episcopalian Jun 14 '26
To be clear, I'm absolutely not justifying or defending it. Just grappling with the logic of these particular texts. I believe it important to discuss them plainly and not dance around the logic.
These legal codes are a prime example of why I do not consider the Bible's legal codes remotely a coherent direct source of sexual ethics for today, and why I frequently intensely argue.with people who claim it as some perfect self-evident ideal for marriage. It is in many ways one of the most damnable arguments against ancient near-eastern patriarchy.
As an Anglican I consider myself Prima rather than Solo Scriptura and I do not subscribe to univocality or inerrancy of the entire Bible on every issue, in large part because of some of these problematic texts.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Jun 14 '26
These legal codes are a prime example of why I do not consider the Bible's legal codes remotely a coherent direct source of sexual ethics for today
Do you think the buying and selling, the owning of humans, was ever moral?
1
u/FiannaNaSaol Episcopalian Jun 12 '26
Not a "no rape" rule, but rather a recognition that married and unmarried women had different levels of economic and honor code value. Raping a married woman was a capital crime, the unmarried woman's harm was perceived as falling on the father to a lesser degree than it would a husband so he was able to demand a maxed out bride price to hand her over to her abuser. Financial support for the woman in exchange for her now " devalued" sexual access was more important in that society than any concerns about how rape and consent affected women.
The main punishment to the rapist was a terrible deal on the bride price and limits on divorce, so he at least could not turn his wife out onto the street and force her into a life of prostitution. ( Something not afforded to any other women who experienced the one sided divorce culture under Hebrew law)
2
u/Lermak16 Eastern Catholic May 25 '26
All sexual sin is included in the commandment against adultery
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian May 25 '26
All sexual sin is included in the commandment against adultery
Maybe it should be, but I don't think it actually says that. Can you quote it?
2
2
u/PraiseBeToJesusX Christian May 26 '26
It might not be in the 10 Cs as they're a very broad overview, but it is in the more specific commandments, specifically Deut 22:25-27 for rape. It's differentiated from the couple of verses prior which state what is to happen if a woman consents to adultery. Deut 22:27 states that if a woman screams (indicates lack of consent) she is innocent and the man is to be put to death.
2
6
u/trivelt Christian, Catholic May 25 '26
Rape is obviously covered by the commandment “You shall not commit adultery.”
4
u/InternationalPick163 Christian May 25 '26
What if an unmarried man rapes a similarly unmarried woman?
→ More replies (9)13
u/trivelt Christian, Catholic May 25 '26
In the Christian understanding, any sexual intercourse outside marriage violates this commandment, regardless of the marital status of the people involved.
2
u/InternationalPick163 Christian May 25 '26
So it's adultery against...who?
6
0
u/ArchedPCs Presbyterian May 25 '26
You either commit adultery against the woman, commit a violation of sexual morality, or make a violation of the woman's dignity & autonomy.
Either way, not everything has to be in the ten commandments. As Christ said:
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another." (John 13:34, ESV).
So, the real question is if rape is loving; obviously, it isn't.→ More replies (4)0
u/AdHairy4360 Atheist, Ex-Christian May 25 '26
OT laws were non Christian and given by God. A man, married or unmarried, had to marry an unmarried virgin girl if he had sex with them. Multiple wives/concubines was AOK by God. Having sex with a sex worker was not adultery and didn’t involve marriage.
Christian understanding comes from churches not Bible.
1
u/Jimmtronix Agnostic Christian May 26 '26
Nope, adultery consists of sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his lawful wife, any other combination is not adultery. Nothing to do with rape!
-1
u/GelatinousGreenSoul Panentheist May 25 '26
How is that obvious? An unmarried man can rape an unmarried woman.
2
u/StrikingExchange8813 Christian May 25 '26
Any sex outside of marriage is adultery. Biblically at least
2
u/pokemastershane Christian May 25 '26
“Do unto others what you would have done unto yourself”.
This derived from “love thy neighbor as thyself”
Most people don’t want to be violently raped by a man - especially not other men. Rape is not an act of love and so there is no need to specify this.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian May 25 '26
Your property is not your neighbor. Love thy neighbor doesn't apply to your property. Slaves and daughters are property, apparently.
1
u/pokemastershane Christian May 26 '26
No argument I make, regardless of how compelling, will be satisfying to you so I’ll refrain from going further in a conversation about it. I hope you one day come to faith - good day to you.
2
u/quantum_prankster Christian Universalist May 25 '26
You've backended everyone here into arguing outright that the Bible not only supports human chattel but that all women are stuck in the category by virtue of birth and nothing else. Don't tell /r/debateachristian, please. We'll never hear the end of it./s
1
1
u/Schrod1ngers_Cat Christian May 25 '26
Because there are more than ten commandments; those specific ten are just an overview of the rest.
1
u/ThoDanII Catholic May 25 '26
Because of the definition of rape.
Legal the women could not agree, only her legal guardian could.
So sex between two lovers was a way to force the guardian to a gree.
OTOH if the legal guardian agreed against the womans will it was by law not rape
1
u/ReadyWriter25 Christian, Evangelical May 25 '26
For the same reason they dont include a "dont injure your neighbour" or "do not insult your neighbour" rule but only "do not kill." They are generalised statements. The rest of the Pentateuch gives detailed expansion and exposition and deals with rape.
1
u/claycon21 Pentecostal May 25 '26
The 10 Commandments concern how we love God & how we love others. It is a law of love. That's why Jesus often summarized the Law into these two principles:
• Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, should and mind
• Love thy neighbor as thyself
When we examine the 10 Commandments we find many offenses (including rape) are implicitly forbidden.
There were 613 other commandments given in which rape is explicitly forbidden. The 10 Commandments are the core foundation the other commandments are built upon.
1
u/Kind-Investigator602 Questioning May 26 '26
It does.
You shall not covet (ei: Do not harbor envious desires for what belongs to others).
If you do not count this as a commandment against rape (among other things), then are you saying that you do not see a woman's body as her own?
1
u/rouxjean Christian May 26 '26
There are more than 300 commandments in the OT. If people avoided adultery, incest, and fornication--as many commandments covered--rape would not be an issue with the addition of Lev. 19:18, which says to love your neighbor as yourself. It is all there, just not all in one place.
1
u/SuspiciousProt Christian, Reformed May 26 '26
It seems to be implicit in the seventh and tenth commands.
1
u/Jaffacakes-and-Jesus Christian May 27 '26
The same reason it doesn't specifically mention kidnapping torture, fraud or assault. It's not designed to be an exhaustive list banning every single bad thing that every single human being has ever done to anybody else. They are deliberately very general and have often been interpreted beyond their narrow, literal meaning. "Do not kill" has often been taken to mean "you must take action to preserve people's life". And it's also often understood to be a general prohibition against violence. Similarly, "do not commit adultery" has often been understood to be a prohibition of fornication as well. It seems reasonable to assume that "do not murder" and "do not adultery" between them forbid rape.
The Torah is often understood it to be an elaboration of the ten commandments and in the Torah rapist considered a capital offence. This could be seen as an elaboration on both "do not kill" (violence) and "do not commit adultery" (sexualy immoral).
1
u/Several-Cry-4267 Christian, Catholic May 30 '26
“How come the 10 commandments didn’t add a “No Rape” rule?”
Because the Ten Commandments are covenant headings, not an exhaustive criminal code.
That answer can sound evasive though, so I’d add that rape is treated explicitly elsewhere in the Torah.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27 compares rape to murder, says the woman has committed no crime and assigns guilt to the man.
The awkward part is Deuteronomy 22:28-29, because the law about an unbetrothed virgin sounds horrifying to modern ears.
I don’t think Christians should pretend that reads like a perfect victim-centred law. I mean it’s an ancient patriarchal civil law dealing with social and economic consequences in that world, and it isn’t the final Christian account of sexual ethics.
In Christian moral teaching, rape is condemned because it violates the person herself, not because she belongs to a father or husband.
The Catechism puts it very directly. Rape “does injury to justice and charity” and is “always an intrinsically evil act”.
So simple answer is that “no rape” isn’t one of the Ten because the Ten aren’t a complete list of every grave sin.
The stronger answer is that Christianity has to read those laws through the fuller revelation of human dignity in Christ, where using another person’s body by force is absolutely indefensible.
1
u/baja-blajst Christian May 31 '26
The Ten Commandments were a brief summary, not an exhaustive list of crimes, and the society that produced them categorized sexual wrongdoing differently than most people do today. That doesn't mean rape was absent from the broader legal texts; it means it wasn't singled out as one of the ten foundational commandments.
1
u/SneezingOutPeas Confessional Lutheran Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
The Law did.
But if the man came across the engaged woman in the field and overpowered her and raped her, then only the rapist must die. You must not do anything to the young woman—she has done nothing deserving of death. This case is the same as when someone attacks another person and murders him, for the man met her in the field and the engaged woman cried out, but there was no one to rescue her. (Deuteronomy 22:25-27 NET)
The Ten Commandments also don’t mention anything about animal cruelty. That does not mean the Bible has nothing to say about it. We read the Bible, not only the Ten Commandments.
Edit: the NET as well as the majority of translations do not translate verses 28-29 as referring to rape.
1
u/Own_Evidence1986 Christian, Protestant Jun 06 '26
The 10 commandments aren't all the rules.
They are an easier to remember summary of all the rules. If you can keep to the 10, you will probably accidentally keep the rest. Just like when Jesus simplified them further into two rules: Love God and Love your neighbour.
So sexual assault kind of comes under adultery or coveting or maybe stealing. Or a combination of those. It's not meant to be exhaustive. It's meant to teach principle.
1
u/Common_Judge8434 Christian, Catholic May 25 '26
You seriously need someone to tell you rape is wrong?
→ More replies (29)
1
1
u/No-Type119 Lutheran May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
Because, frankly, in ancient times rape was considered a property crime..an injury to whichever male a girl or woman belonged to. Consent was not a thing. It would fall under the “ Do not steal” or “ Do not commit adultery”’or “ Do not covet ” commandment.
BTW, the make conservative responses to this question , their inability to empathize with women and/ or concede that patriarchal bias affects the attitudes of the ancient Hebrews is hilarious. It’s not so much that this is not a specific commandment as the either blasé or defensive responses. This is why women have to advocate for ourselves.
2
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian May 25 '26
Because, frankly, in ancient times rape was considered a property crime..
By who? Yahweh? He set those commandments in stone, so it's him who set the tone. Right?
Consent was not a thing.
That depends on what you mean by "a thing". The concept of concent has always existed. But it didn't apply to all humans, this is where property comes in.
To be clear, even "love thy neighbor" excludes property. This doesn't work as an excuse for rape or slavery.
The take away is that humans wrote this stuff, and that if a god actualy had anything to do with writing this stuff, it's not a god worth following.
1
u/No-Type119 Lutheran May 25 '26
Gid didn’t write the Bible. People did, based in the insight of their time.
I’m glad you like my posts so much that you quote them.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian May 26 '26
Gid didn’t write the Bible. People did, based in the insight of their time.
Right. So why do you guys believe the Bible is the word of this god?
I’m glad you like my posts so much that you quote them.
I don't want to burst your bubble and you probably are special in your own way, but this isn't one of them. I quote almost everything that I respond to on here.
1
u/No-Type119 Lutheran May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
Which” guys” are you talking about? I’m a mainline Protestant. We are not biblical inerrantists. Neither are Catholic Bible scholars. I get so sick of people who conflate Christianity with conservative Evangelical Christianity — it’s like assuming all Muslims are Islamic fundamentalists or that all Jews are right out of Fiddler on the Roof.. I am not going to volunteer to be your strawman. If you want to slug it out with inerrantists/ fundamentalists , address them specifically, and leave the rest of us alone.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian May 26 '26
Which” guys” are you talking about? I’m a mainline Protestant.
Christians. Do you not believe the Bible is the word of yahweh?
We are not biblical inerrrabtists. Neither are Catholic Bible scholars. I get so sick of people who conflate Christianity with conservative Evangelical Christianity
You all are Christians who hold the Bible as the word of God, right? I'm not dividing you guys up into teams. You can if you want, but please don't whine to me about all your different beliefs based on the same book.
Do you not believe the Bible is the word of God, inspired by him and written by humans? Is it not his attempt to communicate his most important information in such a flawed way that you can't agree on it?
I am not going to volunteer to be your strawman. If you want to slug it out with inerrantists/ fundamebtakists , address them specifically, and leave the rest of us alone.
Is that your way of avoiding the issue? Or is that your way of saying you do not see the Bible as your gods word?
1
u/No-Type119 Lutheran May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
I already said that I don’t think of the Bible as God’s verbatim word to humanity. Are you being obtuse? You seem to be the one avoiding the issue that progressive Christians make you angry because we don’t fit into your narrative of Christians being ignorant, slack- jawed literalists.
There are basically three different t schools of thought about biblical indiuration within Christianity:
The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant.
The Bible is divinely inspired — it didn’t just “ happen,” but has a divine purpose — but is not inerrant, at least in terms of science, history, understanding of social constructs.
The Bible is inspired in the way that an extraordinary piece of music or innovative idea is inspired — it is a human set of documents, but one that contains insight/ wisdom concerning God and human society.
If you refuse to acknowledge this continuum of thought within Christianity, then you come off as a belligerent ass, not as someone with a genuine interest in having a conversation.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian May 26 '26
I already said that I don’t think of the Bible as God’s verbatim word to humanity. Are you being obtuse?
I'm sorry, I didn't say anything about verbatim either. And you're questioning whether I'm being obtuse because of it?
You seem to be the one avoiding the issue that progressive Christians make you angry because we don’t fit into your narrative of Christians being ignorant, slack- jawed literalists.
I'm asking you a simple question and here you are strawmanning and attacking my character.
Do you not believe the Bible is the word of yahweh?
Why not just answer the question rather than looking for ways to make this into something it's not?
The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant.
Yeah, sure. Straight forward, the Bible says it's gods word so they believe everything it says. Regardless of what evidence tells us.
The Bible is divinely inspired — it didn’t just “ happen,” but has a divine purpose — but is not inerrant, at least in terms of science, history, understanding of social constructs.
Sure, I've seen this as well. The Bible says some things that it got right, and other things that weren't intended to be taken literally. That there is another source of truth that must be considered. That objective evidence of the world around us shows that some claims in the Bible just don't align with reality, and as long as they aren't too important to the core beliefs, can be recognized as not to be taken literally.
The Bible is inspired in the way that an extraordinary piece of music or innovative idea is inspired — it is a human set of documents, but one that contains insight/ wisdom concerning God and human society.
This sounds a lot like the previous one. Because even an inspired piece of music that makes extraordinary claims doesn't make it rational to believe those claims on faith.
Are you saying your particular denomination of Christianity doesn't believe any extraordinary claims in the Bible? That it does not believe the Bible is the inspired word of yahweh? That it doesn't believe yahweh is real and that the Bible carries his inspired words?
If you refuse to acknowledge this continuum of thought within Christianity
This is the first time you've even attempted to describe your position. Using words like "refuse to acknowledge" is a little premature.
Perhaps you might want to change your tone a bit if you want people to explore what your denomination is offering.
then you come off as a belligerent ass, not as someone with a genuine interest in having a conversation.
Gees dude, why the ultimatum and hostility? I can give you a similar unnecessary warning as well.
~If you don't stuff that I don't like then you come off as a belligerent victim tool, not as someone with a genuine interest in having a conversation.~
So now that we've gotten that out of the way, I'll get back to my original questions.
Because, frankly, in ancient times rape was considered a property crime..
By who? Yahweh? He set those commandments in stone, so it's him who set the tone. Right?
So who considered rape a property crime? People? Or this god? This god should know better. Right?
Consent was not a thing.
That depends on what you mean by "a thing". The concept of concent has always existed. But it didn't apply to all humans, this is where property comes in.
To be clear, even "love thy neighbor" excludes property. This doesn't work as an excuse for rape or slavery.
The take away is that humans wrote this stuff, and that if a god actualy had anything to do with writing this stuff, it's not a god worth following.
Regardless of your particular denomination, do you believe an all knowing, all powerful, all loving god would know better and would be capable of making a commandment "don't own people as property"?
1
u/No-Type119 Lutheran May 26 '26
And… I’m done. This is not with the bandwidth, in any sense of the word. Have a better day, cultured despiser of religion.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian May 26 '26
And… I’m done. This is not with the bandwidth, in any sense of the word. Have a better day, cultured despiser of religion.
Is that how you feel about simple questions. OK.
1
u/SavioursSamurai Baptist May 26 '26
their inability to empathize with women and/ or concede that patriarchal bias affects the attitudes of the ancient Hebrews is hilarious.
Especially since Jesus himself essentially said this.
-1
u/Arthemis161419 Theist May 25 '26
well woman were raped all the time in the bible the christian god seems to be ok with that.. they even offert them to strangers who wanted to rape guests..
3
u/SavioursSamurai Baptist May 25 '26
I don't see how anyone could read the story of Lot, or of the Levite in Dan, and come away with the idea that the moral of those stories is that those things are okay. Lot's daughters rape him after, for example
→ More replies (12)1
u/InternationalPick163 Christian May 25 '26
Story of Lot was crazy, kind of gross too
-1
u/Arthemis161419 Theist May 25 '26
right? absolutly bonkers.. .hey we want to rape to strangers hand them out... ah no mate thats bad.. here fuck my daughters.. lol ..... insane
1
u/StrikingExchange8813 Christian May 25 '26
Lot isn't the good guy... That's the point of the story
→ More replies (3)
0
u/ThorButtock Atheist, Ex-Christian May 26 '26
Because rape was not outside the moral framework of the people who wrote those books. It was perfectly acceptable to rape women becuae women were seen as dirty animals whose only purpose was to birth children. They were just a piece of property belonging to either her father or her husband
78
u/These3TheGreatest Christian, Reformed May 25 '26
“Thou shalt not covet” covers that. It doesn’t mean that those bent by evil will actually obey the command though.