Q.
46
Is it true that the Ten Commandments found
in the Bible are almost a copy of the Code of
Hammurabi, which has been around longer?
Why not just include the Code of Hammurabi
instead of having a whole new set of rules?
David J. Lose
Who is...
?
David J. Lose
I own enough Norwegian sweaters to wear
a different one every day of the week—and
I’m not even a little bit Norwegian.A.
The Old Testament contains two distinct kinds of laws. The fi rst,
absolute law, is binding in all circumstances—”You shall not mur-
der” (Ex. 20:13). The second, case law, applies only to particular
situations—“When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be
stoned, and its fl esh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall not be
liable” (Ex. 21:28). (If you want to get fancy, the technical names for these are
apodictic and casuistic law, respectively.)
Hammurabi’s code is largely case law, written for specifi c circumstances;
the Ten Commandments are absolute. While there is some similarity between
Hammurabi’s Code and the case law in the Old Testament, I’d argue that con-
tent isn’t what makes Old Testament law distinct.
Instead, notice the small number of absolute laws that form what we
might call the enduring heart of the law (ten commandments versus 282 rules
from Hammurabi). All the other laws in the Old Testament refl ect the ongo-
ing attempt of Israel to apply the enduring and absolute law to their changing
circumstances.
When we apply biblical law to our own lives, we will probably fi nd little
help from the context-specifi c laws. Instead, like the Israelites, we should faith-
fully discern how the heart of the law applies to our context.
Also, the Israelites ascribed the Ten Commandments to God, and by
doing so portrayed God as deeply concerned with human welfare. This is a far
cry from either the gods of Greek mythology—for whom human beings were