The Lipit-Ishtar law code is not as complete as the Code of
Hammurabi and, consequently, its prologue as we have it is
not the entire prologue. Yet echoes of a similar magnificence
are in the description King Lipit-Ishtar gives himself:
“When the great Anu,
the father of the gods and Enlil, the king of all lands, the lord
who determines destinies . . . had called Lipit-Ishtar—Lipit-Ishtar,
the wise shepherd whose name has been pronounced by Numamnir [Enlil]
to the princeship of the land . . . then, I, Lipit-Ishtar, the
humble shepherd of Nippur, the stalwart farmer of Ur, who abandons
not Eridu, the suitable lord of Erech, I, who is fit for the heart
of Inanna . . . “7
Though Hammurabi and Lipit-Ishtar were not claiming to be deities,
they were claiming some authorship to the laws. They were not
claiming to be just mediators of deity-initiated laws and therefore
some comparison with Yahweh is warranted.
When God introduces Himself in the preamble, He only lists
one historical accomplishment. ”I am the Lord who brought
you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery (Ex. 20:1)”.
Absent in this preamble is a long inventory of why God is worthy
of giving laws; absent is who sanctioned Him to give laws, or
which gods are pleased with Him. God doesn’t need to convince
the people of His authority to initiate laws, or His ability to
carry out the laws. He reminds them of the miracles they’ve
witnessed in the recent days and months in Egypt and in their
release from Egypt. They also witness His presence shrouded on
Mt. Sinai in Exodus 19. In Deuteronomy, the covenant renewal document,
Yahweh does review the last 40 years with His audience to remind
them of specific acts of power and mercy they have seen, but these
examples are to remind them that there is no other god who has
performed such tangible, miraculous events (Deut 5:32-38). I do
not get a sense of arrogance from Yahweh when He lists these miracles
as I did when I read the ANE prologues. While the mortal kings
needed to validate their positions of authority, God assumes His
with complete confidence. Yahweh appeals to no higher authority
because He alone is the highest authority. At Sinai where Moses
was given the law, God claims exclusive ownership of the entire
world, and from that position chooses Israel to be His covenant
nation (Ex. 19:5). God is the Great King. The moral man involved
in God’s law codes, Moses, is only a mediator of the covenant
and has not claims to authorship of the codes. He is only a transmitter
of the information as God tells him to write, while the two kings
above claim to have some level of authorship of their empires’
laws.
Motivation for
Obedience
Another difference between the civil laws given by Yahweh to
Israel and the ANE law codes is the foundational reasons for citizens
to uphold and obey the laws. George Mendenhall theorizes that
religious obligations tended to become legal obligations in the
Ancient Near Eastern law codes.8
In other words, the kings created laws which were sanctioned by
the deities; therefore, a violation of a law was an act contrary
to the will of the deity and consequently, would be punished directly
by the deity. For example, if the Babylonians, under Hammurabi,
didn’t follow the laws that Hammurabi had written and which
were sanctioned by the deities, the community would experience
punitive acts of the gods. For example, Enlil, the storm-god,
would withhold rain from the whole land and all of the people.
Other natural catastrophes, such as plagues and famines would
also be possible penalizing measures. Therefore, the community
would feel compelled to punish its perpetrators in order to protect
itself from the divine wrath which does not single out the culprit
alone for punishment. The laws were to be fearfully obeyed with
one eye on the deity. Centuries later, as the legal systems became
more authoritative, the link between religious obligations and
legal obligations weakened in Mesopotamia, but at the time of
the Old Testament law, other cultures functioned in this superstitious
relationship with their gods.
But the underlying reasons for obeying God’s civil laws
were deeper than just fear against punitive acts by God, and punishing
the guilty was for more than fearing the retribution of God. It
is true that God promises military defeat, famines, plagues and
droughts (Deut. 28) if His people, who covenanted themselves with
Him as His vassal, disregarded His laws. In fact, God is even
more specific, more definite in His consequences to Israel’s
future disobedience than the curses given in Hittite suzerain-vassal
treaties, as shown in these ANE treaty examples:
“If you, Kurtiwaza,
the prince, and [you] the sons of the Hurri country do not fulfill
the words of this treaty, may the gods, the lords of the oath,
blot you out…May they draw you like malt from its hull. These
gods . . . may bring misery and poverty over you. May they overturn
your throne. May the earth be coldness so that you fall down slipping.
May you, Kurtiwaza, and [you], the Hurrians, be hateful to the
thousands gods, may they pursue you.” 9
“As for these words
which are on this tablet of silver of the land of Hatti and of
the land of Egypt—as far for him who shall not keep the[m],
a thousand gods of the land of Hatti, together with a thousand
gods of the land of Egypt, shall destroy his house, his land and
his servants.” 10
“The words of this
treaty and the oath that are inscribe on this tablet—should
Duppi-Tessub not honor these words of the treaty and the oath,
may these gods of the oath destroy Duppi-Tessub together with
his person, his wife, his son, his grandson, his house, his land
and together with everything that he owns.”11
In these examples, there are only indistinct curses of destruction
and calamity and in some, even the hope of calamity as
evidenced in the “may the gods..” formula. Yahweh is
very clear that He will bring specific acts of calamity and even
sends His prophets later to His people to warn them of these impending
judgments, why these judgment are coming coupled with a plea to
change their minds and return to Him. He warns them if they leave
Him and follow other gods in their detestable worship rituals,
He will send clear punishment their way. 12
God's Character Reflected
in the Law
God is equally unambiguous that He is setting up the nation’s
civil laws to accomplish more than just obedience for fear of
His retribution. God wanted His character to be visible to the
nations around the Israelites. He wanted to use their behavior
to show His character to the other nations; He wanted them to
be “holy” as He is “holy”. He wanted the Israelites
to experience “life” and not “death” (Deut.31:19,20).
God had given the Israelites a specific mission. At Sinai, God
gave them their new identity: “You are to be a kingdom of
priests” (Ex. 19:6). As priests were to be mediators between
God and humanity, the Israelites were to be the representatives
of God to the nations. Not only was Israel going to be the nation
through which God’s rescue plan would be accomplished through
Jesus, but even during this nation’s infancy, it was to embody
who God is for the nations around them to see. The Jews were to
explain God’s character through their civil law system, which
will be discussed later in this paper. In connection with this
mission, the repetition of “you are to be holy, as I am holy”
throughout the Mosaic Law (Lev. 11:44, 45, 19:2, Deut. 7:6, 14:2)
is a foundational reason for why some of the laws created a distinctiveness
between the Israelites and the surrounding nations. They were
to be “set apart” from the other nations in how they
related to God, and how they related to each other. For instance,
when God gives the death penalty in certain cases, He explains
why the perpetrator of the crime must die: “You must purge
the evil from among you” (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 17:12, 19:19,
21:21, 22:21, 24, 27). In these cases, God assigns a moral judgment
by calling the actions “evil”, which violates His character
and therefore must be punished. No reasons that I could find for
proscribed penalties are given in the ANE codes. In Deut. 6:20-25,
God tells the Jews to respond to their children’s questions
about the purpose of the laws by telling them that these laws
are “our righteousness”, or most likely, the way of
expressing a right connection to God by living a daily life aligned
with His character. This behavioral righteousness emerges from
a heart that is “right”, a heart that wants to obey
God. God did not want adherence to the civil laws externally,
He wanted them to obey as a logical response to the good He has
done and is doing for them.
Finally, God, though Moses, repeatedly states unambiguously that
obedience to these laws will “bring life and not death”
to the people (Deut. 30:19,20). The refrain “so that it may
go well with you” which Moses continuously reminds the people
in the covenant renewal was an invitation to peace, contentment,
and rest in God’s ways of interacting within families and
communities. In summary, the laws were to be obeyed not just to
punish themselves so the deity doesn’t punish the whole community,
the laws were to be obeyed to show the distinctiveness of God
to the world and to enjoy the fruits of “right living”.
Justice, Generosity, and Truth
The laws given to the Israelites were an outflow of God’s
character. As one reads the laws, one gets a sense that the civil
laws stem from what matters to God, what God values. Sometimes
the value is stated, as in Exodus 23:26, 27,
“If you take your
neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, return it to him by sunset,
because his cloak is the only covering he has for his body. What
else will he sleep in? When he cries out to me, I will hear, for
I am compassionate”.
Justice, generosity and truth are three other
values that are reflected in the civil laws. All three are intertwined.
When you see God’s attitude toward justice, you also see
God’s attitude towards truth. Some civil laws reflect God’s
generosity in the midst of enacting justice. This final section
will explore how God expresses these three values in ways that
create differences from ANE texts, most notably, the Code of
Hammurabi.
In ancient Babylon, there were three distinct social classes:
the amelu, or patrician class, the mushkinu, or
the working class of commoners, and the slaves, who were little
more than chattel to their masters.13
Between these classes, the law made a very sharp distinction.
An offence committed against an amelu, was punished with
far more severity than if the sufferer had belonged to the second
order in the state, yet when an amelu was the aggressor
in violent affairs, he was punished more severely than his social
inferior.14
Note these examples: 15
“If a seignior accused
another seignior and brought a charge of murder against him, but
has not proved it, his accuser shall be put to death.” H.C.
#1
“If
a seignior has knocked out a tooth of a seignior of his own rank,
they shall knock out his tooth.” H.C. #200. [But] “If
he has knocked out a commoner’s tooth, he shall pay one-third
mina of silver.” H.C. #201
“If a member of the
aristocracy has struck the cheek of another member of the aristocracy
who is of the same rank of himself, he shall pay one mina of
silver.” H.C #203
[But] “If a commoner
has struck the cheek of another commoner, he shall pay [only]
ten shekels of silver”. H.C. #204
“If a seignior’s
slave has struck the cheek of a member of the aristocracy, they
shall cut off his ear”. H.C. #205
The value of life is also measured differently in the three classes
as evidenced by the payment received by a Babylonian physician
for operating on the different classes of people:16
“If a physician preformed
a major operation on a seignior . . .and he saved the seignior’s
life . . . he shall receive ten shekels of silver”.
H.C. #215
“If it was a member
of the commonalty, he shall receive five shekels”.
H.C. #216
“If it was a seignior’s
slave, the owner of the slave shall give two shekels of silver
to the physician.” H.C. #217
“If a physician preformed
a major operation on a seignior . . .and he saved the seignior’s
life . . . he shall receive ten shekels of silver”.
H.C. #215
“If it was a member
of the commonalty, he shall receive five shekels”.
H.C. #216
“If it was a seignior’s
slave, the owner of the slave shall give two shekels of silver
to the physician.” H.C. #217
But in the Torah, while there are different groups of people
mentioned, including slaves, God commands equitable and impartial
treatment of all people in their social status in most situations.
“Do not pervert justice,
do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great,
but judge your neighbor fairly “ (Lev. 19:15).
“Follow justice and
justice alone . . . “ (Deut. 16:20).
“But is there is serious
injury, you are to take a life for a life, eye for eye, tooth
for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound
for wound, bruise for bruise.” (Ex. 21:23-25)
“Do not pervert justice,
do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great,
but judge your neighbor fairly “ (Lev. 19:15).
“Follow justice and
justice alone . . . “ (Deut. 16:20).
“But is there is serious
injury, you are to take a life for a life, eye for eye, tooth
for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound
for wound, bruise for bruise.” (Ex. 21:23-25)
Justice can only take place in an environment of truth, so God
prohibits slander and bribery. The use of bribes in Ex. 23:8 was
odious and reprehensible to God and society. Impartiality coupled
with kindness to enemies was obligatory in God’s nation (Ex.
23-4-5 with Deut. 22:1-3). God always attached His values to the
civil laws. “The moral aspect of the law is never far behind
the external demands in society, politics and ritual” 17
Along side of equality, God requires generosity in restitution
for the slaves who have been injured by a freeman. The following
law in Exodus is in direct contrast to the laws of injuring a
slave in the Code of Hammurabi:
“If a man hits a man
servant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let
the servant go free to compensate for the eye. And if he
knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let
the servant go free to compensate for the tooth” (Ex.
21:26,27)
In fact, God commands the Israelites to be much more compassionate
towards slaves than the other ANE nations were. While other nations
treated their slaves like chattel, God commands the Israelites
to a principle of kindness and generosity. God gives poor Israelites
the option to redeem themselves with a fair price computed from
the number of years left to the Year of the Jubilee. God warns
the Israelites to “see to that that his [the slave] owner
does not rule over him ruthlessly” (Lev. 25:53). God commands
the Israelites to give generous gifts of food and livestock to
a Hebrew indentured servant, or slave, and his family in the seventh
year of service, the Sabbath year, when they are allowed to go
free (Deut. 15:12-18). In this section, as in others, God tells
his people why they are to be generous with slaves; they were
slaves once as well and God freed them. They can imitate God’s
generosity here as a statement of trust in God’s provisions
for them and as a statement of doing what is in the heart of God:
redemption. There are no interactions with deities like this in
the ANE codes that I read; there were no moral reasons attached
to laws.
Capital Punishment
While capital punishment does not seem to be an anomaly in Ancient
Near East societies, God reserves capital punishment for some
very different crimes than capital crimes found in other ANE law
codes. It is fascinating to catalog the amount of crimes against
property which carry the death penalty in the Code of Hammurabi,
and in the Laws of Eshnunna, and to catalog the numerous
crimes against a person that do not carry the death penalty. God
requires no capital punishment against crimes against property,
but has strict death sentences for crimes against people, even
when the crime committed was not the taking of a life.
“People, not property
were at the heart of Old Testament legislation. . . .Human life
is so sacred [to God] that whoever assails it is subject to forfeiting
his or her own life.”18
Violations involving another person’s life that require
a sentence of death for the guilty are deliberate murder, striking
a mother or father, kidnapping, and dishonoring one’s mother
and father (Ex. 21: 12-17). An owner of a bull that habitually
gores people to death and refuses to take precautions is allowed
to be put to death, though there is a provision for the owner
to redeem his life is he pays the demanded price (Ex. 21:28,29).
And because truth and life are so important to God, more than
one witness must be produced to proceed with capital punishment
(Num. 35:30, Deut. 17:6, 19:15).
The death penalty was required only if one’s young son had
been kidnapped in the Code of Hammurabi19,
but God values both men and women, boys and girls and does not
specify the victim’s gender in a kidnapping (Ex. 21:16).
There is not a death penalty for murder in the Hittite Codes,
Tablet 1, #1-6; there is only a required monetary payment for
killing free men and women, male and female slaves.20
In the case of adultery, both the man and the woman caught in
the act are killed in the Bible (Lev. 20:10), showing equal justice
for both consenting adults, while only the adulteress is killed
in Law #28 in the Laws of Eshnunna21
and the Laws of Ur-Nammu.22
Stealing is condemned in both the Law of Moses and ANE codes,
but the penalty for stealing property is much harsher, even up
to death, in ANE codes. The Middle Assyrian laws, c. 1450 BC,
have a provision for a death penalty for a woman who steals from
her sick or dead husband and gives the property away.23
The Code of Hammurabi also contains various theft laws
which require death as the penalty:
“If a seignior stole
the property of god or palace [church or state], that seignior
shall be put to death; also the one who received the stolen goods
from his hand shall also be put to death”. H.C. #6
“When a seignior,
[some of] whose property was lost, has found his lost property
in the possession another seignior, if that seignior in whose
possession the lost property was found has declared, ‘A seller
sold [it] to me . . . the purchaser having then produced the seller
who made the sale to him and the witnesses in whose presence he
made the purchase, and the owner of the lost [property] having
also produced the witnesses attesting to his lost [property] .
. . and since the seller was the thief, he shall be put to death.”
H.C. #9.
“If the [professed]
owner of the lost property has not produced witnesses attesting
to his lost property, since he was a cheat and started a false
report, he shall be put to death.” H.C. #11.
“If a seignior committed
robbery and has been caught, that seignior shall be put to death.”
H.C. #22
“If a fire broke out
in a seignior’s house and a seignior, who went to extinguish
[it], cast his eye on the goods of the owner of the house and
as appropriated the goods of the owner of the house, that seignior
shall be thrown into that fire.” H.C. #2524
At an early state of the development of Babylonian legal codes,
if a thief was caught stealing property or livestock from the
church or the state and could not make appropriate restitution,
which was as high as thirty-fold, then the thief was put
to death.25
The Bible again departs from such harshness. No crimes against
property carry a death sentence. A thief who was caught in Israel
and could not make restitution, which was a more reasonable four-fold
or five-fold, was not killed, but only sold into slavery to
pay for his theft (Ex 22:3). In Israel, a property owner who in
broad daylight kills a thief is guilty of bloodshed because it
is not considered self-defense (Ex. 22:2). It is clear that God
values people more than property because even a thief who is killed
needlessly is valuable to God.
Conclusion
One can not write about all of the differences between the Mosaic
Law code and the codes of the contemporary Ancient Near Eastern
law codes. A working society with order was a goal for the ANE
kings. Hammurabi set out to “seek out peaceful regions for
[his people], to overcome grievous difficulties . . . to promote
the welfare of the land . . . to give justice to the oppressed.”26
King Lipit-Ishtar also codified laws to “establish justice
in the land, to turn back enmity . . . to being well-being to
the Sumerians and Akkadians . . . “27
In the same way, God’s goals were to have justice and well-being
for His nation as well, yet His goals for civil laws ran deeper.
His goals were to show the nations, through the Israelite community,
who He was and to proclaim His sovereignty, His life-giving ways
and His concern for people above all the created world. These
laws were a part of a covenant between The Great King and His
cherished vassal, Israel.
