Was The Mosaic Law Copied From The Code of Hammurabi?

Was The Mosaic Law Copied From The Code of Hammurabi? March 22, 2017

What is the Cod of Hammurabi? Did Moses copy parts of it in the Mosaic Law?

Who Was Hammurabi?

Hammurabi was the sixth king in a dynasty of 11 kings of Babylon. At the beginning of the second millennium, a group of Amorites migrated into Mesopotamia integrating into the urban social and political culture of the region. Early in the 19th century BC, Sumu-abum rose to power in Babylon creating a new Babylonian dynasty of Amorite kings. Sumu-abum and his early heirs focused on the immediate area surrounding Babylon, building canals, temples, defensive fortifications, and creating a strong political and military network. During this period Babylon was surrounded by strong political and military powers including Elam and Eshnunna to the east, Mari to the west, Larsa to the south, and the Kingdom of Upper Mesopotamia to the north. Hammurabi reigned over the Babylonian empire for 42 years (longest of any kings of the dynasty) and used his military and diplomatic skills to gain control over all Mesopotamia. Like his predecessors before him, Hammurabi began his reign by focusing on the geographic area around Babylon and by the thirty-second year of his reign, Hammurabi seized control of all Mesopotamia, consolidating power in Babylon. During the final 10 years of his reign, Hammurabi again focused on domestic issues and it is in these years that the law code was developed.

Code of Hammurabi

The best preserved and longest of the surviving examples of the Law Code of Hammurabi dates to 1760-1750 BC and contains almost 300 laws covering a wide range of social areas, including: false testimony, degrees of murder, lesser forms of injury, property damage, marriage, theft, robbery, kidnapping, theft, and commerce. The text, written on an eight foot high stele1, originally stood in Babylon and was later moved to Susa after a raid by the Elamites. The law code was not the first to be developed as there were other examples date to the third millennium 2100 BC. Although not the earliest, the Code of Hammurabi is significantly longer and better written than prior law codes. In addition, over 50 copies of the code have been unearthed suggesting the code was important to Babylonian culture and the Babylonian scribal tradition. The code segregated legal remedies by the social class of the individual. Three social classes of people are identified including: Aw lu – free men, landowners, and nobles; Muškenu – middle class, free but likely tenant farmers; and Wardu – slaves. Women and children are especially protected in the laws often equaling the rights of free men. Some economic prices were fixed, and commercial transactions often included a warranty. The code is comprised of customary law, royal edicts, and past court cases. The epilogue includes: a summation, statement describing how Hammurabi fulfilled his duties, blessings, and curses. The code was designed to show the gods that the king was performing his duty to uphold justice.


Biblical Relevance

The Law Code of Hammurabi and the legal code in the Bible exhibit several points of similarity. Both codes are written in the third person and both are based in caustic law, a legal code based in legal precedent using the language “If a person… (offense), then… (judgment).” In addition, the two codes cover many of the same classes of offense with similar judgments. A few of the similarities are demonstrated in the table within your notes – we will only review a couple examples here:

The Book of the Covenant and the Law of Hammurabi seem closely related in the legal context of the language and it is easy to see how the Covenantal Laws of Israel and other nations had influence, one upon the other. There is a shared common purpose because both laws contain caustic consequences for those who break these laws and consequently, both act as a deterrent to crime, whether moral or civil, which is why they were written in the third person. Both share in the protection of marriage, family, property damage, injury, murder, robbery, theft, kidnapping and even in commerce. They both act as stabilizers of society. For Israel, they constituted expectations from God in how we are to live with our neighbors and I personally see this as foundations for the U.S. and other nations as well so that authorities may rule in relative peace. Both laws share similar language because they share similar expectations for society and for the stability of each nation. Prosperity for the Babylon and blessings for Israel would be natural consequences of obedience to these laws and was in the best interest for both nations, even though for Hammurabi, it was for political and military purposes.

Decided Differences

As for as differences between the two laws, the authority or source are different, as one is from God and one from Hammurabi, whose reasons are self-serving, but God’s are for the benefit of all people, regardless of their social or economic standing. Hammurabi felt that he was chosen by the god of Enlil, only one among many, to be made the shepherd of Babylon but Moses knew that He was a chosen vessel of God, the One and True God, to be shepherd the nation of Israel. Other differences concerned the violation of laws of Hammurabi constitutes violations against Hammurabi himself and the nation but violation of the Covenant are sins against God Himself, even though affecting Israel as a whole. Different too was the fact that God was interested in creating a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, but Hammurabi’s motivation is for prosperity and longevity on his throne. Therein lies significant differences…the Covenant protects the disenfranchised members of society, regardless of their place or rank in society while the Code of Hammurabi is interested only in the “free men” class and gives special protection to the middle and higher social classes of Babylon. This is seen in the laws of the Code as the awilu are given special status and protection but the lower classes, the wardu (slaves) and the mushkenu (free person of low estate) have no such protection and are significantly more liable.[1] While biblical law sees human life as more valuable than material possession, the Code treated significant material loss as sometimes worthy of death. [2] Conversely, God requires a life for a life but the Laws of Hammurabi may only require financial compensation. [3] It is interesting that silver was the main currency of Babylon but gold is the primary precious metal used in the inner sanctuary, as one is inferior to the other, so is God so much more precious and valuable than human governments. The superiority of God’s Laws is that obedience (and holiness) is the desired outcome so that relationship with God is possible. The Law of Hammurabi’s goal is for longevity of the king and prosperity for the nation.


The conclusion is that although both may share common ground in that they contribute to civility and order, preventing chaos in society, the Covenant stands supreme over the Code because of its Author who is no respecter of persons; not so with the other author (Hammurabi) which had regards to a person’s social standing. For Paul, the law was a means of knowing what sin was (Rom 7:7) and understood that God intended it to show the inability of humans to present themselves as holy before Him by works (law keeping) and that “the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law [and that] the righteousness of God [is] through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (Rom 3:21-22). The Code has no such ability to make a person righteous because “one is [only] justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom 3:28) and no amount of civil obedience could ever make one perfect, even though we should strive to “uphold the law” (Rom 3:31c). The good news is that even though we can’t possibly fully obey the law as “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” we “are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (Rom 3:23-25).

Article by Jack Wellman

Jack Wellman is Pastor of the Mulvane Brethren Church in Mulvane Kansas. Jack is also Host of Spiritual Fitness and the Senior Writer at What Christians Want To Know whose mission is to equip, encourage, and energize Christians and to address questions about the believer’s daily walk with God and the Bible. You can follow Jack on Google Plus or check out his book Teaching Children the Gospel available on Amazon.

1 In Babylonian society there were mainly three classes; the awilu, a free person of the upper class; the wardu, or slave; and the mushkenu, a free person of low estate, who ranked legally between the awilu and the wardu. “Babylonia Social Hierarchy.” Bible History. http://www.bible history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaSocial_Hierarchy.htm (Accessed March 9th, 2017).

2 Desmond T. Alexander. From Paradise to the Promised Land (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing, 2012), 217.

3 Ibid., p. 219.

"“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: ..."

God Is…
"I don't respect superstitious beliefs of people. there was a time in human evolution where ..."

Whatever Happened To Humility?
""god" is...fill in the blank with whatever you care to make up. Make sure it's ..."

God Is…
"Children 'whitening skin to avoid racism' as hate crimes against minors risehttps://edition.cnn.com/201..."

Was Jesus Black? What Race Was ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • pud

    The entire christian theology is derived from all prior theologies. Christians have brought nothing new to the table. The code of Hammurabi is proof that morality and ethics existed long before your cult added a human blood sacrifice to your mythology…which by the way isn’t original either.

    You have to be a lunatic to accept by blind “faith” as absolute truth a couple of letters by a known murderer who suffered psychosis and who in fact NEVER met your invisible “savior” for which there is no empirical evidence. Only a lunatic or a fully indoctrinated sheep incapable of critical thought would or could craft his entire life around a Bronze Age book filled with nonsense and absurdities

    Guess that would be you jack

    • Jeff Webb

      When people are this deceived and far gone, it is always amazing to watch, like a train wreck. Every sentence in paragraph one is false, and easily seen as such by anyone truly familiar with the subject matter, making the second paragraph just a crazy rant. — The Judeo-Christian worldview is a unique thing and has no real counterpart. Only by taking single elements out of context and generalizing can one even try to draw parallels with other “religions”. By following Jesus’ direction in the Gospels, you can prove to yourself that it is true, as millions of people have.

  • pud

    Reason, rational critical thinking vs. dumb “faith”…


  • Cady555

    This does not explain why YHWH found it necessary to plagarize from Hammurabi.

    A culture that values life would provide an alternative to the death penalty. “An death for a death” results in two dead humans rather than one and is entirely about vengeance rather than the value of life.

    • Monty

      You are wrong. Go ask God yourself. If you ask Him humbly and really want to know, He will show you. God has a plan and purpose in all that He does and He is the loving creator of all mankind. The bible is God’s word so it is the best place to start.

      • Cady555

        No thanks. I get the same answers from my dining room chair, the difference is it exists.

    • Jeff Webb

      Wrong, all the way round.

  • cjaym

    The conclusion I got from this was, “They are basically the same, but mine is more valid because I believe God wrote it”. It seems that the OP believes that authorship is more important than content when determining validity.

    • Jeff Webb

      One can look at the different written elements, see the similarities in certain parts and jump to a conclusion that they are “the same”, but jumping to conclusions and saying something doesn’t make it Knowledge. Look at the whole of both texts, even the parts that speak on similar aspects of life, and it is plain that one was NOT derived from the other.

  • “Behold, I make all things new.”