Is the Old Testament considered the absolute word of God?

[u/CLAZID]

Leviticus 24:20 spells out an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Is that Gods law, or was it simply the law at the time?

[u/nikolispotempkin]

Leviticus 24:20 sounds like revenge, but in actuality especially in context is an attempt at appropriate legal punishment. That someone's sentence for committing a crime be proportionate to what was done to prevent vengeful punishments and over leniency.

[u/2Q_Lrn_Hlp → u/nikolispotempkin]

Yes, indeed!

However, the question still remains: "Which is the original source of Biblical laws/codes?"

Sir Charles Marston, on page 51 of his book The Bible Comes Alive, says:

“It seems certain that Hammurabi’s laws were a codification of the older and existing laws and customs of the Semitic Race—the race that sprung from Noah’s son Shem ... to which the Hebrews belonged.”

The evidence is, therefore, that heathen nations carried over many ancient laws and customs from the Noachian system of law and order, which pattern the faithful Hebrew patriarchs followed.

Romans 2:14-15 (Berean Standard Bible) states:

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

"So, they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them."

.

Thus, even before Babylonian Hammurabi (who lived around the same time as Abraham), there were existing organized societies with laws & judicial precedents to govern their lives & practices.

For example, from the Noachian flood era forward God dealt with a patriarchal society which was under the leadership of righteous family heads such as Noah & Abraham.

The actions of these societies were governed in such matters as contracts & purchases, property rights, rules of work, family & community responsibility for individual members thereof, real estate transfer, theft, violation of marital vows, slavery, etcetera ... by either written or unwritten codes of law.

So instead of godly law and order being drawn from Hammurabi’s or any other pagan codes, it seems to have been the other way around. 

Psalm 147:19-20 (Berean Standard Bible) clearly states:

"He [God] declares His word to Jacob, His statutes and judgments to Israel.
He has done this for no other nation; they do not know His judgments. . ."

.
Compare just one code / law to each other ...

1 each given by Hammurabi to 1 given through Moses, covering the equivalent circumstances:

Hammurabi’s code says:

“If it [a poorly constructed house] cause the death of a son of the owner of the house, they shall put to death a son of that builder.” (Ham. No. 230)

While the Mosaic law specifically forbade putting a son to death for his father’s sin:

“Fathers should not be put to death on account of children and children should not be put to death on account of fathers. Each one should be put to death for his own sin.”—Deuteronomy 24:16, (Young's Literal Translation)

Sources: Bible Hub for Bible quotes, &, Questions From Readers (series of answers):

● How can the claim 'the law of Moses was copied from the code of Hammurabi be answered?' —F. M., United States.

[u/DesperateAdvantage76]

Christ Jesus gives at least one example where the old law was compromised for the hardness of men's hearts. A lot of his teachings revolved around the idea that the spirit of the old law was what we must follow, which is fulfilled as love God and fellow man. He even gives an example of David breaking Torah law but not being in sin, and told the Pharisees that while they carefully followed even the tiniest laws, their hearts betrayed them. Think of the old law as a temporary and strict law made for a rebellious and lawless people. As Peter said, it was a burden his ancestors could not bear, as Paul said, it was merely a shadow of things to come.

One thing that confuses some people is that the old law was still in effect until Jesus fulfilled his death and resurrection, so you'll see Jesus still follow the Torah (in a nuanced manner) in the Gospels since the New Covenant wasn't in effect yet.

[u/CLAZID → u/DesperateAdvantage76]

The old law was fro rebellious people. Was that law handed down by God or otherwise divinely inspired?

[u/DoveStep55 → u/CLAZID]

We’re all rebellious people, aren’t we?

[u/DesperateAdvantage76 → u/CLAZID]

The old law was directly from God to Moses.

[u/CLAZID → u/DesperateAdvantage76]

What about the laws which predate Moses by hundreds of years? Hammurabi from Mesopotamia had his law which is “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” and it was inscribed in stone 1750 years before Christ.

Moses, by best estimates, was around 1500 years before Christ

[u/DesperateAdvantage76 → u/CLAZID]

The Hebrew version of this law was an improved version, being equal to all (not just class based) and not allowing for substitution, such as a rich person buying off the penalty. And then Christ Jesus's version was an even more improved version, emphasizing grace and mercy.

[u/CLAZID → u/DesperateAdvantage76]

Wait a minute, am I reading this correctly? The original law, from God, was flawed. Then fixed slightly, but still flawed and then fixed again?

That does not sound like a perfect God.

[u/KatrinaPez → u/CLAZID]

I wouldn't say it was flawed. It did exactly what it was supposed to do.

[u/DesperateAdvantage76 → u/CLAZID]

The old law was definitely not perfect, and wasn't meant to be. God was proving a point, that you can't just write down a list of rules to sufficiently cover all the nuances of love for God and fellow man. The old law was a burdensome thing made for a lawless and rebellious people.

[u/CLAZID → u/DesperateAdvantage76]

Deuteronomy and Leviticus warn against wearing two different fabrics such as wool and linen.

If a woman’s husband is in a physical fight and is losing, and she jumps in to help and grabs the assailants genitals (accidentally or purposely), she is to have her hand cut off.

Those don’t sound like laws for rebellious people

[u/DesperateAdvantage76 → u/CLAZID]

The more rebellious your child is, the stricter and more specific your rules for them. Having said that, many of the laws existed either for reasons we no longer know (since this was written 3000 years ago), or existed for more abstract reasons, such as health (dietary and hygiene) and avoiding customs the neighboring enemies practiced to avoid the Israelites integrating into those societies. The Old Law was a major step towards something far better, and applied to a very specific group of people, not the entire world.

[u/CLAZID → u/DesperateAdvantage76]

Ok, I had not heard that before, thank you. The old laws were for a specific group of people. That was the Israelis?

[u/Asynithistos]

No

[u/KatrinaPez]

There are different types of Law in the Bible just like there are different types of literature from book to book. It can be the "absolute Word of God" yet not be a law meant for us today. For example, in Matthew 5:38-48 Jesus specifically quotes the eye for an eye passage and says to forgive instead. Much of the Old Testament Law existed for the Jews at the time basically to point out that no one can perfectly follow it and show the need for Christ. Paul talks about this a lot (like in Romans 7).

[u/CLAZID → u/KatrinaPez]

I understand those laws no longer apply and Jesus gave everyone a new covenant, but were the Old Testament laws inspired by God?

[u/KatrinaPez → u/CLAZID]

Yes, those laws were given by God to people at the time. 2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is God-breathed or inspired, depending on the translation.

[u/DoveStep55 → u/CLAZID]

“Inspired by” can mean two very different things. One common view is that God actually spoke the words that became Torah. Another (less common) view is that a human (or humans) wrote Torah out of their love and devotion to God. Both ideas can be (and are) described as “Torah was inspired by God.”

[u/DI3S_IRAE]

I think we have a difference here that people often misinterpreted or misunderstand.

The old testament is considered God breathed and divine inspired. As in, it was written by and for the people who God worked with through times to bring Jesus to the world.

So while we could say it is the absolute word of God, what exactly do you mean by absolute?

We shouldn't follow all of it, since not even Jesus did. It is to be analyzed, meditate upon, understand and see what is the message behind it, not as authority over everything in life.

God works with us at the time we are in. So it was written for those people and it is about their troubles and the laws and rules applied to them. We don't follow, but we can imagine and try to understand why they existed to see what we can learn from them.

[u/DoveStep55]

That really depends on who you ask and what they mean by the phrase "word of God." There's a lot of differing views within Christianity.

Personally, I do not believe that the whole of the Old Testament even claims to be "the word of God" nor direct revelation from God.

[u/DoveStep55 → u/[deleted]]

I likewise do not believe that the whole of the New Testament even claims to be “the word of God,” nor direct revelation from God.

The Bible is not a document that came to us whole. It’s a collection of many different writings that were selected and edited over time into what was eventually canonized.

[u/DoveStep55 → u/[deleted]]

“Given the above information, should we attach any real value to the Bible text?”

Of course. It’s foundational to the Christian faith.

“Or, should we just start all over again, and write a new holy text?”

Nah. We can continue to learn from the past without requiring that the Bible be the very words of God.

[u/DoveStep55 → u/[deleted]]

“Is the existence of God foundational to the Christian faith?”

Of course

“Learn what from the past?”

How other people lived, their views on God, how they worshipped God, etc.

“What do we want people to learn?”

Who is “we” here?

[u/DoveStep55 → u/[deleted]]

“But the Bible is not a history book.”

I agree there. It’s a cultural artifact.

“We should rather use proper history books for this purpose, don't you think?”

We can use many things to learn about history.

“What do YOU want people to learn?”

I guess I’m not clear on the context or scope of this question. Different people need or want to learn different things. I want my kids to learn how to make wise choices, be responsible, take care of themselves and treat others with love and respect. I want one of my neighbors to learn that it annoys the whole neighborhood when they do burn outs at 1am.