What do you think?
Rate this book
The Law of the Covenant
Book by James B. Jordan
- GenresTheologyChristianityLaw
335 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1984
6 people are currently reading
103 people want to read
About the author
James B. Jordan
56 books143 followersJames B. Jordan is a Calvinist theologian and author. He is director of Biblical Horizons ministries, a think tank in Niceville, Florida that publishes books, essays and other media dealing with Bible commentary, Biblical Theology, and liturgy.
Jordan was born in Athens, Georgia, and he attended the University of Georgia, where he received a B.A. in comparative literature and participated in Campus Crusade for Christ. He served as a military historian in the United States Air Force and attended Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi but ultimately earned an M.A. and Th.M. from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with a master's thesis on slavery in the Bible. In 1993, he received a D.Litt. from the Central School of Religion for his dissertation on the dietary laws of Moses. From 1980 to 1990 Jordan was an associate pastor of a Presbyterian church in Tyler, Texas.
Jordan was born in Athens, Georgia, and he attended the University of Georgia, where he received a B.A. in comparative literature and participated in Campus Crusade for Christ. He served as a military historian in the United States Air Force and attended Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi but ultimately earned an M.A. and Th.M. from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with a master's thesis on slavery in the Bible. In 1993, he received a D.Litt. from the Central School of Religion for his dissertation on the dietary laws of Moses. From 1980 to 1990 Jordan was an associate pastor of a Presbyterian church in Tyler, Texas.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
August 15, 2014
The Law of the Covenant is a book in the same vein as Rushdoony's "The Institutes of Biblical Law," Bahnsen's "Theonomy in Christian Ethic" and so on. It is much shorter, of course, but still worthy of the comparison.
The book is a commentary on Exodus 21-23 and is full of the kind of illuminating exegesis for which Jordan is known. Of course, as John Frame acknowledges in the introduction, "Sometimes the fertility of Jim's mind still exceeds his self-discipline." Still, Jordan is really at his best in this book.
Jordan's main thesis is, "Since God's law is a transcript of His personal character, it cannot change, any more than God can change." He argues this from Matthew 5:17-19, a text that Poythress interprets differently, and convincingly so. However, Jordan does have an important point here, despite failing to convince from his textual support.
We must understand the manner in which God's law is a reflection of his character, and what aspects of the Mosaic law are still in force today, and why. Having ready fairly widely on the topic, I'm not sure anyone can provide a very clear and consistent hermeneutical method for how to apply this. I believe it is largely mature Christian wisdom applied to the situation that will provide answers.
With that in mind, Jordan does a remarkable job of showing the intent of the law, how it was applied in the Mosaic context, and then attempts to demonstrate how we ought to apply those principles today.
Again, theonomists and their critical sympathizers (such as Poythress and Frame) claim to be at odds with one another and claim to have differences in approach. But I haven't seen dramatic differences in their applications of the law today in my readings. The differences seem to be primarily nuances and a matter of emphasis.
Jordan works hard to show that the law is not haphazard, nor arbitrary. But instead, is very tightly knit and not easily understood to the modern western mind.
This is a brilliant work that deserves to be in print today, but sadly is not. This is one of the finer treatments of the Mosaic Law you'll find in such a relatively short work.
The book is a commentary on Exodus 21-23 and is full of the kind of illuminating exegesis for which Jordan is known. Of course, as John Frame acknowledges in the introduction, "Sometimes the fertility of Jim's mind still exceeds his self-discipline." Still, Jordan is really at his best in this book.
Jordan's main thesis is, "Since God's law is a transcript of His personal character, it cannot change, any more than God can change." He argues this from Matthew 5:17-19, a text that Poythress interprets differently, and convincingly so. However, Jordan does have an important point here, despite failing to convince from his textual support.
We must understand the manner in which God's law is a reflection of his character, and what aspects of the Mosaic law are still in force today, and why. Having ready fairly widely on the topic, I'm not sure anyone can provide a very clear and consistent hermeneutical method for how to apply this. I believe it is largely mature Christian wisdom applied to the situation that will provide answers.
With that in mind, Jordan does a remarkable job of showing the intent of the law, how it was applied in the Mosaic context, and then attempts to demonstrate how we ought to apply those principles today.
Again, theonomists and their critical sympathizers (such as Poythress and Frame) claim to be at odds with one another and claim to have differences in approach. But I haven't seen dramatic differences in their applications of the law today in my readings. The differences seem to be primarily nuances and a matter of emphasis.
Jordan works hard to show that the law is not haphazard, nor arbitrary. But instead, is very tightly knit and not easily understood to the modern western mind.
This is a brilliant work that deserves to be in print today, but sadly is not. This is one of the finer treatments of the Mosaic Law you'll find in such a relatively short work.
September 4, 2015
First book I read by Jordan. Changed everything.
August 4, 2023
Outstanding. The most helpful book on Exodus I’ve read.
October 3, 2022
A principled look at the old testament law. Practically speaking, James Jordan shows how the OT law truly is all-encompassing, and relevant to us today. This includes topics such as Theonomy, but also is edifying for apologetics. Many criticisms from outside the church are lodged at us using the OT as some sort of battering ram, but this book does a good job of defeating these sorts of assaults.
March 7, 2017
Read this while preaching through Exodus. This book is a trove of wealthy insights and careful observations of the Book of the Covenant in Ex 21-23. I also can't believe how incredibly practical Jordan's insights are. One moment, he's talking about what to do when a borrowed punch bowl cracks, and the next, he's explaining how we can better care for our poor. Not perfect, but deeply moving and instructive.
September 4, 2014
Jordan is by turns exasperating and fascinating.
Even as a theonomist and Van Till nut, he had some things here that I think a natural law proponent might pick up on: Pharaoh treats Israel as a slave and has a dim knowledge of the laws with regard to slaves. I think this is a legitimate point since the laws of slavery come later in Exodus itself. (Also, the point about giving gifts to slaves and connecting that with the Egyptians giving jewels was sweet.)
The Ten Commandments correlation is very forced. Sorry, I don’t buy. Good remarks on authority and the fifth commandment as being part of the first table and a bridge is one I have benefited from.
Very fine discussion of doorways as transition boundary—another Exodus out of the house of bondage! Very good discussion of how slaves could inherit as sons and how a man by having his ear circumcised and thereby was born again. His discussion of circumcision grew on me—particularly the idea of an ear being uncovered as a good thing. Coverings is what Leviticus is all about after all.
Good discussion of how the laws for a slave-woman are to be treated with dignity. That wasn’t too hard.
Really good discussion of slavery that says a lot about what I’ve felt: essentially slavery is a means for doing in later life what earlier rearing did not do: spanking overgrown boys. If this seems harsh, consider all the druggies and alcoholics that wander aimlessly through life. Might slavery in a loving family be easier for them? Of course, we should be glad it’s gone. And racial slavery has no excuse. Whatsoever.
Again good point about foreign slaves: not inside the covenant, they would not be as well trained and would need to remain in their master’s household for a longer time than a freeborn slave.
Controversial point: the master beats the slave and he dies a few days later. The master is not guilty of manslaughter as he would be if the slave died right away. Why? Because he did not intend to do so. As Christians we need to make distinctions between different sort of pro-abortion advocates. Some are simply not drawing all the lines and are “personally opposed to abortion but would never legislate morality.” Problematic, but important distinction in our assessment. Further down the line are those advocating early-term abortion: such a position usurps the position of God by saying we can decide when life begins and ends. Late-term abortion advocates are probably the greatest offenders, but even here if someone were ignorant, we need to recognize that intention does matter.
Hard words here on Southern slavery. I don’t like saying the wrath of God fell on the South—these sorts of situations are a bit complicated—but I think he’s right. Dabney does not come off well, but then again how many of us will be carried up by the winds of our own time.
Cool idea spawned by his discussion of manslayers as the champion of the land that has been defiled and calls for blood. The city of refuge functions as a covering or Ark that hides from the destruction in the land.
Interesting idea of families as rooted to the land. We should connect this with the notions of being fruitful and multiplying, filling the earth and subduing it.
Gold: “Notice that when God destroyed Egypt, He acted as Avenger of blood by turning the Nile to blood, thus defiling all Egypt. This was a symbolic manifestation of the previous bloodying of the Nile which occurred when Israelite babies were thrown into it (Ex. 1:22). The bloodied land cried out for God to destroy each family in it, by destroying the firstborn of each household. Each household which was under the blood of the Passover, under the blood of the death of the high priest Jesus Christ (symbolized by the blood of the lamb), was a miniature city of refuge. The death of this high priest enabled them to leave these sanctuaries in the morning of the exodus. The inhabitants of these cities of refuge were the firstborn sons, spared by the Angel of Death. Later, when the firstborn were replaced by the Levites (Numbers 3), they become the inhabitants of the cities of refuge, which were all Levitical cities (Num. 35:6). Thus, the cities of refuge were created by the Passover."
Good bit on how the avenger of blood both had to have holy wrath that could be appeased by a city of refuge, but also could take seriously the role he had—he knew the man who died.
Yay! John Frame style reasonable moment: “The slayer is impressed with the need to be careful with human life, to avoid even the possibility of its unjust destruction. The punishment fits the crime. As he has been careless, so now he must be very, very careful with his own life.”
Violence against parents not as commonly prohibited in the Near East: think Oedipus.
Really good moral thinking on how we treat older people and the degrees that are at work in the killing of a striker of parents: this is not teenage rebellion being punished, but high-handed physical or verbal attack that would be settled by a court with evidence of a long pattern of sin, not a sudden burst of unfaithfulness.
Is it just me or does Jordan use the word ‘Satanic’ a bit often?
Strong words on self-defense. I don’t think this is quite the spirit we need to have. Sorry, Doug Jones wins a little bit here. At least, though, he admits that flight is sometimes preferable.
“Until America is willing to return to God’s law and advocate the death penalty for abortion, God will not bless the movement.” Okay, I hope you changed your mind on that one. There is ambiguity in Exodus 21:22. We might interpret this passage not as “if her children come out, but are alive,” but rather as “if her children come out and she is alive.” Not likely in my opinion, but possible. The vagueness of the wording should give Mr. Jordan more pause.
Wonderful point about Lex Talionis probably not demanding physical payback but a ransom. Makes a lot of sense given all the ransoms mentioned elsewhere in the law.
Good point about beast killing man as insubordination and image of man rebelling against God. I think Shakespeare would have liked that.
Convincing theonomic moment: restitution beats the tar out of prison.
(Idea spawned by Jordan: It says a man must be brought to God, but if this is elohim, then he is brought to the powers—the authorities—the gods that judge like God.)
“In other words, fire was taken from God’s altar, signifying his fiery justice, and applied to the city and its corpses. Since they refused God’s sacrifice, they themselves became the sacrifices.” That sort of logic makes sense, and he does it all over the place.
Weird: firstborn are the property of God—beginning with Cain—but somehow God rejects the firstborn again and again—Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Nadab & Abihu, Amnon, Absalom, & Adonijah . . . .
A point that echoes Lewis: “God’s law is realistic. It does not command us to feel a liking, in the modern sense of “like,” for our personal enemies, which we may well be simply unable to do. Rather, it commands us to do good to them, which is well within our power. Doing good will bring about an emotional change in us, if such is needed.
This is one of those earth-shattering gems that I just love: “Leaven signifies growth and maturation. The old growth principle of Egypt had to be cut off. When Israel arrived in Canaan, new leaven would be found in God’s land, and a new growth principle in righteousness would be established.” That is a persuasive bit of symbolism that gels perfectly with many other places in Scripture.
The three festivals are the history of Israel. Israel is delivered from the house of Egypt, goes to enjoy the first-fruits of the land, and then brings the harvest of the world to God! (I guessed this last one before Jordan gave the interpretation.)
Cool commentary on Judah: “Judah pledged to send a kid to Tamar as payment for her services as a prostitute. In the providence of God, this was symbolic, because Judah had in fact failed to provide Tamar the kid to which she was entitled: Judah’s son Shelah. Judah gave his seal and cord, and his staff, as pledges that the kid would be sent, but Tamar departed, and never received the kid." Yep.
Even as a theonomist and Van Till nut, he had some things here that I think a natural law proponent might pick up on: Pharaoh treats Israel as a slave and has a dim knowledge of the laws with regard to slaves. I think this is a legitimate point since the laws of slavery come later in Exodus itself. (Also, the point about giving gifts to slaves and connecting that with the Egyptians giving jewels was sweet.)
The Ten Commandments correlation is very forced. Sorry, I don’t buy. Good remarks on authority and the fifth commandment as being part of the first table and a bridge is one I have benefited from.
Very fine discussion of doorways as transition boundary—another Exodus out of the house of bondage! Very good discussion of how slaves could inherit as sons and how a man by having his ear circumcised and thereby was born again. His discussion of circumcision grew on me—particularly the idea of an ear being uncovered as a good thing. Coverings is what Leviticus is all about after all.
Good discussion of how the laws for a slave-woman are to be treated with dignity. That wasn’t too hard.
Really good discussion of slavery that says a lot about what I’ve felt: essentially slavery is a means for doing in later life what earlier rearing did not do: spanking overgrown boys. If this seems harsh, consider all the druggies and alcoholics that wander aimlessly through life. Might slavery in a loving family be easier for them? Of course, we should be glad it’s gone. And racial slavery has no excuse. Whatsoever.
Again good point about foreign slaves: not inside the covenant, they would not be as well trained and would need to remain in their master’s household for a longer time than a freeborn slave.
Controversial point: the master beats the slave and he dies a few days later. The master is not guilty of manslaughter as he would be if the slave died right away. Why? Because he did not intend to do so. As Christians we need to make distinctions between different sort of pro-abortion advocates. Some are simply not drawing all the lines and are “personally opposed to abortion but would never legislate morality.” Problematic, but important distinction in our assessment. Further down the line are those advocating early-term abortion: such a position usurps the position of God by saying we can decide when life begins and ends. Late-term abortion advocates are probably the greatest offenders, but even here if someone were ignorant, we need to recognize that intention does matter.
Hard words here on Southern slavery. I don’t like saying the wrath of God fell on the South—these sorts of situations are a bit complicated—but I think he’s right. Dabney does not come off well, but then again how many of us will be carried up by the winds of our own time.
Cool idea spawned by his discussion of manslayers as the champion of the land that has been defiled and calls for blood. The city of refuge functions as a covering or Ark that hides from the destruction in the land.
Interesting idea of families as rooted to the land. We should connect this with the notions of being fruitful and multiplying, filling the earth and subduing it.
Gold: “Notice that when God destroyed Egypt, He acted as Avenger of blood by turning the Nile to blood, thus defiling all Egypt. This was a symbolic manifestation of the previous bloodying of the Nile which occurred when Israelite babies were thrown into it (Ex. 1:22). The bloodied land cried out for God to destroy each family in it, by destroying the firstborn of each household. Each household which was under the blood of the Passover, under the blood of the death of the high priest Jesus Christ (symbolized by the blood of the lamb), was a miniature city of refuge. The death of this high priest enabled them to leave these sanctuaries in the morning of the exodus. The inhabitants of these cities of refuge were the firstborn sons, spared by the Angel of Death. Later, when the firstborn were replaced by the Levites (Numbers 3), they become the inhabitants of the cities of refuge, which were all Levitical cities (Num. 35:6). Thus, the cities of refuge were created by the Passover."
Good bit on how the avenger of blood both had to have holy wrath that could be appeased by a city of refuge, but also could take seriously the role he had—he knew the man who died.
Yay! John Frame style reasonable moment: “The slayer is impressed with the need to be careful with human life, to avoid even the possibility of its unjust destruction. The punishment fits the crime. As he has been careless, so now he must be very, very careful with his own life.”
Violence against parents not as commonly prohibited in the Near East: think Oedipus.
Really good moral thinking on how we treat older people and the degrees that are at work in the killing of a striker of parents: this is not teenage rebellion being punished, but high-handed physical or verbal attack that would be settled by a court with evidence of a long pattern of sin, not a sudden burst of unfaithfulness.
Is it just me or does Jordan use the word ‘Satanic’ a bit often?
Strong words on self-defense. I don’t think this is quite the spirit we need to have. Sorry, Doug Jones wins a little bit here. At least, though, he admits that flight is sometimes preferable.
“Until America is willing to return to God’s law and advocate the death penalty for abortion, God will not bless the movement.” Okay, I hope you changed your mind on that one. There is ambiguity in Exodus 21:22. We might interpret this passage not as “if her children come out, but are alive,” but rather as “if her children come out and she is alive.” Not likely in my opinion, but possible. The vagueness of the wording should give Mr. Jordan more pause.
Wonderful point about Lex Talionis probably not demanding physical payback but a ransom. Makes a lot of sense given all the ransoms mentioned elsewhere in the law.
Good point about beast killing man as insubordination and image of man rebelling against God. I think Shakespeare would have liked that.
Convincing theonomic moment: restitution beats the tar out of prison.
(Idea spawned by Jordan: It says a man must be brought to God, but if this is elohim, then he is brought to the powers—the authorities—the gods that judge like God.)
“In other words, fire was taken from God’s altar, signifying his fiery justice, and applied to the city and its corpses. Since they refused God’s sacrifice, they themselves became the sacrifices.” That sort of logic makes sense, and he does it all over the place.
Weird: firstborn are the property of God—beginning with Cain—but somehow God rejects the firstborn again and again—Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Nadab & Abihu, Amnon, Absalom, & Adonijah . . . .
A point that echoes Lewis: “God’s law is realistic. It does not command us to feel a liking, in the modern sense of “like,” for our personal enemies, which we may well be simply unable to do. Rather, it commands us to do good to them, which is well within our power. Doing good will bring about an emotional change in us, if such is needed.
This is one of those earth-shattering gems that I just love: “Leaven signifies growth and maturation. The old growth principle of Egypt had to be cut off. When Israel arrived in Canaan, new leaven would be found in God’s land, and a new growth principle in righteousness would be established.” That is a persuasive bit of symbolism that gels perfectly with many other places in Scripture.
The three festivals are the history of Israel. Israel is delivered from the house of Egypt, goes to enjoy the first-fruits of the land, and then brings the harvest of the world to God! (I guessed this last one before Jordan gave the interpretation.)
Cool commentary on Judah: “Judah pledged to send a kid to Tamar as payment for her services as a prostitute. In the providence of God, this was symbolic, because Judah had in fact failed to provide Tamar the kid to which she was entitled: Judah’s son Shelah. Judah gave his seal and cord, and his staff, as pledges that the kid would be sent, but Tamar departed, and never received the kid." Yep.
Read
January 7, 2021Some brilliant insights along with questionable application. This book stretched me more than I was expecting as Christian Reconstruction is not something I believe in. But because I had never encountered it before in any serious form I have never had to try and articulate why I disagreed with it. Reading this book made me do that.
December 2, 2023
Fascinating study in classic Jordan style. However correct his interpretation of these laws may or may not be, he never fails to remind you that Scripture is far richer and more enchanting than you’ve been told.
February 5, 2018
"Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. " - Psalm 119:18
James Jordan opens up the scriptures in such a way as to often provide answers to this prayer.
James Jordan opens up the scriptures in such a way as to often provide answers to this prayer.
July 18, 2018
A lot of good nuggets throughout! A couple of the appendices were also very helpful.
July 7, 2022
Excellent. James Jordan always has a couple head scratchers but also always blows your mind.
January 3, 2024
This is one of the best books on biblical law I have read.
March 21, 2025
Excellent
October 28, 2010
My second time through Jordan's seminal work on Exodus 21-23 and the case laws. Just as good as the first time through. He discusses so much in less than three hundred pages. Every pastor and layperson should read it. Unfortunately it is difficult to find, having been out of print since the eighties. But there are still some semi-reasonably priced copies out there from used book venues. When you find a copy for under thirty bucks, pick it up. You won't be sorry.
September 7, 2010
This commentary is a very helpful look at the case laws of Exodus, and places them in their larger theological context.
December 5, 2011
this is one of Jim's earlier books, but it is very helpful in understanding why the laws God gave Moses are such a good prototype for case law decisions today and forever.
August 4, 2017
If Bahnsen's Theonomy and Rushdoony's Institutes and North's Tools of Dominion appear too big and intimidating, please read this little book by James Jordan.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews