Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 151:604 (Oct 1994)
Article: Periodical Reviews
Author: Anonymous

BSac 151:604 (Oct 94) p. 481

Periodical Reviews

“Covenant Conditionality and a Future for Israel,” Ronald W. Pierce, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37 (March 1994): 27-38.

Rejecting dispensationalism’s identification of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants as unconditional, the author insists that “the four major covenants (Abrahamic, Israelite, Davidic, new)” (p. 28) are in reality all conditional. He states that “the element of human responsibility…is expressed differently in each case” (p. 28), but in effect it boils down to obedience (Abrahamic, pp. 29-30; Davidic, p. 33; New, pp. 35, 37, 38).

If human faithfulness and obedience to God are required for His covenants to continue in force, then all that God does is on the basis of works and not by grace. This would be true also of the individual Christian’s salvation, since, according to the author, salvation involves participation in the New Covenant (pp. 34-35).

The author is correct that the Israelite (traditionally called the Mosaic) covenant is conditional. The people of Israel (today the Jews) did not cease to be God’s chosen people because of their failure to be faithful to God; but their blessing and prosperity in the land, their security from enemies, and, finally, their presence in the land are dependent on their obedience and faithfulness. That is why that covenant is conditional in contrast to the others. The very fact that that covenant is presented as replaced by a new covenant shows it to be conditional.

The author’s major problem is his failure to distinguish between discipline under an unconditional divine covenant and the abrogation of that covenant. This is illustrated especially in the Davidic Covenant. Failure on the part of David’s descendants, beginning with Solomon, finally led to the temporary setting aside of the Davidic throne and kingdom—disciplinary action by God; but the Lord Jesus Christ is David’s greater Son, who will fulfill the Davidic Covenant completely (Luke 2:31–33).

The article seems to warn against Christian support of the contemporary nation of Israel because of the conditionality of the

BSac 151:604 (Oct 94) p. 482

New Covenant. Pierce refers to this issue several times (pp. 27-28, 36–38). He argues against “blind support of modern Israeli politics primarily on religious grounds” (p. 38). The fact remains, however, that Scripture teaches that a portion of God’s people Israel will be back in the land of promise as a national entity in the end times. Whether these are the end times and the contemporary State of Israel is the one described biblically, no one can state with certainty. Urging cautio...