Constance Smith, MDiv, MA

Proficient Mnt Biker, Marginal Golfer, Semi-retired Rock/Ice Climber, Excellent Wife of Marine Combat Vet, Community College Psych Professor, Christ follower.

[Constance Smith, MDiv, MA @ownyourshite]

@ComicDaveSmith @TuckerCarlson @WesleyLHuff @triggersmarthq @jonaaronbray @dbenner83 @juliandorey @emilyjashinsky @BillyHallowell @ryangrim @ShawnRyan762 @FmrRepMTG @takenaps @Sean_McDowell

THE THEOLOGICAL HOT POTATO
Dr. Michael S. Heiser, God's Covenant with Israel, and the Promised Land

A conversation between Constance and Disco (her research ass. ~2 invested AI):
An invitation to wrestle honestly with Scripture, theological assumptions, historical evidence, and the implications for our modern world.

CONSTANCE:
"Hey Disco, see if you can find where Dr Heiser mentions how the Covenant promises for the land is contingent on faithfulness to God's laws."

DISCO:
Oh, yes! And I think I've found precisely the distinction you're remembering from Dr. Michael S. Heiser.

Heiser argues that God's covenant promise to Abraham was unconditional in its ultimate fulfillment, but receiving its benefits depended upon faithfulness to Yahweh.

1. Heiser's own writing
In his article Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 3, published May 17, 2010, Heiser makes this particularly important observation:

"The Abrahamic covenant was both conditional and unconditional."

SOURCE:
https://t.co/6oPTlvHrYT

Heiser distinguishes two questions.
First, God's commitment to fulfill the covenant is guaranteed by God's own faithfulness. Genesis 15 describes God alone passing between the divided animals, signifying his unilateral covenant commitment.

Second, who actually receives the covenant benefits?

Heiser argues that receiving the promises involves a genuine relationship with Yahweh, expressed through faith and obedience.

The distinction is critical:
God's faithfulness to his covenant does not eliminate human covenant responsibilities.

Moreover, Heiser emphasizes that the beneficiaries of Abraham's covenant are not defined merely by physical descent, but by the spiritual relationship that characterizes Abraham's faithful descendants.

2. A more specific statement concerning the Promised Land
In The Naked Bible Podcast, Episode 115, "Ezekiel 6," Heiser connects Israel's occupation of the Promised Land to covenant loyalty, particularly the prohibition against idolatry.

He argues that Israel's disobedience was not simply a matter of breaking arbitrary religious rules. The underlying problem was a failure of exclusive allegiance to Yahweh.

This is central to Heiser's concept of believing loyalty.

The law did not purchase salvation. Obedience demonstrated covenant loyalty.

Accordingly, the land could not be treated as an unconditional possession that rendered Israel immune to divine judgment.

PODCAST AND TRANSCRIPT:
https://t.co/EHot0qjBfT

3. The biblical passages
Several passages are especially relevant:

Genesis 17:1–14 — Abraham and his descendants are commanded to keep God's covenant.

Leviticus 18:24–28 — The land is depicted as rejecting those who defile it.

Leviticus 26:14–39 — Covenant disobedience leads to judgment, exile, and loss of possession.

Deuteronomy 28:58–64 — Disobedience results in dispersion among the nations.

Deuteronomy 30:1–10 — Restoration to the land is associated with repentance and renewed obedience.

These passages suggest that the biblical relationship between Israel and the land involves more than ancestry or territorial possession.

But an important distinction remains: Does losing possession of the land mean that God's promise has been annulled? Heiser does not treat these as identical questions.

CONSTANCE:
"We need to examine this 'Hot Potato' with keen eyes, wisdom and serious scholarship."

DISCO:
Now we're getting into serious theological territory—and I think Heiser would have relished the discussion!

This question intersects biblical exegesis, covenant theology, Jewish history, Christian eschatology, international law, and moral philosophy.

Each discipline asks a different question.

And we must resist importing conclusions from one into another without careful justification.

Our guiding principle should be this:
We must not confuse what Scripture promises, what a theological tradition interprets, what history establishes, and what a modern government is entitled to do.

I. BEGIN WITH WHAT HEISER ACTUALLY ARGUED
I've located a particularly useful primary source in Heiser's contribution to the Faithlife Study Bible, titled "Leviticus 26 and the New Testament."

In it, Heiser explicitly explains that later biblical passages connect Israel's possession of the land to obedience.

He references Genesis 17 and 22, as well as several passages in Deuteronomy.

He also examines competing Christian interpretations of whether the land promise requires a future national fulfillment or has been fulfilled or expanded through the New Covenant.

SOURCE:
https://t.co/MaogLTEaUA

This brings us to three propositions that should be investigated independently.

Proposition 1: Divine promise
Did God irrevocably promise the land to Abraham's descendants?

Proposition 2: Covenant possession
Could Israel lose possession of the land through disobedience without nullifying God's original promise?

Proposition 3: Modern application
Does either proposition establish perpetual political or territorial entitlement for the modern State of Israel, established in 1948?

These propositions are not logically interchangeable.
The third cannot simply be assumed from the first.

II. WHAT DOES THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE SAY?

We must examine the evidence in both directions.

Texts emphasizing covenant conditions:

Leviticus 18:24–28
Leviticus 26
Deuteronomy 28–30

Texts emphasizing God's continuing covenant commitments:

Genesis 15 and 17
Jeremiah 31:35–37
Ezekiel 36–37
Romans 11:25–29

One particularly provocative passage is Leviticus 18.

There, the moral standards associated with the land are not limited to Israelites.

The earlier inhabitants of Canaan are likewise condemned for violating those standards.

This raises a serious theological question:
If the land itself is represented as rejecting moral corruption, can covenant identity ever be used as an exemption from moral accountability?

However, another interpretive question immediately follows.

Can we directly apply every provision of ancient Israel's Mosaic covenant to a modern secular nation-state?

That conclusion requires argument. It cannot simply be assumed.

III. THE MAJOR THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS

Christians have developed substantially different interpretations of the biblical land promises.

Traditional dispensationalism
This approach generally holds that God's territorial promises to national Israel remain binding and await their ultimate fulfillment.

It distinguishes the national future of Israel from the Church.

Covenant theology
Many covenant theologians understand the land promise as fulfilled, transformed, or expanded through Jesus Christ and the New Covenant.

The inheritance is ultimately understood in connection with God's redeemed people and the new creation.

Progressive covenantalism
This approach recognizes the historical reality and importance of the land promise while understanding it as pointing beyond Canaan toward the comprehensive inheritance accomplished through Christ.

We should also consider Jewish covenant interpretation independently.

Jewish theological traditions disagree concerning the significance of the modern State of Israel, the role of the Messiah, and the relationship between biblical promises and present-day political sovereignty.

It would be a scholarly mistake to reduce this entire discussion to a disagreement between Christian theological systems.

Heiser himself explored how competing assumptions concerning Israel, the Church, and the land influence eschatological conclusions.

His article introducing the series is especially instructive:

https://t.co/JV05k5AGV7

The complete series is available here:

https://t.co/5OrtGotsTP

IV. OUR STANDARD OF SCHOLARSHIP

I'd suggest applying the same critical thinking expected of university students evaluating empirical evidence.

1. Exegetical validity
We examine Hebrew and Greek terminology, grammar, literary context, genre, and relationships between biblical passages.

2. Historical validity
We investigate ancient Near Eastern covenant practices, historical Israel, Second Temple Jewish interpretation, and the development of Christian eschatology.

3. Logical validity
We ask whether a conclusion actually follows from the premises or requires additional assumptions.

Are we reasoning from Scripture, or reading a preferred conclusion back into Scripture?

4. Ethical and legal validity
We independently examine whether a religious claim establishes modern territorial sovereignty, justifies displacement, or exempts any government or armed group from moral and legal accountability.

This final question requires additional evidence beyond biblical exegesis, including historical documentation and international law.

A theological interpretation, by itself, cannot settle a modern legal dispute.

V. THE PASSAGE THAT DESERVES SPECIAL ATTENTION

Leviticus 26:40–45.
Here we encounter a fascinating theological tension.

God warns that Israel's covenant violations will result in punishment, including exile.

Yet even in exile, God declares that he will not utterly destroy Israel or break his covenant with them.

Heiser addresses this tension in his discussion of Leviticus 26 and the New Testament.

He also discusses the possibility of restoration in Naked Bible Podcast, Episode 84, "Leviticus 26–27."

SOURCE:
https://t.co/3scMofIvAu

Here is the interpretive problem:
If covenant disobedience results in forfeiting possession of the land, but God simultaneously promises not to abandon the covenant, precisely what is lost—and what remains irrevocable?

That question deserves resolution before we make confident claims about biblical prophecy and contemporary territorial entitlements.

VI. WHAT WOULD HEISER HAVE US QUESTION?
Heiser repeatedly warned about the assumptions people bring to biblical eschatology.
His purpose in the eschatology series was not to establish his preferred end-times system but to reveal how apparently obvious conclusions often depend on theological presuppositions.

This observation applies far beyond eschatology.

We should be particularly cautious when political commitments influence the way we interpret ancient religious texts.

That caution must apply equally to those who support, oppose, or remain undecided about particular modern territorial claims.

The appropriate scholarly discipline is not to begin with the desired political conclusion and search Scripture for support.

It is to examine the text in its historical and literary context, evaluate the relevant arguments, and distinguish what the evidence establishes from what remains uncertain.

VII. WHERE SHOULD OUR INVESTIGATION BEGIN?

I would begin with a close reading of:

Genesis 15
Genesis 17
Leviticus 26
Deuteronomy 30

Ezekiel 36–37
Galatians 3
Romans 9–11

This sequence will allow us to distinguish the original Abrahamic promise, the later Mosaic covenant, the prophetic treatment of exile and restoration, and New Testament interpretations of covenant inheritance.

And we should preserve one further distinction throughout this inquiry.

Criticizing a theological or political claim about the modern Israeli state is not equivalent to rejecting Jewish people or their historical, cultural, and religious connection to the land.

Likewise, Palestinian historical connections, human dignity, and legal rights must be considered on their own merits.

Moral accountability should not disappear because a particular people or government claims divine authorization.

The question is not merely who possesses the land. It is what Scripture actually teaches about the promise, possession, faithfulness, justice, and the enduring character of God's covenant.

That is how we handle this theological hot potato.

Evidence before allegiance.
Careful distinctions before conclusions.
Humility before certainty.

No proof-texting. No convenient omissions. No granting even our most respected scholars immunity from critical examination.

And certainly no confusing confidence with evidence.

CONSTANCE:
"Is there a way to copy this AND the links so if I post it, they will show up?"

DISCO:
Absolutely!

The source material should be independently verifiable.

And it is important to distinguish direct quotations from Dr. Heiser, paraphrases of his arguments, and our own developing analysis.

CONSTANCE:
"But please leave my questions for you? This is to help folks begin wrestling honestly with this theological 'hot potato'."

DISCO:
Absolutely. Your questions are essential to this conversation.

They reveal the process of inquiry rather than presenting a predetermined conclusion.

The purpose is not to tell people what to think.

It is to invite them to examine what they believe, why they believe it, and whether the evidence actually supports their conclusions.

And that is particularly important when theology intersects with modern politics.

The discussion should remain open to correction and competing arguments.

After all, a serious commitment to truth requires being willing to discover that some of our cherished assumptions may be mistaken.

Even Heiser's interpretations must be subjected to the same scrutiny.

That is the nature of responsible scholarship.

And it is very much in the spirit of Own Your Shite.

PRIMARY SOURCES FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION

Michael S. Heiser, "Leviticus 26 and the New Testament," Faithlife Study Bible

https://t.co/MaogLTEaUA

Michael S. Heiser, "Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 1" (2010)

https://t.co/JV05k5AGV7

Michael S. Heiser, "Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 3" (2010)

https://t.co/6oPTlvHrYT

Michael S. Heiser, Complete Eschatology Series

https://t.co/5OrtGotsTP

Michael S. Heiser, Naked Bible Podcast, Episode 84: "Leviticus 26–27" (2016)

https://t.co/3scMofIvAu

Michael S. Heiser, Naked Bible Podcast, Episode 115: "Ezekiel 6" (2016)

https://t.co/EHot0qjBfT

Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (2015), pp. 169–170.

Lexham Press.

This conversation is an invitation to critical theological inquiry, not a declaration that the questions raised have been resolved. Interpretations and arguments presented by Disco should be evaluated independently.

Theological Hot Potato | A Conversation with Disco | @OwnYourShite

[Constance Smith, MDiv, MA @ownyourshite]

@CD7watermelon @RepPettersen Yes, we would love to hear why you ignored this exigent issue @ClaytonMorris @natalimorris

[Kyle Clark @KyleClark]

NEW: Rep Brittany Pettersen (D) missed the Hegseth impeachment vote as absent Dems doomed the effort. Pettersen says she was "denied" the ability to vote.

She was at an event but her team won't say which one. They said she got stuck in traffic and Rs should have held the vote.

[Constance Smith, MDiv, MA @ownyourshite]

@AaronSiriSG Amen!

[Kyle Clark @KyleClark]

UPDATE: Rep Brittany Pettersen (D-CO) missed the Hegseth impeachment vote and her team dodged our questions about her whereabouts.

@MarshallZNews learned Pettersen was at a party for an AIPAC-linked Super PAC.

[Constance Smith, MDiv, MA @ownyourshite]

@KyleClark @pureshimon @MarshallZNews Thanks Kyle! Oh Brittany @RepPettersen You have been found guilty of dereliction of duty! @ClaytonMorris @natalimorris @RepThomasMassie

[DIN Intel Network @DININTELNETWORK]

Veteran detained by ICE: I identified myself as a US citizen and a veteran, but that didn't matter. Agents smashed my window, sprayed tear gas and pepper spray into my car, dragged me out. Even after I complied, I was taken to a detention center and held for 3 days without charges. No phone call, no lawyer, no medical care, even though my skin burned from the chemicals.

[HealthRanger @HealthRanger]

Here come the genocidal terminators, right on schedule... with Gaza, of course, the testing grounds.

[The Black Line Brief @BlackLineBrief]

The reason Neocons always push for radical demographic change is because like Charlie Kirk said “Neocons are radical Marxists, Socialists, Globalists”!!!

[Ana Kasparian @AnaKasparian]

I don’t need anyone to pay me to say what I say about Israel. I’ll trash that disgraceful, genocidal country to anyone who’ll listen.

All day.

[Constance Smith, MDiv, MA @ownyourshite]

@Kyle_C137 Hell yes!

[Tikun Olam 🍉🇮🇷 @richards1052]

Katherine Clark, #2 Democrat in House held a fundraiser for and Aipac "pass through" Super PAC, Elect Democratic Women, at the same time as the Hegseth vote, causing defeat for impeachment. Jeffries-Clark need to go.

[Constance Smith, MDiv, MA @ownyourshite]

@starsandstripes

[Stars and Stripes @starsandstripes]

The Pentagon has backed an Army sentinel who demanded silence and respect at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Veterans Day as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and members of his group were heard laughing and talking nearby. https://t.co/TVv1wTrBqs

[Ounka @OunkaOnX]

Rep. Jonathan Jackson skipped the vote to impeach Pete Hegseth and lied about a traffic jam.

But TMZ caught him on the steps 10 minutes before the vote.

If you're going to be a coward, at least be a smart one.

[JenX77X @JenX77X]

Lance Twiggs committed perjury and it’s been proven! Thanks to @DiligentDenizen and @billiewebbb 👏🏼 Now what? He needs to be locked up right next to Tyler!!

[Constance Smith, MDiv, MA @ownyourshite]

@NoDMsPerfavore Amen sister! I miss those days!

[Dr.Sam Youssef Ph.D.,Ph.D.,PsyThD. @drhossamsamy65]

⛔️ Activist confronts Sen. Ted Cruz in Capitol hallway, calling him "the senator for Israel" ‼️

▪️ A video circulating on X since Nov. 10 shows a man in a "FUND PEOPLE NOT WAR" shirt confronting Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in a hallway.

▪️ In the clip, the man calls Cruz "the senator for Israel," says he is "for bombing Iran," and tells him, "You're a part of killing children."

▪️ The exchange becomes heated and overlapping, with lines about "defending rapists" and "murderers," and "Every accusation is a confession."

▪️ Posts on X say the encounter happened at the Capitol on Nov. 10. Cruz's office has not commented publicly on the video.

📹 Video circulating on X, Nov. 10, 2026

[Aaron Siri @AaronSiriSG]

If after the gov’t spends billions to persuade the public to take a vaccine many still refuse, the issue is likely not the public, but the product the gov’t insists they take.

[Constance Smith, MDiv, MA @ownyourshite]

@Udntnonutn Awesome!

[Sam’sFamReacts @samsfamreacts]

Yall know he went back to the White House PISSED‼️‼️‼️

His entire ego stuffed into his diaper‼️