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

[Eric Newton @E5Nasty]

I’m top right and my two boys. Bottom left served and bottom right still in!

Semper Fi and Happy Veterans Day

[Geri Perna @GeriPerna]

On this Veterans Day, the Matthew Lawrence Perna Foundation is incredibly proud to announce that, thanks to the generous donations of our supporters and Guardian Angels Medical Service Dogs, we are providing a veteran in need with a fully trained service dog, with ALL expenses paid by our foundation.

This is what our foundation is all about: making a meaningful difference in the lives of others while honoring Matthew's legacy of compassion, love, and selflessness.

To our veterans, thank you for your service and sacrifice. And to everyone who has supported our foundation, thank you for making this possible.

The Matthew Lawrence Perna Foundation
Where Compassion, Love and Selflessness Run Deep.

[Team Ojeda @ojedafornc]

👀🐸☕️ Okay Congressman Elect!

[The DC MD VA Live @TheDMVLive]

JUST IN: a 44 year-old man, listed as a US Air Force Major, has gone missing in Washington DC 🚨

Major Carlos Wilkinson was last seen on the 1900 block of H Street NE yesterday afternoon, and is listed as a ‘CRITICAL MISSING.’

Wilkinson is described as a Pacific Islander male, 5’9”, 185 pounds with black hair, brown eyes, and is clean-shaven with a military haircut. He was last seen wearing a dark blue Under Armour shirt, and Khaki Under Armour pants.

According to the US Marines MCAF website, Wilkinson is previously listed as a Major in the United States Air Force.

Major Wilkinson recently served/serves as the deputy division chief of the Collections Assessment Division at DIA on Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, as well as a 25-year CAP member. He also previously oversaw cadet training and safety.

If you have more information, contact the Metropolitan Police Department at [phone]. PLEASE SHARE! 🙏

[United We Stand Together 🌈 ☮️ ❤️😎John @JGBPOV3]

YOU ARE ALL ON NOTICE AS OF NOW! 😡

YOU SHOULD ALL BE REPLACED ASAP!

[SuddenlySimple1 @tracees46]

Brian Cole Jr not in the area of the pipe bombs 👇

[Tyler Vargas-Andrews @TylerAndrews13]

Happy Veterans Day!🦾 #NeverAVictim

[Maj. (Ret.) Richard Ojeda @Ojeda4America]

I will never take this for granted. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.

[Ford Fischer @FordFischer]

Tim aka BigSarge of "Sons of Liberty" spoke in front of the U.S. Capitol at today's "Veterans Against Fascism" March: "Nobody in this f***ing government has the testicular fortitude or the backbone to stand up to foreign interests like Israel."

"We could have just released the f***ing Epstein files, instead, we got Operation Epstein Fury!"

[Kerry O’Donnell @valkyrieskerry]

“All visitors will maintain an atmosphere of silence and respect at all times!”

[𝓔𝓶 ♡ @emkenobi]

Chuck Schumer will never allow this which is why he cannot be the majority leader.

[Cajun AF Team Normal @kennethbarnhar8]

To the soldier that screamed at Hegseth and his entourage. You are an American patriot thank you for upholding your solemn duty of keeping the decorum of the nation most sacred resting place. You are owe a debt of gratitude 🇺🇸🔥👊

[Ed Zitron @edzitron]

i love this guy's energy, he is absolutely foaming at the mouth to change shit

[Steve Taylor 🌾 @SteveTa52127231]

My father in law Bob J. Smith turned 100 in May of this year, he is WWII Navy vet serving two years in the Pacific fleet.
Thank you for your service!

[Bill Johnson @Bill43111]

At The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier a soldier just became known for his courage and patriotism.

[AIPAC Tracker @TrackAIPAC]

@RepSusieLee @RepJeffries

[Clint Russell @LibertyLockPod]

Career AIPAC funds received:
Mike Johnson $1.14 million
Hakeem Jeffries $1.5 million

Former speaker of the house vs the favorite to be the next speaker.

GOP loses, Israel wins.
Dems lose, Israel wins.

Kabuki theater. There is one political party and it's always America last.

[cath @cath321789]

The most regular guy imaginable gets elected to congress & potentially course corrects the entire trajectory of American politics not but 2 days after walking in 😭

[Power to the People ☭🕊 @ProudSocialist]

8 of the 11 Democrats who skipped the vote to impeach war criminal Pete Hegseth were not “caught in traffic.” They were at an AIPAC-affiliated event that was scheduled at the same time as the impeachment vote by the Democrat’s House whip Katherine Clark. Turns out she was whipping votes to protect, not impeach, Hegseth. This was all planned because their AIPAC donors don’t want Hegseth impeached. If Hegseth is held accountable for war crimes it opens up the possibility of more Zionist war criminals being held accountable. They want to preserve the corrupt world we live in now where US/Zionist war criminals murder with impunity.

Big thanks to @JulianAndreone who broke the story about the AIPAC-affiliated meeting being scheduled at the same time as the Hegseth impeachment vote.

[Catherine Herridge @C__Herridge]

Veterans Day: Meet 101-year-old Petty Officer 2nd Class Edward “Eddie” D. Desmond, who served at Okinawa.

I met Eddie on November 10. He turned 101 and shares the same birthday as the Marine Corps, the day before Veterans Day.

On November 11, Desmond is being honored at the Veterans Day Wreath Laying Ceremony at the United States Navy Memorial.

TRUE STORY: Eddie served at Okinawa because he hated cold weather and liked cooking.

Veterans advocate Christopher M. Lehman shared Eddie’s story.

"When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Eddie was just 16 years old—too young to serve in the armed forces. He enlisted in the Navy in early 1944 at age 17.

After boot camp, he was given the choice to serve either as an armed guard (gunner) on a merchant supply ship doing convoy duty in the cold North Atlantic or as a ship’s cook on a ship in the Pacific.

Since he didn’t like cold weather and he did like to cook, the choice was easy.

Within months, he found himself as a cook on a small ship heading across the Pacific and was destined to participate in what became the bloodiest and one of the longest and hardest campaigns in the history of U.S. naval warfare—the Battle of Okinawa.

By early May 1945, 20-year-old Petty Officer 2nd Class Desmond had already been exposed to heavy combat.

He had also discovered that the ship’s cook on these small ships had additional duties when the ship was engaged in combat or the crew was at Battle Stations.

His battle station was at a 20-millimeter anti-aircraft gun on the starboard side of his ship.

He also witnessed the devastating effects of Japanese kamikaze suicide planes hitting other ships—many much larger than his—with some sinking in minutes and with tremendous loss of life.

As one of the last (and likely the final) surviving sailors from the roughly 10,000 men who served on the 130 Landing Craft Support ships known as LCSs during World War II, Eddie has helped preserve their history.

After the jump, a GoFundMe page has been set up to help keep the historic USS LCS-102 operating as a museum ship in California.👇