Everlasting Covenant

[PGA]

Hi Hippias,

And what do you mean by that God has fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant? God has promised land which was robbed by the Romans then, with respect to fruitfulness we can be sure to assume that today there are more Jews than around Jesus's times. Only the promise that God will be the Jews's god forever EXPIRED then because of John 14:6. -Hippias

The 'Seed' is the fulfillment. God has indeed blessed us through the 'Seed' of Abraham. I'm not following what you are referring to by your second statement concerning land robbed by the Romans. Are you talking about the Jews of today, the people of Israel today?

The Jews of today, in my opinion again, are different than the Jews of the OT times. You see, as far as I can understand, when God made the covenant with the twelve tribes of Israel, this old covenant people, the covenant contained both blessings and curses. The condition of staying in the land He was giving was upon whether they obeyed His laws of the Mosaic covenant. How can the Israel of today obey a covenant that no longer is in place - Matthew 5:17-18 (unless of course you believe it is, in which case where is the priesthood, the temple sacrifice and atonement for the people). It is not needed because God has met it fully in Christ Jesus!

Another point, return to the land was also conditional upon obedience to the covenant. How can this be today? Some, possibly the majority of the nation of Israel today are secular or atheistic/agnostic. How can that be obedient? How can you obey a covenant in which so much of it can no longer be obeyed because the sufficient means of the priesthood, sacrifices, building, etc are no longer in existence?

Another point, has not God fulfilled every land promise He made to OT Israel? I believe He has (Joshua 21:43-45)

Joshua 21:43-45

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

⁴³ So the Lord gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. ⁴⁴ The Lord gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the Lord handed all their enemies over to them. ⁴⁵ Not one of all the Lord’s good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.

How do you trace the lineage of the current Israel back to the OT? Were not the genealogies lost in the destruction of the city and temple? If not where are these records? These 1st century peoples were scattered across the whole Roman world of their day. How do we know which today are descendents of OT Israel?

Peter

[PGA]

Jesus came out of the temple in A.D. 70 when He came in judgment of the disobedient and to vindicate the blood of His saints and martyrs. This too can be confirmed with Scripture.

Peter

Would you show the scripture of what you mean please? since Jesus died and resurrected and ascended into heaven in A.D. 33 and has not yet returned , what temple did he come out of ?, and what year did he vindicate the blood of His saints and martyrs?

Hi Danielzk,

That is where you and I part company, Danielzk. You believe that He has not returned where as I believe He has. You believe the nature of His return as physical whereas I believe that it was spiritual.

If He has not returned then what does that imply about His sacrifice according to the pattern that these OT, Mosaic people were used to?

I'm referring to the sanctuary/tabernacle/temple that is in heaven, that believers were being built into, and I'm referring to His coming in the same manner in which the Father came in OT times as to show He had come out of the temple/tabernacle/sanctuary. How do we know that Jesus' sacrifice was accepted? Well, the pattern in OT times was that the high priest took the offering into the Holy of Holies (MHP) and sprinkled it over the Ark of the Covenant/covenant seat. We know from Hebrews that Jesus went into the true sanctuary and offered His own blood as an atonement. But the question is when did He come out? The Levitical high priest's coming out of the temple was confirmation that God had accepted the sacrifice. If Jesus didn't come out I see numerous problems, the least of which being that God did not confirm that the sacrifice of His Son was acceptable, thus we/they are still in our/their sins. According to the pattern/shadow/type I believe Scripture shows over and over again what was earthly is a copy of what was coming.

When Jesus said in Matthew 16:27-28 that some who were standing there would not taste death before they saw Him coming in His kingdom, then it would be reasonable to know that the everlasting kingdom, spoken of in Daniel 2:44 had become a reality when He came, would it not? IMO, He came in judgment of OT Israel, just as He said He would over and over again to this generation. IMO, the sign that He was sitting at the right hand of God was that they saw this through the eyes of their understanding in A.D. 70, after all, He said THEY would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:63-64; 24:30).

The coming was, IMO, the coming out of the sanctuary, but this time it was a coming not only to bring salvation to those who were waiting but also judgment and punishment on those who hardened their hearts/were disobedient to Him. Just like God destroyed the nation through disobedience in the Babylonian captivity so I believe He was going to again destroy the nation due to its disobedience, this time also fulfilling and abrogating the OT covenant, because it was fully met in Christ. That is why Hebrews 8:13 can say that what was old and waxing will soon pass away. Soon, in my mind is not thousands of years later.

Also, because of this disobedience the warning of Hebrews 10:35-38 is also significant, IMO. In a little while He who is coming will come and will not delay.

Does 'a little while' mean a little while or thousands of years? Well if language means what it says and as the context suggests I believe a little while was just that and these 1st century believers seem also to understand it that way for over and over we see this expectation that He was coming soon.

Peter

[Steve_S]

Jesus came out of the temple in A.D. 70 when He came in judgment of the disobedient and to vindicate the blood of His saints and martyrs. This too can be confirmed with Scripture.

Peter

Would you show the scripture of what you mean please? since Jesus died and resurrected and ascended into heaven in A.D. 33 and has not yet returned , what temple did he come out of ?, and what year did he vindicate the blood of His saints and martyrs?

Hi Danielzk,

That is where you and I part company, Danielzk. You believe that He has not returned where as I believe He has. You believe the nature of His return as physical whereas I believe that it was spiritual.

If He has not returned then what does that imply about His sacrifice according to the pattern that these OT, Mosaic people were used to?

I'm referring to the sanctuary/tabernacle/temple that is in heaven, that believers were being built into, and I'm referring to His coming in the same manner in which the Father came in OT times as to show He had come out of the temple/tabernacle/sanctuary. How do we know that Jesus' sacrifice was accepted? Well, the pattern in OT times was that the high priest took the offering into the Holy of Holies (MHP) and sprinkled it over the Ark of the Covenant/covenant seat. We know from Hebrews that Jesus went into the true sanctuary and offered His own blood as an atonement. But the question is when did He come out? The Levitical high priest's coming out of the temple was confirmation that God had accepted the sacrifice. If Jesus didn't come out I see numerous problems, the least of which being that God did not confirm that the sacrifice of His Son was acceptable, thus we/they are still in our/their sins. According to the pattern/shadow/type I believe Scripture shows over and over again what was earthly is a copy of what was coming.

When Jesus said in Matthew 16:27-28 that some who were standing there would not taste death before they saw Him coming in His kingdom, then it would be reasonable to know that the everlasting kingdom, spoken of in Daniel 2:44 had become a reality when He came, would it not? IMO, He came in judgment of OT Israel, just as He said He would over and over again to this generation. IMO, the sign that He was sitting at the right hand of God was that they saw this through the eyes of their understanding in A.D. 70, after all, He said THEY would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:63-64; 24:30).

The coming was, IMO, the coming out of the sanctuary, but this time it was a coming not only to bring salvation to those who were waiting but also judgment and punishment on those who hardened their hearts/were disobedient to Him. Just like God destroyed the nation through disobedience in the Babylonian captivity so I believe He was going to again destroy the nation due to its disobedience, this time also fulfilling and abrogating the OT covenant, because it was fully met in Christ. That is why Hebrews 8:13 can say that what was old and waxing will soon pass away. Soon, in my mind is not thousands of years later.

Also, because of this disobedience the warning of Hebrews 10:35-38 is also significant, IMO. In a little while He who is coming will come and will not delay.

Does 'a little while' mean a little while or thousands of years? Well if language means what it says and as the context suggests I believe a little while was just that and these 1st century believers seem also to understand it that way for over and over we see this expectation that He was coming soon.

Peter

I don't think that a historical case can be made to back up these claims.

[PGA]

Jesus came out of the temple in A.D. 70 when He came in judgment of the disobedient and to vindicate the blood of His saints and martyrs. This too can be confirmed with Scripture.

Peter

Would you show the scripture of what you mean please? since Jesus died and resurrected and ascended into heaven in A.D. 33 and has not yet returned , what temple did he come out of ?, and what year did he vindicate the blood of His saints and martyrs?

?

Hebrews 8:1-2, 5

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

The High Priest of a New Covenant

8 The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, ² and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man....

⁵ They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”^[a]

Footnotes:

1. Hebrews 8:5 Exodus 25:40
   

Hebrews 9:1, 8,

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

Worship in the Earthly Tabernacle

9 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary....⁸ The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing...¹¹ When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,^[a] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.

Footnotes:

1. Hebrews 9:11 Some early manuscripts are to come
   

.

[PGA]

I don't think that a historical case can be made to back up these claims.-Steve

Hi Steve,

Sorry, I attributed this quote to Danielzk and had to edit.

I think a very good case can be made that does back up these claims. Is the Mosaic covenant still in effect? If not then it has passed away per the reasoning of Matthew 5:17-18, just as Hebrews 8:13 said it would. If it has passed away then we are living in the New Covenant that HAS been established. The temple that was necessary to meet the Mosaic covenant no longer exists. How do the Jews meet the requirement of their law to atone for their sins? Who is their mediator before God? Where are their animal sacrifices? How does present day Israel trace its lineage to OT Israel? History confirms as much, does it not? Therefore, it would be reasonable to deduct that Jesus had come out of the sanctuary, and the type of coming He refers to would not be physical if this was the case, would it?

How did God come in OT times because Jesus said He would come in like manner as the Father came and what does coming in His glory mean? Would you not have to refer to the OT to see how God came in the clouds in OT times? Have you done that?

Peter

[Steve_S]

I don't think that a historical case can be made to back up these claims.-Steve

Hi Steve,

Sorry, I attributed this quote to Danielzk and had to edit.

I think a very good case can be made that does back up these claims. Is the Mosaic covenant still in effect? If not then it has passed away per the reasoning of Matthew 5:17-18, just as Hebrews 8:13 said it would. If it has passed away then we are living in the New Covenant that HAS been established. The temple that was necessary to meet the Mosaic covenant no longer exists. How do the Jews meet the requirement of their law to atone for their sins? Who is their mediator before God? Where are their animal sacrifices? How does present day Israel trace its lineage to OT Israel?

How did God come in OT times because Jesus said He would come in like manner as the Father came and what does coming in His glory mean? Would you not have to refer to the OT to see how God came in the clouds in OT times? Have you done that?

Peter

I'm more concerned with the Abrahamic covenant. I think that how one interprets Genesis 12:7 pretty much defines how they interpret prophecy throughout the entire Bible, either mostly literal and only figurative when obviously applied, or mostly figurative and only literal when obviously applied. In Genesis 12:7 God promised Abraham's descendants the property where Israel sits right now, indefinitely. The Mosaic covenant is separate from that. Israel's rebellion has no bearing on Abraham's covenant. Abraham remained faithful to God and God confirmed his covenant with them through Isaac and then through Jacob (who is Israel). The basis for a preterist view is that Israel broke the covenant they made with God and were punished for it and this lead to a second covenant that entirely replaced the first one eternally. It's obvious that Israel broke the covenant they made with God and were punished for it. However, Abraham did not break the covenant that he made with God and remained faithful for his life, even going so far as to be willing to sacrifice his own son only because God told him to. The preterist view generally makes an attempt to address the mosaic covenant as its basis and I understand why (though I disagree with the preterist viewpoint entirely). I'm sure there's a preterist explanation for why God would break his covenant with Abraham, who was faithful, but not a good one that I've heard.

[PGA]

I don't think that a historical case can be made to back up these claims.-Steve

Hi Steve,

Sorry, I attributed this quote to Danielzk and had to edit.

I think a very good case can be made that does back up these claims. Is the Mosaic covenant still in effect? If not then it has passed away per the reasoning of Matthew 5:17-18, just as Hebrews 8:13 said it would. If it has passed away then we are living in the New Covenant that HAS been established. The temple that was necessary to meet the Mosaic covenant no longer exists. How do the Jews meet the requirement of their law to atone for their sins? Who is their mediator before God? Where are their animal sacrifices? How does present day Israel trace its lineage to OT Israel?

How did God come in OT times because Jesus said He would come in like manner as the Father came and what does coming in His glory mean? Would you not have to refer to the OT to see how God came in the clouds in OT times? Have you done that?

Peter

I'm more concerned with the Abrahamic covenant. I think that how one interprets Genesis 12:7 pretty much defines how they interpret prophecy throughout the entire Bible, either mostly literal and only figurative when obviously applied, or mostly figurative and only literal when obviously applied. In Genesis 12:7 God promised Abraham's descendants the property where Israel sits right now, indefinitely. The Mosaic covenant is separate from that. Israel's rebellion has no bearing on Abraham's covenant. Abraham remained faithful to God and God confirmed his covenant with them through Isaac and then through Jacob (who is Israel). The basis for a preterist view is that Israel broke the covenant they made with God and were punished for it and this lead to a second covenant that entirely replaced the first one eternally. It's obvious that Israel broke the covenant they made with God and were punished for it. However, Abraham did not break the covenant that he made with God and remained faithful for his life, even going so far as to be willing to sacrifice his own son only because God told him to. The preterist view generally makes an attempt to address the mosaic covenant as its basis and I understand why (though I disagree with the preterist viewpoint entirely). I'm sure there's a preterist explanation for why God would break his covenant with Abraham, who was faithful, but not a good one that I've heard.

Hi Steve,

I don't believe God ever broke His covenant that He made with Abraham. God did give this land to Abraham's offspring, but the people God made into a great nation, I believe can also be seen as those in Christ under the New Covenant. I believe that the NT demonstrates that there is always a greater fulfillment than just the mere physical reality, the greater reality being in Christ Jesus. I believe that God's promises achieve fulfillment, just as the Mosaic covenant, in Christ Jesus.

Hebrews 11:8-16 conveys this, IMO.

Hebrews 11:8-16

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

⁸ By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. ⁹ By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. ¹⁰ For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

¹¹ By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he^[a] considered him faithful who had made the promise. ¹² And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

¹³ All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. ¹⁴ People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. ¹⁵ If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. ¹⁶ Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

Footnotes:

1. Hebrews 11:11 Or By faith even Sarah, who was past age, was enabled to bear children because she
   

The OT has always pointed forward to the NT as far as I'm concerned and the greater reality that is Christ Jesus and fulfillment of all God's promises of blessing that are met in Christ. Abraham was looking ahead to Christ.

Peter

[PGA]

I don't think that a historical case can be made to back up these claims. -Steve

Exactly , If Jesus had returned there would be historical record of it. scripture tells us many times that Jesus will return physically to earth and rule HIS Kingdom on earth and it will never end and many things have been stated of what will take place on earth while Jesus rules on earth ,, It is still yet to happen

While people can make many assumptions that theoretically seems they could make sense it still does not agree with the rest of the Holy Bible , which in itself makes it invalid , no matter how seemingly logical someone may try to say what happens , whenever it does not agree and line up with the entire bible then it is invalid and not legitimate

suppositions are required to be 100% in agreement with all the bible .

Simple statements in scripture such as Jesus telling us that there will be a real time period when satan is unable as in Not able to deceive anyone at all for 1000 years .it IS Literal , -Danielzk

I'm not familiar with His returning physically? Are you referring to 'every eye will see Him' passages? Can you supply me with the ones you are referring too? Whether Satan's time period is literal or not, I believe it has already been fulfilled. I believe that the church is His kingdom, His body on earth as in heaven. He reigns in the lives of believers here as in heaven, does He not? If He reigns then is He not also king?

simple point is that After all scripture has been written , people throughout the rest of history keep records of what happens on earth ,,,,and because of that fact some people have to resort to scriptures of 2000 years old or older to tell the story of their theory because there is no evidence anywhere on earth that the theory has any merit -Danielzk

History confirms that OT Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans. It ceased to exist from this point of time. The people, except for a remnant were scattered throughout the known world. I believe this is the coming of the Lord spoken of and I believe that His prophecies in Matthew 24 conforms to all that is written elsewhere in Scripture. Acts confirm many of these prophecies of Jesus as happening in the 1st century. Do you not think that the Bible should be our highest measure of appeal in these matters?

Peter

[Steve_S]

Hi Steve,

I don't believe God ever broke His covenant that He made with Abraham. God did give this land to Abraham's offspring, but the people God made into a great nation, I believe can also be seen as those in Christ under the New Covenant. I believe that the NT demonstrates that there is always a greater fulfillment than just the mere physical reality, the greater reality being in Christ Jesus. I believe that God's promises achieve fulfillment, just as the Mosaic covenant, in Christ Jesus.

Hebrews 11:8-16 conveys this, IMO.

Hebrews 11:8-16

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

⁸ By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. ⁹ By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. ¹⁰ For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

¹¹ By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he^[a] considered him faithful who had made the promise. ¹² And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

¹³ All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. ¹⁴ People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. ¹⁵ If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. ¹⁶ Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

Footnotes:

1. Hebrews 11:11 Or By faith even Sarah, who was past age, was enabled to bear children because she
   

The OT has always pointed forward to the NT as far as I'm concerned and the greater reality that is Christ Jesus and fulfillment of all God's promises of blessing that are met in Christ. Abraham was looking ahead to Christ.

Peter

I don't deny that there is a measure of looking towards the new testament with regards to the promises given to Abraham. I believe that this is specifically borne out in Genesis 22:15-18 after God stops Abraham from sacrificing Isaac:

Gen 22:15 Then the Angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time out of heaven,

Gen 22:16 and said: "By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—

Gen 22:17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

Gen 22:18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."

There are all sorts of beautiful parallels here that obviously point to Jesus. But, for the purposes of this conversation, I'm going to stick with my Genesis 12:7 line of reasoning. The Hebrews scripture quoted above is not mutually exclusive to the Abrahamic land promise. Why does the physical realm matter at all if everything can be looked at through a strictly spiritual prism and, furthermore, if that's the case, why were physical land promises ever made? Here's an example:

Gen 13:14 And the LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: "Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward;

Gen 13:15 for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever.

This is a reiteration of the land promise made in 12:7. Why were these promises made exclusive of the promises made to Abraham after his obedience to God with reference to Isaac?

Also, let's look back at Gen 22:15-18. Abraham is told - "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice." This implies to me that Abraham's obedience with regard to Isaac earned him a greater reward than the land promise (God says "by Myself I have sworn" with regards to this particular group of promises. God swore by himself to give Abraham this particular set of rewards and it's pretty awesome to think about that in and of itself. For me, it is indicative of the willingness of Abraham to obey no matter what). If 12:7 and further 13:14-15 were the same promises as 22:15-18 (which I believe is the argument you are making), then that certainly takes away a lot from Abraham's act of obedience because he already had these promises.

In your response you said that those in Christ under the new covenant are those of the great nation. God promises that "In your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed." This is CLEARLY, to me, the promise of a messiah coming from Abraham's bloodline. This was made long after the land promise and is obviously also a physical promise, because Jesus DID come from Abraham's seed (physically). It's quite confusing for you to claim that the land promise extends to the new covenant spirtually, when clearly the seed promise was fulfilled PHYSICALLY (not to mention the fact that the land covenant has also been physically fulfilled!).

And that brings me to my greatest issue. We have physical evidence right now that descendants of Abraham are, against virtually all odds, in control of the land (or most of it) promised Abraham. All of the prophecies given to Abraham have been physically fulfilled. Clearly there are spiritual components to them and clearly the greatest reward is in heaven, but God keeps his promises and he promised Abraham physical land to his descendants forever ("Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward;").

[Steve_S]

I don't think that a historical case can be made to back up these claims. -Steve

Exactly , If Jesus had returned there would be historical record of it. scripture tells us many times that Jesus will return physically to earth and rule HIS Kingdom on earth and it will never end and many things have been stated of what will take place on earth while Jesus rules on earth ,, It is still yet to happen

While people can make many assumptions that theoretically seems they could make sense it still does not agree with the rest of the Holy Bible , which in itself makes it invalid , no matter how seemingly logical someone may try to say what happens , whenever it does not agree and line up with the entire bible then it is invalid and not legitimate

suppositions are required to be 100% in agreement with all the bible .

Simple statements in scripture such as Jesus telling us that there will be a real time period when satan is unable as in Not able to deceive anyone at all for 1000 years .it IS Literal , -Danielzk

I'm not familiar with His returning physically? Are you referring to 'every eye will see Him' passages? Can you supply me with the ones you are referring too? Whether Satan's time period is literal or not, I believe it has already been fulfilled. I believe that the church is His kingdom, His body on earth as in heaven. He reigns in the lives of believers here as in heaven, does He not? If He reigns then is He not also king?

simple point is that After all scripture has been written , people throughout the rest of history keep records of what happens on earth ,,,,and because of that fact some people have to resort to scriptures of 2000 years old or older to tell the story of their theory because there is no evidence anywhere on earth that the theory has any merit -Danielzk

History confirms that OT Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans. It ceased to exist from this point of time. The people, except for a remnant were scattered throughout the known world. I believe this is the coming of the Lord spoken of and I believe that His prophecies in Matthew 24 conforms to all that is written elsewhere in Scripture. Acts confirm many of these prophecies of Jesus as happening in the 1st century. Do you not think that the Bible should be our highest measure of appeal in these matters?

Peter

among the Roman Empire. We have historical records of these happenings.

I do have a question with regards to this.

2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Who fulfilled that particular prophecy from your personal viewpoint?