Lessons from the Wilderness, Volume 75: Corrections in Context; Accountability in mistakes

 ©2011-2026, David E. Robinson: At the Gates of Yerushalayim Ministries

Go to Part One  Go to Part Two

Lessons from the Wilderness, Volume 75

Covenant Reality and Apostolic Leadership, Part Three 

More on Questions Yet Asked:

Corrections in Context ^{[i] [ii] [iii] [iv]}

2 Corinthians 3:1-4 [ESV]

 3 ^qAre we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, ^ras some do, ^sletters of recommendation to you, or from you? ^2 tYou yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our¹ hearts, to be known and read by all. ³ And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of ^uthe living God, not on ^vtablets of stone but on ^wtablets of ^xhuman hearts.²

^4 ySuch is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. ^5 zNot that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but ^aour sufficiency is from God, ⁶ who has made us sufficient to be ^bministers of ^ca new covenant, not of ^dthe letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but ^ethe Spirit gives life. ^[v]

           Before we begin, I have to make some very necessary corrections and refinements. Brethren, as you know from our series on false teachers, I had to correct myself. I am teachable and correctable – that means I must let the text support my conclusions, and along with that, what I consider as certain. Now, this last one, what I consider to  be certain, often is far from that. I read and study, and then I decide as to what I write. 

That almost always gets me in trouble. For what I write has to BE right; I am human though. I reach at times too far, and then I have to correct myself. We’ll get to that in a moment, but first, lets summarize Parts One and Two. Now, both parts, and I give HaShem all the glory, offer a coherent call to discern God’s voice through Scripture, covenant, and an accountable community; the revisions we will see below preserve the strength of my contentions while making what I claim more precise, balanced, and defensible. So, let us look at some recap of what we covered. 

1.      In Part One, I touched on authority, discernment, and obedient hearing. 

Part One identifies the central modern challenge, both Christian and Messianic, as a crisis of authority and discernment. Believers live amid competing voices: Scripture, pastors, traditions, politics, social media, influencers, algorithms, AI, and personal desires. The fundamental issue is therefore not merely false teaching or lack of information, but determining whose voice deserves believing loyalty. The study then traced a biblical pattern from the Torah through the New Testament: God speaks, His people are called to hear, and faithful hearing results in obedience. Matthew 7, John 10, and James 1[vi] particularly support the argument that hearing without doing is inadequate. Deception is presented not only as an intellectual error but also as a moral problem: people can be drawn to messages because those messages satisfy desires, fears, or preferences. 

We then began the discussion of declining Christian identification, uneven Scripture engagement, and growing openness to AI spiritual guidance; all these illustrates the urgency of the question. Technology itself is not treated as the enemy; rather, the decisive question is where authority resides. Part One concludes that Scripture presents God as faithfully revealing why He is worthy to be heard and followed. 

2.      Part Two in summary: covenant reality and apostolic service. 

Part Two opens with the development of the “Covenant Reality”, seen as a covenant-centered worldview rooted in the Hebrew Bible and interpreted within its Second Temple Jewish setting. I argue that covenant begins with God’s gracious initiative, calls forth faithful obedience, provides repentance and atonement for failure, and remains meaningful even amid judgment and exile. 

The study then emphasized that the promised new covenant, especially as seen  in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, ought to be understood as God’s instruction written on the heart by the Spirit, rather than simply as the removal of all obligation. Then I also urge my readers to move beyond merely devotional reading of Scripture, but toward careful study which is attentive to language, literary patterns, historical setting, and the Bible’s divine-human character. 

The second part presents apostolic leadership through the idea of shalichut, or an “authorized agency”. In this model, an apostle’s authority is not personal status, charisma, or institutional branding, but faithful representation of the One who sends. Leadership is therefore meant to serve and guard covenant faithfulness, not replace the community’s direct responsibility to hear and obey God. 

Finally, Part Two connected this covenant vision to Part One’s authority crisis. It argues that discernment is not best understood as isolated private intuition, but as hearing God within a Scripture-shaped covenant community where teaching, character, obedience, and leadership can be tested. 

Now, we come to the “fun” part where I make the following: 

Clarifications and Refinements to Parts One and Two. 

The central convictions of both these studies remain unchanged: God has spoken; His people are called to hear and obey; Scripture must be read carefully within its historical setting; and leadership is valid only insofar as it faithfully represents the Messiah. The following clarifications are then humbly offered to make those convictions clearer and to prevent misunderstandings.  

1. Scripture engagement is necessary, but Bible consumption alone is not discipleship. 

The call to hear and obey God remains essential, yet “Scripture engagement” should not mean merely reading frequently, collecting information, or mastering isolated verses. Faithful engagement includes reading, hearing, studying in context, prayerful reflection, communal discussion, and concrete obedience. Scripture is the normative witness by which believers learn to recognize the voice of God, but discipleship is also formed through the Spirit’s work, prayer, the gathered community, pastoral care, correction, and relationships of accountability. Therefore, mature discipleship is not simply exposure to biblical material; it is the Spirit-formed submission to Scripture that reshapes conduct, relationships, and allegiance to Messiah. 

        2.              “Covenant Reality” requires a single, stable definition. 

In these studies, the phrase “Covenant Reality” is used to speak about God’s covenant faithfulness, Israel’s covenant calling, the promised new covenant, transformed hearts, communal life, and leadership. These themes belong together, but they should not be treated as interchangeable. 

Therefore, for clarity, going forth, the term will be used in this sense: 

“Covenant Reality is the lived order established by God’s covenant: graciously initiated by God, expressed through faithful obedience, renewed through repentance, and fulfilled through the Spirit’s internalization of God’s instruction in the Messiah-centered community.” 

This definition then allows us to distinguish the four-related dimensions: God’s historical covenant purposes, the promised new-covenant renewal, the inward transformation of believers, and the public life of the covenant community. 

        3.      Grace and obedience must be held together without reducing either. 

    We understand that the covenant begins in God’s mercy and election, not in human achievement. Israel did not earn God’s choice, and no one establishes righteousness before God by accumulating merit. At the same time though, grace does not make obedience irrelevant. Within Scripture, obedience is the grateful and faithful response of a people whom God has called to belong to Him. This truth must be stated carefully. Obedience is neither a payment for admission into God’s favor nor a merely optional addition to faith. It is the fruit of covenant loyalty. When believers fail, Scripture also provides the language of repentance, forgiveness, restoration, and renewed faithfulness. 

        4.      The new covenant involves both continuity and genuine transformation. 

Jeremiah’s promise that God will write His instruction upon the heart establishes continuity with God’s prior revelation. The new covenant should therefore not be portrayed as a rejection of the God of Israel, the Hebrew Scriptures, or God’s moral will. Yet continuity must not obscure the real changes that are emphasized in the apostolic writings. The new covenant is marked by the Messiah’s decisive work, the gift of the Spirit, the fulfillment of sacrificial and priestly expectations, and the inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God. Passages such as 2 Corinthians 3, Acts 15, Galatians, Romans 7-10, and Hebrews 8-10, must be addressed directly rather than treated as secondary difficulties. A sound covenant theology must explain both what continues and what has been transformed in Messiah.

 5.    Second Temple Judaism and Christian tradition are not-to-be treated as uniform. 

The phrase “Jewish perspective” can conceal significant diversity among biblical, Second Temple, rabbinic, and modern Jewish sources. Likewise, “Christian theology” includes many traditions, some of which differ sharply on Torah, covenant, Israel, grace, and the new covenant. For instance, Second Temple Judaism contains both heavenly-apocalyptic and communal-embodied dimensions. The apostolic witness does not reject heavenly realities; it locates their decisive expression in the incarnate Messiah, Spirit-formed communities, and faithful public conduct. 

Accordingly, broad claims always need to be qualified. Rather than my speaking as though all Christians teach the same thing or all Jewish sources say the same thing, it is more accurate to refer to particular interpretations, communities, texts, or theological traditions. This strengthens our argument by allowing evidence to speak with appropriate precision.

6.     The esoteric and embodied contrast is a teaching aid, not an absolute historical division.

 The distinction between “esoteric” and “embodied” covenant life is useful when it warns against elitism, secret knowledge, and leadership that keeps ordinary believers dependent on spiritual gatekeepers. However, Second Temple Judaism cannot be divided neatly into hidden spirituality on one side and embodied faithfulness on the other. Likewise, apostolic Christianity includes apocalyptic, heavenly, mystical, and revelatory elements alongside embodied ethics. The contrast is memorable, but I presented it as too absolute. Qumran and other Second Temple groups cannot be reduced simply to hidden, elitist spirituality; they also practiced communal discipline, ethical obedience, liturgy, and embodied patterns of life. A more accurate conclusion should have been this: the apostolic witness does not reject heavenly realities or divine mystery. Rather, it proclaims that God’s purposes are decisively made known in the incarnate Messiah and displayed through Spirit-formed communities whose faith becomes visible in holiness, truth, love, repentance, and service. 

        7.     Apostolic authority is derivative, testable, and servant-shaped. 

The model of the shaliach, while rightly emphasizes that a sent representative has no independent authority apart from the sender, means that no modern leader should claim unquestionable authority merely by using titles such as apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, or rabbi.  

Faithful authority must be tested by its conformity to the character and teaching of Messiah, fidelity to the apostolic gospel, consistency between doctrine and conduct, willingness to accept correction, refusal to exploit others, and concern for the vulnerable. Authority in the covenant community is not and cannot be about self-exaltation; it is strictly an accountable service. The strongest leaders do not make themselves the final voice. They direct the community back to the word and character of the King. 

        8.     Covenant community guards against individualism, but it must also guard against abuse. 

It is right to reject a purely private approach in which each person treats inner impressions as unquestionable divine speech. Discernment belongs within a Scripture-shaped community. Yet community itself is not automatically safe or correct; a congregation, tradition, or leader can also become mistaken, coercive, or self-protective. Consequently, covenant community must be both communal and accountable: open to Scripture, governed by truthful interpretation, willing to examine claims, resistant to personality cults, and humble enough to receive correction. The community does not replace God’s voice; it helps believers hear, test, and obey that voice faithfully. 

        9.        Historical claims should be grounded more visibly in primary texts. 

The historical direction of these studies is sound: biblical interpretation should attend carefully to the ancient Jewish world in which Scripture was written. To make the case more persuasive, major claims should have been shown directly from Scripture and relevant ancient sources.  

For example, covenant grace and obligation may be grounded in Exodus 19:4–6 and Deuteronomy 7:6–11; covenant persistence after judgment in Leviticus 26:40–45, Jeremiah 31:35–37, and Ezekiel 36:22–28; inward renewal in Jeremiah 31:31–34 and Ezekiel 11:19–20; and apostolic sending in Luke 10:16, John 13:20, John 20:21, and Acts 15:1–29. Scholarly voices remain helpful, but primary texts should carry the principal weight of the argument. In short, I should have restructured some of my sections a bit better, for some of what I wrote revisited topics that I had mentioned before. If I made my arguments a bit cumbersome, please forgive me, for I should and could have used a more linear structure. I will strive though in my future posts, to make the arguments clearer, more concise and easier to follow. 

That said, these refinements I pray will preserve the central direction of both studies: believers need neither isolation nor dependence upon human personalities, but a covenantal life in which Scripture, the Spirit, faithful obedience, and accountable community direct them to hear and follow the Messiah and lest we forget, His God, our God. 

We do well to heed what Yeshua said in John 17 ; this is where he begins His High Priestly prayer, but what I want to focus on here is what He says in verses 1-3: 

17 ¹ After Yeshua had said these things, he looked up toward heaven and said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that the Son may glorify you—² just as you gave him authority over all mankind, so that he might give eternal life to all those whom you have given him.

³ And eternal life is this: to know you, the one true God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah. ^[1] 

As I said at the beginning of the post – I am human. I erred in not giving you a fuller explanation of all I researched, and you deserved the greater reading. I have laid before you the places I should have taken more time with. As we go forward, I will recall my unintended mistakes, and give you a fuller treatment of this very important issue, that of answering the question:

“Whose voice are we listening to?” 

I pray you’ll continue to follow as we delve further into this topic. In Part Four, I will explore the role that community plays in this matter, and I will begin expounding upon the topics outlined here and give you the full measure of my arguments. Bear with me, for to give coherent and sound arguments, it will require that we delve deep into these subjects. 

Till then, May the God of Peace bless you and keep you,

Amein.

---

     [1] FAIR USE DISCLAIMER: This blog site may contain content that is not authorized for use by its owner. All such material will be cited back to its original source. According to Section 107 of the Copyright Act: “…the fair use of a copyrighted work […] for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright…” I have made and will continue to make every effort to stay within all ethical and moral guidelines in the use of material presented here, and the use of these materials is solely intended for educational purposes only, and all efforts to obtain or sustain fair use of non-owned material will be made. 

    [1] Author’s note: This site is for education only and is not affiliated with any institution, organization, or religious group. It is the sole production of its editor/author. Use of information from Jewish-themed websites (or any other source material) should not be construed as these sites endorsing or confirming any thesis introduced by the author of this epistle. I present the information from their respective sites for instructional purposes only and/or to aid in the readers understanding of the subjects discussed. 

   [1]  Author’s note:  Throughout these studies, I will be using the NET Bible® and the NET Notes®: within the notes you will see symbols like this: ( א B Ψ 892* 2427 sys). These are abbreviations used by the NET Bible® for identifying the principal manuscript evidence that they (authors and translators of the NET Bible®) used in translating the New Testament. Please go to https://bible.org/netbible/  and see their section labeled “NET Bible Principals of Translation” for a more complete explanation on these symbols and other items pertinent to the way the NET Bible uses them. This is not to say that the NET® Bible will be our only source of God’s word but will be used as seen fit.

 

   [1]  Author’s Note: In these studies, I have used the notes that come along with the passages I cite from the sources that I cite: these need a bit of a disclaimer though. As in all things, not everything that is footnoted is something that I necessarily agree with, especially if it contradicts what I believe pertains to any matters of the Torah or the commandments of God. I give you the notes as they are written by the authors of the material I cite from, so that you can see the information contained within them. It truly is not my place to edit them; if they state anything that is in opposition to what I teach, then so be it. I will address these issues if requested. That is not to say I should not challenge something I believe, in my humble opinion, might contradict the truth of God’s word; that I will do in the main body of my epistles for that is where my gentle dissent belongs. Most (but not all) of the differences will come when I quote from a source that displays a decidedly Western/Greek mindset, as opposed to a Hebraic perspective. I must be intellectually honest – I am biased toward the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and His son, Yeshua the Messiah. I pray then we all can find common ground as we study the Scriptures. Also, some may be put off by the length or depth of the notes; not everyone has access to the references I do, therefore I try to include the notes that come with the material I use, so each can see for themselves the information the originator has pointedly gleaned. I hope you avail yourselves to these inclusions – they help us to understand how the material in scripture is laid out – the thought process of the original writer. 

^q ch. 5:12; 10:12; 12:11

^r [ch. 11:4]

^s [Acts 18:27; 1 Cor. 16:3]

^t [1 Cor. 9:2]

¹ Some manuscripts your

^u See Matt. 16:16

^v Ex. 24:12

^w Prov. 3:3; 7:3; Jer. 17:1

^x Ezek. 11:19; 36:26; [Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10]

² Greek fleshly hearts

^y Eph. 3:12

^z [Eph. 2:8]

^a See 1 Cor. 15:10

^b Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23, 25; [ch. 4:1; 5:18; 1 Tim. 1:12]

^c Jer. 31:31; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 8:8, 13; [ver. 14; Heb. 9:15]

^d See Rom. 2:27

^e [John 6:63; Rom. 8:2]

^[v] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2025), 2 Co 3:1-6.

 

[vi] See in particular, Matthew 7:24–27, John 10:27, and James 1:22.

Lesson from the Wilderness, Volume 74; Part Two of our study Covenant Reality and Leadership, What Got Us Here

  ©2011-2026, David E. Robinson: At the Gates of Yerushalayim Ministries

Go to Part One  Go to Part Three

Lessons from the Wilderness, Volume 74

Covenant Reality and Apostolic Leadership, Part Two

 

Answers to the Questions Yet Asked:

What Got us Here ^{[i] [ii] [iii] [iv]}

 2 Corinthians 3:1-4 [ESV]

3 ^qAre we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, ^ras some do, ^sletters of recommendation to you, or from you? ^{2 t}You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our¹ hearts, to be known and read by all. ³ And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of ^uthe living God, not on ^vtablets of stone but on ^wtablets of ^xhuman hearts.²

^{4 y}Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. ^{5 z}Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but ^aour sufficiency is from God, ⁶ who has made us sufficient to be ^bministers of ^ca new covenant, not of ^dthe letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but ^ethe Spirit gives life. ^[v]

Part Two:

Covenant Reality is not a theological theory—it is a total worldview

         We are back, looking again for the answers to questions yet asked. In tying this study to our previous study on false teachers/prophets, we looked at that which led us to see and begin to get a feel for voice and authority – what do we listen to, and who we listen for. This plays into our discussion today for now, we must define what Covenant Reality is, and what it isn’t.

 First, we must set the playing field. I have mentioned this before: to understand what the Word of God is saying to us, we have to define terms and methods. There is a truism here in this statement: “Bible reading is not Bible study.”[vi]  

 Brethren, it is past the time to become as the Bereans:

we must be about the studying of our Bibles.

 That said, there are many way to study Scripture, but for our purposes, I’d like to share a bottom-up methodology seven core laws to guide one into serious biblical exegesis.  These “laws” were developed by the late (and great) Dr. Michael S. Heiser: 

Dr. Heiser was a scholar who earned his PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic languages and held an MA in ancient history and Hebrew studies. He was the coeditor of Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology and Semitic Inscriptions: Analyzed Texts and English Translations, and he was able to do translation work in roughly a dozen ancient languages, including Biblical Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Ugaritic cuneiform. He also specialized in Israelite religion (especially Israel’s divine council), contextualizing biblical theology with Israelite and ancient Near Eastern religion, Jewish binitarianism, biblical languages, ancient Semitic languages, textual criticism, comparative philology, and Second Temple period Jewish literature. He went to be with his Lord in 2023. I have mentioned his work before, and his methodology to study the Bible is how I study today. 

As I mentioned before, there are many ways to study, so please pick one and get serious about the Word. This is mine, Dr. Heiser’s seven core laws (and explanations) for serious bible study…

 The Core Laws for Bible Study

1.      There is no substitute for close attention to the biblical text.
You should be observing the biblical text in the original languages. If you cannot, never trust one translation in a passage. Use several and then learn skills for understanding why they disagree. These skills would be things like learning grammatical terms and concepts, along with translation philosophy and the basics of textual criticism. 

2.      Patterns in the text are more important than word studies.
You need to learn to trace threads and ideas through the Bible and observe how the New Testament re-purposes and interprets the Old Testament. If you aren’t paying attention to these things, you’re missing more than you think you’re seeing.. 

3.      The Bible must be interpreted in context, and that context isn't your own or that of your theological tradition.
The context of the Bible is the context that produced it—ancient Near East/Mediterranean.

In other words, if you’re letting your theological tradition filter the Bible to you, you aren’t doing Bible study or exegesis, and you aren’t interpreting the Bible in context. 

4.      The Bible is a divine-human book; treat it as such.
Put another way, God chose people to write the biblical text, and people write using grammar, in styles understood by their peers, and with deliberate intent—and so the Bible did not just drop from heaven. Study it as though some person actually wrote it, not like it is the result of a paranormal event. (The Bible was written for a specific people, at a specific time, in a specific place, and used their own specific worldview and culture.) 

5.      If a passage is weird, it's important.
When modern readers encounter bizarre, confusing, or seemingly out-of-place details, the common temptation is to smooth them over or ignore them. These "weird" elements are highly deliberate signals from the ancient writers, explicitly designed to hook the original audience's attention and convey crucial theological points. 

6.      Systematic theology is only useful if it is derived from the ground up through exegesis.
Put another way: Systematic theology isn’t helpful (and can be misleading) if its conclusions are not derived from exegesis of the original text. Biblical theology is done from the ground up, not the top down. 

7.      If the text disturbs you, you are paying close attention.
Serious exegesis will inevitably challenge comfort zones, disrupt inherited assumptions, and force a reader to grapple with difficult textual realities. Encountering these moments is a healthy sign of honest, rigorous study. [vii]

          I encourage you all to invest in your biblical studies as best you can, but these rules for Bible study changed the way I not only read the Scriptures, but the manner in which I try to interpret them and then teach them. 

  To this end then, this section of our study may, by some, be considered “dry” or too “technical”. But to study the Word of God, I try to establish what I speak of according to this methodology. I am not trying to overwhelm you; I give this information to aid you in understanding what it is you are reading.

Let us return to our study.

 If we asked a modern church-going believer today what the term Covenant Reality meant, we probably would get 1 of two possible answers: 

1.      Most (the casual bible reader) have not ever heard the term; thus they would have no answer for us.

2.      If they are a “dedicated reader”, they may have heard the term and been given this definition for it: “The term "covenant reality" (often specifically called the new covenant reality) is a Christian theological concept that describes living out the day-to-day life, identity, and blessings established by Jesus Christ through the New Covenant, rather than relying on Old Testament laws, rituals, or human performance. [New Testament based.] 

 Both are unfortunately wrong, a part of the misinformation we discussed in Part One.  Why do I say this? Let us see: 

1)      In number 1, the casual reader of the Bible is an average, non-specialist church attendee. They more relate to how the message applies to their daily life, relationships, and struggles. 

(a)    They read scripture mainly for encouragement, comfort and moral guidance, while taking the text at face value and relying on the denominational or traditional interpretations passed down by their local congregation. Teir misinformation may come from a denominations tradition, and not one supported by the raw text (original autograph). 

2)      This is the average layperson, regular churchgoer, or everyday believer who is consuming a text (like a parish bulletin, a religious book, or scripture) from the perspective of an ordinary practitioner rather than an academic theologian. 

(a)    Their most frequent question may be “How does any of this matter to my daily life?” A casual but dedicated reader does not approach a text to critique its complex historical syntax, source-criticism, or theological minutiae.  They filter the text through a highly practical lens, thinking about their job, their family, and their personal struggles.

(b)   They are “dedicated” in the sense they show up, they are invested, and they genuinely want to read and learn, but if they think the explanations are to dry or academic, they quickly disengage or feel that the message "goes over their head".

(c)    Their level of misinformation comes usually from a denominational playbook, which tends to soften the message with aim “to protect the hearer from their Bible.” 

Both approaches rob the believer of the deeper things of God by either sheltering people from difficult texts which leaves them vulnerable or by not encouraging a more robust dialogue. When believers are unfamiliar with hard or unconventional passages, critics and skeptics can exploit those gaps in knowledge to dismantle their faith.[viii] 

No, we fail the average reader and somewhat dedicated reader by not giving them the truth about what the Covenant Reality is.

What Covenant Reality is: 

It is that which is built upon the foundation of that the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament, or Tanakh), which comprises the vast majority of Scripture and is fundamentally built around the concept of covenant. The phrase "covenant reality" actually makes far more linguistic and thematic sense when viewed through its profoundly Jewish backdrop, viewed from the aspect of the Second Temple Era, roughly 516 BCE to 70 AD and spanning six centuries of Jewish history in the Southern Levant.[ix] [x] 

Moreover, it is: 

·         An Initiative of Pure Grace: Entrance into the covenant was understood to be entirely an act of God’s election and mercy. God chose Israel; Israel did not earn their way into His favor.  [xi]

 

·         An "Elected Relationship of Obligation under Oath": Once inside the covenant by grace, the Jewish people were bound by oath to obey the Law (Torah). Obedience was the expected response to being chosen, not the payment for it. [xii]

 

·         A Mechanism for Maintenance, Not Entry: Keeping the commandments, offering sacrifices, and following the purity laws were the means of staying in the covenant relationship, not getting into it. It was about preserving one's position in God's family. [xiii]

 

·         Active and Unresolved: Even though Israel was historically judged, exiled, and living under foreign pagan empires (like Rome), the covenant was not considered dead or canceled. The re-imposed Torah, resumed temple sacrifices, and continued prophetic expectations meant the covenant administration was fully intact, even if it was waiting for its final, messianic resolution. [xiv]

 

·         Accompanied by Provision for Failure:

The covenant reality factored in human sin. It provided the sacrificial system, Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), and repentance as God's gracious tools for restoration when the law was broken. [xv]

·         The Roots of the "New Covenant" are 100% Jewish. 

If and when Christian teachers use the term "covenant reality", it would usually be used to describe a heart transformed by grace; but it is here that they are actually quoting the Hebrew Prophet Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 31:31-33, God promises a New Covenant (B'rit Hadasha). Crucially, God does not say He is throwing away His law; He says, 

"I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts." 

From a Jewish perspective then, the ultimate "covenant reality" is a state where a person's inner desires are perfectly aligned with God's will—moving from external compliance to an internalized, organic lifestyle of holiness.

Summary Comparison

Perspective	What "Covenant Reality" Emphasizes
Common Christian Usage	Freedom from legalism; resting in the finished, saving work of Messiah.
Authentic Jewish Backdrop	An active, daily partnership (alliance) where every ordinary action is elevated into a holy act of devotion to God.

What the Covenant Reality IS NOT: 

·         It IS NOT "Work-Righteousness" or Legalism: For decades, historical Christian theology assumed Second Temple Judaism was a transactional religion where people frantically racked up "merit points" to out-balance their sins and earn salvation. Second Temple literature (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, and Pseudepigrapha) directly contradicts this—they viewed salvation as corporate and rooted in God's historical deliverance. 

·         It IS NOT Just a "Sociological Identity Marker": While modern scholars sometimes reduce covenant signs (like circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath keeping) to mere "boundary markers" meant to separate Jews from Gentiles socially, the ancient texts show it was much deeper. It wasn't a catch-all word for "community" or "relationship"—it was a specific, vertical, binding treaty with the Creator of the universe. 

·         It IS NOT Permanently Broken or Erased: When prophets or texts spoke of a "broken covenant," it did not mean the contract was voided and God had permanently abandoned Israel. Breaking the covenant simply triggered the consequences (the curses or exile) outlined in the original Mosaic treaty. The underlying relationship remained completely binding, looking forward to a "New Covenant" that would write the law directly on human hearts. While Jewish theology absolutely contains future promises and eschatological hopes (such as the Messianic era), the covenant (Brit) itself is treated as an active, binding, and eternal reality that dictates how a Jewish person lives in the present moment.[xvi] [xvii] 

The Second Temple "Covenant Reality": Esoteric vs. Embodied

To gain further insights into the idea of the Covenant Reality and Apostolic Leadership rooted in the Second Temple period (c. 516 BCE – 70 CE), one must step out of the modern Western paradigms. What follows is a conceptual framework designed to help one navigate this worldview.

The Second Temple "Covenant Reality": The views 

When I speak of The Second Temple "Covenant Reality": Esoteric vs. Embodied, I am attempting to frame a profound theological tension regarding how God's covenant relationship with humanity is understood, accessed, and lived out. This dynamic contrasts two competing ways of viewing God's presence, the Torah, and the role of leadership. 

We see the breakdown of what this distinction means within that historical and scriptural worldview:

The Esoteric Reality (Hidden, Restrictive, Cosmic) 

The esoteric approach treats the covenant reality as something hidden, requiring special revelation, elite status, or mystical ascent to comprehend. In the Second Temple era, this manifested in a few specific ways:  [xviii] 

•      Sectarian & Apocalyptic Seclusion: Groups like the Qumran community (associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls) believed the mainstream Temple establishment was corrupt. They viewed the true covenant reality as an exclusive mystery revealed only to their community. To them, understanding the cosmic battle between light and darkness required special, hidden knowledge. 

•     The Heavenly Realm: The esoteric view emphasizes the transcendence of the covenant. It focuses on the heavenly realities, the divine council, and the hidden mechanics of the supernatural realm. 

•     Mediated Access: In this framework, ordinary people are kept at a distance. Access to the divine presence is strictly tiered, managed by an elite priesthood, or restricted to those who possess the "secret" interpretation of the text.

The Embodied Reality (Manifested, Living, Relational) 

The embodied approach stands in stark contrast to this. It represents the covenant reality breaking through from the cosmic realm into physical, tangible human history. It is the conviction that the covenant is meant to be lived out, walked out, and made visible on earth. 

This sounds like fiction, but there is substantial peer-reviewed biblical scholarship that underpins the concepts behind that phrasing and the underlying theological tension—comparing sectarian mystical/gnostic withdrawal against bodily, communal, and historical covenant life—is a well-established debate across several major fields of Second Temple and New Testament scholarship. 

When I talk about the “The Second Temple ‘Covenant Reality’: Esoteric vs. Embodied”; this is not academic jargon, but more on the lines of popular ministerial and homiletical phrasing, something for the masses.  This is one place where certain pastors and content creators (Facebook, YouTube, X, Instagram, etc.) often use AI tools to synthesize and polish ministry posts. 

Main Points of the Embodied approach: 

•      Tabernacling on Earth: Instead of keeping humans confined to a distant earthly realm while God remains isolated in heaven, the embodied reality is about bringing Heaven back to Earth. God’s presence ceases to be a distant concept and becomes a localized, physical reality. 

•      Fleshed-Out Torah: Under an embodied view, the Torah is not a lifeless code of external demands or an elite esoteric scroll. It is a living, breathing reality written on human hearts, manifested through concrete actions, obedience, and genuine godly repentance. [xix] 

•      Apostolic and Communal Leadership: True apostolic leadership in this context is not about claiming a secret, elite status to rule over others. Instead, it is about embodying the sacrificial love and character of the Messiah. The leader becomes a visible, living demonstration of the covenant—making the unseen reality of God's kingdom tangible to the community. 

            Scholars that delve into these genres (Apocalyptic Sectarianism, physical Covenant Communities, “Heavenly/Spiritualized” vs. “Embodied/Earthly” Covenant, and the Heavenly Ascent vs. Incarnational Presence) represent some of the “heavy-hitters” of the scholarly world: 

·         N.T. Wright, who argues extensively that Paul and the Gospel writers envisioned God's covenant reality as embodied within historical creation. 

·         The late Richard Hays who focused on the embodied ethics of the New Testament. 

·         The late Dr. Michael S. Heiser whose scholarship dealing with early Jewish mysticism (Merkavah or "Chariot" traditions) directly contrasts with the apostolic view of incarnation, through exploring Second Temple apocalyptic and divine-council theology. 

·         The late Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham who wrote that the early Jesus movement radically adapted Second Temple concepts by locating God's ultimate covenant presence in the embodied person of Jesus of Nazareth and His apostles. 

Other scholars such as E.P. Sanders (who was instrumental in the “New Perspective on Paul”), Florentino García Martínez & Lawrence Schiffman both wrote on the Qumran community (Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls), and G.K. Beale who specializes in the New Testament use of the Old Testament and a theological tome on the book of Revelation  are just a handful of the scholarly work in this academic field. 

When we observe the Second Temple worldview as given above, we see these concepts were not abstract theological systems; they were concrete, politically charged, and profoundly communal realities. Looking at this through a Jewish Messianic approach requires understanding how the First Century followers of Yeshua (Jesus) understood authority, community, and the prophetic destiny of Israel. What we see then in this era, is that the overarching narrative of Jewish life was about "Exile and Restoration." Even though the Jewish people had returned to the land, they were physically occupied by Rome, and spiritually, many felt the Divine Presence (Shechinah) had not fully returned to the Temple in the way described by the prophets. We will cover this in a later installment of this series. 

Therefore, the "Covenant Reality" of this era focused heavily on covenant renewal and the anticipation of the B'rit Hadasha (New Covenant) promised by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 

·         The B'rit as a Cosmic Commonwealth: To the Second Temple Jew, a covenant was a boundary-marking reality. It dictated who belonged to the Am Yisrael (the People of Israel) and who did not.

·         The Multi-Generational Continuum: Covenant reality meant that the events of Sinai were not historical text; they were a living, present continuous contract. To obey the mitzvot (commandments) under the guidance of the Spirit was to manifest the future Messianic Era in the present day.

·         The Interiorized Torah: Based on the Second Temple expectations (visible in texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls and early Messianic writings), the New Covenant reality meant the Torah would move from external stone tablets to the human heart via the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). This wasn't the abolition of Torah, but its ultimate interiorization—making obedience natural and organic rather than forced. 

Apostolic Leadership: Shalichut and the Second Temple Model

 Modern readers often view an "Apostle" through a Greek or Western corporate lens (a church planter, a top-tier executive, or a bishop). In the Second Temple era though, the concept is entirely Hebraic. 

The Greek word Apostolos is a direct translation of the Hebrew term Shaliach (שליח).

 The Law of Agency (Shalichut) 

In Second Temple jurisprudence and Rabbinic tradition, a Shaliach is a legal agent sent out with a specific mission. The foundational legal maxim of this concept is found in the Mishnah (Berakhot 5:5):

"A man's agent is like the man himself" (Shelucho shel adam kemoto, שלוחו של אדם – כמותו.). 

·      The Shaliach Carries the King's Authority: When Yeshua chose twelve Shlichim (Apostles), He was operating squarely within Second Temple legal conventions. They did not carry their own authority, credentials, or branding. They carried the literal presence, legal authority, and words of the Sender. To reject the Shaliach was to reject the King; to receive the Shaliach was to receive the King. True Apostolic Leadership acts as the authorized Shaliach of the Messiah, cutting through the noise by holding up an objective standard: "This is what the King said".  

·         The Prophetic Symbol of Twelve: In the Second Temple era, the number twelve was a radical prophetic statement. It signaled the Restoration of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. By appointing twelve Shlichim, Yeshua was announcing that the fragmented, exiled covenant reality of Israel was actively being gathered and rebuilt under His Messianic leadership. 

When Yeshua tells His disciples in John 13:20, 'Whoever receives the one I send receives me,' He isn't inventing a new mystical concept. He is practicing First-Century jurisprudence. In a world filled with a chaos of conflicting voices, Yeshua establishes order by commissioning legal agents (shlichim). An apostle’s authority does not come from their personal resume or a denominational playbook; it rests entirely on the exact faithfulness with which they echo the original Sender. 

 Merging the Two:  

How Apostolic Leadership Serves Covenant Reality 

In this study, the intersection of these two concepts is where the practical application lies. In the Second Temple Messianic community, Apostolic Leadership existed solely to steward (guide) and protect the Covenant Reality - guiding individual hearts into an unshakeable, interiorized bond with YHVH, where they can clearly discern His voice for themselves. 

 The Leaders are Guardians of the Ketubah (Marriage Contract) 

As seen earlier, the Covenant is a marriage. The Apostles did not act as corporate managers; they acted as Shoshbinim (friends of the bridegroom/best men). Their job was to guard the purity of the Bride (the community) and ensure she remained faithful to the Covenant.

Managing the Tension of "The In-Between"

Apostolic leadership in the First Century had to navigate a massive covenantal shift:

How do Jewish believers and Gentile believers coexist in the same Covenant Reality?

             The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is the ultimate Second Temple legal ruling (halakha). The Apostles used their authority as Shlichim of the Messiah to rule that Gentiles could enter the Covenant Reality of God as Gentiles, without undergoing full Rabbinic circumcision, provided they abandoned idolatry. This expanded the borders of the Covenant Commonwealth without destroying the unique identity of Israel.

 From "Epistemological Crisis" to "Covenant Reality" 

In Part One, we established that the modern influx of competing voices—social media, cultural politics and AI et. al.— is structurally identical to the serpent’s question in Eden:

"Did God actually say...?" 

I then noted in that humanity's primary breakdown was an epistemological crisis, forcing humans into choosing whose version of reality they were to trust. 

How were we to resolve this issue? 

In Second Temple thought, the only antidote to an epistemological crisis was a shared, objective Covenant Reality. For this to be achieved, we must conclude that "hearing God" isn't a mystical, hyper-individualized experience where people try to catch a whisper in their minds. Instead, hearing God happens within the boundaries of the Covenant community. 

The Covenant then is the baseline of reality;

it dictates what is true, what is holy, and whose voice carries authority.

 But… who told them that?

Whose voice? Whose authority?

 To answer this, we have to weave together two narratives that highlight the problem: 

This is then the "Crisis of Authority" that leaves human beings paralyzed by competing voices, vulnerable to deception because of our unchecked internal inclinations.  

And  this we will unpack and answer the questions spoken when we meet again next time. 

Till then, may Elyon bless you and keep all

Amein.

---

 

[i] FAIR USE DISCLAIMER: This blog site may contain content that is not authorized for use by its owner. All such material will be cited back to its original source. According to Section 107 of the Copyright Act: “…the fair use of a copyrighted work […] for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright…” I have made and will continue to make every effort to stay within all ethical and moral guidelines in the use of material presented here, and the use of these materials is solely intended for educational purposes only, and all efforts to obtain or sustain fair use of non-owned material will be made.

 

    [ii] Author’s note: This site is for education only and is not affiliated with any institution, organization, or religious group. It is the sole production of its editor/author. Use of information from Jewish-themed websites (or any other source material) should not be construed as these sites endorsing or confirming any thesis introduced by the author of this epistle. I present the information from their respective sites for instructional purposes only and/or to aid in the readers understanding of the subjects discussed.

 

   [iii]  Author’s note:  Throughout these studies, I will be using the NET Bible® and the NET Notes®: within the notes you will see symbols like this: ( א B Ψ 892* 2427 sys). These are abbreviations used by the NET Bible® for identifying the principal manuscript evidence that they (authors and translators of the NET Bible®) used in translating the New Testament. Please go to https://bible.org/netbible/  and see their section labeled “NET Bible Principals of Translation” for a more complete explanation on these symbols and other items pertinent to the way the NET Bible uses them. This is not to say that the NET® Bible will be our only source of God’s word but will be used as seen fit.

 

   [iv]  Author’s Note: In these studies, I have used the notes that come along with the passages I cite from the sources that I cite: these need a bit of a disclaimer though. As in all things, not everything that is footnoted is something that I necessarily agree with, especially if it contradicts what I believe pertains to any matters of the Torah or the commandments of God. I give you the notes as they are written by the authors of the material I cite from, so that you can see the information contained within them. It truly is not my place to edit them; if they state anything that is in opposition to what I teach, then so be it. I will address these issues if requested. That is not to say I should not challenge something I believe, in my humble opinion, might contradict the truth of God’s word; that I will do in the main body of my epistles for that is where my gentle dissent belongs. Most (but not all) of the differences will come when I quote from a source that displays a decidedly Western/Greek mindset, as opposed to a Hebraic perspective. I must be intellectually honest – I am biased toward the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and His son, Yeshua the Messiah. I pray then we all can find common ground as we study the Scriptures. Also, some may be put off by the length or depth of the notes; not everyone has access to the references I do, therefore I try to include the notes that come with the material I use, so each can see for themselves the information the originator has pointedly gleaned. I hope you avail yourselves to these inclusions – they help us to understand how the material in scripture is laid out – the thought process of the original writer.

 

^q ch. 5:12; 10:12; 12:11

^r [ch. 11:4]

^s [Acts 18:27; 1 Cor. 16:3]

^t [1 Cor. 9:2]

¹ Some manuscripts your

^u See Matt. 16:16

^v Ex. 24:12

^w Prov. 3:3; 7:3; Jer. 17:1

^x Ezek. 11:19; 36:26; [Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10]

² Greek fleshly hearts

^y Eph. 3:12

^z [Eph. 2:8]

^a See 1 Cor. 15:10

^b Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23, 25; [ch. 4:1; 5:18; 1 Tim. 1:12]

^c Jer. 31:31; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 8:8, 13; [ver. 14; Heb. 9:15]

^d See Rom. 2:27

^e [John 6:63; Rom. 8:2]

^[v] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2025), 2 Co 3:1-6.

 

[vi] Heiser's Laws for Bible Study formulated by biblical scholar Dr. Michael S. Heiser.

[vii] Modified and taken from the following sites: https://www.logos.com/grow/heisers-laws-for-bible-study/ Accessed 10 October 2026; https://drmsh.com/heisers-laws-for-bible-study/ Accessed 13 October 2026.

 

[viii] https://www.instagram.com/reels/CjYoi7Rt97z/

 

[ix] See  "Second Temple Period". Center for Online Judaic Studies. Retrieved 10 October 2026.

[x] See also https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jerusalem-during-the-second-temple-period Retrieved 10 October 2026.

 

[xi] From E-Journal of Religious and Theological Studies - September 2018 ISSN 2458 - 7338 Vol 4. No.1, THE ROLE OF COVENANT AND WORKS IN SALVATION: A SURVEY OF SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE by DANIEL K. BEDIAKO Retrieved 13 October 2026

 

[xii] https://lionelwindsor.net/2010/02/25/covenants-in-second-temple-judaism/

[xiii] From E-Journal of Religious and Theological Studies - September 2018 ISSN 2458 - 7338 Vol 4. No.1, THE ROLE OF COVENANT AND WORKS IN SALVATION: A SURVEY OF SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE by DANIEL K. BEDIAKO Retrieved 13 October 2026

 

[xiv] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4Y7FW_Z_q8

[xv] From E-Journal of Religious and Theological Studies - September 2018 ISSN 2458 - 7338 Vol 4. No.1, THE ROLE OF COVENANT AND WORKS IN SALVATION: A SURVEY OF SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE by DANIEL K. BEDIAKO Retrieved 13 October 2026

 

[xvi] https://torah.org/torah-portion/rabbiwein-5781-netzavim/

[xvii] Adapted from the book The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (Supplements to the    Journal for the Study of Judaism) by Stanley E Porter (Editor), Jacqueline C R de Roo (Editor)

 

[xviii] Accessed from https://d3nr8uzk0yq0qe.cloudfront.net/media/documents/Harris_Tania_-_Hearing_Gods_Voice.pdf

 

[xix]   While I do not normally steer anyone away from a ministry since I did pull some information from the Dwell Community Church’s pastor Gary DeLashmutt, after further examination, I cannot agree to much of his ministry that teaches God’s Torah, and the subsequent 2/3rds of our bibles is nothing more than a “ministry of death”. This is a classic example of a church and ministers that degrade and deny the Sovereign God of Heaven’s own words, words that God Himself says are, truth, life, and the way to walk humbly beside Him. I cannot recommend this church, but that is my opinion, make your own. May they repent, and seek God faithfully, not in part.