Dream (in the morning of March 29, 2005) ... 

I was in a church service, and pastor Elliott was there, pastor Delbert, pastor Sharon and many others. Someone was trying to pronounce a curse toward us/me, and I said, "A wall of protection with the blood of Jesus". Someone said, "You can't say that". I said, "I can too". I said it again, and, at that very moment, a wall appeared. It was a partial wall covering the area where the curse was coming from, and the wall had deep ridges or grooves; the blood of Jesus was running down the wall, and everyone saw it.

Our comments

In Scripture, the Lord says that curses can never come without a cause:

"As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come." (Proverbs 26:2)

As we saw in a previous word, the verse above shows that a curse can come in one of two ways:

1. As a fluttering bird drawn in by Girgashite remnants in our life

2. As a flying swallow drawn in by Canaanite remnants in our life

As we have seen before, the presence of the Canaanites and the Girgashites inside the Church and the world has served as the foundation for the pastoral matriarchy that has allowed the soul to dominate over the spirit. God's curse upon woman and man came as a result of man obeying woman (Genesis 3:16-19), which is a figure of how natural man allowed his spirit nature ("man") to be ruled by his soul nature ("woman"). In short, curses come where the soul is allowed to have preeminence over the spirit.

No curse can come without a cause, meaning that no curse pronounced against you can ever "penetrate" into your life unless there is something inside of you that allows it to take root. The enemy can launch attacks against you, but those attacks can only cause damage on the outside of you. In other words, when your soul is in full submission to the spirit, your inner being is invulnerable to any attack from the enemy, even when the attacks may cause you real (but temporary) pain and suffering on the outside (Luke 12:4-6).

In the dream, sister Sharon knew that someone was trying to launch a curse towards them, which means that it was more than an attack from the enemy. Since curses cannot come without a cause, this curse was being drawn towards them on account of something on the inside of the church. As we said above, this "something" is a combination of Girgashite and Canaanite influences that allow the pastoral matriarchy to continue dominating. The fact that sister Sharon felt the need to raise up a wall means that she realized that they were vulnerable to the curse, which reaffirms the fact that there was something on the inside of the church which was drawing the curse towards them.

In order to further understand what was drawing the curse towards them, we must study Exodus chapter 4.

When the Lord called Moses to set the Israelites free, this is what happened:

"¹⁹And the LORD said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead which sought thy life. ²⁰And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand. ²¹And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. ²²And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: ²³And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn." (Exodus 4:19-23)

Notice that God specifically tells Moses to return to Egypt, which prompted Moses to take his wife and his sons and go back to Egypt. As he did so, God told him to tell Pharaoh to "let His son go" so that he (i.e.- Israel) may serve Him (v23). If Pharaoh refused, Moses was to tell Pharaoh that God would slay his firstborn son.

As we have said before, Egypt represents the Girgashite spirit of human traditions. Therefore, the exit of God's people from Egyptian oppression is a prophetic figure of how God will take His people away from their current slavery to religious traditions so that they may finally serve Him and not man. The prophetic calling of many believers is currently trapped under Girgashite structures that force them to perform many external, religious activities that have no true spirit value. Girgashite activities work to drown the spirit nature in believers, just as Pharaoh tried to drown all the male Israelites in the Nile (Exodus 1:15-22).

While Moses was on his way to Egypt (in accordance with God's command), this is what happened:

"And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him." (Exodus 4:24)

Why would God meet him on the way to Egypt in order to kill him? Wasn't Moses doing God's will by going to Egypt? This does not make sense to our natural mind. Why? Because the natural mind makes judgments based on external evidence, and, externally, Moses seemed to be doing everything God had asked him to do. Yet, there were roots on the inside of Moses' household which were not being dealt with. As we have said before, to "curse" something is equivalent to "sentencing it to utter destruction". Therefore, when God stood before Moses to destroy him, it was equivalent to God sending a curse against him, and this curse was being drawn in by unresolved issues in Moses and his family.

As we have said before, "regular" dynamis power can be manifested in environments where righteousness does not prevail. However, extraordinary, life-altering dynamis power can only be manifested in an atmosphere with a righteousness foundation (Acts 19:8-12). What God was about to do through Moses in Egypt was a manifestation of extraordinary, life-altering dynamis power. Therefore, Moses could not go to Egypt without a solid righteousness foundation. When God met Moses in order to kill him, He was coming with a judgment curse to kill the things inside of Moses which would have prevented him from getting the Israelites out of Egypt. Remember, all the dynamis power in the world cannot truly get the job done unless the spiritual roots are removed first.

To understand one of the root problems in Moses' heart, we must go back a few verses:

"And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father in law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace." (Exodus 4:18)

In verses 1 through 17, Moses was receiving a specific and unconditional command from God to go to Egypt. At no point did God tell Moses to go ask for "permission" from his father-in-law before going down to Egypt. The only person that God mentioned to Moses was his brother Aaron, but only because Moses' carnal timidity prevented him from believing that God could speak against Pharaoh directly through him. Why, then, did Moses feel the need to get his father-in-law's authorization? Because Moses had remnants of the Girgashite spirit in his heart. From his days in Egypt, and from his many years in the desert with Jethro and his family, Moses had adopted the Girgashites' staunch belief in bureaucracy and hierarchical chains of command. Instead of saying to Jethro, "God told me to go to Egypt, so I am leaving you", he timidly approached him and said, "Please give me permission to go to Egypt to visit my relatives". How could Moses have the spiritual authority to free the Israelites from Pharaoh, king of the Girgashites, when he himself was bound by Girgashite thinking? The Girgashite influence was still too strong in Moses' heart.

In the next verses, we see another issue in Moses' family:

Notice that God let Moses go and did not kill him (v26), but only after Zipporah, Moses' wife, circumcised her son. Notice also that verse 25 refers to the son as "her son", not as "Moses' son" or as "their son". Why did God's death-judgment against Moses go away after her son was circumcised? Because Zipporah had been shielding the son from the pain of circumcision. After many years as Moses' wife, she must have understood that all Jewish children were to be circumcised as a physical sign of the spiritual covenant that God had made with Abraham:

"¹⁰This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. ¹¹And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. ¹²And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. ¹³He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. ¹⁴And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." (Genesis 17:10-14)

The fact that Zipporah's son was still uncircumcised means that she had always won out every time she and Moses had had an argument regarding his circumcision. While Moses knew that it was a sign of obedience towards God, Zipporah saw it as a cruel and unnecessary tradition, and, just like any Canaanite pastor, she wanted to shield her little baby from the pain of God's "cruel" command.

Moses never took fatherly authority in the situation because he always felt like a "guest" at Zipporah's house -- where the "real boss" behind the scenes was Zipporah's father Jethro. By yielding to Zipporah's wishes regarding the son's circumcision, Moses allowed a spirit of Canaanite, pastoral matriarchy into his house. This is why verse 25 refers to the son as "her" son, i.e.- Zipporah's son, and not as "Moses' son"; Jethro's shadow over the marriage allowed Zipporah to possess the children and keep them away from God's perfect will. By preventing the son's circumcision, Zipporah was showing her Canaanite hatred of God's purifying judgments.

Zipporah knew why God wanted to kill Moses. She knew that God would not "leave them alone" until they circumcised the kid, so she grudgingly did so, and she showed her displeasure at God's command by throwing the son's foreskin at Moses' feet and saying, "You are a bloody husband to me". When she said this, it was not because Zipporah was trying to sound "British". It was her way of saying,

"I resent you because your Jewish God forced my son to go through unnecessary pain. Your God is a violent and cruel God. He is a God with no mercy." 

God was about to unleash deadly punishments on Egypt and its people through Moses. With Zipporah's strong influence of pastoral mercy inside of Moses, it would have been impossible for him to be effectively used by God to unleash those judgments. As we studied in a previous article, the influence of Canaanite mercy did eventually reappear in Moses, but only after the Israelites had been freed from Egypt. One of the reasons why this Canaanite mercy reemerged is because Moses did not directly deal with it when God tried to kill him in Exodus 4:24-26. As you may have noticed, Exodus 4:24-26 does not show Moses actively confronting Zipporah over their son's circumcision. By trying to kill Moses, God removed Zipporah's dominating, external influence over Moses; this is why Zipporah is never mentioned again in Scripture after this passage, with the exception of Exodus 18:2, where she is briefly mentioned in the context of Jethro's visit to Moses. Even though Zipporah's external influence was gone, internal remnants of Canaanite mercy did remain in Moses' heart, and those remnants eventually cost him the opportunity to enter the Promised Land.

In conclusion, we can now see why God's death-curse came against Moses. Just as Proverbs 26:2 bears out, there were Girgashite and Canaanite influences that drew the curse towards Moses' life. He showed the Girgashite influence by unnecessarily asking his father-in-law for "authorization" to obey God, and he showed the Canaanite influence by allowing Zipporah to shield her son from the pain of God's purifying judgments. How was the curse stopped? When Moses' household was willing to shed Zipporah's blood. Zipporah saw her son as an extension of herself. When her son's blood was being shed as a result of the circumcision, it was Zipporah's blood being shed. When Zipporah lost matriarchal control of Moses' household, the curse was annulled.

In the dream, sister Sharon declares a wall of protection with the "blood of Jesus". To truly understand what the raising up of such a wall entails, we must understand what the Scriptures have to say about the "blood of Jesus".

Believers around the world have been indoctrinated into treating the "blood of Jesus" as some sort of sprinkling liquid with "magical powers" that scares the devil away, much like a crucifix does to vampires in Hollywood movies. However, there are three big problems with such an attitude.

The first problem has to do with the "scaree", i.e.- the person Christians try to scare away when they claim the "blood of Jesus". According to Scripture, the "blood of Jesus" was foreshadowed by the blood of lambs that was shed by the Israelites on the Passover night when they were finally freed from Egyptian oppression:

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Corinthians 5:7)

The Israelites were supposed to do the following with the blood:

"²¹Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover. ²²And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning. ²³For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you" (Exodus 12:21-23)

Notice that the one going from door to door was not satan but God Himself (v23). When God (not satan) saw the blood, He would "skip" that house and go over to the next house to see if it had blood on the door posts. The "destroyer" referred to in verse 23 is not satan. By considering 2 Samuel 24:16-17 and by comparing 1 Corinthians 10:10 with Numbers 16:45, it becomes evident that the "destroyer" is an angel of God that executes curse judgments at God's command. Would God be walking from house to house alongside satan? Certainly not! God was walking with His Angel, and, wherever God did not see willful death (i.e.- the blood), He would send His Angel in to cause involuntary death. Every house in Egypt had to experience a death. Those who willingly experienced death did so by consciously taking a lamb and killing it (v21). Those who were not willing to experience death that night involuntarily experienced it when the Destroyer went in to take the life of the firstborn.

I constantly hear Christians using the "blood of Jesus" to scare satan away. Yet, passages like the ones above clearly show that the one who is "held back" by the blood of the lamb is God Himself. There is no passage in Scripture where an apostle ever drove evil spirits away by claiming the blood of Jesus, and there is no passage that speaks of the blood of Jesus in the context of keeping satan away.

The second problem with how believers use the "blood of Jesus" is in its ultimate purpose. Instead of acting as an "evil spirit repellant", the blood of Jesus is designed to cover us from God's curse judgments so that we may freely draw near unto God's fearsome presence:

"¹⁹Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, ²⁰By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; ²¹And having an high priest over the house of God; ²²Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." (Hebrews 10:19-22)

Notice that the blood is not some sort of magical "grace liquid" that you spray on yourself in order to enter before God's presence. According to verse 22, we are sprinkled with the blood of Jesus when our hearts willingly seek after God's truth (Ecclesiastes 10:2) and righteousness. By dying everyday with Christ, we are freed from an "evil conscience" and we are free to approach God's Holy and Righteous Presence:

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" (Romans 6:3)

"⁶Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. ⁷For he that is dead is freed from sin." (Romans 6:6-7)

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." (Galatians 2:20)

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21)

From all of the above, we can see that the ultimate purpose of the blood of Jesus is so that we may have free and direct access to God's Righteous presence. Its ultimate purpose is so that we may move in the freedom of the New Covenant, thereby bypassing the intermediate human hierarchies established by the Old Covenant:

The blood of Jesus sanctifies us so that we may move in Oneness with God (v14). That is the ultimate purpose of the blood.

The third problem with how believers interpret the "blood of Jesus" has to do with its "externality". Most believers see it as a spiritual liquid with powers that are independent from and external to them. However, the passages above clearly show that the "blood of Jesus" only takes effect in our lives when we share in His death. In other words, we cannot claim the benefits of Jesus' death while our self-will is still alive. Jesus had to give His life in order to make His blood available to us, and we must be willing to spiritually shed our blood in Him in order for His blood to take effect in our lives. In the Old-Testament Levitical priesthood, the priest always offered the blood of another living being. Under the New-Testament Melchisedec priesthood, however, the priest must offer his own blood:

"¹¹But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; ¹²Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." (Hebrews 9:11-12)

We are Melchisedec priests, and, as such, the only blood acceptable before God is the blood of Jesus. When we predispose ourselves to die to our self-will, the effects of the blood of Jesus "kick in"; we are justified in Him and we can walk in His righteous nature (Romans 6:6-7, Colossians 3:10), and our blood becomes equivalent to Jesus' blood. Why? Because we are walking in His same nature. When this happens, all the suffering and sacrifice that you go through in Him is --- in the eyes of God --- equivalent to Jesus suffering and sacrificing Himself. All of this is to say that Jesus' blood does not flow unless you allow your own blood to be shed (in Him). The flow of Jesus' blood is not external and independent from us.

In conclusion, these are the three problems with how believers use the "blood of Jesus":

1. The blood is not designed to scare away evil spirits but rather to redeem us from God's destruction.

    

2. The ultimate purpose of the blood is not to free us from temporal inconveniences but rather to give us the New-Covenant freedom to approach God's fearsome presence.

    

3. The blood of Jesus does not flow if ours does not.

Based on all of the above, let us consider the following passage:

Notice that this passage says that they overcame the accuser of the brethren (satan) by

1. The blood of the Lamb

2. The word of their testimony

This would seem to contradict what was said above regarding the blood not scaring evil spirits away. However, this passage is not saying that the blood of the Lamb scared satan away. Verses 7 through 10 speak of how Michael and his angels fought against satan and his angels. As we have said before, Michael represents believers with a red-horse anointing who challenge the set ways of the spiritual "Cains" inside the Church. Big brother Cain believes that little brother Abel must submit to predefined hierarchical structures where chronological time is more important than the Anointing and where the method is more important than the people the method is for. The spiritual Cains maintain Girgashite-Jebusite-Amorite structures that accuse the brethren every time they begin to move in the authority of their spiritual nature and calling. Therefore, the only way that the accuser can be brought down is through believers who know who they are in Christ, regardless of what Cain may say about them. Such believers are not intimidated by Cain's external authority because they truly know God, and they understand that all earthly greatness pales in comparison to God. All of this requires that the young Abels abide in New-Covenant direct access to God, and, as we saw above, that access comes through the blood of the Lamb.

The blood of the Lamb gives us the confidence to challenge the accuser and his cursed angels whenever they begin to tell us that we do not have spiritual authority, accusing us of rebellion in the process. The accuser is not "scared away" by the blood. Instead, he is overcome by believers empowered through the blood. If he were simply "scared away" by the sight of the blood on us, there would be no need for the spiritual Michaels to fight against him (Revelation 12:7).

Revelation 12:11 also says that the accuser is overcome by the "word of their testimony". The word "word" was translated from the Greek word logos, which, as we have seen before, speaks of apostolic judgments. The word "testimony" was translated from the Greek word martyria, which is derived from the Greek word martys; as we have seen before, martys speaks of prophetic sacrifice. Therefore, the phrase "word of their testimony" speaks of the apostolic judgments unleashed against Cain the accuser by the spiritual Abels as they shed their lives in prophetic sacrifice. This is why the Scriptures say the following about the blood of Abel:

"¹⁰And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. ¹¹And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand" (Genesis 4:10-11)

Notice how Abel's blood began to send accusation judgments against Cain after it was shed. This means that the accuser is defeated through the accusations of those who are willing to shed their blood in sacrifice. This is why Revelation 12:11 ends by saying that those who overcame the accuser "loved not their lives unto the death".

In conclusion, we can say that those who overcome the accuser do so through the New-Covenant confidence that they gain through their private relationship with God; this confidence comes from their direct access to the fearsome God, and this access is enabled through the blood of the Lamb. Armed with that confidence, they are not afraid to go out and confront the accuser and to shed their lives in prophetic sacrifice so that their shed blood may release apostolic judgments against the accuser. Again, we see how the blood of Jesus is not some magical liquid that you sprinkle on satan to drive him away. The blood of Jesus flows in our lives in the measure that we present God with a predisposition to die.

It is also worth noting that Revelation 12:11 does not speak of the blood of Jesus holding back a curse from satan. The accusations of the enemy are based on Old Testament paradigms that cannot destroy the true believer's heart and spirit. Even with the blood on us, the enemy will continue his accusations against us. As the spiritual Abels persist in fighting back against Cain's accusations, they work to liberate others whose spiritual potential has been hindered by those false paradigms and accusations.

The wall that was raised in the dream had "deep ridges or grooves". The grooves are a figure of "plowing", which speaks of someone opening a trench through a piece of land, preparing it for sowing. Based on what we have shared before, this points to the apostolic ministry, since apostles are called to work as "trail blazers" that enter into new spiritual territories and do all the difficult "ground-breaking" work of preparing that territory for the Lord's full manifestation down the road. Therefore, the wall's deep grooves speak of a church of believers who embrace God's apostolic judgments so that a deep foundation of righteousness may be established.

As we have shared above, the blood of Jesus that was flowing down the wall cannot be flowing unless there are believers who are willing to shed their blood in prophetic sacrifice. Therefore, the blood in the dream speaks of a church of believers who embrace the prophetic anointing that is willing to boldly defy human, Girgashite structures and is not afraid to suffer deep emotionally-painful attacks at the hand of the enemy, if that is what it takes for God's purposes to be fulfilled.

As we said at the beginning, curses are drawn by Girgashite and Canaanite elements on the inside, meaning that they are drawn by places under a pastoral matriarchy. As we studied in a previous word, those curses are even accelerated when the person or persons involved are trying to change their matriarchal past, but without making a full break with that past because of mental and/or emotional attachments. In Moses' case, for example, we saw how Moses immediately drew God's curse upon his life as he was headed to Egypt to do God's will, but without fully dealing with the Girgashite and Canaanite elements within his household.

Sister Sharon had her dream in the morning of March 29, 2005, which is the same day as when Joan Kennedy was found lying on the street. The Lord used the Joan Kennedy incident to make us post the prophetic word on the "Kennedy curse" where we share on how curses are accelerated by partial commitments to break free from a matriarchal past. This is no coincidence.

The curse in the dream was stopped by a wall with "apostolic grooves" and the "prophetic blood of Jesus". The apostolic grooves dealt with the Canaanite, judgment-hating issues inside the church, while the prophetic blood of Jesus dealt with the Girgashite, fear-of-death issues inside the church.

While the Girgashite and Canaanite spirits are manifested through distorted "female" ministries (pastors and teachers), the apostolic and prophetic ministries are "male" ministries. Therefore, the curse in the dream can only be stopped by a "male" wall that ends the domination of the "female" ministries in the dream's congregation. 

The curse in the dream came because the church in question is trying to change its matriarchal past without making a full break with that past. You can't have your cake and eat it too. When you commit yourself to the manifestation of God's latter rain, you enter into a binding obligation with the Lord where you must make all the deep changes that God requires you to do. If Moses had not committed his life to God, the Lord would have left him to live out his life either as a meaningless Egyptian prince or as a meaningless shepherd in the desert (Hebrews 11:24-28). Yet, when Moses decided to follow after God's plan for his life, God was willing to cut his life short in Exodus 4:24-26 unless he made the necessary "full break". Some might say, "If fully committing my life to God puts me in danger of God cutting my life short, I prefer not to make any type of commitment". To such a comment I would say, "It is better to commit yourself and be cut short than to have never committed yourself at all". This life is too short anyway!!! And it's only one life!!! Playing it too "safe" is like a contestant on "The Wheel of Fortune" who saves his "free spin" for the next day's show without realizing that he will not be invited to the next show! Obviously, the idea is to commit yourself to God and to not be cut short due to disobedience, so the best thing to do is to go all out and hold nothing back from the Lord.

Sister Sharon mentions the names of 3 "pastors" who were present in the dream. Why? Because they represent each of the 3 "male" ministries: apostle, prophet, and evangelist. Yet, all three are referred to as "pastors", which reveals the current preeminence of the pastoral ministry in the dream's congregation. When sister Sharon declared the wall, someone said, "You can't do that", which reveals the internal opposition to the true manifestation of the "male" ministries inside the congregation. As we share in our articles,

1. True apostles are reviled by judgment-hating, pain-shielding Canaanites

2. True prophets are opposed by tradition-bound, death-fearing Girgashites

3. True evangelists are attacked and envied by proud and glory-hungry Amorites.

The "You can't do that" comment is also a figure of the "accuser of the brethren" spirit described in Revelation 12:7-11. The accuser works to question the true spiritual authority of believers. When sister Sharon insisted in declaring the wall, she showed the Michael, red-horse anointing that does not yield to the accuser and is willing to fight him to the death (Revelation 12:11).

The phrase "and everyone saw it" that sister Sharon adds at the end of her narration points to the phrase "seen of angels" in 1 Timothy 3:16, which, as we have seen before, speaks of how God will vindicate His prophetic remnant in the sight of the intermediary angels who opposed it.