Shamah-Elim Bible Studies

Site overview
Random posting
Newest articles
Prophetic words
Pending interpretation
Questions & Answers
Trains of thought
Latest postings
Audio snippets
Postings in other languages
Changes to articles
Copyright info
Contact info




ClustrMaps Map Image

Romans 13 (Part 4)

First posted: July 1, 2013


This article is the fourth in a series of articles dealing in detail with the spiritual meaning behind Romans chapter 13.



The subtle swap

The violation of the 5 fundamental rights

Step 1: Undermine privacy

Step 2: Squelch rebellion

Step 3: "Nationalise" ownership

Step 4 : Smear exposers of right

Step 5 : Destroy all other domains

A case in point on the 5 steps

Beastly authority



The subtle swap

Romans 13:9 declares the following:


"For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Romans 13:9)


As you may note, the Spirit lists the "second half" of the 10 commandments that the Lord God gave to the nation of Israel:


"13 Thou shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal. 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." (Exodus 20:13-17)


If you read both passages carefully, you will notice a "small" but important detail: For "some reason", the Spirit of God chose to list the 7th commandment ("thou shalt not commit adultery") before the 6th commandment ("thou shalt not kill") in Romans 13:9. Given their limited reverence for God's words, most matriarchal believers would dismiss this as an "immaterial" and "inadvertent" change made by Paul as he wrote and thought about "higher" and "more relevant" issues. Such a thought, however, would imply that Paul's epistle to the Romans was written by a Christian who was simply "doing his human best" to share some "spiritual principles" with other Christians. To accept such a thinking, though, is to undermine the reality of God and the spirit realm, reducing Christianity to one of the many religious philosophies that are reaching out like a blind man to grasp an ever-elusive spiritual reality. Fellow believer, if the God of Israel exists and Christianity is true, you must be willing to believe in His ability to speak through men, inspiring inerrant words of truth that reveal deep and transcendental spiritual principles. As you may know, the God of Christianity makes a connection between Himself and "words" in a way that no other "god" does. No other "god" has ever said, "the Word was with Me, and the Word was Me". No other "god" has so explicitly claimed, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments", meaning that you cannot love Him if you do not revere the words and judgements emanating from His mouth, for these words reveal His innermost nature:


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)


"If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15)


"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." (John 14:21)


"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." (1 John 5:3)


"5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:5-6)


"Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway." (Deuteronomy 11:1)


Therefore, given that the God of Christianity links His words with His very Nature in such a strong way (equating love for Him with love for His words), it would be a sign of utter incompetence if He proved Himself incapable of producing a Scripture fully inspired by Him and devoid of fleshly contamination. How could the God of Christianity equate love for Him with love for His commandments and then not even bother to transmit the core of those commandments in an error-free way laden with His very nature? Even if we were willing to accept the premise that mankind is so "imperfect" that God could not find a single human to write an inspired and error-free book of Scripture through, we would have to conclude that a true and righteous God would have been "thoughtful" enough to tell us to expect imperfections in His Scriptures. In other words, the human authors of Scripture would have felt a strong compulsion to add a caveat in their writings indicating that their words were their "best but fallible effort" to express God's thoughts as they perceived them. Also, you would expect that, when Jesus (the purported incarnation of this Christian God) walked on Earth, he would have gone out of his way to emphasise the need to take the words in Scripture with a "grain of salt", pointing out some of the "mistakes" and slight "inaccuracies" in various passages of Scripture. Instead, there is neither no effort in Scripture to point out its own "fallibility", nor is there any evidence that Jesus ever tried to undermine the belief in Scripture's exactness. On the contrary, Jesus' words once and again certified the undeniable authority, overwhelming truth, and extraordinary power of the written Scriptures, portraying them as if they were indeed God's very words breathed into the hearts of yielded men. Hence, you must either accept the Christian Scriptures as fully inspired by God and error free, or you must dismiss Christianity as a pretentious fraud and one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind. If you choose the former option over the latter, you must then be careful never to dismiss any detail in Scripture as a mere "coincidence" or "human mistake". If Paul (a devout Jew who knew the Torah by heart) listed the 7th commandment before the 6th in Romans 13:9, you cannot dismissingly attribute it to a "human slipup" or a "trivial inconsistency". Instead, you must recognise it as a detail full of spiritual purpose, especially since it comes from a God who was so emphatic to His people about the importance of every "jot" and every "tittle" in Scripture (Matthew 5:18).


{As we have shared throughout this website, the above does not deny the human errors introduced into Scripture by its human, soulish translators. Even so, God, in His loving grace, has made sure to leave enough historical manuscripts for us to have a very clear idea of the exact, original text that He inspired into the hearts and minds of the men who wrote the Scriptures. And, as the time for the outgrowth of His wisdom has come, He has also made available enough resources so that His diligent ones may have access to the exact original text and be able to discern the deeper meaning behind His words, even if they are not "scholarly experts" in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.}


If you are still reading this word, we can safely assume that you do not plan to trivialise the spiritual relevance of the 7th commandment being listed before the 6th in Romans 13:9 (for, if you do, anything you read from now on will go in one hardened ear and out the other). What, then, is the meaning of this swap? To answer this, we must meditate on the spiritual nature of each commandment.


The violation of the 5 fundamental rights

As we have briefly shared before, the first 5 commandments delineate the nature of Authority, and the next 5 commandments delineate the 5 fundamental rights of the individual. In other words, the first half of the 10 commandments delineates the understanding that the individual must have of Authority, and the second half delineates the individual rights that a society under True Authority will uphold.


Cmd No. Commandment Individual right protected Brief (New-Covenant) explanation
7 Thou shalt not commit adultery (Exodus 20:14) Right to privacy To view the nakedness of another man's wife is to view that man's nakedness, which means that you are encroaching upon that man's private domain, violating his private relationships. The right to privacy includes other sub-rights such as freedom of association.
6 Thou shalt not kill (Exodus 20:13) Right to life To "kill" someone is to deprive him of the right to "be himself", i.e.- to express himself with freedom. Therefore, the "right to life" actually includes other sub-rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of worship.
8 Thou shalt not steal (Exodus 20:15) Right to property To steal from someone is to deprive that person from the right to accumulate property
9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (Exodus 20:16) Right to a fair reputation To bear false witness against someone is to smear that person's reputation unfairly
10 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's (Exodus 20:17) Right to a public domain To covet another man's possessions and related souls is to deny him the right to exercise "domain" over a publicly visible scope. In other words, it is to deny that man authority to be "king" over a "kingdom" on Earth. To covet another man's possessions and related souls is to deny him the right to exercise sovereignty within his domain.


Each individual right allows for the free manifestation of one of the 5 ministerial endowments. In other words, each individual right represents a right to exercise a specific ministerial endowment:


Cmd No. Commandment Individual right protected Ministerial endowment protected Brief explanation
7 Thou shalt not commit adultery Right to privacy Pastoral The pastoral endowment is the one most directly related to soul communion within a private scope
6 Thou shalt not kill Right to life Prophetic The prophetic endowment is the one most directly related to randomness, freedom, boldness, and unique expression
8 Thou shalt not steal Right to property Teacher The teacher endowment is the one most directly related to accumulation, to tangible, material things, and to natural work.
9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour Right to a fair reputation Apostolic The apostolic endowment is the one most directly related to judgements. As judgements are released, resentment from the soulish will build up, leading to plots to smear the judging person's reputation the way that Ham did against Noah. These plots will involve the fabrication of false evidence so as to undermine the credibility of the judgements being made by the person being smeared.
10 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's Right to a public domain Evangelistic The evangelistic endowment is the one most directly related to "conquest", "kingship", and the exercise of Head Authority.


Each individual right is threatened by one of the ministerial endowments in a corrupted state:


Cmd No.

Commandment /

Individual right protected

Enemy spirit / endowment that hinders the right Brief explanation

Thou shalt not commit adultery


Right to privacy

Canaanite (Distorted pastor)

Because of their innate (God-given) tendency towards soul communion, pastors who go bad try to extend soul communion in ways that are not appropriate. They become so obsessed with "soul closeness" that they end up prying into the private relationships of others, trying to exert influence in them.

Thou shalt not kill


Right to life


(Distorted apostle)

Because of their innate (God-given) tendency towards executing judgements, apostles who go bad start to execute extra judgements that come from their souls and not the Spirit, thereby "killing" people unnecessarily, unduly repressing their freedom.

Thou shalt not steal


Right to property


(Distorted prophet)

Because of their innate (God-given) tendency towards stealth operations, fighting for "causes", operating on emotional impulses, and ignoring the laws and restrictions of natural man, prophets who go bad start to operate in furtive ways to trespass natural boundaries and take what is not theirs, especially if they feel a sense of injustice over someone having "too much" or being too "cold" and "materialistic" to "share" with others. A sense of either personal need or need in the lives of people that they empathise with only propels them emotionally towards transgressing boundaries and taking what is truly not theirs to take or distribute.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour


Right to a fair reputation


(Distorted teacher)

Because of their innate (God-given) tendency towards practicality and being "grounded" to reality, teachers who go bad tend to dismiss submission to invisible, higher-level principles and Authority, especially if it conflicts with submission to more visible authority that can inflict palpable harm and has a more visible claim to "legitimacy". Therefore, if they have to violate an oath to truth in order to testify falsehoods against an "enemy of the state", they will do so, for they do not mind violating an intangible, spiritual law that only an invisible authority is demanding them to abide by. In a twisted way, these Girgashite teachers become "prophetically bold" in their willingness to defy invisible authority and break invisible laws by speaking falsehoods that will achieve the practical purpose of ingratiating them with the visible authority and eliminating someone whose judgements and presence are resented. Though instigated by Canaanite hatred of someone's judgements, the violation of this right cannot be carried out without an army of Girgashite teachers willing to methodically destroy the reputation of the person issuing the unpleasant judgements.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's


Right to a public domain


(Distorted evangelist)

Because of their innate (God-given) tendency towards competitiveness and conquest, evangelists who go bad tend to crave the bounty of others, not out of personal need or a sense of injustice, but out of a desire to be superior over others. Whereas Girgashites covet material things per se out of an instinctive tendency to accumulate, Amorites (distorted evangelists) covet things (and people) when they see others possessing them. In other words, Girgashites are drawn to material things on their own merit, and Amorites are drawn to possessing things and people when they see others exercising dominion or influence over them. Amorites covet something because someone else has control over it, not because they need it per se.


We can now combine the above tables into the following table:


Cmd No.

Commandment /

Individual right protected

Ministerial endowment that hinders the right Ministerial endowment protected by the commandment / right

Thou shalt not commit adultery

Right to privacy

(Canaanite) Pastor



Thou shalt not kill

Right to life

(Jebusite) Apostle



Thou shalt not steal

Right to property

(Hittite) Prophet



Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour

Right to a fair reputation

(Girgashite) Teacher



Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's

Right to a public domain

(Amorite) Evangelist



Notice how listing the 7th commandment before the 6th creates an interesting spiritual pattern in the table above. Notice, for example, how the first and last commandments on the table have the same ministry in both "endowment" columns; the first commandment has distorted pastors hindering the pastoral endowment of others, and the last commandment has distorted evangelists hindering the evangelistic endowment of others. The middle 3 commandments then exhibit an interesting sequence: Distorted apostles hinder the prophetic endowment of others; distorted prophets hinder the teacher endowment of others, and distorted teachers hinder the apostolic endowment of others. In other words, distorted apostles hinder righteous prophets; once there is nothing but distorted prophets, these go out to hinder righteous teachers; once there is nothing but distorted teachers, these go out to hinder righteous apostles, which closes the loop, ensuring a vicious cycle in which distorted apostles degrade prophets, distorted prophets degrade teachers, and distorted teachers degrade apostles.


The above raises the question, "Why did God have the pastoral and the evangelistic endowments 'enveloping' the other 3 in Romans 13:9?" To answer this, we must consider the individual rights these endowments are tied to. As we saw above, the pastoral endowment is related to the right to privacy, and the evangelistic endowment is related to the right to a public domain. The right to privacy can also be called the "right to a private domain", given that respecting someone else's privacy entails respecting a circle of privacy, i.e.- a private domain, around that person. Therefore, we can say that the first and last commandments in Romans 13:9 deal with the breaching of domains, first the individual's private domain and then the individual's public domain. Given that Romans 13 is a chapter on "authority", we can infer that the Lord is portraying the spiritual tactic that false authority uses to undermine individual rights and establish unrighteous dominion over individuals' lives. Since the Lord deliberately places the commandment related to the pastoral as the first commandment in Romans 13:9, we can safely infer that this unrighteous tactic is carried out by the pastoral matriarchy to subvert the individuals' spirit under the soul.


Step 1: Undermine privacy

Based on the table above, we can say that the first thing pastors do to establish their matriarchy is to encroach on the privacy of others, claiming more rights to enter into the private lives of others than they really have. This is why it is so important for literal pastors in the Church to "marry" couples, for this allows them to claim that they (not God) were the ones who united the couple in marriage. Once they have "established" authorship over the marriage, they can easily intrude more and more upon the couple's private relationship, to the point that the "pastors" (not the husband) become the head of the relationship, with both spouses in subservience to them. This is how matriarchal "pastors" slowly become part of the "decision process" in the marriage, exerting authority over the private decisions the couple make.


Step 2: Squelch rebellion

Based on the second commandment in Romans 13:9 and the table above, we can say the following: Once pastoral authority gains a stronghold in people's private domains, it begins to murder any prophetic rebellion against it. Since they have gained "credibility" in people's minds (through their intrusion into their private domains), they begin to take advantage of that credibility, issuing judgements that undermine the persons' prophetic freedom. Whenever someone feels led of the Spirit to do or say something bold and unique, the matriarchal pastors swoop down with their "sage advice" to squelch that boldness and creativity, especially if it "smells" of rebellion against their subtle control. This is when the "right to life" of the individual is suppressed. In other words, once the right to privacy has been defiled, matriarchal "authority" proceeds to suppress expressions of life such as freedom of speech and freedom of worship, all to undermine any operations that do not include them in a "supervisory" role.


Step 3: "Nationalise" ownership

Based on the 3rd commandment in Romans 13:9 and the table above, we can say the following: Once they have committed adultery by intruding on other people's private domains, and, once they have begun to murder prophetic freedom, matriarchal "authority" then goes after the individual's right to accumulate property. Having hindered the prophetic endowment, short-circuiting its ability to rebel against it, matriarchal "authority" then uses the prophetic to its own advantage, utilising Hittite stealth tactics to perform theft and deprive individuals of the opportunity to accumulate goods. As we have shared before, there is a strong spiritual connection between the prophetic and "communism", meaning that matriarchal "authority" will carry out this Hittite (i.e.- distorted prophet) theft under the emotional umbrella of "communal sharing".


The above theft of "property" may be evident in the context of literal government authorities. Within the Church context, however, it takes on many forms that may be difficult to discern at first. For example, the matriarchal Church system endeavours to convince believers that the spiritual gifts and ministries given to them by God are not their own but are actually owned by the "larger community" of believers. And, since the "ministerial leadership" is the one governing this "larger community" of believers, these gifts and ministerial endowments are to be administered by them, i.e.- the "ministerial leaders". Said another way, the gifts and ministries that God has endowed individuals with subtly become the "property" of the "ministerial leadership" and are to be administered by them as they deem "wisest". This is when believers begin to see their gifts and ministerial endowments solely in terms of how the ministerial leadership needs them within the Church's organisational structures. Outside of that context, the believer's gifts and ministerial endowments become "inert" and "meaningless", since the believer has unwittingly allowed the unlawful transfer of their ownership over to the "leaders" of the Church's organisational structures. Through a subtle form of "identity theft", the ministerial "leadership" takes control of the gifts and endowments, using them "as they best see fit", which is usually equivalent to saying, "as it best serves their earthly, ministerial agendas".


Upon reading the above, a few matriarchal-leaning believers may argue, "Well, aren't the gifts and endowments intended for the 'public good', i.e.- the good of other believers? Isn't it selfish, therefore, to claim that those gifts and endowments are owned by the individual and not the Church as a whole?". "Wise" and "enlightened" as that statement may seem, it contains 2 subtle yet gigantic mistakes. One mistake is that it confuses "reception" with "the right to manage". In other words, the fact that someone is to be the recipient of a good or service does not mean that he has the right to administer its production. For example, no one in his right mind would argue that the food produced by McDonald's is intended for the customers who walk into their restaurants every day. This means that those who work at McDonald's have to keep in mind that their goal is to please their customers with the food they produce, given that the customers are the product's intended recipients. This, however, does not mean that customers have the right to decide what employee works the grill each day, what hours each restaurant should be open, or when the McRib sandwich should be on the menu (which should be all the time, if you ask Doug Heffernan or me). The customers cannot borrow the mops or take the grill home with them if they want to. The fact that the food is intended for them does not give them ownership or "management rights" over the grill it is cooked on. A "wise-guy" believer might want to belittle this analogy by pointing out that customers at McDonald's pay for their food, whereas the fruits of the gifts are to be given out freely. The intention in bringing up this distinction would be to claim that the "greedy" and "materialistic" world of "commercial transactions" can in no way be equated with the more "lofty" world of "spiritual transactions". Yet, this "distinction" does not take into account that the above analogy would still hold for a charity organisation. Do people receiving blood donations from the Red Cross have the right to decide working hours at the Red Cross? Do people receiving food from a soup kitchen have the right to administer the staff or take the soup kitchen's oven home with them? Of course not. Besides, I wonder how long it would take for the distinction between the "commercial" and the "spiritual" world to evaporate in a pastor's mind if he saw believers taking "his" church's musical instruments home with them. Suddenly, the fact that the musical instruments are intended to bless the congregation would become irrelevant, and the fact that those instruments "belong to the church community" would seem as a mere afterthought; the principle of "private property" would then be proclaimed with roaring, self-righteous boldness, and the true "owner" and "administrator" of those instruments (and the musical gifts that play them) would suddenly emerge. Mind you, the Lord's quarrel is not over who "owns" a church's musical instruments; it is over who is usurping ownership over the musical gifts being exercised on those instruments.


The second gigantic mistake made by believers who argue that the gifts are "owned by" the "Church as a whole" is that they fail to realise what they are actually saying when they say "the Church as a whole". When now-burning-in-hell "leaders" such as hugo chavez nationalise a large company, they always claim that the company now "belongs to the people". Yet, reality bares out that the company has actually become the property of a large bureaucratic machine, with the "benevolent leader" (Luke 22:25) at the helm. In other words, the nationalised company becomes part of the "benevolent leader's" estate and is run by mindless bureaucrats who could not care less about the company's productivity, given that they have no personal stake in its success; on top of this, these mindless bureaucrats "know" that, whatever happens, the endless stream of government funds will somehow cover any lack or loss. Whatever profits the company may still produce go into the "benevolent leader's" coffers and are then used to promote his personal political agenda. Therefore, what is originally proclaimed as "belonging to the people" is in reality "belonging to the 'benevolent leader'". In the same way, when the Church's leaders implicitly instil the message that the gifts and ministries "belong to the Church as a whole", they are actually instilling that those gifts and ministries belong to them. As the "benevolent Leviathan", they are the ones "ordained" by God to administer the "public" gifts and ministries for the good of the people as a whole. As you may see, this type of "intermediary" thinking requires an Old-Covenant priesthood that denies the type of New-Covenant relationship that Yeshua came to instil on Earth.


In short, the argument that the gifts and ministerial endowments are "owned by the Church as a whole" is wrong on two counts. First, it assumes that they truly are "public property", and, second, it naively equates the "Benevolent Leviathan" to the "Church as a whole". When believers commit these 2 tragic mistakes in their thinking, they become diametrically opposed to how God views the gifts and ministerial endowments that He (not the "leadership") imbues His (not the "leadership's") people with.


"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. " (Romans 11:29)


The phrase "without repentance" in the verse above was translated from the Greek word ametameletos, which is derived from the Greek prefix a meaning "without", the word meta meaning "with, after, according to", and the word melei meaning "to care for". In other words, ametameletos literally means "without caring afterwards". Therefore, the Lord is declaring that, once He gives out the gifts and callings, He does not look back to reconsider what He has given out, even if people misuse the gifts and callings. This is why some versions translate the above verse as "For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable". As a parenthesis, it must be said that, as opposed to the gifts, callings can be lost, not because God reconsidered His original decision, but because the person with the calling strayed so far away from it that its fulfilment became impossible. In other words, God can call you to the Promised Land, but, if you disregard the calling long enough, you will not make it there, not because God regretted calling you, but because you went in a different direction from where He called you. When this happens, people become "dead men walking", people whose purpose in this earthly life has come and gone, people who, in God's eyes, are doing nothing but awaiting their death. The longer such people walk the Earth, the more stagnation and emptiness they bring upon the land, and it is only through people willing to declare God's judgements that such zombies can be cleared from the land so that the callings of others may not be hindered. The gifts, by contrast, cannot be "lost" the way callings can, but they can be "buried" at the believer's choice. Even so, the believer is free to dig the gift up and reuse it if he or she so chooses.


"24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine." (Matthew 25:24-25)


When God gives a gift, He truly gives it away, at least for the duration of the person's life on Earth. When "giving it away", He gives up control over it, meaning that He truly grants ownership of the gift over to the "giftee" so that he or she may use it as he or she wills. Imagine, for example, if a friend gave you a television set as a gift and then showed up every night at your home to tell you what shows you could and could not watch. Would you consider the television set a true "gift"? Wouldn't you, instead, consider the television to still be your friend's and not yours?


"18 So David fled, and escaped, and came to Samuel to Ramah, and told him all that Saul had done to him. And he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth. 19 And it was told Saul, saying, Behold, David is at Naioth in Ramah. 20 And Saul sent messengers to take David: and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as appointed over them, the Spirit of God was upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied. 21 And when it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they prophesied likewise. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they prophesied also. 22 Then went he also to Ramah, and came to a great well that is in Sechu: and he asked and said, Where are Samuel and David? And one said, Behold, they be at Naioth in Ramah. 23 And he went thither to Naioth in Ramah: and the Spirit of God was upon him also, and he went on, and prophesied, until he came to Naioth in Ramah. 24 And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets? 1 And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life?" (1 Samuel 19:18-20:1)


As we have shared before, the passage above illustrates how "irrevocable" the gifts truly are. Even though Saul had already been rejected by God as "king of Israel" (1 Samuel 15:28-29), and even though Saul was unrighteously persecuting David (the true, anointed king of Israel at that time - 1 Samuel 16:1-13), Saul still prophesied when he arrived where Samuel was. Saul had been given the gift of prophesy before his spiritual fall (1 Samuel 10:11), and that gift continued with him even after he had been rejected by God. He even prophesied at one time shortly before grabbing a javelin and hurling it at David to murder him (1 Samuel 18:10-11). All of this reveals that the manifestation of spiritual gifts is by no means a certification of righteousness or "right standing before God". This, in turn, emphasises the "ownership" quality behind spiritual gifts. When you become the owner of a computer, for example, you are free to use it as you wish. You can use it for either constructive or non-constructive activities; you can either use it to play games all day or to read educational articles; you can even use it to hack into a company's servers and steal valuable information (at least until you are caught). You can also sit down and use the computer for productive purposes even if you are returning from mistreating a friend, robbing a bank, or hitting a pedestrian and bolting from the scene. Ownership enables this type of freedom (even if it does not absolve you from the responsibility). Hence, when the matriarchal Church's leadership acts as if it has "ownership" over believers' spiritual gifts, it destroys this freedom, and it commits robbery in the eyes of God.


Having said the above, it is worth clearing up that an unrighteous person can only use his or her gifts up to a certain level, even when he or she is using the gift for "righteous" purposes. In such cases, the "transformative" nature of the gift's work depends more on the righteousness of the person receiving the work of the gift than on the gift's possessor. And, even when the person receiving the work is full of righteousness, the gift's work can only take him or her so far. When a gift is being operated by a person who is unrighteous (either proactively or by omission) in God's eyes, the gift cannot propel others into the Glory of God. It may produce partial transformations on account of the receiver's righteousness, but it cannot forge truly difficult and transcendental transformations. This is why it cannot propel others across the River Jordan and into the fullness of the Promised Land. Therefore, when a believer submits him or herself to a ministerial leadership that arrogates the brethren's gifts and uses them for their own earthly agendas, the believer is guaranteeing him or herself exclusion from the Promised Land.


Step 4: Smear exposers of right

Based on the 4th commandment in Romans 13:9 and the table above, we can say the following: Once they have committed adultery by intruding on other people's private domains, once they have begun to murder prophetic freedom, and once they have stolen the sense of personal accumulation and ownership, matriarchal "authority" then goes after the individual's right to judge fairly. Having hindered the teacher endowment by destroying people's sense of "personal property" and its accumulation, the matriarchal "authority" system then uses what is left of the teacher endowment to its own advantage. As we have shared before, teachers "gone bad" turn into Girgashites, and as we have also shared before, Girgashites are the ones most obsessed with respecting "hierarchies" and following "established procedures". Therefore, these distorted teachers become the "ideal recruits" in the matriarchal "authority's" "smear machine".


Bent on solidifying its grip on power, the matriarchal "authority" establishes a mechanism of systematic smearing against those who dare to speak words of judgement against the "authority's" decrees and collective value system. This mechanism is enabled by Girgashites, since they are ready and willing witnesses who mechanically spew the falsehoods that the matriarchal authority wants to pin on its "judgemental" enemies.


"1 And it came to pass after these things, that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. 2 And Ahab spake unto Naboth, saying, Give me thy vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near unto my house: and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it; or, if it seem good to thee, I will give thee the worth of it in money. 3 And Naboth said to Ahab, The LORD forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee. 4 And Ahab came into his house heavy and displeased because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him: for he had said, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers. And he laid him down upon his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread. 5 But Jezebel his wife came to him, and said unto him, Why is thy spirit so sad, that thou eatest no bread? 6 And he said unto her, Because I spake unto Naboth the Jezreelite, and said unto him, Give me thy vineyard for money; or else, if it please thee, I will give thee another vineyard for it: and he answered, I will not give thee my vineyard. 7 And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? arise, and eat bread, and let thine heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite. 8 So she wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth. 9 And she wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people: 10 And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 11 And the men of his city, even the elders and the nobles who were the inhabitants in his city, did as Jezebel had sent unto them, and as it was written in the letters which she had sent unto them. 12 They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people. 13 And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died. 14 Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, Naboth is stoned, and is dead. 15 And it came to pass, when Jezebel heard that Naboth was stoned, and was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give thee for money: for Naboth is not alive, but dead. 16 And it came to pass, when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, that Ahab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it." (1 Kings 21:1-16)


Notice how willing the sub-hierarchy in Naboth's city were in abiding by Jezebel's orders. All it took was to see the name of the "supreme hierarch", king Ahab, in the letters, as well as the "supreme hierarch's" seal. In typical Girgashite fashion, the city's "nobles" and "elders" were dazzled by the "official" nature of the letters, and they were intent on submitting to its orders, no matter what. The violation of invisible spiritual laws was secondary to them, given that those invisible laws were upheld by an authority that they could not see with their natural mind. It was more important to abide by the laws and decrees of the visible leadership, given that, in their mind, doing so would absolve them of any responsibility before God or men. After all, hasn't God called us to abide by the authorities He has established on Earth? As we have studied before, however, such thinking ignores God's definition of "authority".


"23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? 24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? 26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. 27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." (Matthew 21:23-27)

[Notice how true authority cannot be recognised by visible parameters. Notice also how the humanly-recognised authorities were so bent on "poking holes" in the credibility of those with true spiritual authority. To the Girgashites judging by natural sight, any words of true wisdom will always go in one ear and out the other, for their ultimate parameters for judging authority always falls back on who is wearing the visible robes with the word "authority" sewn into it. In other words, the "chief priests and the elders of the people" shall always be the "true authority" to them, and the "Jesus"es and "John the Baptist"s shall always be the "self-proclaimed pretenders", no matter what they say or do.]


"45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet." (Matthew 21:45-46)

[Notice how the matriarchal "authorities" resented the judgements that Yeshua spoke against them, for those judgements exposed the falsehood of the value system they were enforcing. This led them to seek a way to destroy the "AJM" (the "Abominable Judging Man"), using the very authority system they so relied on.]


"59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; 60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, 61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days." (Matthew 26:59-61)

[Notice how the words spoken by the false witnesses reveal a soul interpreting spiritual words in a literal, Girgashite way. Yeshua had indeed said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19), and He had also spoken of the literal Temple being left with no stone upon a stone (Luke 21:5-6). However, those hearing in the Spirit knew that He was obviously not talking about the literal Temple when He said that He would raise it up in 3 days (for He was actually talking about His Body). Neither did He say that he was going to literally destroy the visible Temple, though, in a spiritual sense, the words of judgement that He pronounced throughout His life and before His death (Luke 23:27-31) were fulfilled when the Roman commander Titus laid siege to Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple 4 years into the siege, in 70 AD. The spiritual subtleties of what Yeshua had actually said were irrelevant to the Girgashite witnesses, however, and they were more than glad to regurgitate their simplistic interpretations and sentence Yeshua to death.]


Step 5: Destroy all other domains

Based on the 5th commandment in Romans 13:9 and the table above, we can say the following: Once they have committed adultery by intruding on other people's private domains, once they have begun to murder prophetic freedom, once they have stolen the sense of personal accumulation and ownership, and once they have established a system of smear against those who dare to judge, the matriarchal "authorities" set themselves out to destroy the ability for people to establish their own "public" domains. In other words, they systematically work to undermine people's ability to act as "kings of their own castles". This is different from the matriarchs' encroachment on private domains (step 1), for, in those cases, the matriarchs intrude on things that are meant to remain outside of public view, i.e.- things involving personal relationships and communion. In this final step, however, the matriarchs go after the individual's public exercise of dominion over souls and things. Why? Because they must destroy the individual's sense of control, not only over his own life, but over his surrounding environment. In this way, the matriarchs turn into the only ones with the "right" to exert control over the lives of others. It is simply too "dangerous" to have anyone actually think that he or she has the right to act as a "king". To the matriarchs, the established "authority" structures are the only ones collectively designated to act as "king", and everyone else must accept the role of mere "subjects". Said another way, they deny the individual the right to act as a "spirit" with dominion over souls and over the physical realm. They, on the other hand, act as the only ones who can exercise male "spirit" authority over the souls of all. Even though they are, at their core, nothing but "female" and soulish, the matriarchs pretend to be the only spiritual "males" in the house. They therefore, create what is, in actuality, 2 levels of soulishness: a "higher" level of "enlightened souls", and a "lower" level of souls destined to follow and never lead. Once they have destroyed the 5th individual right, the right to a personal, publicly visible domain, they can consolidate their matriarchal power ad perpetuum.


In the natural realm, the matriarchs' "coveting" of personal domains is manifested in their attack on large "corporations", especially when those corporations and their success become tied to an individual who is not necessarily subservient to the matriarchs' interests. To the matriarchs, watching a person exercise "kingship" over a large domain independently of them is like watching someone eating and waving a delicious piece of cake in their faces, all whilst saying, "It is mine, mine, all mine!". They are repulsed by someone manifesting the kingly authority that God has called man to manifest, especially when that kingly authority exudes an air of "independence" from them.


A case in point on the 5 steps

A brief manifestation of the 5 right-destroying steps taken by matriarchal authority can be seen in the following passage:


"8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. 9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: 10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. 11 Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. 12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. 13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: 14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour. 15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: 16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. 17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. 18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? 19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. 20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. 21 And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. 22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive. " (Exodus 1:8-22)


Notice how the new king that arose over Egypt "knew not Joseph". This speaks of an authority figure that had no relationship with the people of Israel and that had no understanding on how they thought. Without knowing them, the king of Egypt assumed that the Israelites would turn against him and against Egypt at the slightest opportunity, allying (i.e.- associating) themselves with the enemies of Egypt if they could. Hence, the king of Egypt found it necessary to intrude upon the Israelites' right of association, which, as we shared above, is a right derived from the fundamental right to privacy. Whereas the Israelites had been able to thrive in independence and freedom prior to the rise of this Pharaoh, they were now having their private lives suddenly intruded upon by a Pharaoh that thought that he knew what they thought and wanted without so much as asking them. Therefore, by inserting himself into the lives of Israelites he did not know, Pharaoh committed spiritual adultery, breaking the 7th commandment and undermining the right to privacy.


After intruding upon people he did not know, Pharaoh proceeded to squelch any rebellion in them by afflicting them with excessive Jebusite burdens, all in an effort to kill their freedom, thereby violating the 6th commandment ("thou shalt not kill") and undermining the right to life.


As he killed the freedom of the Israelites, Pharaoh began to rob them of their wealth, methodically transferring it towards public ownership. This is manifested in the fact that the Israelites built for Pharaoh "treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses" (v11). The word "treasure" was translated from the Hebrew word mickenah, which literally means "supply, storage, storehouse". Therefore, it has the connotation of a large pool in which riches are stored, meaning that the productivity of the Israelites' work was being poured into the "national treasury". The fact that the Holy Spirit uses the phrase "built for Pharaoh" in verse 11 emphasises the fact that, even though the matriarchal authority system may want to give the impression that they are turning private property over to "all the people", they are actually turning it over to themselves. The "people" are not the true owners of these treasure cities. The true owner is "Pharaoh".


{The name of the treasure city "Pithom" literally means "city of justice". This is a figure of how the nationalisation of the people's gifts is done under the guise of social "justice". The name of the other treasure city, "Raamses", means "child of the sun", which speaks of how the matriarchal authority slowly deifies itself, making itself into the unquestionable agent of divine justice on Earth. As we have shared before, the "sun", in a positive sense, is a figure of righteousness. Therefore, when "Pharaoh" (i.e.- the matriarchal authority) proclaims itself as the "child of the sun", it is making itself into the "only one" supernaturally enabled to determine what is truly "righteous" and "just" on Earth. That is how it becomes the only one worthy of possessing and "distributing" the people's treasures.}


As indicated in verses 15 and 16, Pharaoh told the two Hebrew midwives to kill the male children when assisting in their births. Unbeknownst to most believers who know this story, there was a "logistical" issue involved in making the Pharaoh's order possible. Naturally, the midwives could not simply grab the child after he came out of the womb and twist his neck in front of his parents and other family members. Had they done so, they would have been quickly attacked by the family, and, even if they had not been attacked, the word about their cruelty would have spread so quickly that no Hebrew family would want them around during their births, making their death command from Pharaoh impossible to carry out. Hence, we can safely say that Pharaoh's order required "false witnessing". In other words, shortly after determining that the child was a "male", they had to find a way to murder him without the mother or the family realising it. They might pretend, for example, that the umbilical cord got wrapped around the baby's neck; they could then choke the child by applying pressure on his throat with their thumbs as they pretended to untangle the umbilical cord from his neck. They might also pretend that there was something "wrong" with the baby, never slapping him to make him breathe if he did not cry immediately. Whichever subtle tactic they would have used to murder the child, they would then have turned around and said to the parents, "I am sorry to inform you, but your child is dead; he did not survive the birth", meaning that they needed to testify that the child was either a stillborn or an unfortunate death victim, even when they knew that the child had actually been born alive and well. In a spiritual sense, therefore, their actions would have been equivalent to someone being sentenced to death due to the false testimony of others. Thus, obeying Pharaoh's order would have been equivalent to breaking the 9th commandment ("thou shalt not bear false witness"), which would have led to the undermining of the Israelites' right to make "male" judgements on the validity of Pharaoh's and Egypt's authority.


By telling the midwives to murder the Hebrew males, Pharaoh was also attempting to thwart the Israelites' ability to establish their own "public domains". The fewer Hebrew males there were, the less likely it would be that the Israelites would own large estates or exercise political influence over significant areas of Egypt. This means that Pharaoh was also breaking the 10th commandment ("thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house"). Therefore, it makes sense that, when the midwives thwarted Pharaoh's orders, God rewarded them by making them houses (v21), which reaffirmed the right of Israelites to establish their own "publicly visible domains", their own "castles" where they could exercise kingship.


{As a parenthesis, it is worth noting that Exodus 1:18-21 above cannot be used to say that God condones or rewards lying. Detailed explanations of this are available at and An additional element worth considering is that the Hebrew midwives (and maybe even Rahab in Joshua 2:3-5) were speaking prophetic words in a New-Covenant spirit, words that were valid in the spiritual realm even if they may have been technically "false" in the natural, Old-Covenant realm (Hebrews 10:1, Colossians 2:17), just as when Yeshua said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19). In the case of Rahab, however, one must consider the fact that her "lie" caused the 2 spies to remain stuck in the hills for 3 days whilst their pursuers followed Rahab's "recommendation" (Joshua 2:16, 22).


There are circumstances where God will prompt you to speak prophetic truth that transcends the natural realm in order to hide information from the spiritually blind (Matthew 13:13, Isaiah 42:18, Isaiah 44:18). Having said all of this, it is important to emphasise that God wants your mouth to speak truth constantly, for God is a God of Truth. May the Lord combine in your heart the spiritual factors so briefly presented in these 2 paragraphs, and may He give you full understanding on this subject. May He, in the process, beget in you a constant and irrepressible desire to speak truth and never lie, for that is what He longs in you and is calling you to do.}


Beastly authority

As we saw above, within the matriarchal authority system, Canaanite pastors intrude upon good pastors to destroy the people's right to a private domain, and Amorite evangelists encroach upon good evangelists to destroy the people's right to a publicly-visible domain. In between destroying "private" and "public" domains, Jebusite pastors kill prophetic freedom. Once the good prophets have been eliminated, the Hittite prophets that remain nullify good teachers by stealing the "property" that they are so adept at accumulating. Once the good teachers have been nullified, the Girgashite teachers that remain go after good apostles by obediently bearing false witness against them, causing their judgements to become discredited in the people's minds. Once the good apostles have been neutralised, the Jebusite apostles that remain continue with the murdering of prophetic freedom, thereby reiterating the inner cycle of destruction against apostles, prophets, and teachers. The above can be illustrated thusly:



If you meditate on the chart above, you will notice that the destructive inner cycle against apostles, prophets, and teachers requires that Jebusites proactively kick-start the chain reaction: Jebusite apostles corrupt the prophetic, corrupted prophets corrupt teachers, and corrupted teachers corrupt apostles. Therefore, we can conclude that the sequence described in the paragraph above requires 3 "trigger" spirits: Canaanite pastors who proactively go after good pastors, Jebusite apostles who proactively go after good prophets, and Amorite evangelists who proactively go after good evangelists. "Coincidentally", these 3 "trigger" spirits form the spirit of the "first beast" of Revelation 13:1-3 (i.e.- the matriarchal beast), which, as we have studied before, is Amorite-Canaanite gone Jebusite. Thus, we can say that, in Romans 13:9, God is describing how the first beast breaks the last 5 commandments, destroys individual rights, and imposes its false authority on the people.


There is more to say regarding Romans 13, but we will do so (if God allows it) in a future article.