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



This article is the 26th in a series of articles dealing with the spiritual events --- as prophesied by the Lord in Matthew 24 --- that are already taking place prior to the coming of the Son of Man. This article will share on the words spoken by the Lord in Matthew 24:49.



A Hittite-Amorite backdrop

The visible "head" attacking the invisible head

Attacking with a Jebusite-Girgashite reed

Turning the other cheek

The Spirit's smiting v. the soul's

Angelic co-servants

Canaanite revelry

A contrast in spirits

A Hittite-Amorite backdrop

As we saw in the previous posting, the Lord declares the following in Matthew 24:48-49:


"48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; 49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;" (Matthew 24:48-49)


As we studied earlier, the word "evil" (kakos in Greek) in verse 48 points to a Hittite person exercising a corrupt form of the prophetic endowment and the words "say" and "heart" point to an Amorite person exercising a corrupt form of the evangelistic endowment, using it to "monopolise" the anointing and claim daemonic lordship over their brethren. Hence, the passage above is referring to the Church's pastors, who have taken over God's flock, disabling them spiritually and making them "their own". We also saw how these evil servants' words betray a Girgashite, anti-prophetic contamination that focuses on the visible and is unable to transcend chronos time and operate in the eternal, and we saw how the phrase "my lord" reveals the daemonic, Old-Testament detachment that exists between the evil servants (i.e. the Church's current pastors) and God. Mind you, the degree of "evident manifestation" of this kakos-servant spirit varies from pastor to pastor, with some manifesting it in a very blatant way, some manifesting it in a subtler way, and the rest simply condoning it when it is manifested in others. Nevertheless, this is the spirit that permeates the Church's pastoral "leadership", a "leadership" that claims (either overtly or by default) that they possess a priestly position before God that others cannot claim to possess, reducing their brethren to "needy sheep" who are, at the end, little more than "sinners saved by grace", sinners whose role in life is to finance and support their ministries and earthly kingdoms. Instead of enabling the powerful ministry and priesthood of their brethren, the Church's pastors expect others to enable theirs (and only at an earthly and banal level at that, for they are not interested in the higher priesthood of Melchizedek).


The visible "head" attacking the invisible head

Now that we have briefly reconsidered the spiritual context of Matthew 24:48, let us proceed to the next verse. The word "begin" in verse 49 was translated from the Greek verb archomai, which is the verb form of the word archon used in Scripture for "principalities". Hence, the word "begin" in the original Greek text reveals how the kakos servant begins his rise as a "principality" over the rest of his brethren, which once again points to the Amorite spirit of pride and unrighteous conquest. The word "smite", on the other hand, was translated from the Greek verb typto, which only appears in 8 verses throughout the 4 Gospels. The first of these 8 verses is Matthew 24:49 above. In the next 2 verses, it is used to refer to the ruling and recognised "authorities" smiting Yeshua:


"And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head" (Matthew 27:30)


"And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him" (Mark 15:19)


Hence, we can see how typto points to those who hold natural positions of rulership abusing the righteous who are the actual rulers in the Spirit. The fact that the attackers focused on smiting Yeshua's head points to their efforts to denigrate His spiritual headship, as if to say,

"We are the head; we are the principality to follow; we are the ones ruling and in control, not you!!"


Attacking with a Jebusite-Girgashite reed

The fact that the ruling people smote Yeshua with a "reed" also has spiritual significance. The word "reed" in both verses above was translated from the Greek word kalamos, which, as we have studied before, points to both the Jebusite and the Girgashite spirits in a negative sense. As we have shared before, the word kalamos can also be translated as "pen" (being is translated as such in 3 John 1:13), and it is also associated in Scripture with a "measuring rod" (as in Revelation 11:1). Therefore, it can be said that, as they smote Yeshua in the head with a kalamos, they were saying,

"We are the (Jebusite) ones who write the laws here; we are the (Girgashite) ones who measure and evaluate who is complete and who is not!! And, since there is little you seem to be able to do about it, we must be right!!"


Turning the other cheek

The next time that typto appears in Scripture is in the following verse:


"And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also." (Luke 6:29)


Unfortunately, the verse above is one of the most misunderstood and distorted verses in all of Scripture, so it bears some clarification. As evidenced by the surrounding verses, God is indeed calling His people to go beyond the behaviour of natural man, who only gives when he expects something in return, and who retaliates against his enemies for soulish, self-centred reasons only, not out of a zeal for righteousness or an objective concern for evil being done to people in general (whether it be them or anyone else). This means that we are called to have a willingness to take a "Jebusite beating" (i.e. a typto "smiting" on the cheek) and still be willing to "offer" ourselves for more beating (i.e. "offering the other cheek"). This involves a willingness for prophetic sacrifice, a willingness to pay the price to break Jebusite oppression in and on others. Based on the surrounding context, it is also clear that the smiting described in the verse above is undeserved. Otherwise, any sacrificial offering of the other cheek would be meaningless.


Having said the above, it must be emphasised that Luke 6:29 does not specify why the person was smitten on the cheek in the first place. Unlike what the matriarchal Church is wont to thinking, the original smiting is not necessarily because you were going about your business, smiling at and acting kindly towards everyone before you were suddenly smacked in the face for no reason at all. Why would such a person be smitten on the cheek? Apart from the scenarios where the other person is just "plain nasty" and in a "bad mood", the main motivation for someone being smitten is because there is something about you that threatens them or irritates them. Since we can safely assume that the smiting alluded to by the Lord in Luke 6:29 was undeserved, the only significant way in which you may threaten or irritate someone to the point of being smitten by them is if you exude a righteousness or freedom that they disdain, as shown in the following passage:


"14 Then came Jeremiah from Tophet, whither the LORD had sent him to prophesy; and he stood in the court of the LORD'S house; and said to all the people, 15 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words. 1 Now Pashur the son of Immer the priest, who was also chief governor in the house of the LORD, heard that Jeremiah prophesied these things. 2 Then Pashur smote Jeremiah the prophet, and put him in the stocks that were in the high gate of Benjamin, which was by the house of the LORD. 3 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Pashur brought forth Jeremiah out of the stocks. Then said Jeremiah unto him, The LORD hath not called thy name Pashur, but Magormissabib. 4 For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will make thee a terror to thyself, and to all thy friends: and they shall fall by the sword of their enemies, and thine eyes shall behold it: and I will give all Judah into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall carry them captive into Babylon, and shall slay them with the sword. 5 Moreover I will deliver all the strength of this city, and all the labours thereof, and all the precious things thereof, and all the treasures of the kings of Judah will I give into the hand of their enemies, which shall spoil them, and take them, and carry them to Babylon. 6 And thou, Pashur, and all that dwell in thine house shall go into captivity: and thou shalt come to Babylon, and there thou shalt die, and shalt be buried there, thou, and all thy friends, to whom thou hast prophesied lies." (Jeremiah 19:14-20:6)


Notice how Jeremiah was literally smitten by Pashur, a person of recognised "human authority", because he dared to pronounce a judgement against the religious establishment that Pashur was a part of. Notice also that, when he was struck, Jeremiah's response was not,

"I forgive you, brother, for God loves you and so do I"

Instead, Jeremiah doubled down on the very judgement that had "earned" him a smiting, pronouncing even harsher words against Pashur and against Judah. Matriarchal churchgoers may argue that Jeremiah did not "turn the other cheek" as would be expected of a "good Christian" because he lived in "mean, Old Testament" times, which is the typical excuse soulish believers use to dismiss any passage left of Matthew chapter 1 that does not resonate with their matriarchal understanding. However, this argument requires the artificial, schizophrenic division of God into a "B.C. merciless and evil God" and an "A.D. God of love and goodness". As we have seen throughout this website, this division is false and arbitrary, and is prompted by a misunderstanding of what the "Old Covenant" or "Old Testament" really is. Despite the fact that Jeremiah was born centuries before Christ, this writer would dare to categorically state that Jeremiah walked in the Anointing of the Lord at a level higher than at least 99.999% of all modern-day Christians, most of whom would be quick to belittle his "judgy" reaction as nothing but a by-product of a "spiritually inferior" (i.e. "spiritually backward") time. As we have endeavoured to explain before, the limitations of the "Old Covenant" lay in the fact that direct fellowship with God was not a generalised state amongst God's people. Even though God desired such a generalised state from the beginning, His people were simply not interested, causing such fellowship to be manifested in the very few who sought it fervently. Even though David lived in "Old Testament times", he lived out a New-Testament, i.e. New-Covenant, relationship with God, just like any other believer in modern times can have. Again, 99.999% of modern-day believers (if not more) have never walked in the anointing required to write the Psalms that David wrote; 99.999% of modern-day believers (if not more) would not be capable of manifesting the New-Testament boldness that David manifested when he faced Goliath despite the disdain of his older brethren and the unbelief of the people around him. To claim that men such as David, Jeremiah, and Daniel did not walk in a New-Covenant relationship with God and in the Anointing of the Lord is about as naive, self-serving, and delusional as one can be. The only difference between these men and us is that they lived in an era where that type of New-Covenant relationship was very difficult to access, requiring great determination and sacrifice, as opposed to the present time when it is so readily accessible (yet so infrequently accessed) by most believers. When the Spirit declares in Scripture (in passages such as 1 Peter 1:10) that these men longed to see our days, He is not saying that these men did not enjoy the type of relationship with God that we have access to. Instead, He is referring to these men longing to see others having ready access to the type of relationship that they enjoyed, which, as a "side effect", would have also made their spiritual walk much easier and less prone to sacrifice and heartache. If, after this explanation, you still believe that Jeremiah's reaction is the by-product of some "merciless and unforgiving age" that has long been put behind us, there is no point in you reading beyond this point, and there is, in all sincerity, little reason for you to read any other posting on this website, since almost everything here will be inaccessible to your heart and mind if you are ready to maintain your disagreement on such a fundamental point.


Based on all of the above, we can safely conclude that Jeremiah's reaction to Pashur's smiting was an anointed response, the type of response that an anointed, "New-Testament times" believer could have had. This means that his reaction cannot be inconsistent with what the Lord declared in Luke 6:29. This may not seem to be the case to the superficial observer, but a closer inspection reveals that Jeremiah's reaction actually followed Luke 6:29 to perfection. How did Jeremiah "offer the other cheek" after Pashur struck him? By repeating the same behaviour that led to the initial smiting. Jeremiah knew that he had not been smitten whilst being "kind" and "courteous" to Pashur. He had been smitten by Pashur because he pronounced word of judgement against Pashur and against what Pashur stood for, and he did so from a position of weakness, i.e. from a humanly "lower" position that exposed him to harsh treatment from the more powerful and "better-connected" Pashur. By proceeding to speak more judgement right after Pashur had struck him, he was exposing himself yet again to more smiting, thus "offering his other cheek" for more punishment. A superficial understanding of the previous words may prompt some to ask, "Are you saying that to offer the other cheek is to act like an unrepentant brat who doubles down on his behaviour when he is punished, instead of changing it?" Of course not! To draw such a conclusion is to miss the entire point of Jeremiah's spiritual work and the nature of his heart. If you continue reading past Jeremiah 20:6, you will find how Jeremiah utterly disliked the confrontational attitude that God had compelled him to take. He disdained having to be in constant conflict with everyone around him. Hence, to equate Jeremiah's behaviour with a bratty child who is stubborn about getting his way is totally misguided. By doubling down on his word of judgement, he was consciously drawing upon himself more of the pain and conflict that his soul would rather not deal with. His words, therefore, were born out of obedience to a God who, contrary to most believers' warped perception, was also Love in Old-Testament times; the phrase "God is Love" was not a lie before Yeshua was born, and cursed is any pastor who dares to teach otherwise, whether directly or indirectly.


If Jeremiah's actions were in alignment with the will of a Person who is Love (i.e. God), we can infer that there was "love" and "giving" embedded in Jeremiah's outwardly strident behaviour. Jeremiah knew that his behaviour would bring pain and suffering, yet he continued with it knowing that the pain and suffering he was inviting into his life was acting as a prophetic sacrifice that would pay the price for the redemption of the people that he loved. Even whilst judging Pashur, Jeremiah was showing love to Pashur himself, for he was exposing Pashur to truth that could potentially reap repentance in his heart and reduce the eternal damage that he had brought upon himself. Jeremiah knew that such a repentance would have to be paid with suffering inflicted by the very person he was redeeming. Even when it can be (rightly) argued that Pashur per se was beyond redemption, Jeremiah's words against Pashur and the suffering that he consequently endured became spiritual currency to redeem other "Pashurs", as well as others enslaved under Pashur's mindsets and paradigms. Jeremiah understood that this redemption could be wrought as these people heard Jeremiah's words directly or as they heard what Pashur had done to Jeremiah, or even by the mere presence in the spirit realm of the sacrificial price that he had paid. In fact, the eternal weight of Jeremiah's sacrificial price is still redeeming the hearts of the willing, centuries after his literal passing, and the magnitude of the redemption released by the price of Jeremiah and others shall increase mightily in the latter days as the remnant's manifestation blossoms.


As a parenthesis, it is worth pointing out that to pour out emotional love and sacrifice on a person beyond redemption is to cast the holy to the dogs. When you recognise in the Spirit that a person is beyond redemption, any further judgement against that person should no longer be motivated by false hope or love for that person per se. This does not mean that your judgement stops being an act of love, since the motivation then shifts towards love for any redeemable people under the influence of the unredeemable person. And, even if there is absolutely no one left to redeem (in the past, present, or future), it is ultimately motivated by a love for God Himself and His righteousness. Said another way, righteous judgement always flows out of love for God Himself and for the God-potential that remains alive in the people around you (i.e. love for your neighbour). You cannot truly say that you love your fellow man unless you can see the God-potential in him. If you see the potential there, you will be driven to pay a loving sacrifice to see it manifested, even if it means drawing the ire of Pashur against you. If you see that potential gone, you will be driven to wrath on account of the potential that has been so callously squandered, and you will be driven in wrath to release judgement and destruction on all the recalcitrant and unredeemable individuals who, by their continuation, threaten that God-potential in the lives of others and become a living act of defiance against God Himself.


From all of the above, we can now conclude that to offer the other cheek after being typto-ed (i.e. smitten), as per Luke 6:29, refers to a willingness to expose ourselves to additional attacks and suffering by continuing to pronounce words of judgement that are born out of a love for God and the God-potential in your fellow man. Thus, "offering the other cheek" is not the effeminate passivity and "lovey-dovey niceness" that the matriarchal Church associates with it. This means that the spiritual connotation of the word typto in Luke 6:29 is spiritually consistent with its use in its first two appearances after Matthew 24:49, referring to persons such as the Lord Yeshua and Jeremiah who are attacked by persons (and institutions) of higher human authority and power because their words and their actions have judged and exposed these "higher men" as lacking and unaligned with God's perfect will. Hence, typto's first appearance, in Matthew 24:49, points to the matriarchal Church leaders who are inspired to lash out in Jebusite judgement against their fellow believers when they begin to manifest the nature of Yeshua, i.e. the nature of God. This Jebusite ire is "provoked" by the fact that, by manifesting their God-potential, believers unleash unpleasant spiritual judgements against these otherwise "comfortable" men.


The Spirit's smiting v. the soul's

After Luke 6:29, the next appearance of typto is in Luke 12:45, which is Matthew 24:49's parallel verse in Luke. After Luke 12:45, the next appearance of typto is in the following verse, translated as "smote":


"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner." (Luke 18:13)


Notice how the verse above speaks of a man full of conviction and repentance over what he has done, meaning that he has been bombarded by judgements from the Spirit (John 16:8), eventually breaking down and recognising his need to change. This is why he "smote upon his breast", for he had been feeling the judgements of God striking his heart once and again. Notice that he did not smite himself in the cheek, which illustrates a fundamental difference between the apostolic judgements of God and the Jebusite judgements of natural man. God aims for the heart to promote change and compensatory actions for the evil done; the Jebusites aim straight for the face, shaming for the sake of shaming, for the main motivation behind their judgements is to affirm or reaffirm hierarchy, declaring the judged person as "inferior" and the Amorites whom they serve (along with themselves) as "superior". Yes, they may have a certain interest in punishing the so-called "unrighteousness" that they perceive, but that interest is secondary. The possibility of the person repenting and re-establishing his eternal value is irrelevant to them. Once you have shown yourself to belong to the class of "sinners", you become a permanent member of that class, and, once you have established yourself as either an Amorite king or a Jebusite enforcer, you become a permanent member of that class, with Jebusites enjoying the slight possibility of one day becoming Amorite kings themselves. This is why the idea of the lowly sinner repenting is so inconsequential to them. All of this explains why their judgements always aim for the face (and the head), whereas God's judgements aim for the breast, smiting it spiritually in order to forge a genuine repentance and restoration of the person's spiritual value. It is worth noting that, once the Spirit of God discerns that a person is beyond repentance, His judgements become lethal, and they will generally include blows to the face and the head in order to humiliate them and punish them for the shame that they have so callously inflicted on others.


"1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure." (Psalm 2:1-5)

[The action of "laughing" (v4) aims for the face, for its purpose is to shame, and the action of "deriding" (v4) aims for the head, for its purpose is to beat down and "put in his place" someone who has "exalted himself more highly than he should", as per the derider. The Lord's laughing and deriding intensifies in proportion with the unrighteous' recalcitrance and arrogance.]


After Luke 18:13, the next appearance of typto is in verse 64 of the following passage, again in the Gospel of Luke, translated as "struck":


"63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. 64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?" (Luke 22:63-64)


Notice how the men that held Yeshua aimed for the face yet again, all in an effort to shame him and establish His "inferiority" versus their "superiority".


The 8th and last time that typto appears in the 4 Gospels is yet again in the Gospel of Luke, in verse 48 of the following passage, translated as "smote":


"46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. 47 Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man. 48 And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned" (Luke 23:46-48)


Notice how Yeshua was emanating judgements from within Him, even as He was dying on the cross. Those judgements prompted the people around Him to smite their breasts, for they felt the conviction of God's judgements striking them in the heart. In other words, whilst His enemies were smiting Yeshua in the face and head, He was smiting the redeemable followers of those enemies in the heart with judgements that were intent on producing repentance.


Angelic co-servants

In Matthew 24:49, the Lord describes the evil servant as smiting (typto-ing) their "fellowservants". The word "fellowservants" was translated from the Greek noun syndoulos, which is derived from the prefix syn meaning "with" or "co-" and doulos meaning "servant, slave". Hence, the Lord is emphasising that, despite the evil servant's sense of superiority, he is not at a higher level than those whom he is smiting, for they are actually their co-servants. This once again reveals the contrast between the Old-Covenant and the New-Covenant paradigms. Under the Old-Covenant mentality, there are some who consider themselves "priests", and these "priests" are somehow spiritually "superior" (in an inherent way) to the "less-privileged" non-priests. Under the New Covenant, all believers are priests according to the priesthood of Melchizedek, and all believers are endowed with direct access to God Himself. This explains why the last appearance of syndoulos is in verse 9 of the following passage:


"8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God." (Revelation 22:8-9)


Notice how even the apostle John, who felt "New-Covenant-confident" enough to lean his head on Yeshua's breast (John 13:25, John 21:20), was tempted to worship the angel, as if the angel occupied a rank above him in some "hierarchy" of spiritual beings. Yet, the angel, speaking as a spirit being, told John to get up and stop his ministerial reverence because he was John's syndoulos (co-servant or "fellowservant"). Thus, instead of smiting John into Perizzite shame like the kakos servant, the angel endeavoured to elevate John from any position of "inferiority", affirming him as a co-labourer in the Spirit.

[As a parenthesis, it must be pointed out that John is described attempting to worship the angel twice, the other time being in Revelation 19:10, where, once again, the angel uses the word "fellowservant", translated from the Greek word syndoulos. This shows how susceptible the soul is to fall into the Old-Covenant mindset of hierarchies, even when it is a soul with much spiritual maturity. This susceptibility is increased when a well-meaning soul has itself been the subject of undue adulation (Proverbs 29:5), as may have been the case in John's life.]


Canaanite revelry

Matthew 24:49 declares that, after smiting his co-labourers, the kakos servant proceeds to "eat and drink with the drunken". When we studied Matthew 24:38 in an earlier post in this series, we saw how the phrase "eating and drinking" in that verse refers to the pursuit of a matriarchal, Girgashite lifestyle, i.e. the pursuit of earthly goals with no interest in the truly prophetic and eternal. Even though one might be initially inclined to apply the same understanding to the phrase "eat and drink" in Matthew 24:49, especially since it is used just 11 verses later, in the same chapter and general context. However, a closer look at the original Greek text reveals that the word "eat" in verse 49 was actually translated from a different Greek verb. Whereas the word "eating" in verse 38 was translated from the verb trogo, the word "eat" in verse 49 was translated from the verb esthio. This reveals that the phrase "to eat and drink" has a spiritual significance in verse 49 that is different from the one in verse 38. To better discern this difference, we must consider that, in verse 38, the phrase "eat and drink" in verse 38 is mentioned on its own, as an activity unto itself. By contrast, in verse 49, the phrase "eating and drinking" is mentioned as an activity performed "with the drunken".


As we have shared before, the spirit most directly related with addictions is the Canaanite spirit, meaning that it is the main spirit behind alcoholism. As we have also shared before, the Canaanite spirit is very anti-judgement, meaning that it opposes the restrictions "imposed" by wise judgements. This correlates with drunken behaviour since a drunken person loses his ability to make wise judgements, embarking on unrestrained behaviour that goes more by unfiltered impulse than by than what the mind may determine as the "right thing to do". As we have also shared before, the Canaanite spirit promotes unhealthy soul communion untempered by the firewalls that wise judgements raise up. This once again correlates with drunken behaviour since, as we all know, drunken people are much more "sociable" and "loquacious", happily engaging with people that they would normally not interact with if they were sober. Hence, we can safely conclude that the phrase "eating and drinking" in Matthew 24:49 is referring to Canaanite behaviour, as opposed to Matthew 24:38, where it refers to eminently Girgashite behaviour.


To reaffirm the different nature of "eating" in verse 49 as opposed to verse 38, let us briefly consider the Greek verb trogo (translated as "eat") in verse 38. When taken by itself, the verb trogo can be translated as "to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables", meaning that it refers to the more physical, biological activity of eating, without considering the social components that can normally be associated to eating. The verb trogo can be applied to both animals and men, which emphasises its physical, biological nature, meaning that it can be used in a context devoid of human interaction. It is believed that the verb trogo may be derived from the word tribo meaning "path" in the sense of corrosion or wear, as when a path is worn down by constantly treading on it, meaning that trogo points to how food is worn down by teeth during chewing. It is also believed that the word trogo may be derived from the verb trizo meaning "to gnash or grind one's teeth" or "to make a shrill cry"; the grinding of teeth points once again to the physical aspects of eating, and the shrill cry points to the squealing of pigs, which as we have shared before, are spiritually related to the Girgashite spirit of earthliness. Hence, the word trogo clearly emphasises the materialistic, earthly nature of the Girgashite spirit, thus indicating that the other word for "eating", esthio, used in Matthew 24:49, refers to the more social, soul-communion aspects of eating.


Based on all of the above, we can now discern the meaning of the phrase "eating and drinking with the drunken". As we have shared before, the spirit that spearheads the dominion of the soul over the spirit is the Canaanite pastoral spirit. Hence, the "drunken" are those in the world system who attempt to glorify the soul over the spirit, engaging in every behaviour that pleases and exalts the soul whilst disdaining the "male" warrior and judgement nature of the Spirit. This means that the kakos servant, who is supposed to be serving the Lord God (who is "male" Spirit) has instead chosen to align himself with the soulish mindset of the world, "eating and drinking" with them rather than warring against them, for it is more "pleasant" to commune with them than to fight them.


To "eat" with the drunken means to share in the "nutrition" that they promote. The growth-inducing nutrition for those who are Spirit-centric is the judgement-laden logos of God (Hebrews 4:12-5:12). When the soul is in control, however, that nutrition is replaced with low-quality, pseudo-spiritual "word" of no lasting spiritual value, which leads to the mushy, wishy-washy "word" that is taught in matriarchal churches every Sunday. As opposed to God's spirit-centric food, "soul food" (i.e. soul-centric food) yields very little spiritual growth and is geared towards validating and reinforcing the Canaanite drunkenness that matriarchal souls pursue. This is why Matthew 24:49 speaks of "eating and drinking with the drunken", meaning that the "eating" is eventually subservient to the "drinking" that the drunken are ultimately interested in.

[In a direct sense, the "eating" per se refers to the tainted teaching ministry that is subservient to Canaanite pastors, teaching word devoid of any true apostolic wisdom. The "drinking", on the other hand, points to the Canaanite actions of the corrupt pastoral endowment]


A contrast in spirits

As we have shared before, a Canaanite is a "pastor gone bad", meaning that the Canaanite spirit is manifested when the pastoral endowment is corrupted by the soul. Hence, we can say that the "eating and drinking with the drunken" refers to how the kakos servant (i.e. the matriarchal pastor and those who follow in the same spirit) perverts the pastoral endowment, turning it into something that brings spiritual dissolution. This contrasts with the attitude of the faithful and wise servant who, as we saw in Matthew 24:45, provides angelic service to his co-servants, supplying righteous pastoral therapy as well as teaching spiritually nutritious food. Whereas the faithful and wise servant acts like a disinterested angelic being who serves the souls of his fellow servants, furthering their spiritual growth, the kakos servant is in a constant quest for soul contacts that further its natural ends, shaming his co-servants into artificial submission and acquiring soul power by allying themselves with the Spirit-hating, soul-centric world system. Yes, they may manifest some external opposition to some of the world's ways, but only enough to appear "spiritual" (to themselves and to their followers), but never enough to fully dethrone the soul, for that would alienate too many souls and undermine the very foundations of their earthly kingdoms. Just as the Lord declares in Ezekiel 34, the kakos servant is a pastor who is out to serve himself, feeding himself from the eternal callings of "his" sheep. By contrast, the faithful and wise servant is constantly serving his fellow servants in a disinterested way, for he sees the God-potential in them and is interested in them growing in God, not in them becoming attached to and dependent on him.


{The next article is called "The dichotomous"}