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

The break-in


This article is the 21st 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 24:43.



Ruler of the house

The latter-day, two-way prison

Do you dig it?

The detached handover

"Stealing back" what is His

Ruler of the house

In Matthew 24:43, the Lord declares the following:


"But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up." (Matthew 24:43)


The word "know" at the beginning of the verse was translated from the Greek verb ginosko, which, as we have shared before, refers to knowledge at the heart level, not the mental level. Hence, people such as the eschatological parrots that litter the Church's landscape, and who insist on understanding end-time passages with their natural mind, will inevitably have words such as the verse above go over their heads, without ever truly comprehending their real meaning. As we have shared before, the heart is the part of the soul where decisions are made. Therefore, the verb ginosko in the verse above speaks about someone observing the spiritual landscape and making a deliberate decision that is consistent with the decisions emanating from the heart of God Himself.


To better understand the kind of heart that will ginosko the meaning of Matthew 24:43, we must consider the phrase "goodman of the house", which was translated from the Greek word oikodespotes, which, in turn, is derived from the words oikos meaning "house" and despotes meaning "ruler". Thus, the word oikodespotes literally means "ruler of the house". Considering that a "house" usually originates from a man and a woman coming together in marriage to form a family, and considering that "man" is the head of "woman" (1 Corinthians 11:2-16), we can infer that the "ruler of the house" refers to someone who is called to assume a "male" role in the household. Hence, it refers to someone who is being called to operate in the "male" spirit and who is to ensure that the "female" soul remains submitted to the spirit.


The Greek word despotes is derived from the verb deo meaning "to bind" and the word posis meaning "husband". This emphasises the spiritual connection between the word oikodespotes and someone called to deliberately establish the rule of the "male" spirit over the "female" soul. The connection between oikodespotes and the concept of "binding" (deo) illustrates the role of your spirit component in reining in your soul component, causing it to be bound to God's apostolic judgements, prophetic purposes, and evangelistic conquest plans. The connection between the word deo and the establishing of God's Spirit Kingship on Earth is particularly evident in all the appearances of deo in the book of Matthew, where it appears 10 times in 8 verses, translated as either "bind" or "bound":


"Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house" (Matthew 12:29)


"Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." (Matthew 13:30)

[The verse above appears in the context of a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 13:24), meaning that the command to bind the tares is a kingly command]


"For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife." (Matthew 14:3)

[Notice how Herod, an earthly king, used his kingly authority to bind someone who was undermining his purposes. Though an example of unrighteousness that exalted the matriarchal soul and attacked the spirit, Herod's actions illustrate how evangelistic, kingly authority is used to bind whatever opposes the desired kingdom's purposes.]


"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)


"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18)


"2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. 3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. 4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, 5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." (Matthew 21:2-5)

[Notice how the Lord, under a Kingly Anointing (v5), decreed the loosening of a bound ass and a colt so that they could be brought unto Him. Though an example of "unbinding" (as opposed to "binding"), it illustrates the spiritual connection between "binding" and evangelistic, kingly authority, which binds opponents of the Kingship and unbinds those who enable it.]


"Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 22:13)


"And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor" (Matthew 27:2)

[This verse appears immediately after the end of Matthew 26, which describes Peter the evangelist denying Yeshua 3 times as the cock crowed, which, as we have shared before, was the result of Peter allowing himself to be intimidated by Amorite spirits of earthly kingship. Thus, the binding of Yeshua described above is in the context of Amorite kings working to suppress someone who was undermining their kingship.]


As we have shared before, the heart is most directly related to the evangelistic endowment of conquest and kingship. Hence, we can say from all of the above that the heart that will ginosko the message behind Matthew 24:43 will be the heart that assumes a "male" leadership over the "household" as oikodespotes, exercising evangelistic dominion over the "female" soul by enabling the lordship of the "male" spirit. Such a heart will not only establish the Kingdom of God within its own "home" but will become a stronghold from which God's Kingship will radiate out towards the rest of the Earth.


The latter-day, two-way prison

The word "known" in the phrase "had known in what watch" of Matthew 24:43 was translated from the Greek verb eido, which, as we have shared before, speaks of mental knowledge. Hence, Matthew 24:43 is once again emphasising that it is not possible to discern the Lord's coming through mental knowledge. Instead of condemning the oikodespotes for not having mental knowledge of the time, the Lord actually points out his need to operate at a higher level of knowledge (ginosko, heart knowledge) in order to prepare for His manifestation.


The word "watch" in the phrase "had known in what watch" of Matthew 24:43 was translated from the Greek word phylake, which literally means "guarding". Interestingly enough, it is translated as "prison" throughout the New Testament, which makes sense, given that a person in prison is under constant "guarding". This connection to the concept of prison has deep spiritual significance. By using the word phylake, the Spirit is implying a "state of imprisonment" which operates in two directions. On the one hand, it points to the "house arrest" the oikodespotes goes into as he looks out the window in the dark of night, waiting for the thief to show up. As you can imagine, a person who knows that his house is about to be broken into cannot remain in a state of peace and relaxation. The tension and anxiety that comes with this information will turn his home into a prison, making him a prisoner in his own home, especially as he locks his home down to prevent any easy break-ins. This points to the 5th-seal remnant, who remain trapped in their hibernation caves because of the matriarchal iniquity that stubbornly lingers on Earth, which forces them to continue waiting until they can be free and fully manifested on Earth.


On the other hand, phylake's other meaning as "prison" also points to the "thief" as a prisoner, since he is the one being "guarded". In that sense, the "thief" breaking into the house would be the equivalent of him breaking out of his "prison", since it would mean that he was able to break through the guarding that was placed against him. Given the context of Matthew 24:43, we can safely say that it is the unrighteous believers who will have their houses broken into, meaning that, for unrighteous believers, the "thief" will eventually break out of the prison that the soul-centred, matriarchal system has placed around him, and he will be able to wreak righteous havoc upon the house that the matriarchal system has worked so hard to keep him out of (Luke 16:20). Let him who has ears hear what the Lord is saying.


Do you dig it?

The phrase "broken up" was translated from the Greek verb diorysso, which is derived from the prefix dia meaning "by, through" and the verb orysso meaning "to dig". Hence, the verb diorysso literally means "to dig through". Whereas diorysso is only used in 4 verses of Scripture, the verb orysso per se is only used in 3, the first time being in verse 33 of the following passage, translated as "digged":


"33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons." (Matthew 21:33-41)


Notice that orysso appears in the context of someone who has entrusted his belongings to other people so that they will take care of them and make them grow. Notice also how verses 40 and 41 speak of the owner returning to his property to demand an account from those who have used his belongings and made them their own. Interestingly, the 3rd and last time that orysso appears in Scripture is in Mark 12:1, which is the beginning of the above verses' parallel passage in the Gospel of Mark, meaning that it is used once again in the same spiritual context. The 2nd and only other time that orysso appears in Scripture is in verse 18 of the following passage, again translated as "digged":


"14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. 15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. 16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. 17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. 18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. 19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. 20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. 21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. 23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 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. 26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. 28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. 29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 25:14-30)


Notice how orysso is once again used in the context of someone who has entrusted his property to others so that they will invest it and make it grow. Notice also that, in Matthew 21:33-41, it is the original owner who does the digging, whereas, in Matthew 25:14-30, it is the one entrusted with the property who does the digging. This establishes the spiritual significance of the "digging through" (diorysso) done by the "thief" of Matthew 25:43. In a figurative sense, the unrighteous believer who will allow the "thief" to break in has buried things that he has received from God inside his house. Why? Because, as indicated in Matthew 25:24 above, he is not interested in producing profits that he perceives will go to the original owner and not to him, failing to realise all along that, had he acted in genuine selfless love towards his lord, he would have been allowed to keep those profits, just as the 5-talent and 2-talent men were. These 2 other men retained what they had been given because they acted like sons, growing the lord's property as if it was theirs. As a result, what was their father's became theirs also (Luke 15:31). The 1-talent man, by contrast, acted like an employee, and as such, he saw his lord as an adversary against whom he had to compete in a zero-sum game for property and wealth, just as a union leader does against the "evil" corporation that "reaps where it has not sown, and gathers where it has not winnowed". Because they acted like loving sons, the 5-talent and 2-talent men acted under the New-Covenant paradigm that offers Eternal Oneness with God to those who are willing to believe in such grace (Acts 13:46). The 1-talent man, by contrast, acted under the Old-Covenant paradigm of hierarchies where God is at a completely unattainable level and where everyone else must scramble and struggle for all the available "high" levels below Him; under this paradigm, the attaining of a "high" position is always at the expense of someone else, for everything under the Old Covenant is a stale zero-sum game.


Since the unrighteous believer always digs in his house to bury God's property, the "thief" himself gains spiritual authority to dig in that house as well, since the ground he is digging into contains something that does not belong to the house's oikodespotes. Had he not illicitly buried anything that was not his, the "thief" would have had no spiritual authority to dig the ground and burrow through and into the house. This is equivalent to when the police can barge into someone's private property because they have a warrant that was obtained as a result of probable cause of illegal activities or property in the premises (in civilised, Japhethite countries, of course, not in backward and inferior Hamite countries like the countries of Latin America and many African countries). Without that probable cause, the warrant cannot be obtained and the police cannot barge in, no matter how much they desire to break in.


The detached handover

From all of the above, the actual nature of the "thief" of Matthew 24:43 slowly becomes evident. Just like the lords of Matthew 21:33-41, Mark 12:1-12, and Matthew 25:14-30 (the passages where orysso appears), the "thief" is actually the original owner coming back for what is his. If the house's master (i.e. oikodespotes) has either appropriated things for himself or has stored away things because they did not benefit him, the original owner will have the authority to wrest these things from him, even if he does not want to hand them over, having become accustomed for so long to those things being "his" whilst the original owner was away.


To better understand why the sense of "ownership" becomes muddled, we must consider the following passage:


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


The phrase "without repentance" was translated from the Greek adjective ametameletos, which is derived from the prefix a meaning "without", the word meta meaning "according to, after", and the verb melei meaning "to take care, care about". For a better sense of the verb melei, consider its use in verse 38 of the following passage, where it is translated as "carest":


"35 And the same day, when the even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side. 36 And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship. And there were also with him other little ships. 37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. 38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? 39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. 40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith? 41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?" (Mark 4:35-41)


Notice how melei ("carest") is used in verse 38 in the context of having great emotional involvement in a certain matter. The disciples were puzzled at how Yeshua could remain so emotionally calm in the middle of such heavy turmoil. They perceived the situation as something that merited great concern, yet Yeshua acted with such detached indifference that He continued to sleep in the midst of it all. Even though there are many dimensions to this passage, it suffices to say here that Yeshua was not concerned at all about the situation, not because it was not real or because He was simply trusting that the Father would take care of it but because He had delegated the responsibility of its resolution to the disciples. They were supposed to have taken care of it by themselves, yet, due to their lack of faith in what God could do through them, they were unable to make use of what God had already given to them. They did not believe in the magnitude of the "God manifestation" that could emanate from "natural man". This is why they said what they said in verse 41 above.


This connection between "not melei-ing" and emotional detachment from something that would normally evoke concern is also reflected in the following verse, where melei is translated as "careth":


"The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep" (John 10:13)


As we said above, the adjective ametameletos is derived from the "negating" participle a along with the words meta and melei, which, interestingly enough, are also combined into the verb metamelomai, a verb that is translated as meaning "to repent" (in the KJV) in the 5 verses where it appears. The verb metamelomai is different from the other Greek verb translated as "repent", metanoeo, which is used in the context of a genuine repentance from sin. The verb metanoeo is derived from the word nous, which literally means "mind". Hence, it literally means "to change one's mind" and refers to a person being affected in the way that he processes and produces judgements about what is right and what is wrong, which leads to an effective and sincere change in behaviour. This contrasts with how metamelomai is used in Scripture, as is the case in the following verse, where it is translated as "repented" in the KJV:


"Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders," (Matthew 27:3)


Notice how the above verse portrays metamelomai "repentance" in a way consistent with the emotional nature of melei described above. Judas did not have a metanoeo repentance in which he changed his mind (i.e. his way of processing what was right and wrong). Instead, he simply had a purely emotional sense of sorrow about what he had done, and the mental roots, the patterns of thought, that led to his decision to betray Yeshua remained intact. Had Judas experienced metanoeo repentance, God would have had to forgive him (Luke 17:1-3). However, since it was only emotional sorrow, the curse of God remained upon him (Psalm 109:7, 13).


Out of the 5 verses where it appears, the verb metamelomai only appears twice in verse 8 of the following passage, where it is translated as "repent" both times in the KJV:


"8 For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season. 9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter. 12 Wherefore, though I wrote unto you, I did it not for his cause that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered wrong, but that our care for you in the sight of God might appear unto you." (2 Corinthians 7:8-12)


Interestingly, the two words "repentance" in verses 9 and 10 were translated from metanoia (the noun form of metanoeo), and the phrase "not to be repented of" was translated from the word ametameletos, the same word in Romans 11:29 above that prompted this "repentance" thread. Hence, when Paul speaks of not "repenting" (v8, KJV) of writing the letter, he is not referring to the "repentance" that his letter was intended to produce (v10). In fact, he declares that the metanoia repentance he was aiming to produce through his judgement-filled letter should not be "repented" (metamelomai-ed) over, thus emphasising the difference between the two types of actions that the KJV chose to translate as "repentance".


From the above, we can conclude that the KJV translators' decision to translate the verb metamelomai as "to repent" is incorrect and that it should instead have been translated as "to feel remorse". According to, the word "remorse" can be translated as "a feeling of being sorry for doing something bad or wrong in the past". Hence, it points to an emotional concern over a decision made in the past. Thus, the opposite of "remorse" is to make a decision and detach oneself emotionally from that decision, without investing any emotional effort wondering whether the decision was incorrect or requires any type of backtracking or "undoing" (as when Judas tried to return the 30 pieces of silver). Having said all of the above, it is worth noting that not all "remorse" (i.e. metamelomai) is wrong. In fact, genuine metanoia repentance will often contain strong elements of emotional remorse. The problem, however, is when that sense of wrongdoing stays at the emotional level, without ever descending to the mind level to produce concrete changes in one's judgement-making patterns. When remorse is allowed to remain stuck at the emotional level, it accumulates like water in a bathtub until either the person is forced to open the drain stopper and let the water just drain away like so much waste, or until the bathtub overflows, opening the door for Hittite spirits of despair to produce purposeless destruction, as when Judas hanged himself. When a sense of remorse is justified, it must quickly descend from the emotions into the mind, translating itself into concrete actions and changes in patterns of thought; otherwise, it only produces death (2 Corinthians 7:10).


"28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. 29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went." (Matthew 21:28-29)

[The word "repented" towards the end of verse 29 was once again mistranslated from metamelomai. Notice how the son's transition from remorse to the action of going is almost instantaneous.]


Returning to Romans 11:29, we can say that the word ametameletos is indicating that, when God hands out gifts and callings, He experiences no remorse over having done so. In other words, He declares His decision as final and detaches Himself from it, without revisiting it constantly to evaluate whether He should somehow take steps to backtrack from it. This explains why the lords of Matthew 21:33-41 and Matthew 25:14-30 would simply hand over their possessions to others and literally distance themselves from them by going to a faraway country. There is no indication in either of these passages that the lords were constantly sending messengers to demand frequent "progress reports" to assess whether or not the current people should be replaced by others (unlike meddlesome sport team owners such as the American Jerry Jones who never seem capable of "letting go"). This "remorseless detachment" is to give the people involved the opportunity to show how they would behave if the goods given over to them were permanently theirs. For those who are faithful under this opportunity, the goods actually become theirs (and the Lord's at the same time). For those who are not faithful, the opportunity of direct ownership is but a temporary one.


"Stealing back" what is His

Having said the above, it is worth emphasising that the Lord's emotional detachment from the decision to give us gifts and callings is not permanent. After a time, the lord does return from the "far country" to demand an account for what he has given out. This is when He suddenly comes back like a "thief" after a long absence, returning to reclaim what is His from those who forgot that it was.


{The next article is called "Rising of the Ready"}