I have shared before that the understanding that the things of heaven, including the church/bride that comes down from heaven, is seen/revealed in the created things. Not to see or honor God in that disclosure is to be without excuse. (Romans 1:20) What I have suggested, even maintained is that there are many ways to elaborate on the truth, whether it’s the words of Jesus or the written Scriptures. Most often we do it like Jesus did, even if for different reasons, we do it with words, and word pictures, even parables. We could also do it with drawings, and even models, these can all be understood as illustrative parables. God, The Creator, happens to be in possession of a greater and more powerful parable palette than us mere mortals. He is able to illustrate invisible truth by “Creation.”
Back in 2004 I saw something, and it may well be a good place to begin in our present consideration. That is, the possibility that there are attitudinal doorkeepers in the mind of each of us. These doorkeepers are not always so obvious or easy to reach. Some of them seem to be held up in strongholds.
Paul provides us with some pretty good lists: Romans 1:29-31, Galatians 5:19-21, 2 Timothy 3:2-5. It is these strongholds that I would like to get better at pulling down, whether in myself or in others. It looks to me like we have been given the very powerful weapons necessary for the successful execution of this war, but I would like to get better at identifying those weapons, and knowing how to wield them – 2 Corinthians 10:4.
In 2010 as I was revisiting this problem, a couple of words crossed my ‘ticker; “Primordial,” and “Consummation.” In going after their definitions, here is what I found:
Primordial: (from Webster’s Online Dictionary)
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin primordialis, from Latin primordium origin, from primus first + ordiri to begin — more at prime, order
1 a : first created or developed : primeval 1 b : existing in or persisting from the beginning (as of a solar system or universe) <a primordial gas cloud> c : earliest formed in the growth of an individual or organ : primitive <primordial cells>
2 : fundamental, primary <primordial human joys>
Consummation: (from Wikipedia)
“Consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people, following their marriage to each other. Its legal significance arises from theories of marriage as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners, or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together, or both, and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married. Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated.
See also:
• Consummation of days, event predicted in Daniel 12:1-4
• Consummation of the ages, crucifixion of Jesus, viewed as act of atonement
• Consumation (disambiguation)”
(I was encouraged to see the Biblical reference in Wikipedia, and want to add two more: Daniel 9:27, and Hebrews 9:26).
A Shift in Paradigms
When “The Word became flesh and dwelt for a while among us,” a mind boggling shift took place in our understanding of God or misunderstanding, as the case may be. This paradigm shift did not throw out the then Scriptures, but it did open up a whole new way of understanding them that was set free of religious paradigms.
What struck me full in the face is that the scholars have dragged far too much obsolete baggage with them from the Old Covenant into the New. “Obsolete” rules (I choose the word ‘obsolete’ for a very Biblical reason), so far from making us functional, are the cause of our dysfunction where our ability to live the “more abundant life” is concerned.
For the past thirty to forty years, I have had an increasing conviction that in order to understand God, and the things of God we need, at least, two witness, and both of which are readily available to the carnal or fallen man. The “spirits must be tested” by both the written word of God and the revelation of the invisible things of God in the creation – not one or the other, but both. There must be alignment between the two, kind of like front and rear sights of a rifle designed to take aim at the TRUTH of The Spirit. Of course the carnal man does not have the Spirit, but by now, he does have the other two. My impression has been that there is a third witness that is so false, and so imposing it has obscured the created revelation. This third witness is what has been calling itself “church.” That’s enough to mislead even the best of us where God’s intention is concerned.
I need to be very clear about this. This is not about sorting out the Scriptures, playing some kind of “He loves me – He loves me not” games with Biblical truth. This is about understanding what has been written, all of it, at least as far as possible for those who for the present are given to know only in part. Nor is this about allegory of figures of speech, this is about the discovery and understanding of multidimensional truth, both carved in stone and in the Spirit.
We can never understand creation, except for God’s Word, nor can we understand God’s word except for Creation. History has indeed shown that one without the other is confusion – it is either geographical/intellectual Babylon or spiritual Babylon.
Recently it struck me this way: I had been thinking about the core differences between those who lay eggs, (female) and those who fertilize, (male). I was trying to get a handle on the primal subconscious chemistry.
Religion refuses to go there. It just says “No” to all that primordial ooze. God says if you don’t get me in that, you are without excuse. We have to go to, through, and out the other side, not as a religious celibate, but as a believer intent on knowing the invisible things of God.
‘Just say no’/religious repression and denial gets us nowhere, neither with God nor each other in God.
Some time back I had been looking at the contrast between hens and roosters. That may also help in thinking about the primordial contrast between females and males. In Jesus’ hen house, there’s room for only one rooster, and it’s Him in the parable I am thinking about. For me it looks like it will all come clear in the fullness of the “desolate woman.” She is our only mother, and we must be desolate to become one with her.
The Stronghold of Zion
In trying to figure out how to take fortified cities (Proverbs 18:19), my sense is that the taking of the “stronghold of Zion” may be a real key.
The following is a smorgasbord of my present wrestling with the subject:
We are “heading for a city whose builder and maker is God,” you know, the one “with foundations.” I would like to consider that goal for a little bit, particularly as relates to how to best take a city. When the Israelites entered the Promised Land, there were cities that they had to take, even strongholds. “All this happened to them as an example, and was written down for our instruction on whom the end of the age has come,” (1 Corinthians 10).
Taking Paul, and through him, The Lord, seriously about this, I would like to consider the taking of a city, even Jerusalem. Here is the passage that came to mind in this connection, the opening salvo directed at my own paradigms, so to speak. “Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion: the same is the city of David. And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, ‘The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.’ So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David. And David built round about from Millo and inward,” (2 Samuel 5:7-9)
Keep in mind Proverbs 18:19: “A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.”
The stronghold was occupied by the Jebusites. It was called, “Jebus,” interesting name. According to Strongs: “from 947; trodden, i.e. threshing place;…” 947: “boos; a prime root; to trample (lit. or fig.): -loath, tread (down, under [foot]), be polluted.”
They took “the strong hold of Zion:” Perhaps I should also cite: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ,” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)
Now this sounds to me like a war that is going on in the hearts and minds of men. The war is against, philosophical strongholds or paradigms, together with their root causes, whether it be the devil, demons, the futility of Gentile thinking, wounds of the past, insecurities, you name it.
Those things hold up inside the fortress on men’s minds. Interesting, they do, in fact, make us “lame, and blind.” Arguments, like bars in the windows, only reinforce their position or stronghold. Even Jerusalem was, can be, is, occupied by thinking, thus polluted, or trodden down.
How does King David take the stronghold? Through the “gutter.” This was water coming out of the stronghold. I’m guessing it was/is polluted by the occupants, the Jebusites.
My additional impression is that the water source may have been in the stronghold itself. It was probably clean at its source, but became polluted as it passed through the stronghold. (I hope you’re still with me, on, at least, two levels.) I feel like the Lord has taken me to John 7:37-39: “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)”
Somewhere it is also written, “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man,”
I think I am seeing something very important where getting around paradigms is concerned, but it depends on a proper understanding of how David’s men took Jebus/Jerusalem, (“up to the gutter”):
2 Samuel 5:6-9 “And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither. Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David. And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house. So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David. And David built round about from Millo and inward.”
If the city or stronghold was captured by using a waterway, was it water in or water out? The following elaboration from 1 Chronicles 11:4-9 helped to answer the question.
“And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, which is Jebus; where the Jebusites were, the inhabitants of the land. And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither. Nevertheless David took the castle of Zion, which is the city of David. And David said, Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain. So Joab the son of Zeruiah went first up, and was chief. And David dwelt in the castle; therefore they called it the city of David. And he built the city round about, even from Millo round about: and Joab repaired the rest of the city. So David waxed greater and greater: for the LORD of hosts was with him.” The man who “went up to the gutter,” was Joab, which means Jehovah fathered.
The City is a Woman
Looking at this through another paradigm, the paradigm I call, the “sexual parable,” the city is a woman. I don’t think I need to site the many references for this, except perhaps the following: Revelation 12:1, and Revelation 21:2 (Ephesians 5:31,32 “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” These are doorways into our understanding of the “sexual parable”).
The question is how do you get new life into a polluted woman. The answer is you wait for the right time, go in through the “gutter,” the place where the pollution comes out, and you plant a seed. The name of the “mighty man who did this for David, was Joab. According to Strong’s, his name means: “Jehovah fathered.”
“And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live. I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown , whereas thou wast naked and bare.
Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine. Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers’ skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.
Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD,” Ezekiel 16:6-14 – KJV.
A word of explanation: This to me in context is menstrual blood not birthing blood, although it could be suggestive of both. This is to say that Jesus was intimate with us in our uncleanness. This was a big part of His struggle with His Father in the Garden over the means of getting rid of the cup. In short, this revelation passes the “sexual parable” test.
What I see is that the Stronghold is not pulled down with regulations, laws, condemnation, programs or manipulation, but with the planting of a seed, an incorruptible seed, even Christ.
This raises the question of where, how, and to what end are our lives going to be planted. Keep in mind what is written: “Except a corn of wheat be cast into the ground and die…” The dying and the planting are a package deal. In contemplation of His own death, Jesus prayed: “…O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done,” Matthew 26:42b. Some time back, I wrote about this in a little piece called, “THE CUP.”
Love!
You may want to read next, the ADDENDUM to this post…
In our last post, in connection with taking strongholds, I wrote about uncleanness in connection with menstruation. This might certainly have given the impression that I was singling out the feminine gender for particular condemnation or disqualification. That is the last thing from the truth, and the last thing from my intention.
Loving Like God 