Our heavenly Father can take us on the most interesting field trips! I got taken back to the time described in Genesis 2 where the man was created before the Garden & before Woman was created. No idea if I left my body or how this vision happened. Sorta "came to" in bed, not really remembering having gotten on the bed. Just remembering this BOOMING Voice that was the perfect Dad. Seemed as though God formed man on the first day of Creation, Adam, when He said "Let there be light!" and then He created everything else for the man, and let the man name everything before the man had a body, and man's falling asleep in Genesis 2 was when he was put into flesh on Day 6 so that God could pull the Woman out of the man into a separate body. But as though the man didn't have a body until this moment of having "fallen asleep."
It's as though the woman came OUT OF the anointing of the man, when his (the man's) anointing came into contact with the flesh God was creating and encasing the man within, woman was the result. Not sure Adam didn't have a belly button, though not from having been born FROM the woman, but as far as WHERE God pulled the woman out. Not sure if the Word we always translate "side" will allow it to be the front side, since there's always speculation on right side or left side or whatever, perhaps even backside. It's as though He pulled her out of the front of the man so that the first thing she saw was her man's face.
He literally pulled her out of the man, so that when they come back together into the moment of their creation then that's how babies are conceived. It's as though man was literally given a physical body in order to be able to experience her; so she could literally experience his face in a way she never could, [no matter what,] 'til they're together. It was inspiring to see the Woman created out of the Man. Not sure how that fits with everybody's CONCEPT of one specific rib having been taken out, in the way people have always viewed Genesis 2, but I literally saw her come out of everything, as though they were conjoined twins, joined at the front, that He separated. It's as though He broke a piece off and multiplied him and she was the result; as though He'd just multiplied bread.
She literally flowed out of the man's Psalm 8 anointing of dominion having been put into flesh. When the man's spirit and flesh touched, there was a reaction and two bodies came out of the same meat suit, the second one being pulled out of the front of the original one. LITERALLY their whole reason for having physical bodies; God's whole Covenant with their bodies hinged upon their Covenant with one another. Their whole reason for physical being was one another. It's as though the only reason "by His stripes ye were healed" is true isn't so that you'll have another day without pain, but so that the days of your life will be many with your spouse. It's as though it was WHEN the spear went into the side of Christ that then alone was Woman redeemed.
Seemed in that moment of what I saw as though the only reason God meets our needs is for our spouse. Everything goes back to that oneness that lead up to the Garden. He showed the man where all of the money was at, in Genesis 2, before the man was physically created; before he put him in this carnal Covenant with his wife who flowed out of the terms of his life with his flesh. Their Covenants with their bodies were on the assumption of their Covenants with one another; "each other" is sorta the fine print on this contract with having a physical existence. It's as though they don't even have the right to their bodies without one another; as though God's covenant with their bodies is null and void if they don't have one another.
I guess that explains monasteries and convents "or their equivalents" among people who don't consider themselves Catholic. If you're going back to God, denying this physical Covenant of marriage that's the reason for your physical body, then put that body away in a meat locker before you stink up the village! I'm not "necessarily" saying God won't heal people that are single, that God won't meet their physical and emotional needs without their immediate surrender to life with their spouse. Of course, God still meets, nurtures, defends, and cherishes those who are single. But His Covenant with one's body presupposes a life of nurture to someone else, besides Him! He doesn't need that physical body to have fellowship with you.
It's His temple in the sense of the life He's created to flow out of it to someone. But He's not physically bound in His ability to be and to experience life with you as an individual. The only reason for that body is for the comfort of someone else! Man didn't even need a physical body to have a relationship with the animals in Genesis 2. Man dozed into flesh because He was giving the man "flesh," making his former life perhaps almost dream-like to the man for him to perhaps tell the woman about, when it was appropriate to bring it up. Man's covenant with this flesh, in Genesis, presupposes a vibrant Covenant with a woman.
All of the light in the solar system, if not all of the light in the universe, flowed out of God forming the man in Genesis 2, and light did what light does with having illuminated everything from the plants, rivers, and gold to the animals and everything else, then God placed the light He'd formed into a lantern He created on Day 6 that we'd know as a physical body, but the light that escaped when God was encasing the light of the world in flesh became woman. He couldn't quite jam that much light into one body, so she was the result of God placing man into his physical body. God pinched her off and gave her back to the man and she was the first thing he named when he had a physical body.
It's as though the man went into his body and that caused him to black out, perhaps as that body was trying to find it's blood sugar for the first time, but he was awake for enough of a moment to know that there was only himself and God on the planet, in terms of life formed above the animals, and then sometime later he wakes up with his Covenantal sugar. What a sight to wake up to! She was literally pulled out of the man, but not to back away. Only to be WITH him forever! Again, regardless of whatever "rib" may mean in the Hebrew, I'm not certain the man didn't have a belly button after she got pulled out of him, and the last couple of verses of Genesis 2 seem to imply that, at least to me now that I SAW IT, that their reunion to bring forth life was BECAUSE of how she was taken out of the man.
She was his egg that hatched out of his flesh and has carried the eggs ever since, though again, they were joined at the front and sexual excitement [for the both of them] can't be totally discounted from her creation, that in that moment of Creation they were both in total bliss and they come back to memorialize that, again according to Genesis 2. They weren't joined at the sex organs when they physically were pulled apart from the man's oneness, but those carry the genetic memory of the creation event that brought her into his life in the flesh. That may play into WHY the woman's often capable of much deeper, higher, wider, and more intensely prolonged sexual ECSTACY than the man's capable of. She's reliving when she came out of him. And of course, he's reliving it in that moment, just looking into her face as she's in such absolute transcendence of her own physical body. Their experiences are just different. She's "in the moment" while he's in her. Don't limit that last sentence to mere bawdiness. She's in her Genesis 2:22 moment, while he's in his Genesis 2:23 moment. She's experiencing the presence of her man, while he's trying to name what God's done, in accord with his divine nature that he's been given.
There's a damnable heresy some people get into of refusing to name what God's doing and when they "go there" they desecrate this very origin of physical intimacy with the Hand of God in their lives, denying the man his nature of being a namer over God's Creation. They make themselves fornicators and adulterers when they refuse the marriage bed of the divine with the human that man was created to name, so that God could go from there and bring forth another one of His creatures. Naming a move of God doesn't kill it. It allows God to move on to His next better, brighter thing! It's treating it UNHOLY when you refuse to name it. It's REJECTING what God has done through your unbelief when you insist that a man's name for it has no place on it. If it doesn't, then it has no place in man's life because of the very nature of who God created man to be, as the namer of the works of His hands in the behalf of the whole creation that looks in, according to Ephesians 3, on what man's going to call what God's just done, just as man did in Genesis 2!
It's only a part of the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness towards us in Christ Jesus and a legal resident of this earth in our lives when man has successfully named it! Doesn't mean God won't create something else, so that man can name His wonders YET AGAIN for all of Creation that longs to look into it, according to what St. Peter wrote. You hinder the angels when you don't name it, and definitely can't be a partaker in it's substance for very long if you reject what it's called. It's the glory and dignity of man to name everything for his wife. We must leave and utterly reject the fear based theology that hides behind a false humility and robs us of the chosen names of the works of God's Hands when they're coming forth. It's refusing union with the head, in the language of Ephesians and Colossians when we reject giving the works of God's Hands a name. Philippians 2 says Christ Jesus is only over things that have names. If you won't name it, you can't have it, and you profane it to the very face of God and before all of the Creation that in Ephesians 3 is looking in on what God's doing to see what the man will call it. It's blasphemy to refuse to name the works of God's Hands. If you won't name it, the rest of Creation can't have it, and His grace is frustrated. It's a worse error than the Jews got into of believing they were given The Name so that it would never be spoken! It's fear based and false humility. Have you noticed the John 10 spirit of this on the part of Christians that have this false doctrine that they'll always pick up stones for the Christman that'll speak The Name of it in the behalf of the rest of Creation entering into it? People have said things TO MY FACE about this that if my heavenly Father and I weren't as merciful as we are...! People can be so ignorant sometimes of the Scriptures and of the power of God!!
If we won't name it, it dies with us and does the rest of the Creation ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD and the grace of God will be FRUSTRATED! What if man had refused to name "woman"? There wouldn't have been another! Naming it gives it harvesting potential so that you can always have it. Naming it gives it seed. Do we wish some things God has done hadn't been called such and such? Of course. Only saves the better names we would have come up with for the next grander thing that God will do! If we refuse to name it, we refuse our Covenant with what God is doing. It's just that simple! A gift that has no name on Christmas morning has no recipient! We limit who can have what we refuse to name. We rob it of dignity and we rob ourselves of our Psalm 8 honour over all of the works of God's Hands! We've not RECEIVED the grace of God 'til we've NAMED IT! If we refuse names, since some people don't have a problem with naming the works of God, but think they're being humble instead of showing their arrogance, since names are Covenantal, by rejecting so-called labels for themselves, then we don't know which Christmas presents are ours as God's still giving gifts to men through Christ Jesus! I'm using Christmas as an analogy in this paragraph. Ever been to an office of some type where you had to take a number and they'd see people in the order of those numbers?
The more often you want to sit with God, the more numbers, or names, you'll be willing to take, because all they represent are places in line for receiving the wonderful works of God! Refusing labels ALWAYS bottomlines in REFUSING TO BE ASSOCIATED with other believers who are standing in faith for the same grace. It's that simple. It's a forsaking of the assembling of yourselves together, because there are prison and other situations that PHYSICALLY prevent people from physically assembling themselves together, and you can ONLY spiritually and covenantally not forsake the assembling of yourself by accepting the names of the various graces of God that have been spoken forth, whether Word of Faith, or Pentecostal, or whatever other name that CLEARLY REPRESENTS a particular emphasis of Scripture; a particular share in the multi-faceted wisdom of God and a particular share in manifold grace! The mark of the lamb in the book of Revelation would have to be whatever name a certain move of God has that you're associated with, because it's the antithesis of the mark of the beast in the book of Revelation that's clearly defined as being a name or a number. An image is always in a name. A name is always the irreducible number, or quantity, or quality, or designation regarding an image. In Genesis 2, it's obviously for a name that a man leaves father and mother and is joined to PARTICULAR FLESH, not just flesh "in general," but a PARTICULAR grace of God for his life that makes him fall asleep to his previous life. Some people would say "yeah, but I'm sorta this AS WELL AS that!" Other people have more than one name on their birth-certificate as well! What's the big deal with that? I happen to have 5 names on my birth-certificate and people having 4 or 5 names on their birth-certificates aren't that uncommon! People all over the world have a whole list of things that they're called. That simply reflects the book of Genesis flow from Creation into filling the rest of the world. It's only beings with names that can subdue their particular part of the world. The best names always flow out of that Genesis 2 ECSTACY!