"Thinking" (LordvSatan) webseries & Related Links: |Home Page| |God's System| |Introduction, assumptions| |Part I, Overview| |II, 'then'| |III, 'NOW'| |IVa: Church Alpha basis| |IVb, 'Body'| |IVc, Conflict| |IVd, Destiny| |V, Trib-Mill| |App: Satan's Strategy| |Trial Sum: Paradox of Merit| |Kingship: Due.Dilig.Disclosure| |Infinity-finity Dichotomy| |DDNA solves Dichotomy| |Spir.Pathology (viral dDNA results)|
Pimplemi vs. Plerow:
OT and Temporary Spiritual Gifts vs. Post-Rev CHURCH

Gist: Bible uses different words to distinguish between the "Filling of the Spirit" we get as Church, from all other covenantal groups. Greek verb "plerow" is exclusively for Church, derived from the Victory of Christ. For the OT, Trib and Millenial folks, the Greek verb is "pimplemi" (with an eta, not episilon). Both plerow and pimplemi are used hundreds of times in the Bible. Look up each occurrence (which is easy to do, if you have software like BibleWorks), and carefully notice how the BIBLE uses both words. Once you do, you should see that pimplemi was always related to physicalities, versus plerow, which is related to the soul. Neither verb connotes permanence (i.e., pimplemi is used for Hebrew sabea over 100 times in the OT, and sabea signifies fullness from eating a meal or other temporary surfeit). Both therefore are STATES which can be on or off. Most significantly, notice how the usage of pimplemi STOPS being used of the Filling of the Spirit, after Acts. That's your big red flag that the "filling" of the temporary spiritual gifts which you could see (physicalities, again), ended when the apostles ended (last one being John). You had to see the Resurrected Christ to be an apostle, 1Cor15:1-10. John was the last of them.

There are hundreds of verses to plow through in order to see the difference in scope and meaning between pimplemi and plerow. The video list below will go through those verses, simply showing live, pan-Bible, where they are. If you use 1Jn1:9 as you study them, you'll see the difference clearly. I summarized the difference in both video and a Word doc. Videos constitute a simple Word search in Bible, showing the difference between the "filling" of the Spirit OT people got, vs. Christ's and Church. Vast difference, as you'll see when you examine how Bible uses two keyverbs, pan-Bible: pimplemi for the OT people, and plerow for the NT people starting with Christ and after He Rose. Use 1Jn1:9 as you analyze the live BibleWorks Word search in the 'pimplemi' videos. These videos are dull Word searches to show how the term is used pan-Bible. So you'd be better off just searching on 'pimplemi' and its root, in the LXX; then, same for the NT but add the verb plerow. Also search on the cognate noun pleroma, which is one of Paul's favorites. It means PREGNANT (lit., to fill up a ship or a woman with CARGO), so that's a big difference right there. Compare to Hebrew maleh.

Someday I'll post them in vimeo. Even so, you can download the vids directly from their Apache server folder at brainout.net/downloads/movies/pimplemi
Word doc summarizing the difference, as shown in Part I's video: click here.

The NT verb is plerow, and I've not yet done the plerow videos. Still, once you see the Word search on pimplemi, you know how to do it for plerow, especially if you have BibleWorks, which is able to search on the lemma (root form, so you get all the morphological hits).

What follows below are quick notes, not well-written; I just needed to jot down some ideas, especially since there's so much nonsense about pimplemi and the Filling of the Spirit, on the internet. But hey: as always, it's best to just search the Bible itself on pimplemi and plerow and their roots, see for yourself how Bible uses the terms. Seriously, that search will save you a ton of time and you will learn much. Of course, without 1Jn1:9, John 14:26 will not operate, so you will not be Filled with the Spirit, and your searching would become pointless. So use 1Jn1:9 as you search Bible, or in anything you do.. all day and night, ideally. Else you're wasting your time.

Honestly, it's not rocket science to do this, especially with Bible software which lets you search in the original-language texts. Took me maybe a few days to see the basic difference between plerow and pimplemi in Bible, searching in BibleWorks. The difference is really pretty clear. Then again, if you're not used to being under a pastor who teaches from those texts, it will take you longer. Still, you can compare pimplemi and plerow usage with a translation in each occurrence, and notice by CONTENT, how they differ. You don't need to be a Greek geek, k?

You do need to keep asking God. We all need that. Anything one reads can be used by God. God will point out what's true and what's false in anything, anywhere, if we ASK Him. All too often, we don't ask, think we're supposed to 'do it ourselves', etc. Christ didn't do that, Phili2:5-10. So we shouldn't either. So I don't worry about how 'my' writing sounds: if it's true, God will tell the reader. Where it's wrong, God will tell the reader. Point is, should you be reading at all? ASK Him, for I have no clue.

Revelation closed the Canon of Scripture, says Rev22:6-21 (epilogue of the four Revelation 'plays' showing how history ends). In 1Jn1:1-4, 2:1, 2:6ff etc., John repeatedly told his readers that he was the last Canon writer (John uses clever Greek keywords referring back to Isa53:1 in the LXX, which you miss in English). The temporary spiritual gifts between Pentecost on 30AD and the closing with Revelation were related to a) warning Israel that Messiah had left and the Temple was to be destroyed (viz., Isa28, 1Cor13:1-8 and Chap14 on tongues); b) SUBSTITUTE-TEACHING the Canon while its writers were being spiritually developed enough to write it down (1Cor13, but really ALL of 1Cor, in Greek head-body/ marital wordplay beginning in 1:5). The actual list of citations is much longer, because the wordplay in the original languages makes the point clear. (English translations tend to truncate meaning.) So to prove this to yourself, look for head-body analogies, and the many Word metaphors nearby (like water, riches, gold, stones, etc). Foundational Bible doctrines Bible expresses in foundational ways using very precise wordplay on etymology, case endings (objective and subjective genitive, for example, to display the Love Of God circle). Endless!

John was the last living apostle; Paul, the last appointed one (see 1Cor15:1-10, Gal2). So forget the nutcases who claim to be apostles, now. You had to see the Resurrected Christ to be an apostle, for that's how GOD appointed you. Matthias and the other guy Peter (in a moment of weakness) elected by lot, are never heard from again, in Bible. Paul, by contrast, was appointed by God in a dramatic way on the Damascus Road. So too, James (Lord's half-brother via Mary, brother of Jude -- neither of those two names were their real names). So No Gifts Remain Because No Apostles Remain. We have the Word in writing, pastor-teachers, and evangelists -- that's it (Eph4:11-16 in Greek).

Parts III-IV explained our legacy in Christ. This page is partly designed for Part V, on the topic of what spiritual life the Trib believers get. They get a truncated OT style of life. Question is, what is that? The Church Life is answered in Parts III-IV, and the basic faith-resting style of living was answered in Part II. But What Role Of The Spirit, especially since hundreds of verses, both bald and basic (not visible in English), STRESS His Role from Gen1:2 onward?

You can track the duality of these two different-covenant Roles of the Spirit, and thus the gifts that go with them, in the Bible. It's not hard: you do need a good study bot or software program. I use BibleWorks, because it is so sophisticated. You might prefer something else.

Upshot: in the original languages, God uses different verbs for the enduing OT-style power which went with those temporary spiritual gifts. Most common one, is "pimplemi". It's used all over the place in the OT, as the comments below will illustrate. There are other verbs as well, but pimplemi is specialized to the Power of the Spirit. You'll see the term used in Acts and Gospels for Spirit's power, but NOT afterwards. That's very telling. Watch Whenever Bible Changes A Word In A Quote Or A Habitual Word To Something Else. It's always a tipoff, always important.

By contrast, for Christ and Church, the Filling-of-the-Spirit verb is strictly PLEROW; that verb is the cornerstone of interpretation, for all the NT writers USE it to explain our new spiritual life. The verb appears often, and is one of the most important verbs in the NT. All of Romans 8 is built on it. Verb has a pregnancy connotation in Greek lit (i.e., Euripedes' play "Ion", which Paul uses to craft Ephesians, very witty) -- filled with a god's seed, pregnant with him. Christ is Seed. We are to be filled up with His Word. THAT gets done by the Spirit filling us up, so we can LEARN. So just because you don't see "Filling of the Spirit" in English, doesn't mean the topic isn't there. Greek doesn't repeat like English does. Just as you'd say "Clinton" and everyone would know who you meant, so also "fill" is used as shorthand for getting Filled up with the Word via the Filling of the Spirit successively occurring in your life. You are a Temple. 1Jn1:9 in Greek uses the Temple-Purification verb "katharizw", as a result of which you ARE filled with the Spirit. John doesn't have to say that in the Greek, since everyone knew what happened to the Temple when it was purified: it was filled with the Spirit.

So, if you don't know the difference between the temporary "pimplemi" versus "plerow" (and you won't, because translations translate these words the same), then you will mistake the spiritual life, and thus fail in it.

So these are great tracking verbs to use in books like Acts, for example, to see how all those flashy spiritual gifts, were TEMPORARY. Verb pimplemi tells you that. Temporarily full, as in being full from a meal. Full of physicality-related power to make Temple parts, be a good ruler, say what God wants -- OT style power. 1Cor13 of course, is bald about the temporariness ("they shall cease"); but you can tell by tracking the verbs in Bible, WHEN they ceased. Honestly, if you even had a smidgen of doubt this is the Word of God, you will have no doubts after you do this Wordsearch. For example, No one before Christ ever got "plerow". See Luke 2:40. We know He's our Precedence, if only from Part IVa, if not from real Bible verses like Phili2:5ff. So think: you should get the Spirit without measure, even as He did (Luke 2:40, Luke 4:1, John 7:39 -- and for legacy, John 12:3, John 3:29 John 15:11, Jn17:3, and all other pleroma verses)! Isa40:4, came true in HIM, so the verse is changed from lifted up to Filled, in Luke 3:5, because He was lifted up on the Cross!

Remember, Pentacost-Temple destruction period was simultaneously the last 40 years of the Jewish "time" (age), and the first 40 years of the Church "time", as Part IVa painstakingly explained. So you've got TWO covenants operating simultaneously, and so the Bible uses different words to distinguish between them. So, Acts 2:2, uses plerow, depicting the NEW Filling, but in an OLD format as predicted in Joel 2 -- well, the Hebrew word in Joel 2:28 is shaphak (Gk: ekchew; it has an emptying-male-organ connotation -- useful metaphor, in understanding God's plan to make sons!) [Lexicons are sooo cute when they are nervous about sexual words: Bauer calls it "cause to be emitted in quantity"; "a form censured by grammarians" notes Thayer's lexicon -- yeah, no wonder -- it's used as a euphemism for moment of orgasm, see the sample passages under Liddel-Scott and others!]

But now look at Acts 2:4, a TONGUES verse -- verb SWITCHES to pimplemi. Couldn't be clearer. Trace it, see for yourself. Acts 3:10 (and 5:17) on the reaction, also uses pimplemi, so ask yourself how 'spiritual' it is, to be 'filled' with tongues, k? Peter is pimplemi, in Acts 4:8 -- giving a speech, lalew'ing (SPIRIT controls his vocal chords with his consent, just as in tongues). Same phenomenon, in Acts 4:31 (and end Acts 9:17, 13:9), for power of SPEECH (etc), a PHYSICAL thing. But in Acts 5:3 (and 5:28, 13:52), as in the OT, plerow (NOT pimplemi) is used with the heart -- in 5:3, Ananias' heart is filled with SATANIC thinking (versus doctrinal thinking, as in Hezekiah's prayer in Kings, as we saw in Part IVd). Same construction, in Rom1:29 -- being filled with satanic THOUGHT.

So notice that PLEROW is to fill you up with THINKING, not feeling; not physical, but perceptual: trace plerow in all NT epistles after Acts, especially Romans (esp.Chapt8), Corinthians, Ephesians, and Hebrews, where plerow is a keyword used to craft the outline of the epistle. This, because the biggest promise in Bible post-salvation, is to get His Word written in our hearts and minds -- see wordplay in Jer31:31-34 compared to the interpretational quotes of Heb8:8-12 and 10:15-17 (Heb101517.htm has an exegesis). See? Filled hearts was always the objective. Due to that First Filled Heart, Christ's. Romans 8 explains the mechanics.

Of course, translations truncate so many different Bible verbs to "fill" (a real flaw, especially in New Jerusalem Bible, though many Bible words defy translation and you can't really blame anyone) -- so you can't tell in translation, the distinctions. That's why so many teachers totally screw up books like Acts and the Gospels, thinking there should be prophetic utterance, physical filling, etc. They don't do their Bible homework. Well, maybe they couldn't. Unless you have good Bible software -- and who had any, prior to ten years ago -- it's kinda hard to see the vast distinction between pimplemi and plerow. [It's really hard for a pastor to go against other scholars. Many just go along with 'experts' they feel are more spiritual than themselves. They need your prayers. Prayers are volitional votes: look up how God uses prayer to judge the earth, in Revelation. So vote that pastors get the help they need.]

So, check out "pimplemi" in the LXX (Heb is sabea, same essential meaning). For example, John the Baptist was "pimplemi" (Luke 1:15, only NIV translates the "from birth" (ek koilias), rightly; but even NIV gets the TYPE of Filling, misstated). [It's positively criminal the way translations reverse what Bible says in Luke 1:15 and all other womb passages: see NoWombLife.htm and compare for yourself what Bible says in the inspired languages, versus the satanic translations. If I didn't see for myself how awful the abuse of God's Inspired Word, I'd not even believe what I'm typing, here...]

Until Pentecost, the Jewish-related spiritual gifts, were "pimplemi": a limited version of Holy Spirit's Empowerment, because Christ had not yet risen (John 7:39, Heb5-10). Search on the morphological forms of pimplemi in the OT: you'll find a LOT of them. Basically, pimplemi is a PHYSICAL filling. Filling your head; you could SENSE it. (No "pimplemi" is given Church after Canon completed.) The guys who built Solomon's Temple, were pimplemi; so too, the prophets and David. The verb pimplemi filled their physical ability; and as a result, spiritual ability is enhanced. The 'conduit' is the physical. This conduit thus reminded the believer that Christ would COME in the FLESH, so the flesh was the agent of spirituality: hence all those mnemonic, metaphoric, rituals.

Important: as Peter explains in Acts 2, this new Filling was to fulfill God's promise of Word in hearts (see Jer31:31-34, Acts 8:8-10:17 and like passages). So, it has to play the way the OT promised: VISIBLY. Not, to be spectacular, but because visibility and palpability represented The Upcoming or Present, Incarnation. Cross was successful. When Christ is again come, you again have visible spiritual gifts in the Millenium. So the Trib people get the OT-style visible/ palpable gifts as a Promise of Messiah's Return within the seven years.

But for Church, it's all the reverse, as Part IVa, explained. So, Greek verb plerow, by contrast, is way bigger, a Spiritual Filling -- you cannot sense it. Every use of the term in the OT and NT conveys an objective absoluteness, to-the-brim; pimplemi, by contrast, conveys a RELATIVE 'satiety'. Moreover, Plerow is used of THINKING, but pimplemi, of physicalities. See, you are 'full' when you are satisfied, or 'full' when you have enough adequate to the task; but due to Christ, the Spirit is given "without measure", John 7:39 and like passages. Big Difference. So a different verb, plerow.

Plerow is never used of the Spirit, in the OT; but only of things (and thought -- very common to use plerow with the heart). In fact, because the pimplemi was OT and was feelable, John had to write 1Jn after the Temple was destroyed (though even before John died, both forms of Filling were used): because, younger believers didn't know, anymore, what was "Filling". So, John had to write a series of parallelisms to explain how to make SURE you were filled (1Jn1:5-10, using special OT terminology as analogies). So, this latter Plerow is what we Church get. You can't feel the Holy Spirit, because the Filling is PERCEPTUAL, not visions, dreams, tongues or other obsolete nonsense which only kiddies could use, 1Cor13. But we are adult sons: "Abba, Father" verse.

The biggest other difference between the two verbs, besides Plerow being ABSOLUTE, is a COMPLETENESS in Plerow which is lacking in pimplemi. It was always true that you had to be a believer to get the Spirit; that if you sinned you lost whatever power of the Spirit you had (e.g., 1Jn1:9 for us, Ps32:5, 66:18, other verses like it for OT). But the amount of understanding with pimplemi was extremely limited: in fact, pimplemi has a passivity about it pretty much like tongues. The Holy Spirit runs the power via your consent, but the pimplemi powers were always physically-related, so kinda like magic -- better speech, stronger skill, probably healings and miracles, etc. Plerow, by contrast is Perception And Use Of Doctrine, pure. That's why Paul is said to be pimplemi when Ananias first rescues him, but later plerow when he's learned something. You can talk from 'yourself' in that you understand the doctrine yourself, so put it in your own words. That's plerow. Or, you can be a CONDUIT for that power, which is pimplemi. The Lord is Plerow, not mere pimplemi. Pleroma is a frequent, witty nickname for Him, in the NT (Eph4:13 being the reason why). Greek term Pleroma had heavy god-fills-you cultural loading, hence the wry nickname for the Real God Who Was Filled up with Our Sins, to Fill up God's Heaven with 'children' (main theme in Isa53).

Notice God's precision in depicting the Hypostatic Union, the God-man. Because the period 30-70AD was dually two covenants operating, believers during that time got both kinds of power. Paul explains the relationship between both sets, in 1Cor13; how when the HEAD comes (called Love, Perfect, other metaphors, but the Head of the Body concept began way back in 1Cor1:5).. when this Head is in Writing, then the childish, imperfect gifts will end. So notice how even here, the temporary gifts for Canon teaching before it was written, are VISIBLE, because it's about His HEAD. Then, the BOOK which is His Thinking, becomes ONE HEAD from Whom all can learn to think (Eph4:5,13 -- it's His Head, there, not a denomination or Christian get-alongness). See the "tongues" were about the Gospel for the unbeliever (1Cor14 tells you that) -- now upgraded to "tongues" of Original Language Scripture the Holy Spirit Teaches You to understand via your right pastor. So you end up reading the REAL WORDS He commissioned each human author to write. So when you read the Greek of Eph4, you're reading what the Holy Spirit actually had Paul write. Not, hearsay. See: it's all a head power you cannot feel or sense; and is 100% supernatural, no oooh-ahh like in the movies. God's Brains are SUPPOSED to replace your own, via 1Jn1:9 breathed.

So, the pimplemi powers gradually reduced. Paul couldn't heal one of his friends, though he'd had healing power as a credit card (that's its sole purpose) for teaching. Once he didn't need the credit card anymore, God took it away. (So forget all those fakir healers today -- if God took it away from Paul, THEY DON'T HAVE IT.)

Someday I'll have to fix this explanation, but at least you've got some ideas to play with. Sorry it's not better, right now!

So test all this: use a detailled lexicon to get the difference between Plerow and pimplemi: Strong's isn't strong enough, k?