“For in Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” reads Colossians 2:9 (NKJV). The Greek text says: ‘οτι εν αυτω κατοικει παν το πληρωμα της θεοτητος σωματικως (Wescott-Hort). Giving their equivalents in the Roman texts, the Wescott-Hort Greek texts read: hoti en auto katoikei pan to ple’roma tes theo’tetos somatikos. Alfred Marshall translates: “Because in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Marshall, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament).

GODHEAD DEFINED. M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the NT, 906) thinks “the essential and personal deity” that makes God “God” (the θεοτητος, theotetos) belongs to Jesus. This is the necessary conclusion based on the meaning of the phrase “all the fullness of the Godhead.” Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker define the word θεοτητος as “deity, divinity,” adding that the word is “used as abstract noun” for θεος, theos, “God.” (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker,  A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 358). BAGD cites Colossians 2:9 for this usage. θεος is “God,” while θεοτητος and its co-derivative θεοτης, theotes, means “Godhead.”

GODHEAD OR DIVINITY? The word θεοτητος in Colossians 2:9 is translated “Godhead” but a related word in Romans 1:20, θειοτης, theiotes (note the iota letter!), is rendered variously by different translators: as “divinity” (ASV, Centenary Translation, Darby’s), “existence” (BBE), “divine nature” (God’s Word, Weymouth’s), “Godhead” (KJV, Wesley’s, Young’s), and “deity” (RSV).  Do θεοτητος and θειοτητος, or θεοτης and θειοτης, mean the same?

Vine says no. His argument is that θειοτης, “divinity,” is derived from θειος, “divine” (Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words With Their Precise Meanings for English Readers, item: “Divinity,” 328); θεοτητος, “Godhead,” on the other hand, is rooted from θεος, “God.”

Vine says: (1) θειοτης, “divinity” (cf. Romans 1:20), indicates the divine essence of Godhood, the Personality of God; and that (2) θεοτητος, or θεοτης (cf. Colossians 2:9), indicates His divine attributes, nature and properties (Ibid., 328-329). It would be best to do more research on this.

MEANING OF “KATOIKEI,” “DWELLS.” The Greek text reads: ‘οτι εν αυτω κατοικει, hoti en auto katoikei, literally, “For in Him dwells.” κατοικει in its intransitive usage means “live, dwell, reside, settle (down)” (BAGD, 424). When intransitive, the verb stands without a direct object. For example, this sentence: “He dwells.” The subject is “He,” the verb is “dwells,” and while it has no object we know that the sense and meaning of the sentence is complete.

κατοικει in its transitive usage means “to inhabit something.” This means the verb cannot stand without a direct object. Matthew 23:21 illustrates this usage: “And the one swearing by the temple swears by it, and by the one inhabiting (katoikounti) it.” The present active participial verb “inhabiting” has for its object the pronoun “it.”

A derivative of κατοικει is the noun κατοικησις, katoikesis, meaning living, or dwelling quarters (cf. Mark 5:3, “who had his dwelling among the tombs”) (BAGD, 424).  Another derivative, κατοικιa, katoiki’a, is a noun and is translated “dwelling place,”  or “habitation” (cf. Acts 17:26, literally, “the boundaries of their dwelling”) (BAGD, 424).

κατοικει, katoikei, in Colossians 2:9 is present active indicative. Why active? The phrase “the fullness of the Godhead” is the one doing the action!

“For in Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily” can also be arranged like this: “For the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily.”  “The fullness of the Godhead” is the subject, the verb is “dwells,” “bodily” is an adverb that modifies the verb “dwells,” and “in Him” is a prepositional phrase that tells us the where of the indwelling. In more ways than one, prepositional phrases function like adverbs, modifying verbs.

In Colossians 2:9, the action, “dwells,” is not done by Jesus; he is in fact the one being dwelt in.

It can neither be said that Jesus is the direct object of the verb “dwells,” because “in Him” is a prepositional phrase, and “Him” is the object of the preposition “in.” κατοικει is present tense, active voice; furthermore, it is intransitive, since it has no direct object.

Katoikei is a continuous or ongoing action. When we say that κατοικει, “dwells,” is in the present tense, we also mean that the action of  that verb  is continuous. Therefore what Paul says in Colossians 2:9 about Christ is a fact that stands true, that in Him “continually dwells the fullness of the Godhead.” And for that reason the indicative mood of the verb is used, it simply declares something to be a fact; and it is a fact that the Godhead keeps dwelling in Jesus, wherever He may be. “The present tense,” says Rogers and Rogers, “indicates the continual state [of Jesus] and points to the present reality [of him in heaven]” (Rogers & Rogers, 464). I once argued this fact with an INC minister, but he objected to my use of the Greek New Testament. He wanted to remain as an ignoramus, so I let him!

To the question: “Was the divine essence of Christ personally present on earth during Christ’s earthly ministry?” the answer should be “yes.”

IN HIM DWELLS ALL THE PLEROMA. The παν το πληρωμα, pan to ple’roma, “all the fullness,” is what dwells in Jesus. For a related passage see Colossians 1:19— “For in him all the fullness [of the Godhead] was pleased to dwell” (Darby’s Translation).

πληρωμα, pleroma, is rooted from πληροω, pleroo, “to make full, to fill” (BAGD, 670). It can be used in the sense in which objects or persons  are filled with intangible things or qualities (as in, “the ship’s sail filled out by the wind”; “a sound filled the house”; “the house was filled with fragrance”; “You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching,” Acts 5:28; “And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full,” Dan 8:23; “fill someone’s heart,” that is, take possession of it, Eccl. 9:3) (Ibid., 670-671).

BAGD defines πληρωμα as (a) “that which fills up”; (b) “that which makes something full or complete, that which supplements or complements”; (c) “that which is full of something”; (d) “that which is brought to fullness or completion”; and (d) “that which is the sum total, the fullness, the superabundance” of something (BAGD, 672). Relative to the definition (d) above, BAGD cites Colossians 2:9, and says the phrase “the fullness of the Godhead” means “the full measure of deity” (Ibid.). What makes God “God” dwells in its fullness in Jesus.

The πληρωμα is something that is intangible and therefore to engage in measurements and physical dimension when talking about the “Godhead” (as the INC-1914 would often do) is to lose sight of the meaning of  it. The “fullness of the Godhead” is not a tangible something. So forget about the metric dimensions, the encasing and the body size. I am sure Jesus’ body size was tangible, but what dwelt in him was not. Let us look at the figure with the eye of faith.

WHAT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT? Wasn’t the Holy Spirit in Christ during his earthly ministry, you would ask. What do you mean by “in Christ”? In two places in the Book of Matthew the Holy Spirit is mentioned in relation to Him and His work: (1) It was prophesied that the Spirit of God would be “upon him” (Matthew 12:17-19), and such was true during His ministry. (2) It is said that the Holy Spirit was “upon Him” during his baptism to identify Him as the chosen one of God (Matthew 3:16). This not only identifies Jesus but also reconfirms the Spirit’s presence and His separate identity from the Son and the Father.

If you insist that the Spirit was “in Christ” during His ministry, be informed that your evidence here is wanting. It would be best to examine the meaning of this Greek prepositional phrase translated as “upon Him” (επ αυτον, ep auton), cf. Matthew 3:16; 12:18. “Upon Him” does not mean “in Him.”

Furthermore, don’t be confused by thinking that if the Holy Spirit resided “in Him” (such a phrase of course I have yet to encounter in the New Testament, but I may be wrong), that is the same thing as saying that “fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him.”  The phrase “fullness of the Godhead” has never been equated with, is not identified with, and does not refer to the Holy Spirit.

The ministry of the Holy Spirit among Christians did not come until the event of Acts 2.

DWELLS BODILY. The πληρωμα of the θεοτητος, “the fullness of the Godhead,” dwells in Jesus “bodily.” The word here is σωματικως, somatikos, rooted from the Greek σωμα, soma, “body.” It is an adverb and means “bodily,’ “corporeally” (Vine’s, “Bodily,” 137; BAGD, 800).

In its adjective form, it means (a) “being or consisting of a body,” cf. Luke 3:22; and (b) “pertaining or referring to the body” (BAGD, 800).

The term “Godhead” is the translation of the word θεοτητος. Rogers and Rogers defines it as “divine nature, deity,” and that it “differs from the expression ‘Godhead’ in Romans 1:20 in that it emphasizes not so much divine attributes but divine nature or essence.” In describing the deity that is in Jesus, Rogers & Rogers says, “Divine glory did not merely gild Him, lighting up His person for a season with a splendor not His own; He was and is absolute and perfect God” (Rogers & Rogers, 464).

BAGD renders the phrase ‘οτι εν αυτω κατοικει παν το πληρωμα της θεοτητος σωματικως, “in Him the whole fullness of Deity dwells bodily” which is to be understood as “in reality, not symbolically” (BAGD, 800). As the body of Jesus is real, the full deity that dwells in Him is also real. It is an actual, personal, and direct indwelling of the deity. I am inclined to believe that it is His own deity that dwells in His own body, and that deity is described by Paul as nothing less than what the Godhead  is and should be. Note for example that passage in Hebrews that says: “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, But a body didst thou prepare for me; 6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure” (Hebrews 10:5-6, ASV).  The body that came out of Mary’s womb was the body that became the habitation of the deity that came into the world. Jesus is God become man.

Colossians 2:9 thus means that the divine nature including the divine attributes that was Jesus, the Logos, became incarnate and indwelt in the body of the Redeemer of men. God needed to come down to be man’s Saviour (for only a Deity could save man) and become human to complete that salvation by the shedding of His blood (“without the shedding of blood there is no remission,” Hebrews 9:22). If He left His deity in heaven, He could not save, being man alone.

There is no need to speculate that it was the Holy Spirit who dwelt in Him, nor was it the Father. It was He himself! And that “Godhead” that inhabited the body of the man Jesus was nothing less than the full Godhead that was the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The inhabiting of the Godhead in Jesus is rather unique and cannot be compared to your concept of the personal individual bodily indwelling of the Spirit.  What dwells in the body of Jesus is the “fullness of the Godhead” (that which makes Him,  the Father and the Spirit truly God, and I mean here the essence, attributes and nature of Godhood); what dwells in you, singularly, personally, individually, bodily,  is your own spirit.

Any reaction to this post will surely be appreciated. I can always rectify my position with the help of elucidation, explanation, or argumentation from you brethren.

CLICK HERE FOR  PREVIOUS POST, 5TH IN THE SERIES…

You probably have in your hand an English Bible, and yet you may not be aware that that Bible has a very exciting as well as sad history.  It came at the loss of many lives and at the price of much privileges, high positions, and social ranks. It came because men wanted the freedom to think and to worship God at the dictates of their conscience.

The exciting aspect of the history of the English Bible began with a Catholic theologian, born in Hipswell, England, an anti-Mendicant, who, seeing the many abuses of  his “mother church,” sought to oppose those abuses in every way he could. His name was John Wycliffe (ca. 1324-1384).

In his dream of a society where every man could have the liberty to think for himself and the freedom to read the Bible in his own tongue, John Wycliffe was not alone. Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun (ca. 1324) were among this company. Church historians call them the early reformers. Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun were democratic thinkers who believed that the power over life, from the cradle to the grave, should not be allowed in the hands of that man called the “Roman Pontiff,” that promoter of indulgences, that extortionist who craved for nothing but the alms offered by the relatives of the dead, who did not even have any notion what’s happening to the souls beyond the grave!

William of Occam (ca. 1300-1349) too was among them; this man believed the pope is not infallible and that he too should be subject to the authority of a council of men. Occam, like the other two before him, believed that the Bible is the only source of infallible authority over both the spiritual and physical aspects of a man’s life.

Wycliffe was a part of the Catholic Church in England. Yet, in opposing his pope, he declared that the Bible knows only two sets of positions, the eldership and the deaconship, and that the papacy, its archbishopric, its papist councils, its monastic system are all unknown in the Catholic Bible. Being a theologian, he defended the English king’s refusal to transport money from England to papal coffers (the papacy at that time was situated in Avignon, in France, and was under the domination of the King of France, a period in Roman Catholic history known as “Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy”). After the papacy was returned to Rome, with the election of two popes, one Italian and another French, Wycliffe had the privilege as a member of the embassy to visit the papal headquarters, and saw the corruption prevalent in the Roman priesthood, confirming that what he saw among the Catholic priests in the English soil was the norm rather than the exception. On his return to England, his tirades against the papacy saw no bounds. The pen was his power, and the energy of his tongue never diminished in his crusade to open the Catholic eyes to the errors of the Catholic pope.  He called the pope the anti-Christ, and argued that no Catholic priest or theologian could ever defend the papal system as scriptural even by using the Catholic Scripture.

Wycliffe was the first English reformer. History readers and history writers honor him by calling him “the morning star of the Reformation.” Yet, it must be admitted that no reform movement could succeed without some political powers helping you, protecting you, or taking up the cudgels for you. Wycliffe proved that (Martin Luther proved that later when he too started to reform his mother church in Germany). The pope at that time who was the object of Wycliffe’s religious tirades, Gregory XI, could do nothing but gnash his teeth in anger or bite his tongue in his wrath. Gregory’s 19-point long-winding anathema against the English reformer went unheeded by the Catholics of England. The English royalty, most notably John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, youngest son of King Edward III,  admired Wycliffe and the English courts could do nothing but protect the Englishman the English royalty so admired.

In his bold opposition to the pope of Rome, Wycliffe thought he could further clip the pope’s wings by making the Catholic Bible say what it truly says, minus the theologies and the dogmas that the priests mendicants and non-mendicants learned from their superiors. He began forming groups of preachers, called the Lollards, whose goal was to bring the message of the Poor Man of Galilee, not to the high class society of England consisting of  the priests and the rich men, but to the poor people of England, people with unassuming traits, whom he thought could be trusted with the riches of heaven. He wanted the ordinary man holding the plow to know more Bible than the soutaned man on the pulpit!

His deep search of the Scriptures made him reject the doctrine of transubstantiation, bringing upon him the disfavor of the chancellor of Oxford University. But he became even bolder in his denunciations of Catholic errors. He renounced the worship and adoration of relics and images, be it of Mary or Joseph or Jesus. He denounced the hiding of the truth of the gospel, and the overuse of words that meant nothing, in a language that by his time was as dead as a dead mouse and was never understood by anyone, not even by the morose monks who memorized it: “Oremus vobiscum… saecula saeculorum.” He opposed the festivals in honor of  the “saints.” He criticized private masses and the ‘extreme unction.” To him the indulgences and the interdicts are blasphemous, and that purgatory was just an invention of a pope who was ignorant of the Scriptures. Monasticism? To him it was a monstrous development that was contrary to the spirit of true Christianity.  One colorful statement attributed to Wycliffe came to us, that says: “Even if a hundred popes, even if all the friars, were turned into cardinals, their statements would not matter.  Those opinions of theirs ought not to be acceded to in matters of faith except in so far as they based themselves upon Scripture” (F. W. Mattox, The Eternal Kingdom, p. 225).

His noble cause caused him his position at the university, and a synod gathered by the papal cohorts in 1382 condemned his works. The king’s courts however protected him from being arrested and lynched and he retired to Lutterworth in 1374, where he died  ten years later.

His 1380 translation was the first complete English Bible, translated literally from the Latin Vulgate. A more polished translation was done in 1395, eleven years after he died, by his followers Nicholas Hereford and John Purvey.

The Catholic Church was an angry lion that never slept. In 1401, the acts of reading the English Bible and the writings of Wycliffe the heretic became a capital offense in England, of course under a new, but much rigid environment. In 1428, thirty-one years after he died, Wycliffe’s bones were dug up from his tomb. It was one stupid act of a church that hated him so much, who hated even his bones, hated his memory. The pope who ordered that must be out of his mind! But anyway, they got their own revenge upon the man’s bones. They burned it, and had the ashes thrown for keeps into the River Severn.

The persecuting acts of the Roman church drove Wycliffe’s followers into hiding. But such only repeated the events of Acts chapter 8. Persecution could hinder, but never snuff out the fire of enthusiasm for the divine that characterize those who know the truth and love it. Those who were chased from their homes, who became sojourners in some wastelands of the world, who were in hiding, preached the Word.

John Wycliffe was truly the morning star. The light of his life, the scriptural principles he lived and died for, became the flame that would no longer be extinguished. In the years that followed, many shared the sentiments of John Wycliffe, and his influence soon reached the European continent.  More and more men with zeal and love for the Word joined the band of those who called for reforming the evil that was Catholicism. John Huss of Bohemia, the so-called “John the Baptist of the Reformation,” died at stake at the instigation of the Catholic Council of Constance. Jerome of Prague too was martyred. And the other one was Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican priest who brought reform in the heart of Italy, in the very headquarters of the Catholic Church. He was hanged by the order of Alexander VI in 1498.

“Heaven and earth shall pass away but my word shall not,” so says the Lord. We in these modern times are a privileged lot. So privileged in fact that we seldom think of it, or we have not stopped a while and reflect on it. The preaching of the Truth had cost the life of the Son of God. That English Bible you’re holding now had been the cause of the shedding of much blood, the extinguishing of so many lives, the fall of so many from high positions.

But then, if this much would cost us to be privileged, after our faith and obedience to the Son of God, to enter heaven’s door, why worry at all.  Only the strong and the persevering make it there. Count yourself then. And be glad.

Note: I have had some emails from people asking me how to go about studying Greek. One of those who attend my Sunday Bible class, a graduate from De La Salle University, who has left Catholicism, became a Baptist and has now cast his lot with us, urges me to give him even an hour to learn Greek. The other is a preacher in Metro Manila who keeps visiting my blog, wanting something new always. I am thankful that many have now realized the need. What would be my advice?

Procure a copy of the following books: (1) Alfred Marshall’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. (2) The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, by Cleon Rogers Jr. and Cleon Rogers III. (3)  New Testament Greek for Beginners, by J. Gresham Machen. (4) Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.

To facilitate more information as you read and learn, download copies of my PowerPoint lessons on Greek Grammar. Click this link>>>

When life threatens to overwhelm you, when misfortunes bring you down to the pit, when doubts and life’s baffling questions threaten to snuff out that little fire of faith that remains in the heart, try praying. Try getting the help of the Spirit. You need not despair, because the God you do not see works behind the scenes, and causes all things to fall into place. These work for your good to make you a better child of God and prepare you for the life in heaven. Life may not be easy. But knowing that the Father above brushes away the clouds that He may have a good gaze of you, that the Son who is on his throne keeps on believing in your ability to carry on, and that the Holy Spirit who lives among us is there ready to share our burdens, then life begins to be configured according to the perspective that you could understand. Be still, be calm, be at peace. You have a help that is more than what a million angels can offer. Rejoice, rejoice, rejoice.

Click here to open the page, then download 07 HAVING A CLOSER WALK WITH THE SPIRIT.

FOR THE NEXT POST, CLICK HERE…

Acts 2 tells us about many firsts. It was the first time the Holy Spirit was outpoured from heaven and filled a group of 12 men (Acts 2:4, 14) in fulfillment of the divine promises (cf. Joel 2:28-29; Matthew 3:11; Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5). These men were disciples of the Man from Nazareth, a strange Man from a strange place. Strange not so much because of the absence of rabbinic references about Him as a God-sent figure beginning a grass roots ministry in such a place called “Ha Galil,” literally “The Circle,” or Galilee, in the northernmost tier of Jewish land, which was geographically, politically and spiritually far from the scene of action which was Jerusalem. Strange because the small band who followed the Man of peace too were adept in the ways of the revolution, Galilee being the nest of revolutionary movements in all Palestine. Strange because the band of twelve, in obedience to their Leader, was to proclaim a revolution that was to change the face of the soul and consequently the face of the world.

INITIATING THE NEW WAY OF GOD IN THE WORLD. The Twelve were unlearned in the ways of scholars and theologians (Acts 4:13). They had never been to a Mishna and Torah school. Their manners were rough. Their dialect had regional defects. They quarreled for the topmost position in the kingdom that was yet to come. They called for thunder and lightning to consume their fellow Jews who did not believe like they did. They cringed in the face of death when their Master was arrested, tried and hung outside the city walls. Yes, they were human, as human as anyone of us are.

Nevertheless all those— those minus points and flaws in their character—did not matter, for these were to change because of their continued association with the Great Personage who got out of His tomb one early Sunday morning.  The fact that He rose again, and made a promise that he would come and see them again, made them brave and courageous. To top it all, they were to experience one of the most wonderful phenomena the world has ever known—the Holy Spirit’s outpouring— which was to help them initiate the New Way of God in the world.

IN THE INITIAL SPURTS OF THE SPIRIT’S OUTPOURING, they came to be filled with it. Notice the language of Acts 2:4a. “They were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” The verb EPLESTHESAN, “they were filled,” is the aorist indicative passive 3^rd person plural form of PIMPLEMI, “to fill” (Rogers & Rogers, The New Linguistic & Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, page 231).

In a reading from Julius Pollux, an Egyptian Greek lexicographer who compiled a Greek lexicon for Emperor Commodus, the man who is said to be PLERES THEOU, “filled with God,” is also inspired of God (Colin Brown, Ibid.). PLERES, “filled,” is also rooted from PIMPLEMI.

PLERES THEOU, “filled with God,” was a very common idiom among writers both heathen and Christian. In fact in his apology written against a heathen writer, Origen the Christian faith defender said the heathens could not deny that the Holy Spirit indeed inspired the writers of the Christian Oracles because even they themselves believe their Pythian priestess is said to be filled by the spirit of a god when she utters an oracle! (Origen, Contra Celsus, 7, 3; cited from Colin Brown, ibid.).  This is a technique in debates called “turning the table on your opponent.”

Now if “filled with God” means “inspired of God,” then its related idiom, “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit,” EPLESTHESAN PANTES PNEUMATOS HAGIOU (Acts 2:4a), teaches that the apostles were indeed inspired of the Holy Spirit! The text where this is found also says they spoke “as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4b).

The phrase says they were all filled with one Spirit; the verb however does NOT say they were EACH filled with the Spirit, as if the Spirit was distributed in the body of each apostle personally as the Pentecostals want us to believe. It was one Spirit filling them ALL; not one Spirit distributed to EACH one of them, Their being filled with the Spirit resulted in their speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

THE ANTICS OF THE PENTECOSTALS. The passive form of the verb also indicates the apostles were not the doers of the action but were recipients of it; “they were filled with the Holy Spirit” (passive voice), not “they filled themselves with the Holy Spirit” (active voice). The action of “filling” is understood to be done by God himself, in a case that scholars generally consider as “divine passive.” In my debate with a Pentecostal, I challenged him to fill himself with God’s Spirit, complete with winds (Acts 2:2) and utterances (Acts 2:4) and cloven tongues of fire (Acts 2:3). He could not provide the winds, but uttered words I could not understand. And the cloven tongues of fire? He got it in a sardines can filled with hot coals which he placed on his head!

WHAT THE AORIST TENSE TEACHES. The aorist tense EPLESTHESAN in Acts 2:4 shows the act of filling as a finished action viewed as a whole. Aorist is always viewed as that— a point action, a finished action encapsulized. There is a sense in which a Greek verb describes an action as ongoing or continuing, and that is the job of the present active indicative. One passage (e.g. Col. 2:9) describes indwelling as a permanent thing, with its use of the present active indicative, but the aorist active/passive indicative is not the verb for that purpose.

Am I saying that apostolic inspiration ceased after Acts 2:4? No. I am just saying that EPLESTHESAN in the context of Pentecost event was a done thing.  I am in agreement with every Christian theologian that apostolic inspiration only ceased after AD 96, when John the apostle composed the Book of Revelation. But for goodness’ sakes, do not make an aorist verb in Acts 2:4 teach what it does not!

PIMPLEMI, when it appears in the passive, simply means “to be satiated, to have one’s fill of” something to the point of being complete (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich & Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 658). Their being “satiated with the Spirit” made them an ideal mouthpiece for God. The Spirit gave them utterance; in fact it can be said that they spoke as the Spirit moved them. Acts 2:4 really works in harmony with 2 Peter 1:21.

So “being filled with the Spirit” (in Acts 2:4) simply teaches apostolic inspiration. It is just the fulfillment of Christ’s promise in John 14:26 (“the Holy Ghost will teach you of all things which I told you”), John 15:26 (“the Spirit will witness concerning me”), and John 16:13 (“the Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth; he will not speak from himself but will speak what he hears; and he will announce to you the coming things”).

EPLESTHESAN PANTES PNEUMATOS HAGIOU, “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit,” thus does not mean “they were all indwelt by the Spirit.” The Greek words for indwelling are OIKEO, KATOIKEO, KATOIKIZO, ENOIKEO, and MENO. Let us not force the inspired Word to teach what it does not teach. If we are strict with the meaning of BAPTIZO, why can’t we be strict in the meaning of EPLESTHESAN?

We are thousands of years away from the events mentioned in Acts 2. Koine Greek, in which the Greek New Testament was written, is now a dead language. I am thankful it is now dead. Being dead, it did not grow. The words and their meanings, with their accompanying idioms and nuances did not change but remained static. English and other languages on the other hand evolve and grow, and keep evolving and growing, and meanings change. God has stored His living Word in a Book written in a language that is now dead–in order to preserve not only the Book but everything in it—words, idioms, nuances, tenses, moods, and cases. Our job basically is to understand what the ancient writers mean, not to impose our own meaning on what they wrote.

The Greek New Testament fares better in the hands of those who respect and love it and endeavor to preserve its teachings.

The idea of “personal indwelling” might be taught in other passages, and it’s our job to look for it. But definitely indwelling of the Spirit is not taught in Acts 2:4.

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS POST, 4TH IN THE SERIES…

I only knew Renato Austria as a face and a name on Facebook when brother Sonny Catalan introduced him to us. That was more than a week ago. Chito Cusi wrote about him. Gigie Carranza wrote about him. But I never knew him much. These last few days, however, tidbits and short notes kept adding to the scarce and limited information that I have of him, giving me in a way an almost complete profile of the man.

Atong (as he was fondly called by close friends and fellow disciples) was an active member of Midtown church in Baguio, a teammate in the church action group called MARCH for Christ, and had for many years been involved in the work of the Lord in many lands of Asia. At one time I and some brethren in Cebu did some follow-up of the mission MARCH had begun in Kalibo City, Aklan, but our paths –Atong’s and mine—never crossed.

But Atong, like the rest of those MARCH people, had done a great job in places perhaps too many to mention. If the church had wings to fly and feet to walk, Atong and the rest of them were those wings and those feet, flying to the heartlands of the heathens, walking on paths rough and muddy, on raging rivers, under heavy rains, from daybreak to daybreak, in a bid to turn these heathen hearts into heartlands of God. If the church had hands and lips, Atong was one of those, reaching out their hands to these men without God, with offers of food for the body, and proclaiming with their lips the food that could nourish the soul.

While Atong and the rest had been waging a war to win the hearts of men and women for Christ, he had also been waging a silent war in his own body. It is a terrible war. For the war in the cancer wards is a war we could lose, since science has not yet found a potent cure for it, like it did for TB. Cancer is our modern blight and our only way out of it is an early prognosis that can be done in labs by doctors skilled in the job. For brother Atong, it was too late to know he had caught it.

Death and cancer however must be understood in the light of God’s plan for man in general. For man, the creature whom God had molded from the dust of the ground and breathed into with the breath of life, is not meant to dwell in this domain of dusts forever, in this habitation corrupted and defiled by so much sins, by so many wrongs man did against his fellow man. Atong knew so well the face of unbrotherliness because he too had gone to Myanmar and China. This world has gone a long way since the day God created an Eden in the heart of it. We have forgotten that we all came from one womb, and that every man is in fact a brother to everyone. Eden, the former home of the first human family is too close to the Arab and Jewish lands where the hateful war of brother against brother has been waged since time immemorial.  Atong with the rest of our brethren had tried to change what outlook everyone had had with others of their kind, by taking to them just that message of brotherliness that God has wanted them to see.

The only cure for death and the blight of death is hope in Jesus. In His great mercy, God allows us to weep and view the death of a loved one as a loss for us. But God also wants us to understand that death is a gain. Death is the closing of one door and the opening of another–the door to glory. Atong had served God well and enough already. God wanted him to come to his glorious home, with a life there that is a lot better than the life here.

Our prayers are for those whom this dear brother has left behind—his dear wife and two kids. God always loves His own. And so while we remain in this land of tears and sorrows, we still feel secure and well. Why? Hear God speak:

“Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained strangers unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them; and those who are ill-treated since you also are in the body. Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have; for he has said, ‘I will never fail you nor forsake you.’ Hence we can confidently say, ‘The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid; what can man do to me?”’ (Hebrews 13:1-6).

There is a question that sometimes may jolt you from your senses, urging you to investigate and satisfy your need to give a better “answer to the one who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.”   Questions that demand you be consistent with what you stand for. Questions like, What are we? Restorers, reformers, or renewers? (This last word I have to invent; it’s not in the dictionary).

The churches of Christ are not the only religious group who claims to be the restored church; the Mormons and the INC-1914 do too.

Alexander Campbell, as far as my studies are concerned, called himself and his fellow disciples “reformers,” not restorers. Their movement began at the close of the 17th century. In fact, brother Bill Humble goes on record as saying that the “Restoration Movement began in America in 1800″ (The Story of the Restoration, p. 1). It was a “Restoration Movement” fathered by one who never called himself a “restorer.”

Greville Ewing, the Haldane brothers, Robert Sandeman and his father in law John Glass never thought of themselves as “restorers,” but “reformers,” like Campbell. Their “Reformation movement” had antedated the “Restoration Movement” in America by some 200 years. So a “Reformation Movement” in the British soil had fathered a “Reformation movement” in America that later called itself “Restoration Movement.”

But the Anabaptist Movement in Europe had preceded the British movement by another 200 years also. They never called themselves “restorers” but reformers.

As far as I know, it was J. W. Shepherd who made the distinction between “restoration” and “reformation.” Why this distinction? We owe it to the progress of our cause, which called for the crystallization of the things we taught. We owe it to our leaders who decided we should also make a name.

If one looks for the pattern of things, then, you have the Anabaptists, the British, then the Americans. We Filipinos are just the daughters of the movement sired by the Campbells, Barton W. Stone, Elias Smith, and Abner Jones in the soil of America.

If we call ourselves “restorers,” what are we restoring? You cannot call yourself by something that you are not. Are we restoring the church?

Come closer and lend me your ears, please. If we claim to be “restorers” then we are admitting to the world that the INC had been right all along– the church of Christ had been lost, and from the time of its departure, there had been no saved people until Felix Manalo came on the scene! Are you ready to believe that?

That is your first predicament–to be identified with the group that calls itself too as the “restored church,” which actually was a church that started from us (Gentlemen, hear ye, hear ye, Felix Manalo, the founder of the INC-1914 actually came from our Movement. He was introduced to the church of Christ by an American named Frederick Kershner, a missionary of the instrumental wing of the Church of Christ).

Your other predicament is that you have to skew these passages in Matthew 16:18, Daniel 2:44 and Hebrews 12:28 that speak about the eternal nature of the church in order to fit your doctrine– “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”; “in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed”; “therefore we receiving a kingdom that cannot be moved.”

I may be a son of the restorationists who came to these islands of 7,100 after Spain had ravaged it for 500 years and sold me into Magellan’s religion. And it’s one of those many events that God in His wondrous mercy had allowed to happen. I am thankful for Admiral George Dewey who came to my shores with his fleet of warships in preparation for a showdown with the Castillians and pointed his big guns toward Intramuros, giving his gunner this signal: “Be ready to fire when I tell you, Ridley.” He ended Spain’s rule over my islands. Then we welcomed the Thomasites, then the Protestants, then the “restorers” from America. The rest is history.

If you call me a “restorationist,” I have a problem wearing that scapular for the rest of my life. I am always thankful to my American mentors (Kenneth J. Wilkey, Bob Buchanan, Douglas LeCroy, Dale Chilton, and Douglas Gunselman) for teaching me Bible, and to Jeff Shelton for making me learn Greek. I have had Filipino teachers too–Brothers Seb Tanicala, Adrian Limbawan (deceased), Teofilo Alcayde, Felix Bravo, Cesar Lobino (deceased), Daniel Oliva, Roman Cariaga, Felipe Cariaga, Conrado Mapalo, Cesar Tajores, and the late Flor Tanicala. Thankful too for the late Eduardo Montoyo Sr. and for his son Eduardo Jr for guiding me into the right group, and for Charlie Garner for preaching that message one night in Baliwasan church hall, the message whose thunders echoed in my ears and made me tremble at the thought of not finding myself with the redeemed someday. God bless them.  Perhaps I differ from some of my teachers on the idea of the “restoration.” I am not a restorer of a church, because I wouldn’t be true to the purpose, intent and nature of that blessed institution for which my Lord died. I cannot restore a church that never vanished from the face of the earth in the first place! There was no general departure of the church and I trust the Holy Spirit who said to Paul that only “some shall depart from the faith” (1 Timothy 4:1).

I too have a problem calling myself a “reformer.” What do I reform? the doctrines of the church? The church itself? The true teachings of the Bible do not need any reforming at all. I am in the Lord’s church. In a sense I can be a reformer in the Lord’s church. But those other churches which are not Christ’s do not need any reforming; they need to be taught about the basics of truth.

So what am I? I am just a Christian preacher, calling the people who have departed from God to go back to Him again. I am calling for a renewal of relationships.

These thoughts are just for you to consider. This is not to fault anyone of you for teaching something different from mine. Tell you what, I have arrived at these thoughts after many prayerful studies of the Word, and after many debates with the sects. You may say that my ideas have undergone some kind of crystallization also. Consider it. It is not a dogma of a pope. It is not the kind of teaching that demands I split the church because some of you guys don’t agree with me. I am not going to die for that opinion, never.

What then are you saying, brother Ed? you may ask. Tell you what: One of those things that I like about the Campbells and other “restorers” is their motto that became the “restoration” movement’s guiding light: “In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, charity.” Difference of opinion is what it is. I don’t chop other people for teaching that they cannot address the Father as Lord in their prayers because they believe that Jesus is the only Lord. I still love my brothers even though some of them may be up in arms because I disagree with them on the matter of the Spirit’s indwelling. I just love to learn, and I also love knowing they learn their own truths some other way. Differences such as ours is not a heaven-or-hell issue. I believe that we can still go to heaven even if we differ in our opinions– opinions that are not intended to fractionalize the body, but to become the springboard for discussions in order to for us to come up with a message that is consistent with the Word.

If this is the attitude we have, then we should not have divided over the issues of orphan homes, Bible schools, plural cups, located preacher, benevolence for the non-Christians. If Daniel Sommer and Roy Cogdill had not been too pushy of their principles, then the movement that my beloved American brothers had brought to many shores would not have been too fractious. As it is I am a loss to explain why we plead for unity of all believers and then divide the churches over minor issues. God help these fractious men! is all I can say in moments of frustrations.

Gentlemen, I love this church. There is nothing like it in the whole world, in spite of what our detractors say. Whether we agree or disagree on minor points, let us rather push for the evangelization of the whole world. That is the most important. If a brother lacks the sense that others have, the church, consisting of different talents and mental resources could amply supply that lack. But the church must also be tolerant over small matters. I am of the opinion that no one goes to hell just because he believes that when the Lord comes again, he shall restore the kingdom to Israel (cf. Acts 1:6). If even Christ had been tolerant of this small fault in the apostolic band, why couldn’t us? Why couldn’t you?

Oh, you can keep calling yourselves “restorers,” or “reformers,” and I don’t really mind. Some messages sometimes don’t sink that deep; sometimes they bounce back.

Now, it’s your turn to bounce to me your opinions. I will listen.

Is preaching a tired old business? On the contrary it is a business that concerns itself with the most important thing one could ever think of: That of making ourselves right with the God whom we have displeased.

Displeased, you say? Yes. We displease Him when we  get out of line or misbehave. We displease Him when we’re out of step with His will and purposes for us. We displease Him when we refuse to heed His pleadings. We displease Him when we wallow in the mire of sin. We displease Him in every which way we turn when that turn turns out to be bad. And we can never make ourselves right with Him, not even with ourselves, unless He supplies us with the formula to make us attuned to Him again.

Click here to read more>>>

For our lessons on the preacher and his preaching life, click this link.

For our lessons on God’s great redemptive plan, click this link.

Brethren, I am making available on this site a series of PowerPoint lessons on the preacher’s life and work which many of you could perhaps use in training young men in the church to become proclaimers of the Word.  Ideal for teaching a class, or for personal study. You are free to download it and distribute it. Use it for the glory of Him!

Please click here>>>

Some of you may not agree with everything that US President Barack Obama does and says. But one American Christian lady who did not vote for him last election has now begun to believe that this first President of America with African ancestry could be America’s hope to turn things around. The man who saw his Kenyan father only once or twice  in his lifetime, and practically grew up without him, is saying something about fatherhood. Well, how does it go? To say the least, he views fatherhood with much sensitivity and sense. It touches me, and I hope it would touch you too.

Please click here to read>>>

One day a buyer shopping drops by a large Gemolite chain store in one of those big buildings in Downtown Cloudburst. That store is a branch of a jewellery manufacturing company and exquisite “gemolites” are its main products, although it sells other gems too.

What are “gemolites,” you may ask. “Gemolites” are rock-hard man-made gems; unlike real diamonds which are natural and can be mined from the bosom of the earth, “gemolites” are perfect imitations of the natural. They have the color and the sparkle of the real. It is virtually impossible to distinguish a man-made diamond from the genuine. Natural diamonds are very precious, but a “gemolite” you can always afford.

But one gem, different from the others, catches the man’s attention. “I want that,” he says. “How much is it?”

Click here to read>>>