What do we make of the sword?
Posted: July 27th, 2009 | Author: James Duncan | Tags: Bible, Devil | 18 Comments »Of my three arguments for not blaspheming the devil, the one about the armor of God being for defense rather than offense seemed the most offensive to quite a few commentators. The objection was that the armor includes a sword, which is an offensive weapon.
Before we get to the sword, let’s look at the stated purposes of the armor.
- Stand Firm. Ephesians 6:11 introduces the armor by telling us that the purpose is to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.
- Resist. Ephesians 6:13 tells us to wear the armor so we can resist the devil in the evil day.
- Stand Firm. Having stood firm and resisted, we stand firm some more. The Greek usage is interesting; stand and firm are the same word, so Paul is using repetition to emphasize the necessity of creating a very strong defensive position. Not only is the word repeated, but the concept is repeated. You have, therefore, four commands to stand within just a few sentences that explain the armor’s purpose.
These commands serve as a preface to the detailed components that follow, and should be used to interpret how we use them. For each implement that Paul tells us to take up, their purpose is to stand-stand.
- Loins girded with truth. A protective and defensive measure. It’s interesting that this first element applies most obviously to protect our legs and their ability to stand firm.
- Breastplate of righteousness. Like a bulletproof vest, it will keep you alive, but won’t defeat the enemy.
- Feed shod with preparation of the gospel of peace. Peaceful shoes probably aren’t intended as aggressive weapons, unless you take them off and throw them at someone, Iraqi style.
- Shield of faith. Used defensively to extinguish the flaming arrows of the evil one.
- Helmet of salvation. Again, defensive unless you intend to win the war with head butts.
- Sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Now we get to the fun bit. A sword can be used offensively, but it seems fairly obvious to me that its place in this list is due to its defensive capabilities.
Just so we can use yet another numbered list, let’s break down exactly why I think the sword is intended defensively.
- Immediate Context. A sword is obviously more effective as an offensive weapon than the other five items, but given the three purposes and the other five defensive items, the context of the passage surely demands us to treat the sword as a defensive device, otherwise it is the odd one out and would contradict the instructions for its use. Let the Bible interpret the Bible.
- New Testament Context. The sword is the word of God, so where else to we see it used against the devil? The temptation of Christ in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11). Three times Satan tempted Jesus; three times Jesus resisted him by quoting Scripture to him. “It is written…” Jesus is clearly wielding the sword of the Spirit here. So what’s the result? After the third temptation, Jesus tells Satan to get away from him, quotes Scripture, and then it’s recorded that the devil left him. Jesus didn’t chase; he resisted and stood firm. In other words, Jesus clearly uses the sword of the Spirit defensively, even though he alone had the power to use it to completely defeat the devil.
- Old Testament Context. When David volunteered to fight Goliath, he was initially outfitted in Saul’s armor. David was about to enter a contest where offense was clearly more important than defense (the Israelites had been in a defensive position for 40 days; now it was time to resolve the stalemate), so he ditched the armor and went with his shepherd’s tools. (This isn’t as strong an argument as #2, but it is an interesting parallel, especially if we let the Bible interpret itself.)
- Historical Context. In an age of guns and missiles, killing is done at a great distance, so perhaps we have forgotten the dynamics of face-to-face battle that were much more familiar to the writers and readers in Bible times. Even so, we are probably familiar enough from Gladiator-type movies to understand that a good soldier can use a sword purely defensively.
What do we say, then, about the purpose of the sword? Although it can be used offensively, the preface of the armor passage, its grouping with other defensive items, and Jesus’ example in the desert demand that we interpret the sword of the Spirit as a weapon intended to help us resist the devil and stand our ground.
Similar Posts:
- Why not attack Satan?
- Let’s show Satan a little respect
- How good is your caller ID? (Updated)
- What’s wrong with Christians?
- Do you !@%$#%@ believe the Bible?
In all of my readings in any forum, including the bible, I have never seen such a distorted and misinterpreted view of the Sword of the Spirit.
It is as if satan personally grips you to utter falsehoods and mislead folks on this, for you clearly have no clue on what you speak.
A shoe thrown in Iraq makes a statement to man. The armor has nothing to do with battling man. You distort to make a point; and fail.
“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”
I laugh at the thought that you present the Sword as defensive.
When the battle is your life against the enemy, you employ that weapon offensively….or the other guy will.
(In fact, he already is…from the Garden with Eve, he distorted the Sword, and still does, like you do with this post).
It seems more important to you to mislead your audience, rather than learn the truth about the Armor of God (you got none of them right contextually as Paul wrote them).
And, you have no knowledge of the Sword whatsoever in your claim that Christ used it defensively and satan left.
Stick with PN and blasting the falsehoods of the moneychangers.
I was shocked to read this post and see I am following a blog that has no clue of what he is talking about.
You totally misread the preamble to Armor of god and attribute time to David and Goliath, when the Armor is about fighting SPIRITUAL warfare, not man wars. Your point on girding loins is laughable. The belt of truth is Christ himself.
“What is truth?” declared Pilate.
He was staring at truth in the eyes and did not recognise truth.
The belt surounds you 360 degrees in Christ; it has nothing to do with your supposed claim about legs (I laughed out loud at that reading).
Your explantions of why the weapons are defensive is kindergarden talk, not Paul and spiritual warfare.
Unless you have learned to employ the sword of the spirit properly as an offensive weapon, it would be best for you to leave it on the floor, where southern preachers tell their audience to jump across a sword they lay on the floor,….and they will be saved. I watched an entire audience follow a Jim Jones type in Florida jump with giddy joy over a chunk of metal, now saved.
Your post made me recall that moment for both events, the nutty preacher, and your insane analysis of the spiritual kingdom continually at war, are equally uninformed nonsense.
If you have met resistance in a comment on the above, pay attention to the resistance, not your ego repair.
I have read this blog a half dozen times max, and it is spot on regarding PN (I would NOT want to be in his shoes on judgement day), and some of the other nutty numbers preachers.
But this totally inadequate production of a post makes me pull back and realize, you are massively uninformed on the Armor of God.
Your audience needs to know that what youwrote is crap.
Keystone-
Stop beating around the bush and tell us what you really think.
And provide some scriptural examples, please. Back up your statements, Duncan has.
Keystone, you write, “Your audience needs to know that what youwrote is crap.” That’s such a powerful argument! I appreciate it.
You have told us ad nauseam that I am laughably wrong. Perhaps you can tell us why (as Albert noted). How does the sword repeal the commands to stand firm, resist, then to stand firm? In what way did Jesus attack Satan when he was tempted? Where did he bury the devil’s rotting carcass?
Since it’s also an extended example of spiritual warfare, can you also tell us how Job attacked the devil?
One more point. You are correct that the weapons are for spiritual, not human, warfare. Why then, did Paul use physical analogs for those spiritual weapons? Are we not to learn anything from that?
As I mentioned in the point on historical context, we don’t use many defensive weapons today. The gun, which has replaced the sword, is entirely offensive. You can’t use it to stop a bullet coming your way, though you can use the threat of its use to prevent the other guy from pulling the trigger.
Perhaps a modern equivalent of an armor-of-God sword is the patriot missile. (Yes, I realize that comparison will set off the haters, but it’s as close a modern analogy as I can think of right now.)
It’s a missile; it blows up and destroys things, and you wouldn’t want to be on the sharp end of it. But would you say that it is offensive or defensive?
Keystone,
That’s a lot of words to have not really said much that helped the discussion. You don’t think much of JDuncan’s post. Explain why, rather than just write: “this is not a good post.” JDuncan took the time to defend his claim. You should do the same.
Read my next post to see what you could have said.
Sword: defensive or offensive? Yes. Both. The immediate context in Ephesians could go either way. Here’s why: the surrounding list (Ephesians 6:10-15) is heavily defensive. JDuncan uses this to say that this requires us to see sword as defensive. But, is this the case? Must every item be defensive? No. The passage does not (as JDuncan stated in his 3rd list) “demand” that sword be defensive. After all, the protection is in place for the purpose of battle. It allows the sword wielder to wage war, to go on attack.
Among the list of clothing, comes a … sword. It doesn’t seem to fit since the others are defensive. It is – after all – a weapon, not a piece of clothing. A sword conjures up offensive slicing and dicing (Hebrews 4:12), not just shielding and protecting.
Might I be wrong? Sure. But at least I said something and defended it, Keystone.
Duncan has quoted Ephesians 6 (partially and selectively)and Matthew 4. Albert finds that comforting.
My first comment above quotes myriad parts of scriptures; Albert recognizes NONE.
A prior scheduled appointment this day precludes me giving a proper rebuttal to the nonsense I read here (though the PN quips are always dead on, and should be expanded to stop him from blinding folks to Christ).
Add Tony Morgan and Seth Godin as Noble wanna-be types.
I suspect no matter how many bible phrases I supply, you would not understand the distortions Duncan has made in his case.
JT, if this were Twitter, I would give you a Twitter-ish answer as your comment deserves.
But it is a blog, so I answer as I see fit for a blog.
Albert, if you can not see scripture written in front of you, (all over in my first comment above), what good does more scripture do for a man who recognises none already?
Paul’s imagery of Armor in Ephesians comes from the Roman soldiers, to be understood. Those soldiers actually employed TWO swords in battle; a long sword and a short, dagger-like sword.
So does the Bible, with the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. It employs the Logos and the Rhema. Christ employed Rhema in the wilderness discussion with satan, and He employed it as an offensive weapon only.
Created beings can not read minds.
God can, as well as heart, motives, and intentions. It is that knowledge by the Father, that gives specific Rhema through the Spirit, from all logos, to believers to battle the unseen kingdom.
Perhaps more on the Holy Spirit is in order, to understand this part, but it won’t be today.
Keystone,
You wrote: “My first comment above quotes myriad parts of scriptures.” Some of us on this blog are slow, and not as smart as you. Next time actually cite the passage you’re using, and make sure if you are quoting something, to use quotation marks. It undermines your credibility to say after the fact that you quoted lots of scripture when you never name any passage. If you’ve taken the time to look them up (or memorize them), then just go ahead and help your case by including it.
If Duncan has made “distortions” then stop alluding and start proving.
Tommy,
Lengthy answers disturb you.
Accordingly, you spend an entire post to explain how a post could be written properly per you. Get a grip.
Can’t find quotes? Get glasses.
“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”
(can you see quotes Tommy?)
I am NOT responsible for your slowness (and do not include others as slowe, when you mean Tommy).
How about here for quotes?
“What is truth?” declared Pilate.
Perhaps you are correct in your view that some can’t follow scriptures for they do not know it, unless you guide them by the hand.
Duncan makes valid questions this day.
Perhaps my elective surgery could be rescheduled, but I think responses to any valid questions here, are more easily rescheduled.
My original comment stands.
God never answered Job’s question, but ordered him to stand and listen to what God had to say on the Divine Bet with satan.
Clearly, the Armor is misunderstood at best here, and misstated at worst.
I will return and answer to the best of my ability, when I can, if I can.
There seems to be a thrill about arguing the exact latitude and longitude of every phrase of the Bible here. Since folks determine that according to their own journey in life, experience, religious background, and laziness, so there is variance in what a specific passage states or means.
If it turns you on to duel that way, be my guest. My error was in presuming Bible phrases could be determined by this audience.
Add Psalm 91 and 2 Chronicles 20 to your reading. Both are spiritual warfare material.
This blog is not a court of law Tommy. I will present as I see fit. You may ignore as you see fit.
And I will ignore as you tell me how to comment.
I’m off to real life anew, but do wish to return to the clearly misunderstood Holy Spirit in this thread.
Does anyone understand anything keystone is saying? I mean, I get that he’s slinging insults left and right, mostly towards Tommy and Duncan, but other than that…I’m not getting it. Am I alone here?
admitting slowness –
keystone,
it will help all readers to put scripture references up. (for context sake at least).
also, your defensiveness/shrewd comments are barriers I’m having to overcome so that I can understand your POV. But I do want to understand.
Just for the record, I don’t buy it when Keystone says he agrees with the PN quips. Even if he actually does, I do need to take issue with this statement: “PN quips are always dead on, and should be expanded to stop him from blinding folks to Christ.”
We have never claimed that Noble blinds people to Christ, as if he had that power anyway. Through PN’s ministry, people are being brought to Christ, and we will never object to that.
Duncan,
I think I understand what you are saying in this blog. I like it. I immediately got the picture in my head of Satan and Jesus in the desert battling each other with God’s word. Satan using it to try and deceive and Jesus using it to defend himself against Satan’s lies.
It makes sense as a defensive weapon. It is an offensive weapon but in that context I can see it being used as a defensive weapon.
Keystone,
I hope your surgery goes well. Maybe you’ll come out of it with a new attitude. You’re rude, hostile, arrogant, and you have no basis to be so. All you’ve proven so far is that you’re busy and can type a lot of words and not say much. Write a long post, I don’t care. But fill it with an argument, not an assault.
All I requested was an argument, rather than an attack. And scripture citations to accompany your “myriad” quotations seems pretty basic. Two uses of quotation marks and no citations won’t cut it. This is not a court of law, but if you’re going to degrade someone’s interpretation of a passage or term which in fact used a myriad of citations provided, then have the courtesy to explain your view, rather than rant.
I’m confused too, Mr. Downing.
keystone,
I apologize. I guess I missed your one, maybe two (that’s a stretch) scripture examples amid all of your rants and personal attacks in your first post. I was scanning for actual references instead of wasting my time on the unimportant and irrelevant (no reference to the emergent church, I assure you).
I’ll try harder next time.
I just found this blog and find it very interesting to hear from former members of these pop evangelical churches. Keep up the good work.
James, you might be interested in this Issues Etc. segment about spiritual warfare with Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller. Pastor Wolfmueller reiterates some of the same points you have made.
http://www.issuesetc.org/podcast/273071509H1S2.mp3