We all love the armour of God. It’s such a great visual aid. Perfect for Sunday School sessions and all age services. Just Google a Roman soldier, find a worksheet to colour in, dress someone up. Perfect.
The armour of God is also a delight to commentators, whether scholarly or devotional. Each piece of armour invites pages of extrapolation on how the particularities of first century Roman armour help us to understand the spiritual point that Paul was driving at.
But what if the armour of God isn’t really about Roman soldiers?
- The armour of God is the Old Testament armour of God. As most commentators observe, the clearest allusion made by Ephesians 6 is to Isaiah 59:17 where the LORD God himself puts on his battle garments including righteousness as a breastplate and a helmet of salvation. The LORD has a sword (Isaiah 34:5-6; 66:16). Also in Isaiah the Coming Christ has faithfulness (truth) as a belt around his waist (Isaiah 11:5) and a mouth like a sharpened sword (Isaiah 49:2). Looking at the wider OT we find that the LORD is often found giving himself to his people as their shield (Gen. 15:1; 20x in the Psalms), even as their shield and sword together (Deut. 33:29).
- The armour of God is Christ the LORD. William Gurnall who wrote 1700 pages on the armour of God put the matter very succinctly when he commented: “By armour is meant Christ.” Paul’s whole letter to the Ephesians, as all his letters, has been dominated by Christ. Christ is the truth (John 14:6). Christ is our righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ is our peace (Eph. 2:14). Christ is our salvation (Luke 2:30). This is in continuity with the OT where we find that the LORD is our salvation and our righteousness (Ex. 15:2; Jer. 23:6) and it is perfectly consistent with Paul’s thought that we should put on Christ and clothe ourselves in him (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27).
- The words for the pieces of armour in Ephesians 6 are not technical terms for pieces of Roman armour. The word ‘belt’ is not actually there in verse 14. The phrase ‘girding round your loins’ has a Hebraic flavour and suggests getting ready for action. Breastplate (v14) and Helmet (v17) use common Greek words found 10 and 9 times respectively in the LXX (the Greek OT), including where they both appear together in the key passage Isaiah 59:17. Commentators are confident that the shoe Paul has in mind in verse 15 is the caliga, the Roman soldier’s battle boot, but Paul doesn’t actually mention boots. He says simply, ‘feet shod with readiness’ – the word readiness calling to mind the ministry of John the Baptist (Isaiah 40:3-4; Luke 1:17,76; 3:4-6). The shield might make us think of the famous rectangular red scutum of the Romans, used in their famous tortoise formation, but Paul uses a common word for shield found 19 times in the LXX (e.g. the shield of King Saul – 2 Sam. 1:21). The word for sword is one of two common Greek words for sword, both of which are used extremely frequently and often interchangeably in the NT and LXX. Sometimes a distinction is made between the short stabbing battle sword (machaira) of Eph. 6:17 and the long sword of justice but it is the machaira which appears in Rom. 13:4 as the sword of justice and in Isaiah 27:1 (LXX) as the sword of the LORD himself.
- Paul was probably not chained to a Roman soldier in battle armour. While it might be tempting to imagine Paul dictating his letter to the Ephesians while looking at the different pieces of Roman armour, Stott comments, “…it would be unlikely that such a bodyguard would wear the full uniform of an infantryman on the battlefield.” Certainly battle boots and a huge shield would have been strange for a prison guard. If Ephesians is written from Paul’s house arrest in Rome described at the end of Acts then it seems it was not a deep dark dungeon confinement. It may be that the chains are more a way of expressing his legal status and restriction of his freedom and liberty than literal iron chains (cf. 2 Tim. 2:9). There is a danger that we read the situation of Peter in Acts 12:6 into Paul’s references to his chains.
This is not to say that it is impossible that Paul was not thinking at least partly of the Roman soldier or that his first readers might not have thought of a Roman soldier. But it is to say that the most important background to Ephesians 6:10-20 is not the first century imperial legionary or centurion but the Old Testament and also Pauline and NT thought.
So what?
- Scripture Alone. Scripture interprets Scripture. You don’t need to be an expert in first century Roman warfare to understand Ephesians 6. Certainly the Bible was written by humans in particular cultures at particular times but again and again we find that all the background we need to know is in the Bible itself. We know what we need to know about Ephesus from Acts 19. We know what we need to know about the armour of God from the OT. Even the flaming arrows of the Deceiver are there (Prov. 26:18-19). The approach that leans heavily on external sources and historical reconstructions a) takes us into uncertain territory (Which expert do you believe? Which rank of Roman soldier are we talking about? Did they all have plumes in their helmets? What if another historical source turns up that changes our understanding of the context?); and b) takes authority away from the text and the reader and gives a dangerous amount of power to the ‘expert’ as he tells me what I could never have known on my own. This has even more important implications in other parts of the NT where the historical reconstructions of liberal scholars tell us, “I know that it looks like the Bible is saying this but if you really know the culture and politics in first century Ephesus then you would know that it actually means the opposite of what it looks like it means.” Scripture is our guide to Scripture.
- Grace Alone. The Roman Soldier analogy tends slightly towards seeing the pieces of armour as passive instruments with the soldier (me) as the active fighter. In contrast, if we see the armour of God as the OT armour of God – The LORD himself, Christ the Lord – then it is closer to the mark to see us as the passive ones and God as the active one. He is giving us his armour, he is giving us himself. He is surrounding us as a wall of fire and a fortress and shield. Yes there are imperatives to ‘Put on’ and ‘Take up’ and ‘Stand’ – we need to walk in the calling we have received (Eph. 4:1) but it is first and foremost something received, gift. So let us not turn Ephesians 6 in to a series of things for us to do. That is fig leaf armour. We need the armour of God. We need to put on Christ and glory in his sovereign grace. “According to Ephesians 6 believers need to be armed with God’s own righteousness if they are to be protected against the blows and arrows of their spiritual enemies… The position of power and authority with Christ to which they have been raised is greater ‘than that possessed by their mighty supernatural enemies’. As they appropriate this salvation more fully and live in the light of their status in Christ, they have every reason to be confident of the outcome of the battle.” (Peter O’Brien)
- The Church of God. The Roman soldier analogy tends towards making us think of an individual centurion or an army of individuals each putting on their own armour. But the letter of Ephesians has been about the church. In Ephesians 6, as throughout the letter, the address is second person plural (it comes out better in Kiswahili than in English). It’s not addressed to the Lone Ranger solo Christian. It’s not little me being called to stand firm and put on my armour and fight. It is the whole church being called to clothe themselves in the gospel armour. The song, O Church Arise gets it just right. The one new man (Eph. 2:15) – the Church – must put the armour on. The armour of God himself. So that, as the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the LORD will surround his people, both now and for evermore (Psalm 125:2).
Much of what has been written and taught from the illustration of the Roman soldier is spiritually true and edifying. But let’s say the right things from the right texts. And let’s rejoice in what Ephesians 6 is clearly saying about the divine armour that we the church have been given and let us put on Christ.
P.S. Just found this article by Mark Owens in the Tyndale Bulletin which gives a somewhat similar reading of Ephesians 6, drawing particularly on the Isaiah allusions – http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Bulletin/67=2016/Owens-18.pdf
Your blog is thought provoking and founded in good scriptural analysis, thank you for that. That said, in my humble opinion, you are missing the point of the analogy. Paul, like Jesus, uses specifically Greek and Roman analogies all the time for the primary audience of his letters. When Jesus said, “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” it would be disingenuous to say he is not referring to the Roman law demanding a local to carry a Roman soldier’s pack one mile. When Paul describes the Armor of God, there are a lot of good reasons to presume it refers to first century Roman legionnaires.
1. Roman armor was standardized. That would not have been true in old testament times, which would muddy the meaning of the analogy.
2. As with Jesus’ command, everyone this letter went to was familiar with Roman armor and its effectiveness, as they saw the Legionnaires on the highways all the time.
3. Ephesians 6:13 makes the point clear: “13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” That is an exact analogy for the Roman battle order.
a. Soldiers locked shields in formation to withstand the charge of the barbarian enemies. That is a perfect representation of the Christian life in the battle with evil. Too often modern Christian illustrators depict the Armor of God through a graphic of the Medieval Knight, because they have a cross painted on their shields. In addition to being Jew, Christian, and Muslim slaughtering tanks, Knights fought alone, usually on horseback, as warriors, not soldiers on foot who need each other to survive.
b. A Roman Legionnaire was charged with defending six square feet of ground and his shield covered the man on his left. As long as he stood his ground, they would be victorious.
I do believe the Lord is powerful and true and He has given us his powerful character to fight against evil. even Jesus needed the helmet of salvation to fight satan in the desert. therefore the old testament is the most reliable resource to comprehend the powerful divine awesomeness of God.
great piece and very thoughfulled. I think that often we seperate this final piece in ephesians from the rest of the book though. Ephesis at the time was a roman settled colony (retired military) The whole book is written to those with that mindset. I think (my opinion) that paul is being inspired by the Holy Spirit to help those see that the christian life is very much the same as that of those in the military – Unity, submission, authority, etc. He finishes off with “therefore” and then goes into the armor. Wether it is an illustration being used to help the resipients understand or a referenece to olt Testament there is a lot more in this book as a whole than just the small passage at the end.
Thanks for you word of caution regarding the overemphasis on the Roman soldier. It sees that the NT is flexible in its application of the OT armor; for e.g. 1 Thess. 5; Rom. 13 & Eph. 6 use the items of armor to represent different divine attributes. Plus Paul uses the image of ‘gospel shoes’ (Isaiah 11:4) differently in Rom. 10 from its use in Eph. 6. I recently gave a message on: “the Gospel Shoes (Eph. 6:15) are for Great Conflict, not the Great Commission” Here’s a link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MegLfvVvInk&t=1207s