The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Armor of God

I have been thinking on the armour of God Eph. 6:14-17, and in preparing a lesson plan, I have come to the conclusion that the armor is speaking of our putting on Christ. I looked at various commentaries, but none approach it from this angle. It just seems that logically this is what it is speaking of since prior to this in Eph. 6:10 it speaks of standing strong in the Lord. Working through the armor with this idea makes much more sense than the various commentaries I looked at. The Hendrickson commentary even made it into soemthing we do, being truthful etc, which to me is the same as making our own armor. Does anyone have any additional thoughts on this?

1. On what biblical warrant can you point to that justifies your conclusion?

2. There is only one passage in all of Scripture which even mentions "put on Christ"; Gal 3:27. And this text is referring to one's identification with Christ via baptism.

1. The fact that no other commentator, especially Hendriksen, has considered your conclusion should cause you to reconsider, don't you think?

2. As is typical of the Pauline Epistles, the first section is generally doctrinal, i.e., establishing the propositional truth of God. The latter section generally deals with the application of those doctrinal truths. Thus in Ephesians, the great truth of God's sovereignty in salvation and man's necessity of it is estabished first. Then in the latter part of the epistle, the application, i.e., sanctification of the believer is the focus, aka: synergistic growing in the grace received.

3. Sanctification, being synergistic requires believers to strive after holiness through various means. In this particular passage those means are defensive in nature due to a spiritual war being waged against them and are enumerated as the "Armor of God". In short, the believer is to exercise those means; the holding fast of the truth received, using it as a sword, relying on God for the strength to fight the battle through constant prayer, etc. These are things which the believer must DO to be able to fight the ferocious battle that is being waged against him by the world, the flesh and the Devil (v. 12).

William Gurnall's [i]The Christian in Complete Armor[/i] is most instructive.

In His grace,

My position is as I stated, it speaks of being in Christ in Eph. 6:10. John 14:6 Christ is called the truth. Christ is the Word, which again is the truth, so I don't see that as stretching anything with our putting on truth. As for the breastplate of righteousness, Christ is our righteousness, we are clothed in His righteousness. Eph. 2:14, again He is called our peace and calling Him our salvation is by no means any stretch. Christ is all in all, and He alone is the only one mighty enough to stand against the devil and the evil forces. Our lives are hidden with Christ Col. 3:3, Christ prayed for our union with Him Jn. 17:21, Jn. 15:4 speaks of us abiding in Him, Or 1 Jo. 5:20 also speaks of being in Him, you already mentioned Gal. 3:27 etc. There are many scriptures which defend this positionally. Being in Christ is the only place of safety in this world. When are we defeated? it is when we step out of Christ that we become vunerable (no armour). I see no problem approaching it this way, there is a bigger problem using Hendrickson's method, making it subjective, synergistic as you say.
1) My sincerity is rubbish, my heart is desperately wicked, if I'm going to stand at all, it must be in Christ, not in any imagined ability of my own.
2) My righteousness is as filthy rags, I rest in the righteousness of Christ, His righteousness working through me, He is the vine we are the branches.

It just seems to me to be more about putting on Christ than anything else I read, I guess we'll have to disagree as usual. Gurnall is too wordy and he uses too much allegory, I didn't find it very much help having referred to it earlier.

Hermeneutically your position is far more than a "stretch". It violates the fundamental and biblical principle for interpreting Scripture. Secondly, it ignores basic grammar in that Paul's enumeration of what a believer is to DO is ignored or at best illogical. For example, if we take your view that the armor is actually Christ, then by substituting "Christ" for every place where the individual pieces of armor are mentioned it would be sheer nonsense. Nowhere in Scripture can one find such redundancy.

Again, sanctification and the battle against the world, the flesh and the Devil (which is Paul's main focus here) is synergistic; man has a part in putting off the old man and putting on the new.

Why I don't know, but I am continually perplexed by your "SOLO Scriptura" approach to understanding the Bible. You are so quick to dismiss the writings of men who have proven themselves to be theologically solid and who God has given biblical wisdom. To flippantly toss Hendriksen into the trash bin is incredible! So, yes once again we are going to have to disagree as will 99%+ of those here as well as the writings of the Reformers and Puritans.

Why is it you think your conclusions are to be more valid than the historical testimony of thousands of others? What comes to mind is your standing in front of a long line of such men as Calvin, Knox, Owen, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, Spurgeon, Sproul, Hendriksen, et al and as each man moves forward to present you with their conclusion, you simply dismiss them with, "Sorry, but you're wrong... Next!" Oh vey!

I can't help myself!! What is funny, is that the 7th Day Adventists drive me nuts with some of their conclusions, I'm hope I'm not doing the same to you. I just seem to end up on the opposite side of the tracks when I read things!! Anyway, this is just a discussion, nothing more, and I am constantly working through things. It isn't meant to be an attack on the testimonies of the past, I'm only giving a different viewpoint. What good would the discussion be if I agreed with everything here? that is why my discussion posts are always at odds all the time.

Steve,

I copied this out of "The Christian Warrior" by Isaac Ambrose.


William,

It's not about putting on Christ it's about being in Christ.

From THE POOR MAN’S NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY Robert Hawker


Guess I miss the mark with my post's also.


William

You mean somebody closely agrees with what I said? That is unusual to say the least, but encouraging. I believe putting on Christ or being in Christ basically are the same things, they both have the same end. For me, putting on Christ is trusting Him for our provision and protection. Not that we don't do anything, I'm not saying sit back and let God. Our responsibility is to take off the old man so we can put Christ on, in other words, a continual dying to self. Rom. 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts. How do we die to self? I believe staying in the truth/Word, trusting in Christ's righteousness and hating sin the way God hates it.

I wasn't exactly agreeing, the quote in my first post said: Without Christ, every part of the armor would be broken in pieces with one stroke of our adversary; the armor speaks for itself in the passage. But thanks for trying to bring glory to our Lord anyway. Have a good day.

William,

Oh, when you said it was about being in Christ, I thought that meant basically the same, I go back to being alone in my thoughts. It felt good for a little thinking that at least someone was of the same mind, but alas, it is not so. I will just continue to "try" to bring glory to our Lord, because He is our all in all. Thanks for cheering me yesterday even if it was based on my own misunderdstanding.

Okay, after spending three weeks in this, I must confess, putting on Christ wasn't the best description for putting on the armor of God, it started out as a good thought with well meaning intentions, but then fell apart in the end. As I mentioned earlier, I was still working through my thoughts. I do disagree with some reformed commentators about it meaning we are to be truthful (belt of truth) etc, I think these are things provided by God for us to stand strong and in unity. It is never in our own strength and our own works, but Christ working through us.

I was speaking how we all make our own belts of truth, like those old native American belts we wore as kids (50 or so years ago), that had the beaded designs, each person or denomination creates their own belt and then wants everyone else to wear the same belt instead of wearing the belt that was given us. The only correct design (true doctrine) of the belt.

The other pieces of armor have there respective purposes, protecting plus giving confidence and strength. We aquire these things when we put on Christ, but these pieces of armor are more speaking of what we receive through Christ than being descriptieve of Christ. I stand corrected.