Di5201a - Hermeneutics of Ephesians (Mark Elliott)
Illuminating this Present Darkness
Paul’s Armor of God in Ephesians Across Church History
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For our[a] struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness. 15 As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace. 16 With all of these,[b] take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Paul’s references to “the whole armor of God” in Ephesians have been interpreted at times to say very different things. For someone like myself, steeped in military culture and customs, it can be read to either condone or condemn violence and animate discussions loyal to one side or another in the theological debates related thereto. For this paper, I focus on Paul’s use of martial language to help illuminate theological issues with which I frequently engage. This paper represents my attempt at an exegetical commentary on the English New Revised Standard Version of Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, focusing in on “the whole armor of God” he discusses in verses 10 – 17. I will then examine the interpretation of the same pericope by exegetes from the patristic, scholastic, and Reformation periods of church history to see how my exegesis aligns with theirs. I will conclude by briefly comparing their commentaries with one another.
(English) Exegetical Overview
Immediately following his household codes, Paul’s ruminations on “the whole armor of God” seem to move from concrete applications of his theology to figurative spiritual ideas about Christian life. There is a sharp break between vv.9 and 10 from domestic themes to those of battle and spiritual warfare. If, as some scholars propose, Paul is writing this letter during his first imprisonment, the movement could make sense. Perhaps his stream of consciousness began by thinking about being imprisoned in his home and the Roman masters who enforced his house arrest. Then, after a break, he returned and looked upon the soldiers keeping guard, reflecting on their armor metaphorically. While explaining the shift is not especially critical, it does perhaps illuminate Paul’s context, however speculatively.
The pericope in question contains eight brief verses. Though it might make sense to group v.18 in together with it, it does not effect Paul’s use of military metaphor and therefore will not be included in this exegesis. Verse 10 sets up the whole set, establishing that Paul wants instruct his readers how to “be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power.” While some ancient manuscripts have Paul, in verse 12, using the third person plural (“your”) to describe whose task it will be to be strong, translators for the NRSV preserve the perhaps the less historically credible second person plural (“our”). If the former, it would strengthen arguments against Pauline authorship, since Acts records the evangelist as having spent many years in Ephesus. Failing to consider this struggle in common with the Ephesians casts doubt not only on Paul’s visit there and the veracity of the authors claim to be Paul, but also on the author’s self awareness as a participant in the ecumenical community in which he thinks he is a leader.
Two major sections are marked by Paul’s use of the centralizing imagery “the whole armor of God.” Ephesians, however, is not the only place Paul leans on martial allusions, calling the church in Rome to don “the armor of light” and telling Timothy twice in his first letter to “fight the good fight” (claiming in his second letter that he himself fought it as well). Beside military symbolism, he wants to impart the imagery of standing up throughout the passage, with English translations repeating derivations thereof at least four times, with only one in the first part (“stand against”) and three in the second, all preceding Paul’s military terminology (“withstand” and “stand firm” in v.13 and simply “stand” in v.14).
The first section, vv.11 & 12, describes the focus of Christian battle, which Paul emphasizes as spiritual and immaterial, “not against blood and flesh.” The “Enemies” against which Christians are to stand are fourfold and Paul lists them for clarity: rulers, authorities, cosmic powers, and spiritual forces. Each kind of adversary overlaps with the others, and the “powers of this present darkness” and “forces of evil in the heavenly places” may just be categorical descriptions to specify “rulers” and “authorities.” It is noteworthy that Paul already established a connection with Romans 13 in his ‘armor’ metaphor, and the common use of “authority” in v.12 is glaring. In Ephesians, it is clearly a negative connotation, but in Romans, it carries at best an ambiguous tone. That it is repeated three times in one verse may suggest an overall friendly disposition toward Roman power structures, and that its use in this instance is merely the rare exception that proves the rule.
The second section drills deeper than mere focus of battle to describe the instruments themselves by which the intangible battle is waged. Whereas in the first section Paul implores God’s armor to be “put on” as one would articles of clothing, here Paul instead tells the community to “take up” the chivalric costume. The varying exhortations of ‘standing’ are front loaded into the first few lines before Paul enumerates five defensive items to be taken up: belt, breastplate, shoes, shield, and helmet. Corresponding to these five items are five elements representative of the spirituality of their wearers: truth, righteousness, peace/gospel, faith, and salvation. The belt, breastplate, and helmet are mentioned casually, with the other items accompanied by Pauline explanation as to their specific purpose. The shield of faith defeats the evil one’s flaming arrows while the shoes are supposed to be made of anything that will help the wearer “proclaim the gospel of peace.” The shoes are the only defensive item whose spiritual reflection is uncertain, as “peace” might be modifying “gospel.” The final item is the only weapon included in the list, “the sword of the Spirit.” Paul’s clarification that this sword is actually “the word of God,” once again evokes the contrastive imagery from Paul’s letter to the church in Rome, whom he cautioned, “If you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for [the authority] does not bear the sword in vain!” Depending upon its dating, Paul might also have in mind (or inspire) John’s depiction of Christ destroying his enemies by the sword of his mouth in his Revelation.
Finally, the question of factual accuracy loses force when one insists that Paul is deliberately speaking metaphorically. Whether, for example, it matters that Paul leaves out or emphasizes certain items the Roman military used is irrelevant. The total lack of lower body protection, with the vulnerable femoral artery being of prime interest to a soldier’s safety, for example, is not a concern Paul has. At best, interpreters can conclude that Paul had a working understanding of basic military equipment and expected his readers to as well. It is as likely that he is borrowing as much from reality as he is from Isaiah “He put on righteousness like a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head.” If the latter, greater scrutiny is certainly in order, since in the prophet’s passage, the wearer is God, whose attire is decidedly militant, responding to rebellion and untruth by donning “garments of vengeance,” who “wrapped himself in fury.” Two of the five Pauline items parallel the Isaiah usage precisely, coupling the vest with righteousness and the helmet with salvation. Though Paul’s use is to spiritualize battle against the devil, Isaiah sees God on the warpath against his people Israel, whose “transgressions before [God] are many, and [their] sins testify against [themselves].” These disparate implications are not mutually exclusive, however. Paul wants to instill in his reader the urgency of their faith, to remind them what it means to stand with and in Christ to wage war on the spiritual forces dominating the world, not at all unlike Isaiah’s description of God’s forceful stand against injustice and transgression. If Paul did borrow the imagery, it was to great effect and contributed positively to his argument.
With this exegetical overview in mind, let us now turn to the passage as it has been interpreted by earlier exegetes to see how and to what extent they challenge or enrich our understanding of the text.
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
The patristic homilist takes no issue with comparing Paul’s use of military jargon to the real thing, perhaps because his own father served in the Roman army, going to lengths to show its relevance. The Pauline emphasis on standing captivates Chrysostom’s attention and he begins by laying out the foundation for the rest of the passage, saying “if this is the case with soldiers, much more is it with spiritual soldiers.” He relates the importance of standing in battle and elsewhere by drawing an analogy to boxers and wrestlers, since with the games, “much more will it be the first thing in warfare, and military matters.” Paul’s repetitiveness is meant to convey not just action, but propriety, John is sure to articulate that Paul wants not “merely any way of standing, but a correct way,” the right way if one is to stand the tests and temptations of the enemy one faces.
As for the items Paul lists, Chrysostom does not give them as much attention as he does to standing. He does emphasize the apostle’s overt allegorizing, pointing Christians away from war as the world wages it and toward the kind of battle spiritual forces call for. In fact, by waging war rightly, we enjoy the added benefit of bringing to an end another war “that, namely, which is between us and God; if we are at war with the devil, we are at peace with God.” The spiritual aspects of the items are given some attention, especially Spirit (the sword) and faith (the shield). Chrysostom draws in Genesis language by speaking of the sword severing things, “including the serpent’s head.” He interprets faith as “that gift by which miracles are wrought,” saying that all things yield to faith in the same way all arrows yield to the shield. This seems a rather thin meaning of faith, as being not necessarily theological, but epistemological, as a trust that things will come about. For the immense attention and nuance other patristic writers give to faith, this seems noteworthy.
His 23rd homily, on verse 14 alone, is twice as long as the following homily based on four times as many verses. This might be explained by the fact that John was known to have lived in a cave for nearly two years, sleeping minimally and standing for a vast majority of the day. The extreme asceticism damaged his liver and kidneys, leaving him impaired for the remainder of his life. It may be that he wrote his Homily 23 during this time in the cave, though it is widely thought that he interacted with others very little during this time. Another alternative is that he retained this odd fascination with standing throughout his ministry and drew upon the experience for his preaching, emphasizing the spiritual and physical benefits of standing on the occasion of his discovery of Paul’s shared interest in it within this pericope. Overall, his commentary does not seem critically at odds with more modern interpretations, and his paralleling Paul’s spiritual descriptions with reflections on the rigors of military service are refreshing.
THOMAS AQUINAS
Writing in the 12th century, Thomas Aquinas’ commentaries on scripture survived as lecture notes transcribed by his students. His formal position as “Teacher of the Sacred Pages” was the equivalent of a Biblical scholar, not in the role of a theologian for which he is so admired today. His lecture on Ephesians 6.10-17 was broken up into two lectures, the first focusing on vv.10-12 and the second on vv.13-17, confirming the pericope’s two parts as outlined above. The first part Thomas sees as Paul laying out his advice (“be strengthened”), and the second part being his detailed explanation. Always the scholastic, he posits objections to his interpretation, a particularly interesting one being, “if God is powerful and wills [to protect us], we ought to be unconcerned.” In other words, why must we take up spiritual arms, if God has our back? His reply displays his prowess; “if an unarmed man went into battle, no matter how much the king protected him he would still be in danger.”
Strengthening Paul’s argument, Thomas advocates a strong metaphorical reading, of battles against immaterial forces as opposed to conventional warfare. He gives cursory attention to Paul’s repeated imperative about standing, but nothing especially noteworthy. Thomas leverages the second part’s instrument language to claim that it points logically to the agent wielding the instrument. Therefore, even if we are attacked in body, the real fight is against “a higher moving force” that possesses and controls any humanly attacker, “namely, from the devil.” Though Paul’s argument does not go as far, Thomas convincingly presses the point that powers can coerce otherwise virtuous men, which is the reason our fight is “not against the enemies of blood and flesh.” Citing a gloss’ very illuminating metaphor, he writes, “Evil men are horses, and the demons the riders; hence, if we kill the riders, the horses will be ours.”
Moving from commentary on diabolic possession and the impotency of evil men, Thomas’ commentary on the second section likens the martial items to moral virtues. He notices the distinct utility different armaments possess, naming three functions thereof: covering, protection, and attack. The first he elaborates only briefly, regarding the belt as a symbol of chastity, first and foremost to “check carnal desires,” evoking both the loins covered by the belt as well as Paul’s exhortation in vv.10-12 against fleshly fighting. Following the order Paul establishes, Thomas gives only a passing overview of the breastplate of righteousness and the shoes of the gospel of peace. Given his exegetical responsibilities, the brevity of his interpretation of Paul’s mention of Gospel seems odd. Furthermore, the breastplate almost certainly had more protective value than mere covering, though perhaps he is more interested in preserving the progression he clearly sees in Paul (of cover > protect > attack), and it would be a hard case to make that shoes were protective of vital organs, following as they for in Paul’s list after the breastplate.
The protective articles follow, corresponding to “Two areas which contain the mainsprings of our life;” the chest and the head. He picks up on the theological virtue of faith to expand upon the shield (of faith) as a central and crucial element of the whole armor of God, “since, as a shield protects the entire chest, so faith must be in our heart.” However, he stretches the “helmet of salvation” to fit another theological virtue (hope), but he makes it work, describing hope as “the head of the moral virtues.” Finally, the third function, of attack, is represented by the sword, which Thomas compares to preaching, “penetrating,” as it does, “into the hearts of sinners, [thrusting] out the chaos of sins and demons.”
JEAN CALVIN
The first thing we notice about Calvin is that he does not notice and emphasize the imperative to stand, at least not until his commentary on v.13, skimming over the appearances in vv.12 and 14. Furthermore, his two sections are spliced slightly differently, the first ending after v.13 and the second picking up at v.14 and continuing on to v.20. This may just be the translation I have, but his argumentation seems to support the idea that Calvin sees the second miniature pericope as inclusive of vv.18-20.
Instead of a typology of weaponry that Thomas supplies, Calvin writes of the armor of God being essentially non-offensive, at least in his interpretation of vv.10-13. However, his phrase “defensive weapons” does seem inherently paradoxical. Rather than focusing on their various specific uses, Calvin’s main thrust seems to be that they not be left idle to be sure “to apply them to use, and not leave them hanging on the wall.” Furthermore, while he acknowledges “Paul borrows a comparison from the military art,” he walks his readers a step further away from battle and leverages “gymnastic” imagery. A synonym for wrestling, “the most artful and subtle of all the ancient games,” it provides a helpful model for the subtlety and variety of ways the devil trips up his enemies. Using a non-military paradigm gets him away from the dramatics Paul employs, though not without effect. In fact, he wants his readers to remember that there is something more difficult and complex in spiritual battle than its material counterpart, and discussing it in terms of Olympic games gives it more shades of color. Hand to hand combat is straightforward, but in spiritual matters, “our difficulties are far greater than if we had to fight with men.”
In the second section, Calvin both continues and parlays his side stepping the military specifics in Paul’s list of armaments. On the one hand, he focuses almost exclusively on the spiritual attributes Paul couples them with, but on the other, he delves into military history to inform his readers that “a girdle was, in ancient times, one of the most important parts of military armor,” that boots were called “greaves” and “were even used for domestic purposes,” and that the sword and shield were “the most necessary instruments of warfare.” Despite this, he insists against “[inquiring] very minutely into the meaning… for an allusion to military customs is all that was intended.” Most of his commentary on this second part, which carries the list of six items, focuses on the spiritual aspects Paul assigns to each, though not with much effect. The irony of avoiding martial specifics is driven home by his claim that “There is no man of any rank who is not bound to be a soldier of Christ.” If so, then why does he go beyond mere military history and elaborate slightly on the intersections of meaning between physical combat and wars in the heavens?
With Thomas, he shifts the helmet’s salvific elements to that of “hope,” because “it is… by becoming the object of hope that salvation is a helmet.” Also like Thomas, Calvin plays devils advocate, putting a question in his opponent’s mouth, using scholastic method to drive home Paul’s illustrative imagery of fiery darts of the devil being quenched by the shield of faith, the physical example of which has no association with water. He applauds the language the apostle employs as “far more expressive,” for “The darts of Satan are not only sharp and penetrating, but — what makes them more destructive — they are fiery.”
Conclusion(s)
Reflecting back on these various reflections, a few differences and similarities stick out. Right out of the gate, one notices that ancient commentators, despite their historical speculation, never question Paul’s authorship, as most modern interpretations do almost obligatorily. The historical critical method is so ingrained now in contemporary scholarly consciousness that it is almost required for a commentary to be credible. Although Calvin is the only one who seems to have a particular interest (given his chronological distance), or at least a modicum of expertise, in Roman military history, he does not elaborate at length as to why Paul choses specifically “the military art” to make his point after drawing on domestic themes a few verses prior.
Furthermore, none of the interpreters this paper explored noticed the verbatim connection with Isaiah 59, though it seems so precise as to necessitate some mention of its similarity. My parallel with Romans might be explained away by modern political considerations arising from the creation of states and the language of sovereignty and authority. Modern interpreters may come to the text with questions concerning the nature and source of authority that our exegetical predecessors do not share. This nonetheless does not answer very important questions about Paul’s use of prophetic literature or if he displays a consistent ethic of authority and how he uses it across his various epistles.
Elsewhere exegetes display instincts that more recent scholarship does not share, like distinctions in angelic orders. Aquinas gives some rather specific attention to the ranks of angels, noticing that angels fell from every celestial rank and asks rhetorically why Paul names only two ranks. He assumes Paul is referring to angels by “principalities and powers” and what is mentioned in his own translation as “rulers.” Most modern interpretations assume that what Paul refers to by ‘rulers’ are human kings. Further, both Aquinas and Calvin are loose with Paul’s use of “salvation,” by suggesting “hope” is synonymous, though debates about the importance and distinctiveness of salvation, and the extent to which it can be mixed in with sanctification, theosis, justification, etc. make such a modern parallel problematic (or at least ecumenically insensitive).
In the end, these three interpreters do not seem outdated or irrelevant. Much value may still be drawn from their exegesis and reflections, though their context is wildly different from our own and from each other’s. Though the particularities vary between the eras they defined and were defined by, insofar as they center themselves on scripture as we ourselves do today, we share in the mystery of this timeless faith we all share. Whatever cosmic powers might differentiate our unique eras, “this present darkness” is illuminated by our common light, which is Christ and his body.
