“Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit….”

– Ephesians 6:14-18

As he closes his letter to the Ephesian church, Paul warns his readers—and believers in all ages—that they participate in a fierce battle. The situation is grim: our enemies are “the rulers … the powers … the world forces of this darkness … the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (6:12); indeed, the devil himself (6:11). We are hopelessly and hilariously outclassed in this battle if we must rely on our own strength and wisdom.

However, as Paul encourages us, God hasn’t left us defenseless. Through a memorable series of metaphors, Paul instructs us how to successfully stand against the powers of darkness arrayed against us, by equipping ourselves with the full armor of God. Each piece of the armor represents a powerful, spiritual reality that is available to believers in their ongoing battle. Leaving aside the final piece of armor for now (the subject of this article), our armor consists of truth (belt), righteousness (breastplate), readiness of the gospel of peace (footwear), faith (shield), and salvation (helmet).

The final metaphor reads, “Take … the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” This is most commonly understood as an exhortation to heed and to apply the revealed testimony of God. In its original context, this would mean the Old Testament, the teaching of the apostles, and the gospel message itself. Modern application would point believers to the completed canon of Scripture in the Bible.

Throughout this article, I will employ a series of unambiguous (albeit cumbersome) translations of the passages in question. Such a translation of the common understanding of this passage might read something like, “Take the Spirit’s sword; that sword represents the word of God (that is, Scripture).” The spiritual reality to which the sword points, the reality that believers are to take up, is identified as the word of God, i.e. Scripture.

This article argues that the reality to which the metaphor of the sword points is, in fact, the Spirit himself, the third member of the Trinity, and that the Spirit—in harmony with Christ as the second member of Trinity—is here identified as “the Word of God.”

Argument 1: The Structure of the Metaphors

It must be acknowledged from the outset that the grammatical structure of the metaphors is not as consistent as one might be led to believe from some of our English translations. When verse 14 speaks of “the belt of truth” (NIV, ESV, and others), the actual language is more along the lines of “having belted / girded yourself with truth.” That is, the basis of the metaphor is implied by the verb. Similarly, when verse 15 talks about “shoes for your feet” (in the ESV, for example), the vehicle of the metaphor (shoes? boots?) is not explicitly mentioned, but also implied by the verb. The NASB captures this well, “having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace.”

Nevertheless, the remaining four metaphors do have very similar structure. For each metaphor in the series, there is:

a piece of armor that serves as the vehicle for the metaphor (accusative noun),
an action by which that piece of the armor is equipped (aorist verb), and
the reality to which the metaphor points (genitive noun), i.e. the concept/truth that we are to “put on” that we may stand against the devil’s schemes.

The grammatical structure of the four of the metaphors is shown below:

Verb (aorist)	Noun (accusative)	Noun (genitive)
put on ἐνδυσάμενοι	the breastplate τὸν θώρακα	righteousness τῆς δικαιοσύνης
taking up ἀναλαβόντες	the shield τὸν θυρεὸν	faith τῆς πίστεως
take δέξασθε	the helmet τὴν περικεφαλαίαν	salvation τοῦ σωτηρίου
take δέξασθε	the sword τὴν μάχαιραν	the Spirit τοῦ πνεύματος

In the case of the breastplate, shield, and helmet, the genitive noun is understood as a genitive of apposition. That is, the substantive in the genitive case identifies that to which the metaphorical noun refers. The breastplate represents righteousness, the shield represents faith, and the helmet represents salvation. As Christians, we are to “put on / take up” the objects of each metaphor: righteousness, faith, and salvation. To be unambiguous, we could translate these verses something along the lines of “Put on the breastplate; that is, put on righteousness.” Specifically, the genitive nouns are understood not to be possessive. It is not “righteousness’s breastplate”, i.e. “the breastplate which belongs to righteousness”, nor “faith’s shield” (the shield that belongs to faith), nor “salvation’s helmet” (the helmet that belongs to salvation).

Nonetheless, in the final metaphor, where Paul commands us to “take … the sword of the Spirit,” despite the similar grammatical structure to the previous metaphors, the usual interpretation requires one to switch the understanding to a possessive genitive. Paul, it is argued, is talking about “the Spirit‘s sword” (the sword that belongs to / is wielded by the Spirit).

If we understand this metaphor in the same way as the others, however, a different interpretation emerges. The reality to which the metaphor of the sword points is the Holy Spirit himself. In our fight against the schemes of the devil, we are to equip ourselves with God the Spirit himself.

Argument 2: The Antecedent of “Which is the Word of God”

The interpretation above would be rather uncontroversial were it not for the rest of the verse in question. Paul finishes the thought, “Take … the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” It is this extra clause (“which is the word of God”) which makes it so natural to attach the pronoun “which” to “sword” as its antecedent. Continuing our awkward but unambiguous translations, one might say, “Take up the Spirit’s sword. This sword is the word of God.” Indeed, a similar clarifying clause is used in verse 16:

“… taking up the shield (θυρεὸν, masculine) of faith (πίστεως, feminine) with which (ᾧ, masculine) you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.”

Notice in the verse above that the gender of the pronoun “which” agrees with the gender of the metaphorical piece of armor “shield.” In contrast, the gender of the pronoun “which” in verse 17 agrees with “Spirit”, not “sword”:

“… the sword (μάχαιραν, feminine) of the Spirit (πνεύματος, neuter), which (ὅ, neuter) is the word of God.”

It is acknowledged, of course, that many New Testament exceptions could be identified that break the rule that a pronoun in Greek should agree with its antecedent in gender and number—some in the letter to the Ephesians itself! But exceptions, by definition, should be exceptional, forced by greater interpretive considerations. I am not persuaded that there is compelling evidence in this passage to reject the most agreeable antecedent. In this natural interpretation, then, “the word of God” is further explaining who the Spirit is, not referring back to the metaphorical sword. Simply changing “which” to “who” effectively captures the difference in English:

“And take … the sword of the Spirit, who is the word of God.”

The unity of our Triune God is thus reinforced. Just as Jesus is identified as the Word (λόγος) of God in John 1:1, so also here is the Spirit identified as the Word (ῥῆμα) of God. It is probably best not to read too much into the different words used for “word,” λόγος and ῥῆμα. They are often used interchangeably. (See, for example, 1 Peter 1:23–25, where both terms are used but clearly refer to the same subject.) Similar to the way that Jesus as λόγος reveals the Father, so also the Holy Spirit reveals the mind of the Father to those who are indwelt by him. The Scriptures often testify to the effectual teaching and God’s-mind-revealing ministry of the Holy Spirit:

“As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.” (1 John 2:27)

“For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” (1 Corinthians 2:11-13)

Indeed, this is one of the defining aspects of the New Covenant, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all believers after the death and resurrection of Jesus. According to the testimony of Jesus, it is better (!) for us that he leave, so that we can enjoy this communion with the Holy Spirit:

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” (John 14:26)

“But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.” (John 16:7)

It should not be surprising then, to see both God the Son and God the Spirit described in similar terms when it comes to their ministry of revealing God the Father.

Argument 3: The Flow of the Passage

Finally, notice how understanding the sword as the Spirit provides a clean flow with what follows in the passage. If the sword refers to the revealed testimony of God (Scripture), then verse 18 largely introduces a new concept (prayer), with the Spirit serving as a loose bridge between the separate thoughts. To be fair, this train of thought is not infrequent in the writings of Paul, where a word or phrase that concludes one idea seems to remind Paul of something else he wanted to say.

However, if the sword refers to the Spirit, then verse 18 can be understood as a continuation of the same thought, giving Paul an opportunity to expound on one way that it looks like to equip oneself with the Spirit; specifically, by praying in the Spirit. We might translate the entire thought into something like, “Take the sword of the Spirit, who is the word of God—pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.” Which then leads Paul to continue by mentioning specific requests for prayer related to his ministry.

Both/And, not Either/Or

The arguments above should not be misunderstood as denying the conclusions from the usual interpretation. Elsewhere believers are certainly commanded to diligently study and apply the Scriptures, and encouraged that this is part of what God uses to equip us for an effective walk of faith. One prominent example is 2 Timothy 3:16–17:

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

Indeed, the testimony of God is connected with a different sword metaphor in Hebrews 4:12:

“For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

The calling to be rigorous in our study and application of Scripture is throughout the New Testament. I am just not persuaded that is the point of Ephesians 6:17.

It might be objected that if in the final piece of the armor metaphor, Paul is referring to Spirit and not Scripture, this would leave a glaring omission in the passage. Are we not then going merely half-dressed into battle?

There are two answers to this objection. The first, quite obviously, is that of course both Scripture and the Spirit are indispensable to a victorious Christian battle. The same objection could be raised in regards to the usual interpretation: “Why is there only an oblique reference to God the Spirit?” But this objection (in both cases) assumes that Paul’s list in Ephesians 6 is intended to be exhaustive. But this is certainly not the case. Where, for example, is love? Or hope? Or communion with other believers? Many more examples could be provided, but the point is that Ephesians 6 represents one exhortation to be strong in the Lord, particularly applicable to the Ephesian church, but we would be wise to consider the full counsel of God to get a more complete inventory of the resources available to us in our struggle.

The second response to the objection—and a different way of answering the “sub-objection” in the previous paragraph—is that the metaphors in the armor of God could be read as encapsulating the testimony of God, just in different terms. Specifically, the gospel is mentioned explicitly in verse 15, and verse 14 refers to “truth.” Truth is often used in parallel with the word of God; for example, in Jesus’ well-known words to the Jews: “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (John 8:31–32)

In short, this is not an either/or choice of truths. We must not take for granted our unbelievable access to the word of God. For English speakers, this access is almost ridiculous: in print, on our devices, audio recordings, all in our choice of dozens of excellent translations. As we meditate on these words, we are empowered to be effective in our struggle against the powers that are at war against us.

Scripture also reinforces the truth that the Holy Spirit is indispensable to New Covenant believers in their fight against the evil one, and that He gloriously reveals the will and character of the Father to those in whom He dwells. When we don’t even know how to pray, he intercedes on our behalf, so that our prayers can be effectual for accomplishing the purposes of God.

The conclusions from both the traditional interpretation and the argument above can be supported elsewhere in Scripture, and both should be embraced. Nonetheless, the passage in question does have a single meaning. The arguments presented above explain what inclines me to depart from the traditional understanding in this instance.