Thanks for the opportunity, Dr. Longshore. I know the book will be a shock to particular interpretive models, but I think the work develops even more clearly several of the themes brought out in the interview and articulates on the greater covenantal and priestly context Paul used for his metaphor.
Thank you for this. I dont think this is convincing. Paul was writing to the Ephesians. They would have been. Ephesus was in a Roman province of Asia. They would have been more exposed to Roman soldiers than Jewish priest. Paul often uses Greek or Roman analogies to communicate Christian truth. I think the full armor of God is the same
Paul was chained to a roman soldier when he wrote this. He looked at the guards helmet, the breastplate, the belt, the boots...he made a great analogy. We can get caught up in details...but that bifurcates the followers of Christ. Let us listen to all ideas, but remain followers of Christ!!!
Eh, the feet explanation is weak. He didn't tie it to the priestly attire, but went around explaining how that ties to the priesthood. His defense was to use a weak tie to the disciples dusting off their feet and then soapbox a poetic notion regarding feet. It was weak compared to his attempt to tie it to the priesthood with the other parts of the armor. It causes me to question his premise if he can't tie all of the armor to a solid example of the priests.
His shield comparison was weak too. It's like...fuel? I know if you simply use faith as the analogy it works. But priests weren't given shields, or swords. Brito's thoughts are interesting, but i don't find them very compelling.
@@BossBattle21 agreed. I didn't catch that portion about the shield so thanks for highlighting it. Unfortunately this can be a pitfall for theological intellectuals wherein they desire to discover something new in scripture but don't connect it well to the whole of scripture.
Isn't the prayer to put on the armor God and the breastplate of righteousness and to fear no evil? Not quite sure I follow. Seems to over complicate basic theology.
Too much stretch, almost abusing the typology principke to come up with something new. Appreciate the effort but making the Armor of God some kind of antitype of the Old Testament priestly office is not necessary, especially the baptism part.
As all the comments previously made suggest…not good exegesis. Not careful Biblical theology and typology. This stuff is just as bad as dispensational theology. Paul used Roman armor and probably had priestly garments in mind from the OT and the reality of the armor of God passage in Isaiah. It would be a much more accurate and better use of your time to right a book on Biblical typology and theology of the preistly garments. Don’t impose that on a NT passage. There is a reason no one else has this interpretation…cause it’s wrong.
Thanks for the opportunity, Dr. Longshore. I know the book will be a shock to particular interpretive models, but I think the work develops even more clearly several of the themes brought out in the interview and articulates on the greater covenantal and priestly context Paul used for his metaphor.
Two of my favorites in the same room. 🎉
Would you have put on the armor of God to kill British Christian soldiers in 1776 ?
Thank you for this. I dont think this is convincing. Paul was writing to the Ephesians. They would have been. Ephesus was in a Roman province of Asia. They would have been more exposed to Roman soldiers than Jewish priest. Paul often uses Greek or Roman analogies to communicate Christian truth. I think the full armor of God is the same
love Uri Brito! Godly Pastor!
Glory to God
Paul was chained to a roman soldier when he wrote this. He looked at the guards helmet, the breastplate, the belt, the boots...he made a great analogy.
We can get caught up in details...but that bifurcates the followers of Christ.
Let us listen to all ideas, but remain followers of Christ!!!
Love it
Eh, the feet explanation is weak. He didn't tie it to the priestly attire, but went around explaining how that ties to the priesthood.
His defense was to use a weak tie to the disciples dusting off their feet and then soapbox a poetic notion regarding feet.
It was weak compared to his attempt to tie it to the priesthood with the other parts of the armor.
It causes me to question his premise if he can't tie all of the armor to a solid example of the priests.
His shield comparison was weak too. It's like...fuel?
I know if you simply use faith as the analogy it works. But priests weren't given shields, or swords. Brito's thoughts are interesting, but i don't find them very compelling.
@@BossBattle21 agreed. I didn't catch that portion about the shield so thanks for highlighting it.
Unfortunately this can be a pitfall for theological intellectuals wherein they desire to discover something new in scripture but don't connect it well to the whole of scripture.
Isn't the prayer to put on the armor God and the breastplate of righteousness and to fear no evil? Not quite sure I follow. Seems to over complicate basic theology.
Please bring in Clinton Arnold on Ephesisans 6
Adam didn’t know these things
Not do sure. Feels like a stretch to say it’s not armor..
my wifi keeps getting disconnected .....this is a hit job
Jesus was the Last Sacrifice. We are in the New Covenant now. Ephesians is not replaying the Garden if Eden.
What is the new covenant?
Yeshua was not a sacrifice, He laid His life down. big difference
Too much stretch, almost abusing the typology principke to come up with something new. Appreciate the effort but making the Armor of God some kind of antitype of the Old Testament priestly office is not necessary, especially the baptism part.
There is a tendency to try to reinterpret well defined passages in a 'new' way. This is literally sowing confusion.
As all the comments previously made suggest…not good exegesis. Not careful Biblical theology and typology. This stuff is just as bad as dispensational theology. Paul used Roman armor and probably had priestly garments in mind from the OT and the reality of the armor of God passage in Isaiah. It would be a much more accurate and better use of your time to right a book on Biblical typology and theology of the preistly garments. Don’t impose that on a NT passage. There is a reason no one else has this interpretation…cause it’s wrong.
This is off