JW Insider

I often chalk up your statements as hyperbole-laden rants. But this I must agree with whole-heartedly. One can make an argument that our process is actually Biblical, but then Jesus said it was OK to throw out some of those legalistic principles in favor of love and mercy.

@TrueTomHarley, That was 1974. And you'll notice that one of the reasons was the reproach it would bring on the organization when a worldly person would be the only one to see that the woman would be treated kindly and humanely. Because the person would be parked close to the Kingdom Hall, the worldly person would instantly make the association that these people do not have love among themselves, a mark of true disciples. What if the worldly person had influence in the community? But there were cycles oscillating back and forth between strictly shunning family members and relaxing the rules a bit in favor of mercy, then going right back to tightening up the rules again when considered too loose. The time of the "Inquisition" as it was called at Bethel in late 1979 and early 1980 up through the resignation and later DFing of R.Franz, was a time of very strict 'straining of gnats.' Congregations on their own would probably tend toward the 1974 article, but Percy's DFing came from Bethel elders.

*** w74 8/1 p. 467 par. 6 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones *** But consider a less extreme situation. What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this have developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint.

I haven't seen this so much. And, of course, it also implies that the elders are easily fooled by claims of repentance. You go on to say that the ruse doesn't really work and they get shunned again although reinstated. I have seen a few situations which, if representative of anything, would imply quite the opposite of what you seem to claim here. Draconian shunning is usually reserved for 'apostasy' and is rationalized as especially excusable, even demanded, when it has the organizational backing of the "DF" label. Often, necessary family business really is completely forsaken, including weddings, funerals, medical care, and family businesses brought to failure due to abandonment by the Witness partner who did not wish to be unevenly yoked with unbelievers. But I also know of cases where the Witness considers all debts to the DF'd to now be cancelled, and more recently a request for "permission" to suspend the shunning just long enough to fight an estate will that might bring advantage to the Witness. But here is where anecdotal experiences I have heard, more clearly diverge from your example: There are cases, you have probably seen them, where two siblings or a married couple have have shown themselves to be apostates, by claiming that the JWs are a cult, that the FDS/GB is a made-up construct, that we don't follow the Bible, etc., etc. But for some reason, only one of the two was disfellowshipped. There is absolutely no known difference between the beliefs of two siblings, or the two married persons. The Witness relatives will use the DF label as the reason to shun one of them, as expected. But the lack of the DF label is the excuse to continue associating with the other, as if nothing had happened. Many, perhaps even most Witnesses are reasonable and don't shun in a draconian way, and some don't even shun at all, and things seem to go on normally. But it is true that if they are caught not shunning, they could end up being counseled by the elders themselves, which in rare cases could lead to disfellowshipping if their reasons for continuation of not shunning do not align with the reasons expected. The person could say to the elders that there are special circumstances, such as mental illness or physical handicap, and they must continue to associate so that a stable mental or emotional state of the exJW is maintained. All elders I know would give a "dispensation," and say, that's fine, just don't advertise it, or make a big deal about the exception. But if the person being counseled for the very same reasons in the very same circumstances will say that they believe the FDS/GB must be wrong on this point because the Bible demands mercy in such cases, this will lead to a discussion of why they don't fully accept the FDS, the organization, Jehovah's arrangement, and depending on the elders, could easily lead to the Witness holding their ground according to their conscience, and being disfellowshipped themselves. I don't say these things lightly. I was personally involved in a case where I risked making that exception and my wife and I took care of a 90-some year old long-time Witness named Percy Harding. I'll give his name because it's been discussed elsewhere. He attended the same Kingdom Hall as my brother attended in Brooklyn, while I lived in the adjacent borough of Queens. The old brother, a colporteur under Russell and Rutherford's time in the WTS, had grown a bit cantankerous in his old age and thought the FDS was overstepping its bounds in some of the claims that tended to draw an equivalence between the rules of the organization and "the Lord." But he loved the brothers and didn't want to be disfellowshipped. My brother's best friend, and best man at his wedding, was married to a nurse. They were both Witnesses, of course, and when Percy was disfellowshipped, the nurse was threatened with disfellowshipping herself if she continued to care for the old man. (He was nearly bedridden, and Witnesses were dropping off his groceries for him, and two Witness sisters, one of whom was a nurse, were visiting him about 4 times a week.) The husband balked at this threat, and he was threatened with disfellowshipping, too. My brother had the idea that my wife could take over as one of the sisters because she worked in Brooklyn at 144 Livingston, not far from Percy's house on President St, just off 4th Ave, a few blocks away. Also, I often drove through Brooklyn for my job in NYC (Manhattan). I also had a few friends at Bethel who would give me a pass, a dispensation, if I explained my reasons in a careful way. We ended up taking care of him for a couple of years, and enjoying our visits with him. Unfairly, my wife would cook and clean, and I would help him manage some of his physical therapy and toilet, and listen to stories about Russell and Rutherford. These were usually positive, upbuilding stories, but he pulled no punches when he disagreed with something. (He said that the WTS went through a time under Rutherford when equating the WTS with 'the Lord' was even more blatant and explicit.) He finally died with NO OTHER WITNESSES daring to visit him. But I did see several exJWs who had learned of his case and who helped ease the burden by helping to take care of him.

I thought we were talking about the same thing. And I'm not saying that what some in the congregation do isn't "evil" in some sense. The policy itself can be implemented in a terrible way, especially in cases where the peer pressure coming from convention talks, CO visit counsel, and WTS videos makes it nearly impossible for the Witness to do the scripturally right thing in their own circumstance. (And I'm not saying that all shunning is necessarily bad, either. I'm pretty sure I would shun a close relative perpetrating child sexual abuse, for example.) For the most part I agree. But part of that balance is recognizing that Jehovah makes it rain upon both the righteous and the unrighteous. The principle might be that an exJW allows himself to be wronged, and still does a good thing for the grandparent of their own children. After all, we must be talking about a case where the parent of the exJW must still ask permission to see their grandchildren. The grandparent may be wrong in shunning their own child, but they are not wrong to want to see their grandchildren. The exJW would naturally want to make sure there are ground rules since the exJW is still the spiritual head of their own household, and responsible to see to the physical, emotional and spiritual welfare of their own children. They would likely request that the grandparent not attempt to take over that role in any way, and that they never say anything that is in the least bit judgmental about the grandchildren's own parents. And although it might not seem fair, the exJW will still have every right to help their child make a correct judgment call about this particular unchristian aspect of the behavior of the child's grandparents who unlovingly shun their own child. (Although I'd think they would not wish to burden the child with such issues until their child is ready to understand that this is strange and unloving behavior on the part of the grandparent.) The exJW, if they want to live a Christian life, will still wish to honor their mother and father, and just because they are shunned by the choice of their Witness parents, it does not mean that the exJW is under any such rules to shun their own parents. They should continue to do good for their unloving parents and show that they have no intention of following unchristian rules. The Witness parents will probably make a harsh ultimatum for their son/daughter, and the son/daughter should make it clear that this will reflect badly on the way their grandchildren will see them, and that it will just as likely reflect badly on Jehovah's name in the eyes of everyone who learns about it. The exJW should probably make it clear that he or she has no reason to hide this embarrassing situation and the unscriptural reasons for it, from their own children, or anyone else who might wonder about the strange situation. But I think that purposefully withholding a grandchild from a grandparent is done out of anger, not out of Christian motivation, or even a motivation to avoid rewarding bad conduct. Of course, until someone is in this situation, no one can judge how correct, incorrect, or impractical this advice really is. Still, although the grandparent may not have a "right" to see the grandchildren, I can think of some good, practical reasons to allow the visitation. It becomes a teaching moment. The kids will go to school wondering why other children have grandparents, or even two sets of grandparents, while they might wonder what a grandparent really is. The grandparent, by asking, is showing natural affection and can probably therefore be trusted to want to make a good impression on the grandchild so that there is very little danger that the child will not get some benefit from the experience. It will also likely create situations where the grandparent will be caught unable to shun their own child, which is another good thing.

Happened to me once. Ended up with a torn hibiscus.

Not, of course, if you came to that conclusion after multiple interactions among several different types of personalities under several different types of circumstances. We are naive if we jump to such conclusions prior to seeing good evidence about someone, or at least the personalit(ies) they represent. On social media, people are apt to represent only specific sides of their personality, or specific (or special) aspects of their life and lifestyle. It's very difficult to get a well-rounded view of a person on such a limited basis, no matter how much they write. That said, I agree that we can all get a good sense of the personality of all the people you mentioned, among many others (yourself included). But I was rather surprised to see that picture of you with the King of Siam when I looked you up on the Internet.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much one of three opening assumptions that I keep in mind too, even outside the Internet, even when I know someone personally, too. That's why I'm also doubtful of claims from anyone that someone's claims had to be swept under the rug, as it were. So, @Space Merchant, what was that about? Can you point me to the post you are talking about?

@Space Merchant, I think you are a bit confused about the Septuagint is. Almost every point in that portion I requoted from you is debatable. The Septuagint has nothing to do with the original manuscript of 1 Timothy 3:16. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the original, older Hebrew manuscripts of the "Old Testament." Timothy is in the "New Testament."

Yes, it could be applied that way, but it almost never is. It's called a Toyota assembly plant because that's where they assemble Toyotas, not because workers assemble together. They should only assemble there when they are not assembling. Jehovah's Witnesses -- Some Assembly Required!

My goodness! I think they get a special deal, so that if each of them forgo the Business and First Class tickets for just 5 times in one year, that they save enough to each get a Rolex. Also, if they purchase Business and First Class tickets for just 10 times in one year, they earn enough mileage points to each get a Rolex. Decisions! Decisions! However, a little more seriously: a workman is worthy of his wages. You don't muzzle the bull when it's threshing out the grain.

In case that sounded too flippant, I wanted to add that I have full confidence in the insight and guidance that the slave displayed when Losch put that scripture (Proverbs 14:15) in the center of his speech.

My opinion? I believe that Proverbs 14:15 is an excellent scripture. ?

I didn't see where @Space Merchant answered yet. I think all of that came from Wikipedia under Restorationism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism

What is this? There's a hierarchy here, too, that I didn't know about? I thought this was a joke. Parts of it were funny.

Now that Barnum and Bailey has folded its tents, you may get less and less of these. I found this on https://www.drsoda.com/baancrb.html Barnum's Animal Crackers (Bag)***DISCONTINUED*** So, who knows, a little self-control and an unshaken box with pristine, unbroken giraffe necks might someday yield $50 on eBay. I thought I'd sell my basement full of Hostess Twinkies on eBay when they were to be discontinued in May 2013. But since a new company bought them out of bankruptcy and resurrected them in July 2013, I guess I'll just have to use them for insulation, or maybe to stuff into pillows or something.

We stopped using that number in the 1970s. The jw.org site has a better approximation now: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-holocaust-facts-concentration-camps/ About 1,500 of Jehovah’s Witnesses died during the time of the Holocaust, out of some 35,000 Witnesses living in Germany and Nazi-occupied countries. The cause of death is not known in all cases. Since research is ongoing, figures and other details may be updated in time. Executions: Close to 400 Witnesses were executed in Germany and in Nazi-occupied countries. Most victims were tried in court, sentenced to death, and beheaded. Others were shot or hanged without a formal court hearing. Severe detention conditions: More than 1,000 Witnesses died in Nazi concentration camps and prisons. They were worked to death or died as a result of torture, starvation, exposure to cold, illness, or poor medical care. As a result of the brutal treatment, others died shortly after their liberation at the end of World War II. Other causes: Some Witnesses were killed in gas chambers, subjected to deadly medical experiments, or given lethal injections. The last group under "other causes" could have been as many as 100 Witnesses. Further study on this shows that many of those deaths we might still be counting as "Jehovah's Witnesses" were actually "Bible Students" who were either still one of the other factions of "Russellites" or who had returned to "Bible Students" associations after certain issues they had with J.Rutherford especially after 1927 and after 1933.

I'm drawing a few inferences, and I don't know if more and better details might be discussed over at another forum where some of those persons are known to post. But if any persons here know which forum I am talking about, I'd be interested if anyone is crediting anyone over there with some of this. I've looked at that forum a few years ago, and for me personally, it was a big vortex of time-wasting craziness. It still comes up in Google searches, and it seems just as crazy. But I know that some people here might know.

I saw a picture of ex-JW Barbara Anderson in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania from several months ago, apparently with some other ex-JWs who helped to get this publicized. It was from a political rally about changing the laws to help more victims of child sexual abuse. It seems they, along with Catholics and others, have been working with the politicians and lawmakers in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA (the State capitol), to get more publicity and exposure about child sexual abuse, and changes to the law regarding the statute of limitations, child protection awareness, etc. Some of that work and pressure recently helped move politicians to push for exposing the 300 Catholic priests publicly in Pennsylvania just weeks ago. One of those associated with Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York priests, Theodore McCarrick, had been demoted as a cardinal but promoted to be the archbishop of Washington DC, with the knowledge of the Vatican. I have read that Barbara Anderson had already been invited to the Vatican a few years ago to share her expertise about dealing with the issue in a religious institution. I'd be interested if anyone else has drawn a connection between exJWs and this exposure.

It is. But it is very diverse, even among Muslims. Wikipedia says: The total number of Christians in Pakistan was estimated at 2.5 million in 2005, or 1.6% of the population. Hindus make up another 2.5 to 3 million.

Yes. That's the point. Things like this can literally happen, and have literally happened in the past right up to the point of the miraculous divine intervention. In the past such things have happened even to peaceful secular groups who are perceived as being a threat to totalitarian and imperial states. Even if NOT exactly like what will happen during the great tribulation and Armageddon, it still creates a picture of the divine intervention that can be seen in a symbolic way that all Christians should experience when facing death for a righteous cause. Stephen's faith, for example, may have allowed him to see such a vision of divine intervention just prior to being stoned to death. Long prior to Armageddon, in the first three centuries of Christianity, perhaps hundreds of thousands faced death in such a manner in arenas, by mobs, by trial and execution, on stakes and crosses, by wild beasts, by fire, etc. Those true Christians in the past can still experience what is perhaps similar imagery in their very next conscious moments after their death, at the time of their resurrection. This imagery in the video should help produce a reason to feel the same courage in a potentially near future time when that same imagery may happen literally just prior to divine intervention. So all this part of the video, and even the video itself is well done and should have a good effect on our courage. But you hit upon a major theme of the video, even if it was not very overt. It's also about being obedient to men. This could end up making people associate salvation with obedience to humans. I'm sure that @Witness might have mentioned this before somewhere else, but the very article quoted above by "Witness" about Gog and Magog is the article that you quoted from earlier in this topic: *** ws13 11/15 p. 20 pars. 16-17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today *** [Simplified Watchtower] The Bible says that this army is made up of “seven shepherds” and “eight dukes,” or princes. (Micah 5:5) Who are they? They are the congregation elders. (1 Peter 5:2) Today, Jehovah is using many faithful elders to shepherd and to strengthen his people for the future attack of “the Assyrian.” (See footnote.) . . . (3) At that time, the direction that you receive from Jehovah’s organization may seem strange or unusual. But all of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether we agree with them or not, because obeying these instructions will save our lives. *** w13 11/15 p. 20 par. 17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today *** (3) At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. It's just my personal opinion, of course, but this is where I see a danger. We are telling people who expect to be surrounded by doubt and fear [the first words of the song in the video] to remember that for salvation they must be ready to obey instructions they hear through the elders that might sound strange and not make any sense "from a human standpoint." In other words, we are to accept and obey the instructions from humans as if they are from something greater than just a human standpoint. Notice that the simplified Watchtower version comes out and just plainly states that our salvation depends upon obeying strange and unusual direction from elders through the organization: salvation by obedience to men. Did we forget? (Psalm 146:3) 3 Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs [who cannot bring salvation, NWT Revised]. Calling them nobles, princes, or dukes, doesn't make a difference; they are still sons of earthling man, humans. The idea above subverts the scripture.

That has to be an exaggeration, I have only counted about 28 "Allen Smith" aliases, and most of them don't even have "Allen" or "Smith" in any part of the name. ?

This is a case of being "righteous overmuch" or "self-righteous" and "haughty" like the Pharisees. Paul put the ideas together in Romans quoted above: (Romans 1:28-2:1) 28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, . . . haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, . . . having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable . . . The haughty, self-righteous Pharisees and scribes, too, were "inventors of [such] injurious things" as Jesus pointed out: (Matthew 15:5, 6) . . .‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have that could benefit you is a gift dedicated to God,” 6 he need not honor his father at all.’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. They found ways to avoid the merciful treatment of relatives by trading it for evidence of how righteous they looked in front of others. (Matthew 6:2) . . .So when you make gifts of mercy, do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be glorified by men. . . . It's directly related to the issue of "table fellowship," too: (Matthew 9:10-13) 10 Later as he was dining in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and began dining with Jesus and his disciples. 11 But on seeing this, the Pharisees said to his disciples: “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 Hearing them, he said: “Healthy people do not need a physician, but those who are ill do. 13 Go, then, and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.”

Maybe. To me it sounds like the original post is recommending that ex-JWs return evil for evil: (Romans 12:17-21) 17 Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” 21 Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good. What some Witnesses do under the supposed umbrella of "tough love" is actually "evil" in the sense of showing no natural affection, or shutting off their true affections. It is hypocritical love if they are able to shut off love for family just to avoid contact with a disfellowshipped person. The paragraph in the Bible just before the one quoted above starts out: (Romans 12:9) 9 Let your love be without hypocrisy. . . . Based on this idea, there is another way to read the entire idea about Biblical disfellowshipping: (2 Corinthians 6:3-13) 3 In no way are we giving any cause for stumbling, so that no fault may be found with our ministry; 4 but in every way we recommend ourselves as God’s ministers, . . . by patience, by kindness, by holy spirit, by love free from hypocrisy, 7 by truthful speech,. . . 11 We have opened our mouth to speak to you, Corinthians, and we have opened wide our heart. 12 We are not restricted in our affections for you, but you are restricted in your own tender affections for us. 13 So in response—I speak as to my children—you too open your hearts wide. (Romans 1:28-2:1) 28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, . . . malicious disposition, . . . haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, . . . having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are, if you judge; for in the thing in which you judge another, you condemn yourself, inasmuch as you that judge practice the same things. Remember, too, that Jesus said that Moses was allowed to give the law that Israelites could disfellowship their own wives only as a concession to their own hard-heartedness: (Matthew 19:7-8 ) : “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives,. . . It's true that Christians should not "share" with evildoers, for what sharing do believers have with unbelievers, what sharing does light have with darkness. But this cannot mean completely avoiding them, or even a complete lack of association with them. Paul made this clear in the central, pertinent discussion of the topic: (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) 9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. When a person accepts their disfellowshipping, and is no longer presenting himself or herself as a member of our faith, they are no longer calling themselves our brother. The most vocal ex-JWs make it all the more obvious that they are not calling themselves our brother. So they become just as a person of the world to us. (Matthew 18:17) . . .. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector. Scripturally, however, that means that we are perfectly within our own rights to exercise the freedom of our Bible-trained conscience, to associate with them just as we would anyone else in the world. This does not necessarily mean close association, or "table fellowship" which was acceptance of these ones as an insider, related to us either as family or those related to us in the faith. Yet, we should consider that Jesus had "table fellowship" with sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, gentiles, and unclean persons, without condoning their sin. People found fault with his ministry but Jesus did not give any cause for stumbling through such table fellowship. (2 Cor 6:3,4 quoted above.) There is sometimes an in-between step where a person still calls himself our brother, and we should still admonish him as our brother. Yet they are not fully walking in accordance with Christian teachings. These are the ones we "mark" --to withdraw our close association from them-- even though they are still considered brothers. Apparently, Paul especially had in mind greedy persons who wanted to remain in association for what they could get, not what they could share. They wanted the free food, as a key feature of Christianity was its open-hearted table fellowship, providing material food for the poor, the orphans, the widows, etc: (2 Thessalonians 3:6-15) 6 Now we are giving you instructions, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother who is walking disorderly and not according to the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you should imitate us, because we did not behave in a disorderly way among you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food free. On the contrary, by labor and toil we were working night and day so as not to impose an expensive burden on any one of you. 9 Not that we do not have authority, but we wanted to offer ourselves as an example for you to imitate. 10 In fact, when we were with you, we used to give you this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” 11 For we hear that some are walking disorderly among you, not working at all, but meddling with what does not concern them. 12 To such people we give the order and exhortation in the Lord Jesus Christ that they should work quietly and eat food they themselves earn. 13 For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing good. 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating with him, so that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not consider him an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother. It must have been frustrating, that some would just be no more than meddlers, taking and not finding ways to share, but Paul admonishes the Christians not to give up in doing good. [Good works included giving, sharing and distributing material goods.] I think that many ex-JWs are frustrated at the unchristian conduct of some Witnesses, but ex-JWs, too, should not give up in doing what is good if they wish to "heap fiery coals" and conquer evil with good. Most Witnesses probably need to "get out more" as it is, and seeing one's grandkids can only help to have a good effect in general, and help to open the hearts wider. Even if the ex-JW being shunned believes the Witness is a bad influence, the fact of a grandparent spending any time at all with a grandchild can only be a good influence on the grandparent.

Christians, too, but without physical weapons: (Ephesians 6:10-13) 10 Finally, go on acquiring power in the Lord and in the mightiness of his strength. 11 Put on the complete suit of armor from God so that you may be able to stand firm against the crafty acts of the Devil; 12 because we have a struggle, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places. 13 For this reason take up the complete suit of armor from God, so that you may be able to resist in the wicked day and, after you have accomplished everything, to stand firm. And of course, the next verses go on to prove that our weapons and armor, etc., are not physical weapons: 14 Stand firm, therefore, with the belt of truth fastened around your waist, wearing the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having your feet shod in readiness to declare the good news of peace. 16 Besides all of this, take up the large shield of faith, with which you will be able to extinguish all the wicked one’s burning arrows. 17 Also, accept the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word, 18 while with every form of prayer and supplication you carry on prayer on every occasion in spirit.