Now, that's what it says. We’re to be strengthened in the strength of his might, and there are two things that are suggested to us by that general affirmation. Let us note that without strength, armor will do us no good. Now, later on, he will itemize the armor, but armor will do you no good if you're not strong. As a matter of fact, armor is heavy. I think that if you were a 200 pound Roman soldier, when you donned all that armor that a Roman soldier would wear, you'd weigh 250 or 275 pounds. In fact, during the Middle Ages, they got so heavy that fighting became something of an impossibility. It was more for display than it was for any possible activity, but if you're not strong, it doesn’t matter how much armor you have. You'll lose. It won’t matter, even if you have the best armor that money can buy. It won't do you any good if you're not strong. That's why Paul starts with this. You need strength, otherwise armor will do you no good. One author says “No matter what armor is provided, how finely tempered, how highly polished, or how closely fitted it may be, if the man merely dressed in the dress of a soldier, he will not survive, not without strength.” That's why Paul begins where he does.
A second thought is this: without identifying the enemy, armor will do you no good. If you don't know who you’re fighting, the enemy has not been identified, all the armor in the world is not going to win anything, because you won't know who to fight. You won't know who to stand against. And so that's why the second part of our outline is not just our strength, without which armor will do no good, but Paul then immediately says what is our enemy, because without identifying this enemy, armor will do us no good. So, in verse 12, after having said to take the whole armor of God, which we’ll come to in due course, he identifies the enemy, because without that, armor won’t help, and he gives us this list:
First of all, there’s a negative. “It’s not flesh and blood.” By the way, all the translations say “our wrestling,” or whatever word they use for wrestling, the modern translations have “struggle,” we’ll come to that in a moment, but they all say “flesh and blood.” I’m not exactly sure why, and the answer is: the original language of the New Testament doesn't say “flesh and blood.” It says “blood and flesh,” and so, they've accommodated modern translations, in fact, the ASV too, and the King James back in 1611, and even before that. They would translate it “flesh and blood.” That's the way we usually use that phrase, don’t we? when we talk about flesh and blood. That’s not what it says. It says “blood and flesh.” I do not forgive them for doing that. That’s an accommodation to the way we say things, and forgetting what it says in the text. I don’t know why translations allow that. What's the difference? I'm not prepared to tell you. I'm merely prepared to tell you that's not what it says. It has it turned around the other way, “blood and flesh,” and that’s the way it ought to be translated.