The Scarlet Thread (Joshua 2:18, 21)

How was Rahab the harlot’s house identified to the Israelites? A scarlet cord in the window (Joshua 2:21)

Jericho was the first military objective during the Israelites’ conquest of the Promised Land. Before his army marches, Joshua dispatches two spies to scout the city (Joshua 2:1). In Jericho, the scouts lodge with the local harlot, Rahab (Joshua 2:1). As her house is situated in the city’s wall, the Israelite spies get the lay of the land from the prostitute’s home (Joshua 2:16). When the spies’ presence is discovered, Rahab covers the men in flax on her roof and covers for the men with the local authorities (Joshua 2:2-7).

Rahab professes faith in the Israelites’ God, understands her nation’s futility in opposing the pending attack and requests clemency (Joshua 2:8-15). In spite of the fact that Moses had forbidden such an oath (Deuteronomy 7:1-5, 20:16-18), the men agree and select a scarlet cord to indicate that her home will be spared when the city is ransacked (Joshua 2:18). Rahab accepts their terms and immediately ties the cord in her window (Joshua 2:21).

She said, “According to your words, so be it.” So she sent them away, and they departed; and she tied the scarlet cord in the window. (Joshua 2:21 NASB)

The encouraged spies return to their army on the east bank of the Jordan River and echo Rahab’s words in their report to their commander (Joshua 2:9, 24). The scouts’ reconnaissance will prove unnecessary as God miraculously intervenes and the city’s wall famously falls (Joshua 6:1-25). Even so, the Israelites keep their word and Rahab and her family are saved (Joshua 6:17, 23, 25).

There are parallels in other classical sources of prostitutes providing assistance in notable conquests but unlike them, Rahab is not merely relocated but also redeemed. Her faith is recalled twice in the New Testament (Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25) and not once in any later literature is she condemned for either her occupation or her deception.

At the outset of the story, Rahab represents the ultimate Other to the Israelites. Yet this outsider will become an insider by voluntarily aligning with Yahweh. In contrast in the aftermath of the battle of Jericho, Achan becomes the embodiment of an insider who becomes an outsider by rejecting God (Joshua 7:1-26). Faith in God has always been a criteria for salvation.

John Goldingay (b. 1942) speculates as to Rahab’s motives for siding with Israel and its God:

It is said that men have ambivalent feelings about women who make their sexual favors available; they both utilize them and disapprove of them. Economic factors are commonly what drive women into the sex trade; perhaps Rahab was a widow. Evidently she has a family to be concerned for, but perhaps they had a hard time making ends meet, and this was the way she learned to survive without being dependent on them. A woman like Rahab will be a marginal figure in the society, part of it but not really part of it. So maybe it is easier for her to respond differently to what people are saying about the Israelites, as it will be possible for a woman such as Mary of Magdala to respond to Jesus in a way that most of the male pillars of society cannot. Like the midwives in Exodus 1 or other women in Israel’s story, she does not feel obliged to tell the male authority figures the truth when there is nothing truthful about the way they are behaving. (Goldingay, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth for Everyone 13)

The sign indicating Rahab’s location had to be significant enough to be noticed by the Israelites yet sufficiently inconspicuous to her people. The sign selected is the scarlet cord (Joshua 2:18, 21). Though not mentioned in the account of the fall of Jericho or later references to Rahab, the scarlet cord is mentioned twice in the harlot’s interaction with the spies (Joshua 2:18, 21). Some have connected Rahab so much with this item that they have been dubbed her the “scarlet woman”.

The object is translated as “scarlet cord” (ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV), “scarlet line” (ASV, KJV), “scarlet rope” (NLT), “red rope” (CEV, MSG) and “crimson cord” (NRSV). This exposed cord becomes the sign of the covenant she seeks; it effectively marks her home as a “safe house” (Joshua 2:12-23).

This thread has generated much interest. Richard S. Hess (b. 1954) analyzes:

This word for “cord” (tiqwā)...normally describes a simple thread, such as something of low value that Abram refuses from the king of Sodom (Genesis 14:23). The term for “scarlet” (śānî) appears elsewhere in the Bible to describe textiles used to decorate the tabernacle (e.g., Exodus 25:4), cleansing rituals (Leviticus 14:4), a bright color (Genesis 38:28), and special garments for the wealthy (Proverbs 31:21)...In contrast to the usage of “red” in the contexts of holiness and purity in Israel, the origin of the Akkadian term for “Canaan” may identify the color “red-purple.” This color, derived from the purple dye processed at Tyre, Dor, and other coastal cities, could have been understood as a statement of loyalty to the region by other Canaanites. However, its connection with Israel may have a double meaning. (John H. Walton [b. 1952] and Daniel I. Block [b. 1943], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 21)

Jerome F.D. Creach (b. 1962) adds:

The expression “crimson cord” in Hebrew is actually three words that stand in relationship to each other, including the word denoting the color crimson. The word translated “cord” is tiqwah, which comes from a verbal root meaning “to be tense/rigid” and, by extension, “to be expectant.” The noun form elsewhere in the Old Testament has the second connotation and means “hope.” A related form (qaw), which appears numerous times, always refers to a measuring line, as used in construction (I Kings 7:23; Job 38:5). If this related term is any clue, it would further argue against the idea the tiqwah refers to a rope. The second word in the expression “crimson cord” is the Hebrew hût, meaning “thread.” Hence, although English translations do not show it, the two words together have the sense of a “cord of thread.” Again, this seems to refer to a line not substantial enough to support the Israelite spies (see the use hût, “thread” in Judges 16:12; Ecclesiastes 4:12)...Although it is not certain, the “cord of thread” probably refers to a strand of material from which cloth could be woven. That it was a crimson cord, not a whole piece of cloth, makes sense when we realize that ancient Near Eastern people typically dyed individual strands so that the cords might then be woven together with others of different colors to make cloth (W.F. Albright [1891-1971], The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, 3:60-61). (Creach, Joshua (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 38)

The cord may have been something that was already in Rahab’s possession. This seems likely as why would spies, who by the nature of their mission are trying to be inconspicuous, be traveling with a bright red cord? Rahab uses a rope to lower the spies from her home and the text is ambiguous as to whether or not this is the same rope (Joshua 2:15). Phyllis A. Bird (b. 1934) has posited that the scarlet cord was used for advertising, the ancient near eastern equivalent of a red-light district (Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine”, Semeia 46: 130). If this is the case, it would not arouse suspicion. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the practice of identifying a brothel in this manner ever existed.

Richard D. Nelson (b. 1945) comments:

Although “this crimson thread” (Joshua 2:18) sounds as though they [the spies] are providing her with it (as a gift of feminine finery?), this seems awkward from the standpoint of staging. Perhaps the reader is meant to suppose that Rahab has just lowered them by her (perhaps very feminine and sexy) crimson thread, presumably intended as a touch of humor...Although her display of the cord...in the window is technically premature, it is the appropriate place for the narrator to assure us that she has taken this last prudent, expectant step. (Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 51-52)

The positioning of the cord has proven problematic for interpreters. Military historian Richard A. Gabriel (b. 1942) reads between the biblical lines and develops a far less miraculous explanation of the fall of Jericho based upon the scarlet cord’s locaton:

Fashioned in this manner, the crimson cord would only be visible from outside the city wall, making it useless as an indicator of Rahab’s house ravaging the city from the inside. That is why the Israelite scouts told Rahab to keep herself and her family inside the house during the attack [Joshua 2:18]...What, then, was the purpose of the crimson cord?...The answer might be that the crimson cord marked the window through which the Israelite elite troops enter the city. The dust and confusion caused by the Israelite army as it assembled and marched through the city...was sufficient distraction for small numbers of Israelite troops to enter the city through Rahab’s window...The idea was to infiltrate a few men at a time into Rahab’s house, using the army’s activities outside the wall as a distraction...The defense would have collapsed quite quickly, perhaps tempting the text’s author to employ the metaphor that “the walls collapsed on the spot [Joshua 6:20].” (Gabriel, The Military History of Ancient Israel, 132)

Many have derived greater significance from the object. L. Daniel Hawk (b. 1955) notes:

The “crimson cord” constitutes a double pun...The cord (tiqwat) marks the “hope” (tiqwâ) which the pact has given Rahab, while its crimson color (haššānî) beckons the two (šnēy) spies. On a deeper level, the reddish color at the window recalls the Israelite deliverance from death in Egypt (Exodus 12:1-31). The instructions which the spies give to Rahab parallel those which YHWH gives to Israel in preparation for the first Passover (Exodus 12:21-28). Like Israel in Egypt, Rahab is told to mark a portal with red (lamb’s blood on the doorway in Egypt, the crimson cord at the window in Jericho), to gather her family within her home, and to keep them within the house when destruction comes. The instructions are followed, in Exodus, by the promise that the Israelites will be spared from the destroyer. The spies also follow directives with promises...By including this information, the narrator discloses that Rahab and her family participate in one of the constitutive events in Israel’s story. Rahab’s family will experience its own Passover, and later generations will (but for a change of particulars) be able to recite the story of national deliverance with the rest of the people. The incorporation of Rahab into Israel is now virtually complete. (Hawk, Joshua (Berit Olam, Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 49-50)

Why is Rahab’s family saved in the conquest of Jericho? Other than sparing Rahab, does the spying serve any purpose? Why is the scarlet cord selected as the sign of this alliance? Is there significance to the color? What sign would you have chosen?

Many have seen Rahab as a picture of salvation as an undeserved external red object becomes the instrument of her salvation. As early as the late first century, Clement equated the scarlet cord (Joshua 2: 18, 21) to the blood of the cross (I Clement 12:7). Since that time, Bible teachers have spoken of the scarlet thread running the course of the Bible from Abel (Genesis 4:10) to Calvary (John 19:34).

Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984) documents:

In the preaching of the Christian church, all the way back to Clement of Rome (perhaps earlier, but we do not know), this cord has been taken as a sign of the blood of Christ, the Lamb. One should not be dogmatic about it because the Bible does not explicitly make this connection; nevertheless, many on the church have emphasized over the centuries that the scarlet cord was a mark of something beyond itself. (Schaeffer, Joshua and the Flow of Biblical History, 85)

Woodrow Kroll (b. 1944) adds:

In order to identify that she was under the protection of the Most High God, she tied a cord in the window, a blood-red sign of salvation...This thread of redemption shows up often throughout the Bible and has been noticed by many scholars. Matthew Henry [1662-1714] described it this way, “A golden thread of gospel grace runs through the whole web of the Old Testament.” W.A. Criswell [1909-2002] once preached a watch night service on New Year’s Eve from 7:30 PM until past midnight. His theme for this marathon message was “The Scarlet Thread Through the Bible.” It was later published as a book. (Kroll, How to Find God in the Bible: A Personal Plan for the Encounter of Your Life, 147)

J. Gordon Harris (b. 1940) advises caution when using this means of interpretation:

Details about the rope strengthen the art of the narrative and should not be considered theological points. Early church fathers used typology to associate the red cord with the red blood of Jesus. They taught that as the cord saved the lives of Rahab and her family, so does the blood of Christ. However, the original passage in Joshua did not place any particular prominence on the color of the cord. Red would be visible at a great distance. Even New Testament allusions to Rahab did not associate the color of the cord with the color of Jesus’ blood. Despite the similarity of the two types, modern preachers need to use typology sparingly and carefully. It is enough to realize that God saved the lives of Rahab and her family through the red cord tied to the window. (Harris, Cheryl A. Brown [b. 1949] & Michael S. Moore [b. 1951], Joshua, Judges, Ruth (New International Biblical Commentary), 13)

Whether typological or not, the scarlet cord held great personal meaning to Rahab. John A. Huffman, Jr. (b. 1940) writes:

Rahab was willing to join a new family—the family of God. She probably didn’t fully understand the significance of the scarlet rope that the spies told her to hang from her window any more than did all the Jews who were saved out of Egypt understand the significance of blood splashed over their doorways. They came to understand in the years ahead the significance of the blood sacrifice in the ordinance of the Passover. Perhaps the scarlet cord had in its color significance that reached forward in history to the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. It might have simply been her way of “tying a yellow ribbon on the old oak tree,” signifying her identity, love, and trust for a people and a God she was only beginning to know...For Rahab, the scarlet rope was sacramental. It was an outward sign of an inner work of grace which God was bringing to pass in her life. It was a sign that she believed God to be God. (Huffman, Joshua (Mastering the Old Testament), 64-65)

What is the meaning of the scarlet thread? What did it mean to Rahab? What, if anything does it mean to you? Do you have any outward visible signs of your inner invisible faith? How do you demonstrate your allegiance? Have you performed an act that means to you what tying a scarlet cord in her window meant to Rahab?

She is not afraid of the snow for her household,
For all her household are clothed with scarlet.
-Proverbs 31:21, King James Version

The Payoff (Romans 6:23)

For the wages of sin is _____.” Death (Romans 6:23)

In Romans 6, Paul addresses an obvious distortion of the Christian message: “Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?” (Romans 6:15 NASB; cf. Romans 6:1). The apostle vehemently answers in the negative asserting that the assurance of grace does not promote sin (Romans 6:15-23). The chapter concludes with a triumphant summation shrouded by a solemn warning (Romans 6:23).

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23 NASB)

Romans 6:23 restates the chapter’s central theme and returns to its imagery of bondage (Romans 6:6, 12, 16-17). Sin, personified as a wicked slave master, is naturally juxtaposed with God. Paul’s supposition is that all are slaves, either to sin or God. Each human faces a binary choice of master. Paul evaluates that decision by relaying the inevitable consequences of each option: death and eternal life (Romans 6:23).

Justifiably Romans 6:23 has become a well known verse in Christian circles as it cuts to the core of the gospel. It is a featured stop on the famed “Romans Road to Salvation” (Romans 3:23, 6:23, 5:8, 10:13, 10:9-10).

Robert J. Morgan (b. 1952) applauds:

With the possible exception of John 3:16, no other text in Scripture better sums up all sixty-six books and thirty-one thousand verses of the Bible. This is the ultimate Reader’s Digest version of God’s Word. (Morgan, 100 Bible Verses Everyone Should Know by Heart, 57)

Romans 6:23 draws upon two analogies. C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) relays:

Sin is...personified, and is here represented as either a general who pays wages to his soldiers or – and this suits better the prominence of the idea of slavery in the preceding verses – as a slave-owner who pays his slaves an allowance or pocket-money (among the Romans this was normal practice.) The wage which the slave of sin has to expect is death. God, by contrast, does not pay wages, since no man can put Him in his debt; but the free gift which He gives is nothing less than eternal life. (Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary, 146)

In contrasting the inevitable outcomes of serving Sin and following God, Paul states that the wages of sin is death. The “wages of sin” deliberately builds upon a previous passage in Romans: “his wage is not credited as a favor” (Romans 4:4 NASB). Due in part to the verse’s popularity, the Greek opsonian is consistently translated “wages” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). The Message paraphrases the thought as Death being Sin’s “pension”.

Opsonian is derived from two words meaning “cooked food” and “to buy”. It is used only four times in the New Testament (Luke 3:14; Romans 6:23; I Corinthians 9:7; II Corinthians 11:8). The term originally referred to ration money paid to soldiers; all three times the word is used in the Septuagint refer to a soldier’s salary (I Esdras 4:56; I Maccabees 3:28, 14:32). Though the word eventually took the broader meaning of payment for labor, its most frequent use remained the pay of soldiers. It connotes a pittance, a soldier’s wage.

James R. Edwards (b. 1945) examines:

The imagery of fruit...is here abandoned for the military imagery of Romans 6:13. Sin and God are depicted as warlords, the one paying the wages of death, the other offering release and freedom of life. There is a telling contrast between the wages of sin and the gift of God. Hans Heidland [1912-1992] notes that opsōnia, “wages,” were subsistence payments to soldiers. Thus, in the present context, sin promises to pay subsistence wages, to provide for our needs, but that is an illusion, for in reality it pays death. Again, opsōnia were not a flat sum but installments paid over the duration of a soldier’s service. If Paul is true to the metaphor, the death he refers to would not be death as a “lump sum,” i.e., physical death, but the shadow and consequences of death already in life. Most importantly, wages and gift are two entirely different things. In Heidland’s words, “Man has rights only in relation to sin, and these rights become his judgment” (TDNT, volume 5, p.592). (Edwards, Romans (New International Biblical Commentary), 175-76)

The wages Sin pays are valued at literally less than nothing, a negative on one’s ledger. And that wage is a flat rate. No matter how hard or little one works for Sin, the result is the same: death. Most, however, work diligently towards this end. In a tragic irony, Sin’s servants slave for death.

David L. Bartlett (b. 1941) sees a modern parallel:

Have you noticed how hard the tobacco industry has to work as its death-dealing subservience? The industry employs highly paid lobbyists and pseudo-scientists. It pays for ads enticing younger and younger people to take up the habit their elders are beginning to let go. It establishes international networks to sell abroad the stuff that is not selling as well at home as it used to. The enterprise is frantic. Corporations deal biological death to stave off economic death. Every paycheck has a price tag. Sin will do that to you, wear you out in its service and then send you out to die...Paul says that if you go chasing sin you will get paid in the end. You will get what you work for, and what you are working for is death. (Bartlett, Romans (Westminster Bible Companion), 65-66)

The Death in question is not limited to the cessation of one’s physical life; it also evokes a spiritual death. Millard J. Erickson (b. 1932) diagnoses:

Spiritual death is both connected with physical death and distinguished from it. It is the separation of the entire person from God...The essence of spiritual death can be seen in the case of Adam and Eve. “For when you eat of it [the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] you will surely die” [Genesis 2:17] did not mean that they wold experience immediate physical death. It did mean...their potential mortality would become actual. It also meant spiritual death, separation between them and God...Sin results in alienation from God. This is the wages of sin of which Paul speaks in Romans 6:23. (Erickson, Christian Theology, 631)

Even those who are not oblivious to the oblivion resulting from sin often choose it. Paul J. Achtemeier (b. 1927) explains this calamity:

Sin uses the law to make us think we do not need to rely on mercy but can, somehow, make it under our own power, as it were. It lets us think we can, somehow, establish our worth in such a way that we do not need God’s mercy. We want that “boast before God” that not even Abraham could muster [Romans 4:1-2]. We want our salvation as wages, not mercy. In short, we want to do what only God can do: Furnish the grounds for our being declared righteous and hence acceptable to God. (Achtemeier, Romans (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 79-80)

As such Sin not only results in death but carries the additional byproduct of a compulsion to choose it and with it Death.

Sin is intentionally juxtaposed with God; what is the opposite of God? Do you perceive yourself as a slave (to either sin or God)? What is the connection between Sin and Death? Do you consider the consequences of a decision before you act? What is the alternative to serving Sin?

Unlike Sin, God does not pay wages, but instead offers a gift, charisma. This word is universally translated “gift” (CEV, HCSB, KJV, NIV, MSG, NKJV) but some translations accent the term by rendering it as “free gift” (ASV, ESV, NASB, NLT, NRSV, RSV). God’s gift is the polar opposite of Death: Eternal life.

Eternal life is given as a gift because it cannot be earned. While the believer’s actions are consequential (Revelation 20:12-14) one cannot merit eternal life on the basis of her works (Romans 3:20, 27-28, 4:2-5, 14; Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5). The believer’s salvation is fully attributable to grace.

Brendan Byrne (b 1939) clarifies:

To clinch the matter in a final supportive comment (Romans 6:23) Paul ironically points to death as the “wages” (opsōnia) paid by the slave master “Sin.” On the positive side, there is no talk of “wages” at all. That might suggest some kind of reward for righteous behavior and, while Paul may not have been as nervous about this as many of his later interpreters (cf. II Corinthians 5:5; also I Corinthians 3:14-15), his theological tendency is always to preserve the initiative of God. Hence he reaches for one of his favorite words—charisma (cf. already Romans 5:15, 16). The ultimate concrete expression of grace for the faithful “slave” will be the “gracious gift” of “eternal life in Christ Jesus, our Lord.” (Byrne, Romans (Sacra Pagina), 204)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) testifies:

Eternal life...is not something earned by the believer, even if he or she behaves in a holy manner, for holiness is obligatory, not optional, for the Christian. Eternal life is a grace gift. Even if Christian persons managed to live an entirely sanctified life, this would not oblige God to reward them with eternal life, for they will have done no more than what was required of them. Thus Paul does not see eternal life as some sort of quid pro quo for holy living in this lifetime. Salvation is indeed a matter of grace, received through faith, from start to finish. (Withertington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 174)

Paul presents the full trajectories of serving both Sin and God. As when shooting a bow and arrow, a small adjustment in aiming leads to a wide variance at the target, in this case from death to life.

John Murray (1898-1975) summarizes:

In the clause, “the wages of sin is death”, there are two thoughts: (1) that the death with which we are inflicted is no more and no less than what we have earned; (2) that death is the inevitable consequence of sin. Rectitude governs the payment of wages and we therefore receive exactly and inevitably what we owe. In the clause, “but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” the governing idea is that of God’s free grace in contrast with the notion of remuneration, and the magnitude of this free grace is emphasized by the nature of the gift bestowed. The thought is not that the free grace of God issues in eternal life for us, though this is in itself true. But the precise thought is that the free gift consists in eternal life. When wages are in operation our lot is death, inescapably and in its ultimate expression. When the free gift of God is in operation our lot is life, eternal and indestructible. How totally alien to such contrasts is the importation of merit in any form or degree into the method of salvation. (Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 238)

Sin gives no gifts but instead pays and pays horribly at that. God, the giver of life, counters Sin’s offer of Death, dispensing far better than wages: the free gift of eternal life. Despite having death as its enticement, Sin is well served. Given God’s much more appealing provision, God should be served all the more diligently.

The lesson is strikingly simple: serve God, not Sin. Choose life, not death. And yet most of us frequently choose poorly.

If the results are so disparate, why do people choose sin? Will you take the wage or grace? Do these life and death results cast shadows into the present or are they only eschatological? Are you experiencing God’s gift of eternal life? If you have accepted the gift, do you still appreciate it? Who are you serving, God or Sin?

You have a choice. Live or die.
Every breath is a choice.
Every minute is a choice.
To be or not to be. - Chuck Palahniuk (b. 1962), Survivor, p. 161

The Helmet of Salvation (Ephesians 6:17)

Which famous set of clothing contains the helmet of salvation? The whole armor of God

The Epistle to the Ephesians’ last teaching section (before the closing greetings) invokes military imagery. The believer is advised to don the whole armor of God, an analogy by which tenets of Christianity correspond to pieces of armor (Ephesians 6:11-17). Six elements of the well-armed soldier are listed. The fifth item mentioned is the helmet of salvation (Ephesians 6:17).

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Ephesians 6:17 NASB)

Helmets were not merely a defensive armament but rather a necessity, literally a matter of life and death to the soldier. Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) relays, “These were the last two items to be put on before battle. God’s own helmet and sword have been offered to the saints. The saints are now to receive them (Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 166).”

Matthew N.O. Sadiku (b. 1955) adds, “A soldier puts on the helmet only when he faces impending danger. (Sadiku, Ephesians: A Pentecostal Commentary, 143).”

Helmet (perikephalaia) is used only twice in the New Testament, here and in I Thessalonians 5:8. In both instances it is connected to salvation. CWO-4 Ray R. Fairman (b. 1945) quips:

Helmets really shouldn’t need much explanation, should they? It matters not if it is a soldier’s helmet, a motorcyclist’s, a bicyclist’s, a hockey player’s, or a pilot’s, you know what a helmet is designed to do. Its purpose is to protect your head and everything it contains! (Fairman, Ephesians: God’s Battle Plan for Spiritual Warfare: A Combat Veteran’s View, 136)

Peter T. O’Brien (b. 1935) notes, “The helmet used by the Roman soldier was made of bronze and had cheek pieces so as to give protection to the head (O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 480-481).”

Bruce B. Barton (b. 1943) adds, “Helmets were made of leather and brass, or sometimes bronze and iron—no sword could pierce a good helmet (Barton, Ephesians (Life Application Bible Commentary), 134).”

Harold W. Hoehner (1935-2009) expounds:

The word περικφαλια means “head covering” but in military context it refers to the “helmet”. The word occurs ten times in the LXX (nine times in the canonical books) and it is always used of a helmet (e.g. I Samuel 17:5, 38; II Chronicles 26:14; Ezekiel 27:10, 38:4-5). In the New Testament it is used only twice (Ephesians 6:17; I Thessalonians 5:8) and continues to have the military sense. Twice in the LXX the metal of the helmet is depicted as bronze (I Samuel 17:38; I Maccabees 6:35). In Roman times it had various shapes at different times and places, but it generally was made of bronze fitted over an iron skull cap lined with leather or cloth. During Claudius’ reign (A.D. 37-41) the helmet was revised so that it covered the back of the neck, fitting slightly over the shoulder, a brow-ridge fitted above the face to protect the nose and eyes, and hinged cheek pieces were fastened by a chin-band to protect the face. (Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, 850)

The connection between a helmet and salvation originated with Isaiah 59:17. F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) informs:

The “helmet of salvation” is taken from Isaiah 59:17, where Yahweh wears it. In such a context it might well be the helmet of victory...for the God of Israel does not receive salvation; he bestows it. Here too “the helmet of salvation” recommended to the believer might be called the helmet of victory, for God’s victory is his people’s salvation...In this letter...salvation is viewed as already accomplished — “it is by grace that you have been saved” (Ephesians 2:5)—so “the helmet of salvation” is available for the protection of believers. (Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 409)

Ernest Best (1917-2004) compares:

In Isaiah 59:17 God as victorious warrior wears the helmet of salvation; now he gives it to believers for their protection...Previously he had used a sequence of participles to itemise the equipment; now he introduces a new finite verb, receive. The soldier, already partially equipped, receives from his armour bearer his helmet and sword; the Christian receives from his God salvation and the word of God; this is not to suggest he collected the other items of equipment for himself; all his military hardware comes from God. (Best, Ephesians: A Shorter Commentary, 324)

As noted, in the whole armor of God, the helmet is connected with salvation. John Muddiman (b. 1947) speculates:

The last two images, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit...may refer to the final goal of the Christian life...While the separate elements in this allegory may be arbitrary (faith could just as well be the belt or the breastplate as the shield, for example),yet as a set in this particular sequence, the correspondences are not arbitrary. (Muddiman, The Epistle to the Ephesians (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 286)

Rudolf Schnackenburg (1914-2002) connects:

The helmet is immediately interpreted metaphorically as ‘salvation’ or ‘deliverance’, in connection with Isaiah 59:17...As the breastplate covers the chest, so the helmet surrounds the head...God himself is salvation and deliverance for all those under attack (cf. Psalms 3:3ff, 18:3, 46, 35:3, 37:39ff, 65:5 et al.; Isaiah 33:3; Jeremiah 3:23). In I Thessalonians 5:8 the helmet is interpreted as the hope of salvation, in the context of a decidedly eschatological perspective. In this the author of Ephesians diverges from Paul; for him it is a matter of God’s protection and deliverance in the present battle against evil. (Schnackenburg, The Epistle to the Ephesians: A Commentary, 279)

Ernest Best (1917-2004) adds:

The helmet is depicted as salvation; salvation is rare in the New Testament appearing only in Luke 2:30, 3:6; Acts 28:28, all passages heavily dependent on the Old Testament, it is found more frequently in the LXX, and is used in Isaiah 59:17. However, when Paul used Isaiah 59:17 in I Thessalonians 5:8 he substituted for it another noun, the normal New Testament noun for salvation; the author of Ephesians’ retention of the LXX word confirms his dependence here on Isaiah 59:17. Paul had also varied the LXX in another way by speaking of the helmet as the hope of salvation, thus imparting an eschatalogical flavour. The author of Ephesians’ stress here on the present nature of salvation is in line with his normal understanding of it. (Best, Ephesians: A Shorter Commentary, 324)

The verb’s middle voice attests that believers are responsible for taking the helmet and sword. The Christian does not automatically inherit these items as evidenced by the fact that Ephesians is addressed to Christians who were already saved but still needed the instruction to put on the helmet (Ephesians 6:11).

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) explains:

The believer is equipped for the spiritual battle by being given the very armor of God himself. It is interesting how some of the verbs refer to something simply given to the believer (the helmet, the sword) and some refer to the action that the believer himself must take once these gifts are in place — standing, praying, resisting, speaking, and the like. Salvation and faith are gifts, but they are gifts that do not work automatically. They are gifts that must be embraced, used, and expressed. (Witherington, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles, 360)

Have you ever worn a helmet? Have you donned the helmet of salvation? Do you see yourself as being at war? Why is the helmet connected with salvation? What is the purpose of the helmet of salvation?

The helmet of salvation, like any other helmet, protects the head’s contents. Greg Laurie (b. 1952) writes:

As believers, we need to put on the “helmet of salvation” because our minds, our thoughts, and our imaginations must be protected. It’s here that most temptations start. Satan recognizes the value of first getting a foothold in the realm of the thoughts and imaginations, because this will prepare the way for those thoughts to translate into action. As the saying goes, “Sow a thought; reap an act. Sow an act; reap a habit. Sow a habit; reap a character. Sow a character; reap a destiny.” It starts with a thought. (Laurie, Because..., 56)

Derek Prince (1915-2003) adds:

Just as the breastplate protects our hearts, so the helmet protects our minds—our thought lives. The mind is the area in which Christians are most regularly attacked. Inside our minds there is often a continuing war. Satan seeks to insinuate thoughts that will disturb us or distract us or in some other way make us ineffective in our war against him. (Prince, Rules of Engagement: Preparing for Your Role in the Spiritual Battle, 160)

Witness Lee (1905-1997) summarizes, “Satan injects into our minds threats, worries, anxieties, and other weakening thoughts. God’s salvation is the covering we take up against all these (Lee, The Conclusion of the New Testament: Messages 50-62, 584).”

Would you add any items to the whole armor of God? Are you protecting your thoughts?

“After victory, tighten your helmet chord.” - Japanese Proverb