Edit: Since writing this post, Jim Hamilton's "Typology" book has come out and includes comments on this from page 267-269!
Every few months I’ll re-read Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians and Polycarp's to the Philippians. They're definitely among my favorite writings from the early church. In reading through this time, I found an interesting section that I believe might be an early case of some of the terminology that the fathers used of the Second Person of the Trinity which I’ll quickly point out at the end of this post, but the reason I’m writing this is more to focus on the interpretation of Rahab’s scarlet thread as foreshadowing the blood of Christ.
After recently spending many past months diving into issues of hermeneutics and biblical theology, I’ve long meant to check out the Biblical data on this interpretation and see if it has any merit. I knew that this interpretation had a very long tradition in Christian history, however, I was not aware that it appears as early as Clement:
“On account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved. For when spies were sent by Joshua, the son of Nun, to Jericho, the king of the country ascertained that they had come to spy out their land, and sent men to seize them, in order that, when taken, they might be put to death. But the hospitable Rahab receiving them, concealed them on the roof of her house under some stalks of flax. And when the men sent by the king arrived and said, There came men unto you who are to spy out our land; bring them forth, for so the king commands, she answered them, The two men whom you seek came unto me, but quickly departed again and are gone, thus not discovering the spies to them. Then she said to the men, I know assuredly that the Lord your God has given you this city, for the fear and dread of you have fallen on its inhabitants. When therefore you shall have taken it, keep ye me and the house of my father in safety. And they said to her, It shall be as you have spoken to us. As soon, therefore, as you know that we are at hand, you shall gather all your family under your roof, and they shall be preserved, but all that are found outside of your dwelling shall perish. Moreover, they gave her a sign to this effect, that she should hang forth from her house a scarlet thread. And thus they made it manifest that redemption should flow through the blood of the Lord to all them that believe and hope in God. You see, beloved, that there was not only faith, but prophecy, in this woman”.
My initial reaction to a long-held interpretation like this, even if I don’t initially see it, is not to initially reject it (which is much different from my previous stance when I previously would have seen much of the early church as illegitimate allegorizers), but rather to recognize that I may have missed something so I should re-evaluate the evidence. After seeing that this traditional interpretation actually goes back at least to Clement of Rome, this prompted me to finally get around to doing just that.
In initially reading through the Old Testament this year, I did notice that scarlet threads appeared at certain interesting times and thought there was probably some connection, but I didn’t bother to look too much into it. So, yesterday after reading Clement, I finally sat down and gathered all the data that I could and then tried to put it all together.
The first mention of a scarlet thread appears in Genesis 38:27-30, speaking of Tamar’s children:
When the time of her labor came, there were twins in her womb. And when she was in labor, one put out a hand, and the midwife took and tied a scarlet thread on his hand, saying, “This one came out first.” But as he drew back his hand, behold, his brother came out. And she said, “What a breach you have made for yourself!” Therefore his name was called Perez. Afterward, his brother came out with the scarlet thread on his hand, and his name was called Zerah.
In this narrative, the scarlet thread is supposed to represent the rights of the firstborn and is tied accidentally to Zerah instead of Perez, who ended up being born first instead. This narrative, like many of the birth narratives throughout Genesis, is to emphasize the sovereign election of God through making unexpected choices by human standards, just like the multiple times in Genesis that younger brothers end up being served by their older ones in some fashion. We should note that it is through the line of Perez that Jesus the Messiah would be born (Matthew 1:3). We should also note that like Rahab, Tamar is one of the only women mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy. And, seeing as I am trying to gather all the data I possibly can because something might be relevant, though it might not, I think we should further note that both Rahab and Tamar are known for sleeping with men who are not their husbands.
The next time scarlet threads are mentioned is in Exodus 26 when they are used as a part of the curtains of the tabernacle and as a part of the ephod of the high priest (Ex. 28) (which mirrors the tabernacle anyways). Some have connected these to imagery representing the blood of sacrifices, however, I believe Beale’s book on the Temple clearly shows these to be connected to cosmic imagery that is supposed to represent the skies. There could of course be a double meaning to the symbolism, but I believe this is unlikely without any other clues to lead us to believe that these threads are supposed to represent the blood of bulls and goats. So, while I do not believe this occurrence of crimson threads to be relevant to my conclusion on whether Rahab’s thread was a type of Christ’s blood, I do believe the former incident with Perez does have some significance.
Next, we come to consider the narrative of Rahab itself in Joshua 2 and 6. When comparing this to the Passover narrative of Exodus 12, things start to get interesting.
First, we should note that the narrative of Rahab’s rescue from Jericho (Joshua 6) is immediately preceded by the first Passover observance in Canaan (5:10-12).
Next, we should note that in both Exodus 12 and immediately following the observance of Passover in Joshua 5, we have what I believe to be a Christophony; compare “The Commander of The Lord’s Army” to “The Destroyer” of Exodus 12:23.
In case there is any question as to whether “The Destroyer” should be understood as a Person instead of simply the word, “destruction”, consider that Targum Jonathan reads on Exodus 12:
“The Word of the Lord will spread His protection over the door, and the destroying angel will not be permitted to enter your houses to smite. . . And it was in the dividing, of the night of the fifteenth, that the Word of the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Mizraim”
It appears then that Targum Jonathan understands this “destroying angel” to be none other than “the Word of the Lord”, which we would know as a Christophany. In case you think this is pretty cool (which I certainly do), I want to let you know that Targum Jonathan actually does this constantly. The Angel of the Lord is constantly identified with God’s Word and as God Himself in all the same places Christians have believed there to be pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus Christ. Reading Targum Jonathan is literally like reading a Christian commentary on the Old Testament; it’s very Trinitarian. I honestly don’t know why there isn’t more people talking about this, but just through reading the Targum, it becomes pretty clear that Christianity retained the original religion of Judaism and that Judaism pretty much apostatized and became Unitarian following the advent of Christ. I don’t have it yet, but I’m sure Alan Segal’s book gets more into this.
That aside, I now move on to note that the curse that Joshua pronounces against the person who rebuilds Jericho is, at “the cost of his firstborn son” (6:26), which again I believe may be intentionally echoing Exodus 12.
But while all of these connections are interesting, there is one piece of evidence that pretty much clinches the argument for me and leads me to believe that Rahab’s scarlet thread is intentionally supposed to recapitulate the blood that the Israelites spread on their doorposts; namely, that her scarlet cord is used as a marker to save Rahab and her household from the destruction to come upon the rest of the city (Josh. 2:17-21):
The men said to her, “We will be guiltless with respect to this oath of yours that you have made us swear. Behold, when we come into the land, you shall tie this scarlet cord in the window through which you let us down, and you shall gather into your house your father and mother, your brothers, and all your father’s household. Then if anyone goes out of the doors of your house into the street, his blood shall be on his own head, and we shall be guiltless. But if a hand is laid on anyone who is with you in the house, his blood shall be on our head. But if you tell this business of ours, then we shall be guiltless with respect to your oath that you have made us swear.” And she said, “According to your words, so be it.” Then she sent them away, and they departed. And she tied the scarlet cord in the window.
After putting all of the data together yesterday, I wrote out this paragraph to try to connect everything:
“While the salvation of the spies is an integral part of the story, the focus is more on the salvation of Rahab and her household through the identifying mark of the scarlet cord while the rest of the city dies (again Exodus 12). Her salvation through the cord should recall Perez through whom salvation would come through the Messiah in his line, as well as emphasize God’s election of unlikely individuals (Rahab being a harlot saved from the destruction of the city parallel to Perez’s birth, and the fact that both of them are ultimately included in the line of Christ, who brings salvation)”.
In conclusion, I believe that the age-old interpretation of Rahab’s scarlet cord, which brought salvation both to the spies and to herself and her household, as a type of the blood of Christ that brings salvation to all, is indeed a legitimate one because Rahab’s cord is already supposed to be seen as a type of the blood-marked doorposts in Exodus 12, which itself typifies Christ’s blood.
Finally, I'll move on to the quick observations I made of a certain section of Clement that I noted at the beginning of this post:
Here, I believe that we have an example of common patristic terms being used of Christ. Though Clement does not explicitly mention Christ in this section, I think it likely that this is what is happening due to his fourfold use of these terms. The fathers often refer to the Second Person of the Trinity as "Wisdom" (Luke 11:49, 1 Corinthians 1:24), "Word" (John 1:1), "Power" (1 Corinthians 1:24), and I believe He is even referred to as the "Will" of God, which I did not highlight because I was less familiar with patristic use of that term regarding the Son of God. All of these are correct titles for the Logos of God and I have written much on this already on this site. If I am correct that this is what Clement is doing here, I believe we may have an example too of the Son and the Spirit being referred to as the "hands" of God, the first time Clement switches to the plural, as well, so for example, Irenaeus:
"For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God"
The "hands" terminology, as I've heard Michael Haykin point out, has Biblical roots (compare Luke 11:20 and Matthew 12:28 to see the Holy Spirit is referred to by Jesus as "the finger of God"). Perhaps that is what Clement meant to do here, as he then goes on to cite Genesis 1:27, which the fathers understood to indicate the Trinity.
Anyways, that may be reading in too much, but it is interesting to consider.