(jeringa precargada con

It has distressed many people that the Bible speaks so favorably of Rahab. In some circles, to speak well of Rahab is to invite sharp criticism.36 Scripture, however, cites Rahab as one of the great examples of faith (Heb. 11:31). James, in fact, sees Abraham and Rahab as the two great examples of true faith (James 2:17-26).

Rahab is a “problem” to many people on two counts. First, she was a harlot. Every kind of strained exegesis has been resorted to in order to turn her into an innkeeper instead, but the Scripture is clear: she was a harlot. Second, her lie to the king of Jericho’s officers is uniformly condemned by the legalists, even though it is specifically cited as a virtue by James. However, the idea that anyone who is about to violate God’s law has any right to require the truth of us to further his evil is certainly not biblical. Dabney saw this clearly.37

It is important to realize that the Bible is never academic; it never provides information merely to satisfy our curiosity. In fact, it avoids satisfying our curiosity again and again, because its purpose is rather to instruct and to reshape us ever more closely into conformity to God’s word, law, and image. What we are told about Rahab is thus clearly aimed at us, and particularly because she is twice singled out as an example of faith for us to follow, it is necessary for us to know as precisely as possible what we are to emulate in her.

Let us therefore examine the episode narrated in Joshua 2. We are told in Joshua 2:1,

And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot’s house, named Rahab, and lodged there.

The Hebrew word translated lodged is literally lay. We can see why Rahab has been turned into an innkeeper, both to preserve her reputation and the reputation of the two spies. It is not inconceivable that the two spies went to Rahab for her services as a prostitute, but the evidence is against it. The Bible is not a prissy book; if the spies had gone to Rahab as a harlot, it would have read, “lay with her”; Samson is not spared the truth in this respect, for we are plainly told that he lay with a harlot in Gaza (Judg. 16:1-3). Here, we are told that the spies went to Rahab’s house and lay or lodged there. The comment of John Bright is of interest:

That they should have found refuge in the house of a harlot is not surprising. The authorities would be used to seeing strange characters going in and out of such a place. Besides, a harlot, because of her very station in life, would not be likely to

36 _{See R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), 542-49.}

37 _{Robert L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology (Richmond, VA:} Presbyterian Committee on Publication, [1871] 1890), 425-26. See also Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law.

be a very loyal citizen. There is no need to infer that the men visited her for purposes pertaining to her profession, though this is not impossible.38

The trouble with most commentators is a wooden imagination, perhaps because of an inability to see the men of the Bible as real people. Let us look at these two spies thus as real people. On several occasions, I had long conversations with a man who, as a high ranking espionage agent, made numerous trips deep into enemy lines in Europe during World War II. He made it clear that no such venture was ever made in ignorance of where they would go, whom they would contact, and who would be cooperative. They had an extensive dossier on possible people to contact, even though these persons might not know of their existence, because it was the duty of intelligence services to know all possible friends. In this man’s case, he was a higher ranking officer than normally undertook such a venture, but, because of his own background in the language and culture of the area, his leadership was imperative. The book of Jeremiah makes it clear that intelligence work was a highly developed profession in antiquity, and Nebuchadnezzar’s knowledge of what went on in Jerusalem was very extensive.

It would be naive to suppose that espionage was incompetent in Joshua’s day. Three instances are cited as a part of the conquest of Canaan: 1) the sending of twelve spies by Moses from Kadesh-barnea; 2) the instance involving Rahab; and 3) the sending of spies to give a report on Ai. We can safely assume that numerous other instances of espionage occured, which it was not relevant for Scripture to report. In terms of standard practice, we can also assume that, before the two spies entered Jericho, they at least knew of Rahab as a person to contact. It is also possible that they were a related people to the men of Jericho, part of the mixed multitude of foreigners who left Egypt with Moses. The agents of the king of Jericho, and the king himself, do not identify the spies as Hebrews, an interesting fact, but as “of the children of Israel,” or, as the Berkeley Version reads, “Men have come here this night from the Israelites to spy out the land” (Josh. 2:2). There is thus a possibility that the two spies were religiously of Israel but by blood of a non-Israelite line. Given the situation, it would have been most logical for Joshua to have sent such men.

It may be objected that all of the adult generation, Hebrew and non-Hebrew, which left Egypt were now dead, save Joshua and Caleb. True enough, but their sons would still speak their mother’s tongue as well as Hebrew. The espionage agent mentioned previously had been born in England, where his parents found refuge in World War I, and was reared in the United States, but he spoke English with a trace of an accent, and several Slavic languages like a native.

Turning again to Rahab, it is clear that the spies found in her not only a sympathetic informant but one receptive to their faith:

And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly

destroyed. And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath. Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father’s house, and give me a true token: And that ye will save alive my father, and my mother, and my brethren, and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death. And the men answered her, Our life for yours, if ye utter not this our business. And it shall be, when the LORD hath given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with thee. (Josh. 2:9-14) The text is not concerned with the data collected by the spies, but certain aspects of it do appear all the same. First, the spies, who referred to their dealing with Rahab as “our business,” mission, or errand, learned that Jericho was intensely afraid of the Hebrew army. Their reaction was one of “terror” and a loss of initiative. The 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation of the Old Testament renders verse 11 thus: “And as soon as we had heard it, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more spirit in any man, because of you; for the LORD your God, He is God in heaven above, and on earth beneath.” The Talmud interprets this to mean that Rahab was saying that “they even lost their virility.”39

In any case, the net result was an inability to act. Second, this meant that no attempt had been made to secure the military aid of other city-states. Joshua could attack Jericho without any fear of an attack on his rear. This information alone was worth the trip for the spies.

Turning primarily to Rahab’s response, we see that, first, she is concerned not merely with self- preservation but the preservation of her father’s family, and all its members. This strong sense of the family was not always true of Canaanite culture, which had its eras of family decline as well as family strength. It does indicate the closeness of Rahab to her family. Had Rahab been a religious prostitute, a position of some status in pagan antiquity, in some cultures, this would be less surprising. The term used in the Hebrew for harlot is here zonah, fornicator or whore, not quedeshah, one set apart. The prostitute as such did not have a position of dignity in antiquity, contrary to popular mythology. She was a very much despised person. The examples of dignity and status cited, for example, from ancient Greece, apply only to a limited number of girls, and then only from a limited period of history. The religious harlot had at times a priestly status, but even her status, while a religiously necessary one to the society of that era, was not without penalties and liabilities. Prostitution of all kinds normally meant a divorce from normal society. This was also true of prewar Japan, where the prostitute, while sold into her life by the family to help support the family, was also thereby radically cut off from it. Thus, while examples which may parallel Rahab’s family ties may be found, they are not the normal circumstance for prostitutes. Rahab’s concern for her family’s welfare and future as a part of her own is thus notable.

Second, Rahab, in citing the terror of the Canaanites over the power of Israel, does more than the Canaanites. She attributes this power to the total power of the Lord, who “is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath” (Josh. 2:11). The Canaanites were in terror, because they

39 _{I. Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud: Sader Kodashim, vol. 1 (London, England: The Soncino Press, 1948),} “Zebahim,” 575.

recognized what Israel had done to all its enemies. The history of Israel from the Red Sea crossing to the present, a forty-year history, was familiar to them. Their recognition of the Lord’s role in that series of events was not religious but superstitious. Rahab saw the matter religiously, and she recognized the sovereignty of God and gave herself to His service at the risk of her life. She did not, like the people of Jericho, wait for death to come. Instead, she risked death to help the spies in order to gain life.

Rahab is cited as an example of faith in the New Testament for this very reason. In Hebrews 11, the examples of faith, of whom Rahab is one, were people like Abraham, who “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10). Faith is described for us moreover in these terms:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

…But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Heb. 11:1-3, 6)

We are emphatically told by Scripture that grace and faith are God’s gift: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). The sovereignty, initiative, and power in salvation originate entirely in God. This does not, however, deny the reality of our own secondary initiative and power in the exercise of grace and faith. It is a gift, but it is a gift to us and to be exercised by us. It is a gift which is now inseparable from our life, and its use by us brings a reward. Thus, “By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace” (Heb. 11:31). Her faith was manifested in action: she received the spies “with peace,” i.e., she protected and defended them out of faith in God and His kingdom.

As James declared, “Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” (James 2:25). James introduces a startling insight into the story. Instead of spies (kataskopos) as in Hebrews 11:31, James uses the word angelos, angels or messengers. The word angelos is used of John the Baptist in Matthew 11:10, Mark 1:2, Luke 7:27, and of John’s messengers, Luke 7:24. It is used of those whom Christ sent before Him in Luke 9:52, and of Paul’s thorn in the flesh, called “a messenger of Satan” in 2 Corinthians 12:7. In what respect were the spies messengers? Is this what Hebrews 13:2 refers to in declaring, “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares”? Were the spies symbolically seen as angels of God, bringing the opportunity of life and membership in the covenant people to Rahab? Clearly, as messengers, the spies gave life to Rahab and her family as well as receiving life by means of her protection and care.

Rahab and others cited in Hebrews 11, “all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise” (Heb. 11:39). They were links to the future, soldiers in the cause of the

kingdom. Still, each gained something, and Rahab’s role, among other things, was to be an ancestress of Jesus Christ as well as of David (Matt. 1:5-6).

She is also one who received messengers, angelos. Of this Lange said that James selected the word angelos

…in allusion to the circumstance that the Gentiles of his time were so ready to receive the messengers of the Gospel.... She hospitably received the messengers and sheltered them, she received them forthwith, as the Gentiles received the messengers of the Gospel rejected and persecuted by the Jews.40

This may well be true, but it is at best a subordinate meaning. Let us look again at Hebrews 13:2, entertaining “angels unawares.” It is true that in Genesis 18:3, Abraham, and in Genesis 19:2, Lot, actually did entertain angels unawares. However, as Lenski noted,

The thought of the statement can hardly be that by entertaining strangers we, too, may have the good fortune of sometimes receiving angels into our homes. The Old Testament incidents are too exceptional to admit of such a generalization. It is sufficient to say that, as some were unexpectedly blessed by receiving strangers, so we, too, may be thus blessed. We may go a bit farther: Christ identifies himself with his saints so that what we do for them we do for him, Matt. 25:38, 40.41

Two men who were spies sent out by Joshua came to Rahab. These men were more than they intended to be: by the providence of God, they were messengers or angels who were opening the door of salvation and freedom for Rahab, and she received them as such. Instead of regarding the men as a threat to her safety, she saw them as an opportunity for life.

Let us look again at the matter of espionage. We have seen that a spy does not go into unfamiliar territory without a contact or contacts. As far as it is possible, the spy is one who speaks the local language like a native or is a native, and he approaches people who are receptive to an approach or have initiated an approach to the other side. It has been shown that there is reason to believe that Rahab was a person at least sympathetic to Israel, and known to be so, and may have sent some word to Joshua of her support. There is a remarkable episode which gives some ground for this opinion:

And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as a captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? And the captain of the LORD’S host

40

John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: James-Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1967), 76. 41 _{Lenski, Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James, 469.}

said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so. (Josh. 5:13-15)

In examining this event, let us note first that Joshua, in seeing a stranger with a drawn sword did not at once assume him to be an enemy. There had been perhaps one or more secret contacts between the Israelites and Rahab’s household. Joshua was thus prepared to see an armed stranger as a possible ally. Second, the man identified Himself as the “captain” or “prince” of “the host of the LORD,” i.e., as God the Son, and Joshua worshipped Him as God. Third, our natural expectation at this point is that there will be a word-revelation, the impartation of military or religious insight above and beyond the identification. The revelation is simply that He is God, and that Joshua should stand barefooted, for the place was holy ground. This is the same statement made to Moses at the burning bush (Ex. 3:5). To Moses, a command to deliver God’s people was given. Joshua is now to lead them into conquest. Fourth, God is present, with sword drawn, because this is His battle. As C. H. Waller noted,

The war is a Divine enterprise, in which human instruments are employed, but so