2:1b Immediately the spies meet a Canaanite prostitute and lodge with her, and the warning notes of the Shittim connection sound more ominously. On this occasion the fears appear to be groundless, but that fact will emerge only as the story unfolds. The Hebrew text is unambiguous regarding Rahab’s occupation: she is a zona (cf. 6:17, 22, 25), translated adequately as “prostitute” even though the semantic nuance of the Hebrew term does not align precisely with the English. This is also how she is remembered in the NT (Gk. pornē, Heb. 11:31; James 2:25). Historical study has challenged what this label seems to entail.18 The suggestion is that such figures acted as innkeepers; their activities were regulated in ancient law codes, and these records help to fill out their social profile as being something different from, or at least more than, ones who offered sexual favors for a price. Such, too, is the characterization of Rahab in the retelling of the story by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 5.8). It is possible, then, that her moral character is not as dubious as the profile of a zona in the Hebrew Bible often implies (cf. Prov. 7:10–20; 23:27–28; symbolically Nah. 3:4).

2:2–7 The circumstance is immediately brought to the attention of the king of Jericho. He is informed not only of the spies’ whereabouts but also of the nature of their mission. This raises the question: what kind of spies are these? Again, care must be taken not to read the text anachronistically. These men seem to be on more of a reconnaissance job than some kind of espionage mission; perhaps “scouts” conveys better this sense. However secretive—or not—their mission might be, it is in their interests to avoid contact with the civic officials, of course, and to this end Rahab hides them (Josh. 2:4). Her motivation in doing so is not yet apparent but will be disclosed in the next movement of the plot. Here the pressing issue is the report and counsel she gives the king’s messengers: in her encounter with the men she remained ignorant of their identity, they have already left the city, and the officials of Jericho should send a search party in hot pursuit (vv. 4–5).

There is an irony and an issue to be faced in Rahab’s report. The irony is that although she is blatantly lying—deceiving the king’s messengers in order to protect the spies—her report is apparently taken at face value by the king’s men and her advice followed. She seems, at least on this evidence, to be quite trustworthy, even if the story’s readers are aware that the officials are being duped. On this basis, in terms of narrative arc the reader may either form a favorable impression of Rahab’s character or else judge the civic officials to be gullible and find some humor in the speed with which they set out based solely on Rahab’s counsel and without any further investigation (v. 7). These options are not mutually exclusive!

The issue runs deeper. Rahab has lied. This has troubled Christian commentators down the centuries. Both Augustine and his contemporary John Cassian reflected on Rahab’s deceit in light of other biblical examples (e.g., the midwives in Exodus 1). For Augustine, the sin of lying remains sin, and the blessing that follows in Rahab’s case comes from the benevolent action on behalf of the people of God, not the sin, which itself is forgiven. John Cassian likens the use of a lie to that of certain herbs that when consumed under the wrong conditions can be deadly but when applied to a disease will provide healing. So too the lie: it is to be used only in extremis. John Calvin has a third perspective, acknowledging that God is truth and so the lie is contrary to God’s nature.

And still the act of Rahab is not devoid of the praise of virtue, although it was not spotlessly pure. For it often happens that while the saints study to hold the right path, they deviate into circuitous courses. . . . By the kindness of God the fault is suppressed and not taken into account.19

We can find other biblical parallels besides that of the midwives in Egypt. Jael’s deception enables the destruction of Israel’s enemy, and she is called the “most blessed of women” (Judg. 5:24; cf. 4:17–22)! Rebekah’s ruse that elicits the blessing from Isaac is sometimes considered in these discussions (Genesis 27). Perhaps most striking is the case of 1 Kings 22, in which the Lord himself sends a “lying spirit” (1 Kings 22:22, 23) into the mouths of the prophets—a different scenario, then, but one in which God’s purpose is worked out through human deception. All of this gives pause for thought and counsels against hasty judgments. We should at least be careful not to offer judgment where Scripture does not (cf. 2 Sam. 11:27). Oliver O’Donovan’s full consideration of the “wrongs of falsehood” counsels this helpful formulation: “The benevolent lie must ultimately fail to be benevolent, though it may, in confronting acute hostility, make a pardonable mistake, showing good will to a victim in a way that fails to express the root of good will in God’s gift of truth to mankind.”20 Even if a lie leads to some good, deception is not ultimately a pointer to the God of truth.

2:8–14 As the king’s agents leave the city in their fruitless pursuit of the spies, the narrative brings into focus Rahab’s interaction with these two Israelite men. The exchange on the roof (Josh. 2:8) is the first of two larger blocks of dialogue between Rahab and the spies. Rahab’s address to the spies discloses her motivation in providing them shelter and safety at the risk of her own life (vv. 9–11), and it provides the basis for the request she will make of them (vv. 12–13). It is remarkable speech, as Frank Spina notes: “It is not even a stretch to say this woman might have been a strong applicant for a job teaching Israelite catechism. . . . [Her] confession is arguably the best one in the entire Book of Joshua, even better than anything offered by the great leader himself, Joshua.”21 To appreciate its full character requires a patient and careful reading.

2:9 Rahab’s confession expresses a remarkable degree of confidence in the actions of Israel’s covenant God: “I know that the Lord has given you the land.” Of the six uses of the divine name in this chapter, four come from Rahab (vv. 9, 10, 11, 12; the other two are v. 14 by the spies and v. 24 by Joshua). These words of Rahab adopt the same starting point as the divine speech to Joshua in 1:2, already a notable signal of the orientation and insight of this Canaanite innkeeper. It also echoes the promises to the patriarchs; regardless of whether Rahab has intuited this or learned of the divine promise in some other way, the claim remains a striking foundation for her continuing discourse.

Rahab’s report, “The fear of you has fallen upon us, and . . . all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you,” is likewise remarkable. In describing the dread that she feels in the face of the Israelite presence across the river she speaks not only for herself but for “all the inhabitants of the land.” But how does she know this? Her knowledge here has puzzled many ancient commentators, Jewish and Christian alike, and they have offered various suggestions, some of which relate naturally to her role as an innkeeper, while some offer bawdier speculations based on her status as “prostitute.” At a narrative level this claim at least resonates with the connection made between her and the emissaries of the king of Jericho as the chapter begins, including the level of trust they place in the information she provides to them (2:2–7). Clearly Rahab knows the talk not only of the town but of the regions beyond as well.

It is not only the extent of Rahab’s knowledge that is striking here but also the manner in which she frames her report of the widespread dread of Israel on account of the Lord’s actions. She echoes the Song of Moses from Exodus 15:16, in which the distinctive language of “terror . . . falling upon” (a form of naphal “fall” + ʿal “upon” + ʾemah, “dread, horror”) the enemies of Israel22 is the same as that used by Rahab here—the only two places in the Hebrew Bible this collocation occurs. So, as Rahab begins her plea to the agents of Israel, her speech resonates in striking ways with what has previously been heard from the God of Israel and from Moses, their late, lamented leader.

2:10 Now Rahab identifies the source of Canaanite dread: the memory of the saving action of the Lord some forty years previously, when he “dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt.” One might have expected the fear-inducing memory to be that of the plagues of Egypt that came with such devastation on Israel’s oppressors, as they sometimes appear in biblical reminiscence apart from the deliverance at the Sea (e.g., Ps. 135:9). But this is not what Rahab offers at first; rather, it is the divine deliverance of Israel that is one source of Canaanite fear (cf. Ps. 77:19–20). And again Rahab’s unexceptional wording invites closer inspection. The combination of “dried up” (a form of yabash) and the “Red Sea” (yam suf) occurs only twice in the entire Hebrew Bible: here and again in the mouth of Joshua as he explains to the people of Israel the significance of their crossing the Jordan River, the waters of which had likewise been “dried up” by the Lord as those of the Red Sea had been (Josh. 4:23). So rather than being simply an innocuous reference to the deliverance of the “wilderness generation” of Israel from Egypt, Rahab’s wording here anticipates the formulation of Israel’s current leader at the moment the “conquest generation” experiences its parallel action of God. And to the divine promise (2:9) Rahab adds divine deliverance (v. 10).

The nation enjoyed divinely mandated and aided military victories in the wilderness as well, and Rahab adds these to the Red Sea crossing (“What you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og”) as the sum of that which induces Canaanite dread. These hostile Amorite kings, Sihon and Og, refused Israel safe passage through their territories and instead massed their armies to engage Israel in battle. They were defeated (Num. 21:21–24, 33–35). These two kings as a set pair become the template for what will take place in the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, especially in chapters 9–13, and Moses invokes them in this way in one of the key passages commissioning Joshua as his successor (Deut. 31:4). In effect, all of Israel’s battles are defensive: opposition arises as dread of the people falls on the lands they approach, leading to aggressive hostility (cf. Psalm 2!) rather than a recognition of the sovereignty of Israel’s God and submission to him—as with Rahab here.23

Joshua 2:10 concludes on an ominous note. Rahab characterizes the defeat of Sihon and Og as their having been “devoted to destruction.” She uses the verbal form of the word kherem, the distinctive technical term for the total ritual annihilation of the enemy. This is the first occurrence of the term in the book. The kherem has proved to be a notoriously difficult ethical issue for readers across the centuries; it will be considered more fully in connection with the story of Jericho in Joshua 6–7 (cf. comments there; cf. Deut. 7:2).

2:11 After the pivotal trigger for Canaanite fear is set out in verse 10, Rahab in verse 11a reiterates the depths to which the people of the land have come in terms akin to those of verse 9. She not only reinforces but deepens and extends the impression of that earlier verse: “There was no spirit left in any man because of you.” They literally were individually breathless on account of Israel’s presence.

While the Canaanites’ attention is focused on the dread-inducing Israelites—corresponding to their actions against Sihon and Og—Rahab offers her own quite different perception in verse 11b: “For the Lord your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath.” Among all of Rahab’s confession this statement is most remarkable of all. Where has she learned her theology? This precise wording is found on only two other occasions in the OT.24 The first is at the climactic moment in the sermon of Moses: his forceful appeal to Israel to be faithful to this God and obey his commands. Moses offers this as the corollary of the historical experience recounted in Deuteronomy 1–3, displaying the unique, unparalleled character of this God on Israel’s behalf, who is “in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other” (Deut. 4:39) The second occurrence of this confession comes at an equally dramatic and significant moment in Israel’s history. On that occasion it is spoken by Solomon as he uses this phrase as the preface to his great prayer at the dedication of the temple: “O Lord, God of Israel, there is no God like you, in heaven above or on [the] earth beneath” (1 Kings 8:23). So Rahab’s statement of the supremacy of the God of Israel and the basis for her plea to the spies match that of Moses’ reflecting on the work of God in delivering Israel from Egypt and anticipate that of King Solomon as he dedicates the temple in Jerusalem, the place that marks the presence of God with his people.

Each of the elements, then, of Rahab’s confession in these verses contains surprises, and her reaction to these truths is to make every effort to ensure that she too is included among the people of this God and that she experiences the deliverance only this God can bring—which means her orientation and ultimate loyalties are entirely opposite to that of the rest of the Canaanite population.

2:12–14 Having thus declared her convictions concerning the God of Israel and accounted for the state of the Canaanite population, Rahab now makes her request, following through to the moral conclusion of her preceding speech. And the theological surprises continue. Her plea to the spies is framed in terms of the way she has “dealt kindly” with them, and it aligns her hopes for their response to her in the same terms: the Hebrew here uses the freighted term hesed, which is difficult to translate but signals a kindly and loyal love and faithfulness, whether between people (e.g., Gen. 24:49; Prov. 3:3) or from God to his human creatures (e.g., Deut. 5:10; Lam. 3:22–32), particularly in his covenant love for his people (e.g., Psalm 136). There are other ways in which Rahab might have framed this request, but her stating her actions in terms of hesed and seeking a corresponding response from Israel’s agents sets off deep resonances. Her plea is essentially for salvation (Joshua 2:13), including a “sure sign” (cf. comment on 2:15–21) not only for herself but also for her “father’s house” (v. 12), as enumerated in verse 13. The spies respond affirmatively, adopting the term used by Rahab: as long as she keeps quiet about their affairs, they will also deal with her “kindly [hesed] and faithfully.” These are the only occurrences of the term hesed in the book, and its use is initiated by Rahab.

2:15–21 The second block of dialogue between Rahab and the spies reverses the initiative in the conversation and places it in a more liminal setting. As the narrative has it, this phase of the dialogue unfolds as the men are dangling from a rope in Rahab’s window at the city’s wall (v. 15). Even if the men take the initiative in speech, then, they remain dependent on Rahab for their welfare. Her counsel to them on how to evade the pursuit of the men of Jericho (v. 16) is taken at face value (v. 22) and again attests to Rahab’s trustworthiness.

The spies’ reply in verses 17–20 is by far their longest speech in the text. Aside from the agreement that will see Rahab’s family safe so long as it remains within her house, it is the sign of “this scarlet cord” (lit., “cord of scarlet thread”; three Hebrew words, tiqwat hut hashani) that they supply to her (where did it come from?) that has drawn attention over the centuries of commentary. In Christian commentary the scarlet thread has been identified with the blood of Christ from as early as 1 Clement 12:7 (“a scarlet thread . . . foreshadowing that all who believe and hope on God shall have redemption through the blood of the Lord”), followed by Origen (c. 185– 254) among many others, up through Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892). The association with the blood applied to the doorways of the homes of the Israelites during the first Passover in Egypt (Ex. 12:13) has also been made.25

To most modern readers, such suggestions appear arbitrary and without foundation in the text. Rabbinic commentators, for example, could likewise make connections to the scarlet threads for the tabernacle (the suggestion of the eighteenth-century commentator Metzudat David; cf. Ex. 25:4) or the “thread” of descendants of Rahab that tradition has assigned to her.26 While free associations such as these that spring to the mind of the preacher—whether Christian or Jewish—from a small textual detail have a naïve appeal, they remain speculative and indicative more of the imagination of the interpreter than of the impulse of the biblical writer. But the detail of the “scarlet thread” was preserved by this inspired storyteller: a bit of insignificant stuff, conveying a sign of saving significance. So perhaps more hangs from this thread, then, than the fate of Rahab’s family alone.

With Rahab’s agreement to the spies’ conditions, the business is concluded (Josh. 2:21a). Even in this final moment Rahab’s initiative is hinted at, as she “sent” the spies away (v. 21b), much as Joshua “sent” them on their mission at the beginning of the episode (v. 1).

2:22–24 Events unfold just as Rahab has predicted they would (cf. v. 16). The spies return safely to the Israelite camp and report to Joshua. It is tempting to see something of an ironic undertone to the Hebrew wording of the last clause of verse 23 (“all that had happened to them”), which could be rendered “all that found them.” They seem to have been a remarkably passive pair of spies!

Their final report, as given in verse 24, confirms the divine gifting of the land and passes along the psychological information gleaned from Rahab. There is nothing here, however, about the geographical setting of the city in the terrain, an assessment of its fortifications, an estimate of Jericho’s fighting force, or so on. So, in the final analysis, what did the spies accomplish? By implication—there is no explicit statement—Joshua is satisfied with their mission. He will, as it happens, adopt this approach on one further occasion (cf. comments on 7:1–26). For the moment, however, it might feel like something of an anticlimax, at least so far as Israelite military preparations are concerned.