Introduction: Moses is dead. Joshua has been appointed to lead the people of Israel into the land God had promised them. The two and a half tribes which had elected to take land east of the Jordan as their inheritance pledged to help the other tribes conquer Canaan. The Israelites are ready to cross the Jordan. Before they do, Joshua sends two men out to gather intelligence. Their mission was to have a major impact on salvation history.
I. Secret Mission (Joshua 2:1-2)
38 years before, Moses had sent Joshua out on a similar mission. Now it’s Joshua’s turn to send men out on reconnaissance. But this time, there is a major difference – this is a secret mission.
Why the secrecy?
The text does not tell us, but it’s easy to imagine that Joshua didn’t want to run the risk of a repetition of what had happened the last time. Then, the majority of the spies brought back a discouraging report. When the people heard it, they refused to enter Canaan even though Moses specifically told them that God would fight for them (Deuteronomy 1:29-33). As a result, God sentenced the Israelites to wander in the Sinai wilderness for another 38 years until all the adults who had refused to follow God’s instructions to enter the land had died. This time, presumably only Joshua knew the men had been sent. If the spies brought back a discouraging report, only Joshua would hear it. They would not have the opportunity to discourage the entire community.
It says that the men entered the house of a prostitute. Why there?
If you’re after intelligence about the defenses and preparedness of a place, you can’t very well start openly asking questions about it in the public square. The spies chose a place where they could hope to find out some information without arousing a lot of suspicion. It’s not likely that the people of Jericho would ask a bunch of questions about the identity of someone going to a house of ill-repute. On the other hand, a prostitute would very likely know a great deal about what was going on in the town. She not only would be in contact with all sorts of people, but men notoriously loosen their tongues along with their pants.
It’s also worth noting that at that period of history, and in that culture, restaurants and hotels, as we know them, did not exist. Houses of ill-repute served as inns. They were places where you could purchase a meal or a bed for the night as well as sexual favors. The spies couldn’t have stayed anywhere else without being detected.
Though the word which is translated ‘stayed’ can have sexual overtones (just like the English word ‘lay’ does – for example, see Genesis 19:32, 26:10, Exodus 22:16) it is also used for legitimate rest (just as we also use the English word ‘lay’ to mean repose for the purpose of rest (for example, see Genesis 28:13, 1 Samuel 3:2, Ezekiel 4:4). Since the spies were on a tense, dangerous mission, with their lives forfeit if they were discovered, it’s not likely that they would have asked to indulge in Rahab’s other professional services. This is especially true since Rahab entered into covenant relationship with God during their stay.
How might the king of Jericho have heard about the spies?
Jericho was a walled city. It’s likely that the gatekeepers noticed that a couple of foreigners had come in. It’s also likely that the spies called attention to themselves by asking where the red-light district was. It would have taken some time for the gatekeepers to discuss what to do and to send word to the king. It would have taken the king some more time to process the news and decide what to do about it.
II. Situational Ethics? (Joshua 2:3-7)
In Scripture Rahab is honored as a woman of faith. Yet what she did troubles many. Why does Scripture hold her up as one of the heroes of the faith though she lied? Is lying sometimes okay? If so, when is it permissible to lie?
In Jewish ethics there is a principle called ‘pikuach nafesh’ which means ‘to save a life (soul)’. According to this principle it is not only permitted but, is a duty, to set aside parts of the Mosaic Law (particularly the Sabbath laws) if it necessary to do so in order to save someone’s life. The principle is based on Leviticus 19:16 where it says “...Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD.” (NIV) There are only three exceptions. You may not murder, enter into a forbidden sexual relationship or blaspheme in order to save yourself or someone else.
Jesus seems to recognize the validity of this principle when He healed on the Sabbath. For example, in Luke 14 it says: “One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him away. Then he asked them, “If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?” And they had nothing to say.” (Luke 14:1-6 NIV)
However, Jesus’ example and illustration involves things which are good in themselves. His point seems to be that if something is morally good to do (rather than just morally neutral), then it is permissible to do it at all times regardless of a Sabbath prohibition (see Matthew 12:1-13, Mark 3:1-5, Luke 6:1-10). But what about things which are bad or evil in themselves? Is it ever permissible to do them, particularly if we think that not doing them would lead to something worse? In other words, are there times when doing something which is normally wrong becomes a virtue?
Here are some scriptural principles which apply to this question. The precise application may differ in each specific situation.
1) Paul writes that we may not use a potential good outcome as an excuse to do evil. “Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Why not say – as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say – “Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.” (Romans 3:7-8 NIV) In other words, ends do not justify means. In addition to desiring outcomes which will glorify God we must choose good or righteous methods and means to achieve those results.
2) Peter gives two general rules which are to govern all our behavior. The first is to abstain from sinful desires. The second is to live good lives (defined as doing good) (see 1 Peter 2:11-12). He goes on to apply these rules in various areas of life: response to government, slaves and masters, wives and husbands, to one another in the church, to persecutors. He sums up the Christian response to suffering by saying, “So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.” (1 Peter 4:19 NIV)
3) God does not put us impossible situations. The pressure to do wrong will never be beyond our ability to cope and resist. “No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13 NIV)
Conclusion: When two divine commands, or two good things, come into conflict then the saving or preserving of life takes priority. For example, saving someone from drowning takes priority over attending an assembly of the church even though attending the assembly is a command from God (Hebrews 10:25). Even when life is not at stake, we should give priority to the action which will result in the most good.
The New Testament never condones using evil means to bring about a good result. No doubt the Lord will look more favorably on someone who lives righteously but who lies or steals under pressure in order to preserve life than He will on someone who chooses falsehood and deceit as a lifestyle. But that doesn’t make it right. “No one whose hope is in you will ever be put to shame, but they will be put to shame who are treacherous without excuse.” (Psalm 25:3 NIV)
Then what are we to do when placed in a situation like Rahab? As Peter said, we must commit ourselves to our Creator and do good. We need to trust that God will provide a way out of our predicament. We need to look for those creative solutions which will allow us to do what is right without resorting to evil means. As much as possible we need to anticipate the moral dilemmas we will encounter and decide ahead of time what we will do. May God spare us from situations where we have to make snap moral decisions.
What risk did Rahab run by hiding the spies?
One of the provisions of the code of Hammurabi (the law that was probably in force in Jericho) was that inn-keepers (prostitutes) who did not turn in criminals who came to their establishment were to be put to death. It was an act of treason for Rahab to harbor the two spies. If they had been found in her house, not only they but, she probably would have been killed.
III. A Covenant Of Life (Joshua 2:8-21)
Cynics would say that the reason Rahab harbored the spies was that she saw them as a way to escape certain destruction. Better to take the risk she would be found out and executed for treason than to turn the spies away or turn them in only to be slaughtered when Jericho fell. No doubt Rahab did see the coming of the spies as an opportunity to save her life and lives of her family. But there is more to it than that.
What did Rahab know about Israel’s history and God’s plans?
She knew that God had given the land of Canaan to the Israelites (Joshua 2:9). She speaks of this as accomplished fact. She also knew of what God had done to Egypt during the Exodus, and the Israelites’ conquest of the peoples living east of the Jordan. The word Rahab uses in Joshua 2:10 which is translated ‘completely destroyed’ means devoting them to God. She shows an awareness that the Israelites are conquering the land, not only for themselves but, for God.
What was the effect of the news of what God had done for Israel upon the people of Jericho?
A great fear fell upon them (Joshua 2:9) and their courage failed (Joshua 2:11).
How did Rahab describe God in Joshua 2:11?
Rahab described God as “God in heaven above and on earth below.” This not only shows a remarkable understanding of who God is, but is a personal confession of faith on Rahab’s part. She knows who God is and acknowledges Him.
What did Rahab ask the spies to do?
She asked them to show her kindness and spare both her and her family. She had shown the spies kindness by risking her life for them. Now she asks them to give her the same kind of consideration. The word translated ‘kindness’ is a reciprocal caring. It is used to describe the care that people who are in covenant relationship show to each other. Rahab is asking to enter into a covenant with the spies and, by extension, into covenant relationship with God.
What conditions did the spies require in agreeing to the covenant?
1) Rahab and her family members had to agree to keep quiet about what was going on. They had to keep the agreement secret.
2) They had to stay in Rahab’s house.
3) Rahab had to mark the house.
How did Rahab’s response to the information she had differ from the other people of Jericho?
It’s important to realize that everyone in Jericho had the same information. They all knew about the Exodus. They all knew about God’s promise to give Canaan to the Israelites. They all knew about the conquest of the eastern shore of the Jordan. Rahab chose to acknowledge God and ask for mercy. The other people chose to resist the Israelites. They persisted in their opposition to God. Obedience is the key. Rahab and her family chose to seek God and obey the terms of the Covenant. The others tried to hunt down the spies.
Lesson: Hebrews 11:31 calls Rahab a woman of faith while describing the others in Jericho as disobedient. Thus, we see that obedience is one of the essential characteristics of faith. If we are not obedient, we cannot say that we have faith.
Jesus said to count the cost before deciding to follow Him. What cost do you suppose Rahab had to pay for coming into covenant relationship with God?
She lost her home. She had to be willing to live among a people who were foreign to her. She lost her profession and means of income – she could no longer practice prostitution while in covenant relationship with God who forbids sexual relations outside of marriage (Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18). Rahab faced a very uncertain future, yet chose to trust God.
IV. Aftermath (Joshua 2:22-24)
What report did the spies bring back to Joshua?
They reported that the people of Jericho were melting in fear. Because of what they had experienced, the spies were now totally convinced that God would give the land to the Israelites. This must have been very encouraging news to Joshua.
What happened to Rahab?
She and her family obeyed what the spies told her to do. As a result they were spared from the destruction of the city (Joshua 6:22-23). Rahab eventually married a man named Salmon who is named in the genealogy of Christ (Matthew 1:5). She was the mother of Boaz who was to marry another foreign woman of faith.
Lesson: It doesn’t matter what your family and background is. God can and will do great things for and through you if you turn to Him and enter into covenant with Him.