Know the Text
☰
⌕
SeekQuestion

Reading as Question: the text, translations, history and evidence, plainly. Read as Seek →

← Stories·Joshua

⚠ Fact-checked, not yet reviewed by a person.

Rahab and the fall of Jericho

Joshua 2:1–24 · Joshua 6:1–27

Fact-checked · Version 2 · Revised · How this page was madedrafting: Written from a research ledger of 148 sourced claims (content/work/fall-of-jericho) and the checked Pentateuch, Pentateuch-traditional and Exodus-conquest dossiers, each checked by a second AI from a different vendor before writing; every fact-bearing item cites the claims it relies onreview: An editor from a different AI vendor than the writer reviewed the draft against its claims and applied about 30 fixes (attributions, dropped hedges, one invented detail, an overstated historicity verdict, a fuller treatment of the killing); a code check compares every item with its cited claims; owner sign-off pending

Rahab saves spies, Jericho's walls fall and its people are killed; what supports the account, and how do interpreters address the violence?6 sources6 sources1. Joshua 2:12. Joshua 2:4–53. Joshua 6:204. Joshua 6:215. Joshua 6:256. Hebrews 11:30–31

Rahab hides two Israelite spies, lies to the king's messengers and wins a promise to spare her family. Israel circles Jericho as commanded; its wall falls, the city burns and its people and livestock are killed, while Rahab's household survives. Hebrews praises her faith and James her actions; archaeologists dispute the walls' date and extent of occupation. Is the killing language literal, can God's command justify it, and does praise for Rahab make her lie right?

Joshua describes the killing of Jericho's people and livestock and the sparing of Rahab's household. Archaeologists report a Bronze Age wall collapse and fire, dated in the cited evidence to around 1550 BC, before the usual conquest dates; Wood's proposed date of 1400 BC is disputed. Limited occupation in the Late Bronze AgeLate Bronze AgeAn archaeological period dated about 1550–1200 BCE in Lorenzo Nigro’s Jericho chronology and by Douglas Petrovich. Kristina Hesse describes Canaanite city-states in the latter Bronze Age as under Egyptian domination.From: Nigro; Petrovich; HesseAll terms → is also reported. Whether God caused the destruction and whether the killing was just are separate questions from the archaeology.

At a glance

The evidence

What the text narrates

Claims others made

Theological claims

The central debate

Who, where, when
Who
RahabJoshua
Where
JerichoShittim
When set
The story takes place as Israel enters the land. Scheffler discusses proposed conquest dates around 1400 BC and in the late thirteenth century BC; the ruins do not establish either date.
When written
Drum's 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article argues that the book was written before David's time, by someone who lived not long after Joshua's death. Critical scholars Barnard and Meyer place the book's completion after the exile.7 sources7 sources1. Joshua 2:17. Scheffler 20138. Hoffmeier 20079. Drum 191010. Drum 191011. Barnard 202012. Barnard 2020
Reading time
4 min · 705 BSB words in the main passage
How to read this page
Text what the text saysTradition later interpretationEvidence what has been foundScholarship inference; scholars differ1 numbered source

What the text actually says

Text

A faithful retelling, step by step. Nothing added, nothing smoothed over.

  1. Joshua 2:1

    Joshua secretly sends two men from Shittim to explore the land and Jericho. They stay with Rahab, whom the narrator calls a prostitute.

    Read it in context

    1Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim, saying, “Go, inspect the land, especially Jericho.” So they went and entered the house of a prostitute named Rahab and stayed there.

  2. Joshua 2:4–5

    Rahab hides the spies and tells the king's messengers that the men have already left. She says she does not know where they came from and urges a quick pursuit to catch them.

    Read it in context

    2:4But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. So she said, “Yes, the men did come to me, but I did not know where they had come from. 5At dusk, when the gate was about to close, the men went out, and I do not know which way they went. Pursue them quickly, and you may catch them!”

  3. Joshua 2:9–14

    Rahab tells the spies that Jericho is terrified by reports of Israel's sea crossing and victories over Sihon and Og. She acknowledges the LORD's rule over heaven and earth and asks them to show her family the kindness she has shown them. The spies promise protection if she keeps their mission secret.

    Read it in context

    2:9and said to them, “I know that the LORD has given you this land and that the fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who dwell in the land are melting in fear of you. 10For we have heard how the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites across the Jordan, whom you devoted to destruction. 11When we heard this, our hearts melted and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the LORD your God is God in the heavens above and on the earth below. 12Now therefore, please swear to me by the LORD that you will indeed show kindness to my family, because I showed kindness to you. Give me a sure sign 13that you will spare the lives of my father and mother, my brothers and sisters, and all who belong to them, and that you will deliver us from death.” 14“Our lives for your lives!” the men agreed. “If you do not report our mission, we will show you kindness and faithfulness when the LORD gives us the land.”

  4. Joshua 2:15–21

    Rahab lowers the men by rope through a window in her home, which is built into the wall. They agree that she must mark the window with a scarlet cord and gather her relatives inside. Anyone who leaves will lose that protection. She ties the cord when the men depart.

    Read it in context

    2:15Then Rahab let them down by a rope through the window, since the house where she lived was built into the wall of the city. 16“Go to the hill country,” she said, “so that your pursuers will not find you. Hide yourselves there for three days until they have returned; then go on your way.” 17The men said to her, “We will not be bound by this oath you made us swear 18unless, when we enter the land, you have tied this scarlet cord in the window through which you let us down, and unless you have brought your father and mother and brothers and all your family into your house. 19If anyone goes out the door of your house into the street, his blood will be on his own head, and we will be innocent. But if a hand is laid on anyone with you in the house, his blood will be on our heads. 20And if you report our mission, we will be released from the oath you made us swear.” 21“Let it be as you say,” she replied, and she sent them away. And when they had gone, she tied the scarlet cord in the window.

Continue the retelling (5 more paragraphs)

  1. Joshua 6:3–5

    The LORD orders the people to circle the city once a day for six days, with seven priests carrying horns ahead of the ark. On the seventh day they are to circle it seven times, then sound a long horn blast and shout. The LORD promises that the wall will collapse so they can enter the city.

    Read it in context

    6:3March around the city with all the men of war, circling the city one time. Do this for six days. 4Have seven priests carry seven rams’ horns in front of the ark. Then on the seventh day, march around the city seven times, while the priests blow the horns. 5And when there is a long blast of the ram’s horn and you hear its sound, have all the people give a mighty shout. Then the wall of the city will collapse and all your people will charge straight into the city.”

  2. Joshua 6:15–19

    On the seventh day the people start at dawn and circle the city seven times. Joshua tells them to shout and announces that the LORD has given them Jericho. He declares the city set apart for destruction, with Rahab and those with her to be spared. He forbids taking property set apart for destruction; the silver, gold, bronze and iron must go into the LORD's treasury.

    Read it in context

    6:15Then on the seventh day, they got up at dawn and marched around the city seven times in the same manner. That was the only day they circled the city seven times. 16After the seventh time around, the priests blew the horns, and Joshua commanded the people, “Shout! For the LORD has given you the city! 17Now the city and everything in it must be devoted to the LORD for destruction. Only Rahab the prostitute and all those with her in her house will live, because she hid the spies we sent. 18But keep away from the things devoted to destruction, lest you yourself be set apart for destruction. If you take any of these, you will set apart the camp of Israel for destruction and bring disaster upon it. 19For all the silver and gold and all the articles of bronze and iron are holy to the LORD; they must go into His treasury.”

  3. Joshua 6:20–21

    The horns sound, the people shout and the wall falls. Israel's forces go straight in and capture the city. The narrator says they kill its people with swords, including males and females, young and old, along with its cattle, sheep and donkeys.

    Read it in context

    6:20So when the rams’ horns sounded, the people shouted. When they heard the blast of the horn, the people gave a great shout, and the wall collapsed. Then all the people charged straight into the city and captured it. 21At the edge of the sword they devoted to destruction everything in the city—man and woman, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys.

  4. Joshua 6:24–25

    Israel burns the city, saving only its silver, gold, bronze and iron for the treasury of the LORD's house. Joshua spares Rahab and her father's household because she hid the messengers. The narrator adds that she is still living among the Israelites at the time of writing.

    Read it in context

    6:24Then the Israelites burned up the city and everything in it. However, they put the silver and gold and articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the LORD’s house. 25And Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her father’s household and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent to spy out Jericho. So she has lived among the Israelites to this day.

  5. Joshua 6:26

    Joshua places a curse on anyone who rebuilds Jericho. He links laying its foundation to the builder's eldest son and setting up its gates to the youngest. Translations differ in how clearly they describe the sons' loss.

    Read it in context

    26At that time Joshua invoked this solemn oath: “Cursed before the LORD is the man who rises up and rebuilds this city, Jericho; at the cost of his firstborn he will lay its foundations; at the cost of his youngest he will set up its gates.”

The evidence

Evidence

Each historical claim judged on its own, never a verdict on the whole story.

The full historical question, with the dates, the archaeology and each side's case, is answered once for all the stories it affects: Did the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan happen? →

  • Mixed

    Jericho's walls fell and the city burned around 1400 BC, a proposed date for Joshua's conquest.

    Sala and Wood agree that Jericho's fortifications collapsed in the Bronze Age: Sala dates the collapse around 1550 BC, and Wood reads the fallen bricks Kenyon found as the toppled wall.

    Why this verdict

    What the text narrates

    Confidence: medium

    Sala and Wood agree that Jericho's fortifications collapsed in the Bronze Age: Sala dates the collapse around 1550 BC, and Wood reads the fallen bricks Kenyon found as the toppled wall. The date is disputed. Wood argued for about 1400 BC, but reports that the radiocarbon date he first cited was corrected and that later samples gave earlier dates; he keeps 1400 BC on pottery and Egyptian chronology. Nigro finds no evidence connecting the burned ruins with Joshua's Jericho.9 sources9 sources13. Sala14. Wood 19903. Joshua 6:2015. Wood 199016. Wood17. Wood18. Nigro 201719. Pitkänen 200420. Sala 2017

    Contested · The archaeological interpretations cited here, not a survey of archaeologists (as of 2026-11-08) · Minority: Wood retains a date around 1400 BC from pottery and Egyptian chronology, arguing that radiocarbon runs early in this period.

    What would change this verdict: A securely dated destruction matching the proposed conquest chronology and evidence connecting it to the narrated attack would change this assessment.

  • Supported

    Jericho had some occupation in the Late Bronze Age.

    Nigro reports that Jericho was occupied in the Late Bronze Age, though later settlement and excavation removed almost all of the scanty remains, and that a clay tablet suggests a ruler and an archive.

    Why this verdict

    What the text narrates

    Confidence: high

    Nigro reports that Jericho was occupied in the Late Bronze Age, though later settlement and excavation removed almost all of the scanty remains, and that a clay tablet suggests a ruler and an archive. Finkelstein and Silberman, quoted by Scheffler, describe the fourteenth-century settlement as small, poor and unfortified and report no trace of a thirteenth-century settlement. Kenyon, as Pitkänen reports, judged the site largely abandoned rather than wholly empty. None of this establishes a fortified city destroyed in Joshua's attack.4 sources4 sources21. Nigro 201619. Pitkänen 200420. Sala 201722. Scheffler 2013

    Contested · The cited archaeological descriptions, which differ on the extent of occupation; not a survey of archaeologists (as of 2026-11-08)

  • Open

    An earthquake caused the wall collapse described in Joshua.

    Wood argues that the collapse may well have been caused by an earthquake, citing signs of earthquake activity at the end of City IV.

    Why this verdict

    What the text narrates

    Confidence: high

    Wood argues that the collapse may well have been caused by an earthquake, citing signs of earthquake activity at the end of City IV. Kenyon, quoted by Scheffler, said there is no factual evidence of what made the walls fall and called an earthquake only a conjecture. Sala gives an earthquake or Egyptian forces as possible causes of the Middle Bronze destruction. The physical cause and the link between that destruction and Joshua are separate questions.4 sources4 sources14. Wood 199023. Scheffler 201313. Sala3. Joshua 6:20

    Contested · The cited explanations of the collapse (as of 2026-11-08)

  • Outside what evidence can settle

    The LORD gave Jericho to Israel and brought down its walls.

    Joshua attributes the victory to the LORD, and Hebrews connects the collapse with faith.

    Why this verdict

    Theological claims

    Confidence: high

    Joshua attributes the victory to the LORD, and Hebrews connects the collapse with faith. Divine agency is outside what evidence can settle; the historical identification of a collapse is a separate question.6 sources6 sources24. Joshua 6:225. Joshua 6:163. Joshua 6:2026. Hebrews 11:3023. Scheffler 20136. Hebrews 11:30–31

  • Outside what evidence can settle

    The killing at Jericho was a just divine judgment.

    CalvinJohn CalvinA Protestant reformer (1509–1564) who settled in Geneva in 1536, with an interval away, according to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Alongside the Institutes of the Christian Religion, he wrote commentaries on Scripture.From: Alexander; Alexander; Alexander; Alexander; AlexanderAll terms → and Craig defend the killing through divine authority and judgment.

    Why this verdict

    Theological claims

    Confidence: high

    Calvin and Craig defend the killing through divine authority and judgment. Barnard and Meyer reject its ethical justification; Bradley makes it part of an argument for atheism. These evaluations depend on moral and theological premises, rather than an excavation's date.8 sources8 sources4. Joshua 6:2127. Genesis 15:1628. Beveridge29. Craig 200711. Barnard 202030. Barnard 202031. Barnard 202032. Bradley 1999

    Contested · The named ethical and theological interpretations cited here (as of 2026-11-08)

  • No outside evidence · silence partly expected

    Hiel's rebuilding of Jericho has independent archaeological attestation.

    Scheffler reports virtually no trace of the ninth-century occupation associated with Hiel.

    Why this verdict

    What the text narrates

    Confidence: high

    Scheffler reports virtually no trace of the ninth-century occupation associated with Hiel. Nigro reports sparse Iron Age remains, including later installations. These sources do not independently identify Hiel's building work. The sparse remains limit what the silence can establish; they do not show that his rebuilding was impossible.4 sources4 sources33. Scheffler 201334. Nigro 201635. 1 Kings 16:3436. Joshua 6:26

    What would change this verdict: Independently identified remains of Hiel's rebuilding would change this verdict.

  • Supported

    The Jericho spiritual was in print by 1925.

    James Weldon Johnson's 1925 songbook prints the spiritual about Joshua's battle at Jericho.

    Why this verdict

    Claims others made

    Confidence: high

    James Weldon Johnson's 1925 songbook prints the spiritual about Joshua's battle at Jericho. The printing does not establish when the song originated.37 38

    Cross-community agreement · The documented printing, not an assessment of the song's origins (as of 2026-11-08)

What people get wrong

Text

Things people commonly believe the text says, checked against it.

  • A common belief among believers

    Myth The fallen bricks settle the case for Joshua's conquest.

    Actually Fallen bricks support a Bronze Age collapse, but dating it and connecting it with Joshua need further evidence. Wood reports that the radiocarbon date first cited for his 1400 BC dating was corrected, and that later grain samples gave earlier dates.5 sources5 sources13. Sala14. Wood 19903. Joshua 6:2016. Wood17. Wood

  • A common belief among skeptics

    Myth There was no occupation at all anywhere in Late Bronze Jericho.

    Actually Nigro reports Late Bronze occupation, scanty surviving remains and a tablet suggesting a ruler and archive. That report does not establish the fortified city or conquest in Joshua.4 sources4 sources21. Nigro 201613. Sala14. Wood 19903. Joshua 6:20

  • A common belief among believers

    Myth Joshua's story says that only soldiers were killed at Jericho.

    Actually The narrated list spans sex and age. Copan's military-citadel reading is an interpretation disputed by Stark, who argues that the narrative depicts civilians.5 sources5 sources4. Joshua 6:2139. Copan 202340. Copan 202441. Stark 201142. Stark 2011

Show 5 more misconceptions

  • A common belief among skeptics

    Myth The destruction command in this story allows no exception at all.

    Actually Joshua explicitly excepts Rahab and those inside her house, then recounts her family's rescue and life among Israel.43 5

  • A common belief among believers

    Myth The New Testament explicitly says that Rahab's lie was righteous.

    Actually Hebrews names her faith and welcome, and James names her reception and redirection of the messengers. Neither explicitly praises her false answer.6 44 45

  • A common belief among skeptics

    Myth All interpreters who retain this text endorse literal annihilation.

    Actually Calvin defends the killing as divine judgment, Copan disputes literal annihilation and Barnard and Meyer reject ethical justification of the violence. Hofreiter also describes OrigenOrigenA Christian scholar and teacher of Alexandria, born in 185 and deceased probably in 253 or 254, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Marco Rizzi explains that he interpreted the Septuagint allegorically, like Philo.From: Prat; Prat; Prat; Rizzi; PratAll terms →'s spiritual application as pacifist without denying historicity.11 sources11 sources4. Joshua 6:2127. Genesis 15:1628. Beveridge40. Copan 202446. Judges 1:27–3347. Joshua 23:12–1311. Barnard 202030. Barnard 202031. Barnard 202048. Hofreiter 201349. Hofreiter 2013

  • A common belief among believers

    Myth The Bible says no one lived at Jericho between Joshua and Hiel.

    Actually Joshua lists Jericho among Benjamin's cities, and Samuel places David's envoys there before Hiel's rebuilding. Keil distinguishes settlement from restoration as a fortified city.8 sources8 sources50. Joshua 18:2151. 2 Samuel 10:552. Judges 3:1353. Deuteronomy 34:336. Joshua 6:2635. 1 Kings 16:3454. Keil 186555. Keil 1865

  • A common belief among skeptics

    Myth If the conquest is not historical, its ethical problem disappears.

    Actually As Trimm reports, Collins argues that an ethical problem remains because the authors chose to tell the story with this violence.56

Hard questions

The strongest case, the strongest responses, then a plain assessment of where the logic holds.

Was Jericho inhabited when Joshua is supposed to have attacked it?

Limited Late Bronze occupation is reported, but it does not establish a fortified Jericho destroyed by Joshua, and the cited dating evidence weighs against Wood's proposed match.

See the argument

The strongest case

Scheffler argues that neither the approximately 1400 BC setting nor a late-thirteenth-century setting supplies Jericho with a wall for Joshua to destroy, and he describes Wood's 1990 case for the historicity of Joshua 6 as refuted by Piotr Bienkowski. Finkelstein and Silberman, quoted by Scheffler, describe the fourteenth-century settlement as small, poor and unfortified and report no trace of a thirteenth-century settlement. The challenge concerns a fortified city at the relevant time, rather than whether anyone lived among older ruins.11 sources11 sources7. Scheffler 20138. Hoffmeier 200722. Scheffler 201319. Pitkänen 200420. Sala 201721. Nigro 201618. Nigro 201715. Wood 199016. Wood17. Wood57. Scheffler 2013

  1. P1. Sala places the fortifications' collapse around 1550 BC; Finkelstein and Silberman describe the fourteenth-century settlement as small, poor and unfortified, and Nigro reports limited Late Bronze occupation.4 sources4 sources19. Pitkänen 200420. Sala 201721. Nigro 201622. Scheffler 2013No listed response challenges this premise
  2. P2. The argument infers that the missing fortified city at the proposed date makes the narrated conquest historically untenable.

→ Conclusion. The conquest account cannot be matched to a fortified Jericho at the proposed date on this reading of the remains.

Strongest responses

Protestant: evangelical challenges P2

Redate the destruction. Wood argues that City IV fell around 1400 BC. He keeps this date from pottery and Egyptian chronology after reporting that his initial radiocarbon support was corrected and that later samples gave earlier dates, arguing that radiocarbon runs 100–150 years early in this period.15 16 17

Academic (critical) challenges the conclusion

Distinguish occupation from conquest evidence. Nigro reports Late Bronze occupation and a tablet suggesting a ruler and archive. He nevertheless finds no evidence connecting the older burned ruins with Joshua's Jericho.21 18

Plain assessment

Some occupation is supported; a fortified city destroyed in Joshua's conquest is not established by that finding. Wood's redating supplies a proposed match, but the corrected and later radiocarbon results weigh against it. The distinction between occupation and a dated conquest prevents either an empty-site claim or an archaeological confirmation from outrunning these sources.

What would change this assessment: A securely dated fortified settlement and destruction at the proposed time would change the historical comparison.

Assessment uses: Different ruins, different dates · Burned grain and the disputed chronology · Jericho's walls fell and the city burned around 1400 BC, a proposed date for Joshua's conquest. · Jericho had some occupation in the Late Bronze Age.

Did the walls fall because of an earthquake, a miracle or something else?

The physical cause remains unresolved, and a proposed natural mechanism does not settle whether the collapse should be understood as God's action.

See the argument

The strongest case

Kenyon, as quoted by Scheffler, says the cause of the wall collapse is not established and calls an earthquake conjectural. A proposed natural mechanism must also be distinguished from identifying the collapsed remains with Joshua's attack.11 sources11 sources3. Joshua 6:2023. Scheffler 201314. Wood 199026. Hebrews 11:3058. Gardiner59. Gardiner24. Joshua 6:225. Joshua 6:1613. Sala60. Keil 186561. Keil 1865

  1. P1. Joshua narrates the collapse after the horns and shout; Kenyon's reported assessment leaves the physical cause unresolved.3 23No listed response challenges this premise
  2. P2. The argument infers that a possible natural mechanism would remove any need to read the collapse as divine action.

→ Conclusion. A natural explanation would exclude a miraculous reading of the wall collapse.

Strongest responses

Protestant: evangelical challenges the framing

A proposed earthquake. Wood argues that the collapse may well have been caused by an earthquake, and links the fallen mudbricks with a ramp into the city.14 3

Early church: Greek challenges the framing

Faith rather than the power of sound. ChrysostomJohn ChrysostomBishop of Constantinople from 398 (about 347–407), called “golden-mouthed” for his eloquence. The Catholic Encyclopedia calls him the chief representative of Antioch’s grammatical-historical interpretation, which opposed Origen’s allegorical reading.From: Baur; Baur; Baur; BaurAll terms → argues that trumpet sound cannot topple stones and reads the fall as the work of faith rather than a natural sequence.4 sources4 sources26. Hebrews 11:303. Joshua 6:2058. Gardiner59. Gardiner

Protestant: Lutheran challenges the framing

Natural explanations rejected. Keil dismisses explanations by earthquake, mining or a sudden assault as undeserving of serious refutation, and says only a naturalistic standpoint could deny the miracle.3 60 61

Academic (critical) challenges P2

A natural event can also receive a religious reading. Kenyon, quoted by Scheffler, allows that Israelites would regard such an event as divine intervention and that it could be regarded that way.23

Plain assessment

The mechanism remains open in the cited physical explanations. The existence of a possible earthquake mechanism does not settle the theological claim of divine action; the claim of divine action also does not identify or date the ruins.

What would change this assessment: Physical evidence identifying the cause and date would change the historical assessment, while divine agency remains outside what evidence can settle.

Assessment uses: Josh.6.20-Josh.6.21 · An earthquake caused the wall collapse described in Joshua. · Jericho's walls fell and the city burned around 1400 BC, a proposed date for Joshua's conquest. · The LORD gave Jericho to Israel and brought down its walls. · Protestant: Lutheran

How could killing Jericho's children be justified?

Craig, Calvin, Wesley, Augustine and Drum defend the killing through divine authority or deserved judgment, which Bradley and Barnard and Meyer reject; Copan's reading of the victim list as stock language is disputed by Stark.

See the argument

The strongest case

Bradley cites Jericho's killing of men and women, young and old, as the start of what he calls God's genocidal policies, in a moral argument against the existence of the God he defines. Answering the defense drawn from Genesis 15:16, Stark says it is unclear when a baby's slaughter could be fully deserved and asserts that God sent no prophets to warn Canaan. Barnard and Meyer argue that such violence should not be condoned as ethical, necessary or divinely justified, and Collins, as Trimm reports, holds that the ethical problem remains even if the story is not historical. Craig himself grants that these stories offend moral sensibilities and calls the apparent wrong done to the soldiers who had to kill women and children the most difficult part of the debate. Against reading the victim list as exaggeration, Stark argues that the text wants its hearers to picture noncombatants being destroyed and that Jericho was not fortified at the time of any proposed conquest. Hofreiter notes that some destruction narratives name men, women and children among the casualties, and that applying the narratives to the legal commands assumes uniform usage across books.27 sources27 sources4. Joshua 6:2143. Joshua 6:1732. Bradley 199911. Barnard 202012. Barnard 202030. Barnard 202031. Barnard 202029. Craig 200727. Genesis 15:1628. Beveridge62. Stark 201156. Trimm 202163. Deuteronomy 20:1864. Wesley 176565. Deuteronomy 20:16–1866. Stothert67. Drum 191068. Sassoon 201540. Copan 202446. Judges 1:27–3347. Joshua 23:12–1339. Copan 202341. Stark 201142. Stark 201169. Hofreiter 201370. Hofreiter 201371. Hofreiter 2013

  1. P1. Joshua describes the killing of younger and older inhabitants, both male and female, with Rahab's household explicitly excepted.4 43No listed response challenges this premise
  2. P2. The moral argument takes the deliberate killing of children to be incompatible with the goodness attributed to God.

→ Conclusion. The command and killing narrated at Jericho count against the goodness of the God said to command them, or, in Bradley's argument, against that God's existence.

Strongest responses

Protestant: evangelical challenges P2

Divine command and grace for children. Craig argues from divine command ethics that God may take life as he chooses and that his command made obligatory for Israel's soldiers what would otherwise have been murder. Reading Genesis 15:16, he holds that judgment on the CanaanitesCanaaniteAn inhabitant of ancient Canaan, a territory the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary describes as including parts of present-day Israel, the occupied territories and Lebanon.From: PowellAll terms → was delayed until their wickedness was complete, with Israel as the instrument of God's justice. He explains the children's deaths by the ban on assimilation and argues that, if God's grace extends to those who die in infancy, as he believes, their death was actually their salvation.29 27 63

Protestant: evangelical challenges the conclusion

Exaggerated war language about military citadels. Copan argues that Joshua's sweeping destruction language is the exaggeration of ancient Near Eastern war accounts, citing K. Lawson Younger and the Canaanites who survive in Judges. Following Richard Hess, he argues that cities such as Jericho and Ai were military and administrative citadels, and that wording about sex and age can be stock language even where no noncombatants were present.5 sources5 sources40. Copan 202446. Judges 1:27–3347. Joshua 23:12–1339. Copan 20234. Joshua 6:21

Protestant: Reformed challenges P2

Judgment on an accursed people. Calvin says the slaughter, sparing neither women, children nor the aged, might seem an inhuman massacre had it not been carried out at God's command, and notes that the Canaanites had been borne with for four hundred years. To the objection that the children at least were free from fault, he answers that they perished justly because the race was accursed and reprobated.4 27 28

Protestant: Methodist challenges P2

Original sin and an early death as favour. Wesley, commenting on Joshua 6:21, says the infants were guilty of original sin and at their creator's disposal, and that even if they had been wholly innocent, being taken away in infancy was a great favour to them.4 64

Early church: Latin challenges P2

Obedience and righteous retribution. AugustineAugustineA North African theologian (354–430), born at Tagaste, who served as bishop of Hippo from 396 until his death, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.From: Portalié; PortaliéAll terms →, answering the Manichaean Faustus about the wars of Moses, argues that in wars waged at God's command Moses showed obedience, not ferocity, and God acted not in cruelty but in righteous retribution, giving all what they deserved.65 66

Catholic challenges P2

Ancient warfare and deserved punishment. Drum's 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article answers the charge that Joshua was cruel by comparing Assyrian and Egyptian treatment of the defeated, and by citing Augustine's view that the Canaanites' abominations merited punishment.4 67

Jewish: modern challenges the framing

The rabbis neutralised the law. Rabbi Isaac Sassoon argues that the rabbis were unhappy with the law of the ban and used their homiletical approach to obliterate it. His point concerns the law in general rather than Jericho alone.68

Skeptic/secular challenges the framing

Retain the moral objection. Bradley argues that if there are objective moral truths, the God he defines does not exist, and uses Jericho as the start of what he calls genocidal policies.32 4

Academic (critical) challenges the framing

Understand the story without endorsing its violence. Barnard and Meyer suggest that the literary violence could have fostered courage and loyalty in a vulnerable Judah. They argue that it should not be condoned as ethical, necessary or divinely justified, but reject dropping the text from the canon as irresponsible; their answer is to understand its ancient function without justifying it.4 sources4 sources11. Barnard 202012. Barnard 202030. Barnard 202031. Barnard 2020

Plain assessment

Craig, Calvin, Wesley, Augustine and Drum defend the killing through divine authority or deserved judgment, and Craig, Calvin and Wesley add premises about the children: grace for those who die young, a race under a curse, original sin. Bradley and Barnard and Meyer reject the ethical justification, Bradley as an argument against God's existence and Barnard and Meyer while keeping the text. Sassoon describes the rabbis as neutralising the law through interpretation. Copan instead reads the victim list as stock war language about military citadels, a reading Stark rejects for Jericho.

What would change this assessment: A change in the reading of who is killed would change the case; accepting or rejecting the theological premises changes its moral assessment.

Assessment uses: Josh.6.20-Josh.6.21 · Josh.6.15-Josh.6.19 · Protestant: Reformed · Protestant: evangelical · Skeptic/secular · Academic (critical) · Catholic · The killing at Jericho was a just divine judgment. · Divine command and grace for children · Original sin and an early death as favour · Obedience and righteous retribution · Ancient warfare and deserved punishment · The rabbis neutralised the law · Understand the story without endorsing its violence · Exaggerated war language about military citadels · Devoted to destruction · misconception only soldiers

Does praise of Rahab's faith mean her lie was right?

Hebrews and James commend Rahab without explicitly approving her lie; the cited Christian commentators distinguish her rescue from its deceptive means.

See the argument

The strongest case

Rahab protects the spies partly by giving the king's messengers false information. Hebrews praises her faith and welcome; James praises receiving the messengers and helping them leave another way. The reader's question is whether approval of her rescue also approves the deception used in it.16 sources16 sources2. Joshua 2:4–56. Hebrews 11:30–3144. James 2:2545. James 2:21–2472. Exodus 1:19–2173. Browne74. Joshua 2:4–675. Browne76. Browne77. Beveridge78. Hebrews 11:3179. Keil 186580. Keil 186581. Joshua 2:482. 1 Chronicles 4:2283. Rabbah

  1. P1. Joshua narrates Rahab's false answer; Hebrews and James praise her faith and actions without explicitly praising that answer.4 sources4 sources2. Joshua 2:4–56. Hebrews 11:30–3144. James 2:2545. James 2:21–24No listed response challenges this premise
  2. P2. The argument infers that praise for the successful rescue endorses the deception that helped achieve it.

→ Conclusion. Rahab's example permits a lie when it protects endangered people.

Strongest responses

Early church: Latin challenges P2

Rewarded mercy, overlooked fault. Augustine distinguishes Rahab's mercy and courage from her lie, judging the former worthy of imitation and the latter a fault God overlooked.7 sources7 sources2. Joshua 2:4–572. Exodus 1:19–2173. Browne74. Joshua 2:4–644. James 2:2575. Browne76. Browne

Protestant: Reformed challenges P2

A good purpose does not authorize falsehood. Calvin holds that Rahab's good purpose did not make lying lawful and that God's will to rescue the spies did not approve rescue through falsehood.2 77

Protestant: Lutheran challenges P2

A forgiven weakness. Keil rejects a defense based on necessity and regards the lie as a weakness forgiven because of Rahab's faith.5 sources5 sources74. Joshua 2:4–678. Hebrews 11:3144. James 2:2579. Keil 186580. Keil 1865

Jewish: rabbinic challenges the framing

Praise alongside an acknowledged deception. Ruth Rabbah identifies Rahab through a wordplay about deceiving Jericho's king within a passage praising her attachment to Israel, without deciding whether the lie itself was right.81 82 83

Plain assessment

The cited New Testament passages name faith, welcome and action without explicitly commending the false answer. Augustine, Calvin and Keil therefore distinguish the good of rescue from a fault in its means. Ruth Rabbah acknowledges deception in a positive portrayal without supplying the same moral verdict. Approval of the lie is an additional inference, not an explicit statement of these passages.

What would change this assessment: An explicit evaluation of Rahab's false answer would directly address what the praise passages leave unstated.

Assessment uses: Josh.2.4-Josh.2.5 · Heb.11.31 · Jas.2.25 · Early church: Latin · Protestant: Reformed · Protestant: Lutheran · Praise alongside an acknowledged deception

Is Rahab a faithful rescuer or a traitor to her own people?

Rahab's actions change her allegiance in practice, but the cited readings differ over whether her confession expresses strategy, divinely informed faith or conversion.

See the argument

The strongest case

O'Brien asks whether Rahab's apparent confession is strategic and reads her, against the grain, as betraying her king and country to save her family. Calvin also recognizes the problem of aiding an enemy, but gives a different answer based on the knowledge he believes God gave her.8 sources8 sources2. Joshua 2:4–584. Joshua 2:12–1485. O'Brien 201786. Joshua 2:9–1177. Beveridge87. Joshua 2:1188. Hirsch 190589. Robertson 2019

  1. P1. Rahab protects Israel's spies, misdirects Jericho's messengers and bargains for the survival of her relatives.2 84 1No listed response challenges this premise
  2. P2. The against-the-grain reading infers that these actions may be better explained as a strategy to save her family than as faith.

→ Conclusion. Rahab's confession should be read primarily as a way to secure her family's survival.

Strongest responses

Academic (critical) challenges the framing

Leave her motives open. O'Brien offers the strategic reading as an alternative to the traditional praise, asking whether Rahab is a heroine or traitor rather than settling the choice.85

Protestant: Reformed challenges P2

An exception through divine knowledge. Calvin treats love of country as natural but argues that the knowledge God gave Rahab released her from the ordinary obligation and excused her help to the spies.86 77

Jewish: rabbinic challenges P2

A convert's confession. The Jewish Encyclopedia reports the rabbinicRabbinicRelating to the rabbis, the Jewish movement of teachers that Sara Ronis describes as emerging after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem’s temple in 70 CE, with teachings and discussions collected in the Talmud.From: RonisAll terms → judgment that Rahab's conversion was more complete than Jethro's or Naaman's, because she confessed the LORD as the only God in heaven and on earth.87 88 89

Plain assessment

The protection of the spies and the bargain for her family are explicit. O'Brien leaves the strategic reading as a question; Calvin's defense depends on divine knowledge, and the rabbinic reading treats the confession as conversion. The actions support the question about allegiance without independently deciding between those accounts of her motives.

What would change this assessment: Further evidence about her motives would narrow the alternatives that O'Brien leaves open.

Assessment uses: Josh.2.4-Josh.2.5 · Josh.2.9-Josh.2.14 · Jewish: rabbinic · Leave her motives open · An exception through divine knowledge

What does the rebuilding curse say happened to Hiel's sons?

Kings presents the sons' loss as fulfillment of Joshua's curse, while the manner of their deaths and independent identification of the rebuilding remain unresolved.

See the argument

The strongest case

Kings connects Hiel's rebuilding and the loss of his sons with Joshua's curse. Kohler suggests a connection with foundation sacrifice; Hulse instead considers accident or disease more reasonable. Neither the wording of the curse nor the cited archaeological remains independently identifies the cause of death.15 sources15 sources35. 1 Kings 16:3436. Joshua 6:2690. this site's data91. this site's data92. Kohler 190393. Hulse 197094. Talmud95. Publications50. Joshua 18:2152. Judges 3:1351. 2 Samuel 10:554. Keil 186555. Keil 186533. Scheffler 201334. Nigro 2016

  1. P1. Kings presents the loss of Hiel's eldest and youngest sons during rebuilding as fulfillment of Joshua's curse; Joshua's Hebrew wording links sons with the foundation and gates.4 sources4 sources35. 1 Kings 16:3436. Joshua 6:2690. this site's data91. this site's dataNo listed response challenges this premise
  2. P2. The proposed inference is that linking the sons to construction identifies their deaths as deliberate foundation sacrifices.

→ Conclusion. The rebuilding account establishes that Hiel sacrificed his sons.

Strongest responses

Jewish: rabbinic challenges P2

Deaths under the curse. In Sanhedrin 113a, the TalmudTalmudA collection of rabbinic teachings and discussions framed as commentary on the Mishnah. Sara Ronis explains that the name usually means the Babylonian Talmud, produced from the third to seventh centuries CE.From: Ronis; RonisAll terms →'s discussion of a baraita reads the account as teaching that Hiel buried all his sons one after another, from Abiram to Segub; RashiRashiA French commentator on the Bible and Talmud (1040–1105), also named Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac, who was born and died at Troyes, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia.From: JacobsAll terms → reads Joshua 6:26 the same way.4 sources4 sources35. 1 Kings 16:3436. Joshua 6:2694. Talmud95. Publications

Academic (critical) challenges the conclusion

A possible foundation-sacrifice connection. Kohler writes that the story seems to be connected with the custom of laying foundations with blood, citing comparative material from elsewhere rather than evidence from Jericho.35 92

Academic (critical) challenges P2

Accident or disease. Hulse judges accident or disease during building more reasonable and suggests that the community attributed the deaths to the curse; he also reports Gray's sacrifice interpretation.93 35

Protestant: Lutheran challenges the framing

Rebuilding as fortification. Keil reads the curse as prohibiting restoration of a fortified town, while allowing settlement before Hiel. He links its fulfillment with Hiel's restoration of defenses under Ahab.7 sources7 sources36. Joshua 6:2635. 1 Kings 16:3450. Joshua 18:2152. Judges 3:1351. 2 Samuel 10:554. Keil 186555. Keil 1865

Plain assessment

Kings supplies the narrative connection between rebuilding, the sons' loss and the curse. The cause of their deaths remains disputed among these interpreters. Kohler's suggestion is comparative and qualified; Hulse offers other causes. The sparse archaeological record does not independently identify Hiel's rebuilding or settle the sons' deaths.

What would change this assessment: Independent evidence identifying the rebuilding and the circumstances of the deaths would change the historical assessment.

Assessment uses: Josh.6.26 · With a son or at his cost? · Hiel's rebuilding of Jericho has independent archaeological attestation. · A possible foundation-sacrifice connection · Accident or disease · Deaths under the curse

Background

Different ruins, different dates Evidence

As Wood reports, Garstang, excavating in 1930–1936, concluded that Jericho's walls fell, apparently through an earthquake, and the city burned about 1400 BC; he called the Joshua link circumstantial but apparently solid. Steiner reports that Kenyon's 1952–1958 excavation redated Garstang's double wall to the Early Bronze Age, almost two thousand years earlier; Wood accepts this. A separate dispute concerns the settlement phase called City IV: Kenyon, as Pitkänen reports, dated its destruction to the end of the Middle Bronze Age, while Wood argues for about 1400 BC.8 sources8 sources3. Joshua 6:2096. Joshua 6:2497. Wood 199098. Steiner 201799. Wood 199019. Pitkänen 200420. Sala 201715. Wood 1990

Burned grain and the disputed chronology Evidence

Wood argues that City IV's large stores of burned grain show the city did not fall to a starvation siege and fell soon after the spring harvest; the ban on plunder, he says, could explain the unplundered grain. He reports that the 1410 BC radiocarbon date he once cited was corrected, and that later samples gave about 1640–1520 BC (grain) and 1690–1610 BC (charcoal). He keeps about 1400 BC from pottery and Egyptian chronology, arguing that radiocarbon runs 100–150 years early in this period.14 16 17

Rahab and earlier rescue stories Scholarship

Julia O'Brien, a critical scholar, sees exodus allusions in Rahab's story: her speech echoes the Song of Miriam, she resists a king's murderous order as the Hebrew midwives did, and a red marker protects her house, as at the Passover.85

Show 3 more background topics (A neighboring king's account of destruction; Was there a chance to make peace?; The ban and Achan)

A neighboring king's account of destruction Scholarship

The Mesha Stela, a Moabite inscription from around 850 BC, is what Trimm calls the closest parallel to heremHeremSomething set apart by God, often translated “the ban” or “devoted to destruction”. Charlie Trimm says the Hebrew Bible most often uses it for the destruction of Canaanite property and people.From: Trimm; Trimm; Trimm; PowellAll terms → outside the Bible. In Driver's translation, Chemosh commands Mesha to take Nebo from Israel, and Mesha claims to have killed its whole population, 7,000 people, having devoted it to Ashtor-Chemosh. Trimm lists parallels with the biblical ban, including killing, women and children, and a deity commanding the battle, but says the broken text shows little beyond a city offered to a deity and later repopulated.8 sources8 sources100. Trimm 2026101. 2 Kings 3:4102. Driver 1913103. Driver 1913104. Driver 191343. Joshua 6:174. Joshua 6:21105. Trimm 2026

Was there a chance to make peace? Tradition

Joshua's Jericho account records no peace offer. A rabbinic tradition says Joshua sent messages offering departure, peace or battle. Rashi limits Deuteronomy's peace requirement to optional wars. NachmanidesNachmanidesA Spanish Talmudist, Bible commentator and physician (1194–about 1270), also called Moses ben Nahman or Ramban. The Jewish Encyclopedia calls his Pentateuch commentary his masterpiece.From: Jacobs; Jacobs; Jacobs; JacobsAll terms → extends it to the CanaaniteCanaaniteAn inhabitant of ancient Canaan, a territory the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary describes as including parts of present-day Israel, the occupied territories and Lebanon.From: PowellAll terms → nations, and MaimonidesMaimonidesA Talmudist, philosopher and physician (1135–1204), according to the Jewish Encyclopedia. His works include a Mishnah commentary, the law code Mishneh Torah and the philosophical Guide for the Perplexed.From: Jacobs; Jacobs; JacobsAll terms → requires peace terms before commanded wars too. Maimonides' terms include religious requirements and subjugation; refusal by the seven nations still leads to destruction of the whole population.11 sources11 sources106. Deuteronomy 20:10107. Joshua 11:19–20108. Guggenheimer109. Rabbah110. Rosenbaum111. Deuteronomy 20:15–17112. Chavel113. Deuteronomy 20:16114. Touger115. Touger116. Touger

The ban and Achan Text

The warning against taking Jericho's devoted property leads into Joshua 7, where Achan takes some of it and the LORD's anger burns against Israel. Joshua and all Israel take Achan, the stolen goods, his sons and daughters, his animals and his tent to the Valley of Achor, where Israel stones him and burns them. Translations differ on whether his children were executed with him.5 sources5 sources117. Joshua 6:18–19118. Joshua 7:1119. Joshua 7:21120. Joshua 7:24–25121. Deuteronomy 24:16

Where translations differ

Text

Where the wording in different Bibles diverges, and why.

Joshua 2:1 · “Prostitute or innkeeper?” zonah

Joshua calls Rahab a zonah, a prostitute, in four verses. Targum Jonathan renders the word as innkeeper, and Rashi cites that rendering, though elsewhere in his comments he repeats the tradition that she had been a prostitute. Radak takes the Hebrew literally and argues that the TargumTargumAn Aramaic translation of the Bible. The Jewish Encyclopedia traces the practice to the Second Temple period and describes translators rendering biblical texts into Aramaic in the synagogue.From: Bacher; Bacher; LevineAll terms → also meant a prostitute. Keil rejects the innkeeper reading. Julia O'Brien, a critical scholar, judges that the narrator most likely depicts an active sex worker.10 sources10 sources122. this site's data1. Joshua 2:1123. Translation)88. Hirsch 1905124. Publications125. Publications126. 1 Kings 3:16127. Translation)128. Keil 186585. O'Brien 2017

Open in compare →

Joshua 2:12–14 · “Kindness returned” chesed

Rahab uses the same word for her protection of the spies and the protection she requests for her relatives. Their pledge also requires her silence.84

Open in compare →

Joshua 6:17–21 · “Devoted to destruction” herem

Kohler explains herem as devotion to a deity, generally involving destruction in its biblical setting. Trimm identifies irrevocable dedication as its core meaning and distinguishes that meaning from its particular application. At Jericho the narrative specifies killing people and livestock, while metals are reserved for the treasury.7 sources7 sources43. Joshua 6:17129. Joshua 6:194. Joshua 6:21130. Kohler 1902131. Trimm 2026132. Leviticus 27:28–29117. Joshua 6:18–19

Open in compare →

Show 3 more translation notes (“How the wall fell”, “With a son or at his cost?”, “An addition in the Greek version”)

Joshua 6:20 · “How the wall fell” tachteha

The Hebrew word tachteha is glossed 'in its place', literally 'under itself'. KJV and JPS say the wall fell down flat; Brenton's translation of the SeptuagintSeptuagintAn ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, also including books Christians call Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books, according to Jannes Smith.From: Smith; SmithAll terms → says it fell round about. The wording alone does not show how the wall fell.133 3

Compare the versions

JPSSo the people shouted, and the priests blew with the horns. And it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the horn, that the people shouted with a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.

LXXEAnd the priests sounded with the trumpets: and when the people heard the trumpets, all the people shouted at once with a loud and strong shout; and all the wall fell round about, and all the people went up into the city:

Joshua 6:20

KJVSo the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.

JPSSo the people shouted, and the priests blew with the horns. And it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the horn, that the people shouted with a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.

LXXEAnd the priests sounded with the trumpets: and when the people heard the trumpets, all the people shouted at once with a loud and strong shout; and all the wall fell round about, and all the people went up into the city:

Open in compare →

Joshua 6:26 · “With a son or at his cost?”

The Hebrew preposition links the foundations with the eldest son. KJV retains a literal connection; JPS explicitly describes the loss of the son. The same curse links the gates with the youngest. The translation difference alone does not establish a foundation sacrifice.36 90 91

Compare the versions

KJV¶ And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.

JPSAnd Joshua charged the people with an oath at that time, saying: 'Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city, even Jericho; with the loss of his first-born shall he lay the foundation thereof, and with the loss of his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.'

Open in compare →

Joshua 6:26 · “An addition in the Greek version”

Brenton's Septuagint includes an added account of a builder and his eldest son. The Hebrew-based KJV and JPS lack this addition. It places the fulfillment account from Kings inside Joshua; it is not independent confirmation of the rebuilding.4 sources4 sources134. this site's data135. this site's data35. 1 Kings 16:3436. Joshua 6:26

Compare the versions

JPSAnd Joshua charged the people with an oath at that time, saying: 'Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city, even Jericho; with the loss of his first-born shall he lay the foundation thereof, and with the loss of his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.'

LXXEAnd Joshua adjured them on that day before the Lord, saying, Cursed be the man who shall build that city: he shall lay the foundation of it in his first-born, and he shall set up the gates of it in his youngest son. And so did Hozan of Bæthel; he laid the foundation in Abiron his first-born, and set up the gates of it in his youngest surviving son.

Joshua 6:26

KJV¶ And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.

JPSAnd Joshua charged the people with an oath at that time, saying: 'Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city, even Jericho; with the loss of his first-born shall he lay the foundation thereof, and with the loss of his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.'

LXXEAnd Joshua adjured them on that day before the Lord, saying, Cursed be the man who shall build that city: he shall lay the foundation of it in his first-born, and he shall set up the gates of it in his youngest son. And so did Hozan of Bæthel; he laid the foundation in Abiron his first-born, and set up the gates of it in his youngest surviving son.

Open in compare →

How it has been interpreted

Tradition

How different traditions have read the story, in their own terms.

Jewish: rabbinic · Rahab draws near

Sifrei Numbers reads Rahab's rescue as God's welcome of someone who drew near despite belonging to a people under the destruction command. The Jewish Encyclopedia reports the rabbinic comparison in which her confession makes her conversion more complete than those of Jethro and Naaman. Megillah preserves Rav Nahman's tradition that she converted and married Joshua.8 sources8 sources113. Deuteronomy 20:165. Joshua 6:25136. Silverstein)87. Joshua 2:1188. Hirsch 190589. Robertson 2019137. Matthew 1:5138. Talmud

Jewish: medieval commentator · Radak on Rahab's later life

Radak says that 'spared' can mean Joshua gave Rahab's family a livelihood, and calls this the correct explanation. He reports her marriage to Joshua only as a homily (drash).5 139 140

Early church: Greek · Faith, hospitality and the scarlet sign

The letter known as 1 Clement, from the late first century, says Rahab was saved because of her faith and hospitality. It reads the scarlet cord as showing that redemption would flow through the Lord's blood to all who believe, and finds prophecy as well as faith in her. Justin Martyr calls the cord a symbol of Christ's blood, by which former prostitutes and unrighteous people from all nations are saved.8 sources8 sources141. Joshua 2:1–2178. Hebrews 11:3144. James 2:25142. Keith143. Joshua 2:18144. Joshua 2:21145. Exodus 12:13146. Dods

Show 10 more interpretations (Early church: Latin, Early church: Greek, Catholic…)

Early church: Greek · Origen's spiritual battle

As Hofreiter reports, Origen's homilies on Joshua give an entirely pacifist Christian reading: the command to annihilate the Canaanites becomes a command to root out vices from the soul. In one homily Jericho stands for the present age, its walls for idol worship, divination and the teachings of philosophers, the priests for the apostles and the trumpets for the gospels and epistles. Hofreiter stresses that Origen did not deny that the events happened, and at times read the destruction commands literally without raising moral objections.5 sources5 sources4. Joshua 6:2148. Hofreiter 201349. Hofreiter 2013147. Joshua 6:4–20148. Hofreiter 2013

Catholic · Walter Drum's historical defense

Drum's 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia treatment defends Joshua by comparing the treatment of defeated peoples in Assyrian and Egyptian accounts and invoking Augustine's judgment that Canaanite wrongdoing merited punishment. Drum also reports the Fathers' treatment of Joshua as both historical and a figure pointing to the Messiah.4 67

Orthodox · A liturgical account of Joshua

The Orthodox Church in America's life of Joshua describes the walls falling by themselves after the ark's seven-day circuit around Jericho.3 149 150

Protestant: Lutheran · Gift, firstfruits and miracle

Keil treats the collapse as a miracle showing that God gave Israel the land, and dismisses natural explanations such as an earthquake as undeserving of serious refutation. He reads the total ban on Jericho as offering the first town of Canaan to God as the firstfruits of the land. He treats Rahab's lie as a sin of weakness forgiven because of her faith, not as a justified lie of necessity.14 sources14 sources3. Joshua 6:2060. Keil 186561. Keil 1865151. Joshua 6:17–194. Joshua 6:21152. Joshua 8:26–27153. Keil 1865154. Keil 1865155. Beveridge74. Joshua 2:4–678. Hebrews 11:3144. James 2:2579. Keil 186580. Keil 1865

Protestant: Reformed · Calvin on judgment and Rahab's action

Calvin defends the killing at Jericho as obedience to God's judgment; without that command, he says it would be atrocious cruelty. He justifies the children's deaths through his view that the people as a whole were under a curse. He regards Rahab's lie as faulty even though her rescue of the spies deserves praise.5 sources5 sources4. Joshua 6:2127. Genesis 15:1628. Beveridge2. Joshua 2:4–577. Beveridge

Protestant: evangelical · Literal judgment or exaggerated war language?

Craig defends the killing from divine command ethics: God may take life as he chooses, and his command made obligatory for Israel's soldiers what would otherwise have been murder. Copan instead argues that Joshua's sweeping destruction language is the exaggeration typical of ancient Near Eastern war accounts, and that Judges shows many Canaanites survived. Copan reports that fellow evangelical Nicholas Meriwether was not persuaded and suggested taking Deuteronomy's instructions at face value.4 sources4 sources29. Craig 200740. Copan 202446. Judges 1:27–3347. Joshua 23:12–13

Academic (critical) · Literary purpose and moral criticism

Scheffler reports Alt's 1925 proposal, followed by Noth, that the story arose when later Israelites had to explain how they had 'captured' an already deserted Jericho. He also reports Fritz's view that Joshua 6 is a deliberate narrative fiction of God's command and its exact execution, presenting the capture as a miracle due to God alone. Barnard and Meyer suggest that the violent story could have encouraged courage and loyalty in a vulnerable Judah. They argue that its violence should not be condoned as ethical, necessary or divinely justified.5 sources5 sources33. Scheffler 201311. Barnard 202012. Barnard 202030. Barnard 202031. Barnard 2020

Skeptic/secular · Bradley's moral argument

Philosopher Raymond Bradley cites Jericho, where men and women, young and old, were destroyed, as the start of what he calls God's genocidal policies. He uses it in a moral argument against the existence of the God he defines.32 4

Islamic · Scripture and later city identifications

In Qur'an 5:21-26 Moses tells his people to enter the holy land and they refuse; the passage names no city and does not narrate Jericho's fall. Ibn KathirIbn KathirAn Arab historian and scholar who taught at Damascus (1301–1373), according to the first Encyclopaedia of Islam. He wrote a universal history and a commentary on the Qur’an.From: Islam; Islam; IslamAll terms →, commenting on a different verse, holds that the holy land is Jerusalem but reports earlier scholars who said it was Jericho.6 sources6 sources156. Numbers 14:33–34157. Qur'an158. Qur'an159. Qur'an160. Qur'an161. translation

Where it fits

  • Joshua 2:11 — Rahab acknowledges that the LORD rules beyond Israel, using language close to Moses' words in Deuteronomy.87 162
  • Joshua 6:17 — The command to destroy the city explicitly spares Rahab's household because she hid the messengers.43
  • Joshua 6:21 — The narrator describes the killing of males and females, young and old, as well as livestock.4
Show 2 more key verses
  • Hebrews 11:31 — Hebrews says Rahab's faith and peaceful welcome of the spies spared her from dying with the disobedient. It praises her faith and welcome without explicitly praising her answer to the king's messengers.6 2
  • James 2:25 — James points to Rahab's welcome of the messengers and her help in sending them another way as an example of faith put into action.44 45

Where else the Bible mentions it

Text
  • Deuteronomy 20:16–18 The destruction command for Canaanite cities gives prevention of their religious practices as its reason. The reach of the chapter's earlier peace requirement is disputed by medieval Jewish commentators.

    20:16However, in the cities of the nations that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not leave alive anything that breathes. 17For you must devote them to complete destruction —the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you, 18so that they cannot teach you to do all the detestable things they do for their gods, and so cause you to sin against the LORD your God.

    Read in context →

  • Genesis 15:16 The return to the land is linked with Amorite wrongdoing. Craig uses this as a judgment defense; Stark disputes its use to justify the killing of children.

    16In the fourth generation your descendants will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”

    Read in context →

  • Joshua 7:1 Achan's taking of devoted property follows the warning at Jericho against bringing disaster on the camp.

    1The Israelites, however, acted unfaithfully regarding the things devoted to destruction. Achan son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of what was set apart. So the anger of the LORD burned against the Israelites.

    Read in context →

Show 4 more passages
  • 1 Kings 16:34 Kings names Hiel and his sons and presents the rebuilding account as fulfillment of Joshua's curse.

    34In Ahab’s days, Hiel the Bethelite rebuilt Jericho. At the cost of Abiram his firstborn he laid its foundation, and at the cost of Segub his youngest he set up its gates, according to the word that the LORD had spoken through Joshua son of Nun.

    Read in context →

  • Hebrews 11:30–31 Hebrews links both the walls' fall and Rahab's survival with faith.

    11:30By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had marched around them for seven days. 31By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies in peace, did not perish with those who were disobedient.

    Read in context →

  • James 2:25 James points to Rahab's help for the messengers as an example of faith expressed in deeds.

    25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute justified by her actions when she welcomed the spies and sent them off on another route?

    Read in context →

  • Matthew 1:5 Matthew names Rahab as Boaz's mother by Salmon. Keil identifies her with Joshua's Rahab; the Old Testament does not narrate that marriage.

    5Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse,

    Read in context →

Test your understanding

What conditions accompany the promise to protect Rahab's family?

She must keep the mission secret, mark the window with the scarlet cord and gather her relatives inside; those who leave are outside the pledge's protection.84 163

Joshua 2:12–14 Joshua 2:17–21

How does the seventh day's march differ from the earlier days?

The earlier days require one circuit each; the seventh requires seven, followed by the horn blast and shout.164 165

Joshua 6:3–5 Joshua 6:15–16

What happens to the people, animals and metals?

The story describes killing people and livestock, explicitly spares Rahab's household and reserves silver, gold, bronze and iron for the treasury.4 sources4 sources4. Joshua 6:2143. Joshua 6:1796. Joshua 6:245. Joshua 6:25

Joshua 6:17–21 Joshua 6:24–25

What do Hebrews and James name when praising Rahab?

Hebrews names faith and welcome; James names receiving the messengers and helping them depart another way. Neither explicitly praises the false answer to the king's men.6 44 45

Hebrews 11:31 James 2:25

The full text

Text
Joshua 2:1–24

2:1Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim, saying, “Go, inspect the land, especially Jericho.” So they went and entered the house of a prostitute named Rahab and stayed there. 2And it was reported to the king of Jericho: “Behold, some men of Israel have come here tonight to spy out the land.” 3So the king of Jericho sent to Rahab and said, “Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, for they have come to spy out the whole land.” 4But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. So she said, “Yes, the men did come to me, but I did not know where they had come from. 5At dusk, when the gate was about to close, the men went out, and I do not know which way they went. Pursue them quickly, and you may catch them!” 6(But Rahab had taken them up to the roof and hidden them among the stalks of flax that she had laid out there.)

Continue reading (18 more verses)

2:7So the king’s men set out in pursuit of the spies along the road to the fords of the Jordan, and as soon as they had gone out, the gate was shut. 8Before the spies lay down for the night, Rahab went up on the roof 9and said to them, “I know that the LORD has given you this land and that the fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who dwell in the land are melting in fear of you. 10For we have heard how the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites across the Jordan, whom you devoted to destruction. 11When we heard this, our hearts melted and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the LORD your God is God in the heavens above and on the earth below. 12Now therefore, please swear to me by the LORD that you will indeed show kindness to my family, because I showed kindness to you. Give me a sure sign 13that you will spare the lives of my father and mother, my brothers and sisters, and all who belong to them, and that you will deliver us from death.” 14“Our lives for your lives!” the men agreed. “If you do not report our mission, we will show you kindness and faithfulness when the LORD gives us the land.” 15Then Rahab let them down by a rope through the window, since the house where she lived was built into the wall of the city. 16“Go to the hill country,” she said, “so that your pursuers will not find you. Hide yourselves there for three days until they have returned; then go on your way.” 17The men said to her, “We will not be bound by this oath you made us swear 18unless, when we enter the land, you have tied this scarlet cord in the window through which you let us down, and unless you have brought your father and mother and brothers and all your family into your house. 19If anyone goes out the door of your house into the street, his blood will be on his own head, and we will be innocent. But if a hand is laid on anyone with you in the house, his blood will be on our heads. 20And if you report our mission, we will be released from the oath you made us swear.” 21“Let it be as you say,” she replied, and she sent them away. And when they had gone, she tied the scarlet cord in the window. 22So the spies went out into the hill country and stayed there three days, until their pursuers had returned without finding them, having searched all along the road. 23Then the two men started back, came down from the hill country, and crossed the river. So they came to Joshua son of Nun and reported all that had happened to them. 24“The LORD has surely delivered the entire land into our hands,” they said to Joshua. “Indeed, all who dwell in the land are melting in fear of us.”

Read it in the chapter reader →Compare translations and the original words →

Keep going

Achan and the devoted property Coming

Achan's theft takes up the warning about Jericho's property and the danger it brings on Israel.118 119 117

Joshua 7:1
Cite this page

Plain citation

Rahab and the fall of Jericho. Know the Text. Question lens, version 2, revised 2026-11-08, Fact-checked. https://knowthetext.com/question/stories/fall-of-jericho/

Chicago-style note

Know the Text, “Rahab and the fall of Jericho,” Question lens, version 2, revised 2026-11-08, Fact-checked, https://knowthetext.com/question/stories/fall-of-jericho/.

BibTeX

@misc{knowthetext-fall-of-jericho,
  author = {{Know the Text}},
  title = {Rahab and the fall of Jericho},
  howpublished = {Know the Text, Question lens},
  url = {https://knowthetext.com/question/stories/fall-of-jericho/},
  year = {2026},
  note = {Version 2; revised 2026-11-08; Fact-checked}
}

Sources

167 sources from 128 works

Report a problem

Found something wrong, unsourced or unfair? Tell us; every report is read. Please don’t include personal information.

↑