2:1 Joshua son of Nun sent two spies out from Shittim secretly and instructed them: “Find out what you can about the land, especially Jericho.” They stopped at the house of a prostitute named Rahab and spent the night there. 2:2 The king of Jericho received this report: “Note well! Israelite men have come here tonight to spy on the land.” 2:3 So the king of Jericho sent this order to Rahab: “Turn over the men who came to you—the ones who came to your house—for they have come to spy on the whole land!” 2:4 But the woman hid the two men and replied, “Yes, these men were clients of mine, but I didn’t know where they came from. 2:5 When it was time to shut the city gate for the night, the men left. I don’t know where they were heading. Chase after them quickly, for you have time to catch them!” 2:6 (Now she had taken them up to the roof and had hidden them in the stalks of flax she had spread out on the roof.) 2:7 Meanwhile the king’s men tried to find them on the road to the Jordan River near the fords. The city gate was shut as soon as they set out in pursuit of them.

This is the story of two Israelite scouts given shelter and protection by a Canaanite prostitute.

When Rahab was challenged about protecting the scouts, she lied by saying that, although they had indeed stayed with her, they had now left, and she didn’t know where they had gone.

How do we evaluate Rahab’s actions from an ethical point of view?

For Augustine, a lie is a lie.  The blessing that comes as a result of Rahab’s action is as a result of divine benevolence, the lie itself being forgiven.

John Cassion thought that a lie such as this one would be morally permissible in extreme situations.

Calvin said that there was both good and sin in Rahab’s action.  God in his kindness does not take the fault into account.

Some think that because the narrative itself is not troubled by the ethical issue, neither should we be:

‘The moral issue of whether or not Rahab was justified in lying has often been raised. Some may argue that it was no lie, but this is difficult to maintain in the light of statements in the text that are the opposite of what Rahab knew to be true…It is best not to excuse Rahab’s actions, but neither to be troubled by them…The ethical issue is not the concern of the narrative. It stresses the deception, not in order to condemn Rahab but to magnify her personal risk in hiding the spies.’ (Hess)

‘The writer of Joshua does not justify or condemn Rahab for lying, but James approves her action. (Jas 2:25) Deception is a necessary tactic in war. The main point is why Rahab protects the foreign spies.’ (Jos 2:9-11) (New Geneva)

‘The deceptions by Joshua and Rahab raise eyebrows. How can they be a legitimate part of holy war? (Cf. Mt 5:33-37 Eph 4:14-15) Indirect analogies of situations where deception and disinformation are right and necessary may help. Hunters use traps and blinds; fishermen, lures and bait. In sport, players will often try to trick their opponents by putting spin on a ball or adopting deceptive postures. In chess a player deceives his opponent into taking his weaker piece in order to capture his stronger one; in poker one keeps a ‘straight face’. God was kind to the midwives for deceiving Pharaoh, (Ex 1:19-20) and ‘by faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born’. (Heb 11:23) In all these situations we do not accuse the participants of acting according to the unethical principle that a right end justifies a wrong means. Rather, we recognize that in such situations deception is legitimate, not wrong. So also the OT recognizes that in war intelligence, counter-intelligence and decoys are all part of ‘the game’. Joshua set an ambush, (Jos 8:9) and David used Hushai as a mole in conjunction with a network of spies. (2 Sam 15:32-37 16:15-22) In the NT Paul escaped the Jews under the cover of night, (Ac 9:23-26) and the angel took advantage of the sleeping soldiers to release Peter from Herod’s clutches. (Ac 12:6-10) In most situations, however, lies are wrong, (Pr 30:7-8) and truth is required. (Eph 4:15) The believer must listen to God’s Spirit through Scripture and conscience so as not to rationalize the situation.’ (NBC)

J.I. Packer agrees that there are situations in which it is legitimate for truth to be withheld:

‘When one sets out to be truthful, new problems appear. There are people to whom it is clearly not right to tell the whole truth-invalids, not yet strong enough to take bad news; enemies in wartime, to whom one should not give information, and from whom, like Rahab (Joshua 2) and Corrie ten Boom, one may have fugitives to hide; mad and bad folk, who would use what you tell them to harm others; the general public, when as a politician one is putting through a beneficent plan which depends for its effect on nobody anticipating it; and so on. Nobody doubts that in these cases responsible persons must dissemble. But does that square with the ninth commandment?

‘In principle, yes. What is forbidden is false witness against your neighbor-that is, as we said, prideful lying designed to do him down, and exalt you at his expense. The positive command implicit in this negative is that we should seek our neighbor’s good, and speak truth to him and about him to this end. When the love which seeks his good prompts us to withhold truth which, if spoken, would bring him harm, the spirit of the ninth commandment is being observed. In such exceptional cases as we have mentioned, all courses of action have something of evil in them, and an outright lie, like that of Rahab (Jos 2:4,5; note the commendation of her, Jas 2:25) may actually be the best way, the least evil, and the truest expression of love to all the parties involved.

‘Yet a lie, even when prompted by love, loyalty, and an escapable recognition that if telling it is bad, not telling it would be worse, remains an evil thing (unless, indeed, with old-style Jesuits and modern-type situationists we hold that the end justifies the means). To bear false witness for one’s neighbor is not so bad as bearing false witness against him; but the lie as such, however necessary it appears, is bad, not good, and the right-minded man knows this. Rightly will he feel defiled; rightly will he seek fresh cleansing in the blood of Christ, and settle for living the only way anyone can live with our holy God-by the forgiveness of sins. Again, we say: Lord, have mercy!-and lead us not into this particular type of temptation, where only a choice of sins seems open to us, but deliver us from evil.’ (Growing in Christ)

David Reimer notes that this episode is not unique in the OT:

‘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.”³ Even if a lie leads to some good, deception is not ultimately a pointer to the God of truth.’