Commentary on Joshua - Keil & Delitzsch - David Cox

Keil and Delitzsch <strong>Commentary</strong> on the Old Testament
the Israelites set the town on fire with everything in it, excepting the metals, which
were taken to the treasury of the tabernacle, as had been commanded in v. 19. On the
conquest of the other towns of Canaan the inhabitants only were put to death, whilst
the cattle and the rest of the booty fell to the conquerors, just as in the case of the
conquest of the land and towns of Sihon and Og (compare Josh 8:26-27; 10:28, with
Deut 2:34-35, and 3:6-7), as it was only the inhabitants of Canaan that the Lord had
commanded to be put under the ban (Deut 7:2; 20:16-17). In the case of Jericho, on
the contrary, men, cattle, and booty were all put under the ban, and the town itself
was to be laid in ashes. This was because Jericho was the first town of Canaan which
the Lord had given up to His people. Israel was therefore to sacrifice it to the Lord as
the first-fruits of the land, and to sanctify it to Him as a thing placed under the ban,
for a sign that they had received the whole land as a fief from his hand, and had no
wish to grasp as a prey that which belonged to the Lord.
Verse 25. But Rahab and all that belonged to her Joshua suffered to live, so that she
dwelt in Israel "unto this day." It is very evident from this remark, that the account
was written not very long after the event.
(Note: Rahab is no doubt the same person as the Rachab mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus Christ, who
married Salmon the tribe prince of Judah, to whom she bore Boaz, an ancestor of David (Matt 1:5). The
doubts which Theophylact expressed as to the identity of the two, and which J. Outhou has since sought
to confirm, rest for the most part upon the same doctrinal scruples as those which induced the author of
the Chaldee version to make Rahab an innkeeper, namely, the offence taken at her dishonourable calling.
Jerome's view, on the other hand, is a very satisfactory one. "In the genealogy of the Saviour," he says,
"none of the holy women are included, but only those whom the Scriptures blame, that He who came on
behalf of sinners, being himself born of sinners, might destroy the sins of all." The different ways in
which the name is written, viz., hee Rhacha'b in Matthew, and Chaab in the Sept. version of Joshua, and
in Heb 11:31 and James 2:25, is not enough to throw any doubt upon the identity of the two, as Josephus
always calls the harlot Rahab hee Rhacha'bee . The chronological difficulty, that Salmon and Rahab
lived much too soon to have been the parents of Boaz, which is adduced by Knobel as an argument
against the identity of the mother of Boaz and the harlot Rahab, has no force unless it can be proved that
every link is given in the genealogy of David (in Ruth 4:21-22; 1 Chron 2:11; Matt 1:5), and that Boaz
was really the great-grandfather of David; whereas the very opposite, viz., the omission from the
genealogies of persons of no celebrity, is placed beyond all doubt by many cases that might be cited.
Nothing more is known of Rahab. The accounts of the later Rabbins, such as that she was married to
http://207.44.232.113/~bible/comment/ot/k&d/josh/jos32.html (1 of 2) [13/08/2004 01:17:20 p.m.]