In so great and so general a destruction of the city of Jericho, there remained safe: first, indeed, Rahab; then her father and mother (v. 26 [v. 23]); thirdly, her brothers, in the same place. That she had some sisters can be seen above, ch. 2, v. 13; but either these are understood here among the “brothers,” or in the following general name of “families [households].” This latter [reading] pleases Abulensis; both please Masius — who adds that perhaps they [the sisters] had set their own salvation after their pleasures. Fourthly, all her kindred, as
(col. 803)
with the Seventy [LXX] our [translator] renders — what in Hebrew we read [as] all her families [mispahoth, מִשְׁפָּחוֹת, “clans, kindreds”]. And so perhaps, as I said, [her] sisters [are included]; but certainly there were preserved all who were near to Rahab herself by blood, all joined by affinity, all their sons and daughters, all, finally, the men-servants and maid-servants who could be in the houses and households of all these. Where it must be considered how great is the usefulness of virtue and of all good deeds: because it embraces not only him who does the good deed, but so many others besides — as was done also at Gen. 18 and 19. “In most ancient commentaries” (says Masius, fol. 116), “which, written upon the history of Ruth, are entitled Midrash Ruth, it is handed down that R. Simeon son of Yohai said, when he was treating that combination of words, [that] ‘all their thoughts had drawn [it] forth’ — [namely,] that Rahab, by that faith of hers, had obtained so great a grace with God that, even if she had had two hundred men joined to her by kindred, and they had contracted affinity with two hundred foreign families, all those families would have been about to be saved for her sake.” And indeed that not a few of her fellow-townsmen, who for the sake of safety had betaken themselves to her, [were saved] — a very probable conjecture can be drawn from the plural number of the noun mispahoth, COGNATIONES [KINDREDS], or lineages. Now that all that saved multitude was rightly preserved is plain: because it is just to stand by compacts rightly made and agreed. And that Rahab, and all who touched her by any close relation and bond of family, were to be preserved, was rightly compacted and agreed — above, ch. 2, vv. 2, 13, 14, 18, 19. For it cannot be doubted that power to make terms in those things which would aid that reconnaissance of so great moment was granted to the spies by Joshua — although not [power] to make terms universally in any way whatever, as is to be understood [from] Masius, fol. 115. And a threefold [cause], just for those same spies, drawn from the very fountains of nature, had been the cause of entering upon this [compact]. The first was the public benefit of his own people, to whom — as it approached, and as it was expedient to wage a just war upon this well-fortified city — it was of profit not to be ignorant of the state of the [place] first met. But if the spies had not promised this safety, they would have been killed, and could have reported nothing of the state [of the city]. The second [was] their own safety, in a most present danger of life. The third [was] the showing of a grateful mind toward Rahab. For what less do we owe to him who snatches us from death, than to guard his life while we can? Nor did those general laws of God concerning the utter destruction of the Canaanites (Exod. 23, v. 24; Num. 33; Deut. 7, v. 20) stand in the way — as will be said elsewhere against the Gentile [i.e. Alberico Gentili]. And rightly, in this place, Masius (fol. 113), and likewise Tostatus (q. 54), warns that it is by no means to be thought that God, the Best and Greatest, willed by his laws to abolish that natural obligation, by which the Israelites should do good to those who did good [to them]. And the same reasons demonstrate that Joshua rightly approved these things promised, when the spies had returned to him (ch. 2, v. 23) — as Josephus (bk. 5) asserts against Masius (fol. 115) — and commanded [them] to be preserved (this ch., v. 22). Then, [says] Alberico Gentili (bk. 3 On War, ch. 19), “the whole of that matter was done by the Spirit of God, who put that most holy confession into the mouth of the poor little woman — ‘Jehovah [Iehoua, יהוה] is your God’ — and who willed that woman to be preserved, from whom the Saviour was to have his birth.” These reasons, indeed, are not unfitting; but in them the Gentile first contradicts himself. For since, in the same chapter, he would not that those Canaanites be granted life, if any should give themselves up of their own accord to the Jews, and embrace their religion — how was Rahab to be spared, because God had put that confession into her? For can either the Gibeonites, or any other Canaanites at all, embrace the faith and the sacred things of the Israelites, apart from the Spirit of God? Is not faith, in all [men], the gift of God (Eph. 2)? Either, therefore, on account of that gift of God, Rahab ought not to be preserved; or, on account of the same gift, others of the Canaanites could have been preserved. Secondly, he does not explain the general cause of the whole benefit conferred on Rahab, but only [the cause] of her life alone. Could not Christ the Lord have been born, unless Rahab had lived? Thirdly, the Gentile adds: “And yet it is true, none of these things seems to have been considered by Joshua, who wishes Rahab’s compact to be kept: but only the oath of the spies, and the merit of the woman.” But whence does the Gentile know that none of those things was considered by Joshua? Was he not a prophet? Could he not know divinely beforehand, that from the chosen posterity of Rahab the Saviour of all would be brought forth? In the heretic, meanwhile, the word “MERIT” is to be noted.