Replies

My argument is NOT what word got used to describe Rahab. My point is that nothing of what is described about Rahab indicates she was a hooker. Hiding the ‘spies’ on her roof in stalks of flax is NOT a harlot's work. Planting and harvesting flax, leaves no time to service the boys. AND IF she was in fact a hooker, how is it that she was fully aware of the Exodus and the promise of the land to the Israelites? A prostitute whether literal or spiritual never found favor in God's eyes. It is Written in Jeremiah 3:8 God divorced the House of Israel for committing adultery... spiritually speaking.. they went whoring after other gods.

Your argument is that of certain learned men , who

are of opinion that it should be here rendered an innkeeper or hostess, from zoon, to furnish or provide food. In this sense it was understood by the Targumist, who renders it, ittetha pundekeetha, "a woman, a tavern-keeper," and so St. Chrysostome, in his second sermon on Repentance, calls her πανδοκευτρια. The Greek πορνη, by which the LXX render it, and which is adopted by the Apostles, is derived from περναω, to sell, and is also supposed to denote a tavern keeper. Among the ancients, women generally kept houses of entertainment. Herodotus says, "Among the Egyptians, the women carry on all commercial concerns, and keep taverns, while the men continue at home and weave." The same custom prevailed among the Greeks. Jos_6:17, Jos_6:25; Mat_1:5, Rachab,

However, this charitable argument toward her is not charitable to the Holy Spirit. For regardless of your belief that she would have no time to engage in prostitution, or at least be a fornicator, the Scriptures call her a "harlot," "zânâh" in Hebrew:

And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot's [zânâh] house, named Rahab, and lodged there. (Joshua 2:1)

And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the Lord: only Rahab the harlot [zânâh] shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent. (Joshua 6:17)

And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot [zânâh] alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. (Joshua 6:25)

By faith the harlot [pornē] Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. (Hebrews 11:31)

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot [pornē] justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? (James 2:25)

Snd in all 90 times in this word occurs the OT, besides the 3 for Rahab, it is never is used for a tavern or house keeper, but is always used with a shameful or negative connotation, as in "played the harlot," "gone a whoring," and is always translated as such in the KJV.

If one looks at the occurrences of it and tries to replace it with tarvern/house keeper, then one can see how absurd that proposal is. See here. ">here.

The same is also true of pornē in the NT, which is what Rahab is called.

Hiding the ‘spies’ on her roof in stalks of flax is NOT a harlot's work.

Says who? You seem to be reading full-time Las Vegas prostitution into an ancient agrarian-based economy, and in which prostitution could be an occasional means of supplementing income, and as the Prov. 31 description shows, working the fields was even much a part of a mother's work.

AND IF she was in fact a hooker, how is it that she was fully aware of the Exodus and the promise of the land to the Israelites?

And just how does one negate the other? Why would she not be conversant with others and have been raised to know of such, for Scripture shows that this story spread far abroad.

A prostitute whether literal or spiritual never found favor in God's eyes.

This is another spurious assertion, for this is no more true than that no sinner found favor in God's eyes, except by repentance. faith and is doing well, which Rahab did. Of course, if zânâh does not mean prostitute or fornicator, then no prostitute whether literal or spiritual, is ever seen called such in God's word.

The problem is here is not simply that your arguments are vain, and contrary to what is easily shown to be the case, but your adamant dogmatic contention for absolving noble Rahab from being a prostitute or fornicator. It is simply unreasonable and nonobjective.