Joshua 2:1 recounts the journey of the Israelite spies in Jericho:

וַיֵּ֨לְכוּ וַיָּבֹאוּ בֵּית־אִשָּׁ֥ה זוֹנָה וּשְׁמָהּ רָחָב וַיִּשְׁכְּבוּ־שָמָּה

And they went and came into the house of a prostitute whose name was Rahab and lodged there. (ESV)

The use of "to lodge" to translate שכב is interesting.* The word normally means "to lie", and, like in English, it is capable of (but by no means required to) carry sexual connotations. Also similar to English, it normally does so using the preposition "with", which is not present here. In verse 4, Rahab's admission that "the men came to me" (באו אלי) also admits a sexual interpretation (cf. 2 Sam 12:24, Gen 38, etc).

Given the context of foreign men sneaking into a city and staying overnight a house owned(?) by a prostitute, this seems like the most obvious understanding, but I've never heard this suggested before.

I did find this interesting paper (unfortunately not publicly available in full text) that takes the view that sexual connotations were indeed intended, but I'm curious if anyone can point to evidence about how שכב ought to be understood here.

*There is alternative very common Hebrew word - לין lin - used for people "lodging" overnight during a journey; see Josh 3:1, 4:3, 6:11, 8:9, etc. I took a brief look through ESV uses of "to lodge" with people as the subject as was unable to find any other instance where it translates anything other than lin. Corrections welcome.

  • It was a courageous thing to do - to gain entrance to the city in order to spy out the situation. And a very astute move to shelter with someone of Rahab's profession - where strange men would draw no curiosity. I can see nothing in the translations I use to indicate that their tenure was anything but shelter. I am interested to see what the Hebrew experts have to say.
    – Nigel J
    Jun 4 '18 at 10:50
  • @Nigel -- agreed re. English translations. To be honest, part of what fueled this question was a bit of irritation at the ESV translators (though this is by no means an ESV-owned issue) at their choice of "and [they] lodged there". At the very least this is an ambiguous line in Hebrew, and the translation choice stands out like a sore thumb IMO, pretty clearly intended to resolve an ambiguity in a way that seems to me unwarranted. (OTOH, ".... and [they] lay there" would be awkward and suggestive in English, reflecting what appears to me to be awkward and suggestive Hebrew.)
    – Susan
    Jun 4 '18 at 14:03
  • @ Susan Young's Literal has and they go and come into the house [...] and they lie down there. It is the same in Ruth when she went into the threshing floor and lay down beside Boaz. There was a purpose in it and there was no suggestion of impropriety.
    – Nigel J
    Jun 4 '18 at 15:09
  • @Nigel You may be right -- feel free to write an answer! (But to tell you my sense -- where Ruth narrates the individual actions that night, it is easy for me to see how "lie down" may mean nothing more. In Joshua, the problem I'm feeling is that a different word is expected to summarize an overnight "lodging" arrangement. Anything further we should probably take to Biblical Hermeneutics Chat though.)
    – Susan
    Jun 4 '18 at 16:10
  • @Susan As you mentioned the lack of "with" is important. Prepositions make a difference. For example, for היה (be) to mean become, the object needs the ל preposition.
    – Perry Webb
    Jun 4 '18 at 21:26

No, it is not meant to indicate they were clients per se; however, it is intended by the narrator to invoke an atmosphere of sexual immorality.

A number of other resonances contribute to this atmosphere in the passage:

  • First, Joshua 2:1 begins the narrative saying, "Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim." The reader would recall the seduction that befell Israel in Numbers 25, which begins, "While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women."

  • Second, is of course, the setting of the story in the house of a prostitute (and a Cannanite woman at that!). Just prior to this story, the people have sworn to Joshua, "Whatever you have commanded us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go. Just as we fully obeyed Moses, so we will obey you." So then the reader is surprised when Joshua commands "Go (hlk) look" and instead they "Go (hlk) to the house of a woman, a prostitute."

  • Third, the narrator contributes to the suggestiveness of the passage by deploying a number of phrases that are elsewhere euphemistic. They "came to" the house (verse 1 and again in verse 4), they "lied down" there (verse 1), and she did not "know" (verse 4) where they were from. All of these are deployed elsewhere as euphemisms. Further, as you note, there is another common verb one would expect in place of šākab. L. Daniel Hawk (Berit Olam) concludes, "The choice of this verb, rather than the less ambiguous lûn/lîn ('to lodge, spend the night'), especially when paired with the previous verb, is thus strongly suggestive."1

The choice of verb here, then, is not necessarily to say that the spies engaged Rahab for her services, but rather to create an unease in the reader by invoking a number of connotations. Hawk suggests a couple purposes for this.

For one, the reader is reminded of the seductive danger of the land. In Deuteronomy 31, God has already told Moses, "You are going to rest with your ancestors, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering ... When I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, the land I promised on oath to their ancestors, and when they eat their fill and thrive, they will turn to other gods and worship them, rejecting me and breaking my covenant."

Second, Hawk suggests the author uses the ambiguity and sexual overtones of the passage to blur the boundaries between who is and who is not Israel. The Israelite spies are put a bit in the shade - they are colored by this seeming impropriety, they are quickly found out as spies, they make a forbidden covenant and then partially renege on it by adding conditions, and they are generally the passive participants in the story, especially compared to Rahab who dominates the action.

1. Hawk, L. D. (2000). Joshua. (D. W. Cotter, J. T. Walsh, & C. Franke, Eds.) (p. 40). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press.


The claim that they slept with Rahab is preposterous and virtually unsupported from the biblical text. In fact, the term וישכב that the OP finds so unusual here, to indicate lodging, is not unusual at all. See for example Gen. 28:11

וַיִּפְגַּ֨ע בַּמָּק֜וֹם וַיָּ֤לֶן שָׁם֙ כִּי־בָ֣א הַשֶּׁ֔מֶשׁ וַיִּקַּח֙ מֵאַבְנֵ֣י הַמָּק֔וֹם וַיָּ֖שֶׂם מְרַֽאֲשֹׁתָ֑יו וַיִּשְׁכַּ֖ב בַּמָּק֥וֹם הַהֽוּא׃

He reached a certain place and spent the night there, because the sun was setting. He found a stone there, used it for a pillow, and slept there for the night. (ISV)

Here we have both Hebrew terms for lodging in the same verse וילן\וישכב. So we see that both terms are equally acceptable for 'lodging' or if you prefer 'settling for the night'. See also 1 Samuel 3 where שכב is used throughout for 'sleeping'; similarly here וישכבו would simply translate into "they went to sleep". As the OP himself points out, וישכבו only has sexual connotations when it is attached to אותה or עמה which mean "with her" or simply "her", but וישכב itself never connotes sleeping with someone! As for the choice of שכב over לין, I think that the former is more specific than the latter. Whereas לין indicates "spending of the night" without specifying how they spent the night, שכב does just that, it clearly designates how they spent the night--through sleeping. Perhaps, the author wishes to convey that the spies had complete trust in their god and were so calm that they even went to sleep in the heart of the enemy's city!

The term באו אלי must not connote a sexual encounter either. Cf 2 Kings 5:22; Isaiah 39:3; Exodus 8:1. Since the text does not make it clear that there was any sexual encounter between the spies and Rahab there is no reason to think that באו אלי implies anything more than 'coming and going'. So I repeat, there is simply no evidence in the bible that the spies slept with Rahab.

It seems to me that this whole speculation is not based on the biblical text itself but on the narrative which relates that they slept in a harlot's house, but of course this is not sufficient proof to support the notion that they actually slept with her. I suspect that it was part of their cunningness and strategy not to raise suspicion among the inhabitants of Jericho, since foreigners were wont to show up at Rahab the harlot's door; this way they ensured a smooth and safe reconnaissance of the city.

Update: It is unlikely, what Soldarnal has suggested, that the author here was trying to portray the spies in a bad light (that they were immoral) for seeking lodging in Rahab's house by using suggestive language. The spies are clearly the heroes of the story here; without them, and the critical information they provided, Joshua couldn't have taken the city. To say that the author was trying to besmirch the heroes of the story for some petty offense is quite far-fetched to say the least.

The term שכב appears in Ruth chapter 3 throughout. Though this word definitely appears in a 'sexual context', there is, however, good reason to believe that there was no sexual intercourse between Boaz and Ruth on that night. So here again, שכב would mean nothing more than 'lie down'. Read here for more on this point. Even if one were to insist that there was a real sexual encounter on that night, this is only due to the "uncovering of his feet" expression that appears in the narrative, without these linguistic hints it would indeed be unjustifiable to assume that there was any sexual encounter between them, and this is especially the case with Josh. 2:1.

  • 1
    Interesting and +1. I'm certainly not contending that שכב to simply mean "lie down", as part of the act of spending the night somewhere, is unusual. (I would translate that last clause as, "and he lay down in that place", with other translations.) It's just not so common for that verb to summarize the act of spending the night -- it's more often part of the details, like with Jacob (and Ruth, mentioned in the comments). Anyway, while I will not concede that it's a preposterous suggestion (a brief look at the commentaries refutes that anyway), it's a helpful answer.
    – Susan
    Jun 4 '18 at 17:35
  • (And yes, of course this arises largely from the fact that they slept in a harlot's house -- not sure how that point is not included in "the biblical text itself" in your last paragraph. It sets the context and pushes me in the direction of supposing that they may have done the normal thing that foreign men do when sleeping at a harlot's house. Sorry.)
    – Susan
    Jun 4 '18 at 17:42
  • Agree. If you read chapter 6 verses 15-17 you can see that Rahab spared because she hide the spies. So even though זונה can be from מזון and she actually was shop seller and not a prostitute - both cases she just gave them a place to hide.
    – A. Meshu
    Jun 4 '18 at 17:52
  • 3
    Also not sure what you mean re. בוא אל being "never used in a sexual context". Certainly not always, but it's normal terminology for a sexual encounter. Here's the relevant bit from DCH. Or maybe you just meant using a 3rd person plural verb followed by a first person pronoun? Kind of an artificial limitation IMO. I do appreciate your thoughts though!
    – Susan
    Jun 4 '18 at 17:55
  • How interestingly Inyana Deyoma!
    – user22655
    Jun 4 '18 at 21:50

I think that there is a strong argument that the spies actually were Rahab's clients. I don't know much Hebrew myself, but Reverend Wil Gafney who is a Hebrew Scholar at Brite Divinity School has written a beautiful sermon on Rahab that addresses this very question and argues that they were indeed her clientele:


Beyond the single question of whether or not they had sex, I think it is important to look at the overall context and thrust of the story. Who is it about? Israel's divinely led victory or Canaan's bloody destruction and colonization? Who is/are the real hero(es) here - two unnamed spies who fail to do any notable spying and go straight to a prostitute's house or Rahab, a woman who saves and delivers her entire family and their children from the impending destruction of Jericho despite being marginalized by her status in society?

These questions give us some room to recognize the complexities of the characters in the story - a foreign prostitute turned savior of her family and holy emissaries turned brothel clients. Situated within the larger context of the Israelite conquest of the promised land, perhaps this story is included as a powerful and jarring tale that forces us to catch a glimpse into the perspective of those outside of God's chosen people while also serving as a reminder that all of us are tainted and marred by the effects of sin.

  • Welcome to Bible Hermeneutics SE and thank you for your contribution. When you get a chance, please take the Tour to understand how the site works and how it is different than others.
    – agarza
    Mar 12 '21 at 0:37
  • This is opinion, not substantiated fact. It was a shrewd move for the brave spies (risking their lives) to lodge with Rahab as they sought to prepare for the coming invasion. There is not a shred of evidence of any impropriety on their part. And it is abundantly evident that God was in this providence, of them finding Rahab, as we can see in her subsequent marriage and bringing forth of one of the chosen line to the Messiah. Down-voted -1.
    – Nigel J
    Mar 13 '21 at 21:49

I am not qualified to have an opinion on whether or not the Hebrew supports or to what degree it suggests that the spies indulged but it certainly seems that some with Hebrew skills believe so. I'm not aware of any other passages that comment on that either. So what I offer now is mere inference and carries very little weight. Still, it does seem worth considering so I'll mention my observations.

The main thing that comes to my mind is the fact that the spies were found out:

Jos 2:2  And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, Behold, there came men in hither to night of the children of Israel to search out the country.  Jos 2:3  And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country.

Now, I'm not sure if the spies received any of the same training as the IDF Mossad but surely they didn't go into the local massage parlor and brag about what they were up to. "Hi, we're here to spy out your land to plan for an invasion." Not likely. So how did the king know who they were?

My thought is that they at some point lowered their pants (including their tighty whiteys) and their provenance was exposed. Circumcision. So to whom might their privates have been revealed? A sexual partner.

So I am somewhat tentatively convinced that they went to the "Jericho Jin Joint", at least one indulged and the ho couldn't wait to publish her spicy "kiss and tell" abroad.

I cannot imagine a more convincing explanation for how they were exposed, nor a more fun one to write about!

See related: In Joshua 2:3 how did the king know that the spies were spies and what they were up to?

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.