Rahab of Jericho
Was Rahab of Jericho in the Genealogy of Jesus?
A Detailed Biblical, Linguistic, Genealogical, and Chronological Evaluation
Introduction
Rahab occupies an unusual and important place in the biblical narrative. She first appears in Joshua as a woman living in Jericho immediately before the Israelite conquest of Canaan. She receives the Israelite spies, hides them from the king of Jericho, confesses the supremacy of YHWH, and asks that she and her family be spared when Israel takes the city. Joshua subsequently records that she survived the destruction and came to dwell among Israel.
Centuries later, the New Testament remembers her twice explicitly. Hebrews places “the harlot Rahab” among its great examples of faith, while James places “Rahab the harlot” alongside Abraham as an example of faith demonstrated by works.
A further—and particularly significant—reference appears to occur in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus:
“And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse.”
— Matthew 1:5
The traditional understanding is straightforward: Matthew’s Rachab is Rahab of Jericho.
That identification has nevertheless been challenged. Some argue that Joshua’s Rahab was herself an Israelite. Others accept that Rahab of Jericho was a Canaanite but maintain that the woman named in Matthew 1:5 was an entirely different Rachab. Two arguments are particularly important in support of the latter claim.
First, Matthew spells her name differently in Greek from Hebrews and James. Matthew has Ῥαχάβ (Rhachab), whereas Hebrews and James have Ῥαάβ (Rhaab). Separate Strong’s numbers are consequently assigned to the two forms.
Second, a chronological objection is raised. Rahab lived at the conquest of Jericho, whereas David lived centuries later. Matthew names relatively few generations between Rachab and David. It is therefore argued that Joshua’s Rahab lived too early to be the woman Matthew places within the genealogy.
These objections deserve examination rather than dismissal.
At the same time, the traditional identification should not be required to meet a standard that the alternative hypothesis escapes. If Matthew’s Rachab is supposed to be another woman, we must ask what evidence actually identifies that second woman. If the chronology is problematic, does replacing Joshua’s Rahab with another Rachab solve the chronological problem? If the spelling differs, do biblical writers elsewhere use variant forms for the same person’s name?
Most importantly, several distinct questions must not be confused:
- Was the Rahab of Joshua an Israelite or a Canaanite/non-Israelite?
- Is Matthew’s Rachab intended to be that same Rahab?
- Does the genealogy from the Exodus generation to David record every biological generation?
These questions overlap, but they are not identical.
The purpose of this study is therefore not to begin with the traditional identification and force the evidence to fit it. Nor is it to claim that Matthew explicitly writes, “Rachab the harlot of Jericho.” He does not.
Rather, we will examine the cumulative biblical evidence and ask a narrower historical and exegetical question:
Which identification best explains the evidence we actually possess?
1. Who Was Rahab in Joshua?
Rahab first appears in Joshua 2:
“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 house, named Rahab, and lodged there.”
— Joshua 2:1
Rahab is therefore introduced as an inhabitant of the city Israel is preparing to conquer.
Nothing in Joshua identifies her as an Israelite living among Canaanites.
Indeed, the narrative consistently distinguishes Rahab and the people among whom she lives from Israel.
When speaking to the spies, Rahab says:
“I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.”
— Joshua 2:9
Notice the pronouns.
There are two groups:
you/your — Israel;
us — Rahab and the inhabitants of the land.
She continues:
“For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites…”
— Joshua 2:10
Again:
we heard
what God did for
you.
Rahab does not speak as though she participated in Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. She describes the Exodus as something YHWH did for the people standing before her.
The narrative distinction is remarkably natural if Rahab belongs to Jericho rather than Israel.
2. “The LORD Your God”
Rahab’s confession strengthens this distinction.
She tells the spies:
“And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.”
— Joshua 2:11
The expression “the LORD your God” is significant.
By itself, the expression would not necessarily prove ethnicity. Biblical speakers can describe YHWH in relation to another audience without thereby denying him as their own God.
But within this particular narrative it forms part of a larger pattern:
your God
gave you the land;
we heard what he did for you;
our hearts melted because of you.
Rahab’s remarkable confession is therefore not that she has rediscovered the God of her Israelite ancestors.
The narrative presents something considerably more striking:
A woman living among the condemned inhabitants of Jericho has heard what YHWH has done and has come to recognise that Israel’s God is truly God.
“he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.”
That confession becomes central to how the New Testament later remembers her.
3. Rahab Is Distinguished from Israel Even After Her Rescue
Joshua 6 provides particularly important evidence.
Before Jericho is destroyed, Joshua commands:
“And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.”
— Joshua 6:17
After the city falls:
“But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot’s house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her.”
— Joshua 6:22
Then we receive a particularly revealing detail:
“And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel.”
— Joshua 6:23
This is difficult to overlook.
Rahab and her family are rescued from Jericho but initially placed:
“without the camp of Israel.”
The narrative therefore continues to distinguish Rahab’s household from the Israelite camp even after their deliverance from the city.
If the claim is that Rahab was simply an Israelite all along, one must explain why Joshua naturally presents her family as a group rescued from Jericho and initially placed outside Israel’s camp.
Equally important is the reason Scripture itself gives for Rahab’s deliverance.
Joshua does not say that she was spared because her true Israelite ancestry had been recognised. It does not say that she had rediscovered the God of her fathers, returned to her ancestral people, or revealed herself to be an Israelite living among the Canaanites.
Instead, Joshua gives a completely different reason:
“because she hid the messengers that we sent.”
— Joshua 6:17
And again:
“because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.”
— Joshua 6:25
The New Testament interprets the same event in terms of faith:
“By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.”
— Hebrews 11:31
Thus the biblical explanation is not:
Rahab was an Israelite and returned to the God and people to whom she already belonged.
Rather, the narrative presents:
Rahab heard what YHWH had done for Israel → believed that YHWH was God → acted upon that belief → was separated from unbelieving Jericho → was spared from its judgment.
This distinction is important.
If Rahab were intended to be understood as a lost or displaced Israelite who was now returning to her own people, Joshua would provide an obvious opportunity to say so. Yet no such explanation appears. Her ancestry is never invoked as the basis of her deliverance. Her faith and her actions are.
Nor does the text describe her rescue as a restoration to Israel.
It describes her as a woman brought out from Jericho whose family is initially left:
“without the camp of Israel.”
That language fits naturally with someone who had been outside Israel and was only now being brought into relationship with Israel.
It fits considerably less naturally with the claim that she and her family were Israelites all along.
The text therefore gives us no positive evidence for an Israelite identity hidden behind Rahab’s Canaanite setting. What it does give us is a consistent narrative of a woman associated with Jericho who believes in Israel’s God, protects Israel’s messengers, escapes the judgment falling upon the city, and is subsequently brought into Israel.
4. Rahab Subsequently Dwells “in the Midst of Israel”
Rahab’s story does not end outside the camp.
Joshua concludes:
“And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot 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
This produces a striking narrative progression:
Rahab in Jericho
↓
Rahab rescued from Jericho
↓
Rahab initially outside Israel’s camp
↓
Rahab dwelling in Israel
There is an additional feature of the Hebrew that deserves attention.
The KJV translates the relevant expression:
“she dwelleth in Israel”
The Hebrew is:
וַתֵּשֶׁב בְּקֶרֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל
wattēšeb bəqereb yiśrāʾēl
The expression בְּקֶרֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל (bəqereb yiśrāʾēl) means literally “in the midst of Israel.”
The noun קֶרֶב (qereb) has the basic idea of the inner part, midst, or interior of something and is frequently used in the Hebrew Bible for someone or something situated within the midst of a people.
This makes the contrast with Joshua 6:23 particularly striking.
Immediately after Rahab and her family are rescued, we read:
“and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel.”
— Joshua 6:23
But only two verses later Rahab’s subsequent position is described as:
בְּקֶרֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל
“in the midst of Israel.”
— Joshua 6:25
The movement within the narrative is therefore even more pronounced than the English expression “dwelleth in Israel” might initially suggest:
outside the camp of Israel
↓
in the midst of Israel
That is significant.
The text does not leave Rahab permanently on the margins as a tolerated inhabitant who remained fundamentally separated from the people. Whatever precise social or legal process followed her rescue—and Joshua does not describe those details—the narrator’s final description places her within the midst of Israel.
This should not be exaggerated into a claim that the word qereb by itself proves every conceivable aspect of covenantal or tribal status. Lexical meaning alone cannot establish all of that. Nevertheless, it certainly does not portray Rahab as a permanent outcast.
Indeed, qereb is regularly used for persons or things existing within the community itself.
For example, Deuteronomy 17:15 says concerning Israel’s king:
“thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee…”
The expression translated “from among” again uses מִקֶּרֶב (miqqereb)—literally, from the midst of one’s brethren.
Likewise Deuteronomy 18:15 promises:
“The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren…”
Again the language is מִקִּרְבְּךָ (miqqirbəḵā), “from your midst.”
The point is not that every occurrence of qereb carries exactly the same legal significance. Rather, these examples demonstrate the ordinary force of the expression: it describes location within the midst of the community, not exclusion from it.
That makes Joshua’s choice of language particularly appropriate to Rahab’s narrative.
She begins among the inhabitants of Jericho, speaking of Israel as “you” and her own people as “us.”
She is then rescued from the city and initially placed:
“without the camp of Israel.”
Yet the narrator ultimately tells us that:
“she dwelleth in the midst of Israel even unto this day.”
The contrast is difficult to miss.
Nor does Joshua say that Rahab had always belonged within Israel and was merely returning to her rightful place. There is no revelation of hidden Israelite ancestry and no statement that she was being restored to her original people.
Rather, the narrative moves in the opposite direction: a woman of Jericho who has confessed Israel’s God and acted upon that faith is rescued from the people under judgment and subsequently comes to live in the very midst of Israel.
This becomes particularly important when considering the possibility that Matthew later places this same woman within the ancestry of David. Joshua 6:25 has already removed any objection that Rahab simply disappears after Jericho or remains permanently outside Israel. The last thing Joshua tells us about her is precisely the opposite:
Rahab came to dwell in the midst of Israel.
5. Rahab’s Faith Is the Defining Feature of Her Story
The book of Joshua does not merely present Rahab as someone fortunate enough to escape Jericho.
Her actions arise from what she has come to believe about YHWH.
She has heard about the Exodus:
“the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you”
and Israel’s victories:
“what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites”
and concludes:
“the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.”
Rahab then acts upon that conviction.
She protects the spies at considerable personal risk and seeks deliverance for herself and her family.
The New Testament explicitly interprets her actions through this theological lens.
6. Hebrews: Rahab Was Saved “By Faith”
Hebrews 11:31 states:
“By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.”
The contrast is extremely important.
Hebrews does not say:
Rahab survived because she was secretly an Israelite.
Instead:
“By faith”
she did not perish
“with them that believed not.”
The fundamental contrast is therefore:
Rahab — faith
versus
the condemned inhabitants — unbelief.
Hebrews has placed Rahab within a chapter devoted to men and women who acted because they believed God.
Her background makes the example all the more remarkable.
7. James: Rahab’s Actions Demonstrated Her Faith
James likewise appeals to Rahab:
“Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?”
— James 2:25
The context concerns the relationship between faith and works.
James first appeals to Abraham and then, remarkably, to Rahab.
The comparison itself is striking:
Abraham
and
Rahab the harlot.
James’ point is not that these individuals had equivalent social standing or ancestry. His point is that genuine faith manifests itself in action.
Rahab believed and consequently acted.
8. Hebrews and James Show That Rahab Was a Recognised Biblical Figure
These two passages establish another fact that becomes particularly relevant when we turn to Matthew’s genealogy:
The Rahab of Joshua was evidently a recognised figure among New Testament believers.
Neither Hebrews nor James needs to introduce Rahab or explain her background.
Hebrews simply says:
“By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.”
— Hebrews 11:31
James likewise writes:
“Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?”
— James 2:25
Neither writer says:
“There was a woman who lived in Jericho named Rahab…”
Neither explains that she appears in the book of Joshua.
Neither identifies Joshua, Jericho, the king of Jericho, the scarlet cord, or the destruction of the city.
They do not even need to explain who the “spies” or “messengers” were.
They simply say:
“the harlot Rahab”
or:
“Rahab the harlot.”
This strongly suggests that the story was already sufficiently familiar that the name and designation immediately identified the woman being discussed.
Rahab Can Be Mentioned Alongside Major Figures Without Introduction
This is particularly striking in Hebrews 11.
The writer moves through a succession of well-known figures from Israel’s Scriptures:
Abel
Enoch
Noah
Abraham
Sarah
Isaac
Jacob
Joseph
Moses
and then the events surrounding Israel’s entrance into Canaan.
After mentioning the fall of Jericho, Hebrews immediately states:
“By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not…”
— Hebrews 11:31
Rahab therefore appears within a catalogue containing some of the most recognisable figures of biblical history.
The writer evidently expects his audience to recognise her just as they recognise the other people whose stories he recalls.
This does not mean that Rahab possessed the same prominence as Abraham or Moses. But it does demonstrate that she was sufficiently established within the remembered scriptural history of Israel that her name could function without an introductory explanation.
James provides independent confirmation.
James has been discussing Abraham:
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”
— James 2:21
Having used Abraham as his first example, James immediately introduces another:
“Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works…?”
— James 2:25
Again, there is no explanation of who Rahab was.
James evidently assumes that his readers know the story well enough to understand precisely why receiving the messengers and sending them away another way demonstrated her faith.
The Story, Not Merely the Name, Was Familiar
This is worth emphasising.
Hebrews and James do not merely demonstrate that the name Rahab was known.
They assume familiarity with the narrative attached to that name.
Hebrews can refer simply to:
“when she had received the spies with peace”
while James can say:
“when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way.”
For those statements to function as arguments concerning faith, the audience needs to understand the significance of what Rahab did.
The writers therefore appear to assume knowledge of the familiar Joshua narrative:
Rahab
↓
the Israelite spies
↓
her decision to receive and protect them
↓
her separation from unbelieving Jericho
↓
her deliverance when the city fell
The Rahab of Jericho was therefore not an obscure OT character who had disappeared from Jewish and Christian memory.
Her story remained sufficiently recognisable to be invoked as a theological example simply by naming her.
This Matters When We Come to Matthew’s “Rachab”
This becomes significant when evaluating Matthew 1:5.
Matthew writes:
“And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth…”
If Matthew’s audience already knew the famous biblical story of Rahab—as Hebrews and James strongly indicate—then the appearance of a woman bearing that name in Matthew’s genealogy would not occur in a literary vacuum.
The reader already has a biblical referent for Rahab.
Furthermore, Matthew does not place Rachab randomly among dozens of otherwise unknown women. He deliberately names her among a remarkably small group of women associated with recognisable Old Testament narratives:
Tamar
Rachab
Ruth
the wife of Uriah
That does not by itself prove that Matthew’s Rachab must be Rahab of Jericho. Matthew still does not explicitly write “Rahab the harlot” or “Rahab of Jericho.”
But it substantially affects what must be explained by the alternative interpretation.
If Matthew intended another woman entirely, then his readers encountered the name of a woman who:
- bore essentially the same name as the famous Rahab of Joshua;
- appeared among other recognisable women from Old Testament history;
- was given no distinguishing description indicating that she was another Rahab;
- and whose supposed separate identity is otherwise unattested in the biblical narrative.
Meanwhile, Hebrews and James demonstrate independently that when early Christian writers spoke of Rahab, the woman of Jericho was already a readily recognisable referent.
This creates an important presumption in favour of the traditional identification.
It does not amount to an explicit identification. But neither can the literary evidence simply be ignored.
When a New Testament reader encountered the name Rachab within a genealogy deliberately highlighting women from Israel’s scriptural history, there was already one famous biblical woman to whom that name naturally pointed:
Rahab of Jericho.
Any proposal that Matthew instead intended an otherwise unknown second woman named Rachab therefore requires more than observing that another Rahab was theoretically possible. It requires evidence sufficient to show why the already familiar biblical referent should be rejected.
9. Why Do Hebrews and James Say “Rahab the Harlot” While Matthew Does Not?
An objection sometimes arises from the descriptions themselves.
Hebrews calls her:
“the harlot Rahab”
— Hebrews 11:31
James calls her:
“Rahab the harlot”
— James 2:25
Matthew, however, simply records:
“Rachab”
— Matthew 1:5
Could this difference indicate that Matthew is referring to another woman?
There is no reason to draw that conclusion merely from the absence of the descriptor. The different descriptions are readily explained by the very different purposes for which the writers mention Rahab.
Hebrews is specifically recalling the event at Jericho:
“By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.”
— Hebrews 11:31
James is likewise referring directly to her actions during that same episode:
“Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?”
— James 2:25
Both writers are therefore taking their readers back to the period in Rahab’s life in which the book of Joshua introduces her:
“an harlot’s house, named Rahab”
— Joshua 2:1
The designation is particularly appropriate because her background contributes to the force of the example.
Hebrews is demonstrating what faith can accomplish. Rahab was not one of Israel’s celebrated patriarchs, prophets, priests or judges. She was the woman whom Joshua had introduced as a harlot living in condemned Jericho. Nevertheless, she believed what she had heard concerning YHWH and acted upon that belief.
James makes essentially the same rhetorical use of her.
Immediately before Rahab, James has appealed to Abraham:
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”
— James 2:21
He then says:
“Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works…?”
— James 2:25
The contrast is striking.
Abraham our father
and
Rahab the harlot
are both presented as examples of faith manifested through action.
Thus the designation “the harlot” is not incidental to the rhetorical force of Hebrews and James. It identifies the woman from the familiar Jericho narrative and emphasises the remarkable background from which this example of faith emerged.
Matthew Is Using Her Name for an Entirely Different Purpose
Matthew is doing nothing comparable.
He is not recounting:
- Jericho;
- the spies;
- Rahab’s profession;
- her confession of YHWH;
- her act of hiding the messengers;
- her faith;
- her deliverance;
- or the destruction of the city.
Matthew is recording ancestry.
His statement is simply:
“And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab…”
— Matthew 1:5
There is therefore no contextual requirement for Matthew to write:
“Salmon begat Booz of Rachab the harlot.”
Indeed, such a description would be somewhat unusual within the concise genealogical formula Matthew is employing.
The fact that Hebrews and James use a descriptor relevant to the historical episode they are discussing, while Matthew omits it in an entirely different literary context, provides no meaningful evidence that Matthew intended another woman.
10. Biblical Identifiers Need Not Accompany Every Mention of the Same Person
This principle can be demonstrated easily elsewhere in Scripture.
A person can be referred to by:
name + title
in one passage and simply:
name
in another.
The disappearance of the title or identifying description does not indicate the appearance of another person.
Matthew “the Publican”
Matthew’s own Gospel provides an obvious example.
When Jesus calls Matthew, we read:
“And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom…”
— Matthew 9:9
Yet when Matthew lists the twelve apostles, he calls himself:
“Matthew the publican”
— Matthew 10:3
These are not two Matthews.
The same individual can be:
Matthew
or
Matthew the publican
depending upon the context.
Consequently, the reasoning:
Hebrews says “Rahab the harlot” while Matthew says “Rachab,” therefore Matthew may mean someone else,
cannot stand merely upon the presence or absence of the descriptor.
The same linguistic phenomenon occurs with Matthew himself.
Naaman “the Syrian”
Jesus says:
“And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.”
— Luke 4:27
The description “the Syrian” is highly relevant to Jesus’ argument because he is contrasting Naaman with the lepers of Israel.
Yet 2 Kings repeatedly refers to this same man simply as:
“Naaman.”
Once the narrative has established who he is, his national descriptor does not need to accompany every mention of his name.
Nobody would reason that:
Naaman
and
Naaman the Syrian
must therefore be different men.
David Provides an Even Clearer Example: “David” and “David the King”
David is particularly useful because “king” is not merely a description of something David once did. It is an actual office and title that he possessed.
Nevertheless, Scripture does not consistently attach that title to his name.
Sometimes he is explicitly:
“king David”
For example:
“Now king David was old and stricken in years…”
— 1 Kings 1:1
Elsewhere, while David is unquestionably reigning as king, the text simply calls him:
“David.”
For example:
“And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God.”
— 1 Chronicles 29:20
There is no suggestion that David has ceased to be king merely because the narrator omits the title.
The context already establishes his identity.
This variation is especially relevant because Matthew himself does exactly this within the genealogy under discussion.
Matthew 1:6 says:
“And Jesse begat David the king; and David the King begat Solomon…”
Yet elsewhere the same Gospel can refer simply to:
“David”
without repeatedly adding “the king.”
Even after David’s death, Scripture can identify him either by name alone or by his royal designation depending upon the purpose of the writer.
The presence of “king” in one passage and its absence in another therefore tells us nothing about whether the same David is intended.
The principle is obvious:
“David the king” = David
just as:
“Naaman the Syrian” = Naaman
and:
“Matthew the publican” = Matthew.
There is consequently no linguistic principle by which:
“Rahab the harlot”
must represent a different woman from:
“Rachab”
merely because the latter reference omits the descriptor.
Joseph of Arimathaea: Different Writers Emphasise Different Identifying Details
Joseph of Arimathaea provides another useful example because the Gospel writers attach different descriptions to the same man.
Matthew says:
“there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple”
— Matthew 27:57
Mark describes:
“Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God”
— Mark 15:43
Luke says:
“And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just”
— Luke 23:50
John adds:
“Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews…”
— John 19:38
These descriptions are not contradictory identifiers belonging to different men.
Each writer selects information appropriate to his purpose.
The same principle should be permitted when considering Rahab.
Descriptors Serve the Writer’s Purpose
These examples demonstrate a basic feature of biblical narrative.
A biblical figure may be referred to as:
David
or
David the king;
Matthew
or
Matthew the publican;
Naaman
or
Naaman the Syrian;
without requiring separate individuals.
Consequently:
Rahab
and
Rahab the harlot
need not represent different women.
The question must be settled from the wider evidence concerning identity, not from the omission of an epithet.
This becomes especially important because Hebrews and James have an obvious contextual reason for using Rahab’s familiar designation.
They are both explicitly recalling the Jericho episode.
Matthew is not.
Hebrews asks us to remember:
the harlot who received the spies by faith.
James asks us to remember:
the harlot whose actions demonstrated her faith.
Matthew merely tells us:
Rachab was a woman within this genealogy.
The difference in description is therefore exactly what we might expect from the different literary purposes of the writers.
It certainly does not establish that Matthew has introduced another Rachab.
11. Matthew Deliberately Chooses to Name Particular Women
One of the most important pieces of evidence for identifying Matthew’s Rachab comes not from chronology or spelling, but from the literary construction of Matthew’s genealogy itself.
Matthew’s genealogy is overwhelmingly structured through the male line.
It begins:
“Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren…”
— Matthew 1:2
The dominant formula is straightforward:
X begat Y
Y begat Z
Z begat A
Matthew could easily have continued this formula without identifying any of the mothers.
Indeed, the genealogy demonstrates this repeatedly.
Matthew does not normally tell us the names of the wives or mothers involved. He does not name Sarah alongside Abraham and Isaac. He does not name Rebekah alongside Isaac and Jacob. He does not name Leah alongside Jacob and Judah. He does not systematically name the wives of the kings.
The overwhelming majority of women through whom this genealogy necessarily passed remain unnamed.
Consequently, when Matthew interrupts his normal genealogical formula to identify a woman, we should pay attention.
Before reaching Mary, he does this only four times.
Tamar
“And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar…”
— Matthew 1:3
Rachab
“And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab…”
— Matthew 1:5
Ruth
“and Booz begat Obed of Ruth…”
— Matthew 1:5
The wife of Uriah
“and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias…”
— Matthew 1:6
Matthew therefore did not need to mention Rachab in order to preserve the genealogy.
Without her, he could simply have written:
“Salmon begat Booz.”g
Indeed, that would correspond perfectly well to the basic form of the genealogy given in Ruth:
“And Salmon begat Boaz…”
— Ruth 4:21
Matthew instead deliberately expands the formula:
“Salmon begat Booz of Rachab.”
That additional information is therefore there because Matthew chose to give it.
This makes the identity of the woman significant.
12. Matthew Is Highly Selective About Which Women He Names
The significance becomes clearer when we consider the women Matthew does not name.
There were many prominent women within the ancestral history Matthew is recounting.
Most obviously, Matthew could have mentioned Sarah.
He writes:
“Abraham begat Isaac…”
— Matthew 1:2
Yet Genesis repeatedly emphasises that Isaac was the promised son specifically born through Sarah.
Matthew nevertheless does not write:
“Abraham begat Isaac of Sarah.”
Likewise he could have named Rebekah when recording Isaac and Jacob.
He could have named Leah when recording Jacob and Judah.
These women were hardly obscure.
Sarah and Rebekah are among the most prominent women in Genesis, and their places within the patriarchal genealogy are unquestionable.
Yet Matthew omits them.
This means that his inclusion of Tamar, Rachab, Ruth and the wife of Uriah cannot simply be explained by saying:
“Matthew sometimes gives the mothers.”
He does not.
He is selecting particular women.
The question therefore becomes:
Why these women?
Scholars have proposed different answers concerning the precise theological or literary principle connecting them. Some emphasise unusual circumstances surrounding their unions; others their Gentile associations or origins; others see them as anticipating the unusual circumstances surrounding Mary; and these explanations need not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
For our present question, however, we do not need to settle Matthew’s entire theological reason for selecting them.
One observation is sufficient:
These women have been deliberately singled out from among many possible women Matthew could have named.
Rachab therefore occupies a conspicuous position in the genealogy.
13. The Women Matthew Selects Are Recognisable Women from Israel’s Scriptural History
This becomes particularly significant when we examine who the women are.
Tamar
Matthew’s:
“Thamar”
is the Tamar of Genesis 38.
Her story occupies an entire chapter of Genesis and directly concerns the continuation of Judah’s family line.
Matthew’s genealogy itself makes the identification unmistakable:
“Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar…”
— Matthew 1:3
Genesis 38:29–30 records the births of Perez and Zerah to Tamar.
Matthew’s audience familiar with Scripture could therefore connect the woman immediately with the OT narrative.
Ruth
There can likewise be no serious uncertainty concerning:
“Ruth”
in Matthew 1:5.
Matthew says:
“Booz begat Obed of Ruth…”
The book of Ruth ends:
“And Boaz begat Obed,
And Obed begat Jesse,
and Jesse begat David.”
— Ruth 4:21–22
This is the famous Ruth the Moabitess, whose decision to accompany Naomi and identify herself with Naomi’s people and God forms one of the central moments of the book:
“thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.”
— Ruth 1:16
Again, Matthew has deliberately inserted a recognisable woman from an OT narrative.
The Wife of Uriah
Matthew does not actually call the fourth woman “Bathsheba.”
Instead he writes:
“David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias…”
— Matthew 1:6
This makes the literary point even stronger.
Matthew deliberately identifies her through the famous OT narrative involving David and Uriah.
He could simply have written:
“David begat Solomon.”
He could have said:
“David begat Solomon of Bathsheba.”
Instead, he evokes the history by identifying her in relation to Uriah.
The reader familiar with 2 Samuel immediately knows which woman and which event Matthew has brought into view.
Thus the women Matthew chooses to identify are not incidental names.
They point the reader back toward recognisable stories within Israel’s Scriptures.
14. Then We Encounter “Rachab”
This gives us the literary environment in which Matthew writes:
“Salmon begat Booz of Rachab.”
Consider the pattern:
Tamar
→ recognisable woman from an OT narrative.
Rachab
→ ?
Ruth
→ recognisable woman from an OT narrative.
the wife of Uriah
→ recognisable woman from an OT narrative.
This is precisely where the proposal of an otherwise unknown Rachab becomes difficult.
The OT already contains a famous woman called Rahab.
Her story is found in Joshua 2 and Joshua 6.
Furthermore, as we have already seen, Hebrews and James demonstrate that this particular Rahab remained a recognised biblical figure among NT believers.
Hebrews can simply write:
“the harlot Rahab”
and James:
“Rahab the harlot”
without explaining who she was.
Therefore, when Matthew deliberately inserts a woman bearing essentially this name among a very small collection of recognisable women from Israel’s scriptural history, the Rahab already known from Scripture is the obvious candidate.
15. There Is Only One Prominent Female Rahab in the OT Narrative
This point deserves particular emphasis.
If the Old Testament contained several women named Rahab, we would naturally need additional information to determine which one Matthew intended.
But that is not the situation.
Within the OT historical narrative there is one famous woman bearing this personal name:
Rahab of Jericho.
Consequently, Matthew’s readers were not choosing between:
Rahab daughter of X
Rahab wife of Y
Rahab of Jerusalem
Rahab of Bethlehem
and
Rahab of Jericho.
There is one recognised female biblical character named Rahab whose story was sufficiently famous that Hebrews and James could invoke her without introduction.
That fact does not logically make the existence of another woman named Rachab impossible. Many individuals in antiquity could share the same name, including people never otherwise mentioned in Scripture.
But that is not the question.
The question is:
Which identification does Matthew’s literary context make most natural?
And that context strongly favours the already recognised biblical Rahab.
16. The Alternative Requires an Otherwise Unknown Rachab
Consider what the alternative interpretation requires.
Matthew has voluntarily departed from his normal male genealogy to identify four particular women.
Under the traditional interpretation the pattern is:
Tamar
— famous OT woman.
Rahab
— famous OT woman.
Ruth
— famous OT woman.
wife of Uriah
— famous OT woman.
That is an immediately coherent literary pattern.
Under the alternative interpretation it becomes:
Tamar
— famous OT woman.
Rachab
— otherwise completely unknown woman who happens to share the name of a famous OT woman.
Ruth
— famous OT woman.
wife of Uriah
— famous OT woman.
That interpretation is not impossible.
But it introduces an anomaly precisely where none is required.
And there is an additional difficulty.
Matthew did not have to mention this woman at all.
If this were an obscure Rachab unknown from the biblical record, Matthew could have preserved the genealogy perfectly well by writing:
“Salmon begat Booz.”
That is essentially what the OT genealogical lists do when giving the male sequence.
Instead Matthew deliberately says:
“Salmon begat Booz of Rachab.”
If this is Joshua’s Rahab, the reader immediately has a reason why the name is meaningful: Matthew has deliberately brought another recognisable woman from Israel’s scriptural history into the genealogy.
If this is an otherwise unknown woman, however, we must ask:
Why has Matthew singled her out?
We may not know the complete theological reason Matthew selected every woman, but the traditional identification at least gives the reader a recognisable scriptural referent.
The alternative leaves Matthew deliberately highlighting a woman about whom his readers are told nothing and whose only distinguishing feature is that she bears essentially the same name as a famous biblical woman.
17. The Potential for Confusion Is Also Significant
There is another point worth considering.
Hebrews and James demonstrate that Rahab of Jericho was known within the NT world.
Now imagine that Matthew intended an entirely different woman.
He writes merely:
“Rachab.”
He gives no father.
No place.
No tribal affiliation.
No explanation.
No statement such as:
“another Rachab”
or any other means of distinguishing her from the familiar biblical woman.
This would create an obvious potential for readers to associate Matthew’s Rachab with the only prominent woman of that name they already knew from Scripture.
Of course, ancient writers were not required to prevent every conceivable misunderstanding. This argument should therefore not be overstated.
Nevertheless, it contributes to the cumulative evidence.
If Matthew intended Joshua’s Rahab, his wording is perfectly natural.
If Matthew intended another otherwise unattested Rachab, then the absence of any distinguishing information becomes something the alternative interpretation must explain.
18. Matthew’s Use of “the Wife of Uriah” Shows How Deliberate These Identifications Are
The fourth woman makes this even more interesting.
Matthew does not merely give whatever name happened to appear in a genealogical source.
He consciously identifies Solomon’s mother as:
“her that had been the wife of Urias.”
That description deliberately evokes a particular OT history.
Matthew therefore expects his readers to recognise people and events from Israel’s Scriptures through these references.
Against that literary background, it is difficult to treat Rachab as though the name appears without any scriptural associations.
The name already has a very obvious association:
Jericho.
The spies.
Faith in YHWH.
Deliverance from judgment.
Dwelling in Israel.
And the NT itself confirms that this association remained alive.
19. This Is Positive Evidence, Not Merely an Answer to an Objection
This distinction is important for the overall argument.
The spelling and chronology sections largely answer objections raised against identifying Matthew’s Rachab with Joshua’s Rahab.
This literary argument does something different.
It supplies positive evidence for the identification.
We have:
- Matthew voluntarily introduces women into an overwhelmingly male genealogy.
- He is highly selective about which women he names.
- He omits even enormously prominent women such as Sarah and Rebekah.
- The women he does identify are connected with recognisable OT narratives.
- The OT already contains one famous female Rahab.
- Hebrews and James independently demonstrate that this Rahab’s story was familiar to NT believers.
- Matthew provides no indication that his Rachab is another woman.
- Identifying her with Joshua’s Rahab produces a coherent pattern of recognisable scriptural women.
- Identifying her as someone else requires positing an otherwise unattested woman whom Matthew inexplicably singles out while giving his readers no information by which to distinguish her from the famous biblical Rahab.
None of those facts individually proves the identification.
But together they create a meaningful literary presumption.
The question therefore should not simply be:
“Can Matthew’s Rachab theoretically have been another woman?”
Certainly she could.
The more useful historical question is:
“What would Matthew’s readers most naturally have understood when he deliberately placed the name Rachab among Tamar, Ruth and the wife of Uriah?”
The traditional identification provides an immediate and coherent answer:
They would naturally recognise another woman already known from Israel’s Scriptures—Rahab of Jericho.
To overturn that identification requires evidence, not merely the observation that another woman bearing the same name could theoretically have existed.
20. The Different Greek Forms: Ῥαάβ and Ῥαχάβ
The strongest linguistic objection concerns the Greek spelling.
Hebrews 11:31 has:
Ῥαάβ — Rhaab
James 2:25 likewise has:
Ῥαάβ
The Septuagint representation of Rahab in Joshua likewise commonly uses:
Ῥαάβ
Matthew 1:5, however, has:
Ῥαχάβ — Rhachab
This difference should be acknowledged.
The question is not whether the spelling differs.
It does.
The question is:
Does the difference require a different historical woman?
It does not.
21. Matthew’s Form Corresponds Closely to the Hebrew Name
The Hebrew name appearing in Joshua is:
רָחָב
commonly transliterated Rāḥāḇ or Rahab/Rachab.
The important consonants are:
ר — r
ח — ḥ
ב — b
The middle consonant ח (ḥet) is a guttural consonant.
Matthew’s Greek:
Ῥαχάβ
contains:
χ (Chi)
and therefore preserves an audible representation of that middle Hebrew consonant.
In simplified form:
Hebrew: R-Ḥ-B
Matthew: R-CH-B
By contrast:
Ῥαάβ
does not reproduce that consonant in the same way.
This means Matthew’s spelling is not evidence that he has introduced an unrelated name.
Quite the opposite: Ῥαχάβ corresponds very naturally to the Hebrew רָחָב of Joshua.
22. Separate Strong’s Numbers Do Not Mean Separate People
Because the forms differ, Strong’s assigns separate numbers:
G4460 — Ῥαάβ
and
G4477 — Ῥαχάβ
This sometimes creates an impression of greater significance than is warranted.
Strong’s numbers identify Greek lexical forms for concordance purposes.
They are not identification numbers for historical persons.
Therefore:
different Strong’s number
does not mean:
different historical person.
Indeed, the lexical descriptions themselves associate the forms with Rahab rather than presenting them as evidence for two historical women.
Modern lexical treatment likewise cross-references the forms.
Thus the Strong’s distinction proves precisely what nobody disputes:
Matthew’s Greek form differs from that used by Hebrews and James.
It does not prove why it differs, much less establish another woman.
23. Salmon/Salma: Variation Inside the Very Genealogy Under Discussion
This becomes especially important because we do not need to leave the genealogy to find variation in proper names.
Ruth 4:20–21 gives the familiar line:
“And Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon,
And Salmon begat Boaz…”
Yet 1 Chronicles 2:11 reads:
“And Nahshon begat Salma, and Salma begat Boaz.”
The forms differ:
Salmon
Salma
Yet their identity is beyond reasonable dispute.
Why?
Because both occupy exactly the same genealogical position:
Nahshon
↓
Salmon/Salma
↓
Boaz
The Hebrew and Septuagint textual traditions also preserve variant forms associated with this name. This deserves careful textual documentation when assessing individual manuscripts, but the broader point is already indisputable from the KJV itself:
A difference in the recorded form of a biblical name does not necessarily indicate another person.
This is especially relevant because Salmon/Salma is the very man connected with Rachab in Matthew 1:5.
24. Boaz Provides a NT Example in the Same Genealogy
We can go further.
Matthew and Luke themselves represent Boaz differently in Greek.
Matthew uses:
Βόες
Luke uses:
Βοόζ
Yet both unquestionably mean the same OT Boaz.
How do we know?
Because both place him in the identical genealogical sequence:
Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David
Thus, surrounding Rachab within this very genealogy we already have examples of proper-name variation:
Salmon / Salma
and
Βόες / Βοόζ
It would therefore be methodologically unsound to isolate:
Ῥαάβ / Ῥαχάβ
and insist that this variation alone establishes two historical women.
Identity must be determined from context and evidence, not from spelling variation alone.
25. Does Joshua Say Rahab Married Salmon?
No.
This must be stated plainly.
Joshua never tells us:
Rahab married Salmon.
Nor does Joshua say:
Rahab gave birth to Boaz.
We are not entitled to insert that information into Joshua.
The Joshua narrative ends its biographical information concerning Rahab with:
“she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day.”
Therefore, if Matthew’s Rachab is Joshua’s Rahab, Matthew supplies genealogical information not explicitly preserved in Joshua.
That should not trouble us. Biblical writers can obviously preserve information not contained in every earlier narrative.
But a scholarly case should distinguish:
what Joshua explicitly states
from
what follows if Matthew identifies her genealogically.
26. Matthew’s Male Genealogy Comes Directly from the OT
Matthew writes:
“And Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
And Jesse begat David the king…”
— Matthew 1:4–6
The sequence is:
Amminadab → Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David
Matthew did not create this genealogy.
The same genealogy already closes the book of Ruth:
“And Ram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Nahshon,
And Nahshon begat Salmon, and Salmon begat Boaz,
And Boaz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David.”
— Ruth 4:19–22
Matthew therefore follows an already established OT genealogy.
What Matthew adds are the women:
Salmon → Boaz of Rachab
and
Boaz → Obed of Ruth.
That distinction becomes enormously important when chronology is raised.
27. Chronicles Gives the Same Genealogy
The genealogy is not peculiar to Ruth.
1 Chronicles 2:10–12 states:
“And Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah;
And Nahshon begat Salma, and Salma begat Boaz,
And Boaz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse.”
David then appears among Jesse’s sons:
“Ozem the sixth, David the seventh.”
— 1 Chronicles 2:15
Thus:
Ruth:
Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David
Chronicles:
Nahshon → Salma → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David
Two OT passages independently preserve the same named line.
28. Luke Gives the Same Line Without Mentioning Rahab
Luke 3 provides an especially valuable comparison because Luke does not mention Rahab.
Working backwards, Luke records:
“…David,
Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson…”
— Luke 3:31–32
Turn the genealogy around and we have:
Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David
We can therefore compare four biblical witnesses:
| Source | Named sequence |
|---|---|
| Ruth 4 | Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David |
| 1 Chronicles 2 | Nahshon → Salma → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David |
| Matthew 1 | Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David |
| Luke 3 | Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David |
Only Matthew adds Rachab.
That fact is crucial.
29. Can We Prove This Nahshon Lived During the Wilderness?
Yes, with considerable confidence.
Numbers 1:7 identifies:
“Of Judah; Nahshon the son of Amminadab.”
Numbers 2:3 provides his office:
“And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies: and Nahshon the son of Amminadab shall be captain of the children of Judah.”
Numbers 7:12 again identifies:
“Nahshon the son of Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah.”
Now compare Chronicles:
“And Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah.”
— 1 Chronicles 2:10
This is not merely another man who happens to be called Nahshon.
We have:
same name: Nahshon
same father: Amminadab
same tribe: Judah
same position: prince/captain of Judah
The identification is exceptionally secure.
30. Nahshon Can Be Anchored Even Earlier
Exodus 6:23 states:
“And Aaron took him Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Naashon, to wife; and she bare him Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.”
Nahshon therefore belongs unmistakably to the generation of Moses and Aaron.
He is the brother of Aaron’s wife.
Thus the genealogy leading to David is anchored firmly in the Exodus generation:
Exodus-generation Nahshon
↓
Salmon
↓
Boaz
↓
Obed
↓
Jesse
↓
David
This point is extremely difficult to evade by moving the entire genealogy into a later period.
Nahshon cannot simply be relocated.
24. Where Does This Place Salmon?
Nahshon was already a recognised adult leader near the beginning of the wilderness period.
Numbers 14 subsequently records God’s judgment upon the unbelieving wilderness generation:
“Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me.”
— Numbers 14:29
Joshua and Caleb are explicitly excepted:
“Doubtless ye shall not come into the land… save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.”
— Numbers 14:30
Consequently, if Salmon entered Canaan with the conquest generation, he could not have belonged to the condemned twenty-and-over census generation unless another exception were supplied.
This makes it entirely reasonable to place Salmon among the younger generation—either young during the wilderness period or born during it.
We cannot calculate his exact age.
But the broad chronological point is important:
Salmon naturally belongs to the generation entering Canaan.
And that is precisely when Rahab appears.
31. Salmon and Rahab Belong to the Same Broad Conquest Generation
This deserves emphasis because the chronological objection can create a misleading impression that Rahab lived in some remote period long before Salmon.
The biblical chronology does not support that impression.
Rahab appears at a very specific transitional moment in Israel’s history: the fall of Jericho immediately following Israel’s forty years in the wilderness and at the beginning of Israel’s conquest of the Promised Land.
The broad sequence is:
Israel leaves Egypt
↓
Israel journeys through the wilderness for forty years
↓
the older wilderness generation dies
↓
Joshua leads the new generation across the Jordan
↓
Israel enters the Promised Land
↓
Jericho is the first major fortified city confronted after crossing the Jordan
↓
Rahab and her household are delivered
↓
Israel continues the conquest of Canaan
This places Rahab precisely at the transition between the wilderness period and Israel’s settlement in the land.
Jericho Comes Immediately After the Wilderness Period
Numbers describes Israel’s forty-year wilderness judgment:
“And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years…”
— Numbers 14:33
By the opening of Joshua, Moses has died and Joshua has received the command to lead Israel across the Jordan:
“Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.”
— Joshua 1:2
Rahab is introduced almost immediately afterwards.
Joshua sends the spies:
“Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot’s house, named Rahab…”
— Joshua 2:1
Israel subsequently crosses the Jordan in Joshua 3–4.
The new generation is circumcised in Joshua 5.
The Passover is observed in the land:
“And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover…”
— Joshua 5:10
The manna then ceases:
“And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land…”
— Joshua 5:12
Only then comes the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 6.
Rahab therefore does not belong to some undefined period centuries after or before Israel’s wilderness history. Her position on the biblical timeline is unusually clear.
She belongs to the very beginning of Israel’s entrance into and conquest of Canaan.
Israel Had Not Yet Completed the Conquest
This is also important.
When Rahab is rescued, Israel has crossed the Jordan, but the nation has certainly not yet completed its conquest and occupation of the Promised Land.
Jericho is at the beginning of the conquest narrative.
After Jericho come:
Joshua 7–8
the southern campaign — Joshua 10
the northern campaign — Joshua 11
and subsequently the distribution of territories among the tribes.
Thus Rahab appears at the beginning of the process by which the younger Israelite generation that survived the wilderness period enters and takes possession of the land.
This gives us a much more precise historical description than simply saying that Rahab lived “in the time of Joshua.”
She appears:
after the forty-year wilderness period, immediately after Israel crosses the Jordan, and before Israel has completed the conquest of the Promised Land.
Where Does Salmon Fit?
This is where the genealogy becomes important.
Nahshon is securely identified as the wilderness prince of Judah:
“Nahshon the son of Amminadab shall be captain of the children of Judah.”
— Numbers 2:3
Chronicles then gives:
“Amminadab begat Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah;
And Nahshon begat Salma…”
— 1 Chronicles 2:10–11
Ruth likewise gives:
“And Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon.”
— Ruth 4:20
Thus Salmon immediately follows a man firmly anchored within the wilderness generation.
Furthermore, God’s judgment upon the rebellious wilderness generation concerned those numbered:
“from twenty years old and upward”
— Numbers 14:29
with Joshua and Caleb explicitly excepted.
If Salmon entered Canaan with Israel, therefore, he naturally belongs among the younger generation that survived the wilderness period and entered the land, whether because he was below the relevant age when judgment was pronounced or because he was born during the wilderness years.
Scripture does not tell us which.
Nor does it give Salmon’s exact age at Jericho.
But it places him naturally within the generation associated with Israel’s entrance into Canaan.
Rahab and Salmon Therefore Fit the Same Historical Setting
Now place the two pieces of evidence together.
Salmon:
Son or genealogical descendant immediately following Nahshon, the wilderness prince of Judah, and naturally belonging to the younger generation entering Canaan.
Rahab:
Living in Jericho when that younger generation crosses the Jordan and begins taking possession of Canaan.
Therefore:
Nahshon — older wilderness generation
↓
forty-year wilderness period
↓
Salmon — younger generation entering Canaan
Rahab — living at Jericho as Israel enters Canaan
↓
conquest and settlement of the Promised Land
This is important because it shows that there is no initial generational incompatibility whatsoever between Salmon and Rahab.
They belong naturally within the same broad historical period.
The Bible does not tell us Salmon’s age when Jericho fell.
It does not tell us Rahab’s age.
It does not tell us when Rahab married.
It does not tell us when Salmon married.
And if Matthew’s Rachab is Joshua’s Rahab, Matthew does not tell us how long after Jericho the relevant marriage or birth occurred.
We should therefore resist inventing ages for either person.
But neither should an argument against their identification create a chronological separation that Scripture itself does not provide.
Rahab is not a woman living generations before Salmon.
Quite the opposite.
Rahab appears at exactly the historical transition in which Salmon’s generation would be entering the Promised Land.
The later chronological question concerning the centuries between the conquest and David is a different issue entirely. As we shall see, that question belongs to the genealogy from Nahshon/Salmon through Boaz, Obed and Jesse to David. It exists whether Matthew’s Rachab is Joshua’s Rahab or some other woman.
At the point where Salmon and Rahab themselves enter the historical picture, however, their broad chronological placement is entirely compatible.
32. But What About the Long Period from Jericho to David?
This is the more serious chronological question.
1 Kings 6:1 provides the major biblical chronological anchor:
“And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel…”
David reigned forty years:
“David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.”
— 2 Samuel 5:4
Allowing for the usual qualifications concerning inclusive and accession-year counting, David’s birth falls approximately 406 years after the Exodus.
Jericho occurs after approximately forty years of wilderness wandering.
Therefore:
Jericho → David’s birth ≈ 366 years
That is a substantial period.
33. Can the Named Generations Comfortably Fill 366 Years?
The named sequence is:
Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David
That provides four father-to-descendant intervals.
If every relationship represents an immediate biological father-son relationship, approximately 366 years would require an average approaching:
91 years per generation.
Scripture gives no age for Salmon when Boaz was born.
It gives no age for Boaz when Obed was born.
It gives no age for Obed when Jesse was born.
It gives no age for Jesse when David was born.
There are hints of advanced age in parts of the narrative.
Boaz appears older than Ruth. He repeatedly calls her “my daughter” and says:
“Blessed be thou of the LORD, my daughter… inasmuch as thou followedst not young men, whether poor or rich.”
— Ruth 3:10
Likewise Jesse is described during David’s youth as:
“an old man in the days of Saul”
— cf. 1 Samuel 17:12
Thus late fatherhood may account for some of the span.
But even generous assumptions leave the sequence unusually stretched if every named person must represent an immediate generation.
That is a legitimate observation.
What does not follow is:
“Therefore Matthew’s Rachab cannot be Joshua’s Rahab.”
34. Rahab Does Not Cause the Chronological Difficulty
This is the central logical point.
Suppose we remove the words:
“of Rachab”
from Matthew 1:5.
What genealogy remains?
Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David
Has a single chronological year disappeared?
No.
Have we gained another generation?
No.
Has Salmon moved later?
No.
Has Boaz moved later?
No.
The entire chronological question remains untouched.
35. Making Rachab Another Woman Solves Nothing
Suppose instead we accept the objection and say:
Matthew’s Rachab was another woman who lived much later than Joshua’s Rahab.
What happens to the male genealogy?
Nothing.
We still have:
Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David
Indeed, Salmon himself cannot simply be moved a century later, because he is genealogically attached to Nahshon, who is explicitly anchored to the wilderness generation.
Thus the alternative Rahab hypothesis does not solve the chronology it was supposedly introduced to solve.
This gives us a useful question to put to the objection:
If Matthew’s Rachab were a completely different woman, what chronological problem would actually be solved?
The answer is:
None.
36. Ruth Already Contains the Alleged Chronological Problem
This makes the point still stronger.
Ruth contains no reference to Rahab in its genealogy.
Nevertheless Ruth gives:
“Nahshon begat Salmon,
And Salmon begat Boaz,
and Boaz begat Obed,
And Obed begat Jesse,
and Jesse begat David.”
Therefore, if someone believes this sequence cannot possibly span the biblical period, the difficulty already exists in Ruth.
It has nothing intrinsically to do with Matthew’s Rachab.
37. Chronicles Has the Same “Problem”
Chronicles likewise says:
Nahshon → Salma → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David
And Chronicles makes matters even clearer by explicitly calling Nahshon:
“prince of the children of Judah.”
Thus the OT itself deliberately connects the wilderness prince to the short Davidic genealogy.
Again, Rahab has nothing to do with creating that chronological sequence.
38. Luke Has the Same “Problem”—and Does Not Mention Rahab
Luke may provide the clearest demonstration of all.
Luke records:
Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David
without mentioning Rahab.
Therefore someone could erase Matthew 1:5 entirely and the same chronological question would remain in Luke 3.
This makes it logically impossible to use the time span as positive evidence that Matthew means another Rachab.
The chronology simply cannot distinguish between the two hypotheses.
39. Nahshon Is Actually Earlier Than Rahab
There is an additional irony.
The argument says:
“Rahab lived too early.”
But Nahshon lived earlier still.
Nahshon was already an adult prince at the beginning of the wilderness period.
Rahab does not appear until roughly forty years later at Jericho.
Yet Scripture explicitly anchors Nahshon within the same genealogy.
Thus, if the time between the conquest and David requires explanation, that explanation must already account for:
Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David
Rahab is not the chronological issue.
At all.
40. The Real Question Is Whether the Genealogy Is Exhaustive
Once Rahab is removed from the chronological argument, the real question becomes obvious:
Do Ruth, Chronicles, Matthew and Luke necessarily list every biological generation between Nahshon and David?
There is no general biblical rule requiring that assumption.
Biblical genealogies can telescope generations.
Matthew himself proves this.
41. Matthew Demonstrably Omits Generations
Matthew 1:8 states:
“And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias.”
But the OT royal succession is:
Joram/Jehoram
↓
Ahaziah
↓
Joash
↓
Amaziah
↓
Uzziah/Ozias
Matthew therefore omits:
Ahaziah
Joash
Amaziah
and writes simply:
“Joram begat Ozias.”
Thus Matthew’s use of ἐγέννησεν — “begat” cannot invariably mean:
“was the immediate biological father of.”
It can express genealogical descent across omitted generations.
42. Matthew Has Another Compression Around Jechonias
A similar phenomenon occurs around the Babylonian exile.
Matthew 1:11 says:
“And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.”
Yet the fuller OT succession includes Jehoiakim between Josiah and Jehoiachin/Jechonias.
Again, Matthew’s genealogy is selective rather than exhaustive.
This is hardly surprising because Matthew explicitly arranges his genealogy into a literary pattern:
“So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.”
— Matthew 1:17
Matthew is not attempting to provide a modern civil registry containing every biological generation.
43. Could Ruth’s Genealogy Also Be Selective?
We cannot simply assert that Ruth definitely omits a particular person between Salmon and Boaz, or between any other named pair.
Scripture does not tell us where any omissions occur.
Nevertheless, once we recognise that:
- Nahshon is securely anchored to the Exodus generation;
- David’s chronology is independently anchored;
- only a small number of names appear between them;
- biblical genealogies demonstrably can telescope generations;
then genealogical compression becomes an entirely legitimate possibility.
Ruth’s purpose at the conclusion of the book is not to provide a year-by-year chronology of the Judges period.
Its genealogy connects the events surrounding Ruth and Boaz to David.
A selective genealogy containing the significant representatives of that line accomplishes that purpose perfectly well.
44. The Chronological Objection Therefore Cannot Establish Two Rahabs
We can now formulate the argument precisely.
The objection:
“There are too many years between Joshua’s Rahab and David; therefore Matthew must mean another Rahab.”
contains a logical failure.
The time span between the conquest generation and David is determined by the male genealogy and independent chronological statements, not by Rahab’s identity.
Ruth, Chronicles and Luke preserve the same male line independently of Rahab.
Therefore:
Changing Rahab’s identity does not change the chronology.
At most the chronology raises questions concerning the completeness of the genealogy.
It cannot tell us which Rahab Matthew means.
45. What Would Actually Demonstrate Another Rahab?
For the alternative identification to become compelling, we would ideally expect some positive evidence such as:
- another biblical woman named Rachab;
- an independent genealogy identifying another Rachab;
- evidence that Matthew’s spelling represents a genuinely different Hebrew name;
- evidence that Joshua’s Rahab could not possibly belong to Salmon’s generation;
- or an ancient tradition distinguishing Matthew’s Rachab from the woman of Jericho.
The spelling difference does not accomplish this.
The chronology does not accomplish this.
The absence of “the harlot” does not accomplish this.
Consequently, merely saying:
“Matthew might mean another Rachab”
establishes possibility, not probability.
46. The Cumulative Evidence
The identification should ultimately be assessed cumulatively.
First:
Joshua presents Rahab among the inhabitants of Jericho and consistently distinguishes her situation from Israel.
Second:
She confesses YHWH as:
“God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.”
Third:
She acts upon that belief.
Fourth:
She is rescued from condemned Jericho.
Fifth:
She is initially placed:
“without the camp of Israel.”
Sixth:
She subsequently:
“dwelleth in Israel.”
Seventh:
Hebrews identifies her deliverance explicitly with:
faith
and contrasts her with those who:
“believed not.”
Eighth:
James likewise presents her actions as evidence of genuine faith.
Ninth:
Hebrews and James demonstrate that Rahab was a recognised OT figure among NT Christians.
Tenth:
Matthew deliberately includes Rachab among a conspicuous collection of women otherwise recognisable from OT narratives.
Eleventh:
The OT contains one famous woman called Rahab.
Twelfth:
Matthew’s Ῥαχάβ naturally reflects the Hebrew רָחָב.
Thirteenth:
Different Greek spellings do not require different individuals.
Fourteenth:
Salmon/Salma provides an example of name variation inside the same genealogy.
Fifteenth:
Matthew and Luke themselves use different Greek forms for Boaz while unquestionably referring to the same man.
Sixteenth:
The genealogical Nahshon can be securely identified with the wilderness prince.
Seventeenth:
Salmon therefore belongs naturally to the younger/conquest generation.
Eighteenth:
Rahab appears precisely in that broad historical generation.
Nineteenth:
The supposed chronological problem exists independently in Ruth, Chronicles and Luke.
Twentieth:
Replacing Joshua’s Rahab with another woman solves none of that chronology.
No individual consideration necessarily proves the identification.
Together, however, they create a substantial cumulative case.
47. Rahab and Ruth Together Are Particularly Significant
If Matthew’s Rachab is Joshua’s Rahab, Matthew 1:5 becomes especially striking:
“And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth…”
The two women appear side by side.
Rahab’s story begins in Jericho.
She recognises YHWH:
“the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.”
She separates herself from unbelieving Jericho and ultimately:
“dwelleth in Israel.”
Ruth is repeatedly identified as:
“Ruth the Moabitess.”
Yet she tells Naomi:
“thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.”
— Ruth 1:16
Ruth likewise comes to dwell among Israel and becomes part of the Davidic line.
Matthew would therefore place consecutively within the genealogy two women whose OT stories prominently involve women from outside Israel attaching themselves to Israel and Israel’s God:
Rahab
↓
Boaz
↓
Ruth
↓
Obed
↓
Jesse
↓
David
↓
Messiah
For the wider biblical question of whether genuine non-Israelites could become incorporated among God’s people, that possibility deserves considerable attention.
Conclusion
There are really two mistakes that should be avoided when discussing Matthew’s Rachab.
The first is to claim more than the evidence demonstrates.
Matthew does not explicitly write:
“Rachab the harlot of Jericho.”
Joshua does not explicitly say:
“Rahab married Salmon.”
Nor does Joshua say:
“Rahab gave birth to Boaz.”
Therefore, the identification of Matthew’s Rachab with Joshua’s Rahab involves comparing several biblical texts rather than appealing to a single explicit statement.
But the opposite mistake is equally serious:
to treat the claim that Matthew means another Rachab as though it were established fact.
The evidence does not justify that confidence.
Joshua presents Rahab as a woman living among the inhabitants of Jericho who distinguishes herself and her people from Israel. She has heard what YHWH did for Israel, confesses him as the true God, protects his servants, escapes the judgment falling upon Jericho, is initially placed outside Israel’s camp, and subsequently comes to dwell in Israel.
Hebrews and James remember precisely this woman as an extraordinary example of faith and faithful action.
Matthew then deliberately inserts a woman named Rachab into a genealogy containing Tamar, Ruth and the wife of Uriah—all recognisable women from Old Testament narratives.
The suggestion that Matthew instead means an otherwise completely unknown woman bearing essentially the same name is possible, but possibility should not be confused with evidence.
The Greek spelling difference does not establish another woman. Matthew’s Ῥαχάβ corresponds naturally to the Hebrew רָחָב of Joshua. Biblical proper names demonstrably vary in form. Salmon appears as Salmon/Salma within this very genealogy, while Matthew and Luke themselves represent Boaz differently in Greek without thereby creating two men.
Nor does the chronological objection establish another Rahab.
This is perhaps the most important finding of the entire investigation.
Matthew did not invent:
Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David.
Ruth gives that genealogy.
Chronicles gives that genealogy.
Luke gives that genealogy.
And Luke does not mention Rahab at all.
Furthermore, Chronicles explicitly identifies the genealogical Nahshon as “prince of the children of Judah,” firmly connecting him with the Nahshon of the Exodus and wilderness generation. Nahshon therefore lived even earlier than Rahab.
Consequently, if the centuries between the Exodus/conquest generation and David appear too long for the named individuals to represent every immediate biological generation, the question concerns the nature of the genealogy itself.
Remove Rahab and nothing changes.
Replace her with another woman and nothing changes.
Remove Matthew entirely and the same question remains in Ruth and Chronicles.
The chronology therefore cannot function as evidence that Matthew’s Rachab was another woman.
Biblical genealogies demonstrably can telescope generations. Matthew himself omits several generations elsewhere in Matthew 1. It is therefore entirely legitimate to consider whether the OT genealogy leading to David likewise records significant representatives of the line rather than every biological generation.
The appropriate conclusion is consequently measured but substantial.
Can we prove beyond every conceivable doubt that Matthew’s Rachab is Joshua’s Rahab?
No. Matthew never explicitly identifies her with the words “Rahab the harlot of Jericho.”
But that is not the same as saying the evidence is evenly balanced.
The traditional identification possesses considerable cumulative support, while the principal objections offered against it do not establish an alternative.
The literary setting points naturally toward the famous biblical Rahab.
The Hebrew and Greek evidence permits the identification.
The variation in spelling provides no serious obstacle.
The historical generation of Salmon is compatible with Rahab’s appearance at the conquest.
And the chronological objection turns out not to concern Rahab’s identity at all.
Therefore, the evidence does not support confidently asserting:
“Matthew’s Rachab was not Rahab of Jericho.”
Rather, the cumulative evidence makes Joshua’s Rahab the natural and historically plausible referent of Matthew 1:5, while an otherwise unattested second Rachab remains a possibility for which positive evidence would still need to be supplied.
And if the traditional identification is correct, Matthew’s genealogy preserves something theologically remarkable.
The woman who once stood outside the camp of Israel, who had lived among those destined for judgment, who heard what YHWH had done and believed that:
“the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath,”
was spared by faith, came to dwell among Israel, and ultimately appears alongside Ruth the Moabitess in the ancestral line leading through David to Jesus the Messiah.
That would make Rahab not an embarrassment within the genealogy, but a remarkable biblical testimony to the incorporation of a believing outsider among the people of God.
0 Comments