Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

an essential function in that she as the seeming “inferior” outshines her apparent
“superior” (by far). For James Abraham is undoubtedly the primary
and foundational paradigm. But Rahab turns out to be the concluding and
crowning paradigm. For the truly observant reader she firmly cements James’
argument, in fact, puts it in concrete. It should not go unnoticed that she
gained her life because she was willing to lose it (Heb. 11:31). And what a
gain it was! Not only did she and her relatives escape the destruction of her
city and its inhabitants. She also was honored with an awesome place in the
genealogy of our Lord and Savior (Mt. 1:5). From confession to possession to
succession (So Zodhiates, II, 66)!
Sixth, in the final analysis all this is even more awesome when it is recognized
that Rahab’s conduct was not fueled by any promise of God. In exercising
her faith she possibly outdistanced Abraham most in terms of the basis
for their respective faith and its activity. Abraham was literally surrounded by
promises. The horizon of his life was filled with them (Gen. 12:1-3). He
could ground both his faith and its activity on the assurance that the baby
would be born and without fail function as the gateway into the future, which
would comprise a nation as well as the world (Gen. 15:1ff), frankly, alive or
dead (and revived)! Rahab had no such “fall-back” position. She had only the
“promise” (read: threat!) of radical and total destruction. All she saw was the
enraged and menacing majesty of God. And she believed. She surrendered
without the luxury of an assured future. She simply was overwhelmed by the
glory of God. But even this was not all. She pursued her now well-known
course of action because it was manifestly “the only thing” to do. Herewith
she fully authenticated her faith by an act of nearly unparalleled bravery! If
faith is a powerhouse in Abraham, it is off the chart in Rahab!
All in all, James “designedly put together two persons so different in
their character, in order more clearly to show that no one, whatever may have
been his or her condition, nation, class or society, has ever been accounted
righteous without good works” (Calvin, quoted in Cranfield, 342).
The question has (rather anti-climactically) arisen, whether Rahab was
justified in telling what seems to be a non-truth. In this, of course, she resembled
the midwives of Exodus 1:15-21. Eventually both Rahab and the midwives
were blessed mightily by the Lord. But would that imply, that their
conduct was not merely acceptable, but even a model for today? Some say
(very much) no (John Murray). After all, a lie is a lie. Others say (very much)
yes (John Calvin). After all, in warfare deception is not just a fully acceptable,
but invariably a recommended course of action (Josh. 8:1ff).
A further argument for the latter position may be found in the difference
between the extra-biblical Western/Greek (aletheia) and the biblical Hebrew
563