Tell me more ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 4 down vote favorite
2

We read that Achan confessed his sin of taking spoil that was proscribed for the Lord:

Achan answered Joshua, “It is true, I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel. This is what I did: I saw among the spoil a fine Shinar mantle, two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, and I coveted them and took them. They are buried in the ground in my tent, with the silver under it.”—Joshua 7:20-21 (NJPS)

But when it was time to punish the sin, Achan's children were included:

Then Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan son of Zerah—and the silver, the mantle, and the wedge of gold—his sons and daughters, and his ox, his ass, and his flock, and his tent, and all his belongings, and brought them up to the Valley of Achor. And Joshua said, “What calamity you have brought upon us! The Lord will bring calamity upon you this day.” And all Israel pelted him with stones. They put them to the fire and stoned them.—Joshua 7:24-25 (NJPS)

This seemed to mollify God's anger.

Why then were Achan's children destroyed? Was it because Achan's sin was transferred to his children, or because his children were considered his property and not separate individuals, or because they were complicit in the sin, or for some other reason?

share|improve this question

2 Answers

up vote 3 down vote

Compare also with: Korach's rebellion in the book of Numbers, which led to his whole family being killed, and Haman's ten sons who were hanged along with him in the book of Esther (not by God or a rabbinic court, but tradition seems to approve). It seems like transgressions that threaten the whole community, as all three of these did, have more-dire consequences.

We are also told that God visits the sins of the father onto the children, to the third or fourth generation "of them that hate me". Not all transgressions necessarily involve hating God, but threatening the nation might qualify.

share|improve this answer
2  
What an interesting perspective! If I tell a secret, it might destroy a friendship. But if I tell a state secret to its enemies, I might destroy a nation. The first has no legal consequences, but the second could, theoretically, result in my death for treason. – Jon Ericson♦ May 4 '12 at 20:11
Just out of curiosity, Monica, I notice you don't have a problem writing, "God". May I ask what you think of this (just curiosity)? I was triggered by this answer which uses G-d. – Wikis May 4 '12 at 20:40
2  
@Wikis, people differ on this. I am in the camp that says that "God", being (1) a translation and (2) not any form of the tetragramaton, isn't God's real name and so I'm not risking desecrating it through erasing. (Also, pixels aren't writing.) I understand (and do not criticize) the extra stringency of "G-d", but it's not my practice. – Monica Cellio May 4 '12 at 21:13
Thanks, appreciate the answer! – Wikis May 4 '12 at 21:16
up vote 1 down vote

The God of the Bible is covenantal in nature. He deals with nations, towns, families and sometimes with individuals. As Western believers we have a view of God as only dealing with individuals however he often places his mercy or judgment on larger groups.

Think for example of the Canaanites. Was each individual so wicked that they needed to be destroyed? Or how about Nineveh at the time of Jonah. They seemed to all be saved from destruction by the repentance of their King.

Examples abound in scripture of this sort of thing.

In the case of Achan's family I believe we have a similar case. As the covenant head of his family Achan was responsible for their fate. He failed, they died.

One more note. I do not believe that this sort of covenantal covering extends to salvation. God definitely extends His saving grace to individuals and not to groups.

share|improve this answer
I agree the cultural context must be taken into account. And if all of Canaan was to be destroyed for the sin of their culture, it seems fair that all of Achan's line should be similarly destroyed. Support for your final paragraph comes from Jeremiah 31:27-34. (As you probably guessed, my question stemmed from yours. I'm glad you got some good answers over there even if I don't get the question. ;-) – Jon Ericson♦ May 4 '12 at 19:03
Yup, glad to see the question over here. The idea of covenant has almost been lost to the west, we need to hear more about it! Actually, I think all of his line was destroyed. – Nathan Bunney May 4 '12 at 19:10
1  
I'm not sure. It sounds like punishment is per group but grace is per individual, which means it is much easier to get punished than to get grace. I suspect, somehow, that the others were complicit; God has previously stated He would not destroy many thousands for the sake of a few. – Wikis May 4 '12 at 19:11

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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