Deut 24:16 vs Joshua 7

[JAHinton]

This topic probably belongs in another forum. But I didn't see one that looks quite right for it.

There is a question that has always come to my mind and I have found no answer for. Pastors I have asked have offered no help. None of my reading has covered it. So hopefully some where out there some one can clear my question. My question is not to be interpreted as questioning the infalibity of Scripture. That is not the point at all.

How can we reconcile Deu 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin" with the death of Aachan's family in Joshua 7

[Bakershalfdozen]

This would be a Biblical issue.

[Guest Guest]

How can we reconcile Deu 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin" with the death of Aachan's family in Joshua 7

I haven't studied it but my initial reaction would be that more than likely his family knew about it. After all, when Joshua sent for the items: "they took them out of the midst of the tent". Since families generally lived in a single room it wouldn't be easy for him to hide it there without the knowledge of his immediate family.

[Danny Carlton]

This topic probably belongs in another forum. But I didn't see one that looks quite right for it.

There is a question that has always come to my mind and I have found no answer for. Pastors I have asked have offered no help. None of my reading has covered it. So hopefully some where out there some one can clear my question. My question is not to be interpreted as questioning the infalibity of Scripture. That is not the point at all.

How can we reconcile Deu 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin" with the death of Aachan's family in Joshua 7

The only thing I can see is that Deu 24:16 uses "for" (I believe the Hebrew word is al ??? --if that works) not "with" so it may be saying that you can't substitute who gets punished. In Aachan's case his foolishness caused the deaths of 36 men, so perhaps Joshua felt that killing his entire family, and destroying all their belongings would be a just punishment, when just kiling Aachan wouldn't.

[John81]

I haven't studied it but my initial reaction would be that more than likely his family knew about it. After all, when Joshua sent for the items: "they took them out of the midst of the tent". Since families generally lived in a single room it wouldn't be easy for him to hide it there without the knowledge of his immediate family.

Our pastor preached on this and that was his conclusion. The family was in on Aachans sin. They knew what he had done and they helped him in the attempt to cover it up. Therefore, they shared in the guilt.

[Jerry]

Things Hard To Be Understood by Cloud gives these points:

?And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day.? ? Jos 7:25-26

De 24:16 - ?The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.?

?It is said that an irreconcilable difficulty is found in the fact that while in De 24:16, there is the express statute providing that the father shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the father, but every man is to be put to death for his own sin, yet by Divine command the household of Achan shares in the punishment of its head; ?and the women and children and nurslings of the cities opposing Israel are annihilated.? We think anyone might see that the statue in Deuteronomy was to govern the national life, to be the rule of legislative procedure; but that in the case of Achan?s family and the offspring of the Canaanites, an express command was given for the special occasion. And who can say that the family of Achan were not consenting parties to his ill deed, or accessories after the fact? As to the Canaanites, how could the children have been spared? The women certainly merited destruction as much as the men, and all but the children of the most tender age must have been tainted with the general vice; and had the nurslings been spared, even if they escaped the hereditary taint, how could they have been cared for unless every city had been turned into an orphanage? While for man?s guidance the rule stands that each man must suffer for his own crime, yet in the providential dealings of God it constantly happens that children are overthrown in the ruin of their parents. The pestilence does not spare the children; the earthquake does not spare the children; while even in the moral region the principle of the involving of children in their father?s sin is not unknown, as in the physical region the law of heredity has sway; and in the Pentateuch itself God declares that He ?will visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children? (Ex 20:5). God always acts wisely, and He needs not these statutes to be laid down for His guidance; but it is otherwise with puny man, whose conduct must be restricted and defined, and for the administration of law in Israel, as in England, it was a wise and necessary provision not to punish the children for the sin of their parents? (A. McCaig).

?Some writers have endeavoured to relieve the narrative of its difficulty by arguing that only Achan himself and his property were destroyed, and that his family were brought into the valley only to witness the impressive scene. Two things seem to support it: (1) The grammar of the narrative is involved, and it is difficult to distinguish precisely what was done to him (Achan) and to them (his family, or, perhaps, only his property). (2) The very distinct law laid down by Moses (De 24:16), ?The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.?

?There seems to have been some difference in the mode of execution, as applied to Achan and to his family; in some way the special character of the guilt of Achan was indicated, but there is really no sufficient ground for assuming that the family was spared. Two things are decisive against that notion: (1) Phinehas, pleading with the Eastern tribes, who were supposed to have committed a trespass in building their ?witness altar,? said: ?Did not Achan, the son of Zerab, commit a trespass in the accursed thing, and wrath fell on all the congregation of Israel? And that man perished not alone in his iniquity.? It is clear that the point of this pleading is lost if Achan did not drag down his family with him in his destruction (Jos 22:20). And (2) in a most significant way the line of Carmi is stopped with Achan (or Achar) in the list given in 1Ch 2:7. And the historian is careful to explain how it was that Achan left no family: ?he transgressed in the thing accursed?? (Tuck).

?For any other sin but this, Achan must have suffered alone. But, in this case, warning had been given that the man who took of the accursed thing would be an accursed thing like it, if he brought it into his house (De 7:26), and would make the camp of Israel accursed also (Jos 6:18); and thus Achan?s whole establishment was destroyed, as though it had become part of Jericho. It is not necessary to assert that the family of Achan were accomplices. His cattle were not so, and yet they were destroyed. ? The severity of the punishment must be estimated by the relation of Achan?s crime to the whole plan of the conquest of Canaan. If the destruction of the Canaanites was indeed the execution of the Divine vengeance, it must be kept entirely clear of all baser motives, lest men should say that Jehovah gave His people license to deal with the Canaanites as it seemed best for themselves? (Ellicott?s Commentary).

[heartstrings]

It's interesting that there is no mention of Achan's wife; only children, animals etc.

[JerryNumbers]

Things Hard To Be Understood by Cloud gives these points:

In Clark's Commentary, he seems to say that only Achan was put to death. I've always heard it was the whole family.

Ths that is below comes from:

HARD SAYINGS OF THE BIBLE
by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch,

And this is just about the last half of what is written on this chapter.


Perhaps it will be seen, now, why Achan?s sin was viewed with such severity. He had done more than take several battle mementos; he had robbed God of items that specifically indicated that he was the Lord of the whole earth and should have received praise and honor from the Canaanites of Jericho.

Make no mistake: Achan was responsible for his own sin. Whether other members of his family were participants in the crime cannot be determined for certain, though it seems likely. Joshua 7:24 tells us that ?his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that he had? were brought to the Valley of Achor (?trouble?), and there ?all Israel stoned him? (Josh 7:25). While the text begins by focusing on Achan, saying they ?stoned him,? it continues noting that ?they stoned the rest? and ?they burned them.? Thus it would appear that the children were accomplices to the crime.

Since Achan had violated the ban and brought the goods from Jericho into his tent, he in essence made his tent, its contents and whatever was under the aegis of that tent part of the destruction and judgment that was on Jericho.

Finally, we must ask why the whole nation was viewed by God as an organic unity. Can the sin of one member of the nation or group defile everyone?

That is exactly the point made by this text. It is not difficult to see how the goodness of one person can bring blessing on the whole group. God blessed the whole world through Abraham (Gen 12:3). And we rarely complain when we enjoy the blessing and accumulated goodness of God on our nation as a result of the godly lives of our ancestors.

In a real sense, our acts do have ramifications beyond our own fortunes and future. The act of one traitor can imperil a battalion of soldiers, a nation or a multinational corporation. In the same way, one thoughtless act of a member of a community can have enormous consequences for the whole group.

This in no way bears on the ultimate destiny and salvation of any one of the persons in that group, but it can have enormous implications for the temporal and material well-being of each member.

When an individual Israelite violated a specific command of God, it brought sin on the whole group. In that case, the sin ignited the anger of God against the whole group. Achan was not acting merely on his own behalf when he sinned. As a leader among the clans of the important tribe of Judah, he had committed sacrilege; he had stolen what God had declared to be both sacred and separated from ordinary objects. Such a crime was aimed directly at God and at his covenant. It impinged on his right to be Lord and infringed on his rights of ownership. It had to be dealt with immediately and severely, just as did the sin of Ananias and Sapphira in the New Testament (Acts 5).

God holds each person individually responsible for his or her own sin; that is clear. But some, by virtue of their position or office, their offense against that which is sacred to God, or the implications that their acts have for their group, can also bring the wrath of God on their nation, community, institution or group. There are times where we are our nation?s keepers. When we deny or ignore this reality, Western individualism runs amuck and biblical truth is neglected.

See also comment on Deuteronomy 24:16; comment on 1 Samuel 15:18; comment on Ezekiel 21:4; comment on Romans 5:12.

[John81]

Scripture seems pretty clear on this matter.