The Disastrous Consequences of Achan's Sin in Joshua 7:10-23
- mww
- 5 hours ago
- 15 min read
There is no such thing as a "private sin".
Bible Study Ideas and Commentary for Joshua 7:10-23
In this week's passage, we see the fallout when one man deliberately and knowingly broke God's command for the conquest of Jericho and tried to hide it. Men who had nothing to do with any of this lost their lives, and the sinner's own family was removed from existence. Joshua needed to do better to convince God's people to follow God's commands.
I coveted them and took them. You can see for yourself. (7:21)
Getting Started: Things to Think About
Something You Really, Really Want
Everyone has an ultimate wish list, something like would really, really love to have. (For example, a Red Ryder Carbine-Action 200-shot Range Model Air Rifle.) What's that thing for you?
You have two ways of taking this topic from a fun icebreaker to a serious teaching moment --
How far would you be willing to go to obtain it? -or-
What's the difference between wanting something and coveting it?
You might have guessed that those two ideas are related -- being willing to sin to obtain something is a sure sign of covetousness, which is obviously also a sin. (And if anybody in your group admits to that, you guys need to stop what you're doing and put a plan together to help them off that road.)
In this week's passage, an Israelite wanted something God told him he couldn't have. He took it anyway. Disastrous things resulted.
You Really Thought You Could Get Away with It
I'm hoping for stories from childhood. If your group is sharing things they did last week, that's probably a sign that you need to be more forceful in teaching these biblical truths.
What's something you really thought you could get away with? I'd want two kinds of examples -- where you were caught, and where you weren't caught.
Be circumspect. Some things we did when we were younger, we don't need to go into detail about them. We certainly don't want to celebrate sin, no matter how funny or impressive we think it was.
(In my experience, "getting away with it" emboldens us to try to get away with something else. But eventually, you get caught.)
The person in this week's passage has two lessons -- the first is that eventually you'll get caught, but the bigger is that you can never fool God.
"It's Social Media, Baby, Nothing Is Real"
I've been following this new social media trend called "Clipping Agencies". You know that the goal of social media is to "go viral" -- where a clip starts getting circulated so much that the almighty algorithms start pushing it to the top of a regular user's feed. A viral ad campaign can be the difference between a movie or album being a smash hit and a financial flop. There seem to be two ways this most often happens:
Enough people start sharing it because they [supposedly] like it, or
it's so outlandish that it gains huge notoriety.
Well, some clever social media users have realized that both of those things can be gamed. There used to be agencies that would pay users to share their content; now, those agencies just hire people to create hundreds of accounts and flood the market with clips designed to get attention. And those clips themselves have been carefully curated (or outright faked) to maximize their impact. And yes, this violates the standards for most platforms:
(To clarify: some stunts are real and absurdly dangerous, like the couple the climbed the Empire State Building today -- Two People Climb Needle of Empire State Building. And some stunts are carefully curated or even faked.)
Where am I going with this? One, yes, this is just a rant. You can't trust anything you see on social media.
But two, you've got two topics that might be of interest to your group:
Does it seem like people's behaviors are getting more and more outlandish, reckless, and/or illegal? What effect does that have one you?
Does it seem like large numbers of people online are approving or justifying behavior that the Bible clearly identifies as sinful? What effect does that have on you?
If this were Joshua's day, I can absolutely imagine a viral campaign where somebody starts complaining about spoils of war from Jericho or daring somebody to take spoils from Jericho (just to stir people up), and then somebody filming taking spoils of war from Jericho (just to get attention).
If you were to turn this into a thought experiment with your group, the purpose would be to reinforce that they should not be swayed by social media to do anything reckless or against God's instructions. In other words, the good ol' peer pressure discussion, except now our "peers" are actually wealthy corporations who are using deceptive tactics to influence what we believe to be true. God is trustworthy. The Bible is trustworthy. Social media is not.
This Week's Big Idea: The Size of the Israelite Army
This came up last week in my Bible study group, and I realized I haven't given any specifics about this in my notes. Sorry!
According to Numbers 26:51, the total number of men of Israel was 601,730. Obviously, there were some deaths by the time of the conquest, so let's just use 600,000 as a round number. Not all of them would have been active military, and we can use the Transjordan Tribes to help us out. According to Joshua 4:13, they contributed about 40,000 men to the army. Numbers says there were about 137,000 men in total in those tribes, so they contributed 30% of their men to the army. The rest were unable to serve or stayed behind to protect their women and children.
If we use that ratio, that gives an army size of 180,000 for the Israelites. That's a massive army, probably much larger than any other army in the entire region, including Egypt.
[Note: I don't feel like relitigating these numbers this week. I believe they are accurate and trustworthy. I also don't have any problem with those scholars who argue that the Bible can be translated to give a smaller size of the population and army.]
It's Not the Size of the Army in the Fight . . .
Now let's talk about the city of Ai. We skip the beginning of chapter 7 (see below), where we learn that the Israelites took an embarrassing defeat at this city.
First, the total size of the city (the "metropolitan area") is estimated at no more than 12,000 residents with a maximum army size of 3,000. Joshua sent that size of army against them and were routed.
That should have been the expected outcome!
Ai was the defenders and well-entrenched.
Israel was unfamiliar with the territory.
Ai was a huge climb from Jericho (Jericho = 800 ft below sea level; Ai = 2500 ft above) meaning the army would have been exhausted upon arrival.
But Joshua believed that God was one their side, so they would never lose. (This week's passage explains why Joshua was wrong in that assumption.)
But I want to emphasize the number of casualties: 36. Even for the smaller army Joshua dispatched to Ai, 36 casualties in a conflict is a rounding error, barely noticeable! But the text says that all the Israelites melted in fear.
Let me now tie this back into the first topic. Some scholars believe that the tiny number of casualties suggest that Joshua's army was much smaller than 180,000. I understand that argument, which is why I don't have a problem with people who believe that.
. . . It's the Size of the Fight in the Army
But I also think that's missing the point of what's happening here. I think what Joshua was trying to say by specifying the number of casualties is just how frail the army was. They lost 36 men out of 3,000 and immediately lost all faith in God and Joshua. What hope or confidence did these soldiers really have? A very fragile one. I think that's the point. This group wasn't a hardened army. Without God's direct intervention and support, they would have been unable to conquer the Promised Land. Any time the Israelites thought they could do something on their own, they failed miserably (and embarrassingly).
God used this as a teaching moment for Joshua, and that leads us to one more point:
Bonus Big Idea: Collateral Damage for Sin
We learn that one man, Achan, broke God's specific instructions and kept some spoils of war for himself. Two things happened as a result:
the army was defeated and 36 men died, and
Achan's own family was stoned to death.
That seems like a lot of people suffering for one man's sin.
Sadly, once again, that's the point. No sin happens in a vacuum. Anytime we try to justify a sin by saying, "It won't hurt anyone," we are very mistaken. Someone else always suffers (directly or indirectly) for every sin. That's why God is absolutely against all sin -- sin hurts His favorite creation: us!
Is it "fair" that soldiers died because of Achan's sin? Is it "fair" that his own family died as a result? I hate to be blunt, but those questions miss the point. Had Achan obeyed God's instructions, those things wouldn't have happened. Sin always has consequences, and that's why we should take it so much more seriously than people seem to do.
Where We Are in Joshua
Now let's quickly recap the bit that we skip. When we left off, the Israelites had received a victory at Jericho. God gave strict instructions not to keep any spoils of war or prisoners of war -- this was a Holy War, not for personal gain or tactical advantage; God was cleansing His Promised Land of evil and using the Israelite army as His agent of judgment. If someone thought they could get rich in the process, they clearly didn't understand everything God had done for them from the moment of their birth!
Above, I said a little about the city of Ai. Ai was the next city in the army's path, but it was not a big city. [Note: archeologists do not agree on which ancient ruin is Ai! The walled city would have been smaller than Jericho, but that doesn't count the people who lived near the city.] Joshua's spies recommended that "not all" of the army go against it.
Were the spies being cocky?
Did Joshua fail to consult God before going along with his spies' suggestion?
Does it matter that this is the first "not all" in Joshua?
The answer seems to be "yes" in all three cases. But none of those earned the headline: Joshua's army was hiding secret sin.
But Joshua didn't know that! Joshua was afraid that God had changed his mind and abandoned His people (the complaint in 7:7 sounds a lot like some of the complaints Moses gave). And in a way, God had! But God had for just cause. The people had violated their terms of the covenant, and so God responded as He said He would so do.
The emphasis of this passage is the presence of sin among God's people. BUT I want to point out that the "cracks are beginning to show" in this new-and-improved Israel. Joshua will hold them together -- this was an important learning experience for him, and he got better as a leader immediately -- but it is already becoming clear that without Joshua, it's not looking good for the future of the Israelites.
Part 1: The Covenant Is Violated (Joshua 7:10-15)
10 The Lord then said to Joshua, “Stand up! Why have you fallen facedown? 11 Israel has sinned. They have violated my covenant that I appointed for them. They have taken some of what was set apart. They have stolen, deceived, and put those things with their own belongings. 12 This is why the Israelites cannot stand against their enemies. They will turn their backs and run from their enemies, because they have been set apart for destruction. I will no longer be with you unless you remove from among you what is set apart. 13 Go and consecrate the people. Tell them to consecrate themselves for tomorrow, for this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: There are things that are set apart among you, Israel. You will not be able to stand against your enemies until you remove what is set apart. 14 In the morning, present yourselves tribe by tribe. The tribe the Lord selects is to come forward clan by clan. The clan the Lord selects is to come forward family by family. The family the Lord selects is to come forward man by man. 15 The one who is caught with the things set apart must be burned, along with everything he has, because he has violated the Lord’s covenant and committed an outrage in Israel.”
I highlighted the word "unless" because I think that's the key to all of this.
"Stand up" was not a rebuke. This was just not a time to dwell on the failure; this was a time for quick, decisive action.
Joshua should have known that the problem was not with God; it was with the people. Perhaps he had started to think too highly of them. Faith in his people is not a sin -- it's the mark of a good leader! -- but this time it came very close to being disrespectful of God. God nipped that in the bud before Joshua could cross that line.
Even though only Achan had committed the sin, God spoke as if all Israel had done so. That is deliberate. God had made the covenant with all Israel, so if anyone violated it, the covenant was thus fully violated.
[Aside: This is a great illustration of the consequences of sin -- every individual sin is a violation of the so-called "covenant of works" with God. If a person could live without sin, he/she wouldn't need Jesus' sacrifice. But their first sin throws that out. It doesn't matter how "big" or "small" that sin is; the covenant is broken, and that person is headed to hell. Only Jesus, by satisfying the old covenant and offering a new covenant, can fix that.]
No matter how massive the Israelite army was, they would be unable to win any battles without God's support. That's how pathetic most of them were.
But God offered a solution. He would allow them to atone for the violated article of covenant and then restore the covenant with them. This allowed God to demonstrate His justice and His mercy -- something that would foreshadow the coming of Jesus.
Hope was not lost, but sin had a price that could not be ignored.
Reminder about Holy War -- we talked about this last week --
In a Holy War, there are no spoils. God did not send His people to war for them to get rich, but to be His instruments of judgment against the evil in the Promised Land.
The method God chose to reveal the guilty party is extremely dramatic, but we can be sure that everyone in Israel would remember it their entire life.
The words for "tribe" and "clan" and "family" have a wide range (which is one of the reasons why there are arguments about the size of the army) -- even the word "man" could refer to the individual or, in this case, the man and his wife and children.
This is where corporate responsibility intersects with individual responsibility. Yes, one man would ultimately be found guilty of the sin, but the entire group would have the terrible responsibility of meting out judgment. I'm sure no one felt good about that.
Note that God did not ask the people to "rat out" their neighbor! God would identify the guilty party. This leads to an interesting but potentially volatile discussion about the role of church members in "sin-policing" one another. Like it or not, the ultimate answer to this is yes, Christians have a responsibility to point out sin in one another's lives. We talked about this when we studied Matthew 18:
But there are some really important things that separate what Jesus tells Christians to do in churches and what God told Joshua to do in the Israelite army:
We are to point out sin privately and gently.
The reason we point out sin is repentance, nut condemnation.
We always forgive, as far as it concerns us.
God handles judgment.
But if that person shows zero signs of remorse, then we are to discipline that person as we can, and God only gives us the authority to cut off fellowship with them.
That's very different! Church discipline is nothing like what happened in Joshua 7.
Part 2: The Guilty Party Identified (Joshua 7:16-19)
16 Joshua got up early the next morning. He had Israel come forward tribe by tribe, and the tribe of Judah was selected. 17 He had the clans of Judah come forward, and the Zerahite clan was selected. He had the Zerahite clan come forward by heads of families, and Zabdi was selected. 18 He then had Zabdi’s family come forward man by man, and Achan son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, was selected. 19 So Joshua said to Achan, “My son, give glory to the Lord, the God of Israel, and make a confession to him. I urge you, tell me what you have done. Don’t hide anything from me.”
We don't know exactly how God identified the guilty party, but we know that no one argued with it.
If you want to picture this in your head, this scene is unbelievably tense.
I also can't imagine how hard this must have been for Joshua. Another mark of a good leader is the willingness to do the hard thing the right way (and right away).
All of this also seals Achan's fate. At any point in time, Achan could have come forward and confessed his sin, and I personally believe that there would have been forgiveness (some lesser form of punishment). But Achan never did -- Achan waited until he had absolutely no choice but to confess. Forgiveness is related to confession.
Aside: Can Unconfessed Sins Be Forgiven?
Somebody in your group will conclude from this that an unconfessed sin will not be forgiven. That is indeed where the Catholic practice of "confession" comes from and is the logical basis for their doctrine of purgatory.
The short answer is that a Christian is forgiven of all sins, including sins he/she has not individually confessed to God. Otherwise, salvation would become dependent on the ongoing work of confession (which, again, is something Catholic believe necessary -- it's what the entire sacramental system is based on).
The longer answer has to do with the repentant-ness of the heart of a Christian. If a Christian isn't worried about the presence of unconfessed sin, that's a strong sign that that person isn't particularly repentant which is a sign that that person isn't actually a Christian at all! In my experience, Christians err on the other side -- overly worrying about their sins and fearing that they have not been repentant enough to be forgiven!
That's why the practice of confessing sins -- in prayer, directly to God -- is valuable, but only when you add 1 John 1:7, the reminder that God forgives sins, and Jesus' sacrifice fully paid the price for those sins. Confronting your sin -- and asking the Holy Spirit to help search your heart for such sins -- is a healthy part of spiritual growth. How would you know what to change if you don't know what you've done? But worrying about sins you may or may not have committed and whether or not God will forgive them in unhealthy and minimizes the sacrifice Jesus made.
Part 3: The Reluctant Confession (Joshua 7:20-23)
20 Achan replied to Joshua, “It is true. I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel. This is what I did: 21 When I saw among the spoils a beautiful cloak from Babylon, five pounds of silver, and a bar of gold weighing a pound and a quarter, I coveted them and took them. You can see for yourself. They are concealed in the ground inside my tent, with the silver under the cloak.” 22 So Joshua sent messengers who ran to the tent, and there was the cloak, concealed in his tent, with the silver underneath. 23 They took the things from inside the tent, brought them to Joshua and all the Israelites, and spread them out in the Lord’s presence.
Don't waste a lot of time explaining what the amounts mean. That's not the point. The point is that Achan knew exactly what he took -- a sign both of how deep-seated his coveting was as well as an awareness that he was wrong for taking it. Think about it: the person whose conscience is seared says, "Yeah, I took some stuff." The person whose conscience is pricked can itemize all of it to the penny or second.
Again, Achan did not willingly confess. He hoped somehow to get out of it. Consequently, we have to see this not as a genuine confession. I like how Madwig explains this:
True confession goes beyond the admission of what one has done. It includes recognition of guilt and true remorse.
We've talked about this many times. Is a person sorry for their sin, or sorry they were caught? One of those is true repentance. One of those is not.
The Lifeway outline stops here, and I understand why. The rest of the passage is the very unsavory end of Achan's entire family. But there is one detail worth noting --
7:24 Then Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan son of Zerah, the silver, the cloak, and the bar of gold, his sons and daughters, his ox, donkey, and sheep, his tent, and all that he had, and brought them up to the Valley of Achor.
"All that he had" was a lot! Achan was not a poor man. Achan had no need for the spoils of war he desired.
And isn't this the pattern for sin we see throughout the Bible (and in our own lives)?
I saw
I coveted
I took
[I hid the evidence]
The Hebrew root words match what we studied in Genesis 3:6. But this week's passage convinces me that I need to add "I hid" to my understanding of sin. Isn't that exactly what Adam and Eve did after they took the fruit? They hid from God -- of course, they his themselves, but that's the same thing. They had already eaten the evidence, so to speak.
Your serious discussion would be about temptation, the consequences of giving into temptation, and how to resist temptation. This has come up plenty of times in previous lessons --
Use any of those to help you remember what the Bible says about temptation.
And finally, happy Fourth of July! I shouldn't need to tell you to be safe in the heat. And I shouldn't need to tell you to pray for our country. Let's all do both of those things! God bless you, and may God bless America.
Comments