Explanation:

The nation of Israel was established on the notion of corporate identity.⁴5 This means that the nation was taught ever since they were slaves in Egypt that together, they were the people of God.

The notion of corporate solidarity comes out when Moses explains the instructions of the first Passover to the elders of Israel. He explains that Israel is to observe the Passover from one generation to the next as an ongoing reminder that God delivered them from the hand of Pharoah. When children of the next generation ask their parents the purpose of observing the Passover festival, they are to explain that it is a sacrifice to the Lord, “for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he struck the Egyptians but spared our houses” (Exodus 12:27). A careful reading shows that the Passover is meant to connect the nation of Israel in the present, to the work God did for their ancestors in the past. When they remember the event that established the Passover, they are to characterize it as though God not only passed over their ancestors’ homes, but their own homes as well.⁶7⁸. This is corporate solidarity.

We find an even more striking example in Deuteronomy 5:2–3. The Israelites had sinned against God, so they are forced to wander the desert until the generation that had received the Ten Commandments was dead (Numbers 14:20–23). Later, Moses summons all of Israel and reiterates the Ten Commandments. Interestingly, although the generation that had originally received the Ten Commandments has died, Moses delivers the law as though he is speaking to the audience that received them firsthand, stating, The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today (Deuteronomy 5:2–3).⁹ Moses is connecting the law given at Horeb a generation before with the current generation of Israel.

These are only two examples of many that characterize Israel as a nation established on the notion of corporate solidarity.

Counterargument:

Though Israel was developed on the notion of corporate solidarity, this theme does not apply to our text. There is no indication that God’s anger burns against Israel because of the principle of corporate solidarity. Rather, all we read is that Israel is unfaithful to God and that Achan took some of the devoted things that were supposed to be destroyed (Joshua 7:1).

It is just as likely that many of the Israelites knew that Achan had stolen the devoted items, and yet none of them tried to stop him or take interest in the matter. God knows this, so he punishes the whole camp for essentially condoning Achan’s sin.

In fact, it is possible that the Israelites are so oblivious to the severity of Achan’s sin, that when they are defeated in battle against Ai, they are unable to make the connection that the loss is because they have overlooked Achan’s sin and judgment has fallen on them (Joshua 7:7). In other words, the notion of corporate solidarity, which is not mentioned in the text, is not required to establish Israel’s collective guilt. They could be guilty because they were aware of Achan’s sin and overlooked it.

Response to counterargument:

The notion that Israel is guilty because they knew about Achan’s sin and did not stop him will not do for three reasons.

First, Joshua clearly explained to the Israelites in Joshua 6:17–18 that if anyone took the devoted things for themselves, the whole camp of Israel would come under destruction.¹⁰ The instruction from Joshua is clear. Now, if the people generally knew that Achan had taken the devoted things, they would not have been surprised when they were defeated at Ai (Joshua 7:7–9).¹¹ Rather, being defeated at Ai after such a great victory over Jericho would likely tip them off to the fact that God is following through on the destruction of the camp because of Achan’s sin.

Second, one cannot reject the general theme of corporate solidarity on the grounds that corporate solidarity is not in the passage. The theme of corporate solidarity is clearly articulated in Joshua 6:17–19 (see argument 2).

Finally, the text makes clear that the camp in general did not know that devoted things had been taken or who had taken them. In Joshua 7:13 God tells the Israelites to consecrate themselves because the Lord is going help them purge the devoted things from their midst. This implies that Israel needs direction to sort out the transgression that causes God’s anger to burn, and to know how to dispel it from the camp. Next, lots are cast in order to identify the perpetrator; another sign that, in the absence of divine guidance, the Israelites did not know who was guilty (Joshua 7:17).

Explanation:

Before the Israelites march around Jericho on the seventh day and eventually defeat the city, Joshua warns them not to take the devoted things because these are to be destroyed or placed in God’s treasury (Joshua 6:17–19). Joshua clearly states that if anyone takes from the devoted things, trouble and destruction will come upon the camp of Israel (Jos 6:18). The warning from Joshua is clear, and we have no reason to believe that Achan was ignorant of this command. Joshua is stipulating the covenant obligation to the Israelites. It is true that God will bring Israel success, but he will also bring them destruction if they fail to keep the covenant and disobey God’s commands.¹² The nation of Israel was developed on the notion of corporate solidarity, and the warning from Joshua 6:17–19 reinforces this.

Counterargument:

When Joshua instructs the Israelites not to take the devoted things, he is instructing the army in general. This is clear from his use of the second-person plural all throughout Joshua 6:18. The Hebrew construction begins with the second-person plural you, and the tense is carried throughout. This a corporate command from Joshua to ensure that, generally speaking, the army does not take the devoted things from Jericho. There is no way for Joshua or the army as a whole to stop a renegade such as Achan from disobeying this command. The expectation that not a single soldier would take a single devoted object is simply not reasonable. Joshua’s point is that the army as a whole, which represents Israel, and therefore God, is not to plunder because God will provide for them.

In other words, when Joshua states that if the army takes the devoted things, the destruction will come on the camp, he means, If as an army, you take the collective attitude of plundering Jericho, destruction will come upon the camp.

Response to counterargument:

The nation of Israel was established on the notion of corporate identity (see argument 1). This means that each citizen was responsible for his actions as though he represented the whole community.¹³ When Joshua commands the army not to take the devoted things, they should have understood that his command applied to each person, even though the army as a whole was one unit. Added to this, the Israelites should have known from previous instructions that keeping the things devoted for destruction was an egregious sin against God, and there was a corporate responsibility to prevent such action. In Deuteronomy 13:12–17, God commands through Moses that the Israelites are not to condone their brothers’ serving other gods in the Canaanite cities. If they find out that some brothers are serving other gods, they are to annihilate those brothers, destroy the gods and the spoils from those cities, and not keep any of the devoted things for themselves (Deuteronomy 13:17).

Explanation:

The redactors have purposely placed the defeat at Ai after the victory of Jericho to communicate what it meant for Israel to conduct warfare while in a covenant relationship with God. The story of Achan and the defeat of Israel at Ai were likely two separate events, but the redactors combined them in order to use sophisticated narrative to drive their point.¹⁵

When the Israelites obeyed God and gave him the glory for the victory at Jericho, this led to possession of the land and victory. On the other hand, when Israel ignored God’s commands, it demonstrated a needless self-confidence that caused God to burn against Israel in anger.¹⁶ This needless self-confidence is represented both by Achan who trusts in material possessions, and the Israelites who think they can defeat Ai with only a small army. As the narrative unfolds it will come to pass that Achan is punished for his self-reliance. Likewise, Israel will be punished for going to battle against Ai without fully trusting in God for victory. In the end, the purpose of the narrative is not that God was angry with all of Israel for one man’s sin, but that self-confidence will result in God’s anger.

Counterargument:

This view presupposes that the book of Joshua was composed by various redactors after the temple was destroyed and Judah had been exiled into Babylon (586 BC).¹⁷ With this assumption in mind, the events recalled by the book of Joshua are understood not for historical accuracy and nuance but to inform the theology of Israel now that they are captured by Babylon. This would mean that the text was compiled sometime after 586 BC. When this assumption is pushed too far, the text is reinterpreted in a new light. Rather than a text about the corporate identity of Israel, we get a text about the self-confidence of Israel. Do we have reason to think that Joshua was written late in Israel’s history?

There are a number of clues to suggest that Joshua was written in the second millennium BC, centuries before the exile.

1. The descriptions of the borders of Canaan found in the Pentateuch and Joshua 1:4 match the Egyptian understanding in the second millennium BC.

2. Joshua 2:1–24, which recalls the sending of spies who meet in a prostitute’s house, finds parallels with other ancient Near East cultures from the second millennium.

3. In Joshua 3:1–17 we find a list of people groups who God will drive out of the land. Three of these groups were distinct to the second millennium.

4. The act of God bringing down the wall of Jericho has parallels in another second millennium text.

5. The list of items stolen by Achan (Joshua 7:21) best fits with the second millennium BC. And there are other evidences as well.¹⁸

Suffice it to say that there is ample evidence to suggest that Joshua was written in the second millennium BC. This implies that the author is recalling the story of Achan and Ai together, not as a clever literary device but because of historical accuracy. Because Achan should not have taken the objects from Jericho, and because of the corporate solidarity of Israel, God’s anger burns against the nation.

Response to counterargument:

Even if Joshua was written in the second millennium BC and the story of Achan combined with the defeat at Ai is historically accurate, there is a sense in which God is teaching his people the demands of living in a relationship with him. The sin of Achan was not a petty crime, but a serious infraction with God, which held real consequences.¹⁹

Explanation:

As a nation, Israel represents God, so they are expected to act accordingly. God made it clear that because the Canaanites had sinned against him, they are being judged by God through Israel. At the same time God warns Israel through Joshua not to fall into sin by taking the devoted things (Joshua 6:17–18). Now a member of the community has ignored God’s warning and sinned. Israel is about to enter the Promised Land and God will soon establish them as a nation with their own land. This is a major milestone in Israelite history, and they must learn that God is just. When Canaan sinned against God, they were punished accordingly. Now that a member of Israel’s army has sinned, God will enact a punishment to communicate the severity of breaking God’s covenant.²⁰ The importance of this lesson is underscored by the fact that the Israelites set up a monument of stones as a memorial (Joshua 7:26).

This is not the only time when a major milestone in Israelite history is followed by sin, and harsh punishment for that sin. For example, after God establishes his covenant through Moses, he has the people spy the land of Canaan so that they can move in on it. The people are afraid to fight the Canaanites and grumble against Moses, desiring to go back to Egypt. Other times, when the people grumble, God does not exact a punishment (Exodus 16:1–36). On this occasion, because God is moving Israel in a major new direction, for their unbelief, God punishes them by having them wander the desert until the entire generation passes away (Numbers 14:20–23).

Another example comes after David defeats the Philistines and decides to bring the ark into Jerusalem. David’s kingship represents a new movement in Israel, and David desires for the ark of God to dwell in the new capital city. The oxen who carry the ark on a cart stumble, and when Uzzah touches the ark to stabilize it, he is instantly killed (Numbers 14:20–23). It is a stern reminder to follow God’s commands, and especially poignant when the timing of these punishments coincides with major movements in Israel’s history.

Counterargument:

While it might be true that God would sometimes enact a harsh punishment when sins were committed after major milestones in Israel’s history, the punishment in this passage is due to the severity of the sin. The Hebrew term used to characterize the sin in Joshua 7:1 is מַעַל (unfaithfulness). This is the same term used to describe adultery (Numbers 5:12) and denotes a serious betrayal of trust between two parties. In the context of Joshua 7:1, we can take the term to mean that Achan’s action represents a fundamental fracture in the covenant relationship with God.²¹ The harsh punishment has less to do with the timing and more to do with the nature of the infraction.

Possible weakness:

This view has many plausible elements. The one problem with it is that it grounds the punishment against Israel on the notion of growth through discipline. While it is the case that God inspires growth through discipline, God is also perfectly holy and just. This means that severe sin deserves punishment regardless of the lessons these punishments impart. God punishes sin, not just to teach new lessons, but because his perfect nature demands justice.