7:1 Using an emphatic construction in Hebrew, in which the key term maʿal is used as both verb and noun, the text declares that Israel “broke faith in regard to the devoted things.” This term is familiar in the OT, used more than sixty times, with about a fifth of those coming in 1–2 Chronicles, providing one of those books’ central concepts. The verb has to do with personal infidelity, used almost always with reference to God but on rare occasions also of interpersonal relationships. The usage here, and its echo in Joshua 22:20, would appear to be the sole exceptions, as here it is used of objects rather than of persons. This outlines even more clearly the status of kherem as the personal property of God himself.

While the breach of faith is Israel’s, the culprit is Achan. The extended list of patronyms identifies him precisely; he is, moreover, of the tribe of Judah. In a variety of ways Judah has been coming to the fore among the tribal groups, and this movement to preeminence continues in the latter part of the book during the land distribution and into Judges, as the first exemplary judges come from Judah. Achan’s action, however, marks a setback.

And so the Lord’s anger “burned against the people of Israel.” This was a frequent occurrence during Israel’s wilderness grumblings in the book of Numbers, and it is similarly triggered time and again in the downward spiral recounted in Judges (cf. Ps. 106:40). During Joshua’s time, however, this is the only recorded moment of rebellion that leads to a response of divine wrath.

This opening verse, then, offers three different elements as the episode unfolds: Israel’s infidelity, Achan’s theft, and the Lord’s anger against his people. By the end of the chapter, the matters of Achan and the Lord’s anger are resolved; Israel’s infidelity, however, awaits the end of chapter 8 for a full resolution.

7:2–3 Joshua’s leadership has been full of promise and, to this point, faithfully executed. In this episode, however, and again in chapter 9, his judgment can be called into question. With Ai as the next Israelite target, Joshua once again sends out spies. Unlike Moses’ original sending of spies into the land at the Lord’s express instructions (Num. 13:1–2), here Joshua takes the initiative to send out men. When they return, they are full of confidence and brimming with advice; “The spies are short on information and long on prescriptions.”63 In fact, their report to Joshua in 7:3 consists almost wholly of instruction, with the only information imparted being the small numbers of inhabitants. But even their advice is on the woolly side, only roughly indicating the numbers needed—not what one expects in these battle accounts. They further signally fail to demonstrate the sort of theological insight that the two spies of Jericho imparted.

Unlike the location of ancient Jericho, which has long been known, the location of Ai remains uncertain. It must be in the near environs of Jericho, but et-Tell, one site widely thought to be ancient Ai, has problems aligning with this account; in particular, it appears to have been a walled city with a significant population during this historical horizon. Other suggestions have been made, with the nearby Khirbet el-Maqatir being one strong, albeit speculative, candidate.64

7:4–5 Joshua accepts this counsel and sends “about three thousand men,” at least cautiously attending to the high side of the figures offered by the spies. Not only does Joshua seem to relinquish some element of his responsibility in this moment, but even more problematic is his failure to consult the Lord at all. The results are devastating, not only in terms of Israel’s humiliation, defeat, and loss of life but also in terms of the absence of the God who has fought for them up until now. The closing observation that “the hearts of the people melted” puts them in the company of the Canaanites who observed their previous victories (cf. 2:11; 5:1) and of the Israelites who experienced fear at the report of the ten spies (Deut. 1:28). That Israel should so quickly find itself in this state after the experiences of the Jordan crossing and Jericho conquest is remarkable. Meanwhile, in Israel’s compromised state, God is simply absent.

7:6–9 Joshua’s reaction, along with the elders’, and his prayer attract our sympathy, and perhaps even our approval. His grief is palpable; his prayer intense. There is an irony in their protracted prostration before the “ark of the Lord,” which has previously been identified with the Lord’s powerful presence among his people, both while crossing the Jordan and in the operations against Jericho. They are learning that they cannot presume upon Lord’s power exercised on their behalf.

At first we might hear in Joshua’s prayer an echo of Moses’ prayer during the golden calf episode, when the Lord expressed an intention to blot out Israel and start over with Moses. At this Moses pleads for the people on the basis of the honor of the Lord’s name among watching nations (Ex. 32:11–14 [esp. v. 12]; cf. Josh. 7:9). Far from a resonance with Moses, who sought by his intercession to turn aside the Lord’s wrath in recognition of the people’s failure, however, Joshua’s cry has more the character of the complaints in the wilderness, attributing Israel’s failure to God’s action and longing to return to the far side of the Jordan, much like those moments when the exodus generation wished it had never left Egypt (Ex. 16:3; Num. 11:5, 18–20; 14:2). At least in Joshua’s case the wish is for an alternate place to live rather than a place to die!

Importantly, then, Joshua’s intercession fails to reckon with the reality Moses grasped, confessed, and pleaded through: the matter of sin in the camp. “Where there is smoke, there is fire; . . . where there is what looks like punishment, there must have been a sin.”65

7:10–15 As soon as the Lord speaks, the accusation is leveled. The blunt “Get up!” (Josh. 7:10, 13) may strike modern readers as harsh in the face of Joshua’s distress and abasement. But such a judgment fails to recognize the lack of fitness between Joshua’s words and actions. Prostration suggests repentance and confession, but Joshua’s prayer is one of presumption and complaint. Joshua seems to think the issue is one of the Lord’s shame and the people’s well-being. The Lord’s reply indicates that Israel’s guilt is the problem; thus what is required is not lament but repentance and a removal of the covenant-breaking offense so as to repair the damage it brought to the relationship between God and his people.

God’s words highlight the same set of connections observed in verse 1: an individual’s sin indicates community failure, which results in the destructive absence of the Lord. In this case, the issue revolves around the misappropriation of “devoted things”; the Hebrew word kherem is repeated six times in the space of these few verses. Here “covenant” breaking (v. 11) is another way of describing the breach of “faith” (v. 1); therefore, although objects are involved, the issue remains an interpersonal one. The connection between personal sin and communal guilt runs deep here. It is difficult to resist the implication that Achan’s sin (with its dimensions to be more fully explored below) have led to the loss of spiritual discernment in Israel. There is no doubt that the root fault is Achan’s, as the text goes on to make abundantly clear. But individual sin, when harbored in the community, brings deeply damaging results for the nation, particularly in its relationship with its covenant God.

Thus the instruction Joshua receives focuses on the consecration of the people: they have lost their status as holy and rendered themselves no different than the Canaanites, for they have lost their connection with their holy God. The process prescribed involves the discerning of divine choice via “lot” (goral), only implied here but explicitly named over twenty-five times in the distribution of the land in the latter half of the book. The same process (and language) occurs twice in the narrative of Saul, once at his selection as king (1 Sam. 10:20–21) and once to discern guilt in oath-breaking (1 Sam. 14:41–42), which is very close to the situation here.

7:16–18 Joshua complies, and, like other major and divinely-instructed initiatives, the process begins the next day (cf. Josh. 3:1; 6:12, 15). The passage of time is significant. The news of the problem and its remedy will be public knowledge, and it is difficult to imagine that Achan would remain unaware of the situation. There is space, then, for him still to come forward—although, given the severe repercussions of divine judgment (7:15), it is likewise easy to appreciate why Achan might not do so. Beside this, one ought also to observe Rahab’s treatment: although she was one of the people placed under kherem (cf. Introduction: Interpretive Challenges), her declaration on behalf of the Lord achieved for her salvation from that judgment. There is, then, some space in which God’s grace might operate—but this would require Achan’s repentance, which is not forthcoming.

The next day, then, as the selection process unfolds, Achan is inexorably and inevitably identified.

7:19 Under these circumstances, Joshua’s invitation to Achan to divulge his wrongdoing may seem oddly worded. This appears to be the wrong moment for Achan to “give glory” and “give praise” to God. However, these phrases carry a nuance not immediately apparent. Regarding the first of these two clauses, several different Hebrew verbs of “giving” may be used with “glory” (Hb. kabod), but the one used here, a form of sim, is found with kabod on only two other occasions in the Masoretic Text. In both of these, Psalm 66:2–3 and Isaiah 42:12–13, giving glory is accompanied by a declaration of the rule of God and his victory over his enemies.66 And the word for “praise” (todah) may be rendered “confession” (cf. ESV mg.). This is the only verse in the OT in which kabod and todah come together. Given the nuance attached to “glory” here, taking todah as “confession” makes good sense. If the sense of todah in legal contexts is to convey an acknowledgment of the justice of the judgment rendered,67 then Joshua is calling on Achan not only to confess his own guilt but also to declare that God is in the right in delivering this judgment.

7:20–21 Achan now admits his sin against the Lord. He appears to have little choice. It is clear that what he has taken had value, although it is nearly impossible to quantify it in modern terms. The precious metal and clothing is, at least, similar in makeup to the riches Gehazi finds impossible to forgo (2 Kings 5:20–23). Commentators differ on the precise amount of gold and silver Achan takes, but roughly 20 oz (550 g) of gold and 80 oz (2,200 g) of silver approximates the amount. While clearly of great value, the volume of goods taken means that it all could have been “transported and hidden with ease.”68 Presumably it could easily have been hidden “in the earth inside my tent,” too, although how Achan could do so without the complicity of his household is difficult to say.

Tellingly, Achan describes having seen these goods “among the spoil”—but in this battle with Jericho there was to be no spoil (Josh. 6:17–19, 24; cf. Deut. 7:25–26). It was all kherem, devoted to destruction and thus belonging to God. This is a subtle but significant category mistake on Achan’s part, providing a glimpse into his self-rationale for this action.

7:22–25 Once Achan’s story is confirmed, the Lord’s judgment is carried out. The stoning is not only of Achan, the culprit; his “sons and daughters” and livestock are likewise stoned. Further, all of his belongings are destroyed, along with the contraband. Given the detail of the list, the absence of a wife is notable and perhaps implies Achan is a widower. This inclusive punishment when a single perpetrator has been identified has vexed interpreters for centuries. In modern interpretation three notions have been explored to understand this event. Perhaps the best known, but now least widely accepted among scholars, is the idea of “corporate personality” or “corporate responsibility.” This legal-anthropological concept, it was argued, meant that individual identity was subsumed under that of a larger grouping or community, so that the aggregate was implicated in the actions of any one member. This idea has come under strong criticism in its own right, and in any case has been found wanting in the specific case of Achan.69 A second explanation has been found in the matter of the kherem itself; as sacred objects communicate contagion, so too does kherem (cf. comment on 6:15–19). This would account for the suffering of Israel as a whole and the more strict judgment against Achan’s family, who harbored the devoted items. This has some cogency, especially in light of Deuteronomy 7:26, which warns against taking an “abominable thing” into one’s house, lest one “become devoted to destruction like it.” A third factor to consider is the likely complicity of Achan’s household in his crime. Perhaps it would be possible for Achan to conceal these items—portable, yes, but still bulky enough—without the knowledge of the rest of the family occupying the tent with him, but it seems most unlikely. Would this consideration be sufficient to explain the destruction of his animals and goods, however? On balance, a combination of the latter two factors offers the most explanatory power for an outcome for a crime that has cosmic dimensions.

7:26 The account ends with a mound of stones raised to memorialize the event. The connection is not explicitly made to the sets of memorial stones set up to commemorate the crossing of the Jordan recounted in Joshua 4; this is left to the reader. The significance is analogous to the pairing of Psalms 105 and 106. Not only should the mighty acts of God remain in memory; there is a place, too, for remembering the destructive effects of sin, with each theme in its different way providing instruction in obedience. There are echoes of idolatry in Achan’s crime. The temptation of gold and silver is not simply their great economic value but also their association with idol manufacture (cf. Deut. 7:26; Judg. 17:1–4). The wording that “the Lord turned from his burning anger” has two near parallels in the OT: Deuteronomy 13:17 (which also deals with the Hb. kherem) and 2 Kings 23:26. Both have to do with idolatrous actions among God’s people. The Deuteronomy text is especially instructive, as it is in one of three paragraphs dealing with covenant loyalty and what Israel must do to remove the offense to God from its midst. Israel is shamed, but her repentance and removal of the devoted items makes it possible for her to be restored once again to God’s presence.