Yosua 7:1

Achan Sins and is Punished

7:1 But the Israelites disobeyed the command about the city’s riches. ¹  Achan son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, ²  son of Zerah, from the tribe of Judah, stole some of the riches. ³  The Lord was furious with the Israelites. ⁴ 

Yosua 7:17-18

7:17 He then made the clans of Judah approach and the clan of the Zerahites was selected. He made the clan of the Zerahites approach and Zabdi ⁵  was selected. ⁶  7:18 He then made Zabdi’s ⁷  family approach man by man ⁸  and Achan son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, from the tribe of Judah, was selected.

Yosua 7:24

7:24 Then Joshua and all Israel took Achan, son of Zerah, along with the silver, the robe, the bar of gold, his sons, daughters, ox, donkey, sheep, tent, and all that belonged to him and brought them up to the Valley of Disaster. ⁹ 

Yosua 22:20

22:20 When Achan son of Zerah disobeyed the command about the city’s riches, the entire Israelite community was judged, ¹⁰  though only one man had sinned. He most certainly died for his sin!’” ¹¹ 

[7:1]  ¹ tn Heb “But the sons of Israel were unfaithful with unfaithfulness concerning what was set apart [to the Lord].”

[7:1]  ² tn 1 Chr 2:6 lists a “Zimri” (but no Zabdi) as one of the five sons of Zerah (cf. also 1 Chr 7:17, 18).

[7:1]  ³ tn Heb “took from what was set apart [to the Lord].”

[7:1]  ⁴ tn Heb “the anger of the Lord burned against the sons of Israel.”

[7:1]  sn This incident illustrates well the principle of corporate solidarity and corporate guilt. The sin of one man brought the Lord’s anger down upon the entire nation.

[7:17]  ⁵ tn See the note on “Zabdi” in 1 Chr 7:1.

[7:17]  ⁶ tn Heb “and he selected Zabdi.” The Lord is the apparent subject. The LXX supports reading a passive (Niphal) form here, as does the immediate context.

[7:18]  ⁷ tn Heb “his”; the referent (Zabdi) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[7:18]  ⁸ tn Heb “by men.”

[7:24]  ⁹ tn Or “Trouble” The name is “Achor” in Hebrew, which means “disaster” or “trouble” (also in v. 26).

[22:20]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “Is it not [true that] Achan son of Zerah was unfaithful with unfaithfulness concerning what was set apart [to the Lord] and against all the assembly of Israel there was anger?”

[22:20]  ¹¹ tn The second half of the verse reads literally, “and he [was] one man, he did not die for his sin.” There are at least two possible ways to explain this statement: (1) One might interpret the statement to mean that Achan was not the only person who died for his sin. In this case it could be translated, “and he was not the only one to die because of his sin.” (2) Another option, the one reflected in the translation, is to take the words וְהוּא אִישׁ אֶחָד (vÿhu’ ’ish ’ekhad, “and he [was] one man”) as a concessive clause and join it with what precedes. The remaining words (לֹא גָוַע בַּעֲוֹנוֹ, lo’ gava’ ba’avono) must then be taken as a rhetorical question (“Did he not die for his sin?”). Taking the last sentence as interrogative is consistent with the first part of the verse, a rhetorical question introduced with the interrogative particle. The present translation has converted these rhetorical questions into affirmative statements to bring out more clearly the points they are emphasizing. For further discussion, see T. C. Butler, Joshua (WBC), 240.