Joshua 7:25 - Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible

Ver. 25. And all Israel stoned him with stones, &c.— There are three things to be considered from these words: I. It is asked, what was the punishment inflicted upon Achan? All the interpreters agree that he was stoned; but they are not equally agreed that he was burned. It is certain, that the law against sacrilege condemned offenders to the fire; (Deuteronomy 13:15-16.) it is also certain, that God had condemned to the fire whosoever should take of the accursed thing at the taking of Jericho, ver. 15 so that the rabbis insist that he was burned; and, with respect to the stoning which he previously underwent, some will have it that this happened accidentally, the furious people being unable to desist from overwhelming the guilty man with stones. Others say, that Jericho having been destroyed on the sabbath-day, and Achan having profaned this festival by retaining that which was devoted to God, he was stoned as profane, and burned as sacrilegious. But, upon the whole, the sentence which God had pronounced did not strictly import that the offender should be burned alive. By stoning him, he was punished capitally according to the laws; Leviticus 9:11; Leviticus 9:24; Leviticus 24:14. Numbers 15:35 and by burning his body afterwards, they obeyed the commands which God had just before given. II. Perhaps it may be more difficult to determine upon a second question which is here started, viz. Whether the sons and daughters of Achan perished with him, as well as his oxen, and asses, and sheep, and tent, and all that he had? Most interpreters are of this opinion, and find no difficulty in justifying the righteousness of the sentence. For, not to mention that God is always Lord over our life, and has a right to remove us when and how it seemeth him good; not to mention that the family of Achan, guilty of sin in other respects, could never be unjustly punished; not to mention this, we may presume, that they partook of the offence of their head; it not being probable that Achan could have buried his theft in the middle of his tent, without his children's knowing it. It is a maxim of the Jews themselves, that the accomplice in a crime, is as criminal as he who commits it. We readily subscribe to these reflections; and add, that, in these early times it was of importance to keep the people in respect, fear, and submission by instances of severity. But to the fact: The divine sentence expressed in ver. 15 condemned the guilty only, and his goods, to be burned. Here it is expressly said, that the Israelites stoned Achan, without mentioning his family; and if the historian adds, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones, this may be understood of the oxen, the asses, and the sheep which belonged to the unhappy malefactor; and that God chose that his tent and effects should be burned with his body, to inspire a greater horror of his crime. In this view, the family of Achan might undergo no other punishment, than that of being condemned to be present at the execution of their head, before all the people of Israel. However, we leave the subject to the reader's judgment. But, III. The case will not be the same with respect to the third question which hath been started concerning Achan's punishment. It is absurd to ask, by what right Joshua dared to condemn Achan to a punishment so heavy and dishonourable, upon the bare confession of the offender, without even the usual testimony of two witnesses against him, as the law required: For, what did Joshua on this occasion, but execute the orders immediately issued from God? Was not the voice of the oracle equivalent to that of two witnesses, especially against a man who avowed his crime, and who himself demonstrated its veracity, by producing the subject-matter of the offence, the very effects which he had stolen?