Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: May 25
Today is: Tuesday, April 23rd, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of May: (Show All Months)
Joshua 7
It has seemed to some rather a severe exaction that the soldiers should have been forbidden, under the severest penalties, from appropriating to themselves the least benefit from the spoil of this rich and wealthy city. But there may be seen many reasons for it. The principal seems to have been to impress upon them in the most lively manner, the fact that the conquest of the city was not in any respect due to the power of their arms, and that, therefore, they had no right to any portion of the spoil. Nothing was so well calculated as this privation to remind them to whom alone this important conquest was due. It was also a prudential measure. On the one hand it tried the obedience of the people—and, all things considered, it is certainly a wonderful instance of the religious and military discipline of the troops, that an order of this stringent nature was so well obeyed—while, on the other hand, it would have been inexpedient that the soldiers should be allowed, at the outset, to glut themselves with the spoils of a rich city, whereby they would have been more disposed for luxury and idleness than for the severe labors which lay before them in the martial conquest of Canaan. The city had also been won without the exhausting toils of feats of valor which might seem to demand such recompense. It may be added that it has been at all times usual in military operations to deal severely with the first town taken by storm, the garrison of which has held out to the last, in order to strike such a dread into the people as may facilitate further conquest, or induce submission in order to avoid a similar doom. Upon the whole, Jericho was to be regarded as the first-fruits of conquest; and as such offered up to the Lord as a burnt-offering.
Joshua meant that the city should stand in its ruined condition as a monument of this transaction. He therefore pronounced this solemn adjuration: “Cursed be the man before the Lord that raiseth up and buildeth this city, Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his first-born, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.” No one was bold enough to defy this doom until the ungodly reign of king Ahab, when one Hiel of Bethel rebuilt the city; and in him that doom was accomplished. His eldest son died when he commenced the work by laying the foundation—others during the progress of the work—and the last of all, the youngest, when he finished it by setting up the gates. This course, of making a monument of a conquered and destroyed city or building, by solemnly interdicting the restoration thereof, has not a few parallels in ancient history. Thus the Romans made a decree full of execration against any who should dare, at any future time, to rebuild Carthage, Note: Zonar, Annul. lib. ix. 409. which had been their rival in empire, and the situation of which was so advantageous as to create the fear that it might be restored. Similar imprecations were pronounced by Agamemnon against such as should rebuild Troy, and by Croesus against those who should restore Sidene, “according to ancient custom,” says Strabo, by whom the fact is reported. Note: Geograph. lib. ix. 13.
The other prohibition, respecting the spoil, was transgressed by one man only; but this single transgression infringed the covenant of devotement, and brought disaster upon the army of Israel in the next operation, which was against the town of Ai. As a military man Joshua was deeply and painfully sensible of the injurious effects of such a stain upon the hitherto irresistible arms of the Israelites. He, and the elders of Israel, with rent clothes, and dust upon their heads, lay prostrate before the ark till even-tide. In reply to the words in which the hero expressed his dejection and dismay—perhaps more of both than we should have expected from him—he was informed of what had taken place, and was told that Israel could not prosper while “the accursed thing” remained among them. He was then instructed in the steps to be taken for the discovery of the offender. God could at once have named him to Joshua, but this was not in accordance with the usual course of his providence. Yet as the offence had been without human witness, it was necessary to resort to an extraordinary process. This was the lot, conducted in the same manner as that by which, in a later age, Saul was chosen king. First the lot selected the tribe, then the family, then the household, then the individual. How this lot was conducted is not known, nor is the matter of much importance; but we incline to the opinion of those who conceive that tickets, marked with the names of the twelve tribes, were put into an urn, and the lot fell upon the one that was taken out; that then they cast as many tickets as there were ancestral families, or clans, in the tribe whose name was drawn; then as many as there were households in that family; and lastly, as many as there were heads in that household. However this may be it is certain that the lot, for the decision of uncertain, and the discovery of hidden things, was much in use among the Jews, Note: Num_26:55-56. 1Sa_14:41. and was highly esteemed by them. Its use among the pagans is shown in Jon_1:7. That it was lawful is clearly shown by its being used in other cases, divinely appointed, Note: Lev_16:8. 1Ch_24:5; 1Ch_24:7. and more than all by its having been apparently resorted to by the Apostles to fill the vacancy in their number. The pagan superstitions, which eventually became intermingled with the practice, and the evil purposes to which it was applied, rendered the practice so dangerous and criminal, that it was discountenanced by the church and fell into disuse. It is very possible that this expedient was resorted to in the present case, partly to afford the culprit an opportunity of staying the proceedings, by a repentant avowal of his crime. There would have been some show of penitence in this, but nothing of the kind occurred; and some obduracy and unbelief seem to be indicated in his remaining silent to the last, as if to take the chances of any error in the appointed process of detection. He could only escape by a wrong indication of the lot. And if he were willing to assume the possibility of such an error in the sacred lot, he must also have been willing that some other person should suffer for the crime he had committed.
By the process directed, the tribe taken was that of Judah, the family that of the Zarhites, the household that of Zabdi. That household was then brought, man by man, and Achan the son of Carmi was taken. This person, on being spoken to by Joshua, verified the indication of the lot by confessing his crime. He said, “When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold, then I coveted them and took them; and behold they are hid in the earth, in the midst of my tent, and the silver under them.” In the place he pointed out all those articles were accordingly found. They were things of value, and well suited to tempt such a man as Achan. The ingot of gold, somewhat in the shape of a tongue (not a wedge), must have been worth, at the present value of gold, about ninety-six pounds, and the silver about eight pounds. “The goodly Babylonish garment” awakens some interest. Bochart, Note: Phaleg. i. 6. with his usual erudition, proves by authorities that robes of various colors were made at Babylon, adorned with colored patterns, in the style of Turkey carpets, very shining, rich, and much sought after in all the eastern world. The Babylonians had the credit of inventing this sort of work, made in the loom with the needle, and of several colors, at one and the same time. Their money value, was very great even at a comparatively late period, and judging from the other plunder of Achan, he coveted the article more for what he might get for it than for its beauty. He could not use it without detection, and therefore must have designed to turn it into money when opportunity offered. We know not that any one has been able to describe a Babylonish robe of this sort, from actual representation of it. But it is likely that they differed little, if anything, from the equally prized robes of their Assyrian neighbors, of which the newly discovered monuments have enabled Dr. Layard to furnish a description; indeed, from the vague manner in which the term “Babylonish” was applied to anything from the countries bordering on the east of the Euphrates or Tigris, we lean to the opinion that what Achan calls a Babylonish garment may have been an Assyrian one. “The Assyrians were celebrated,” says Layard, “for the magnificence and luxury of their apparel. ‘The Assyrian garments’ became almost a proverb, and having first been borrowed by the Persians, descended at a later time even to the Romans. The robes, as portrayed in the sculptures, confirm the traditions of their beauty and costliness. The dress of the king consisted of a long flowing garment, descending to the ankles, and elaborately embroidered, and edged with fringes and tassels. It was confined at the waist by a girdle, to which were attached cords with large tassels, falling down almost to the feet. Over this robe a second, nearly of the same length, but open in front, appears to have been thrown. It was also embroidered and edged with tassels.” Note: Nineveh and its Remains, ii. 319. This agrees very well with the description which Herodotus gives of the dress of the Babylonians.
After the confession which Achan had made, there was but one course of dealing with one who had troubled Israel, and brought so deep a stain upon its honor, and disgrace upon its arms. He was stoned, and the corpse was consumed by fire, along with the accursed things, and with all that belonged to him.