Social Responsibility

But the sons of Israel acted unfaithfully regarding the things designated for destruction, for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, from the tribe of Judah, took some of the designated things; therefore the anger of the Lord burned against the sons of Israel.  Joshua 7:1 NASB

Burned against – What responsibility does the group have for the acts of the individual?  That’s the implied question in this unusual verse.  It’s not the only question, but it certainly is the most important.  Before we try to answer it, let’s look at some other oddities here.  We’ll need the Hebrew text to see what’s happening.

וַיִּמְעֲל֧וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל מַ֖עַל בַּחֵ֑רֶם וַיִּקַּ֡ח עָכָ֣ן בֶּן־כַּרְמִי֩ בֶן־זַבְדִּ֨י בֶן־זֶ֜רַח לְמַטֵּ֚ה יְהוּדָה֙ מִן־הַחֵ֔רֶם וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֥ף יְהֹוָ֖ה בִּבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל

Notice the strange grammar with the words for “sons.”  I’ve highlighted these in orange.  The first occurrence is not beni-Israel, as it is virtually everywhere else in the Tanakh.  Here it is pointed as v’nei-Israel.  Same consonants, different pronunciation.  Then we find the same oddity in the next occurrences.  The בֶּן “son of Carmi” is ben, as we expect, but the next two occurrences are ven Zavdi and ven-Zerach.  Is this tradition or is there a grammatical reason?  We also note that ven-Zerach isn’t really the grandfather of Achan.  Genesis 38:30 tells us that Zerach is the son of Judah and Tamar, so clearly he is much older than the grandfather of a man who lived many generations later.  This adumbrated genealogy is just the biblical way of describing the tribal connection.  It is not meant to describe the immediate relationships (in much the same way that the genealogy of Matthew leaves out people in the direct line).

Now let’s examine the big question.  The Hebrew phrase is a familiar idiom.  Literally it reads “became hot the nose of God.” “Burned with anger” is the intention, of course, but it’s interesting to see that facial expressions are often emotional clues in Hebrew.  This leads us to ask, “Who was God upset with?”  The answer is “the sons of Israel,” found at the beginning and the end of the verse.  But these plural expressions don’t seem to be correct.  All the men in the camp didn’t take what was cultically forbidden.  Only Achan did that.  In our world, the man who trespasses is guilty and punished, not everyone in the entire community.  This problem only gets worse.  When Israel goes to battle, thirty-six men are killed.  Joshua takes this as a sign that something is wrong, and God confirms that “the people” have sinned.  Upon exhaustive examination, Achan is discovered, but the death sentence is carried out against him and all his children (interestingly, there is no mention of his wife).  What is happening?  Why does God blame all the people, allow thirty-six “innocent” men to die, and then proceed to endorse the execution of an entire family?

We could argue that the family knew, but the text doesn’t say that.  And if the family knew, why isn’t the wife included? We could argue that the whole community should have known, and perhaps that’s the case, but there are other examples in Scripture where the whole community actually was guilty of an act, and God did not require that they all be killed.  Furthermore, the prophets clearly state that children are not held guilty for the sins of the fathers.  Guilt is not generational.  But here it seems that the guilt is passed to the children.  In fact, this is God’s way of removing the line of Achan.  It will never again be a part of Israel.  Was his sin so horrible that thirty-six unsuspecting men had to die?  So terrible that his line had to be extinguished?  Even when Cain terminates the line of Abel, God does not execute him, and that was a crime of genocide.  Achan’s crime is embezzlement.  Additionally, we must note that Korach’s rebellion kindled God’s anger toward all the people, and Moses successfully dissuaded Him, but when the prophet wails in Lamentations, God seems indifferent to the plight of the innocent (“Our fathers sinned, and are gone; It is we who have been burdened with the punishment for their wrongdoings” Lamentations 5:7).  Yet Jeremiah tells us God does not punish children for the sins of the fathers.

Something doesn’t seem right.

We might not solve the riddle of this verse, but we learn a very important lesson nevertheless.  It’s called social responsibility.  Apparently, we are accountable for whatever any individual in the community does.  There is a sense in which the people should have done something to prevent this.  They should have been diligent on their brother’s behalf.  They were connected in ways they didn’t perceive.  Paul argues the same point.  The rabbis point out that any sin by any individual among the group weakens God’s protection of the whole.  That’s why thirty-six died.  Something was missing when they went into battle even though they didn’t know it and had not participated in the sin.  That is a very scary lesson.  It means that when my society acts in opposition to God’s Torah and I do nothing about it, I am standing next to Achan when the examination begins.  It means that bad things might happen to me and to those who are “innocent” simply because someone else in the community acted inappropriately even if I knew nothing about it.  It means that the Greek idea of individuality is essentially flawed.  We are, in fact, our brothers’ keeper, whether we like it or not, and despite our indifferent or avoidance the consequences still show up.

Topical Index: Achan, ben, sons, social responsibility, Joshua 7:1