# What Happened to Achan's Sons and Daughters?



## KMK

Josh 7:25 "...And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned *them* with fire..."

According to Gill:



> Which the Jewish commentators understand of his oxen, asses, and sheep...



That may be true, but there are just as many Christian commentators who believe otherwise.

Many also make the argument that God could not have punished Achan's children for the offence of their father because of Deut 24:16.

But Deut 24:16 is a judicial law for the people of Israel. How does that bind God? If you believe that it does then how do you get around Gehazi's seed being plagued with leprosy because of Gehazi's envy and greed? How do you get around God taking David's son for his adultry and murder? How do you get around the Father sacrificing His own Son for for the sins of you and me?

These are the two main arguments that I have read against Achan's sons and daughters being stoned. Are there others that are perhaps more convincing?


----------



## bookslover

KMK said:


> Josh 7:25 "...And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned *them* with fire..."



The "them" of verse 25 includes the "...his sons, his daughters..." of verse 24. Context rules!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The following have been proposed (there may be others):
1. God already imputes the guilt of one man's sin unto others whom he represents--Adam to us. So, if God directs that a specific case incur greater-than-normal consequences, God is allowed to do that. Remember, the Law of Moses contains legal principles to be followed _in the absence_ of Special Revelation for a particular case.

2. The others were implicated in the crime. They were judged parties to the coverup (burial), and so condemned as accessories.

Whatever may be the case, neither of the above constitutes a miscarriage of justice.


----------



## reformedman

the following is a fools opinion and being a fool, it's hard to convey foolish ideas:

No one was ever punished for their parents sins, although it may quickly seem that way by the verses that contramundum shows. They clearly show an effect on the children caused by their parents but in actually, this is what I think---

It is a release.

In other words, from the time you were created in the womb, God had the right to take your life for your sins. If a person's parents sinned, it doesn't at all cause their child to now carrry an extra sin, nor any special sin. That child has a sin that condemns him for eternity on his own. Now to my point; when God kills a child and indicates that it is due to the parents, it is not because the of payment for the parent, it is only something that was inevitably going to happen, so God released that child from time in life, and gave him his wages immediately. A co-worker of mine, in discussing this, thought that God was punishing the child for his parents sins, and I just don't see that happening like that.

The only hereditary sin was original-sin from Adam but that's a different story under different circumstances according to Dr. James Frank of Reformed Theological Seminary. Adam's passing of sin had to do with a special relation we had *IN* Adam unlike what we have of our parents.

Dr. Frank quotes Calvin when he describes that special union that "we were in the loins" (speaking physically and biologically in the groin area and further spiritually in other ways). He says, "we were actually present in matter form". 

Further, to say that a child is punished for his father's sins, one would have to then explain, who will be punished for the child's sin? And also, if the child is paying for the parent's sin, this would mean that the parent should not be punished because it would be double punishment.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

But what of 2 Sam. 21:1-14?

God reserves the right to demand the payment he will.

The children are not "paying for their father's sins," as individuals covering a debt, but they have incurred the penalty or consequence God says was due for the transgression of the father. It is _the father's_ penalty, his crime affects his offspring.

Hence, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto the 3rd and 4th generation of them that hate me."


----------



## KMK

Contra_Mundum said:


> So, if God directs that a specific case incur greater-than-normal consequences, God is allowed to do that.



Agreed.

That is why I don't buy the 'it's against God's Law' argument.


----------



## reformedman

@ContraMundum


CM said:


> The children are not "paying for their father's sins," as individuals covering a debt, but they have incurred the penalty or consequence God says was due for the transgression of the father.


 It seems that you agreed with me in the first part of what you said, but then you used different words to say the same thing in the second part of the statement. It seems you are saying, 'I agree that the children are not paying their parent's sin, they are only paying their parent's sin.' Forgive me if I am putting words in your mouth, but please reiterate because this is what it seems to me.

Also, I read 2 Sam. 21:1-14 and do not see how this is a payment for the sins of the parents. This quite actually seems to have a twofold effect:
1. be further suffering placed on parents when this happens in that they suffer over the children's death.
2. be a notice to others of law taking effect. In other words, ie;warnings to others that these things will happen to you if you do the same.

Also, when you say the biblical phrase, "unto the fourth and fifth generation" which appears a few times and in different words, what happens with the sixth generation? It is my opinion that the same thing applies over and over. It is to all, no exclusion, except for the elect.

This reminds me, and I don't want to trail off, but it seems close enough and somewhat related in the grammatics that I think I should mention it. When it is said, "believe and you will be saved, you and your house...." I don't believe that if --One person in a house believes, that then the rest of the house will be saved. I believe that it is grammatically this way--- If one person in a house believes, that then he will be saved, and that this promise is for everyone else in the house that also believes, they will be saved also.

And now to tie them together, a child that is punished due to his parents sin, is not paying for the sin, but rather is either a deeper punishment placed on the parent, to make the parent suffer the heartache of a loss of family member, or as a warning to others that follow suit. It goes also to the 4th and 5th generation, in that, the same law and condemnation will be carried out to their children and everyone else, if they will commit the same crime. Similarly, a person that believes will be saved, and this is promised also to the 4th and 5th generation (my paraphrased words), in that if the 4th and 5th generation will believe they have the promised consequence given to them, they will be saved.

I'm not sure if this is sound, it is only my opinion as what seems the most reasonable to me. Please correct me if it is not biblically sound.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Hi Frank,
I appreciate your insights, but I will refrain from commenting on other issues, except what seems to be the main thrust of this thread. I hope we ARE in at least partial agreement. I do not think the less of you because I think you can be sharpened here.

But I'm not saying the one thing, and then its contrary. I do not generally subscribe to the principle that sin's penalty is "compensation". This view does not take the *sheer penalty* of sin into account. For instance, one objection that God-haters take to the Fall of Adam is that the penalty (death) is "out of proportion" to the crime. In a sense, that's very true. The "compensation" theory of sin says that Adam should have made up his "theft", or accepted a little pain on his offending member, his hand or tongue.

But death was the penalty for disobedience, and that without any consideration of reversal of the error, or paying God back, etc. Likewise, in the cases of Achan or Saul or the Captivity, the penalty for these treasons was punishment that extended to a PERSON, and to everything that belonged to the PERSON--even when other PERSONS were involved.

It is pointless to avoid the implications of passages like the ones brought in so far, or Jesus' own language: "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Upon this generation shall come the guilt of all these." The biblical view of family is that the father is GREATER than his sons ("The Christ, whose son is he?... How then can David say of him, 'My Lord'?"). So, the father's sins can be called to account from his heirs. This is SO offensive to man's, especially modern, egalitarian man's, ears. But it is part of the way the world works.

Ultimately, everyone is condemned to hell in the first place for his association with Adam. Punished by association, by covenant implications. This association is the first bond broken by the application of the death of Christ to a person. The redeemed do not want the former representation, and we are asking for a different Head. All are farther condemned on additional charges of their own accomplishment. Unless that penalty is also taken by Christ.

The statement of the complaining Jews, that the father's sour grapes had set their children's teeth on edge, was in one sense very true--covenantally. But they had not nuanced the truth properly, which is what Ezekiel addresses, namely that in an ultimate sense, everyone answers for his own sins, because their are limits God sets on the extension of lesser liabilities (recoupment--this addresses your question, why does God apply "limits" to human and liability (3rd-4th generation?). Furthermore, in any generation a man ordinarily had the opportunity to distance himself from his parents' sins, as his representatives. This is illustrated in the rebellion of Korah. Some of those family distanced themselves from the rebellion, and were spared when the earth swallowed up the others. By refusing to stand with their fathers, God released them from the guilt that swallowed up even the infants who remained.

So, the principle enunciated in the 2nd Commandment is not a vague principle, but it clearly states both that sin's consequences extend to others who suffer, as well as that there are limits to liability. Nothing is explicitly stated there as far as breaking the curse, but we understand that such a curse can be broken through divine intervention. You also misconstrue the parallel in that very Commandment. It says not that the "reverse" is true in the case of obedience (or belief), but that the residual benefits of obedience (or belief) are *thousands* [of generations], a FAR greater, less LIMITED extension of God's goodness than his penalties. God is not stingy, nor is he more harsh than he is loving--rather he appears more loving than harsh to those with eyes to see.

With all due respect, I think you need to read the 2 Sam passage more closely. Actually the 2nd Sam passage is even more clear than the Achan passage that the GUILT, or PENALTY for the guilt of the _father_ is *visited* upon the children in the one case or the other. 7 sons of Saul--and Mephibosheth is distinctly said to have been specially excepted--are given up for execution, on account of Saul's having--in his PERSON, as KING of Israel--violated the OATH of the Gibeionites. "And after that, God was entreated for the land." Thus, we conclude this judgment of King David's had divine sanction. It certainly could not have been (1) further suffering on the parent, for Saul was long DEAD. Nor is there any indication that these men were complicit in his wickedness, so to serve as (2) some warning to the people. Whether they were or weren't isn't even part of the calculus! To make this incident into an object lesson on salvation or election is to take a possible application of the lesson, and make it primary. The event itself must be properly understood before one can draw correct inferences.

Simply because of his own father's (Jonathan's) separating himself from his father's (Saul's) sins, Mephibosheth was spared the consequences of Saul's guilt. God was in David's day visiting THE WHOLE NATION for Saul's guilt. Millions of people were, in effect, being doomed by association. God accepted a TOKEN payment (the lives of seven men) as if the guilt were completely covered, and so left off his plague. This is really no different than the meaning of the levitical sacrifices--token payments.


----------



## reformedman

> With all due respect, I think you need to read the 2 Sam passage more closely


When I get home, I'll take a closer study at it. But with a quick look at the rest of your post, and the emphasis placed on visited and that particular sentence, it seemed to me the same. I actually said the same, that it is visited, not that it is the method of retribution. In other words, you said you agreed that "the children don't pay for their dad's sin but the children have to pay for their dad's sins", it seems the same to me. I may be missing the point because I'm reading quickly here, but I will read it more carefully this afternoon at home.

blessings and peace.


----------



## bookslover

Contra_Mundum said:


> But what of 2 Sam. 21:1-14?
> 
> God reserves the right to demand the payment he will.
> 
> The children are not "paying for their father's sins," as individuals covering a debt, but they have incurred the penalty or consequence God says was due for the transgression of the father. It is _the father's_ penalty, his crime affects his offspring.
> 
> Hence, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto the 3rd and 4th generation of them that hate me."



Even though the relevant Scripture passage doesn't tell us (if I remember rightly), it may be that the children performed actions which helped their father commit the crime - thus their participation in his punishment.

I think the "third and fourth generation" passage is interesting in light of Ezekiel 18, an entire chapter given over to hammering home the idea that each person is responsible for his own sins, and only his own sins. As you say, the "third and fourth generation" passage has to do with the consequences following the sin and punishment, then being punishment for the sin itself (if I'm understanding you correctly).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I won't say it isn't possible, but then why aren't they charged for their own culpability in the sin? Why is all the focus in the text upon Saul, and the guilt of his crime. The inspired writer has no interest in causing us to consider the personal complicity, or lack thereof, of these seven men.

Furthermore, why is God plaguing the nation with famine for three years, no doubt causing many otherwise innocent Israelites to sicken and die? Usually it is the poor, the widows, the malnourished children who succumb in such times. God is already holding "sons" of the nation accountable for the sins of their head.

I think our running to Ezekiel when we read these passages is more on account of our wanting to exonerate God from what we think is the ungodly man's charge of injustice, than a prima facie reading of the text. Saul's "bloody house" is mentioned, but it is a stretch to go from those words and simply assume that the sons mentioned were direct accomplices of Saul.

Saul's older sons, including Jonathan, fell in battle with their father, and more of the family fought against David before they were defeated. It is MORE likely that these sons were TOO YOUNG or TOO OLD in the days of Saul's reign to have had much part in this misdeed.

Matthew Henry has helpful comment on the passage.


----------



## x.spasitel

I have always understood this that Achan's children were complicit in his crime, in knowing that he appropriated the booty and not informing Moses or any of the elders. How easy is it to hide something in a tent -- especially a chunk of gold that big?


----------



## smhbbag

This has been quite instructive.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

For my part, I suspect that there were more guilty in Achan's house than himself alone.

But the truth is, that the message of Joshua (assuming he is the inspired writer) does not speak of their involvement, but he gives us a lesson in accountability, and the extent of the reach of our sins. Achan's sin brought death to 300 Israelites who had nothing to do with his sin, long before his sin brought death to himself and the remainder of his house, including his persons (sons and daughters). God here sanctioned the extirpation of sin to an unusual extent and degree, given the quality and nature of the treasonous crime and blasphemy.


----------



## KMK

There is no need to read anything into the text here. As I mentioned earlier God plagued Gehazi and his seed with the leprosy of Naaman and he took David's son for his sin with Bathsheba. God can punish the children of sinners if he chooses to. It is an act of mercy on His part that any of us take a single breath anyway.


----------

