ACHAN (a'kao), (Ileb. aw-kawn', trou blesome, Josh. vii:1). In the parallel passage (i Chron.ii:7) the name is spelt aw-kawr, and as it has there the meaning of trardiThra', it is thought by some that this is an intentional change after the fact, to give the name a significant reference to the circumstance which renders it notorious.
While Joshua and his army were besieging Jericho it was put under that awful ban of which there are other instances in the early Scripture history, whereby all the inhabitants (excepting Rahab and her family) were devoted to destruction, all the combustible goods to be consumed by fire, and all the metals to be conse crated to God.
(1) Vow of Devotement. This vow of devote ment was rigidly observed by all the troops when Jericho was taken, save by one man, Achan, a Judahite, who could not resist the temptation of secreting an ingot of gold, a quan tity of silver, and a costly Babylonish garment, which he buried in his tent, deeming that his sin was hid (Josh. vii :2o-22). But God made known this infraction, which, the vow having been made by the nation as one body, had in volved the whole nation in his guilt. The Isra elites were defeated, with serious loss, in their first attack upon Ai ; and as Joshua was well assured that this humiliation was designed as the punishment of a crime which had inculpated the whole people, he took immediate measures to discover the criminal.
(2) Punishment of Achan. As in other cases, the matter was referred to the Lord by the lot, and the lot ultimately indicated the actual criminal. The conscience-stricken offender then confessed his crime to Joshua ; and his confession being verified by the production of his ill-gotten treasure, the peo ple, actuated by the strong impulse with which men tear up, root and branch, a polluted thing, hur ried away not only Achan, but his tent, his goods, his spoil, his cattle, his children, to the valley (afterwards called) of Achor, north of Jericho, where they stoned him, and all that belonged to him ; after which the whole was consumed with fire, and a cairn of stones raised over the ashes (Josh. vii :25). The severity of this act, as
regards the family of Achan, has provoked some remark. Calmet says : "The sentence passed on the family of Achan may be justified by reflect ing, (t) that probably he was assisted by them in this theft ; for, if not, (2) he could never have secreted such articles in the earth under his tent, without being observed and detected by them, who ought to have opposed him, or imme diately to have given notice of the transaction to the elders. As they did not do this, they became, by concealment, at least, partakers of his crime." Kitto, however, disagrees with this position, and says : "Instead of vindicating it, as is generally done, by the allegation that the members of Achan's family were probably accessories to his crime after the fact, we prefer the supposition that they were included in the doom by one of (hose sudden impulses of indiscriminate popular vengeance to which the Jewish people were ex ceedingly prone, and which, in this case, it would not have been in the power of Joshua to control by any authority which he could under such cir cumstances exercise. It is admitted that this is no more than a conjecture ; but, as such, it is at least worth as much, and assumes considerably less than the conjectures which have been offered by others" (Josh. vii :26).