Corporate solidarity

In a post which is basically a response to me, JD Walters commented on the fate of Achan and his family:

A similar thing can be said of the slaughter of Achan and his family when he absconded with some of the spoil of Jericho that was set aside for the Lord (see Joshua 7). As McIlwain himself notes,

"Achan died with his whole household. We don’t know how many were in this family, but we might reasonably surmise that what Achan did – rebelling with lust for silver and gold – received the approval of his children. Quite likely the family knew what was in the tent, but said nothing and may even have been secretly pleased about it. Just because they were not the ones to take the initial decision, in defiance of God’s command, does not mean that they had disapproved of Achan’s actions. Nothing is said, but God does not punish the innocent. If such punishment is brought upon the sons and daughters, then the children have been corrupted and complicit in some way in the crimes of the parents, perhaps by following their wrong example."

That all of Israel was 'troubled' for Achan's sin should be explained according to the principle that even individual sins can have negative repercussions for a larger group. We see this principle illustrated again and again in Scripture, but we should still draw a difference between being punished for one's sins and suffering as a result of another's sins. The biblical principle that only the guilty are punished for their sins stands.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2010/08/some-clarifications-on-biblical.html

Actually, I hadn’t discussed this passage, but since he brings it up:

i) In this narrative, the principle of collective punishment doesn’t being with Achan’s family. It begins with Israel. God holds Israel responsible for his crime (Josh 7:1,11).

ii) Israel suffers military defeat, with attendant loss of life (v5), on account of Achan’s crime.

iii) This is despite the fact that Achan’s comrades were ignorant of his crime. Indeed, they had to run through an elaborate process of elimination to discover the culprit.

iv) Achan was covenant-breaker. And the Mosaic covenant was a document which generated corporate responsibility. The signatories to the Mosaic covenant were God, Moses, and the Exodus-generation. But, except for Joshua and Caleb, the Exodus-generation was dead by the time of the Conquest. Yet the younger generation is held to the terms of the covenant. They are parties to the covenant, even though they aren’t signatories to the covenant.

v) Not only is Achan executed, along with this family, but his livestock are also destroyed.

McIlwain’s explanation is acontextual:

vi) Given the consistent corporate outlook of the narrative, there’s no reason to speculate about the complicity of Achan’s family.

vii) Since God held Israel responsible for his sin, even though Israel was ignorant of his sin, there’s no reason to think the sanction was predicated on “corruption and complicity” of his wife and kids.

viii) Since his livestock were also destroyed, should we assume, by parity of reason, that his livestock were coconspirators?

ix) To say that we must interpolate these conjectures into the text because “God doesn’t punish the innocent” begs the very question at issue.

And it also frames the issue in prejudicial terms. Does collective guilt punish the innocent? It does from McIlwain’s viewpoint, but not from the narrator’s viewpoint.

x) There is also a parallel between the collective guilt of Israel, and the collective guilt of the Canaanites. God is holding both groups to the same standard.

xi) Finally, corporate responsibility cuts both ways. In the very same book, Rahab and her family are the beneficiaries of this principle. Not only is she spared, but her extended family is also spared on account of her initiative (2:12-14; 6:25). Yet no one complains about the injustice of that outcome–even though this is the flipside of the same coin.