Study Focus:1 Pet. 1:4, Joshua 7, Ps. 139:1–16, Ezra 10:11, Luke 12:15, Josh. 8:1–29.
After a decisive victory over Jericho, Israel suffered a humiliating defeat from the seemingly weak army of Ai. As Joshua seeks an explanation from God, he realizes that the debacle is a result of more than just his failure to consult God before marching against Ai. Nor can the failure be blamed solely on a lack of proper military preparedness or strategy. Rather, there is an enemy within.
No, the enemy is not a spy who is feeding the adversary crucial intelligence. The malefactor is one of Israel’s own. By taking booty from Jericho, Achan had broken the rules of divine war. Israel’s ensuing defeat served as a vital reminder for Israel, especially Joshua, of the spiritual aspect of these battles. Additionally, it warned Israel that God would not tolerate the sins of His people, just as He did not tolerate the sins of the Canaanites, especially considering the amount of light that Israel had.
In and of itself, the transgression of Achan is foolish enough, but what is more striking is the impenitent and persistent nature of his sin. Achan’s flippant obstinacy prompts God to deal expeditiously, and drastically, with his disobedience. This sad episode, right at the beginning of the conquest, exemplifies the insane nature of sin. This week, the story of Achan invites us to revisit the awful nature of sin.
Part II: Commentary
The Bible contains various words and images of sin. The most common words for sin in the Old Testament are hattaah, usually translated as “sin,” ʿawon (traditionally translated as “iniquity”), and pesha (usually translated as “transgression”). The use of these terms throughout the Old Testament shows that the meaning of sin ranges from an intentional or unintentional deviation of a standard, as in the case of the violation of God’s law, coming short or failing to reach a target, and a conscious and open rebellion against God. In this last category, sins are not expiable. In Numbers 15:30, these sins are described in the following terms: “But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people” (ESV). The image of a person doing something “with a high hand” (literal rendering of the Hebrew “_beyad ramah_”) portrays the voluntary and conscious act of disobeying the Lord.
There is no sacrificial remedy for this sin because no repentance is involved. There is no substitution for the sinner who does not recognize any need for it. In Joshua 7, Achan acts with a high hand, and because he refuses to feel any remorse for his sin, nothing else can be done for him. Every opportunity of grace during the whole process hardens his heart.
The absurdity of Achan’s stubborn attitude, despite the visible manifestation of God’s splitting the Jordan River into two and the miraculous knocking down of the impenetrable walls of Jericho, invites the reader to reflect on the nature of sin. Insightfully, George Knight points out the difference between “SIN” in capital letters and “sin” in lowercase. While the former is the source, the latter is the flowing; the former is the disease, the latter is the symptom. Very often people deal only with the latter, which is manifested in their behavior, without realizing that conduct is a mere reflection of what happens in the heart. (See George Knight, Sin and Salvation: God’s Work for and in Us [Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2009], pp. 28–51.) This notion of sin as a disease explains the emphasis of Jesus on the “heart,” as opposed to external acts of devotion and obedience in His dialogues with the religious leaders of Judah. No doubt, in dealing with any disease, one needs to address the symptoms, but the treatment cannot stop there if healing is the actual goal.
In this context, “SIN,” in capital letters, is the underlying condition of sinners, and consequently, it is the attitude that defines them as such. Such a mindset is evident in Lucifer’s attempt to take God’s place, and it is also seen in the human effort to be like God in the Garden of Eden. The root attitude of sinners is the vain attempt to take the Creator’s place. As Herbert Douglass put it so well: “Sin is a created being’s clenched fist in the face of his Creator; sin is the creature distrusting God, deposing Him as the Lord of his life.”—Herbert Douglass, Why Jesus Waits (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2002), p. 18.
Interestingly, the word “sin” does not appear in Genesis 2 and 3, but the narrative indicates Eve’s attempt to take God’s place. In Genesis 1, each day of Creation usually ends with God’s evaluation of what He had just created. The sequence “God saw” (rʾh) that what He had made was “good” (towv) occurs six times. The exact sequence appears when Eve sees (rʾh) the fruit of the tree and declares it good (towv). This careful use of words indicates that the original sin is the human attempt to take God’s place in saying and evaluating what is good. The same sequence will reappear in Genesis 6 when the children of God see (rʾh) the daughters of men and consider them “beautiful,” which is the same Hebrew word for “good” (towv), in Genesis 1 and 3 (compare with Gen. 6:1, 2). Once again, humanity is trying to be God, with disastrous consequences.
Achan’s open rebellion against an explicit commandment of God is reminiscent of Lucifer’s original attempt to take God’s place. In their blindness, they could not realize the foolishness of such an endeavor. In the end, they were condemned, not for God’s inability or unwillingness to forgive them but for their insane persistence in thinking that they could be God or be the owners of their destiny, independent of the Source of life.
Although some could point to the severity of Achan’s punishment as evidence of the contrast between the God of the Old Testament and the God, as revealed by Jesus, in the New Testament, the story of Achan finds a parallel in Acts 5, in which Luke tells how God visited the sin of Ananias and Sapphira at once.
There are several similarities between these two incidents. First, both actions are described by the same verbal root. In the Septuagint, the oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament, Achan is described as appropriating (nosphizomai) for himself from things devoted to the Lord. The same verb describes Ananias and Sapphira’s keeping back (nosphizo) for themselves what they have publicly dedicated to the Lord. Second, in both cases, they take from things devoted to God. Once Ananias and Sapphira dedicated all the proceeds from selling the land to God, all the proceeds belonged to God. For this reason, their sins, as Achan’s, involved lying and theft. Third, both incidents happened at a crucial time for God’s people: the beginning of the conquest and the beginning of the church.
Perhaps, for this reason, their offense met with swift retribution. Commenting on the judgment against Ananias and Sapphira, Ellen G. White says: “Infinite Wisdom saw that this signal manifestation of the wrath of God was necessary to guard the young church from becoming demoralized. Their numbers were rapidly increasing. The church would have been endangered if, in the rapid increase of converts, men and women had been added who, while professing to serve God, were worshiping mammon.”—The Acts of the Apostles, p. 73. The same could be said about Achan’s punishment.
The idea that there is a different standard regarding God’s dealing with sin in the Old and New Testaments is just wrong. In fact, “Satan deceives many with the plausible theory that God’s love for His people is so great that He will excuse sin in them; he represents that while the threatenings of God’s word are to serve a certain purpose in His moral government, they are never to be literally fulfilled. But in all His dealings with His creatures God has maintained the principles of righteousness by revealing sin in its true character—by demonstrating that its sure result is misery and death.”—Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 522.
The story of Achan serves as a warning about the grim nature of sin, but it also demonstrates God’s grace. Centuries later, God promises through the prophet Hosea to transform the valley of Achor (trouble), the place where Achan and his family were stoned and buried, into a door of hope (Hos. 2:15). Indeed, He is the God of reversals.
Part III: Life Application
Sin and Salvation
In the same book mentioned earlier in this lesson, George Knight argues that sin and salvation are defined by the same word: love. In his view, sin is directing love toward the wrong object, specifically, the self. Conversely, salvation is also love, but it is love directed to the proper object, namely, God.
Do you agree with this assessment? Explain.
If yes, provide a practical example of how this concept applies in real life.
The Severity of Sin
“A flippant youth asked a preacher, ‘You say that unsaved people carry a weight of sin. I feel nothing. How heavy is sin? Is it ten pounds? Eighty pounds?’ The preacher replied by asking the youth, ‘If you laid a 400-pound weight on a corpse, would it feel the load?’ The youth replied, ‘It would feel nothing, because it is dead.’ The preacher concluded, ‘That spirit, too, is indeed dead which feels no load of sin or is indifferent to its burden and flippant about its presence.’ The youth was silenced.”—Michael P. Green, 1500 Illustrations for Biblical Preaching (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 334, 335.
How does the habit of spending “a thoughtful hour each day in contemplation of the life of Christ . . . especially the closing [scenes],” as proposed by Ellen G. White, help us to grasp the real nature of sin? (See The Desire of Ages, p. 83.)
How is Satan engaged today to cause people to lightly regard sin? How can we avoid this trap?
Notes
Adjust My Preferences
Welcome! Please set your reading preferences below.
You can access this panel later by clicking the
preference icon
in the top right of the page.
Key Text: Jeremiah 17:10
Study Focus: 1 Pet. 1:4, Joshua 7, Ps. 139:1–16, Ezra 10:11, Luke 12:15, Josh. 8:1–29.
After a decisive victory over Jericho, Israel suffered a humiliating defeat from the seemingly weak army of Ai. As Joshua seeks an explanation from God, he realizes that the debacle is a result of more than just his failure to consult God before marching against Ai. Nor can the failure be blamed solely on a lack of proper military preparedness or strategy. Rather, there is an enemy within.
No, the enemy is not a spy who is feeding the adversary crucial intelligence. The malefactor is one of Israel’s own. By taking booty from Jericho, Achan had broken the rules of divine war. Israel’s ensuing defeat served as a vital reminder for Israel, especially Joshua, of the spiritual aspect of these battles. Additionally, it warned Israel that God would not tolerate the sins of His people, just as He did not tolerate the sins of the Canaanites, especially considering the amount of light that Israel had.
In and of itself, the transgression of Achan is foolish enough, but what is more striking is the impenitent and persistent nature of his sin. Achan’s flippant obstinacy prompts God to deal expeditiously, and drastically, with his disobedience. This sad episode, right at the beginning of the conquest, exemplifies the insane nature of sin. This week, the story of Achan invites us to revisit the awful nature of sin.
Part II: Commentary
The Bible contains various words and images of sin. The most common words for sin in the Old Testament are hattaah, usually translated as “sin,” ʿawon (traditionally translated as “iniquity”), and pesha (usually translated as “transgression”). The use of these terms throughout the Old Testament shows that the meaning of sin ranges from an intentional or unintentional deviation of a standard, as in the case of the violation of God’s law, coming short or failing to reach a target, and a conscious and open rebellion against God. In this last category, sins are not expiable. In Numbers 15:30, these sins are described in the following terms: “But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people” (ESV). The image of a person doing something “with a high hand” (literal rendering of the Hebrew “_beyad ramah_”) portrays the voluntary and conscious act of disobeying the Lord.
There is no sacrificial remedy for this sin because no repentance is involved. There is no substitution for the sinner who does not recognize any need for it. In Joshua 7, Achan acts with a high hand, and because he refuses to feel any remorse for his sin, nothing else can be done for him. Every opportunity of grace during the whole process hardens his heart.
The absurdity of Achan’s stubborn attitude, despite the visible manifestation of God’s splitting the Jordan River into two and the miraculous knocking down of the impenetrable walls of Jericho, invites the reader to reflect on the nature of sin. Insightfully, George Knight points out the difference between “SIN” in capital letters and “sin” in lowercase. While the former is the source, the latter is the flowing; the former is the disease, the latter is the symptom. Very often people deal only with the latter, which is manifested in their behavior, without realizing that conduct is a mere reflection of what happens in the heart. (See George Knight, Sin and Salvation: God’s Work for and in Us [Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2009], pp. 28–51.) This notion of sin as a disease explains the emphasis of Jesus on the “heart,” as opposed to external acts of devotion and obedience in His dialogues with the religious leaders of Judah. No doubt, in dealing with any disease, one needs to address the symptoms, but the treatment cannot stop there if healing is the actual goal.
In this context, “SIN,” in capital letters, is the underlying condition of sinners, and consequently, it is the attitude that defines them as such. Such a mindset is evident in Lucifer’s attempt to take God’s place, and it is also seen in the human effort to be like God in the Garden of Eden. The root attitude of sinners is the vain attempt to take the Creator’s place. As Herbert Douglass put it so well: “Sin is a created being’s clenched fist in the face of his Creator; sin is the creature distrusting God, deposing Him as the Lord of his life.”—Herbert Douglass, Why Jesus Waits (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2002), p. 18.
Interestingly, the word “sin” does not appear in Genesis 2 and 3, but the narrative indicates Eve’s attempt to take God’s place. In Genesis 1, each day of Creation usually ends with God’s evaluation of what He had just created. The sequence “God saw” (rʾh) that what He had made was “good” (towv) occurs six times. The exact sequence appears when Eve sees (rʾh) the fruit of the tree and declares it good (towv). This careful use of words indicates that the original sin is the human attempt to take God’s place in saying and evaluating what is good. The same sequence will reappear in Genesis 6 when the children of God see (rʾh) the daughters of men and consider them “beautiful,” which is the same Hebrew word for “good” (towv), in Genesis 1 and 3 (compare with Gen. 6:1, 2). Once again, humanity is trying to be God, with disastrous consequences.
Achan’s open rebellion against an explicit commandment of God is reminiscent of Lucifer’s original attempt to take God’s place. In their blindness, they could not realize the foolishness of such an endeavor. In the end, they were condemned, not for God’s inability or unwillingness to forgive them but for their insane persistence in thinking that they could be God or be the owners of their destiny, independent of the Source of life.
Although some could point to the severity of Achan’s punishment as evidence of the contrast between the God of the Old Testament and the God, as revealed by Jesus, in the New Testament, the story of Achan finds a parallel in Acts 5, in which Luke tells how God visited the sin of Ananias and Sapphira at once.
There are several similarities between these two incidents. First, both actions are described by the same verbal root. In the Septuagint, the oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament, Achan is described as appropriating (nosphizomai) for himself from things devoted to the Lord. The same verb describes Ananias and Sapphira’s keeping back (nosphizo) for themselves what they have publicly dedicated to the Lord. Second, in both cases, they take from things devoted to God. Once Ananias and Sapphira dedicated all the proceeds from selling the land to God, all the proceeds belonged to God. For this reason, their sins, as Achan’s, involved lying and theft. Third, both incidents happened at a crucial time for God’s people: the beginning of the conquest and the beginning of the church.
Perhaps, for this reason, their offense met with swift retribution. Commenting on the judgment against Ananias and Sapphira, Ellen G. White says: “Infinite Wisdom saw that this signal manifestation of the wrath of God was necessary to guard the young church from becoming demoralized. Their numbers were rapidly increasing. The church would have been endangered if, in the rapid increase of converts, men and women had been added who, while professing to serve God, were worshiping mammon.”—The Acts of the Apostles, p. 73. The same could be said about Achan’s punishment.
The idea that there is a different standard regarding God’s dealing with sin in the Old and New Testaments is just wrong. In fact, “Satan deceives many with the plausible theory that God’s love for His people is so great that He will excuse sin in them; he represents that while the threatenings of God’s word are to serve a certain purpose in His moral government, they are never to be literally fulfilled. But in all His dealings with His creatures God has maintained the principles of righteousness by revealing sin in its true character—by demonstrating that its sure result is misery and death.”—Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 522.
The story of Achan serves as a warning about the grim nature of sin, but it also demonstrates God’s grace. Centuries later, God promises through the prophet Hosea to transform the valley of Achor (trouble), the place where Achan and his family were stoned and buried, into a door of hope (Hos. 2:15). Indeed, He is the God of reversals.
Part III: Life Application
Sin and Salvation
In the same book mentioned earlier in this lesson, George Knight argues that sin and salvation are defined by the same word: love. In his view, sin is directing love toward the wrong object, specifically, the self. Conversely, salvation is also love, but it is love directed to the proper object, namely, God.
The Severity of Sin
“A flippant youth asked a preacher, ‘You say that unsaved people carry a weight of sin. I feel nothing. How heavy is sin? Is it ten pounds? Eighty pounds?’ The preacher replied by asking the youth, ‘If you laid a 400-pound weight on a corpse, would it feel the load?’ The youth replied, ‘It would feel nothing, because it is dead.’ The preacher concluded, ‘That spirit, too, is indeed dead which feels no load of sin or is indifferent to its burden and flippant about its presence.’ The youth was silenced.”—Michael P. Green, 1500 Illustrations for Biblical Preaching (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 334, 335.
Notes