79
In Joshua 12:7-24, no less than thirty-one such "kings" are enumerated, as vanquished by Joshua. And it
must be remembered that their territories did not by any means cover the whole of Palestine west of the
Jordan.
80
Joshua 12:16. From the position of the king of Bethel in the list of vanquished "kings," we are led to infer
that Bethel was taken somewhat later than Ai. But, from Joshua 8:17, we learn that there was a league
between the two cities. Their armies must have either moved in accord, or have been at the disposal of the
king of Ai. In either case the men of Bethel may have made their way back to their own city when Israel
turned against Ai.
81
We are here indebted to a very interesting paper by Canon Williams, read before the Church Congress at
Dublin in 1868, and to Capt. Wilson's Notes upon it.
82
See the remarks on Exodus 6:3 in The Exodus, etc. Canaan.
83
The Divine sentence needs no justification. Achan's was a sin which involved its peculiar punishment.
But, as in the case of Esau, his history showed the fitness of the Divine sentence which debarred him of the
"inheritance" of the promise, so was it also in the case of Achan. In studying the history of events we are
too apt to overlook that of person and characters.
84
It is a common mistake to suppose that Jericho was never to be rebuilt. This evidently could not have
been the meaning of Joshua, as among other cities he assigned Jericho to the tribe of Benjamin (Joshua
18:21). Similarly, we read of "the city of palm-trees" in Judges 3:13, and by its own name in 2 Samuel 10:5.
The ban of Joshua referred not to the rebuilding of Jericho, but to its restoration as a fortified city. This also
appears from the terms used by Joshua ("set up the gates of it," Joshua 6:26), and again reiterated when the
threatened judgment afterwards came upon the family o f Hiel (1 Kings 16:34).
85
We infer that the guilty tribe, kindred, family, and individual household (being the four divisions
according to which all Israel was arranged) was designated by the lot, from the fact that the expression
rendered "taken" in Joshua 7 is exactly the same as that word in 1 Samuel 10:20, and 14:41, 42. Again, the
expressions "the lot came up" (Joshua 18:11) or "came forth" (19:1), seems to indicate that the lot was drawn
-probably out an urn - in the manner described in the text.
86
Most commentators read Joshua 7:24, 25, as implying that the sons and daughters of Achan were stoned
with him, supposing that his family could not have been ignorant of their father's sin. Of the latter there is,
however, no indication in the text. It will also be noticed that in ver. 25 the singular number is used: "All
Israel stoned him;" "and they raised over him a great heap of stones." In that case, the plural number which
follows ("and burned them," etc.) would refer only to the oxen, asses, and sheep, and to all that Achan
possessed.
87
This was an aggravation of the ordinary punishment of death, Leviticus 20:14. We may here also explain
that the expression "wrought folly in Israel" (Joshua 7:15), refers to that which is opposed to the character
and dignity of God's people, as in Genesis 34:7.
88
Interpreters have found considerable difficulties in Joshua 8:3, as compared with vers. 10-12, and
accordingly suggested, that as the two letters h and l - the one indicating the number five, the other thirty -
are very like each other, there may have been a mistake in copying ver. 3, where it should read 5000 instead
of 30,000. But there really is no need for resorting to this theory, and I believe that the narrative, fairly read,
convey the meaning expressed by me the text.
89
Not "time," as in our Authorized Version, which would give no meaning.
90
This is the real meaning of the form of the Hebrew verb, and makes the narrative most pictorial.