Achan, a Study of Mutual Responsibility

     Alas, the concept of "mutual responsibility" relative to mankind is almost a lost concept today, even among too many professing Christians. All men affect others and, to a degree, we are each responsible for one another (cp. Rom. 14: 7). Cain was the first to reflect the selfish human autonomy thinking when he asked, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" (Gen. 4: 9). Yes, Cain was his brother’s keeper; notwithstanding the fact that he had just murdered his brother, an act totally in violation and opposition to "mutual responsibility." There is in the general sense, a brotherhood of men taught in the scriptures and since we share in humanity, there is a consequent responsibility to see to the welfare of one another (cp. Acts 17: 26 ff.). This "mutual responsibility" and moral awareness and reciprocity circumstance is clearly observed in the relationship Christians are to experience one with another. Paul expressed it this way:

     As I establish a stage for the introduction of "Achan, a Study of Mutual Responsibility," allow me to mention one important role of the "Old Testament." The many examples found in the Hebrew scriptures are profitable for us today (I Cor. 10: 1ff.). Hence, our study of Achan.

     Achan, his identity. Very little is known of Achan. Most of what we read of this individual is found in Joshua chapters six and seven. He is mentioned relative to the conquest of the land of Canaan. Under Joshua’s military leadership, the army of Israel had taken Jericho on the east side of Jordon and was next focused on the city of Ai, on the western side of Jordon (Josh. 6). It is just after the conquest of Jericho and in connection with the taking of Ai that Achan is mentioned.

     The fuller context in which we observe Achan. Israel had shamefully failed in regards to the small city of Ai and had suffered humiliation (Josh. 7: 4, 5). Joshua could not understand such a military defeat, especially in view of how they had just taken Jericho (Josh. 7: 6-9). Joshua is told why there had been such a failure:

     In the case of Jericho, Israel was warned not to, "…take of the accursed thing" (the spoils of war, Josh. 6: 18). We read, though, that this command had been violated.

     What some view to be in the least a problem and in the most, an irreconcilable contradiction. Please read again my insertion of Joshua 7: 10-12. Notice the plural noun and pronouns in the case of who sinned, "Israel," "they." Without question, "Israel hath sinned." Yet, upon closer examination, we are told that it was an individual named Achan who had sinned (Josh. 7: 1). The particularity of Achan’s sin is provided. Upon a search of Israel as to the sin, Achan was discovered and he confessed his sin (Josh. 7: 7ff.). Achan had to be probed, though, before he confessed that he had hidden in his tent the "accursed thing." Notwithstanding the fact that it was Achan who had committed this flagrant trespass, the whole nation of Israel is held responsible and it was not until Israel had addressed Achan and his sin that Israel was again blessed of God. I submit that herein lies a very relevant and powerful lesson for God’s people today, one that most certainly involves "mutual responsibility." Allow me to emphasize and further explain this mutual responsibility as seen in the instance of Israel and Achan by sharing some cogent quotations from the Pulpit Commentary. Quotations which, I believe, will help us to understand how the recorded case of Achan is teaching us that Christians have a responsibility one for another and that such a case is both presumptive and reflective of the nature and extent of the unity that is to characterize God’s children, especially in the local church circumstance. Consider:

     Notice how the immediately foregoing excerpt refers to this national state that was so characterized by oneness or unity as "organic unity." This condition is sometimes called "body politic."

     "You are binding the Old Testament by referring to the case of Achan and such is wrong!" This is an objection to applying the thought of "organic unity" to God’s people today. However, an examination of Paul’s teaching to the church at Corinth exemplifies this same idea of "body politic." While the church at Corinth as a whole was not engaged in the specific fornication addressed in chapter five of the first epistle, they (as a body) are still held responsible.

     In the case of the church at Corinth, we have provided explanation as to why "organic unity" is taught in the scriptures, whether it be Israel of old or the church of Christ.

     In view of how God holds the church responsible for the actions of one, many of the too common attitudes and excuses observed today are manifestly wrong. Such excuses as: "I am not responsible for what another member does." While it is true that each is an acting free moral agent in matters religious, we, notwithstanding, have a duty and responsibility one to another. We are to "exhort one another," "warn the unruly," and "withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly" (Heb. 10: 25; I Thes. 5: 14; 2 Thes. 3: 6). Such duties stem from this close bond characterizing Christians and from teaching that is designed to maintain purity.

     Achan may have thought, "If I elect to keep the accursed thing, such is my business and mine alone." Notwithstanding, his sin adversely affected the entirety of the great Nation of Israel. Indeed, our "personal sins" today, sins that we as Achan may think are "hidden," usually do involve others. It appears that even though Achan "confessed," his confession was more forced than the result of true repentance. He and all that pertained to him were stoned and burned in the valley of Achor (Josh. 7; 24ff.).

     The command to "…rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep" presupposes "organic unity" (Rom. 12: 15). Let none of us be a "troubler of Israel" today (Josh. 7). Moreover, let us exercise "mutual responsibility."