Verse 24: And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.
[And his sons and daughters also] But this appears harsh, that the children pay the penalty for the sin of the father, and contrary to Deuteronomy 24:16. Responses: 1. That law was established concerning human judgment, but Joshua is now executing the commands of God (Masius). 2. Others maintain that these were not taken away with their father for punishment, but to witness, for the sake of fear (thus the Rabbis in Masius). Thus it is able to be explained, says Grotius, for it follows in verse 25, they stoned him, not them. But it is next subjoined, and they stoned them. But the latter pertains to the animals and furniture (Rabbi Levi in Masius). 3. The judgments of God are not to be measured by our sense and laws (Masius). 4. Perhaps they were aware of the disgraceful act of the parent, and participating in it (Bonfrerius). Thus the Talmudists determine, but they assert no reason for their affirmation (Masius). But, since they were living in the same tent in which Achan hid, or buried, the devoted thing, they were easily able to know this (Malvenda). But perhaps they were infants in this. Response: They are said to have been sons, etc., not infants (Malvenda out of Junius). [Furthermore, as Achan was the fifth from Judah, concerning which see what things we gathered on verse 1, it appears likely that, as he was of a more advanced age, so his children were adults.] He condemned in persons the contagion of conscience; but in things and goods the instruments of the contagion: so hateful is sin, and the instrument of sin (Junius). 5. The children did not pay for the sin of the parent, but they paid the debt of nature, which God (the Lord of life and death [Lapide]) calls in how and when He pleases (Junius). Moreover, the death of these was useful to restrain the audacity of the people (which was clearly needful in the new empire’s most dangerous, and fortune’s more prosperous, beginnings); so that they might understand just how great is the contagion of sin (Masius); and so that they might look out for one another, as members of one body (Junius). But it does not escape me how harsh it might be for the crimes of the parents to be paid for by the punishments of the children: but this is clearly established by laws (concerning confiscation of goods), so that the love of their children might render parents more affectionate to the republic. And so Lepidus is cruel to his children, not he that judges Lepidus to be an enemy: Cicero’s Epistles to Brutus 13 (Gataker). Without fault, but not without reason, that is, on account of the crime of their father, they were slain (Menochius). That God is wont to impose even on the innocent temporal punishments on account of the sins of parents and others, it was observed on Exodus 20:5 (Bonfrerius).
His sons and his daughters; but this seems hard and unjust, and therefore forbidden by God himself, Deuteronomy 24:16. Answer 1. That law was given to men, not to God, who certainly hath a more absolute right and sovereignty over men than one man hath over another. 2. Their death was a debt they owed to nature and to their own sins, which debt God may require when he pleaseth; and he could not take it in more honourable and excellent circumstances than these, that the death of a very few in the beginning of a new empire, and of their settlement in the land might be useful to prevent the death of many thousands, who took warning by this dreadful example, whom, if the fear of God did not, yet the love of their own and of their dear children’s lives would, restrain from such dangerous and pernicious practices. 3. It is very probable they were conscious of the fact, as the Jewish doctors affirm. If it be pretended that some of them were infants, the text doth not say so, but only calls them sons and daughters. And considering that Achan was an old man, as is most probable, because he was the fifth person from Judah, (of which see on verse 1,) it seems most likely that the children were grown up, and so capable of knowing, and concealing or discovering this fact. Nor doth it follow that they were not guilty because it is not said so; for it is apparent that many circumstances are omitted in divers historical relations in Scripture, which sometimes are supplied in other places. His oxen, and his asses, and his sheep; which, though not capable of sin, nor of punishment properly so called, yet, as they were made for man’s use, so they are rightly destroyed for man’s good; and being daily killed for our bodily food, it cannot seem strange to kill them for the instruction of our minds, that hereby we might learn the detestable and contagious nature of sin, which involves innocent creatures in its plagues; and how much sorer punishments are reserved for man, who having a law given to him, and that excellent gift of reason and will to restrain him from the transgressions of it, his guilt must needs be unspeakably greater, and therefore his sufferings more severe and terrible. Further, by this enumeration it appears that he had no colour of necessity to induce him to this fact, but was wholly inexcusable.
[And all Israel with him [the Vulgate incloses this in parentheses], וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עִמּ֑וֹ] And all Israel with him (Montanus, Septuagint, Jonathan). [They construe and connect it in a variety of ways.] With all Israel (Munster, Tigurinus). Now, all Israel accompanied him (Masius, thus the Arabic, Castalio). He led his sons…and all Israel with himself (Syriac). [Some connect it with what follows:] And so all Israel, which was with him, brought, etc. (Pagnine). [Others cast it back to the beginning of the verse:] Then Joshua and all Israel with him, with Achan taken, etc. (Junius and Tremellius, Dutch). He commends the zeal of the people to expiate the crime, etc. And perhaps the Tribe of Judah is obliquely vindicated from suspicion of contumacy, which follows with alacrity equal to the others the procession of punishment of their fellow-tribesmen (Masius).
[They brought them unto the valley, וַיַּעֲל֥וּ אֹתָ֖ם עֵ֥מֶק] They caused themselves (or, those [Vatablus, Munster, Junius and Tremellius], that is, both men and things [Bonfrerius]) to ascend into the valley (Drusius, Montanus, Jonathan, Arabic). But one does not ascend, but descend, into a valley (Drusius). Surely there was a hill in the midst of the camps of Israel and this valley (Kimchi in Masius). But there is no reason for these straits, for עָלָה often signifies to enter, and thence הֶעֱלָה, to bring in and to lead in (Masius). [Therefore, they translate in this place:] It led up (Septuagint); it took along (Syriac); they led away (Junius and Tremellius, Munster, Tigurinus, Pagnine). Now, from the camps they led the one to be punished with death, for it was a sin to kill anyone in the midst of the camps (Masius, Bonfrerius); whether on account of the presence of the Ark, or lest the camps in any manner be polluted with carrion (Bonfrerius).
[The valley of Achor, עָכוֹר] Thus it is called proleptically, for it received its name from the following punishment: For Achan is the same as Achor (Bonfrerius, Masius, Piscator).
 Hebrew: וַיִּקַּ֣ח יְהוֹשֻׁ֣עַ אֶת־עָכָ֣ן בֶּן־זֶ֡רַח וְאֶת־הַכֶּ֣סֶף וְאֶת־הָאַדֶּ֣רֶת וְֽאֶת־לְשׁ֣וֹן הַזָּהָ֡ב וְֽאֶת־בָּנָ֡יו וְֽאֶת־בְּנֹתָ֡יו וְאֶת־שׁוֹרוֹ֩ וְאֶת־חֲמֹר֙וֹ וְאֶת־צֹאנ֤וֹ וְאֶֽת־אָהֳלוֹ֙ וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־ל֔וֹ וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עִמּ֑וֹ וַיַּעֲל֥וּ אֹתָ֖ם עֵ֥מֶק עָכֽוֹר׃
 Marcus Æmilius Lepidus (c. 89-c. 13), having been a supporter of Cæsar, was a member of the Second Triumvirate with Octavian and Mark Antony. Cicero was a political opponent of Antony and Lepidus, and here commends and defends the punishment of Lepidus’ children, should Lepidus prove treacherous.
 Joshua 7:24 (according to the Hebrew and Latin word order): “And Joshua took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had (and all Israel with him [וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עִמּ֑וֹ; et omnis Israel cum eo, in the Vulgate]): and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.”
 עָלָה signifies to go up. The Hiphil conjugation frequently conveys a causative sense.
 See 1 Chronicles 2:7; and Joshua 7:25a: “And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the Lord shall trouble thee (מֶ֣ה עֲכַרְתָּ֔נוּ יַעְכֳּרְךָ֥ יְהוָ֖ה) this day….”