The things indeed which are recounted in the text as abolished by the flames with Achan, and overwhelmed with stones, [are] fourfold. The first: All [the things] taken away by the sacrilege — the cloak, the silver, and the gold. The second: Brute animals — oxen, asses, and sheep. The third: The tent. The fourth: The whole household stuff — namely, [things] for food, for clothing, for the kitchen, for war, and if [there be] any similar. For every kind of domestic instrument, and all possession of goods, is contained in the Hebrew phrase — all [the things] which were Achan’s, [which] he willed to be destroyed by fire (v. 15). And [the text] relates [them] destroyed (v. 25), according to our Latin version, where the 70 are silent. But as for men — whether any others were burned together with him — there is a twofold opinion.
(col. 885)
One, the common [opinion], [is] that his sons and daughters were burned with him — who are clearly related (v. 24) [as] led with him to the deadly valley of execution. The second [is the] opinion of certain of the Jews (in Abulensis, qq. 68 and 73), among whom [are] Ralbag [Gersonides] and R. Isaiah — [namely] that Achan alone was burned and stoned, but his sons and daughters were led thither for the sake of watching. Cajetan too says [it is] uncertain whether the punishment was inflicted on them, but [asks] whether [it is the mark] of a wise [man] to depart from the common and well-worn [reading], without cause, without argument and reason. Surely Cajetan did not wish to depart [from it] either. And truly, if we consider the text rightly, [it] is clearly enough signified. For in the same manner, and to the same end, the sons and daughters are said to be led into the same place to which [were led] both Achan’s stolen goods and cattle, the tent and the household stuff. But these were led [thither] to be burned, as those confess who have feigned for themselves the other opinion. Therefore [so were the children]. Secondly: All the Israelites ran together thither to the spectacle of the execution. Why, then, for that cause, was it necessary that the sons and daughters be led [there]? Nay, even if they had been led [there] on that account, I do not know whether that would have been recorded, since other much greater [things] are passed over. Because, therefore, the Hebrew text (above, q. 29) can be rendered — I was saying — “they burned them [ipsos, masc.]” or “them [ipsa, neut.],” it would be more convenient if we render [it] “them [neut.],” not as Calvin, Tremellius, and others [render it], “them [masc.].” First: Because in these [neuter] the sons and daughters too can be comprehended; but not, if we should render [it] “them [masc.],” would we rightly include in them the anathema-things, the beasts, the tent, [and] the household stuff. And therefore the Latin renders (v. 25) “and all [the things] which were his.” Again (v. 15) “he shall be burned with fire with all his substance.” By which words, surely, that exposition of St. Augustine is utterly excluded, which expounds “all the works of the sacrilegious [man] burned,” because he so posited a “metaphorical” fire, namely, or “eternal” (above, q. 29). But the wife of the same Achan — [was she] comprehended in the same punishment? Abulensis denies [it] (qq. 54 and 68), and says all the authors deny [it]. And truly there is nowhere here any express mention of her. But why [she is] omitted, Abulensis thinks [there is] a cause in the same place. First: Because she was not anything of the husband’s [property]. Secondly: Because (Exod. 34) God did not punish husbands in [the persons of] their wives, but in [their] sons and daughters, unto the fourth generation. But surely that a wife is something of the husband — nay, a great [part], and as it were half of his part — the scripture shows (Gen. 2:24, 25; Matt. 19:4, 5). And truly, with Dathan and Abiram, their wives too perished (Num. 16:27, 31). But in Exodus are shown the punishments — not any whatever with which God might sometimes wish to punish sins, but only those with which [he punishes] even the future posterity of a man. What, then, if we should believe [her] to have died beforehand? Especially since Abulensis says (toward the end of q. 72) that this can be believed of the older sons. Certainly, in the book On Attend[ing] (vol. 2), there is a saying of St. Ephrem: “Achan, with [his] whole family, [was] stoned by all the people.”