B. Fractured Covenant: The Failure That Is Judgment (2:6-3:6)

The prologue shifts to a theological assessment, returning to Joshua’s death as a spiritual watershed. Since he and the conquest generation inspired faithfulness, they become the standard for the next generation, which proves faithless, knowing neither Yahweh nor his acts. “Not knowing Yahweh” denotes refusal of submissive acknowledgment of Yahweh’s sovereignty (cf. Ex 5:1-2). This categorical refusal precipitates a spiral of wrath and apostasy. Rejection of the true God leads not to atheism, but to the enthronement of false gods so that Yahweh’s wrath blazes, a point watered down by the NIV (2:14). Yahweh’s wrath, his personal opposition to infidelity, works through external historical forces—turning the Hebrews over to their enemies—and through social and spiritual forces, rendering Israel impotent. Yahweh’s wrath does not lead directly to destruction. Jdg 2:16-19 describes the judges as God’s overture to unfaithful Israel. The writer from the outset declares the judges failures. Their influence did not extend beyond their deaths, and Israel ignored the judges even while they lived (v.17).

In the face of Israel’s obduracy, Yahweh’s wrath breaks out a second time (2:20-23). It finds expression not in mute historical forces but in a direct divine condemnation, which, like 2:1-5, accuses Israel of breaking covenant and withdraws divine support from the conquest. This speech makes explicit what 1:1-2:5 implied: the nations remaining after Joshua represent a test. Jdg 2:6-23 merits comparison with Ro 1:18-32, which describes the spiral of accelerating sin, wrath, and social collapse among pagans. Apostate Israel, no better than pagans, surrounded by foes, must add another enemy to its list: Yahweh!

Jdg 3:1-6 summarizes 1:1-3:6, expanding the notion of the unconquered nations as a test. The Hebrew term connotes the discernment of the quality or suitability of something. The test also had pedagogical aims. Learning of the wars in Canaan meant learning fidelity to Yahweh and confidence in his power. The new generation had the opportunity, like their ancestors, to know God’s direct saving action, but Israel squandered the opportunity and lived among the Canaanites, intermarried with them, and served their gods.

C. Summary

Jdg 1:1-3:6 epitomizes the period after the death of Joshua as one of deepening faithlessness and frustration. Jdg 1:1-2:5 explores the covert apostasy of compromise, while 2:6-23 expounds how overt apostasy sabotaged Israel’s mission. No simplistic connection exists between sinfulness and failure, faithfulness and success. In 1:1-2:5 failure is sin; in 2:6-23 failure is judgment. In 3:1-6 failures of one generation provide an opportunity, a test for the next. Living in Canaan, without serving Yahweh, the Hebrews abort their mission. Holding God’s gifts without faithfully holding to God trivializes Israel’s election. Hope resides in the converse principle: keeping faith with Yahweh even when bereft of his gifts constitutes Israel’s true being. Judah’s faithfulness, therefore, realizes God’s promise and anticipates its ultimate embodiment in the royal house of David.