generation (2:12)—suggesting distance. But the false gods they were running after now were “the gods of the peoples who were around them” (2:12)—suggesting greater proximity.140
The Canaanites, “the inhabitants of the land” (1:32–33), were practiced at working the land and attributed their success to the worship of these gods. The new generation of Israelites, who had known only desert life, had no such skills, but their survival now depended on adapting to their new situation as quickly as possible. What else could they do but learn from their Canaanite neighbors? It was the way of “common sense” and “necessity.” It was not the way of Yahweh, however; it was the triumph of pragmatics over principle, and a failure to trust the God who had proven himself capable of meeting their needs in the wilderness, and would surely have done so again in the land he had given them if only they had trusted him to do so. But they did not; they abandoned him . . . .141
In the chiastic scheme shown above, first, human actions are depicted (2:11–13): “did evil,” “served” (×2), “forsook” (×2), “went after,” “bowed,” and “angered.”142 Then divine actions, in response to the human ones, are described (2:14–15): “burned,” “gave,” “sold,” “was against.” “Doing evil in the sight of Yahweh” (2:11a) frequently indicates idolatrous practices in the OT: Deut 4:25; 9:18 (referring to the golden calf episode); 17:2–3; 31:29 (where “work of your hands” = idols); and Jdg 2:11; 3:7; 10:6 (though the element occurs in all the narratives in Judges, only here is evildoing specifically linked to idolatry). In several of these references, one also finds the verb “angering” with Yahweh as the subject (Jdg 2:12), also frequently linked with the idolatrous practices of his people (see Deut 4:25; 9:18; 31:29; 32:16, 21). Of course, doing “evil in the sight of Yahweh” is equivalent to each Israelite doing what is “good in his own sight” (Jdg 17:6; 21:25). And so Yahweh’s disgust and outrage at the progressively increasing Canaanization of his people is depicted in the repeated statement: “and the anger of Yahweh burned against Israel” (Jdg 2:12b, 14a; also 2:20a, and later in 3:8; 10:7), bespeaking deity’s emotional and personal involvement with his people. A direct discourse, later in 2:20–22, opens a window into Yahweh’s deep concern. Thus the whole scheme of punishment “is not caused by an automatic deed-consequence nexus.” Rather, it is a sequence of Israelites’ deed → Yahweh’s intense emotion → Israelites’ punishment. In other words, Yahweh has strong feelings towards, and an abiding personal involvement with, his people.143 His giving the Israelites—and selling them—into the “hands” of their enemies (2:14) is equated with the “hand” of Yahweh being against them for evil (2:15): the people fall from the divine “hand” into the human “hand.”144 And, with the native hostile characters mentioned in 3:3, the entire topography of the Promised Land is seen to be filled with belligerents inimical to Israel’s and Yahweh’s interests: the Philistines in the southwest,145 the Sidonians in the northwest, the Hivites in the northeast, and the Canaanites in the southeast. The Israelites are in for a tough time, surrounded by enemies!
When the Israelites “groan” or “cry” to Yahweh, an immediate response from the latter takes place only in 2:18; 3:9; and 3:15 (see paradigm above). In the rest of the narratives, the reader is in suspense: Will Yahweh act? Clearly the relationship between God and his people deteriorates with time. Indeed, the entire paradigm, first set in 2:11–19 and then exemplified perfectly in Othniel (3:7–11), crumbles as the narration proceeds in the rest of the Body of Judges. Exum’s observation is perceptive:
Although we are led to expect a consistent and regular pattern, what happens is that the framework itself breaks down. Rather than attributing it to careless redaction, I take it as a sign of further dissolution. The political and moral instability depicted in Judges is reflected in the textual instability. The framework deconstructs itself, so to speak, and the cycle of apostasy and deliverance becomes increasingly murky.146
Yahweh’s lack of response to the burden of his people in later narratives is because the Israelites’ “cry” does not necessarily include repentance.147 The “groaning” (and later “crying”) of the Israelites in 2:18 reflects their weeping (and sacrifices) in 2:4–5—neither had any indication of being accompanied by repentance. Though bWv, shub, “turn back” (frequently denoting repentance in the OT) occurs in 2:19, that did not constitute repentance towards Yahweh. It was actually the other way round—a deeper plunge of the Israelites into apostasy, their “return” to idolatry. It was as if they had repented of Yahwism! “Indeed one could reasonably argue that the cries so described have no spiritual or theological component, but are simply ‘the loud and agonized “crying” of someone in acute distress, calling for help and seeking deliverance.’”148 This sense of “crying” sans repentance explains the repeated cycle of evildoing in Judges: they “continued to do evil” in 3:12; 4:1; 10:6; 13:1), they had never stopped! That, of course, makes God’s compassion even more remarkable as, time and again, he sends deliverers/judges to relieve his people from their enemies (2:18; 3:9, 15; 4:6–7; 6:12, 14, 16; 13:3–5).
The rest of the book details how everything falls apart from this point, each leader worse than the previous one. This spiral downwards is visible even here at the beginning. Earlier, in 2:12, the Israelites were said to have “gone after” (yrEx]a; $l;h', halak ’akhare) false gods; here, in 2:17, they have “lusted after” (or “played harlot after,” yrEx]a; hn"z", zanah ’akhare) those gods: they had gone from bad to worse!149 In fact, they were “turning aside quickly” from the obedient ways of their fathers (2:17), each succeeding generation “being more corrupt” than the previous (2:19), with a greater intentionality about their apostasy—“they did not abandon their practices or their stubborn ways” (2:19).150 Unfortunately, Yahweh’s compassion and deliverance (2:18) has no lasting effect on his people.
The last portion of Pericope 1, 2:1–5, is reflected in this pericope, in 2:20–22: both mention “covenant” (2:1, 2, 20), “fathers” (2:1, 20, 22) “obey/listen” ([mv, shm‘, 2:20), and “not drive out” (vrg, grsh, in 2:3; and vry, yrsh, in 2:21). But while in the earlier pericope, Yahweh spoke directly to his people through his angel (2:1–5), here in 2:20–22, he only speaks about them rather obliquely. The distancing is obvious. Besides, earlier, Yahweh only reminded Israel of his threat not to evacuate the inhabitants of the land (2:3); here, in 2:22, he actually decides to make good on that threat, declaring that he will “not drive out . . . any man from the nations” (2:21), not even one! It appears, from the language of 2:21—“I, also, for my part, will no longer drive out” Israel’s enemies—that, since “the nation has transgressed My covenant” (2:20), Yahweh, too, was going to hold off on his promise of giving his people success in the conquest. This announcement of the divine intention to leave Israel’s opponents in the Promised Land also had other goals besides chastisement (2:6–21): it would be a “test” of Israel’s adherence to Yahweh’s covenant and his commandments—keeping the way of Yahweh and walking in it (2:22; also 3:4)—and it would also be a “test” of Israel’s capacity for war (3:1–2). But these are not all disparate tests/purposes: it is obvious that all of these are wrapped into the single goal of God: to have his people walk in his ways.151
As Prologue II concludes with 3:5–6, we run into a couple of surprises: it is said that the Israelites “served [db[, ‘bd] their gods,”
