1. Bochim. The name, which means “weepers,” is proleptic, and its origin will be explained in verses 5–6.

I have taken you up from Egypt. The LORD’s messenger is not speaking in his own person but is serving as God’s mouthpiece, quoting His words.

I said. This verb in Hebrew can also mean “I thought” (perhaps an ellipsis for “I said in my heart”), and it is not clear whether God actually addresses these words to Israel or merely thinks them. The same ambiguity hovers over “I also said” in verse 3.

2. their altars you shall smash. This is in keeping with the vehement antipagan agenda of Deuteronomy.

3. thorns. The Hebrew tsidim would appear to mean “sides.” A common expression in contexts like this one is “thorns [tsinim] in your side.” This might be an ellipsis here, or, more likely, the similarity of the two words might have led a scribe to inadvertently replace tsinim with tsidim.

6. And Joshua sent off the people. The appearance of Joshua makes it clear that this entire passage loops back chronologically to the end of the Book of Joshua (chapter 24), when Joshua addresses the people, perhaps not long before his death.

7. And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua. This entire verse approximately repeats Joshua 24:31.

the great acts. The Hebrew uses a singular noun with collective force. The same usage occurs in verse 10.

11. they served the Baalim. This is the plural form of Baal, the Canaanite weather god and probably the most widely worshipped deity in the Canaanite pantheon. Many interpreters infer that the plural form indicates Baal and other pagan gods.

13. Baal and the Ashtoroth. Here “Baal” is singular and “Ashtoroth” shows a feminine plural ending (the singular in this traditional transliteration would be “Ashtoreth”). Ashtoreth is the Canaanite fertility goddess, though in some Ugaritic texts she appears also as a warrior-goddess. The plural form, as with Baalim in verse 11, may suggest that a variety of pagan goddesses is meant.

15. Whenever they sallied forth, the LORD’s hand was against them for harm. This whole passage articulates a clear-cut theological explanation for Israel’s failure to conquer the entire land: its swerve into idolatry enrages God and causes Him to bring about Israel’s defeat by its enemies.

16. judges. The Hebrew verbal noun shofet means both one who judges and one who rules, and the latter sense is more prominent here and in all that follows in this book. As a result, some modern translations opt for “chieftain” or an equivalent term. The shofet was an ad hoc military leader (in this regard, “chieftain,” suggesting a fixed and perhaps hereditary political institution, is misleading). From the subsequent narratives in this book, the Judge was seen by his followers—or, at any rate, by the writer—as a figure suddenly invested with a divine spirit that impelled him to action and enabled his success. It is precisely on the model of the biblical judges that Max Weber borrowed the term “charisma” from the Greek to indicate a purely personal political power.

18. the LORD was with the judge and rescued them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. A theological reason is offered here for a continuing unstable military situation. The Judges were basically guerilla commanders. A judge, exercising personal magnetism and military prowess, could for a certain amount of time harass and drive back enemy forces that were probably superior in numbers and weaponry, but such successes were bound to be temporary. This fluctuating pattern is explained in terms of cultic loyalty and backsliding: under the charismatic influence of the Judge, the Israelites were faithful to their God; when the Judge died, they reverted to their pagan practices. Verse 17 suggests that they did not heed their judges, or only temporarily.

19. their actions. The implication in context is “evil actions,” though the Hebrew noun used is not intrinsically negative.

21–22. the nations that Joshua left when he died in order to test Israel through them. Here a new theological explanation of the incompleteness of the conquest is introduced. Joshua, given his sweeping military successes reported in Joshua 1–12, might well have conquered the entire land, but he left some of it in Canaanite hands in order to see whether future generations of Israel would be faithful to their God and thus be worthy of taking hold of the rest of the land. God’s words in these two verses affirm that the people has failed the test and so will not be able to complete the conquest. The next verse then makes clear that Joshua’s leaving part of the land unconquered was actually God’s devising.