The first part of this verse continues the quote within a quote begun in the previous verse, making clear the terms of the covenant. See Num 33.50-56.

And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land: A counterpart of this agreement between Yahweh and his people is that the Israelites should not make any alliance with the people they conquer. The Hebrew waw conjunction introduces this second part of the agreement. In many languages this linking will be expressed by and. Some may see a contrast here between the LORD’s covenant with his people and the covenant the people might make with someone else, and say “But.” The LORD reminds the Israelites that he had promised never to break his alliance (verse 2.1), but also that he had commanded them to make no covenant with the people they would find when they entered the Promised Land.

You shall make no covenant is a negative command. The Israelites are to make no pact or alliance with the Canaanites. In Hebrew, subject pronouns are usually marked on the verb, but here there is also an emphatic you that focuses attention on Israel’s responsibility. We might say “as for you…,” “you, for your part…” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh; similarly New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible), or “you in turn…” (Revised English Bible). The Hebrew verb form rendered shall make no has the function of a strong imperative, which may be translated “must not make” or “should not make.” The phrase make … covenant reflects a special Hebrew idiom that is literally “cut a covenant.” Some languages may have a similar idiom. Translators must be careful to distinguish between “making” and “breaking” a covenant (verse 2.1), which means ending or dishonoring an agreement. Here in Hebrew “cutting” a covenant means entering into an agreement, thus “enter into a covenant” or “make an alliance.” In Hebrew the word rendered covenant is the same whether the agreement is with God (as in verse 2.1) or as here, with other human beings. But in some languages it may be necessary to use different terms, one for the agreement between Yahweh and his people, and another for the alliance Israel might make with her neighbors. If at all possible, however, it is best to keep the same word. Though the text does not say whether this covenant is written or oral, certainly, the initial covenant with Yahweh was oral.

The inhabitants of this land refers to the Canaanites, who were in place when the Israelites arrived. See comments on verse 1.11 and verse 1.32.

You shall break down their altars: This clause further qualifies what the Israelites are to do. The LORD knows the people will be tempted to adopt foreign forms of worship and thus turn their backs on him. One way to prevent this from happening is for the Israelites to wipe out the religious practices of the Canaanites by breaking down their altars. In Hebrew this clause has no introductory conjunction. As a slight contrast might be perceived between this clause and the preceding one, translators are free to insert a contrastive word such as “instead,” “rather,” or “but” as needed.

You shall break down again has the force of an imperative, which might be rendered “You must/should break down.” The Hebrew verb rendered break down has no connection to the verb for “breaking” a covenant in the previous verse. This verb means “pull” or “tear down” a structure such as a wall or a house. Most altars were in some way raised above the ground, so we can say “tear down,” “demolish,” or “destroy.” Altars renders a Hebrew word that is related to the verb for “slaughter” or “sacrifice.” The same word is used whether these altars are constructed to worship Yahweh (Gen 8.20) or foreign gods (verse 2 Kgs 21.3). In Old Testament times, altars were made out of earth, stone or bronze, but here the text does not specify what material the altars were made of. Many languages have a general word or expression for altar, such as “sacrifice-place” or “mound for sacrifice.” If no word exists, we might say “worship places.” Contemporary English Version is very explicit, referring to “the altars where they sacrifice to their idols.” In Hebrew their altars is emphasized in sentence-initial position, literally “their altars you will tear down.” Translators may try to imitate this style.

But you have not obeyed my command: With the end of the preceding clause, the quote within a quote ends. Translators will need to use appropriate punctuation. Now the LORD addresses his people directly, making his chief accusation against them. Israel’s disobedience is one of the major themes of this book. The Hebrew waw conjunction is well rendered here as But, since it highlights the fact that despite what God has commanded them to do, the Israelites have not obeyed him. In Hebrew the text is literally “But you have not heard/obeyed my voice,” which seems to carry a note of sadness or disappointment. Obeyed renders the key Hebrew verb shamaʿ, which means “hear” or “obey.” My command is literally “my voice,” referring to the voice of the LORD and, by extension, what the LORD says. There seems to be a play on words here, since the word “voice” will appear again in verse 2.4 to describe the people’s response when they begin to weep.

Though the immediate context here seems to refer only to tearing down the Canaanite altars, there is more behind this statement. The LORD told the Israelites to attack and drive out the people inhabiting the land, as well as to tear down their altars. So we might say “But you have not done what I told you to do” or “But you did not listen to what I said.” This is an extremely important sentence and translators need to ensure that it is clear and to the point.

What is this you have done?: This rhetorical question expresses the LORD’s dismay at the people’s disobedience and condemns them for their actions. The demonstrative pronoun this refers back to the people’s disobedience, in the context of their failing to drive out the Canaanites. In many languages a question form can be retained, for example, “Why did you do this?” However, in many other languages an exclamatory statement will be more effective. For example, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “look what you have done!” Good News Translation is even stronger with “You have done just the opposite!” Translators need to find an effective way of expressing Yahweh’s anger and frustration with his people. For example, we might say “How could you do such a thing!”

In some languages the last two clauses may be reversed, for example, “How could you do such a thing—not listening to my voice!”

Some suggestions for the translation of this verse, continuing from the previous verse, are:

• You must not make an agreement/pact with the Canaanites who live in this land. Rather, you should destroy their places of worship.’ But what have you done? You have not obeyed me!

• Therefore you shall not make any alliance with the people of this land. You must smash the places where they worship [their gods].’ But you have not done what I commanded you. How could you do such a thing!

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .