A sharp rhetorical question is posed to the people, challenging their fundamental right to hold onto the land. This challenge arises in response to a destructive blend of physical violence and severe moral corruption that had taken root in their society.
The primary accusation involves the people's deep reliance on violence. Commentators offer two complementary ways to understand this behavior. One approach focuses on physical actions, explaining that the people built their daily lives around brutality. They remained constantly armed, always ready to kill and shed innocent blood [מצודת דוד, רד"ק, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. A second perspective highlights their psychological state, suggesting that the people placed their ultimate trust and sense of security entirely in physical might and weapons [רש"י, רד"ק].
Alongside this violence was widespread moral decay. The people are accused of committing severe abominations, which commentators generally agree refers to sexual immorality and forbidden relationships [מצודת דוד, ביאור שטיינזלץ], with some specifying homosexual acts [רש"י]. A subtle grammatical shift in the prophet's rebuke leads to the suggestion that this specific accusation of immoral behavior is directed primarily at the women [רד"ק]. The breakdown of morality extended deeply into family life, as people defiled their neighbors' marriages through adultery and prostitution [מצודת דוד].
While the primary approach among commentators is to view the violence and the sexual immorality as two separate societal failures, another perspective connects them directly. According to this view, the people used their weapons and physical force specifically to commit rape and coerce others into forbidden acts [מלבי"ם].
In light of this overwhelming guilt, a piercing final question is asked. It challenges how a nation guilty of murder, adultery, and such severe crimes could possibly expect to inherit the land and continue living in it securely [מלבי"ם, ביאור שטיינזלץ].