Once caught, Adoni-bezek admits that he deserves his punishment.

And translates the Hebrew waw conjunction, but we could also say “Then” (New International Version). Some languages may have a conjunction such as the old English word “whereupon,” which might serve as a good transition here. This shows that the king’s comment is directly related to what the soldiers did to him.

Adoni-bezek said: The repetition of the full noun referent Adoni-bezek again suggests that this person is being mocked. If a similar stylistic device exists in the target language, the translator should use it to full advantage here.

Seventy kings with their thumbs and their great toes cut off used to pick up scraps under my table: The ruler of Bezek seems to be reflecting on his fate. He recognizes that what he has done to others has been done to him. Seventy indicates the number of kings that this king supposedly captured. It is common to find multiples of seven throughout the Bible. Though this seems like an exaggerated account of the king’s victories, translators should render the text as it stands. The Hebrew word for kings (melek) is different from the word for “lord” used to describe this particular leader (see comments on verse 1.5). The word king is a key term that will become even more important in the last sections of this book. Its appearance here is the first part of an inclusio around the whole book (verse 1.7; verse 21.25). Translators need to ensure this word is distinct from the one referring to the “judge-deliverers.”

Two Hebrew participles describe these kings. The first refers to the thumbs and big toes of these other kings being cut off. The second describes them as people who used to pick up scraps from under Adoni-bezek’s table. Of course, it was not Adoni-bezek himself who cut off these body parts, but it is clear that it was he who ordered this done. In many languages it will be necessary to state who is the agent of the action, even if it is an impersonal “they.” We might also say “I had the thumbs and toes of seventy kings cut off.” Some languages will have to be a little more explicit: “Me too, I captured seventy kings and ordered my men to cut off their thumbs and big toes.” It is hard to know if the king is boasting or showing regret here.

Used to pick up scraps under my table is strong imagery. Dogs often fought for scraps that fell from their master’s table. Here Adoni-bezek is boasting that he had made these kings depend on him for all they needed. In most languages this figurative expression will be understood and so can be maintained in the translation. We might say “They were like dogs eating the scraps from under my table.” However, if the image has no meaning in the target language, we can simply express the meaning by saying “They depended on me for every bit of food they ate.”

As I have done, so God has requited me: This sentence shows a typical Hebrew balance: “As … so….” Adoni-bezek recognizes that justice has been done. He is receiving the same treatment as he gave others. This is the “eye for an eye” principle that underlies much of the Old Testament legal code. It is interesting to note that Adoni-bezek goes so far as to even recognize the role of God in his punishment.

As I have done renders the Hebrew literally, which uses the general verb meaning “do” or “make.” Some languages will need to express this subordinate clause differently as “the things I have done” or “the way I have done.” In some languages it may be necessary to specify “the things I have done to other people.”

So is a conjunction that links God has requited me to the previous clause in a cause and effect relationship. So can also be rendered “thus” or “in the same way.”

The Hebrew word for God is ʾelohim, a generic word that refers to the God of Israel, but in other contexts to the “gods” other peoples worshiped. There may be some justification in translating “gods,” because Adoni-bezek was a Canaanite, and did not worship Israel’s God. However, most versions maintain “God” here.

The Hebrew verb rendered has requited is a word that can be used positively or negatively, that is, with the sense of “reward” or “punish.” Here the latter meaning is in view, since this king thinks God is “paying him back” for the evil things he did. Some languages may use a verb such as “return.”

If possible, it would be good to keep the balanced nature of these two clauses. If this is not possible, some languages may say “The things I have done, God is paying me back for them.” Most languages will respect the order of the Hebrew, but some may prefer to reverse the clauses by saying “God has paid me back for what I have done” or “God has paid me back by doing to me what I have done to others.” Other translation models for this part of the verse are:

• As I have done to others, in the same way, God has done to me.

• The things I have done to others, God is now paying me back for that.

Considering the book as a whole, it is striking that this pagan king seems to have some knowledge of God and his justice. He acknowledges the wrong he has done. This contrasts sharply with events at the end of the book, where the Israelites, and more specifically the men from the tribe of Benjamin, never once acknowledge their evildoing.

And they brought him to Jerusalem: The pronoun they refers back to the warriors of Judah who captured Adoni-bezek, with the pronoun him referring to the king himself. However in many languages, in this concluding line of the subsection, the king’s name or a full noun phrase such as “the king” will be natural.

Brought renders a causative form of the Hebrew verb meaning “come,” so we might say “they made him come to Jerusalem.” New Jerusalem Bible uses a passive verb: “He was taken to Jerusalem.” In some languages it will be easier to spell out that the king was taken to Jerusalem as a slave or captive, for example, “And they brought him as a captive to Jerusalem.”

This is the first mention of the city Jerusalem, a name that appears only in this opening section (verse 1.7, 8, 21 [two times]) and at the end of the book (verse 19.10), forming yet another inclusio. Jerusalem is a city that has existed from very ancient times located in the mountains of Judah between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. At an elevation of 790 meters (2,600 feet), the city was first inhabited over 4,000 years ago, as peoples were drawn to a water source, the Gihon springs, there. Its ancient name mentioned in the Armana Letters, Ur-salimmu, seems to have been replaced during a certain time by the name “Jebus” (see verse 19.10). It was not until David conquered the city and defeated the Jebusites, that the city regained its name. Its mention here as Jerusalem is thus evidence that this account was not written until during or after the time of David.

And he died there: This does not mean that as soon as Adoni-bezek arrived in Jerusalem, he died. There was certainly a time lapse. For the last two clauses we could say “Judah’s warriors took him captive to Jerusalem where he eventually died.”

The exact time line here is difficult to establish, since in this narration, nothing has been said yet about the capture of Jerusalem by the Israelites (see verse 1.8 and verse 1.21). However, in these introductory remarks the narrator does not always respect a strict time line. Translators are more or less obliged to follow the text as it stands.

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 .