Judges 1:6

Jdg 1:6 But Adonibezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes.

Ver. 6. But Adonibezek fled.] Excusing his flight, perhaps, as afterwards Demosthenes did. Vir fugiens denuo pugnabit; He that now fleeth, may fight another time.

And caught him.] Fugere quidem hic tyrannus potuit, sed non effugere; fly he might, but not escape, because divine vengeance pursued him for his cruelty. And the like befell Manasseh, Zedekiah, Muleasses (discovered by his perfumes), and many others.

And cut off his thumbs and his great toes.] So Tamerlane shackled Bajazet the great Turk whom he had taken in battle, and shut him up in an iron cage made like a grate, that he might be seen and derided of all men. He used him also on festival days as a footstool to tread upon when he mounted to horse, and at other times scornfully fed him like a dog with crumbs fallen from his table. All which Tamerlane did, not so much for hatred to the man, as to manifest the just judgment of God against the arrogant folly of the proud, saith the historian. {a}

{a} Turk. Hist., 220.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Ver. 6. Kept not their first estate] Their original integrity or principality. Of this sin of the angels, the cause was the will of the angels, good in itself (but mutable and free), not by working either, but by not working, saith a divine.

But left their own habitation] Being driven thence and hurried into hell.

He hath reserved in everlasting chains, &c.] There are two sorts of chains, saith Mr Leigh. First, those which torment the devil, God’s wrath, and his own conscience. Secondly, those which restrain him, his own finiteness, and God’s providence.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This was God’s just judgment, as the tyrant himself confesseth, that as he had done, so did he receive, Lev. 24:19,20.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 6. Cut off his thumbs] That he might never be able to draw his bow or handle his sword, and great toes, that he might never be able to pursue or escape from an adversary.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(6) Cut off his thumbs and his great toes.—The cutting off of his thumbs would prevent him from ever again drawing a bow or wielding a sword. Romans who desired to escape conscription cut off their thumbs (Suet. Aug. 24). The cutting off of his great toes would deprive him of that speed which was so essential for an ancient warrior, that “swift-footed” is in Homer the normal epithet of Achilles. Either of these mutilations would be sufficient to rob him of his throne, since ancient races never tolerated a king who had any personal defects. This kind of punishment was not uncommon in ancient days, and it was with the same general object that the Athenians inflicted it on the conquered Æginetans. Mohammed (Koran, Sur. 8:12) ordered the enemies of Islam to be thus punished; and it used to be the ancient German method of punishing poachers (Ælian, Var. Hist. ii. 9). The peculiar appropriateness of the punishment in this instance arose from the Lex talionis, or “law of equivalent punishment,” which Moses had tolerated as the best means to limit the intensity of those blood-feuds (Lev_24:19-20; Deu_19:21; comp. Jdg_15:10-11). which, “because of the hardness of their hearts,” he was unable entirely to abolish.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. and cut off] A barbarity frequently practised in ancient warfare to mark the humiliation of the captives and prevent them from further mischief. Thus the Athenians are said to have decreed that the right thumb of every Aeginetan taken prisoner should be cut off ‘that they may be incapable of carrying a spear, but not incapable of working an oar,’ Aelian, Var. Hist. ii. 9.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But Adonibezek fled, and they pursued after him, and caught him,.... It is very probable his view was to get to Jebus or Jerusalem, a strong and fortified city and he made his way thither as fast as he could, but was pursued and overtaken by some of the forces of Judah and Simeon; and the rather it may seem he took this course, since when he was taken by them, they brought him thither, as follows:

and cut off his thumbs and his great toes; whereby he was disabled both for fighting and for fleeing. So the Athenians cut off the thumbs of the right hand of the Aeginetae, the inhabitants of the island of Aegina, to disable them from holding a spear, as various writers (f) relate. Whether the Israelites did this, as knowing this king had used others in like manner, and so, according to their law of retaliation, "eye for eye", &c. Exo 21:23, required it; or whether, ignorant of it, were so moved and directed by the providence of God to do this, that the same measure might be measured to him which he had measured to others, is not certain; the latter seems most probable, since the Israelites did not usually inflict such sort of punishments; and besides, according to the command of God, they should have put him to death, as they were to do to all Canaanites.

(f) Valerius Maximus, l. 9. c. 2. Aelian, Var. Hist. l. 2. c. 9. Cicero de Officiis, l. 3. c. 11.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

That he might be disenabled to fight with his hands, or to run away upon his feet. And this they did, either by the secret instinct and direction of God, or upon notice of his former tyranny and cruelty expressed upon others, in this manner, as it follows: either way it was a just requital.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. Cut off his thumbs and… great toes — This barbarous mutilation, unusual with the Jews, was designed to incapacitate for military service. The victim of this cruelty could neither march nor fight. In this instance the Israelites exercised this cruelty according to that barbaric style of justice called the lex talionis. In modern warfare it is usual to release prisoners “on parole,” that is, on their word of honour not to fight again; but among some barbarians such mutilation or disabling was the only security against their fighting again. And modern civilized states, when called to war with certain barbarous or half-civilized tribes, have sometimes been obliged to resort to some terrible form of the law of retaliation. See note on Jos_10:26.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Cut off his thumbs, etc. These cruel mutilations, like the still more cruel one of putting out the eyes, (Jud_1:16:21 Num_16:14 1Sa_11:2 2Ki_25:7) were intended to cripple the warrior in his speed, and to incapacitate hint from the use of the bow, or sword, or spear, while yet sparing his life, either in mercy, or for the purpose of retaining his services for the conqueror.

Vers. 6, 7. Retribution.

I THERE IS A LAW OF RETRIBUTION.

1. The desire for retribution is instinctive. It is one of the elementary ideas of justice. To those who have no vision of a higher law, the execution of this is not a cruel crime of vengeance, but a righteous exercise of justice.

2. The fitness of retribution is not affected by the motive of those who accomplish it. It is possible that the Israelites were ignorant of the old crimes of Adoni-bezek, and may have been guilty of wanton cruelty in treating him as they did. If so, his wickedness was no excuse for their barbarity. But then their harsh intentions did not affect the justice of the king"s sufferings. God often uses the crime of one man as a means of punishing the crime of another. He does not originate or sanction the retributive crime, but he overrules it, and so turns the wrath of man to the praise of his righteous government. Thus Nebuchadnezzar was no better than an ambitious tyrant in his conquest of Jerusalem; yet he was the unconscious agent of a Divine decree of justice.

3. Sin will surely bring retribution.

(1) No rank will secure us against this. The sufferer in this case was a king.

(2) No time will wear out guilt. It is likely that Adoni-bezek had committed his crimes in bygone years, as he referred to them in a way which suggests that the memory of them was suddenly aroused by his own experience.

1. Retribution often bears a resemblance to the crimes it follows. The lex talionis seems to be mysteriously embedded in the very constitution of nature. The intemperate slave of bodily pleasures brings on himself bodily disease; cruelty provokes cruelty; suspicion arouses distrust. As a man sows so will be reap. (Gal_6:7, Gal_6:8)

2. One of the most fearful elements of future retribution will be found in an evil memory. Men bury their old sins out of sight. They will be exhumed in all their corruption. The justice of the retribution will then increase the sting of it. (Luk_16:25)

II THE HIGHER CHRISTIAN LAW OF LOVE. Christianity does not abolish the terrible natural laws of retributive justice, but it reveals higher principles which can counteract the disastrous effects of "those stern laws, and a more excellent way than that of zealously advocating the execution of them.

1. The Christian is bound not to desire vengeance. He is called to forgive his enemies. (Mat_5:38, Mat_5:39) If retribution must fall, let us leave it to the supreme Judge. (Rom_12:19)

2. The highest purpose of punishment is seen to consist in the preservation and the restoration of righteousness not in the mere balancing of sin with pain. Punishment is not an end in itself. The vengeance which seeks satisfaction to outraged honour in the humiliation of its victim is as unworthy of the character of God as it is foreign to the principles of Christian duty. Punishment is a means to an end, and that end is not mere revenge, but the deterring of others from evil, and, where possible, the restoration of the fallen. (Heb_12:5, Heb_12:6, Heb_12:11)

3. In the gospel forgiveness is offered for all sin. The law is not evaded; it is honoured in the sacrifice of Christ. Now he has borne the sin of the world he can also release the world from its fatal effects. Therefore, though the thunder-cloud of retribution may seem as dark as ever, if we only look high enough we shall see the rainbow of God"s mercy above it promising peace and forgiveness to all who repent and trust in his grace. A. (Act_13:38, Act_13:39)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Great toes - And this they did, either by the direction of God, or upon notice of his former tyranny and cruelty.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

pursued him

"chased him"

Seventy kings

"70 kings" (See: Numbers)

who had their thumbs and their big toes cut off

This can be stated in active form. AT: "whose thumbs and big toes I told my men to cut off" or "whose thumbs and big toes we cut off" (See: Active or Passive)

gathered their food from under my table

Forcing these kings to eat scraps of food represents all the ways that Adoni-Bezek humiliated these kings. Here "gathering" food represents eating it. AT: "ate scraps of food from under my table" (See: Metonymy)

translationWords

king

God

Jerusalem

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.