And the Philistines had made raids on the cities … and had taken …: Revised Standard Version uses the past perfect tense here to describe events that had taken place previously, but Good News Translation interprets the text to mean that these events were taking place at the same time as the events just reported. Probably the Hebrew verb form here should be understood as indicating a pause in the description of events about sending for help from Assyria in order to supply background information about what the Philistines had done. The past perfect tense in Revised Standard Version (had made raids and had taken) seems preferable to the past tense in Good News Translation. For the Hebrew verb rendered had made raids, see the comments on 1 Chr 14.9.

The Shephelah refers to the western foothills of Judah (see the comments on 1 Chr 27.28 and 2 Chr 1.15).

The Negeb of Judah refers to the southern, dry region of the kingdom of Judah (compare Jdg 1.9; 1 Sam 27.10). Instead of transliterating the term Negeb, it may be better to translate the meaning by rendering the Negeb of Judah as “southern Judah” (Good News Translation, New Century Version) or “the southern region of Judah” (Bible en français courant).

For the city of Beth-shemesh, see the comments on 2 Chr 25.21; for the city of Aijalon, see 2 Chr 11.10.

Gederoth was a city located in the Shephelah (see Josh 15.41). This city is not to be confused with Gederah, another city in the Shephelah (see 1 Chr 4.23).

Soco is the name of three different cities in the Old Testament. The reference here is most likely to the city located in the Shephelah, mentioned in Josh 15.35 and 1 Sam 17.1 (see the comments on 2 Chr 11.7). Another Soco was located in the hill country of Judah (see Josh 15.48).

The city of Timnah, which was located on the northern border of Judah, passed back and forth between Philistine and Israelite control. At the time of Samson the city was occupied by the Philistines (Jdg 14–15). At the time of King Ahaz Timnah was under Judean control. This city was about 6.5 kilometers (4 miles) north of Beth-shemesh. Timnah has been identified as modern-day Tell el-Batashi.

Gimzo was a city located in the lowland region near the Philistine plain. It has been identified with modern Jimzu, about 5 kilometers (3 miles) southeast of Lod (referred to in the Maccabean period and in the New Testament as Lydda) off the Jerusalem road in the Aijalon Valley.

For the Hebrew word rendered villages (literally “daughters”), see the comments on 1 Chr 2.23. Instead of repeating with its villages three times in this verse, many languages will find it more natural to follow the model of Good News Translation which gives the names of the three cities and then mentions their surrounding villages all together.

And they settled there: The Hebrew verb rendered settled means “to sit down” or “to dwell.” The sense here is that the Philistines did more than occupy the towns and villages for a short time. They came and stayed. Good News Translation expresses the meaning well by adding the word “permanently.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

For the LORD brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel: This clause gives the reason why Judah was defeated by the Edomites and the Philistines. The Hebrew conjunction rendered For may be translated “Because.” La Bible du Semeur begins this verse with “That happened because….” The Hebrew verb rendered brought … low is the causative form of the verb meaning “to be humble” and may be translated “humbled” (New International Version, NASB) or “caused … to lose face.” Revised English Bible has “reduced … to submission.” As in verse 9, Judah refers to “the kingdom of Judah” (Parole de Vie).

Instead of Ahaz king of Israel, which is the Masoretic Text reading (also New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Nouvelle Bible Segond, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), other Hebrew manuscripts have “Ahaz king of Judah” (so Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, La Bible Pléiade). Bible en français courant and Parole de Vie avoid the textual problem by saying simply “King Ahaz.” The reference is clearly to King Ahaz of Judah, and perhaps the Masoretic Text contains an error here. But it is also possible that the writer deliberately said Ahaz king of Israel in order to suggest that Ahaz was no different from the kings of the northern kingdom of Israel, who had been unfaithful to God. Moreover, the writer of 2 Chronicles often speaks of Judah as the true Israel (see the comments on 2 Chr 21.2). Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament favors the Masoretic Text here with a {B} rating.

For he had dealt wantonly in Judah: Dealt wantonly translates a Hebrew verb whose basic meaning is “to let free.” In this context the verb means “to let waywardness develop” or “to let unchecked freedom have its way.” The basic meaning of this clause in Hebrew may be expressed by saying “for his actions in Judah had been unbridled” (Revised English Bible) or “for he had behaved without restraint in Judah” (New Revised Standard Version; similarly New Jerusalem Bible). It is also possible to understand the Hebrew to mean that Ahaz had let the people of Judah sin without restraint. New Living Translation, for example, says “for he had encouraged his people to sin,” and Dillard has “because he had encouraged wickedness in Judah.”

And had been faithless to the LORD is literally “and was unfaithful unfaithfulness….” The Hebrew text has an infinitive and noun from the same root. For these two words see the comments on 1 Chr 10.13. Chouraqui translates them as “had rebelled, rebelled” in an effort to show the emphasis of the Hebrew. Other possible translations are “acted very treacherously” (Complete Jewish Bible), “had been grossly unfaithful” (Revised English Bible), and “proved utterly faithless” (New American Bible).

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

So Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria came against him: So renders the common Hebrew conjunction as a logical connector, but it is better to omit it as Good News Translation and many other versions do. The Masoretic Text introduces the name Tilgath-pilneser here. Since Good News Translation already introduced the name in verses 16-17, it omits the name here. Regarding the spelling of this name, see the comments on verses 16-17. Revised English Bible has “Tiglath-pileser,” which is based on the Syriac rather than on the Masoretic Text. Came against him may be translated “came to him” (New International Version, Revised English Bible). However, the context shows clearly that the encounter was not a friendly one, so a better rendering is “attacked Ahaz” (God’s Word, Bible en français courant).

Afflicted him translates a Hebrew verb that has to do with restricting, whether physically or emotionally. Here the verb seems to refer to physical oppression rather than emotional distress. Revised English Bible says “pressed him hard.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “gave him trouble,” while Contemporary English Version translates “made things worse.”

Instead of strengthening him: The Hebrew verb here may mean “to make strong.” If so, the sense of this clause is that Tiglath Pileser did not make Ahaz strong by helping him. This seems to be the intended sense, which NET Bible expresses by rendering the last half of this verse as “but he gave him more trouble than support” (similarly Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, Parole de Vie). But the Hebrew verb may also mean “to prevail over,” in the sense of being stronger than someone else. This second understanding is found in New Jerusalem Bible, which says “but he could not overpower him” (similarly Bible de Jérusalem). Compare the alternative translation in Bible en français courant, which says “without however succeeding in conquering him.” However, the next verse does not favor this second interpretation.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse begins with the Hebrew transition word translated For. What follows provides the explanation of how Tilgath-pilneser caused suffering to Ahaz.

Ahaz took from the house of the LORD … is literally “Ahaz divided the house of the LORD….” There are two translation problems here: (1) the meaning of the Hebrew verb, and (2) what object is to be supplied for the verb.

As for the first problem, the Hebrew verb here is chalaq, which means “divided.” However, in this context it seems to mean “plundered.” Some interpreters think that the Masoretic Text contains an error here in the final consonant and that the verb originally was chillets, which means “plundered” or “robbed.” But Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament does not even deal with this as a textual problem, indicating that there is little doubt about the Hebrew text. Several modern versions understand the text to mean that Ahaz “took some of the things” (New International Version; similarly English Standard Version, Bible en français courant, Bible de Jérusalem).

As for the second problem, in some languages it may be necessary to indicate what was taken or plundered from the Temple and the homes of the king and the leaders. The meaning is that he took valuable items. NET Bible says “riches.” Good News Translation is perhaps too free in saying that he took “gold,” although gold was surely among the things taken.

The Hebrew word translated princes may also be rendered “leaders” (Good News Translation). Either interpretation is possible here.

And gave tribute to the king of Assyria is literally “and gave to the king of Assyria.” Many languages will require an object for the verb. Revised Standard Version adds tribute. Other acceptable objects are “it” (Good News Translation) and “the proceeds” (Anchor Bible).

But it did not help him is literally “and not for help for him.” The meaning is that even though Ahaz gave tribute to the Assyrian king, the Assyrian king did not help him. Anchor Bible translates “he received no support from him.” Some languages will require a connector such as but or “in spite of this” in order to make this clause fit naturally in the discourse.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse begins with the common Hebrew conjunction. Although it is often translated “And,” Revised Standard Version renders it as For here. This makes good sense, because verse 23 explains how Ahaz became more unfaithful to God.

He sacrificed to the gods of Damascus which had defeated him: This sentence credits the Syrian defeat of Judah to the Syrian gods (see verse 5). Damascus was the capital of Syria and thus represents the whole country, so Good News Translation translates the gods of Damascus as “the gods of the Syrians.” Another possible model is “the gods worshiped by the Syrians.”

And said: The verb said may be understood to mean either “he said to some other people” or “he said to himself” (Contemporary English Version, La Bible du Semeur, La Bible Pléiade). The latter interpretation is more likely and may be expressed as “he thought” (New International Version, New Century Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy).

Because the gods of the kings of Syria helped them, I will sacrifice to them that they may help me: This direct quotation may be transformed into indirect discourse by saying “He reasoned within his own mind that since the Syrian gods helped the kings of Syria, he should also sacrifice to those gods so that they might help him also.”

But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel is literally “And they were to him to cause him to stumble, and to all Israel.” This sentence may be expressed as “But they only made things worse for him and for all Israel” or “But in fact they caused his downfall and that of all Israel” (Revised English Bible). For Israel, which Contemporary English Version and New Living Translation render as “Judah,” see the comments on verse 19.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And Ahaz gathered together the vessels of the house of God and cut in pieces the vessels of the house of God: Since this verse describes additional wrongdoing on the part of King Ahaz, the common Hebrew conjunction rendered And may be translated in such a way as to show the cumulative effect of his actions. Good News Translation attempts to do so with “In addition,” but many versions leave this transition word untranslated (so New International Version, New Living Translation, New Century Version).

The Hebrew noun translated vessels refers to various items used in the Temple (see the comments on 1 Chr 28.13). A general word such as “equipment” (Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, Anchor Bible), which covers a wide range of items, may be used here. See the parallel text of 2 Kgs 16.17. The Hebrew text, followed by Revised Standard Version, repeats the words the vessels of the house of God, but such repetition may be seen as too redundant in the receptor language (so Good News Translation). The text does not explain why Ahaz cut in pieces all the Temple equipment, but presumably he did so in an effort to prevent the worship of Yahweh, just as that was the purpose of closing the doors to the Temple.

And he shut up the doors of the house of the LORD means more than simply closing the Temple doors. This clause may be rendered “then he locked the doors of the temple” (Parole de Vie; similarly Contemporary English Version) or “then he kept people out of the Temple.” Doors translates a Hebrew noun that refers to something that covers an entrance. Depending on the context, it may refer to a gate or a door. Since this verse has no parallel in 2 Kings, it is not possible to know which is intended here, that is, whether it refers to the doors of the Temple building or the gates of the wall around the Temple. Most versions refer to the doors of the Temple here. The house of the LORD refers to the same building as the house of God, so translators should avoid giving the impression that two different structures are intended. Good News Translation renders both phrases as “the Temple.”

And he made himself altars in every corner of Jerusalem: The altars in view here were for other gods. Contemporary English Version makes this clear by saying “altars to foreign gods.” In every corner of Jerusalem is probably not to be taken literally, but is a way of saying that the construction of altars was widespread in Jerusalem. In some languages it may be better to say “all over Jerusalem” or “everywhere in Jerusalem.” However, Contemporary English Version and New Century Version take the Hebrew words here literally by saying “on every street corner in Jerusalem.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And he burned incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom: For the Hebrew verb rendered burned incense, see the comments on 1 Chr 23.13. Here it refers to burning incense. In the modern world some people burn incense for the pleasant smell. But in the Old Testament world it was burned as a good-smelling sacrifice to certain gods. Bible en français courant renders burned incense as “presented offerings of incense,” and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente says “burned incense to the idols.”

The valley of the son of Hinnom was located to the southwest of Jerusalem. Later King Manasseh sacrificed his sons in this valley (2 Chr 33.6). Jeremiah prophesied that God would judge the people because of the pagan sacrifices made in this valley (Jer 7.31-32; 19.6). Hinnom is apparently the name of a person. Revised English Bible transliterates the Hebrew word for son (ben), and renders the valley of the son of Hinnom as “the Valley of Ben Hinnom” (similarly New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). Some Old Testament passages call this place simply “the valley of Hinnom” (Josh 15.8; 18.16; Neh 11.30), which Good News Translation uses here also. The Hebrew expression for “the valley of Hinnom” is geʾ-hinnom, which is the basis of the New Testament word “Gehenna,” the place of punishment in the afterlife.

And burned his sons as an offering is literally “and he made his sons pass through the fire” (similarly New Revised Standard Version). New Jerusalem Bible says “caused his sons to pass through the fire of sacrifice.” The Hebrew text does not actually have the words as an offering. Such a translation reflects the widespread interpretation that child sacrifice is intended here. Other passages in the Old Testament reveal that children were burned in the worship of the god Molech, a god of the Ammonites (see 2 Kgs 23.10; Jer 32.35). Sacrifices of children were strictly forbidden by the Law of Moses (see Lev 20.2-5; Deut 12.31; 18.10).

According to the abominable practices of the nations …: Ahaz was “copying” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “imitating” (Good News Translation) the disgusting habits of these other peoples. The Hebrew expression rendered abominable practices is common in the book of Deuteronomy (18.9, 12; 20.18; 32.16). Here it refers to something that is felt to be disgusting or unusually offensive. Behind this idea is the notion of ritual and/or ethical impurity. Anything in shameless violation of what is considered ritually pure or ethically wholesome could be labeled an abomination. Some modern translations are “disgusting things” (God’s Word), “detestable practices” (New Living Translation), and “disgusting practices” (New Jerusalem Bible).

The nations whom the LORD drove out before the people of Israel refers to the time several centuries earlier when the Israelites invaded the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua and drove out the Canaanites and other people who lived there (see Exo 33.2 for a list of the people expelled). A possible model for this clause is “the nations whom the LORD had forced out of the land long ago as the Israelites advanced.”

As in the previous verse, it is not likely that King Ahaz alone performed the actions described in this verse. Therefore some versions such as Bible de Jérusalem use a causative form of the verbs with the king as the grammatical subject.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked at him: For the chief priest, see the comments on 2 Chr 19.11. Good News Translation leaves this phrase implied, but it renders all the priests as “the other priests” to show that Azariah was a priest. However, there is no obvious reason not to include the words the chief priest since this information is not given in the immediate context. The Hebrew verb phrase translated looked at him is literally “turned toward him” (Anchor Bible, Dillard). But the Hebrew verb here in some contexts means “to turn one’s attention to,” so New American Bible says “examined him,” and Complete Jewish Bible has “stared at him” (similarly Good News Translation).

And behold, he was leprous in his forehead!: The Hebrew focusing particle rendered behold calls special attention to the astonishing fact that leprosy had appeared suddenly on the forehead of the king. Revised Standard Version indicates the sense of astonishment expressed by the Hebrew particle here by using an exclamation point.

And they thrust him out quickly: In verse 18, before the appearance of the frightful skin disease, the priests had simply told the king to leave the Temple; but now “they hurried him out” (New Century Version), recognizing the defilement that such a diseased person would bring to the Temple.

And he himself hastened to go out: These words show that the king himself recognized the gravity of the situation. In this clause the Hebrew expression for he himself is emphatic and may be translated “even he” or “the king himself” (New Living Translation).

Because the LORD had smitten him: The verb smitten is translated “struck” in New Revised Standard Version, but the implication is that in striking Uzziah with this disease, Yahweh was punishing him. Good News Translation makes this explicit by saying “because the LORD had punished him.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .