A reader or listener of this verse may think at first that God, who was speaking at the end of verse 22, continues to speak in verse 23. For this reason Good News Translation inserts the words “And Micaiah concluded.” Bible en français courant and Parole de Vie similarly insert “Micaiah added.”

Now therefore behold: The Hebrew contains no word corresponding to therefore since the text of this verse begins literally “And now behold.” But since this introduces the concluding remarks of Micaiah, a transition word like therefore may be required in some languages. As usual, the Hebrew particle translated behold directs special attention to the words that follow.

The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets: It is striking to read that God caused the king’s prophets to lie to Ahab, and then Ahab was killed in battle when he acted on the advice of the prophets. The writer shared the belief common in his day that God was behind all that happens.

Spoken evil concerning you may be translated “predicted that something very bad will happen to you.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Instead of going on to consult with the god of the city of Ekron, the messengers who had been sent by Ahaziah returned to their king immediately after their encounter with Elijah. Because they returned so quickly, Ahaziah knew that they had not done what he told them to do.

Returned to the king is literally “returned to him.” Since the prophet Elijah was the last person mentioned by name in verse 4, both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have substituted the noun phrase the king for the pronoun “him” in order to avoid confusion for the reader.

The verb said may be more naturally translated as “asked” in the context of the question that follows.

Why have you returned?: Since the reader will expect that the messengers of King Ahaziah eventually will return to him, the real question implied is “Why have you returned so soon?” It was clear to the king that these messengers had not been gone long enough to go all the way to Ekron and return. In some languages it will be necessary to include words like “so soon” in order to avoid misunderstanding. Contemporary English Version has “Why are you back so soon?” (similarly Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

In languages where indirect discourse is preferred in such a context as this, the last part of the verse may be translated “The king asked them why they had come back so quickly.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The order of events in this verse seems to be slightly different in the base and model versions. According to Revised Standard Version, which reflects the Hebrew order, the salt would be added after the container was brought to Elisha. But Good News Translation indicates that this was to be done before the prophet received it. The Good News Translation understanding is allowed by the Hebrew.

A new bowl: The word translated bowl occurs only here in the Old Testament and its exact meaning is uncertain. Various attempts to determine the meaning on the basis of related languages have resulted in the following proposals: “small bottle,” “small jug,” and “small bowl.” While most versions indicate that the container requested was in the form of a “bowl,” some prefer other shapes. American Bible speaks of a “flask,” while New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and Gray have a “dish.” Hobbs speaks more precisely of a “shallow bowl,” which is probably technically correct. It is also important that the container be new, that it not be ritually impure and not have been used by any humans. This is similar to the requirements for animals to be used for sacrifice (Num 19.2; Deut 21.3-4). Revised English Bible says “a new, unused bowl.”

According to ancient beliefs, salt was considered to have powers of purification. For this reason it was used in some sacrifices (Lev 2.13; Ezek 43.24). Today it is well known that salt does have certain cleansing properties. In languages that have different words for mineral and vegetable salts, the word for mineral salt should probably be used here.

So they brought it to him: If the wording of Revised Standard Version is retained in the first part of the verse, the reader might not be certain whether the container was brought with or without salt. But as the next verse shows, the intended meaning is certainly that the salt was included. So this should be made clear in one way or another in translation.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Then: The common Hebrew conjunction here is translated “So” in Good News Translation since the connection seems to be more logical than temporal. It was because the Moabite king failed in his attempt to break out of the siege that he resorted to the sacrifice of his son.

He took his eldest son who was to reign in his stead: His eldest son is literally “his firstborn son.” It is unclear whether this son of the Moabite king was already an adult or still a child; but he was clearly the king’s oldest son and therefore the one who should eventually become king under normal rules of succession. Some interpreters think that his eldest son refers to the eldest son of the king of Edom rather than the son of the king of Moab. That is, since the king of Moab could not get through to capture the king of Edom, he captured the son of the king of Edom instead and sacrificed him. This interpretation, however, is not widely accepted. For who was to reign in his stead, see the comments on 1 Kgs 11.43.

Offered him for a burnt offering: The king apparently thought that the Moabite god, called Chemosh, would be appeased by this human sacrifice and that the war would turn in his favor. In a burnt offering the entire animal was burned (see the comments on 1 Kgs 3.4).

Upon the wall: For the architecture of walled cities, see the comments at 1 Kgs 3.1. There would have been more than enough room on top of the wall of a large city to make a burnt offering.

There came great wrath upon Israel: It is not clear whether the wrath was directed against the Israelites or was the response of the Israelites themselves. The sacrifice was performed in full view of the attackers, who suddenly became afraid and ran away. Either they were afraid of what the Moabite god Chemosh would do to them, or they feared that Yahweh might punish them for provoking such a desperate deed. Since the expression “there was great wrath upon” is a common phrase in the Old Testament with God as the one who is angry, the second interpretation seems more likely than the first. NET Bible makes this meaning clear with “There was an outburst of divine anger against Israel.”

Another possible interpretation of this very difficult text is “So there was great anger against the Israelites” (New Century Version). That is, the Moabites who witnessed the sacrifice of the child that was to be their king became so angry that they lashed out against the Israelites, and because of this, the Israelites decided to abandon the battle and go home. New American Bible, for example, reads “The wrath against Israel was so great that….” This is the interpretation adopted by New International Version and New Living Translation also.

As mentioned above, the wrath may also be the response of the Israelites themselves. This seems to be the basis for the translation in La Bible du Semeur: “At this sight, the Israelites were so indignant [or, furious/offended] that….” Contemporary English Version is similar with “The Israelite troops were so horrified that…,” and so is Revised English Bible with “There was such great consternation among the Israelites that….”

They withdrew from him; that is, they pulled back from the King of Moab, who represented all the Moabites and their city, which was under attack. It is therefore quite acceptable to translate “they withdrew from the battle” or “they left the city they had been attacking.”

To their own land is literally “to the land,” but the use of the definite article clearly implies the land of Israel. So it is legitimate to translate this as in Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, and most other modern versions. Even King James Version includes the words their own in italics.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

So he went in; that is, Elisha went into the small upper room that had been built for his visits, but which had become the resting place of the child’s body.

Shut the door upon the two of them: As in verses 4, 5 and 21, this highlights the privacy of the situation. The dead boy and the prophet were alone together in the room. New Century Version conveys this idea with “shut the door, so only he and the boy were in the room.”

Prayed to the LORD: In languages where it is necessary to indicate the content of the prayer, translators may say something like “prayed to the LORD for the boy” or “asked the LORD for help.” It is, however, better not to be too precise since the text does not tell us exactly what Elisha prayed.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

All is well: This response is literally “Peace,” but what is implied is “There is peace”; that is, in response to the question in the previous verse, “There is nothing wrong” or “Everything is well.”

My master has sent me to say …: Here there is a quotation within a larger quotation, which may be problematic for translators. If so, it may be made indirect discourse as in Good News Translation. Or the first part of Gehazi’s words could be made indirect, leaving only the alleged words of Elisha as direct speech by saying “Gehazi responded that everything was all right and that his master had sent the following message….”

There have just now come to me from the hill country of Ephraim two young men …: The Hebrew text here begins with the focusing particle, often translated “Behold” (so King James Version), to introduce the words that Gehazi reports to be those of his master. The sentence here may be rearranged in such a way as to make the two young men the subject as follows: “… two young men … have just arrived….” In many languages this word order will be much more natural. The Hebrew noun rendered young men covers a wide range of age groups, from an unborn child to someone thirty years old. Often in the books of 1-2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings, the focus of this Hebrew noun is not on age but on the status of the person as a servant or subordinate. For this reason Good News Translation says simply “members.” The hill country of Ephraim refers to the central mountainous area of Palestine where the tribe of Ephraim had settled (see the comments on 1 Kgs 4.8).

The sons of the prophets: See the comments at 1 Kgs 20.35 and 2 Kgs 2.3.

The word pray translates the Hebrew particle of entreaty.

A talent of silver: This would be one-tenth of the amount of silver prepared for the voyage in verse 5 (see the comments there). Here International Children’s Bible and New Living Translation have “75 pounds of silver.” This would be about 34 kilograms using the metric system. This is rounded off to “thirty kilos” in Bible en français courant but is given as “thirty-five kilos” in La Bible du Semeur.

Two festal garments: This would presumably be one set of clothes for each of the supposed visitors from Ephraim. See the comments on verse 5 concerning the meaning of festal garments.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Moses had warned the Israelite people of the many awful consequences of disobeying God, including the disaster of women eating their own children (Deut 28.57). More than 200 years after this event in 2 Kings, women again ate their own children during the siege of Jerusalem (Lam 4.10).

So: The common Hebrew conjunction here is rightly translated as a kind of logical connector. This woman accepted the idea of giving up her son in order that they might survive.

We boiled my son: It is not essential to describe how the child was prepared for eating. Several modern versions use a more general term, such as “cooked” (Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). Some translators may need to know whether the child was killed before being prepared as food or cooked alive. While either possibility is gruesome to contemplate, if the choice must be made, it is probably more likely that the life of the child was taken before it was cooked.

Give your son, that we may eat him: Compare verse 28. This embedded quotation can be made into indirect discourse as follows: “The following day when I told her that it was time for us to eat her son, I learned that she had put him in a place where I could not find him!”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

He fixed his gaze and stared at him …: This verse contains four different clauses in Hebrew, but only in the last case is the subject clearly identified in Hebrew. The pronoun he in the first clause, he fixed his gaze (literally “he raised his faces”), is the topic of much discussion since it is not clear whether it refers to Elisha or Hazael. New Century Version understands the clause to mean “Hazael stared at Elisha” (similarly Hobbs). But many translations reverse these roles, making “the man of God” the subject of the verbs fixed and stared (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible, La Bible du Semeur). Good News Translation similarly has “Elisha” staring at Hazael. This is more likely to be the meaning. The writer does not state why Elisha fixed his gaze and stared at Hazael, but most likely he was in an ecstatic trance in which he was receiving a message from God. Or perhaps Elisha was staring at Hazael because he knew what Hazael was going to do to the people of Israel.

Stared at him is literally “he put/set.” Some translators follow the Vulgate and read “he was troubled” (so Osty-Trinquet) instead of “he put/set.” But the Masoretic Text makes sense in that Elisha “set [his face]” or “stared,” and it should be followed here.

The subject of the Hebrew clause translated until he was ashamed (literally “as far as to shame”) seems to be Hazael (so Good News Translation and Revised English Bible, which replace the pronoun with the name “Hazael”). The meaning of the Hebrew verb here, however, is interpreted in slightly different ways by recent translations; for example, “became disconcerted” (Revised English Bible), “became ill at ease” (Good News Translation, New American Bible), “felt ashamed” (New International Version, New Century Version), and “was embarrassed” (Contemporary English Version, Hobbs).

It is also possible to understand the Hebrew words for “as far as to shame” to mean “extremely” (Osty-Trinquet) or “for a long while” (American Bible), in which case the idea of embarrassment is omitted altogether (similarly New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Peregrino, em>Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Bible en français courant, La Bible Pléiade, Nouvelle Bible Segond, Nouvelle version Segond révisée). Peregrino, for example, translates the whole verse as follows: “Then his [Elisha’s] gaze was fixed, he remained outside of himself a long time and began to cry.” Compare 2 Kgs 2.17, where the same expression is found.

Although some Hebrew scholars suggest that the words “as far as to shame” are an idiom meaning “excessively,” it is probably better to understand these words as referring to what was felt by Hazael. A possible model for the first sentence in this verse is “Elisha looked at him with a steady gaze until Hazael became uncomfortable.”

The text is quite clear that it was Elisha who wept. The reason for his sorrow is clearly stated in response to Hazael’s question in the following verse. He was discouraged because he knew what would happen to the people of Israel after Hazael became king of Syria. In some languages it will be most natural to translate the verb “started crying” or “began to weep.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .