This verse is an editorial comment by the author, providing the theological explanation for the northern tribes’ rejection of King Rehoboam. Good News Translation has reversed the order of the clauses in this verse. It states first what God had done and then concludes with the response of the king.

Before verses 15-19 are translated, translators must examine the time relationship among the events related in these verses. Some interpreters argue that verses 16b-17 are parenthetical, and that verse 18 is the continuation of the narrative from verse 16a. Since Rehoboam is still in Shechem in verse 18, such an understanding seems justified. If this interpretation is accepted, then the events described in verse 18 are not later than the events in verse 16b. Contemporary English Version restructures verses 15-19 in order to put the events in chronological order (see the Contemporary English Version translation of these verses quoted at the end of the comments on verse 19).

So the king did not hearken to the people may be rendered “So the king did not listen to the people” (New Century Version). For hearken see the comments on 2 Chr 6.19.

For it was a turn of affairs brought about by God is literally “for it was a turn from God.” Revised Standard Version has a passive expression here, but God is clearly the agent. According to 2 Chr 11.4, God was the cause of what happened. Some other ways that this clause has been translated are “God caused this to happen” (New Century Version), “for this turn of events was divinely ordained” (New American Bible), and “this was the means used indirectly by God” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible).

That the LORD might fulfil his word: Others say “to fulfill the prophecy” (New American Bible) or “so that Yahweh might fulfil the promise” (New Jerusalem Bible). God used Rehoboam’s harsh response to accomplish what he had said would happen. Another possible model here is “in order to do what he said he would do.” In some languages the use of God and the LORD may be confusing and will have to be avoided if the reader might think two different persons are involved. NET Bible does so by rendering this clause and the previous one as “because God was instigating this turn of events so that he might bring to pass the prophetic announcement.” Another possible model is “for God directed this course of events in order to accomplish what he had announced.”

Which he spoke by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat: The author assumes that the readers are familiar with the account in 1 Kgs 11.29-39. By Ahijah is literally “by the hand of Ahijah.” But a literal rendering in many languages may be confusing and unhelpful. For Ahijah the Shilonite, see the comments on 2 Chr 9.29. Good News Translation shows that Shilonite refers to a place by saying “from Shiloh.” Similarly, other versions say “of Shiloh” (Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Moffatt). The city of Shiloh was located about 30 kilometers (19 miles) north of 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 when he humbled himself: The pronoun he refers to Rehoboam, which Contemporary English Version and La Bible Pléiade make explicit. For humbled himself, see the comments on 2Chr 12.6.

The wrath of the LORD turned from him, so as not to make a complete destruction: This literal rendering almost gives the impression that the LORD’s anger was independent and could act on its own. In some languages it will be necessary to make the LORD the subject of this sentence; for example, NET Bible says “the LORD relented from his anger and did not annihilate him,” and New Century Version has “the LORD held his anger back and did not fully destroy Rehoboam.”

Moreover translates a Hebrew conjunction that indicates something is added. Other translations include “also” (New Jerusalem Bible), “Besides” (Moffatt), and “Furthermore” (La Bible du Semeur). God’s Word uses the logical connector “So.”

Conditions were good in Judah is literally “there were good things in Judah.” This clause may mean that economic conditions and life in general were good. In addition to Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version, translations following this interpretation include “Judah enjoyed prosperity” (Revised English Bible) and “in Judah good conditions persisted” (An American Translation). But more likely this clause means that despite the sin in the southern kingdom, people were basically faithful to God. New American Bible follows this sense by saying “in Judah … good deeds were found.” This statement explains theologically why God did not completely destroy Rehoboam. As in 2 Chr 19.3, “good things” refers to moral good. Other translations reflecting this interpretation include “there was … goodness in the land of Judah” (New Living Translation), “there was some good in Judah” (New International Version), and “there was some good left … in Judah” (Moffatt). If this interpretation is correct, it is still not clear whether the writer meant by “good things” that the people of Judah repented or that their good deeds offset their sins.

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 said to Judah: Judah refers to “the people of Judah” (Good News Translation), as in verse 4. Revised English Bible, which uses inclusive language when the Hebrew seems to include both women and men, says “the men of Judah” here. From what is known of the biblical world, it seems likely that the work of fortifying cities would have been done by men, but without that specific information in the text, it may be better to use an inclusive expression as Good News Translation has done.

Let us build these cities: In this context the verb build is better rendered “fortify” (Good News Translation, Bible en français courant) or “rebuild” (New Jerusalem Bible). See the comments on the previous verse.

And surround them with walls and towers, gates and bars: For walls, gates and bars, see the comments on 2 Chr 8.5. Archaeological evidence indicates that city towers were made of stones or bricks and could be square or round. They were built into the wall of a city around 30 meters (100 feet) apart. From the towers guards could watch the countryside around the city and also be protected. For more information on city towers, see WTH, pages 171-172|fig:WTH.Watchtower.171-172.html. For this whole clause Revised English Bible has “with walls round them, and towers and barred gates.”

The land is still ours, because we have sought the LORD our God: Since Asa is speaking to the people of Judah, the first person plural pronouns ours, we and us are inclusive. For we have sought the LORD, see the comments on 2Chr 14.4.

We have sought him translates the Hebrew word darashnu (literally “we have sought”). Revised Standard Version has added the pronoun him as English grammar requires. Some interpreters, following the ancient versions, think that the Masoretic Text contains an error here and correct it to read “he has sought us” (derashanu; so Good News Translation, La Bible Pléiade, and the footnote in Bible en français courant). If the Masoretic Text is followed, then this clause basically repeats the previous clause we have sought the LORD our God. But if the Masoretic Text is corrected as in La Bible Pléiade, then the sense is “because we have sought the LORD our God, he has sought us [to protect us] and has given us peace….” Translators should follow the Masoretic Text here.

And he has given us peace on every side may be rendered “and he has given us peace with all our neighbors” (similarly BTI).

So they built and prospered: In some languages the verb built will require an object either for clarification or for stylistic reasons. If so, they built may be rendered “they rebuilt the cities” (similarly NET Bible). For this whole sentence Parole de Vie has “And the people succeeded in building well-protected cities.”

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 when Baasha heard of it: And renders the Hebrew verbal transition that is sometimes translated “And it came to pass” (King James Version). The purpose of this transition seems to be to change the focus from the actions of Asa to the reaction of Baasha. But it may be unnecessary to include any overt representation of this transition in most languages. New Living Translation shows the immediacy of Baasha’s action here by beginning with “As soon as….” The pronoun it is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied by Revised Standard Version for reasons of English style. This pronoun refers to the military activity of King Benhadad described in the previous verse. La Bible du Semeur translates this whole clause as “When Baasha learned about this news.” King Baasha had to turn back to the north to defend his kingdom against the Syrian forces, thus leaving his southern border unprotected against the southern kingdom.

He stopped building Ramah, and let his work cease: As in verse 1, the Hebrew verb translated building is better rendered “fortifying” (Good News Translation, NET Bible). And renders the common Hebrew conjunction. But using the connector and here may possibly suggest that his work differs from building Ramah, while in fact both expressions refer to the work of fortifying Ramah. Helpful models for these two clauses are “he abandoned his project of fortifying Ramah” (New Living Translation) and “he discontinued the fortifying of Ramah and stopped all work on it” (Revised English 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 .

And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat: The king of Israel may be replaced by the proper name “Ahab” (Good News Translation) or “King Ahab” (New Living Translation) if this is thought to be more natural. In the context of this dialogue, said is translated “answered” by Good News Translation, New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, and others.

There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD: New Century Version provides a helpful model for this clause, saying “There is one other prophet. We could ask the LORD through him.”

Micaiah the son of Imlah: Nothing more is known of either Micaiah or Imlah. It is generally assumed that Imlah is the father of Micaiah and not his mother, but the text does not say so explicitly. This prophet should not be confused with the prophet Micah, who lived nearly a century later, and whose prophecies are contained in the Old Testament book of Micah. Throughout this chapter the Hebrew has a long form of the prophet’s name, “Micayehu,” except in verse 14, where the Hebrew form is “Micah.” Most English versions use the form Micaiah each time his name occurs in this chapter.

But I hate him: The connector but renders the common Hebrew conjunction, but since there is a clear contrast between the suggestion that Micaiah be consulted and Ahab’s reluctance to do so, the contrasting conjunction in English is appropriate. In Hebrew the pronoun for I is emphatic. This emphasis is not preserved in most English versions, but Traduction œcuménique de la Bible correctly translates this clause as “but [as for] me, I hate him.”

For he never prophesies good concerning me, but always evil: The verb prophesies in this context involves speaking a message from God, but not necessarily always about the future. So it should not be translated “predicts.” For this whole clause La Bible du Semeur translates “for he never announces to me anything good; he always announces to me what is bad.” Contemporary English Version has “He always has bad news for me.”

And Jehoshaphat said: In this context the verb said may be rendered “replied” (Good News Translation).

Let not the king say so: This response of Jehoshaphat contains a third person reference to the king, but he is speaking directly to King Ahab. This way of showing respect in Hebrew will not communicate the same thing if translated literally into some other languages. So it may be better to say “Sir, you should not talk like that” or “King Ahab, you shouldn’t say that!” (New Century Version).

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 .

Now then is literally “And now.” It is a logical transition, which Contemporary English Version renders “So.” However, some modern versions omit it (so Good News Translation, New Living Translation, God’s Word).

Let the fear of the LORD be upon you: In this context the fear of the LORD has more to do with respect and honor than with dread and terror (see the comments on 2 Chr 14.14). For this whole clause NET Bible says “Respect the LORD.”

Take heed what you do is literally “take care and do.” The two Hebrew verbs here form a hendiadys, that is, one action is expressed through two verbs. Good News Translation combines them by saying “act carefully.”

For there is no perversion of justice with the LORD our God, or partiality, or taking bribes: See Deut 10.17; Job 34.19; Rom 2.11; Col 3.25; James 2.1. The Hebrew noun rendered perversion of justice often refers to any evil or wicked behavior (see the comments on 1 Chr 17.9, where it is rendered “violent”). In this context “injustice” (New International Version, New Living Translation) is in view. Partiality (literally “lifting up of faces”) refers to showing undue favor in a situation where fairness is required. Here showing favoritism in judging a case is in view. For no … partiality, New Century Version says “He [God] wants all people to be treated the same.” In this context the Hebrew word for bribes refers to something given or paid to a judge (often in secret) to encourage him to act the way the giver wants him to act, even if the act is wrong or unjust. New Century Version renders no … taking bribes as “he [God] doesn’t want decisions influenced by money.”

The quotation in verses 6 and 7 may be translated as indirect discourse by rendering these two verses as follows:

• 6 He urged them to think carefully what they would do, because they were judging for the LORD and not for any human being. He also told them that the LORD would be with them whenever they gave a verdict. 7 Then he urged them to respect the LORD and to judge carefully, because the LORD their God has nothing to do with injustice, partiality, or bribery.

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 .

They came to Jerusalem …: The verb phrase came to may be translated “arrived at” or “entered” (New Century Version). In order to highlight the military context, some languages may prefer “marched into” (New Living Translation).

With harps and lyres and trumpets: See the comments on 1 Chr 13.8.

To the house of the LORD may be rendered “to the temple of the LORD” (New International Version) or simply “to the Temple” (Good News Translation).

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 returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds: The pronoun he refers to King Joram, which New Century Version makes explicit. The passive verb to be healed renders a reflexive form in Hebrew that is literally “to heal himself.” This passive expression may be made active by using a verb such as “recuperate” or “recover” (Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). Jezreel was a city in northern Israel, about 65 kilometers (40 miles) from Ramoth. Good News Translation specifies that it was a “city,” which may be helpful in other languages. This whole clause may be expressed as “King Joram returned to the city of Jezreel to treat his wounds.”

Which he had received at Ramah …: Ramah is the reading of the Masoretic Text. But a number of versions follow one part of the ancient Greek translation by reading “Ramoth” (Revised English Bible), which agrees with verse 5.

And Ahaziah … went down to see Joram … in Jezreel: Ahaziah (also Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible) is the reading of some Hebrew manuscripts, the ancient versions in Greek, Latin and Syriac, and the parallel text in 2 Kgs 8.29. The Masoretic Text and most other Hebrew manuscripts say “Azaryahu,” which is shortened in some translations to “Azariah” (King James Version, Nouvelle Bible Segond). “Azaryahu” is clearly an error for “Ahaziah,” so Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a rating of {C} to “Ahaziah.” The text does not state where Ahaziah’s starting point was. It may have been Samaria or Jerusalem or some other place. While going from Samaria to Jezreel (a distance of about 38 kilometers or 24 miles) did involve a slight decrease in elevation, it may not be natural in some languages to say went down. The more common way of speaking would be to use the verb “went.” Since the point of origin is uncertain, the more general term is advisable. The Hebrew form of the name Joram is “Jehoram” and refers to the king of Israel, as in the previous verse (see the comments there).

Because he was sick: This clause refers to the wounds Joram received in the battle against the Syrians, so it is better rendered “because he had been wounded” ( NET Bible).

Good News Translation omits a great deal of repetition in this verse. The following pieces of information are left out by Good News Translation:

(1) the origin of Joram’s injuries: which he had received at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Syria. This information is provided in the previous verse.
(2) the parentage and kingdom of Ahaziah: the son of Jehoram king of Judah. These details are stated in verse 1.
(3) the parentage and location of Joram: the son of Ahab in Jezreel. These details are stated earlier in this verse and verse 5.
(4) the reason for his visit: because he was sick. The fact that Joram was wounded in battle is known from the previous verse. But it may be a good idea to state that this was the reason for Ahaziah’s visit.

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 .