Verses 36-39 present a seventh and final situation in which God’s people may turn to him in prayer. Such a situation of exile is threatened in Deut 28.36-37 if the people disobey God. Verses 36-38 in Hebrew contain a repeated play on the verbs shabah (“to carry captive”) and shub (“to repent/turn”). The verb shub in different forms in Hebrew is translated “lay it [to heart]” (verse 37) and “repent” (verses 37 and 38).

This verse in Hebrew begins a long conditional sentence. Verses 36-38 express the “if” part of this long sentence. Verse 39 forms the concluding “then” part of the conditional sentence. In addition to this long, complex sentence, verse 36 contains the parenthetical comment for there is no man who does not sin. It will probably be necessary in many languages to restructure the form of these verses for the sake of clarity (see the model below).

If they sin against thee: If is better rendered “When” (Good News Translation, New International Version), since the following parenthetical statement makes it clear that there is no doubt about the people sinning. For clarity the pronoun they may be translated “your people” (Good News Translation) or “the Israelites” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente).

For there is no man who does not sin: This parenthetical statement is set off by dashes in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, while Revised English Bible uses parentheses and states the truth in the form of a rhetorical question, saying “and who is free from sin?” New Century Version handles this digression by beginning the verse with “Everyone sins, so your people will also sin against you.” This kind of restructuring may be helpful to make the meaning more easily understood in other languages. In this context the words no man may be translated “no human being” (Nouvelle Bible Segond) or simply “no one” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New International Version) since the focus is not on men in contrast to women but rather on people in contrast to God.

And thou art angry with them: The Hebrew verb rendered art angry occurs only rarely in the Old Testament. It is used a total of 14 times and is always used in relation to God, usually in relationship to some punishment given to the people. Some languages have figurative expressions for anger, such as “gets bad liver,” “liver hurts,” or “heart becomes hot.”

And dost give them to an enemy may be rendered “and allow their enemies to defeat/overcome them.”

So that they are carried away captive to a land far or near: These words refer to a future exile. The Hebrew text is literally “and their captors will take them captive….” Revised Standard Version has used a passive verb here, although the Hebrew verb is active with an explicit subject (“their captors”). An active expression may be kept here by saying “and their enemies capture them and take them away into another land.” Contemporary English Version says “you … let their enemies drag them away to foreign countries.” According to the text, the land of their exile may be far or near. The Good News Translation expression “even if that land is far away” leaves implied the fact that the land might also be nearby.

A model that restructures this verse is:

• There is no person on earth who does not commit sin. So when your people do sin and make you angry, you allow their enemies to overcome them and take them as captives to another land, which may be near or far away.

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 .

He also built Upper Beth-horon and Lower Beth-horon: As in verses 2 and 4, the Hebrew verb for built can be understood in the sense of “rebuilt” (Good News Translation, New International Version, Bible en français courant) or “fortified” (New Living Translation). The cities of Upper Beth-horon (615 meters [2,020 feet] above sea level) and Lower Beth-horon (370 meters [1,210 feet] above sea level) were located in the mountains of Judah in the Valley of Aijalon, about 20 kilometers (12 miles) northwest of Jerusalem. These two cities were located on a major east-west road from the coastal plains in the west into the hill country to the east and had a clear view of the plains below. The qualifying terms Upper and Lower are intended to indicate that one city was built at a higher elevation than the other. See also the comments on 1 Chr 7.24. The Hebrew text repeats the name Beth-horon, but it will be more natural in some languages to say “Upper and Lower Beth-Horon.”

Fortified cities with walls, gates, and bars: Ancient Israelite cities had two different kinds of walls around them. Some walls were thick solid single walls. Other walls, called “casemate walls,” were two parallel walls connected at intervals by solid walls running between the two walls. Some casemate walls were filled in with dirt and rocks to create a thicker, more solid wall. Archaeological evidence shows that some city walls were more than seven meters [23 feet] thick. These walls usually had guard towers built at intervals around the entire wall and at the corners and gates. For a good description of city walls, see WTH, pages 167-169|fig:WTH.City wall.167-169.html. City gates were usually made of wood but were sometimes covered with metal to protect against fire. The city gate sometimes included two, four, or six rooms on each side where soldiers or guards were stationed. Bars were heavy wooden beams or metal rods that were inserted into slots in the doors of city gates to lock them from the inside. Enemy troops could not push the doors in from outside because they rested against an inner doorstop.

Contemporary English Version provides a helpful model for this verse, saying “He strengthened Upper Beth-Horon and Lower Beth-Horon by adding walls and gates that could be locked.”

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 king’s ships went to Tarshish …: The Hebrew conjunction rendered For introduces the reason why all of the gold was so available for King Solomon. If there is any danger of not knowing which king is intended, translators may say specifically “King Solomon” (New Century Version) or simply “Solomon” (Contemporary English Version).

References to Tarshish occur more than thirty times in the Old Testament. Sometimes the Hebrew noun rendered Tarshish refers to a precious stone. In other texts, such as here in verse 21, it appears to refer to a geographical location, but the exact location is uncertain. On the basis of ancient writings, Tarshish has been identified with a colony in southwestern Spain, and with the city of Carthage in northern Africa (see the comments on 1 Chr 1.7). Moffatt says “Tartessus,” which refers to the location in Spain. Some scholars suggest that the Hebrew noun tarshish comes from a root meaning “to heat,” “to melt,” or “to smelt.” If this suggestion is correct, the expression “ships of Tarshish” in the parallel text of 1 Kgs 10.22 may not refer to a specific place but rather to ocean-going ships that transported raw materials to places where the ore was refined. Such ocean-going ships usually sailed within sight of land. This understanding of the Hebrew noun is the basis for the following renderings here in 2 Chronicles: “ocean-going ships” (Good News Translation), “ships that he sent out to trade” (New Century Version), and “trading ships” (New Living Translation). But such translations harmonize the text with the parallel in 1 Kgs 10 even though the Hebrew here almost certainly refers to a place. Some scholars have suggested that the term originally referred to a type of ship and that the author of 2 Chronicles did not understand the meaning of this ancient technical term, taking it as a place rather than a kind of ship.

With the servants of Huram: See the comments on verse 10. This phrase may be rendered “led by the sailors of King Hiram” (Bible en français courant; similarly New Living Translation).

Once every three years: The round trip required a little over a year. Parts of two other years, plus the year of travel, would be counted as three years.

The Hebrew noun rendered ivory is not the same as the one in verse 17, but it comes from the same root (see the comments there).

Apes renders a Hebrew noun that occurs only here and in the parallel text of 1 Kgs 10.22. This word probably refers to monkeys or baboons, which were known in Egypt, and not to apes, which are larger and do not have tails. But a surprising number of modern English versions still say “apes” (Good News Translation, New Living Translation, New Century Version). However, Contemporary English Version translates “monkeys” (also Biblia Dios Habla Hoy and most French versions). The translation of this term is closely tied to the understanding of the following one.

The Hebrew noun rendered peacocks (tukiyim) occurs in the Old Testament only here and in the parallel passage of 1 Kgs 10.22. According to Holladay and many modern interpreters, this noun more likely refers to “baboons” (New International Version, New Century Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Osty-Trinquet, alternative translation in New Revised Standard Version) or “monkeys” (Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, New American Bible). Others have suggested that it means “poultry,” or more specifically “peacocks” (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Moffatt, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). The precise identification of the tukiyim is so uncertain that translators may feel free to translate either meaning. If the preferred interpretation is “peacocks,” it may be rendered with a more general expression, such as “magnificent [or, beautiful] birds” (Parole de Vie). If the preferred interpretation is “baboons/monkeys,” then the two last two terms in this verse may be translated “baboons and monkeys.”

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 .

Abijah’s direct quotation at this point may be difficult to avoid. It continues until the end of verse 12. His speech to the Israelite troops was intended to win them over to worship the true God and avoid actual bloodshed.

Ought you not to know…? is literally “Is it not for you to know…?” but this question is more clearly translated “Don’t you know…?” (New International Version) or “Don’t you realize…?” (New Living Translation). In any case, the question is rhetorical and may have to be translated in other languages as “Surely you know…,” “You must know…” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), or “You should know…” (New Century Version). Abijah’s question assumes that Jeroboam and his soldiers should know that God made an unbreakable covenant with David to rule over Israel.

That the LORD God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel for ever to David and his sons: Sons in this context clearly refers to “descendants” (Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch) or “dynasty” ( NET Bible). The meaning of this whole clause will be more naturally expressed in some languages as “that the LORD God of Israel made David and his descendants rulers over Israel forever” or “… caused David and his descendants to always rule over Israel.”

By a covenant of salt: For covenant see the comments on 1 Chr 11.3. According to Lev 2.13, every offering that was a grain offering was to be salted. Salt preserved and purified (see 2 Kgs 2.19-22). A covenant of salt means the covenant was unbreakable (compare Num 18.19). Good News Translation and New Living Translation say “an unbreakable covenant,” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “an irrevocable covenant” (similarly Bible en français courant), and Moffatt translates “an irrevocable pledge.” If the meaning of this expression is not made clear in translation, an explanatory footnote stating that it refers to a very solemn and unchangeable promise will be necessary.

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 they smote the tents of those who had cattle: And is literally “And also.” Revised Standard Version does not translate the Hebrew word for “also,” although nearly all modern versions do, including New Revised Standard Version. The pronoun they refers to the soldiers of Judah, which New Century Version makes explicit by saying “Asa’s army.” For the verb smote, see the comments on 1 Chr 13.10. The tents of those who had cattle is literally “the tents of cattle.” The meaning of the Hebrew for this phrase is uncertain. Many understand it to mean “the tents of those who had cattle.” For this whole clause New Revised Standard Version says “They also attacked the tents of those who had livestock,” and Revised English Bible has “They also killed the herdsmen.” Similar translations include “They attacked also the tents of the cattle-herders” (New American Bible) and “They also routed the cattle-owners” (New Jerusalem Bible). In any case, these people who were attacked were civilians and not part of Zerah’s army.

And carried away sheep in abundance and camels: Carried away should not be understood in the sense of literally carrying the animals in question. Rather, it means that they “captured” these animals and took them away with them when they left. Other translations use verbs such as “took” (Contemporary English Version) and “seized” (Revised English Bible). New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, and La Bible du Semeur render sheep as “sheep and goats” since the Hebrew word here refers to small livestock in general (see the comments on 1 Chr 4.39, where it is rendered “flocks”). For camels see 1 Chr 5.21.

An alternative model for this verse is:

• Asa’s army also attacked the camps of some herdsmen, and they took with them many sheep and goats as well as some camels. Then they returned to the city 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 .

Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his stead: Jehoshaphat was thirty-five years old when he began to reign over Judah and he reigned twenty-five years (2 Chr 20.31). He ruled about 872–848 B.C. Since this verse begins a new chapter and a new section, the pronoun his may be confusing to readers that start here. Since it clearly refers to Asa, this may be made explicit in translation (so Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). For reigned in his stead, see the comments on 1 Chr 19.1 and 2 Chr 9.31.

And strengthened himself against Israel: This clause in Hebrew may be understood in two different ways as follows:

(1) According to Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation (also Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, An American Translation, Reina-Valera revisada, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy alternative translation), the meaning is that King Jehoshaphat made his own kingdom stronger in order to protect it from attack by the northern kingdom of Israel.
(2) But the Hebrew may also be understood to mean that Jehoshaphat “showed himself strong in Israel” (Biblia Dios Habla Hoy; similarly Bible de Jérusalem, BCI). This understanding takes the word Israel as referring to the southern kingdom since the Chronicler considered that his people in Judah were the “true people of Israel” and not the northern kingdom that bore that name.

Regardless of which interpretation translators follow here, they should indicate the alternative reading in a footnote.

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 .

But the king said to him: The common Hebrew conjunction introducing Ahab’s response is correctly rendered But, since his reply is somewhat contrary to the reader’s expectation. Ahab understands that Micaiah’s answer is sarcastic. The verb said may be translated “replied” (Good News Translation) in the context of this dialogue. Another possible rendering is “asked” since a question follows.

How many times shall I adjure you that you speak to me nothing but the truth…?: This is a rhetorical question that functions to rebuke the prophet Micaiah. In some languages this question will be better translated as a statement by saying “I have made you promise many times that you will tell me the truth…” or “I’ve told you over and over to tell me the truth! …” (Contemporary English Version). New Jerusalem Bible renders shall I adjure you as “must I put you on oath,” and New Revised Standard Version has “must I make you swear.” Good News Translation fails to preserve this nuance of meaning, but it should be kept if possible. Speak to me nothing but the truth may be expressed as “not to lie to me” or “not to be deceptive.” Others may say “tell me only the truth.”

To speak … in the name of the LORD underlines the fact that when Micaiah began speaking he started with the solemn statement “As the LORD lives, what my God says, that I will speak” (verse 13). This implies a special obligation to tell the absolute truth. So when Ahab responds here, he reminds Micaiah that he is under an oath and has a special obligation to speak the truth. This reminder apparently has its intended consequence because Micaiah goes on to reveal the rest of the story.

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 .