Then renders the common Hebrew conjunction. La Bible du Semeur translates it “Finally” (similarly New Living Translation, Parole de Vie) to show that this verse begins a climax in the story.

A spirit came forward: The Hebrew text has a definite article with the noun spirit. The sense seems to be “a certain spirit” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). It is also possible to understand this phrase to mean “the spirit of the LORD.” Bible en français courant and Parole de Vie render it even more specifically as “the Spirit that inspires the prophets.” Translators should not impose Christian theology regarding the Trinity by translating it as “the Holy Spirit.”

And stood before the LORD: See the comments on 2 Chr 9.7.

I will entice him: See the comments on the verb entice in verse 19. In Hebrew the pronoun for I is emphatic. Some French versions express this emphasis by saying “Me, I will deceive him” (La Bible du Semeur; similarly Bible en français courant, Parole de Vie) or “It is I who will seduce him” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible).

By what means?: This question may be translated by an interrogative adverb meaning “How?” or “In what manner?” The LORD is asking what kind of trick will be used to accomplish the purpose of deceiving Ahab. New Century Version makes this question a complete sentence by saying “How will you do it?” Another possible model is “How will you trick Ahab?”

In languages where embedded quotations present a problem, a possible model for this verse is:

• Finally, a certain spirit stepped forward, stood in front of the LORD, and volunteered that he himself would deceive Ahab. After that, the LORD asked him how he would do it.

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 .

If evil comes upon us, the sword, judgment, or pestilence, or famine: Evil is defined in the text itself as one of several possible calamities that might happen to the people of God: sword, judgment, pestilence, or famine. The word sword here is a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole; that is, sword stands for “war” (so Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation, New Century Version, God’s Word, Revised English Bible).

Revised Standard Version and most other modern versions follow the Masoretic Text in reading judgment. However, some scholars think the Hebrew text originally read “flood” (God’s Word, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). In Hebrew the difference between the consonants of the two words meaning “judgment” and “flood” is simply a reversal of the second and third consonants, that is, a case of metathesis. The word “flood” seems to fit the context of natural disasters better than judgment. But Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament supports the reading judgment and notes that there is no textual evidence to support the correction of the Hebrew text to read “flood.”

Revised Standard Version renders sword and judgment as separate calamities, but some versions take them together as “sword of/in judgment” (New International Version, An American Translation, Moffatt) or “punishing sword” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

For pestilence and famine, see the comments on 2 Chr 6.28.

We will stand before this house, and before thee, for thy name is in this house: In Hebrew Yahweh’s name sometimes refers to Yahweh himself. To say that his name was in the Temple is the same as saying that he resided in the Temple (see the comments on 2 Chr 6.5). This whole part of the verse may be rendered “we will stand before this Temple where you are present.”

And cry to thee in our affliction may be rendered “and we will pray to you for help when we are in trouble” (similarly New Century Version).

And thou wilt hear and save: The verb hear implies a favorable hearing. For this whole clause New Living Translation says “and you will hear us and rescue us.”

This entire verse is an embedded quotation. It constitutes a declaration of what the people of God believed. In languages where direct quotations—and especially embedded quotations—are not acceptable, it may be rendered as indirect speech. Good News Translation provides one possible model for this, and so does Contemporary English Version by saying:

• They believed that whenever this land is struck by war or disease or famine, your people can pray to you at the temple, and you will hear their prayer and save them.

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 .

The Levites and all Judah did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded: Since the Levites were a part of the people of Judah, it will be more natural in some languages to render The Levites and all Judah as “The Levites and all the other people of Judah.” Did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded may be better expressed as “obeyed everything Jehoiada the priest had commanded” (New Century Version) or “executed punctually all the orders that the priest Jehoiada had given them” (La Bible du Semeur). For Jehoiada the priest, see the comments on 2 Chr 22.11. It is mentioned twice in this verse that Jehoiada was a priest, but this information may be left implied if it is clear in the context (so Good News Translation).

They each brought his men, who were to go off duty on the sabbath, with those who were to come on duty on the sabbath: The pronoun They refers to the commanders of the priests and Levites. Good News Translation makes this explicit by saying “the commanders.” For who were to go off duty on the sabbath, see the comments on 2Chr 23.4. As in verse 4, this clause probably means “who were to go on duty on the Sabbath.” The Hebrew clause rendered who were to come on duty on the sabbath more likely means “who were to go off duty on the Sabbath.” The priests and Levites coming on duty and going off duty are in view here. Their commanders assembled them all.

For Jehoiada the priest did not dismiss the divisions: The commanders were able to assemble all the priests and Levites since Jehoiada had not dismissed any of their divisions. For the divisions of the priests and Levites, see 1 Chr 23–26; for the word divisions, see the comments on 1 Chr 24.1.

If the last part of this verse is found awkward when translated literally, it may be restructured according to the following model:

• Jehoiada did not let anyone from the groups of the priests and Levites go away. So the commanders could use the men who came on duty on the Day of Rest as well as those who went off duty on that day.

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 .

Then the Spirit of God took possession of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest: Some versions capitalize the word for Spirit (so Revised Standard Version, Bible en français courant, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje), but others do not (so Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible). It is better not to capitalize it since this is not a reference to the Holy Spirit, but to a spirit sent by God or to God himself (see the comments on 1 Chr 12.18). Took possession of is literally “clothed itself with.” The sense is that God himself was controlling the speech of Zechariah. Some other renderings are “came upon” (New International Version), “enveloped” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), and “energized” ( NET Bible). New Century Version says “entered,” but this verb is not recommended since it seems to suggest a later Christian theology of the Holy Spirit “entering” a person. For Jehoiada the priest, see the comments on 2 Chr 22.11.

And he stood above the people: The Hebrew here may also be taken to mean “and he stood opposite the people” (Dillard). However, it more likely means the prophet positioned himself on an elevated place, perhaps on a platform or raised area, where others could see and hear him. Good News Translation renders this clause well with “He stood where the people could see him.”

Thus says God: See the comments on the similar expression “Thus says the LORD” in 1 Chr 17.3.

Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD, so that you cannot prosper?: Compare Num 14.41. This rhetorical question may be rendered as a strong statement by saying “You disobey the LORD’s commandments, so you will not prosper.” New Century Version has “Why do you disobey the LORD’s commands? You will not be successful.”

Because you have forsaken the LORD, he has forsaken you: For the verb forsaken, see the comments on 2 Chr 15.2. This sentence may be rendered “You have abandoned the LORD, and now he has abandoned you!” (New Living Translation) or “Because you have left the LORD, he has also left you” (New Century Version).

Revised Standard Version gives a literal translation of the Hebrew for Zechariah’s words. But such a translation may be confusing since God refers to himself in the third person as the LORD and he. Good News Translation restructures the words of Zechariah so that Zechariah refers to God in the third person rather than quoting the words of God. Bible en français courant provides still another model by changing the third person references to God to first person, saying “Listen to what God declares: ‘Why do you disobey my commandments? You get no benefit from it! You have abandoned me, so I, I also, will abandon you!’ ”

In languages where direct quotations are not acceptable, the following model of this verse may be considered:

• One day Zechariah, the son of the priest Jehoiada, gave them a message from God. First he asked them why they continued to disobey the LORD’s commands. Then he said they could not prosper because of their disobedience. He also said they had abandoned the LORD, and now the LORD was abandoning them.

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 brought him upon horses: The pronoun they is again indefinite, but it probably refers to the same people who killed Amaziah. In some languages the personal pronoun him will not be acceptable in this context since Amaziah was no longer alive. Even in languages where this is possible, it may be more natural to speak of “his corpse” or “his body” (Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). The Hebrew word for horses is plural. However, Good News Translation renders upon horses as “on a horse,” and New International Version says “by horse.” The intended sense of the plural is probably that they brought his corpse “in a chariot pulled by several horses” (Bible en français courant).

And he was buried with his fathers: See the comments on 2 Chr 21.1. The passive expression he was buried will have to be made active in some languages, as it is in the Hebrew text. Possible models are “they [indefinite] buried him” and “his people buried him.” The word fathers in this context refers to the ancestors of King Amaziah. Good News Translation implies this by rendering with his fathers as “in the royal tombs.”

For the city of David, see the comments on 1 Chr 11.5. The Masoretic Text says “the city of Judah” (New International Version, New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), which Moffatt renders “the capital of Judah.” Revised Standard Version follows the Septuagint and the parallel text in 2 Kgs 14.20 by saying the city of David (also Revised English Bible). Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} rating to “the city of Judah.” If the Masoretic Text is followed, a footnote may be added to say that the expressions the city of David and “the city of Judah” refer to the same place.

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 .

Ahaz was twenty years old … and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: This sentence follows the common formula that is used to summarize the reign of a ruler of Israel or Judah by stating his age when he took over (twenty years old), the length of his reign (sixteen years), and his capital (Jerusalem). See the comments on 2 Chr 13.2. According to this verse, Ahaz died when he was 36 years old (20 + 16); but according to 2 Kgs 18.2, Ahaz’s son Hezekiah began to rule when Hezekiah was 25 years old. If both of these accounts are correct, then Ahaz was only eleven years old when his son Hezekiah was born. Obviously, there are difficulties in determining the chronology in Ahaz’s reign, but translators should follow the text and not attempt to harmonize the various accounts.

And he did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD, like his father David: See the comments on 2 Chr 14.2. The evaluation of the reign of Ahaz is negative when compared with King David. The Chronicler often judges other kings of Judah by the standard of David (see 2 Chr 11.17; 29.2; 34.2). The phrase like his father David may be misunderstood to mean that David also did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD. So Good News Translation renders this phrase as “He did not follow the good example of his ancestor King David,” and other versions says “contrary to his ancestor David” (Bible en français courant, Parole de Vie, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). David was not the father of Ahaz, but his most famous ancestor. A possible model for this whole sentence is “He did not do what the LORD saw as right, so he was not like his ancestor David.”

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 gathered their brethren: Their brethren refers to “their fellow Levites” (Good News Translation). Parole de Vie says “the people of their clans.”

And sanctified themselves: They made themselves ritually clean in fulfillment of the king’s command in verse 5 (see the comments there).

And went in as the king commanded, by the words of the LORD, to cleanse the house of the LORD is a literal rendering of the Hebrew. As the footnote in Good News Translation indicates, this second half of the verse may be understood and translated in two different ways as follows:

(1) According to the text of Good News Translation, the words of the LORD refers to the Law of the LORD and is connected with the verb to cleanse; that is, the Levites cleansed the Temple according to the requirements of the Law.
(2) But the words of the LORD may also be taken with the verb had commanded; that is, the LORD had instructed the king to order the cleansing of the Temple. Moffatt follows this second interpretation by saying “and entered, by order of the king under the authority of the Eternal, to cleanse the Temple of the Eternal.”

The first interpretation seems more likely to be correct.

Later the context makes it clear that went in means they entered the Temple, but in some languages this information will be required here by saying “they went into the Temple” (New Century Version).

To cleanse translates a Hebrew verb that refers to ceremonial or ritual cleanness. Good News Translation attempts to maintain the cultic sense by saying “to make … ritually clean.” In the Old Testament this verb is used of purifying the Temple, people, the gates and walls of Jerusalem, and the land itself (see 2 Chr 34.3, 5, 8; Neh 12.30). While this Hebrew verb is not the same verb used in verse 5, to cleanse the house of the LORD is clearly the response of the priests and Levites to the command to “sanctify the house of the LORD.”

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 .