2 Chronicles 19:4–11

19:4 The opening “Jehoshaphat lived at Jerusalem” (cf. v. 1) is a way of affirming that he did not go to the northern kingdom.² Instead he set about ensuring that the whole kingdom from south to north (the territory mentioned in 17:2) would turn to “the Lord, the God of their fathers.” Previously he had sent people to “teach” (17:7–9), and now this was to be reinforced by the appointment of “judges” who served the Lord.

19:5–7 The “fortified cities” (as in 17:2) were in key locations and under royal control. “Judges” were to take care in what they were to “do” (ʻasah; 19:6, 7, 9, 10, 11). While it was the king who appointed them, they were to act “for [on behalf of] the Lord”; strikingly, they could know that “He is with you” as they gave their rulings. This alludes to Deuteronomy 1:17, in which Moses says to the judges he is appointing, “You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s.” Further, with God there is “no injustice . . . or partiality or taking bribes,” a stance to be taken by human judges as well (Deut. 1:17; 16:19). In the ancient Near East, it was widely acceptable and morally legitimate for judges to take gifts from litigants, sometimes simply to have a case heard, but it was not to be so in Israel. Israel shared the belief with its neighbors that judges represented the divine, but Israel’s view of God’s character was radically different. Throughout the Scriptures, God is above all attempts to influence him by gifts, and for human judges to accept a bribe would repudiate the God they represented. Significantly, the Deuteronomic injunction for judges not to take bribes (Deut. 16:18–20) follows details for the festivals in which gifts to God are based on what he has already given, an act of thanksgiving (Deut. 16:16–17).³ There was to be no consideration of social standing or wealth (the wealthy were more able to afford bribes, and the powerful more able to demand them). No matter what was being decided, religious or secular, God was present.

19:8–10 In Deuteronomy serious and difficult cases were taken initially to Moses (Deut. 1:17) and later to “the place that the Lord your God will choose” (Deut. 17:8–13). That place was now Jerusalem, the place of the temple and throne, and so there were both religious (“Levites and priests”) and secular (“heads of families”) men appointed to “give judgment,” again this being “for the Lord” (cf. 2 Chron. 19:6). Their task also required wholehearted commitment. They were to judge “in the fear of the Lord,” recognizing that failure to fulfill their role could lead to the arrival of “wrath.” These men also had a teaching role, warning people of God’s requirements and so enabling understanding and obedience. Failing to “warn” would bring guilt upon “you” (cf. Ezek. 3:18), but a warning at the right time could prevent “your brothers” from committing an act that would bring guilt upon them.

19:11 Being judges “for the Lord” (v. 8) embraced matters relating both to the temple, its personnel, ritual, and maintenance, and also to the king’s rule, which itself covered functioning and resourcing of the court and well-being and security of society. Thus, similar to David’s provision for both religious and secular leaders (1 Chronicles 23–27), two individuals were designated for temple and crown (neither are known elsewhere).

The concluding charge was addressed to just those two but was a fitting summary for all. They had been charged to “Consider what you do” (2 Chron. 19:6) and to “Be careful what you do” (v. 7), followed by the imperative, “Thus shall you do” (vv. 9, 10); finally came the command to “Deal courageously” (lit., “Be strong and do”), recalling David’s words to Solomon regarding building the temple (1 Chron. 28:10). They were given a task to “do” from which they could easily have been diverted due to fears and temptations to look at “man” rather than “the Lord”—thus the exhortation of “courage, strength.” But they were not alone; the final words were a reminder of the presence of God.