Revised Standard Version begins this verse with “Therefore,” but this does not really make sense here. Good News Translation begins with And now, which fits the context in English but does not really add anything to the meaning. This whole passage is simply a list of unrelated comments based on the names of different towns, and there is no need to treat this one differently by using some introductory expression here. Of course it may be that in many languages some sort of introductory word or phrase will be needed before each idea in these verses.
The subject of the verb in the first sentence is simply “you” in Hebrew, as in Revised Standard Version. Good News Translation makes it explicit that this refers to the people of Judah in general. If this is not done, the reader will be confused and will naturally refer the “you” to the people of Lachish in the previous verse.
Moresheth is Micah’s home village (see 1.1). Its name as given in this verse, Moresheth Gath, probably indicates that it was not far from the Philistine town of Gath, and thus was near the border of Judean territory. The pun here is probably again one of sense rather than sound. The name Moresheth is similar to the Hebrew word for fiancée. When a girl got married, she would be given a “dowry” (Jerusalem Bible), and this is probably what the “parting gifts” (Revised Standard Version) are intended to refer to. This is the meaning of the same word in 1 Kgs 9.16. Micah here sees a similarity between parents saying good-bye to a daughter when she marries, and the people of Judah saying good-bye to Moresheth. What Micah implies is that the town will fall into enemy hands and no longer be part of Judah. As this was Micah’s own hometown (verse 1), we can well imagine his sadness at having to deliver such a message as this.
If a translator wants to try to keep the picture used in this line, it is possible to say “give Moresheth Gath the gifts you give to people who are leaving you” or “give gifts to Moresheth Gath, as you would to a daughter who is leaving home to be married.” In many languages it will be better to follow Good News Translation and use a simple expression to show that you are taking leave of someone. In English this is say good-bye, but in other languages there may be a simple verb or other expression to describe the action, and there may be nothing “said” at all. It may be necessary in some languages to add the explanation for this picture and to say “because enemies are about to capture this town.”
In the second half of the verse the pun is very clear. The town name Achzib is almost identical with the Hebrew word ʾachzab, translated as “deceitful thing” by Revised Standard Version. In Jer 15.18 the word is used of a stream that dries up in summer and thus disappoints the thirsty traveler. Achzib is the town mentioned in Josh 15.44. Micah here seems to think of a situation in which the kings of Israel depended on the people of Achzib for some help but were “disappointed” (New English Bible) in their hopes. This cannot be linked with any known historical event.
This part of verse 14 is simply a statement, like verse 12, and is not spoken directly to anyone. If it matters to the translator, however, we can assume that in places like this the prophet is speaking to all the people of Judah.
The use of the plural kings may indicate that this was written during a period of coregency, that is, a period when the reigning king’s son was associated with him on the throne. Such periods of coregency were quite common in the eighth century in Judah. For instance, Hezekiah was coregent with his father Ahaz from 728 B.C. to 716 B.C.
However, if the plural kings will sound strange to the readers, a translator may translate a singular “king.” Indeed, a number of scholars believe that the Hebrew text should be changed at this point to say “king” in the singular.
Israel is a confusing name in the Bible, because sometimes it refers to the whole people of God; other times it refers to the northern kingdom of Israel, as distinguished from the southern kingdom of Judah; and at yet other times it refers to the southern kingdom. In this passage it seems to refer to Judah. In some languages it may be better to say simply “the kings of Judah.”
According to Good News Translation, the kings will get no help from this town. If it is necessary to state what kind of help, it is best to assume that the kings hoped that Achzib would supply some men to help them fight, but that since Achzib had been conquered by the enemy, it could not help in this way. The translation of Good News Translation loses the idea of “disappointment.” This can be easily added by saying something like “the kings of Israel will look to Achzib for help, but they will get none” or “the town of Achzib will not be able to help the kings of Israel, and so they will be disappointed.”
The town of Achzib is literally “the houses of Achzib” (Revised Standard Version), but it has the meaning given in Good News Translation.
Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. et al. A Handbook on Micah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1982, 1993. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .