This verse is the reply to the questions of the previous two verses, and the prophet himself says these words as spokesman for the Lord. In Good News Translation the link with the preceding question is brought out by the introductory word No, which shows that this verse is a reply and that it rejects the assumptions of the previous speaker. Many translators will find it helpful to use some similar link. The previous speaker is addressed literally as “O man” (Revised Standard Version), a term so general that it strengthens the view that the speaker was a representative of the whole nation. As there is no good equivalent in English, Good News Translation drops this vocative, or term of address, and many translators will wish to do the same. But in other languages it will be necessary to keep a term of address. The translator will have to decide whether to use “man” or some other general term.

As is expected after a vocative, the speaker is addressed in the second person. Good News Translation has changed this “you” to a first person plural us, which has the effect of including the prophet with the people he is speaking to. But this example is not followed by Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and there seems to be no good reason for other translators to follow Good News Translation here. If a second person pronoun is retained, it may be singular or plural according to the usage of each receptor language. Some languages cannot use a collective singular in addressing a group, and in these languages a plural will be required.

The subject of the verb told (“showed” Revised Standard Version) is not altogether clear in Hebrew. Some translators, both ancient and modern, assume that the verb is passive, and so translate without naming anyone as the actor, as in “What is good has been explained to you” (Jerusalem Bible). The majority, however, believe that the verb is active, with the subject “He” (as Revised Standard Version). There is no noun in the immediate context for this pronoun to refer to, but the general context makes it clear that the subject must be the LORD (Good News Translation) or “God” (New English Bible). Both the LORD and “God” are used in the Hebrew of this verse, so a translator is free to use either one here. Translators should be careful, though, that the wording of this verse does not sound as though the Lord and God are two different persons.

The word good covers a broad area of meaning, and the term chosen to translate it should be a general term that refers to good moral qualities. The whole sentence the LORD has told us what is good refers in a comprehensive way to all the moral teaching the people of Israel have had. This includes both the written Law and the teachings of previous prophets. It may be clearer in some languages to say “the Lord has told us what is good for us to do.” The expression what is good also occurs in 3.2, though in a rather different context.

Micah then goes on to give his own summary of the Lord’s will as revealed through his predecessors. This summary is the best known sentence in the whole book and is indeed one of the high points of the Old Testament. In Hebrew it is put in the form of a question, as in Revised Standard Version, but a number of modern versions such as Jerusalem Bible and Good News Translation turn it into a statement. Many translators will also find it clearer to do this. What the Lord requires is explained in three brief phrases: to do what is just, to show constant love, and to live in humble fellowship with our God. This reply completely ignores the sacrificial system that the speaker in verses 6 and 7 was thinking about, and it expresses God’s will in moral rather than ceremonial terms. The prophet’s point is that the outward and ceremonial forms of religion should reflect an inner moral relationship with God, and without this relationship all ceremony is useless.

Requires of you can be translated as “asks you to do” or “expects you to do.” Some restructuring may be necessary in some languages. One possibility is “This (meaning ‘the following’) is the way the Lord wants you to live. He wants you to….”

To do what is just (“to do justice” Revised Standard Version) is a very broad term that involves right and fair relationships in the community, especially in legal and financial affairs. As 3.1 shows, this quality was often sadly lacking in the public life of Micah’s day.

Constant love is the Hebrew term chesed. Revised Standard Version has “kindness” in the text, with the alternative “steadfast love” in a footnote. This term has a general sense of faithfulness and reliability, but it is especially used in connection with covenant relationships. It seems that this aspect of the word is in the prophet’s mind here. In verses 3-5 the Lord had accused his people of failing in their covenant obligations to him, and here constant love refers in particular to loyalty to the Lord as God of the covenant. But it also implies kindness in dealings with other men, since this is one of the obvious ways by which a man shows his relationship with God. Many translators will not have a single term to cover this wide area of meaning, and they may need to use a phrase such as “constant love to God and man.” Constant can be expressed as “faithful” or “lasting.”

The third phrase is literally “to walk humbly with your God” (Revised Standard Version). Here “walk” is used in a figurative sense, and Good News Translation brings out its plain meaning with to live. In some languages it will be possible to retain the figurative term “walk” in this sense.

The word translated humble is a rare Hebrew term, occurring in the Old Testament only here and in Prov 11.2, where it is contrasted with “proud.” The meaning is not known for certain, but it probably means humble in the sense of not insisting on one’s own way but readily doing what God wants.

Fellowship with God can also be translated as “living one’s life by always doing God’s will,” though this would not suggest the close personal relationship implied by “walking with” or “fellowship.”

It has already been suggested above that most translators will want to follow the Hebrew and use “you” rather than “we” or “us” in this verse. However, even if this is possible in most of the verse, some translators may not want to have the prophet say “your God” here at the end, since in some languages this would sound as though he is denying that God is also his God. If this a problem, it is possible to translate either as “our God” or simply “God.”

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 .

The opening words of verse 10, Don’t tell our enemies in Gath, are an allusion to David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam 1.17-27), who were killed in battle against the Philistines. Gath is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament, perhaps because it was the Philistine city nearest to the territory of Judah. Its name is similar in sound to the Hebrew word for “tell,” which is used in this sentence.

The prophet here is speaking to the other people of Judah. It may be helpful in some languages to put in at this point the actual words “People of Judah” to show this, as Good News Translation has done in verses 14 and 16. What the prophet says to these people is that they should not tell the people of Gath what is happening to them, because the people of Gath are enemies of the people of Judah. Whether the people of Gath would simply enjoy hearing about the bad things that are happening to Judah, or whether they might try to take advantage of them to cause even more trouble, we do not know. Good News Translation has added our enemies to help to bring out part of this meaning. Since the prophet is speaking to his own people, this our would have to be the inclusive “our” used to mean “yours and mine,” if a language has more than one word for “our.” The people of Gath are the enemies, so in some languages it may be better to say “our enemies, the people of Gath.”

In many languages it will be necessary to say what you are not to tell the people of Gath about, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the Hebrew. What is referred to is all of the bad things that are happening to Judah as the attacking army gets nearer to Jerusalem. Good News Translation has said about our defeat, but since Jerusalem itself has not yet been taken, this could be misleading. It may be better to say “about what is happening to us,” or “that we are having such a terrible time,” or “that God is punishing us.”

Don’t let them see you weeping does not mean “weep in private, not in public” but rather “weep not at all,” as in Revised Standard Version. If we connect this idea with the first line, then the meaning must be that the people of Judah should not weep at all, because if they do the Philistines will find out what has happened to them. It may be better to say that the Philistines will find out by hearing them weep rather than by seeing, especially since the next line says it is all right to roll in the dust. One way to translate this line may be “do not weep at all, or they may hear you.” Weeping can be the term for crying for the dead or for some terrible thing that has happened, if a language has such a word.

The location of Beth Leaphrah is not known. The Hebrew word for “dust” is ʿaphar, which sounds like the last part of Leaphrah.

People of Beth Leaphrah is a term of address, to show these people that they are the ones the prophet is talking to. In some languages there will be a special word or some other way of showing that he is addressing a particular group of people that he wants to listen to him.

If it is helpful to give the reason why these people should roll in the dust, the translator may want to do something similar to Good News Translation and say show your despair or “… sorrow.” In some languages this would have to be expressed as “roll in the dust to show that terrible things are happening to you” or “… to show how sad you are.”

One sign of sorrow or despair was to put dust on one’s head or body (see Josh 7.6 and Job 2.12). Rolling in the dust, then, would be a way of covering the body with the dust, to show great sorrow. Rolling probably means turning over one way and then another to try to be sure that the whole body is covered. The Hebrew word for “roll yourselves” (Revised Standard Version) sounds like the word for “Philistines”; such a pun is possible, as it fits with the mention of the Philistine city of Gath.

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 .

Verses 1 and 2 show people of many nations seeking the Lord’s teaching. Verses 3 and 4 go on to show what will happen when this teaching is accepted and practiced. The Lord will settle disputes among the nations so that there are no more causes for quarreling left. Just as the priests made the final legal decisions in Israelite society, so the Lord will make the final decisions among the nations. This refers to matters which one nation might disagree with another nation about, the sort of matters that might otherwise lead to war. It does not mean simply problems that individuals within the nations might have between themselves. The Lord will act as the “judge” (Revised Standard Version).

The nations include not only the minor nations in the vicinity of Israel, but also the great powers near and far. The Lord’s influence and authority will be worldwide in extent. The Hebrew does not actually mention nearby nations (see Revised Standard Version), but the meaning is that every nation will be included, even the most powerful nations and the ones farthest away from Israel. This of course includes the nearby nations, as Good News Translation says. Great powers refers to countries that are powerful and important. The first two clauses of this verse are parallel and can be translated as one unit, rather than using two verbs as Revised Standard Version does, or repeating among as Good News Translation does.

Since the Lord will bring unending peace, there will be no further need for weapons of war, and people everywhere will hammer their swords into plows and their spears into pruning knives. Hebrew plows were made of wood, with only an iron tip, so the plow tip is what is technically referred to here. Pruning knives were probably knives attached to long wooden handles, used for cutting off unwanted parts of a grapevine. It is not clear whether there is supposed to be any similarity between swords and plow tips, but a spear would be like a pruning knife in having a long wooden handle. To hammer here refers to the beating or hammering of red-hot iron when it is being shaped into something.

In situations where metal swords and spears are not used as weapons, or where metal plows and pruning knives are not used as agricultural tools, some adjustment in this figure will be necessary. The essential point us that instruments of war and bloodshed will be replaced by instruments of peace and prosperity (contrast Joel 3.10). If iron instruments are not used in an area, it may not be possible to keep the idea that the weapons themselves are made into agricultural tools. In this case, one can simply say that people will destroy their weapons and make tools for farming instead.

The peace brought by the Lord will not only be worldwide in extent, but it will also be eternal in duration. In two more parallel clauses the prophet asserts that Nations will never again go to war. In fact they will never even prepare for battle again. Preparation for battle seems to refer especially to instructing younger men in military skills, as is implied in Revised Standard Version, “neither shall they learn war any more.” Where Good News Translation translates go to war, the Hebrew more literally talks of countries lifting up swords against each other. Some languages may have expressions for going to war that are close to this. It may seem more natural in some languages to mention training for war before going to war.

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 .

Verse 9 contains difficulties both in text and in order. The question of order affects especially the line that comes in the middle of the verse in Revised Standard Version, “and it is sound wisdom to fear thy name.” Most scholars believe that this line is a later scribe’s comment that has become incorporated into the text. It certainly disturbs the flow of the sense through the verse. Some modern translations omit it altogether (Moffatt, Jerusalem Bible), but there is no need to be quite as severe as this. Good News Translation makes the flow of meaning easier by placing this line at the beginning of the verse. This allows the more closely linked sentences before and after it to stand together. This reordering is only a point of translation procedure and does not depend on any reordering of the Hebrew text. The sentence It is wise to fear the LORD thus stands a little apart from the main body of the section. Note that in the literal form “thy name” (Revised Standard Version), the name is understood to stand for the person, and Good News Translation makes this explicit by saying the LORD.

In some languages it may be necessary to restructure this line. One possibility is “If a person is wise, he will fear the Lord.” The person who fears the Lord is a person who knows the good way to act. Fear may include the idea of being afraid of, but its main meaning is to have great respect or reverence for, as a child might have toward its parents. In the Hebrew this sentence seems to be spoken directly to God, but Good News Translation has made it simply a statement. It can be translated as direct speech by showing clearly who is spoken to: “Lord, it is wise (for a person) to have reverence for you.”

The clause that opens the verse in Revised Standard Version, “The voice of the LORD cries to the city,” contains a figurative use of “voice,” which here stands for the Lord himself. Some translators may be able to retain this figurative expression, but many will need to follow the example of Good News Translation and state in plain language that it is the Lord who calls to the city. (Since the Lord has already been mentioned by name in the previous sentence, Good News Translation does not repeat the name but refers to him here with the pronoun He.) The city is generally understood to be Jerusalem, and some translators may think it best to make that explicit here. As is clear in the next line, it is the people of the city that the Lord is speaking to, and some translators may also need to make this explicit and say “He calls to the people of Jerusalem.”

In the last clause the Lord begins his direct address to the people. This part of the verse is the one that presents textual problems. The Hebrew text is practically unintelligible, but it is followed literally by King James Version and even by the recent New International Version. New International Version has “Heed the rod and the One who appointed it.” It is hard to see what this is supposed to mean. The large majority of modern translations (Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Moffatt, Good News Translation) and commentaries differ from this interpretation in three ways. First, they take the word translated “rod” in New International Version to mean “tribe” instead. In other passages, this Hebrew word sometimes means “rod” and sometimes means “tribe.” Second, they divide the Hebrew text so as to include the first word of verse 10 with verse 9. Third, they change three consonants in the Hebrew that a scribe could easily have copied wrongly. The meaning of their revised text is “tribe and assembly of the city” (Revised Standard Version). The term “assembly” may refer to a formal gathering, but this is not certain. The two nouns “tribe” and “assembly” together stand for the people, and Good News Translation expresses this in more natural English as you people who assemble in the city. The word assemble may suggest that not all the people addressed actually lived in the city. This may in fact be one reason why the word “tribe” is used, to refer to the people of the tribe of Judah, whether they were citizens of Jerusalem itself or not. Even if they lived in smaller towns or villages outside of Jerusalem, they would gather or assemble in Jerusalem for important occasions.

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 .

This verse is a further comment by the prophet upon the punishment of the rich. Just as the loss of land meant destruction of the family for the poor (verse 2), so the rich will lose not only their land but also their hope of having descendants.

Micah here refers to the original division of the promised land among the tribes of Israel by lot (Josh 14.2) and implies that the time will come for the land to be given back to the LORD’s people. But by then the families of the rich oppressors will be extinct, and thus there will be no share for any of them in the restored land. This will be the full punishment for their reckless greed in Micah’s own day. The expression “the assembly of the LORD” (Revised Standard Version) is the regular expression for Israel as a religious community (see, for example, Num 16.3; 20.4). To be excluded from this group meant not merely the loss of land in any future distribution, but even the loss of the covenant relationship with the Lord.

As in 1.7-8, so in 2.4 the words of the Lord end suddenly, and it is generally agreed that 2.5 is a comment by the people himself. The situation is rather complicated here, because the Lord’s words end in verse 4 with the song that refers to the Lord in the third person. A translator is fortunate if his language has clear ways of showing that someone’s speech has ended, but in any case he should make it clear that verse 5 is not still part of the song or even of the Lord’s speech. Note that the prophet addresses the rich evildoers directly. The verse is not just a comment about them.

The verse begins with So then or “Therefore” (Revised Standard Version). This shows that the situation described here will be a further result of the punishment that the evildoers will receive. As understood by Good News Translation, Micah is assuming here that not only the rich but all of the LORD’s people will lose their land and go into exile, but that the time will come when they will get back the land. The idea of exile was mentioned in chapter 1, but there has been no mention up till now of the idea of the people returning. Each translator will have to decide how much of this information will need to be made explicit here in order to make this verse clear.

When the exiles return, the families of the rich people will have no share or plot of land. This is the meaning of the Hebrew, which refers more specifically to the process by which the family shares were chosen. The “lot” (Revised Standard Version) was probably a set of stones with special markings on them. The stone chosen would show what God’s will was in that particular case. The “line” of Revised Standard Version is the measuring line used to mark out the family plots. The lots may have been used to show where the measuring line should be placed.

“You will have none” (Revised Standard Version) refers to the descendants or family of the rich oppressors. Good News Translation does not mention the descendants explicitly but simply says any of you. It may be clearer in many languages to say “any of your family” or “any of your descendants.”

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 .

This verse is numbered 4.14 in Hebrew; Good News Translation takes it as going with the verses that precede it, since it takes up again the theme of Jerusalem under attack, from 4.9-10. If the translator thinks that this verse fits better with 5.2-4, as in Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, and New International Version, then it has to be seen as establishing a contrast between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Jerusalem is the capital city, but with a weak ruler it is helpless under siege. On the other hand, the nearby but relatively unimportant Bethlehem will be the birthplace of a strong leader who will rescue his people and rule over them with God’s power.

The meaning of the first part of the verse is very uncertain. The Hebrew text as we have it contains a root gadad, whose meaning in this passage is generally understood to be “gather together, gather in troops.” This meaning is found in King James Version and is also followed by Good News Translation and New International Version. It occurs also in Jer 5.7, where Revised Standard Version translates “they … trooped to the house of harlots.” The same root gadad can also mean “to cut, to make incisions,” and some translators such as Moffatt, New Jerusalem Bible, and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible understand the word in this sense here. Moffatt translates “gash yourself in grief.” The word has this meaning also elsewhere, as in 1 Kgs 18.28, where Revised Standard Version has “they … cut themselves,” but here it would be necessary to make two small changes in the Hebrew text in order to produce a form of the verb that would be in the right tense to carry this meaning.

A further complication arises from the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament. What these translators put in this verse is not a translation of the Hebrew root gadad, but of another Hebrew root, gadar. The letters d and r are very similar in Hebrew script, and it is not unusual for them to be confused. The root gadar means “to build a wall” and is found for instance in Ezek 13.5, where Revised Standard Version has “You have not … built up a wall for the house of Israel.” Here in Micah 5.1 Revised Standard Version follows the Greek rather than the Hebrew, and Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, and New English Bible do the same.

All three possible ways of understanding the verse can make sense in the context, and the choice is a difficult one for the translator. The choice that reads gadad in the meaning of “cut” seems the least likely, although to cut oneself as a sign of grief is a possible activity during a siege. However, this practice was a heathen one, and the Israelites were forbidden to follow it (Lev 19.28; 21.5; Deut 14.1), so it seems improbable that the prophet here would urge them to do so. However, it is possible to take the verb either as an imperative or as a statement. So it may be that prophet is simply describing what people are doing in this time of great danger, rather than urging them to do it. It might be “now you are cutting yourselves in grief.”

Both of the other two possibilities fit the context quite well. Revised Standard Version “you are walled about with a wall” is a specific statement that is immediately followed by the explanation in more general terms, “siege is laid against us.” In ancient sieges it was not uncommon for the attackers to build a wall right around the city they were besieging, both to cut off its communications and to protect their own troops.

Good News Translation with its gather your forces! speaks of the defenders’ preparation to resist attack. We are besieged! is a cry of warning the forces in order to call them together. The vocative People of Jerusalem gives the plain meaning of the Hebrew, which is a further reference to Jerusalem as a woman. It is translated literally in King James Version, “O daughter of troops.”

The last part of the verse is clearer. Revised Standard Version gives the literal meaning, “with a rod they strike upon the cheek the ruler of Israel.” This seems to imply that the enemies have already defeated and captured the city and its leaders.

Good News Translation They are attacking the leader of Israel is much more vague. It is hard to see why the specific details of Revised Standard Version have been replaced by this general statement. Most translators will be able to follow the Hebrew more closely here and mention the exact details as Revised Standard Version does. To “strike” someone “upon the cheek” (Revised Standard Version) seems to have been a symbolic way of humiliating him (see 1 Kgs 22.24; Job 16.10; Lam 3.30). To do this with a “rod” (Revised Standard Version) or stick would be painful as well as shameful. Therefore, if we assume that the enemies have already captured the ruler, they must have been treating him like this as a cruel way of making fun of him. On the other hand, it is perhaps possible that this expression is not meant literally, but that the attack on the city itself is in some way seen as shaming the ruler, and the reference to striking him is only a figure of speech.

There is a similarity in the sounds of the Hebrew between the word shebet (“rod”) and shophet (“ruler”). It is not likely, of course, that this can be reproduced in translation, but if a translator can do so while still keeping the meaning accurate, that will be good.

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 .

There is a break in sense in the middle of this verse. The first half continues and completes the description of the evil of the time, while the second half begins an announcement of punishment. Good News Translation marks this change of topic by beginning a new paragraph in the middle of the verse, and many translators will wish to do the same.

The first half of the verse is expressed in Hebrew in two parallel clauses, as Revised Standard Version shows. As in many other places, Good News Translation combines the two parallel clauses into one and says Even the best and most honest people are as worthless as weeds. In Hebrew two specific plants, “briers” and “thorns,” are mentioned (compare Revised Standard Version). These may be retained if they are well known as a nuisance to farmers. If they are not known, or if they are considered useful for some purpose, it may be better to translate with a more general expression like Good News Translation‘s as worthless as weeds. Weeds are not particular types of plant but rather any plant that is not wanted. In some languages, particular plants may be commonly referred to as symbols of uselessness, and an expression of this kind will probably fit well in this context. However, translators should not introduce the names of plants significantly different from plants known in Judah in the eighth century B.C.

In some languages it may be difficult to compare good, honest people with something worthless. This is irony, or sarcasm, and when the prophet says they are good and honest, he does not really mean it.

The point is that if the best of the people are worthless, then all the others are really terrible. Many languages may be able to find a way to make this point with sarcasm, but it may be necessary to change the wording slightly. If it seems impossible to use sarcasm, then a translator can just say something like “some of them are as worthless as briers and thorns, and the rest of them are even worse.”

In the second half of the verse the Hebrew has second person singular possessives (“your,” New American Bible, New International Version; “thy, thine,” New English Bible). Since it is not clear to whom these possessives refer, a number of modern versions and commentators have changed them to third person plural to match the context (Revised Standard Version, Bible de Jérusalem, Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation, Moffatt, Smith, Mays). But even then the Hebrew text is very condensed, as Revised Standard Version shows. Therefore Good News Translation fills it out by making explicit the relationships that are to be understood between the different clauses. “The day … of their punishment has come” (Revised Standard Version) is taken as the main statement, and Good News Translation makes explicit who will do the punishing: The day has come when God will punish the people. Day can be translated more generally as “time” if this sounds better. The people refers if course to the people just mentioned in the preceding lines, and a translator may need to say “these people.”

The “watchmen” of Revised Standard Version are further identified as the prophets in Good News Translation, and Good News Translation also tells what the prophets did: as he warned them through their watchmen, the prophets. (The British edition of Good News Translation omits the words their watchmen, but they should be included.) The punishment will be as foretold and not something unexpected. The prophets are called watchmen because they are supposed to see trouble coming on the people and to warn them about it so that they can change their evil ways and be saved (see Jer 6.17; Ezek 3.17; Hos 9.8). Another way of expressing this idea may be “The prophets warned them that God would do this, just as watchmen warn people that their enemy is coming.”

As a result of this punishment, the people will be in confusion. This probably suggests the confusion arising from a military defeat (compare Isa 22.5, the only other place where the same word occurs). A translator should use a word that suggests that the people have no idea what they should do.

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 .

In verse 5 Revised Standard Version closely reflects the Hebrew. This has a main clause, “Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets,” followed by a series of subordinate clauses describing the noun “prophets,” Such a structure is too complex in many languages, and most translators will prefer to follow the example of Good News Translation. Good News Translation puts the description of the prophets first in a separate sentence and mentions the Lord’s speaking at the end of the verse, immediately before the direct quotation.

The term for prophet here may be a problem in some languages. Sometimes this concept is translated by a expression that means something like “a person who speaks God’s words.” Therefore it may seem wrong to say that these people who speak lies are prophets. There are passages in the Old Testament where the false prophets are accused of simply claiming to be prophets, when in fact God had not spoken to them at all (see Ezek 13.1-16). Here, however, verse 6 seems to say that these people really have received visions in the past, and that part of their punishment will be that God will no longer speak to them. If this is right, then they really are prophets in the sense that God has given them visions or messages. But they have not spoken truthfully the message that God has given them. If it seems wrong to use the usual word for “prophet” here, it may be possible to find an expression like “a lying prophet” or “someone who claims to speak God’s word, but does not.”

There are three statements about the activities of these false prophets. The first is relatively simple—they “lead my people astray” (Revised Standard Version). Good News Translation, however, has changed the form of the verb from this active form to passive (My people are deceived by prophets). This will be impossible to follow in languages that do not have a passive. Even in languages with a passive, it may not have the strong effect of the Hebrew, because it may suggest that the prophets are not intentionally misleading the people. It should be possible to restructure the verse as Good News Translation has done, and still to keep the sentence active, by saying something like “the prophets deceive my people.” “Deceive” can be “lead astray,” “mislead,” or even “lie to.”

The second and third statements about the prophets are more involved and give contrasting ways in which the prophets deal with two different groups of people who come to them. One group consists of those who pay them. For these the prophets promise peace. The other group consists of those who don’t pay them. Against these the prophets threaten war.

Peace here refers to a life of happiness, filled with God’s blessings. Promise peace can be translated as “promise (or, say) that God will let them live peaceful, prosperous lives.” War has overtones of the “holy war” of the Bible times, such as the one that Joshua led against the Canaanites when the people of Israel occupied the land. In this passage, however, it is used figuratively, meaning that the false prophets declare that God is against this group of people and that terrible things will happen to them. Threaten war may be translated as “say that God will cause bad things to happen to them” or “say that God will destroy them.” The prophets were trying to use the people’s fear of God in order to increase their own income, and in this way the prophets were sinning even more against God.

The picture given by Micah is of prophets whose chief interest is making money out of their prophecies. People paying well received favorable oracles, whereas those who were too poor or too honest to pay received only threats. The prophets gave no attention to the moral uprightness of the clients’ lives. They thus overlooked the moral nature of the Lord, whose will they claimed to reveal, and so ended up being the tools of the corrupt rich.

The more literal translation of the Revised Standard Version, “when they have something to eat,” makes it clear that people often paid the prophets with food rather than with cash. In many cultures today, gifts of food are routinely given to those who make contact with the spirit world on behalf of others. In such cultures it will be more natural to retain the reference to eating than to change to the idea of cash payment, as implied by Good News Translation. Translators in other areas may also feel that there is no difficulty in being more literal at this point. Some translators may feel that it is necessary or helpful to state why the prophets are being paid, as “they promise peace to those who give them food for prophesying.”

At quite an early stage in Israel’s history, there grew up schools of prophets who lived and studied together, often under the leadership of an acknowledged master. There are many references to such groups in the Old Testament (for instance, 1 Sam 10.5; 1 Kgs 18.4, 11; 22.1-28; 2 Kgs 2.3, 5; 4.38-44; 6.1-2; Amos 7.14). Even at an early stage it was customary to make a gift to a prophet when consulting him (1 Sam 9.7-8). This was the beginning of a system that gradually became more and more abused, until the majority of prophets were entirely in the pay of the king or some other wealthy and influential man. This is clearly shown by the story of Ahab and Micaiah in 1 Kings 22.

In the early days the schools of prophets are not condemned, and in some cases they are said to be under the leadership of a true prophet like Elisha (2 Kgs 6.1). But the more these professionals came to depend on the rich for their livelihood, the more they came into conflict with the true prophets. Whereas the false prophets said only what their rich masters wanted to hear, the true prophet was always ready to speak against those in authority when they misused their positions and thus disobeyed God. Examples of this kind of bold condemnation are also frequent (see 1 Sam 2.27-36; 13.8-14; 15.13-23; and especially the story of Nathan and David in 2 Sam 12.1-15), and it became more and more necessary as time went on (see 1 Kgs 13.1-10; 16.1-4; 17.1; 20.35-43; 21.20-24; 2 Kgs 1.2-16; 20.12-19; Isa 7.10-20; Jer 21; 34.1-7). When true prophets condemned the rich, they necessarily included the false prophets in the condemnation, because it was the false prophets who encouraged the rich people in their evil ways (1 Kgs 22.19-25; Isa 28.7-13; Hos 4.5; Amos 7.14-17). This is the tradition in which Micah stands, and these verses form his contribution to it and give his evaluation of the false prophets of his own day.

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 .