Verses 9 and 10 turn away from the theme of future restoration and glory, and deal with the sadness and agony of the people at the time of their exile. Because this is a new subject, some translators may want to begin a new paragraph here, even though Good News Translation does not. However, the prophet here continues to address the city of Jerusalem, and this forms a link with verse 8.

In the Hebrew of verse 9, as reflected in Revised Standard Version, the first and last clauses of the verse speak of the agony of exile, using the picture of a woman in the pain of childbirth. (This image is frequent in Jeremiah; for instance, Jer 4.31; 6.24.) The second and third clauses ask whether the king and counselors of the nation have been removed. Good News Translation has reordered so as to bring together the two clauses that refer to pain, and has put them at the beginning of the verse. Then it joins the two questions in a single sentence to complete the verse. This has the advantage of putting the full figure of speech before its application, rather than moving back and forth from figure to application and then back to figure.

Since the image uses the language of childbirth, some care in the choice of vocabulary in the receptor language may be needed. There may be technical terms for the cry or the pains that are suffered by a woman in labor. If such terms are well known, their use here would add vividness to the translation. However, in some languages there are cultural restrictions on the use of terms related to childbirth, and the translators must be careful not to offend the reader by the terms they choose. The image of childbirth is expressed in question form (Why do you cry out…? Why are you suffering…?), but the questions are rhetorical, and in some languages it may be clearer to use statements here in place of questions. The purpose of these questions is to force the people to think about what is happening to them, so that they will begin to understand what God is really doing to them. By using questions Micah pretends to be surprised at the way they are acting. Translators should decide whether questions or statements here will be best for giving this effect in their languages.

The third question suggests an answer to the first two: Is it because you have no king, and your counselors are dead? But in Hebrew this question is framed so as to indicate that it expects the answer “No.” The prophet does not suppose that the king and counselors have actually been taken away or killed. Rather he is mocking them and implying that even though they are there, they are as useless and helpless as if they were gone. It may be necessary to change the wording in many translations in order to make this clear, but the translator should still try to keep the mocking tone of the original. For example, one might say “What is the matter with your king and your counselors? Can’t they help you?”

The Hebrew, like Revised Standard Version, has the singular noun “counselor” here. This can be understood in two ways. It may be used collectively and refer to the counselors or advisors of the king. If so, it should be translated as a plural noun, as in Good News Translation and Jerusalem Bible. Or it may refer to the king himself as the counselor of the people, in which case it may be translated, “Is it because your king who advises you is dead?” The first possibility seems more likely.

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 .

Three of the main products of the land are mentioned. First, the people will sow grain, but not harvest the crop. Thus there will be no flour to make bread, and the staple element of their diet will be missing. Sow means to plant by scattering on the ground, but the form of planting is not really important here, and it can be translated simply by the general word for “plant.” Not harvest the crop can mean either that someone else will harvest the crop, or that something will happen to the crop before harvest time and no one will harvest it. If a translator cannot use a general term, either one of these possibilities is acceptable.

Second, the people will press oil from olives, but never get to use it (British edition “never be able to use it”). Olive oil was used for cooking, for burning in oil lamps, and for anointing the body; its loss would be a severe hardship. There were various ways to press oil, and the one actually mentioned here was for people to walk on the olives. Here, too, a general term is quite acceptable, and some translators may need to say simply “make oil from olives.” The Hebrew here mentions only one way to use the oil, pouring it on the body (“anoint yourselves” in Revised Standard Version). If olive oil is used this way in a particular culture, it may be good to mention such a specific use in a translation. Otherwise a more general expression like Good News Translation‘s can be used.

Third, the people will make wine, but never drink it. Wine was a normal daily drink and was very important in a country where water supplies were scarce and often impure. The way to make wine was also by walking or treading on the grapes. When this process was finished, the juice (or new wine) would have to ferment for some time before it became good wine. In areas where winemaking is known, and there are terms for the different stages in the process, translators may be able to follow the Hebrew closely and say “You will tread out the juice from the grapes, but never drink the wine.”

The reason why the people would not harvest the grain, use the oil, or drink the wine is not stated, but in the light of verse 14 it seems most probable that an enemy army would come and either destroy these things or take them for themselves.

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 continues the words of the Lord (Good News Translation) or the comment of the prophet (Revised Standard Version). In the previous verses the rich oppressors have been addressed directly, but with the words These people this verse talks about them rather than to them. Some translators may wonder who the Lord (or Micah) is talking to in this verse. This is not made clear in the text, but if it is necessary to choose someone, we can assume that this verse is addressed to the people who have remained faithful to God. This is the group that is addressed in verse 12, and it is possible to understand that the Lord first speaks to them about their oppressors before giving them his promises in the next verse. On the other hand, in some languages (including English) this type of comment in the third person is quite effective in the middle of a criticism. It is then understood simply as an aside, not addressed to anyone. It may also be quite acceptable to change this verse to the second person and have it continue to address the oppressors directly, in terms such as “you people.”

The word translated prophet, prophesy in this verse is the same Hebrew word as that translated preach three times in verse 6. This has the effect of forming a link between verse 6 and verse 11, verse 6 speaking of how people reject the true prophet, and verse 11 speaking of how they welcome the false prophet. Since the people had rejected the words of the true prophet, Micah, the question arose as to what kind of prophet they would accept. The answer was of course a prophet who would say whatever they wanted to hear, and who would excuse their evil conduct and encourage them to continue in extravagant living. There were plenty of professional prophets ready to fulfill such a role, as is clear from the story of Ahab and Micaiah the son of Imlah in 1 Kgs 22.1-28.

If the usual word for prophet is anything like “the one who speaks on behalf of God,” then it will be necessary to change it somewhat in this verse and say that “he claims to speak for God,” since what he is saying is of course not really God’s message.

Such people’s words were no more than lies and deceit intended to please the hearers rather than honor the Lord. Lies and deceit are really two ways of saying the same thing, and it may be necessary in many languages to use only one term here. Full of lies may be translated “speaking only lies.”

The rich clearly used their ill-gotten wealth on heavy drinking, and a false prophet who promised that wine and liquor will flow for you was certain to find their favor. Will flow for you means “you will have plenty of wine and liquor.” The word translated liquor or “strong drink” (Revised Standard Version) can mean beer or wine, but probably nothing stronger than this. If a language has terms for wine and beer, or for ordinary wine and stronger wine, these may be used here. It is not necessary to have two terms, however, if it is difficult to find two. “All kinds of intoxicating drinks” is another possibility.

Good News Translation reorders the clauses to put the statement These people want the kind of prophet before the description of the prophet’s characteristics. In English this presents the content of the verse in the order easiest for the reader to understand, but translators will need to follow the order that is most natural in their own languages.

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 8 begins in a way very similar to verse 7. The phrase “remnant of Jacob” (Revised Standard Version) occurs again, but the statement of where the remnant is located is expanded into two parallel phrases, “among the nations” and “in the midst of many peoples.” These phrases refer again to the people in exile, and their meaning is combined in the single phrase among the nations in Good News Translation, in order to avoid clumsy repetition. Verse 8 is parallel in structure with verse 7 and continues with a double simile, or comparison, just as verse 7 did. The similes are “like a lion among the beasts of the forest” and “like a young lion among the flocks of sheep.” They are parallel repetitions of a single image, and Good News Translation puts them together in a single comparison, with its like a lion hunting for food in a forest or a pasture.

The lion is a dangerous hunter, whether he is searching for wild animals in the forest or for sheep in a pasture. In the same way the people of Israel who are left among the nations will be able to destroy their enemies, as verse 9 makes clear. Good News Translation has used a different expression for the “remnant” from that used in verse 7, but it is the same expression in the Hebrew. A translator can either use the same expression as in verse 7, or it may be possible by the use of pronouns to make clear that the same group of the people of Israel is being spoken of here. Or, if it sounds better to use a different term with the same meaning, as Good News Translation has done, that too is quite all right.

The remaining lines of verse 8 describe what a lion does when he gets among the sheep, helping to make more vivid the picture of how the people of Israel will deal with their enemies. As in verse 7, these last two lines of verse 8 are both relative clauses, but they are more complex in structure than those in verse 7. Revised Standard Version follows the Hebrew structure closely: “which, when it goes through, treads down and tears in pieces, and there is none to deliver.” There is no difficulty here with either the grammar or the meaning. Good News Translation expresses the same meaning, but with a sentence structure and a vocabulary that are much more natural in English: he gets in among the sheep, pounces on them, and tears them to pieces—and there is no hope of rescue. Pounces on them means “jumps on them” in the way cats do when catching prey. There is no hope of rescue can be translated “there is no one who can save the sheep from him.” In Good News Translation the lion is called he, but translators should of course follow the patterns of their own language. If a pronoun is used, it should be the appropriate one for a lion. In some languages it may seen strange to compare a group of people to a single “lion,” and it may be necessary to talk about “lions” instead.

The real problem is that the picture here of the effect that the people in exile will have on their neighbors is so different from that given in verse 7. The parallel structure of the two verses, which is closer in Hebrew than in English, makes it clear that they go together as a unit. Since this is so, we must come to one or the other of two conclusions. The first possibility is that these verses give opposite and complementary pictures of Israel’s relations with its neighbors in the exile. Many scholars do indeed accept the idea that one of these speaks of blessing and the other of destruction. Such contrasts can be found elsewhere, as in Prov 19.12, where images of a lion and dew are combined in one verse. Knox, Phillips, and Good News Translation all make it clear that this is the interpretation they are following.

The second possible conclusion is that verse 7 does not refer to blessing. Some scholars interpret it in the light of 2 Sam 17.12, where Hushai speaks of attacking David in these words: “we shall light upon him as the dew falls on the ground; and of him and all the men with him not one will be left” (Revised Standard Version). Here the falling of dew is likened to a sudden, silent, and irresistible attack. Good News Translation has “We will … attack him before he knows what’s happening.” It is possible to see a similar meaning in 5.7, with both the dew and the showers of rain standing for the power of God, which is in no way dependent on man. If a translator prefers this understanding, he will have the following meaning in verse 7: “The people of Israel who survive among the nations will fall upon (or, attack) their enemies just as suddenly as dew or rain falls on the plants. Their power will come from God, and not from man.” Such a translation will bring the message of verse 7 much closer to that of verse 8. Nevertheless the majority of scholars prefer to understand the image of the dew in verse 7 in its more common meaning as something refreshing and helpful. This means that verses 7 and 8 describe different aspects of the people of Israel in their exile.

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 enemies in verse 8 were ready to gloat over the defeat and misfortune of the Lord’s people. But when the Lord saves his people, the position will be reversed, and these enemies will see this and be disgraced themselves. This refers to the things that the Lord will do to save his people and bring them out to the light, as stated in verse 9. When they see this, the enemies will realize how great the Lord really is, and they will be disgraced. That is, they will feel great shame for what they have done and said to the people of Israel.

When the Lord’s people were suffering, their enemies interpreted this to mean that their God was unable to save them. Thus they asked the scornful question Where is the LORD your God? The fact that the question was not a request for information but was intended to be scornful is indicated in Good News Translation by the expression taunted us by asking. Many translators will find it helpful to use some term that carries implications of scorn similar to those carried by taunted in English.

This mocking question Where is the LORD your God? is not a real question but a rhetorical one. The enemies really meant that the Lord was nowhere, or at least that he was so weak that it did not matter where he was. If this meaning is not clear in a translation, then the translation should be restructured to make it clear. One possibility is to say “The Lord your God cannot help you.” Translators should try to make the words of the enemies sound mocking, like a taunt.

The enemies of God’s people will in their turn suffer the same kind of fate that they inflicted on others. Israel will see them defeated, trampled down like mud in the streets. The Hebrew translated We will see them is more literally “Our eyes will look at them.” This may mean simply that the time will come when God’s people see their enemies in this lowly position, without saying how they feel about it. This is the meaning followed by the Good News Translation text. However, it is also quite possible that the Hebrew expression implies that God’s people will be glad to see their enemies trampled down. Revised Standard Version “gloat over” follows this interpretation (compare Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible), and Good News Translation also gives this alternative in the footnote. “Gloat over” here can be translated as “be happy to see” or even “laugh at.”

Trampled down like mud in the streets: when people walk in the streets, they trample down any mud that may be lying there, without even thinking about it. By comparing their enemies to mud, the prophet is saying that the enemies are weak and of no importance. If it is necessary to say who does the trampling, it is possible to translate something like “We will see their enemies come and defeat them and destroy them, just as easily as men trample down the mud in the streets.” If a language has no special word for trampled down or “trodden down” (Revised Standard Version), this means simply “walked on” or “stepped on.”

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 and the next state in some detail the punishment the Lord is to bring for the sins of his people. They use the first person, and therefore Good News Translation introduces verse 6 with So the LORD says, to make clear the identity of the speaker. So means “Because of all these sins.”

We might expect that the punishment would be described for both Samaria and Jerusalem, but in fact only Samaria is dealt with. Historically, Samaria was destroyed by the Assyrians under their king Sargon II in 722 B.C. during the adult life of Micah. This event put an end to the political existence of the northern kingdom and served as a dramatic warning of what could happen to Judah also. Perhaps the fall of Samaria was just about to happen at the time when this prophecy was first spoken, and this could explain why Micah talks mainly about Samaria in these verses.

Instead of being a prosperous and well-populated city, Samaria will become just a pile of ruins in the open country. I will make Samaria a pile of ruins means that “I will destroy Samaria and she will become a pile of ruins.” The way God will do this is by sending enemies to destroy the city, so in some languages it may be necessary to be even more specific and say “I will send enemies to destroy Samaria” or “I will cause Samaria to be destroyed.”

The pile of ruins refers to the rubble of stone and wood left when the buildings and walls of the city are knocked down and probably burned. As long as this idea is given in the translation, there is no need for a word meaning “ruins.”

Samaria was the largest city in the northern kingdom, with many people living in and around it. But these ruins will be in the open country, which means “in a place where no one lives,” or at least where there may only be a farmhouse or two. The idea is that the city will be so completely destroyed that it will no longer be used as a place to live in.

This rocky and desolated area would be suitable as a place for planting grapevines, but not for any kind of agriculture that required a deeper or more fertile soil. However, if it is difficult to translate grapevines, it will be enough to say “a place for planting things.” since the main point is to show that it is no longer a place where people live. This clause in Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version connects to the “I will make Samaria” of the first line. In many languages it will have to be a separate sentence, possibly “Samaria will become a place for planting grapevines.”

It is the Lord who says I will pour, and in languages where this is possible, it may be most effective to suggest that the Lord is doing it himself. The more literal idea, however, is that this will happen as a result of the destruction that the Lord is sending by means of the enemies. In some languages it may not be possible to use pour in connection with something like rubble, and a translation like Jerusalem Bible may sound better: “I will set her stones rolling into the valley.”

Samaria was built on a hill rising about 100 meters (300 feet) above the adjacent plain. The city will not merely be demolished, but its rubble will be poured down into the valley, making its stones harder to recover for any future rebuilding. In this way even the city’s foundations will be uncovered, marking its total destruction.

Rubble is the broken stones left when the city is destroyed.

The foundations of the city refer to the stone or bare earth that the city was built upon. The idea here is that the destruction will be so complete that even these will be uncovered.

As a matter of historical fact, the destruction of Samaria in 722 B.C. was not as severe as Micah pictures it here. Nevertheless, it did mark the end of political independence for the kingdom of Israel, and the description here is an appropriate metaphor for the political fate of the country.

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 11 Micah sums up his accusations. The leaders of the nation, both the secular rulers and the religious priests and prophets, are all corrupt and have more interest in growing rich than in doing their jobs properly. Their corruption is all the worse because it is hidden behind an appearance of piety.

In more detail, the rulers used their position especially in the courts as a means of obtaining bribes (compare Isa 1.23; 5.23; Micah 7.3). If a language does not have a word for bribes, it is probably enough to say “for pay,” as long as the context makes it clear that this is a situation where pay should not be allowed to influence their decisions.

The main thing these leaders are accused of doing here is of accepting bribes to “give judgment” (Revised Standard Version) in the courts, Many translators will have difficulty trying to translate Good News Translation‘s govern, since this is something the leaders do anyway, whether they are paid or not. One may translate as “Rulers are making decisions in favor of the people who can pay them the most.”

The priests are mentioned only here in Micah. It was their duty not only to interpret the Law in general, but also to give decisions in the most difficult and delicate legal cases (Deut 17.8-13). They too were using these occasions as opportunities to increase their pay, and in this way they were allowing justice to be denied to the poor.

One of the key elements of the word priest is that he is a person with a clearly defined role in the religious system, and this is important in this passage. Translators often choose terms that refer to priests as the ones who offer the people’s sacrifices or make the people’s prayers, and if this type of term is well known, it is quite correct to use it here, even though the context is not talking about such duties. In this verse it may even be possible to simply call the priests the “religious leaders.” What these priests do for pay can be translated as “give decisions (or, rulings) about the Law (or, based on the Law).”

The prophets, as stated more fully in verse 5 above, do not give their revelations impartially to all, but only in return for money. As the recurrence of the term “divine” in Revised Standard Version indicates, the Hebrew word here is the same as that used in verses 6 and 7 above, and implies pagan forms of prediction. Give their revelations in Good News Translation means that the prophets claim to have received revelations from God but will only tell the people what these are when the people pay them. It can be expressed as “tell the revelations they have received” or “tell what God has shown them.”

All three groups overlook the sinful nature of their behavior and try to reassure themselves by the outward performance of religious rituals. The Hebrew expresses this in a metaphor, “they lean upon the LORD” (Revised Standard Version), which can no doubt be meaningfully retained in many languages. In languages where it cannot, translators can follow the plain meaning, given in Good News Translation, they all claim that the LORD is with them. Another way to understand the metaphor is “they all believe that the Lord will help them.” This line is not merely a statement of fact. It is assumed that the reader will realize that the Lord will not be with people who behave in these ways, and it may be that this will be obvious to readers in most languages. If it is not obvious, the translator may add something to explain it, such as “they mistakenly believe that the Lord will help them” or “they claim he is with them, but he is not.”

The last part of the verse gives the direct words of these leaders. The first sentence of the quotation in Hebrew, as in Revised Standard Version, is a rhetorical question expecting the answer “Yes.” In languages where such a construction is not natural, the meaning can be expressed as a positive statement, as in Good News Translation “The LORD is with us.” Because of this false confidence the leaders wrongly believed that “No harm will come to us.”

Good News Translation has translated the leaders’ words so that the second sentence gives the reason, while the first sentence gives the result. In Hebrew, the reason is stated first and the result second. In this way Good News Translation reverses the Hebrew order, though the logical relationship is not altered. Translators should follow the natural patterns of the receptor language in deciding whether the reason or the result is to be stated first. It will often be helpful to make the logical relationship explicit by means of conjunctions or other particles. One may thus say “No harm will come to us because the Lord is with us,” or “The Lord is with us, and therefore no harm will come to us.”

The expression No harm will come to us probably became a popular saying among the people, as Jeremiah accused them of saying the same thing a century later (Jer 5.12). The Hebrew word translated harm in this verse is the same as the word translated disaster in Micah 2.3. In 2.3 the Lord says specifically that he is going to bring disaster on the people, whereas in 3.11 the people deny that disaster can come on them. There is something to be said for using the same word in the receptor language in both verses, since it may help to emphasize to careful readers just how foolish these leaders are (Revised Standard Version and New American Bible use “evil” in both verses, and New English Bible and New International Version use “disaster”).

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 this verse, two more events are mentioned that show how the Lord had blessed and protected those he called My people. First, he bids them remember the story of King Balak of Moab and the prophet Balaam. Micah here takes for granted that his hearers are familiar with the story told in Numbers 22–24. Balak planned to have Balaam curse the people of Israel, but instead the Lord gave Balaam words of blessing to say, and he answered the king in a manner opposite to what the king wanted. The incident is seen as another example of the Lord’s intervention on behalf of his people. This event had taken place in the early history of the people of Israel, hundreds of years before the time of Micah. Remember of course does not mean remembering something that had happened directly to them, but rather it means remembering the story that they had heard many times. Similarly, when Good News Translation speaks of what Balak planned to do to you, or when the Lord speaks of what he did for you in verse 4, “you” must be understood as referring to the people of Israel as a group continuing over a long period. If “you” cannot be used in this way in some languages, “your ancestors” or some such expression should be substituted.

Translators using cross references should have one to Numbers 22–24 at this verse, but in some cases it may be necessary or at least helpful to add a little of the implicit information in the translation itself. For example, one may say “remember how King Balak of Moab wanted to harm you and how the prophet Balaam son of Beor told him that I would only do good to you.”

The second incident is mentioned in so few words that some scholars think there is something missing from the Hebrew (see Jerusalem Bible, for instance). The Hebrew merely says “from Shittim to Gilgal,” but it is fairly obvious that Micah is referring to “what happened from Shittim to Gilgal” (Revised Standard Version). Shittim was the last Israelite camp on the east bank of the Jordan (Josh 3.1), and Gilgal was their first camp in the promised land on the west bank (Josh 4.19). The event that took place between these two camps was of course the miraculous crossing of the river Jordan (Josh 3–4). This is what the prophet is referring to here as a further example of the Lord’s action in support of his people. Since the names of the two camps will not be familiar to most readers, it may be useful to add a footnote or to make explicit the reference to the crossing of the Jordan. Where Good News Translation has Remember the things that happened on the way from the camp at Acacia to Gilgal, a fuller translation base may be “Remember how you crossed the River Jordan on the way from the camp at Acacia to the camp at Gilgal.” Camp has been added by Good News Translation to show the significance of the place names. It refers to a place where the people put up their tents and stayed temporarily during their wanderings.

Note also that Good News Translation has translated the name Acacia rather than following the usual custom of transliterating place names. This is done here to avoid the unfortunate sound in English of the Hebrew name Shittim. Few other languages will need to do the same in this verse, but translators should be aware of the possibility that other Hebrew names may accidentally sound like bad words in their own language. If this happens, then the name should be translated or else altered slightly in spelling to avoid suggesting the bad word.

Good News Translation translates the end of the verse as a separate sentence that summarizes verses 4 and 5, Remember these things and you will realize what I did in order to save you. Note that Good News Translation has added the words Remember these things in order to make clear the meaning that is carried over from the previous sentences. In the Hebrew, the Lord refers to himself in the third person (“the saving acts of the LORD” Revised Standard Version), but Good News Translation turns this into a first person form (what I did) in order to produce natural English. Most translators will need to do the same. To save you could be translated “to help you.” The words translated what I did in order to save you could also be understood as “that all my actions toward you have been righteous” or “… faithful.”

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 .