In verses 6-7 we have a response to the accusation that the Lord made against his people in the previous paragraph. The response is expressed in the singular and is probably to be understood as coming from one man who represents the whole people of Israel. It seems most likely that we are to assume that the speaker is genuinely repentant and is sincerely seeking to please the LORD. He makes suggestions that are put in the form of questions, asking how this may be done. These questions concern various kinds of sacrifices, since the sacrificial system was the background with which he was familiar.

The two clauses of the first sentence of verse 6 are joined together in Revised Standard Version by the conjunction “and.” The actual relationship between these clauses, however, is better expressed by the when of Good News Translation, for it is at the time when the speaker comes to worship that he has to bring to the LORD some suitable offering. Bring here means “bring as a gift.” Translations of worship are discussed in the comments on 5.13. Here the Hebrew says literally “to bow down before,” which many translators may be able to use. The Lord is referred to as the God of heaven, this being the meaning of the literal “God on high” of Revised Standard Version. Heaven here refers to the place where God lives. The translator should be careful to avoid any expression that suggests that God is only in heaven and is not the God of the earth also.

The second sentence of the verse mentions in Revised Standard Version “burnt offerings” and “calves a year old,” as though they were two different kinds of offering. In fact this is another example of hendiadys, a figure of speech in which one idea is expressed in two ways: the calves are the animals for the burnt offering. This is made clear in Good News Translation: Shall I bring the best calves to burn as offerings to him? The calves are described in the Hebrew as “a year old” (Revised Standard Version). There is no religious significance in the age, but animals a year old were considered more valuable than younger ones. This meaning is adequately conveyed in Good News Translation, the best calves. In burnt offerings the whole animal, normally a male, was consumed by fire on the altar, and the worshiper was not allowed to eat any part of it (Lev 1.9, 13). Only the rich could afford to treat valuable year-old calves in this way. Calves in English refers to young bulls or cows, but in some languages it may not be correct to use such a term after the animals are one year old. In such cases a translator should use the appropriate term in his language.

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 2 is a development of the idea that the rich can do as they please. If they want fields or house, they simply help themselves, with never a care for the people whom they drive out.

The Hebrew word for want in this verse is the same word used for “desire” (Revised Standard Version “covet”) in the tenth commandment (Exo 20.17; Deut 5.21). Its use here emphasizes that the behavior of the rich is directly contrary to the will of God as expressed in his Law.

Fields refers to the cultivated land that people owned, while houses were the people’s own homes. The exact way in which these rich people seize or take the fields and houses is not stated. It probably involved taking over property from people who were in debt to them, and using various other means that had the appearance of being legal. They did not simply come in with a number of armed men and drive the owners off their property. The use of seize and take, however, suggests that from a moral point of view the actions of the rich were just as bad as if they had actually seized the property by force. Seize and take are synonyms, and many translators may prefer to combine these ideas into one sentence: “If they want someone else’s fields and houses, they simply take them.”

Such behavior leads to the breakup of society (see also verse 9), so that No man’s family or property is safe. Good News Translation here combines the repetition of the Hebrew into a single clause (see Revised Standard Version for a literal translation). The expression “a man and his house” (Revised Standard Version) is understood by some to be another reference to the houses that people own, repeating the idea of the previous line. It is more likely here to mean “household,” or as Good News Translation says, family. People who were in debt were often forced to sell themselves as slaves, and this may be what is in mind here.

The word translated as “inheritance” (Revised Standard Version) means primarily the family land inherited from one’s ancestors. Good News Translation translates it as property.

The evil men, then, were wrongly taking the property and even taking the owners themselves with their families. This idea is not different from what is said in the first part of this verse. Translators who try to follow the emphasis of the Hebrew may find it difficult to word this in a way that does not sound like simple repetition. It may help to put in an extra clause and say “In this way these men rob a man of his family lands and even of his family itself.”

The Good News Translation wording gives another alternative. By focusing on the victims, the same thing can be said with quite a different effect. It may be difficult to find an equivalent for is safe in some languages. Another possibility is to say “No man can be sure that they will not take his family and property.”

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 verses 11 and 12 the prophet describes a situation in which Jerusalem is besieged by its enemies. But here, in contrast with the previous verses, the enemies do not succeed in conquering the city. Rather they are themselves defeated and crushed by Israel. Perhaps the scene is inspired by the events of 701 B.C., when the Assyrians under King Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem but were forced to withdraw by the outbreak of disease or a similar disaster (see 2 Kgs 19.35). However, verse 13 is hardly a description of that situation and cannot be definitely related to any known historical event. Because the meaning of these verses is so different from the preceding verses, some translators may feel that it will be too confusing to continue the speech without a break. If so, it is possible to put another section heading before verse 11. This may be something like “Jerusalem will defeat her enemies.” If this is done, then it may be good to make clear in verse 11 that the you refers to the people of Jerusalem.

In verse 11 the prophet continues to address Jerusalem in the second person and say Many nations have gathered to attack you. The armies of the larger empires of the period were made up of contingents from various subject provinces, speaking different languages, and the description of any such army as Many nations was quite appropriate. If this expression may be misunderstood to mean “entire nations,” it should be translated as “soldiers from many nations” or “enemies from many nations.”

These enemies themselves state the reason why they have come against Jerusalem, but they express it in an indirect manner. Revised Standard Version gives a literal translation, “Let her be profaned, and let our eyes gaze upon Zion.” This carries overtones of the violent lust of a man about to rape a girl. It is in keeping with the larger context, in which Jerusalem is three times referred to as the “daughter of Zion” (verses 8, 10, and 13). However, there is also another level of meaning. The land of Israel was regarded as sacred, and for an army composed of heathen enemies even to walk on the land was seen as defiling it. We do not know whether the enemy themselves would have thought in such terms, and the real meaning of their words is to express their intention of destroying the city. This is the basic meaning conveyed by Good News Translation, Jerusalem must be destroyed! We will see this city in ruins! Since the overtones of rape and ritual defilement are rather closely linked with Hebrew cultural attitudes and values, many translators may find it difficult to bring out these ideas. They may want to follow the example of Good News Translation and focus on the enemies’ basic aim of destruction. On the other hand, there may be other cultures where this coarse imagery of sexual attack would be appropriate and would help to show the evil attitude of the enemies.

Jerusalem here is literally “Zion” (see comments on 3.10, 12). The first thought can also be expressed as “Let us attack her” or “Let us destroy Jerusalem.” We will see this city in ruins is rather idiomatic English, meaning “When we have finished attacking this city, it will be in ruins.” In ruins may also be expressed as “destroyed” or “there will be nothing left but ruined buildings.”

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 phrase is a standard exclamation of despair in Hebrew, as is the Revised Standard Version “Woe is me!” in English. It cannot be translated literally, but many translators will find some common expression in their language that will fit very well here. Others may have to use an ordinary sentence in much the same way as Good News Translation has done with It’s hopeless! Very few translators however will want to translate literally It’s hopeless! Hopeless means that there is no chance of succeeding. The whole sentence in Good News Translation then means “There is no chance of doing what I am trying to do.” Other ways of putting this may be “All my work is wasted” or “I feel very sad.”

The picture in the rest of the verse is derived from the farming practices of Israel. After the main harvest had been gathered, the farmer was forbidden by the Law to go back over the fields or orchards to gather any grain or fruit that had been missed the first time (Lev 19.9-10; Deut 24.21). Whatever remained was to be left for the poor to take, or glean, as Ruth did (Ruth 2). Once the fields or orchards had been gleaned in this way by the poor, there really would be nothing left. Here Micah says he feels as disappointed as a hungry man would be if he went out to glean, but found that he was too late, and that no fruit was left on the trees and no grapes on the vines. Because the gleaners have already been at work, All the grapes and all the tasty (Revised Standard Version “first-ripe”) figs have been picked. The Hebrew expression here is a rather difficult one, as seen in Revised Standard Version, “I have become as when the summer fruit has been gathered.” Note that Good News Translation‘s hungry is from the Hebrew phrase “which my soul desires,” but is applied to the person’s general desire for food rather than for “first-ripe figs” alone.

In some languages it may be necessary to say clearly that the man was looking for fruit and grapes but finds none, although the idea of looking for them has been left implicit in both the Hebrew and Good News Translation.

If the translator wishes to keep “which my soul desires” (Good News Translation hungry) as a description of the “first-ripe (tasty) figs,” he may say “… all the tasty figs that I would have liked so much have been picked.” In areas where grapes and figs are not known, it is usually better to use general terms for fruit and crops rather than to substitute particular fruits that are grown in the region but may not be known in Israel.

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 13 God is no longer speaking but is referred to in the third person. In some languages it may sound strange or awkward to switch suddenly from God’s speech in verse 12 to the prophet’s speech in verse 13. Since the prophet is speaking on behalf of God, some translators may consider translating verse 13 as part of God’s speech, and changing the third person references to first person. However, this will not be easy in many languages because God is called here Their king and the LORD. If translators prefer to keep this verse in the third person and take it as the prophet’s speech, then it is important to make clear that God’s speech ends in verse 12. This should be done in whatever way is natural in the language.

In verse 13 Good News Translation identifies the actor as God who will open the way for the people and lead them out of exile. In the Hebrew, God, the leader, is described as “He who opens the breach” (Revised Standard Version; Good News Translation will open the way for them), and this verb is repeated in the next clause in reference to the people who follow: they will break out of the gates of the city of their captivity and thus go free. Their leader is finally revealed as Their king, not a human figure, but the LORD himself. The very one who punished them and caused their defeat, captivity, and exile will be the one who rescues them and leads them back to their own land.

The reference to God opening the way is explained by the next sentence in Good News Translation. It means that God will help the people to break … free. There may be some confusion about whether God or the people actually break open the gates. If this is a problem, a translator can say that God breaks open the gates of the city so that the people can follow him out. Gates will probably be translated literally here, even if it was not in 1.9. It can be translated as “doors in the city wall.” Although cities sometimes had several sets of gates, it is best to assume that this means just one set of two gates that fit into a single doorway. Some translators may want to say “the city where they were held as captives.” To be in exile means to be forced to leave your own country and live in a different one. It may be translated as “imprisoned in a foreign country,” although the people were not actually kept in prisons but were allowed to have their own homes.

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 10-15 form a single paragraph in which the prophet speaks about removing everything evil from the nation of Israel and stopping all activities related to idol worship. Verses 10-13 are similar to one another in form, and each begins with “and I will cut off.” This is a single word in Hebrew, a form of the verb karath, which occurred in verse 9 and is a keyword in this section. In Hebrew, the word does mean “cut” in the literal sense, but it is also used in extended and figurative ways. In many languages it will not be possible to use the same word for each of the occurrences of karath here. However, translators may be able to find some other word that they can use several times in this paragraph, even if it is not always used to translate karath. Good News Translation has done something like this with its repetition of the word destroy. The first time it occurs (verse 10) it translates a different Hebrew verb, but in the other three occurrences it translates karath. If some repetition of this kind can be used in other languages, it may help to convey some of the rhythm of the Hebrew and some of its emotional impact.

The whole paragraph is the direct word of the Lord and is placed in quotation marks in Good News Translation. The Lord is speaking to the people of Israel here, and some translators may need to make this clear so that readers will know who you and your refer to in this quotation. The you is singular in Hebrew, but it will probably need to be translated by a plural in many languages.

The opening expression “in that day” (Revised Standard Version) refers to an indefinite point in the future, as in 4.6, and is translated At that time in Good News Translation. In the present context it follows verses 7 and 8, which speak of the time of the exile, and it probably refers to the same period also. Historically it was indeed during the exile that the people of Israel finally overcame the temptation to worship idols. This practice, though repeatedly condemned, had never been completely removed during the period of the kings.

However, before mentioning false religion specifically, this passage first deals with reliance on human military strength. The Lord declares that he will take away your horses and destroy your chariots. The prophets often condemned Israel for relying on such things, because this frequently involved military alliances with foreign powers, and such alliances could mean that a certain amount of recognition would have to be given to foreign gods. See for instance Isa 2.7-8; 30.15-16; 31.1; Hos 14.3. As has been mentioned already, the word translated here as take away is literally “cut off,” which means to destroy completely. Good News Translation used a different word here in order to use the word destroy with chariots. Some translators may prefer to use a single verb with both horses and chariots and say “I will destroy all your horses and chariots.” Horses were used only for war in Israel at that time, but modern readers who do not know this may wonder why all the horses should be destroyed. It may be clearer to state explicitly that these are “war-horses” or “horses used for war.” The horses pulled the chariots and sometimes were also ridden by soldiers. Chariots are discussed in the comments on 1.13.

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 prophet here goes on to speak of the return of the people of Israel from exile. There is some textual difficulty with the list of places mentioned, but the general effect of the list is well expressed by Good News Translation, which begins Your people will return to you from everywhere. Of the places listed, Assyria and Egypt were the opposite ends of the familiar world. The original readers knew in which directions they were, but Good News Translation makes this explicit by saying Assyria in the east and Egypt in the south.

The Hebrew actually contains two reference to Egypt, as shown in Revised Standard Version. Some translators here prefer to follow the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, and read “Tyre” instead of the second reference to Egypt. (The names for these two places were more similar in Hebrew than they appear in English.) Jerusalem Bible is one translation that does this, and the effect is to give two pairs of names (Assyria and Egypt, Tyre and the River [Euphrates]), which form a better balanced list than the three names of Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. However, the Hebrew makes good sense as it stands, and it should be followed. Translators should note that the Euphrates River is in the same direction as Assyria, so that the two lines seem to describe the same set of directions, first moving from northeast (Assyria) to southwest (Egypt), then from southwest (Egypt) back to northeast (the Euphrates). If this is the intention, it may be clearer just to say it once (“from Assyria and the Euphrates River in the east and from Egypt in the south”), rather than to suggest that three separate places are in mind, as Good News Translation does. Note than in Hebrew the Euphrates in simply referred to as “the River” (Revised Standard Version).

The literal “from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain” (Revised Standard Version) refers to all seas and mountains in general. This idea is well expressed in English by Good News Translation‘s from distant seas and far-off mountains, but many languages may prefer a form closer to the Hebrew, as long as it has the correct meaning.

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 .

Though this verse and the next continue to use the first person, as in verses 6 and 7, there is a change of speaker. This change is signaled in Good News Translation by the introductory words Then Micah said. It will usually be necessary to include in a translation some indication of the change of speaker, because otherwise it will sound as though God himself is still talking. However, in some languages it may be more natural to solve this problem by indicating in some way that God’s speech is finished. If this can be done, it may not be necessary to mention Micah here. In some ways it will be better not to mention Micah, since he is the author of the book, and in other places where he speaks we do not put in his name.

Because of this refers not to the loss of the idols just mentioned, but to the punishment and destruction of Samaria in the whole of verses 6-8. Some scholars take this to refer not to what has preceded, but to the description of the enemy invasion in verses 10-16. (See for instance the way Jerusalem Bible divides the paragraphs.) However, this analysis seems unlikely because there is so much text in between.

Mourn and lament are terms commonly associated with grief for the dead. It is not necessary to use two terms here if there is only one appropriate term in the translator’s language.

To walk about barefoot and naked is also a gesture that symbolizes sorrow (compare 2 Sam 15.30), and Good News Translation makes this explicit with the words To show my sorrow. To walk barefoot and naked also reminds people of prisoners of war and is perhaps intended to show what will happen to the inhabitants of Samaria. Barefoot means “without shoes (or other footwear).” The Hebrew word for naked usually means having no outer garments and wearing only a loincloth. This is probably the meaning here, though in Assyrian reliefs male prisoners are often shown completely naked. (Compare with the reference to nakedness in verse 11.) It is not likely that Micah went about fully unclothed. A similar situation is spoken of in Isa 20.2-4. In many languages the usual word for naked will mean that Micah was wearing nothing at all. If this is not too offensive to the readers, it is possible to use this word, although it is unlikely that this is what Micah did. Otherwise it can be translated as “with nothing on but a loincloth.”

If walking around barefoot and naked is a way of mourning in the culture of the translation, then of course it is not necessary to add To show my sorrow.

A jackal is an animal like a wild dog or a fox. Jackals go about in packs, mostly at night, and have a long and unpleasant howl. The ostrich used to be widespread in the Middle East but is now found only in Africa. Ostriches rarely make a noise, and some scholars believe that the Hebrew word really means a kind of owl that does screech. New English Bible has “desert owl,” and for many translators it may be easier to find an equivalent for owl than for ostrich. The context makes it clear that some bird that does make a loud and harsh noise is in mind.

Howl and wail are used to describe the cries of mourning, or of sorrow for the dead, or for some terrible thing that has happened. If a language does not have two words that can be compared to the sounds of jackals and ostriches (or owls), then one word is enough: “I will howl like jackals and ostriches.”

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 .