Maroth is perhaps the same place as that called Maarath in Josh 15.59. The name means “bitterness” (compare Ruth 1.20). There is no obvious wordplay based on sound here, but there may be a play on the sense, in that bitterness is unpleasant and gives no encouragement to wait for anything good such as relief.

In some languages it may be more natural to mention first the reason that the people of Maroth are waiting, and to turn the clauses of this sentence around: “The Lord has brought disaster, so the people wait….”

Relief is literally “good” (Revised Standard Version). The idea is that they are in great danger, with only bad things happening, and they are hoping that this will change in some way. The most important good thing at a time like this would be for the enemy to stop bothering them or for someone to drive the enemy away. This is the meaning of Good News Translation‘s word relief.

They are waiting anxiously for this to happen. This means that they are hoping that somehow the enemy will be made to leave them alone, but that they are worried (anxious) that help will be too late or that it will not come. Another way of expressing the ideas here would be to say “The people of Maroth are hoping that they will be saved from the enemy, but they are afraid that no help will come.”

The LORD has brought disaster: the literal form of the Hebrew is “evil has come down from the LORD” (Revised Standard Version), and in some languages the same kind of expression may be quite natural. The meaning is that the bad things that are happening to them have been caused by the Lord himself. He was the one who sent the enemy army to punish them (compare Isa 45.7). Disaster means “the terrible things that are happening.”

Close to Jerusalem: the reason that The people of Maroth anxiously wait is that disaster has almost overtaken Jerusalem. Its closeness is shown in that it is actually at “the gate” of the city (Revised Standard Version).

Since disaster is an event, it may be impossible in some languages to speak of it as being close to Jerusalem. The meaning is that the enemy army is right at the gate of Jerusalem, and therefore it will probably only be a very short time before the city is captured. One may wish to translate “The Lord has brought the enemies close to Jerusalem, and they will soon capture it.”

It may be confusing that the people of Maroth should be concerned about the army at the gate of Jerusalem. However, if Jerusalem is captured, there will be no hope for any of the smaller towns nearby. In a sense, it is even worse to have the enemies at Jerusalem than to have them in their own town, since it means there is no one left to send help and no place to which they can escape.

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 stands somewhat apart from verses 1-4 and to some extent contrasts with them. For this reason it can be translated as a separate paragraph. In the earlier verses the Lord is seen as supreme over all the nations, and thus it seems an anticlimax in this verse to say that Each nation worships and obeys its own god. There are three ways of understanding the verse:

(a) Some scholars see it as the response of a practical man to the prophet’s vision of the future. This man seems to say that the future is all very fine, but that it bears little resemblance to the present, in which heathen nations do not acknowledge the Lord but rather follow their own gods. In this particular setting the faithful Israelites can only say we will worship and obey the LORD our God forever and ever.

(b) Other scholars see this verse as a refutation of the preceding verses. In contrast with the visionary idea of all the nations coming to acknowledge the Lord in a setting of peace, in actual practice they all follow their own religions, and only the people of Israel worship the true God.

(c) Still others see this verse as an addition to the previous verses, one that is in the form of a liturgical response to them and is a expression of faith on the part of the Israelites.

Though we cannot be certain exactly how this verse is related to its present context, its own meaning is clear enough. Whatever the people of other nations may do, we, the people of Israel, the people of God, will follow the true God forever.

Revised Standard Version translates literally the unusual Hebrew expression “walk in the name of.” The meaning of this can be made clear, and Good News Translation puts it in plain language with two terms, worship and obey. In other languages this meaning may be conveyed clearly enough by a construction that is closer to the Hebrew figure of speech.

Forever and ever is a standard phrase in English that may not be easy to put into other languages. It is basically an emphatic way of saying “always,” and many languages will have some natural idiomatic equivalent, though it may be very different in form.

Some English translations say that each nation follows its own gods rather than suggesting that each has only one god, as Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation suggest. But whether singular or plural, this may be a difficult concept in some languages. Many languages did not have a single term for God before the appearance of Christianity, and the term that has developed now may refer only to the Christian God. In such languages it may seen impossible or strange to use this word to refer to other gods. At least two possible solutions can be suggested. It may be possible to use a term or terms for supernatural beings that non-Christians are known to worship, even if these terms would not be suitable for God himself. Or it may be possible to construct an expression like “false gods” by using the word for the Christian God together with an adjective that will show that these are beings that are thought to be like him but are not. Compare the terms for false Christs in Matt 24.24 and Mark 13.22.

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 the same charge is repeated but in somewhat more detail. It is again in the form of a question. The Revised Standard Version “Shall I acquit…?” does not suggest the answer, but Good News Translation with its How can I forgive…? makes it clearer that a negative answer is expected. The Lord cannot forgive this kind of wicked behavior, and some translators may need to recast this verse in the form of a negative statement, “I cannot forgive….”

The type of scales used were the kind still used in many areas of the world today, with two dishes hanging from a bar. Weights would be put on one of the dishes, and the thing to be weighed on the other dish. The easiest way to cheat when using scales was to use false weights. On the other hand, there may have been ways of changing the scales themselves so as to cheat the customer. No matter how it was done, the result was that the customer got less than he paid for. The Hebrew mentions “a bag of deceitful weights.” Probably the weights for the scales were kept in bags. If there are no appropriate terms for these scales and weights in the receptor language, then it is not necessary to try to give all the details of the ancient culture. A translator can simply give the main point of the accusation as Good News Translation has done. Some translators may have to express the main point in quite a different way, however, such as “If a merchant cheats his customers when he weighs the goods he is selling them, how can I forgive him?”

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 7 consists of four questions that are taken by Good News Translation and Jerusalem Bible as unbelieving protests by the rich against what the prophet has been saying to them. Revised Standard Version may not have the same meaning, but it is not really clear, and it is best to follow the meaning of the other versions.

In the first question, the Hebrew text has heʾamur “said,” but many scholars prefer a small change so that the Hebrew will be heʾarur “cursed.” If “said” is changed to “cursed,” then the “house of Jacob” is the subject, as in Good News Translation and Jerusalem Bible. If the change is not made, the “house of Jacob” is a vocative, calling on the people addressed (Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, New English Bible, New International Version). Either way it stands for the whole nation, as Good News Translation brings out with its people of Israel.

Deut 28.15-68 describes in great detail what it means to be under God’s curse. If there seems to be no good term for curse, it may be possible to use an expression like “Do you think God has become the enemy of the people of Israel?” Another possibility may be “Is God planning to do evil to the people of Israel?” All these questions are rhetorical questions that imply a yes or no answer, according to the context. If a language has different forms for questions according to whether the implied answer is yes or no, the translator should be careful to use the appropriate form in the various parts of this verse. In this first question, for example, the rich people are implying that they are certainly not under a curse. For all of these questions, if it is more natural in the language to answer the question after asking it, or simply to use strong statements instead of questions, then these other forms should of course be used.

In the second question the “Spirit of the LORD” (Revised Standard Version) stands for the Lord himself, as Good News Translation makes clear. Since this is not a reference to the Holy Spirit, Revised Standard Version‘s capital “S” on “Spirit” is rather misleading. (See comments on Micah 3.8.) The oppressors accept the idea of the Lord being patient and merciful (see Exo 34.6) but distort this doctrine so as to give themselves an excuse for continuing their evil conduct. They cannot believe that the Lord would really lose his patience, especially with them. Patience here means the characteristic of not getting angry quickly, or of being able to put up easily with many irritations. To lose patience means to be patient no longer. It may be necessary in some languages to say “Does the Lord get angry quickly?” The question must be worded in such a way as to imply the answer “No.”

The third question simply reinforces the second: Would he really do such things? that is, bring punishment as Micah had threatened. Again, the implied answer is “No.”

The final question admits that God is righteous, but if this question comes from the mouths of the oppressors (as in Good News Translation), it shows that they assume that they also are among those who do right, and can thus expect that God will speak kindly to them. This assumption underlines their moral blindness. If this interpretation is preferred, it is necessary to follow another very minor change in the Hebrew and to read “his words” instead of “my words.” This change is supported by the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. If, however, this question is taken as part of Micah’s challenge to the rich, there is no need to change the text. (See, for instance, the way New International Version punctuates this verse.) The question then becomes a further probe into the consciences of the rich. It implies that people who are upright will find the prophet’s message acceptable, and that those who do not find the message acceptable cannot be walking “uprightly” (Revised Standard Version). It sounds strange in English to say that someone’s “words do good” (Revised Standard Version), and Good News Translation (also Jerusalem Bible) understands this to mean that God speaks kindly. Others, such as New English Bible, interpret the expression to mean that good will come to people like these when God speaks to them. This is the opposite of being under God’s curse.

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 Revised Standard Version this verse is ambiguous at several points because pronouns are used in the Hebrew, and it is not clear to whom they refer. Good News Translation makes the participants somewhat clearer. The “he” of Revised Standard Version is identified as the LORD in Good News Translation, and the “them” is identified as his people. Good News Translation also says the LORD will abandon his people to their enemies, while Revised Standard Version translates only “give them up,” without mentioning the enemies.

The main focus of the sentence, however, is on the length of time that the Lord will abandon the people. It is not stated exactly how long this will be, but it is given in terms related to a pregnancy—until the woman who is to give birth has her son. It is not clear whether this refers to the normal period of nine months for a pregnancy or to the shorter period during which the woman is actually in labor. It is not important to decide which is more likely. The real point is that the period is limited. A pregnancy may be burdensome for a woman, and the labor may be painful, but both come to an end when the baby is born. In the same way the Lord may abandon his people, but only for a limited time, and then he will help them and make them his own again.

This verse begins with “Therefore” (Revised Standard Version) or So, which may not be clear at first. It seems to refer back to the two contrasting predictions that have just been made. The prophet has said that the people will have to spend time in exile (see 4.10, for example), but he has also said that God plans to bring them back and give them a new ruler. The connection between verses 2 and 3, then, is “God plans to give them a ruler, therefore he will give them up only until the ruler is born.” This may be clearer in many languages if something like the English “only until” is added to show that the time will not be long.

Abandon can be translated as “refuse to help” or “allow the enemies to rule.” Good News Translation does not mention the name of “the people of Israel” here, though it is clearly implied, and some translators may prefer to make this explicit. This can be done by using the full expression at this point in the verse, in place of Good News Translation‘s his people.

The phrase until the woman who is to give birth has her son expresses in modern terms Revised Standard Version‘s “when she who is in travail has brought forth.” Revised Standard Version follows the Hebrew and does not express any object for the verb “brought forth.” Obviously the object is a baby, but Good News Translation goes further and states plainly that it is her son. It is clear from the general background of Hebrew prophetic thought that the one who was to deliver the nation would be a male, and so it is legitimate to make that explicit here. Similar prophecies about the birth of a boy whose life would be important in the history of God’s people come in Isa 7.14 and 9.6, and in both places the word “son” is used.

Micah himself has used the experience of labor pains and birth as a picture of God’s dealings with his people in 4.9-10. But here in 5.3 the picture seems to have a double purpose. Not only is the limited time of pregnancy of labor an indication that God is punishing his people for a limited period, but it also appears that the child born from this labor will be the deliverer of the nation. The prophet is saying that he sees the nation’s suffering as a punishment that carries within itself the hope of deliverance and restoration in the future. The language used is somewhat secretive and mysterious, but this was often the way in which the prophets expressed themselves. Translators can and should clarify grammatical obscurities such as the pronoun references in this verse, but they cannot entirely remove the element of mystery from the language in which the prophets spoke.

The wording of Revised Standard Version (“she who is in travail”) suggests that the woman was already in labor at the time the prophet wrote. Other translations like Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, and Good News Translation seem to suggest rather that God has chosen someone to be the mother of the ruler, but that she was not necessarily pregnant at the time of writing. Many translators may prefer to follow this second meaning, but they may not have a construction like the English who is to give birth, and it may be necessary to restructure this part of the verse. One possibility is “The Lord will abandon his people. But this will last only until the woman goes into labor and delivers her son.”

In the second half of the verse, even Good News Translation has not entirely succeeded in removing the ambiguities of the pronouns. To whom does the his in the phrase his fellow countrymen refer? Grammatically it could refer to the LORD, but the most natural way of understanding Good News Translation would make it refer to her son. However, Hebrew does have this “his,” while neither the LORD nor her son are explicit in the Hebrew. Therefore it is possible that in Hebrew “his” may refer back to the ruler in verse 1, as the ruler was the last male mentioned. It seems probable that this ruler is to be understood as the same person as her son, however, and if this is the case the problem is made easier. So then, when the son who is to be the ruler is born, his fellow countrymen who are in exile will be reunited with their own people.

Fellow countrymen is literally “brothers.” Some translators may prefer to say “the rest of the people of Israel who are in exile,” especially if this can be worded in such a way as to show that the ruler (the woman’s son) is also one of the people of Israel.

The words who are in exile are not explicit in Hebrew but are clearly implied in the verb reunited (Revised Standard Version “return”), which is regularly used to refer to return from exile. For the translation of exile see the comments on 2.13. Reunited could be translated as “join them again.” Their own people refers to those of “the people of Israel” (Revised Standard Version) who were not taken into 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 prophet expands on the theme of the breakdown of family relationships and gives three examples. Good News Translation begins this verse with In these times, which is simply a way of reminding the reader that Micah is talking about a particular period of time in this passage. These words do not actually appear in the Hebrew and do not need to be translated in just this way, but a translator should be careful that the translation does not sound as though these statements are true for all times and places. Verse 6 is describing the general situation at that time. It is because of this terrible situation that the prophet gave his advice in verse 5. The important thing is that translators find some way to show the correct relationship between the two verses. In some languages it may sound better to describe the general situation first (verse 6), and then to tell what people should do because of it (verse 5), so that the order of the verses will be turned around. If a translator decides to do this, the two verses together should be numbered “5-6.”

Good News Translation, sons treat their fathers like fools, here catches well the emotional effect. Treat … like fools means to show no respect to them, or to look down on them, as though they were nothing but fools. Many languages may have one word that carries the meaning of these three English words (it is only one word in Hebrew). The corresponding attitude among women means that daughters oppose their mothers. Both actions involve breaking the commandment to respect your father and mother (Exo 20.12; Deut 6.16), so that this kind of behavior is in direct disobedience to God.

The third example involves young women who quarrel with their mothers-in-law. Since a daughter-in-law normally joined her husband’s family, it would naturally be the wives rather than the husbands who had most opportunity for contact with their in-laws and disagreement with them. This is why sons-in-law and fathers-in-law are not mentioned. In Hebrew the same verb (translated “rises up against” in Revised Standard Version) refers to the relation between the daughter and the mother and between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law. For variety in style, Good News Translation has translated this as oppose in the first case, and as quarrel with in the second, but there is no need to try to follow these meanings exactly in another translation. The point is that these women, like the young men, are not showing proper respect to the senior members of their families. The breakdown of normal family life is so complete that a man’s enemies are the members of his own family.

This verse was quoted several times by Jesus in his teaching (Matt 10.35-36; Luke 12.53; see also Matt 10.21; Mark 13.12), but the wording is somewhat different from passage to passage, and the translator should not try to make the various forms of the text identical with each other.

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 .

Although most of the book of Micah has been translated as prose in Good News Translation, verses 2-4 have been translated as poetry. The translators probably felt the picture of the Lord speaking from heaven and walking on the mountains would sound better in English as poetry than as a rather complicated prose comparison. In many languages the translators will prefer to translate verses as prose, just like the rest of the book.

When changing from Hebrew poetry to prose, it is important to be aware of parallel lines and ideas. One important feature of Hebrew poetry is that two lines are often parallel to each other. This means that almost the same thing may be said in both lines by using different words with similar meanings. Or it may be that the second line will repeat most of the meaning of the first line, but add another idea as well. Many languages use types of expression like this, even in prose, but the translator should know what he is doing and not say something twice simply because it is said twice in Hebrew. Often it will be better to say it only once. This may mean leaving one of the lines out completely if does not add anything to the meaning of the other line. Or it may mean combining the ideas from both lines into a single line in the translation.

Verse 2 opens with two clauses that are parallel in meaning. In the first the prophet calls all … nations to Hear (compare 3.1; 6.1), and in the second he literally calls the “earth, and all that is in it” (Revised Standard Version) to listen. Good News Translation all who live on earth makes it clear that this is primarily a reference to the people who are the inhabitants of the earth, though it is not necessarily limited to people. Jerusalem Bible takes a wider meaning with “earth, and everything in it.”

If the second line of verse 2 is understood as referring to all people who live on earth, then it does not add anything to the meaning of the first line, and the two lines together mean listen to this, all who live on earth. If the second line is understood as referring to everything on earth, not only the people, then the meaning of the two lines together may be translated as “Listen to this, you people of every country, and everything else on the earth.”

This and to this after Hear and listen in Good News Translation seem to refer to what the prophet is saying. He is asking the people to listen to him as he tells that the Lord is going to speak. In other versions the meaning seems to be that the people should listen to the Lord as he speaks, and this sense may be the better one to follow. One may say something like “You people of every country, listen to the Lord as he testifies against you.” Translators should note, however, that the Lord’s own words do not begin until verse 6. This may make a difference in the way the sentence is worded.

The prophet of course does not expect that everyone on earth can really hear him speaking, but this type of exaggeration is common in poetry. If the Lord speaks, on the other hand, we can assume that everyone can hear him. So if necessary the verse may be rearranged to say that the Lord will speak to everyone, and they all must listen to him.

The people are to listen because The Sovereign LORD will testify or give evidence as a witness against them. For the translation of Sovereign LORD, see the comments on Obadiah verse 1a.

Will testify against you uses the picture of God being a witness against the people of the world in a court of law. If there is no special term for being a witness in a court, the meaning is “to speak about the bad things you have done.” This picture of God as witness must not be taken too literally, since God himself is of course the judge. If this will be a serious problem in some languages, the picture may be dropped, and the plain meaning may be given that God will speak about their bad deeds.

Listen! is repeated in Good News Translation in the last line of verse 2 for the poetic effect. The word does not appear at this point in the Hebrew.

He speaks from his heavenly temple: the last line of verse 2 says literally “the Lord from his holy temple” (Revised Standard Version). Jerusalem Bible connects this to the idea of verse 3, that the Lord is coming, and translates “the Lord, as he sets out from his sacred palace.” Most translations, however, understand this as referring to the place where the Lord is when he is testifying against the people. In many languages it will be necessary to put this line before the third line and say “the Lord is in his temple and speaks as a witness against you.”

His heavenly temple: the Hebrew refers to “his holy temple” here (Revised Standard Version), but the meaning is heaven, not the temple in Jerusalem, and it will probably be necessary to make this clear in the translation, as Good News Translation has done. “Holy” in this context does not really add much to the meaning, as it simply means something that especially belongs to God. If there is no good word for “holy” that fits this passage, the meaning is really covered by saying it is God’s temple.

Temple can be translated as “the Lord’s house” or “the Lord’s big house.” If “heaven” is a problem, an expression like “up above” may be helpful. The Old Testament writers sometimes refer to God having a temple in heaven (Psa 11.4; 18.6; Jonah 2.7; Hab 2.20), and even if this is really just a picture for something spiritual (see 1 Kgs 8.27), it is probably best to translate it literally. However, if a temple in heaven is a serious problem for some reason, it would be enough just to say “heaven” here.

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 7 Good News Translation has applied much the same method as in verse 6. The “seers” and “diviners” of Revised Standard Version are put together into one general expression, Those who predict the future. The parallel verbs “disgraced” and “put to shame” (Revised Standard Version) are brought together in will be disgraced by their failure. The terms “seers” and “diviners” are not well known in most English-speaking countries, and Good News Translation is probably right to find a more general expression for them. But there will be many societies that have excellent translations for these two words, and translators should use equivalent terms when they are well known.

Good News Translation adds the words by their failure to show why these people are disgraced. If translators are using specific terms for “seers” and “diviners,” they may need to add a little more information such as “their failure to predict the future” or “because they are not able to speak God’s message.”

The covering of “their lips” (Revised Standard Version) is a gesture that shows shame (Lev 13.45) or grief (Ezek 24.17, 22). Here Good News Translation takes it to show shame and states this meaning plainly as They will all be humiliated, without mentioning the action itself. There are probably few modern cultures where people cover their mouths as a sign of shame or grief, and if translators decide to mention the gesture, they would do well to include the meaning of it; for example, “they will all cover their lips to show that they are ashamed.”

The reason for their shame is that the prophets will suffer the same fate as the leaders of the nation in verse 4: God does not answer them. The prophets who thought they could use their position of privilege as a means of making money will find that they cannot mock God. In times of desperate crisis, when a true word from God is most needed, those who spoke words of comfort in return for payment will have no message at all to pass on.

Since there is no specific reference to these people asking God anything, some translators may think that it will be confusing simply to say God does not answer them. The meaning is that, in order to predict the future, they must in some way inquire of God about it, and he must answer them. The fact that they inquire can be included in the translation if necessary.

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 .