In the first part of verse 7, Good News Translation has again reordered the content to make the English more natural. The two descriptive terms (“lame” and “cast off” in Revised Standard Version) are brought together in the opening clause, They are crippled and far from home. The term translated “remnant” in Revised Standard Version is expanded in Good News Translation to I will make a new beginning with those who are left. In similar manner the term translated “a strong nation” in Revised Standard Version is expanded in Good News Translation to and they will become a great nation.

The term “remnant” of Revised Standard Version is a technical term of considerable importance in the writings of the prophets, especially in relation to the exile. “Remnant” means what remains, or is left over. When used to refer to the people, it implies that they have already been punished, since only a few remain of an originally larger number. It also implies that the people will be restored, since the destruction is not total and some people are left alive. Good News Translation brings out these two complementary aspects of the term by expanding it into I will make a new beginning with those who are left. Since few languages will have a suitable technical term to convey the meaning and implications of “remnant,” many translators will need to use a longer expression such as Good News Translation has.

The phrase a great nation implies primarily great in numbers, but it does not exclude the idea of great in importance.

When the people return from exile to Jerusalem, the prophet does not picture them as having a descendent of David as a king again. Rather he foresees that “the LORD will reign over them” (Revised Standard Version). The Hebrew at this point switches from the first to the third person. This change will be awkward in many languages, and most translators will prefer to retain the first person until the end of the verse and the end of the direct speech. Good News Translation does this and changes from “the LORD will reign…” (Revised Standard Version) to I will rule over them on Mount Zion. Mount Zion refers of course to Jerusalem, but the use of this name here serves to emphasize the religious importance of the city. It is not merely a political capital for the people, but the center of the worship of the Lord, who will rule over them there.

A word for rule over is sometimes hard to find, and in such cases it may be simpler to say that the Lord himself will be the king of the people. It may be necessary to restructure slightly and say “I will be on Mount Zion (or, in the city of Jerusalem) as king of the people.”

In terms that are characteristic of prophecies about the Messianic era, the prophet concludes that the divine rule will not be a temporary institution like the Davidic monarchy but will last from that time on and forever (compare Isa 9.7). As in 4.5, forever may be expressed in some languages simply as “always.”

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 9-12 stated the accusations of the Lord against his people, and verses 13-16 state the punishment. If we continue to use the legal language of the court scene, we can say that the verdict on the people is “guilty” and these verses state the verdict. Verse 13 is a general introduction, verses 14 and 15 give specific details of the punishment, and verse 16 forms a closing summary.

Verse 13 consist of two clauses, as in Revised Standard Version, but Good News Translation combines them into a single clause, and many translators will find it convenient to do the same. The Lord declares that he has already begun the set of events that will bring ruin and destruction on the city. Ruin perhaps refers more to commercial disaster, and destruction to military defeat, but the terms are general. More detail is given in the following verses. The reason for this punishment, because of your sins, is again emphasized. Note that in translating begun, Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation are following the ancient Greek and Syriac translations. The Hebrew text says literally “I have made sick to smite you.” If this is followed, it must be understood in the sense of “deal you a crippling blow” (Allen), so the general meaning is about the same, whether one text is followed or the other.

Since the actions of this verse are expressed as nouns in English and the reason is given last, it may be necessary to restructure these ideas in some languages. The verse can become “(In all these ways) you have sinned, therefore I have already begun to punish you and to destroy you.” The optional “In all these ways” can be added to show the relation of this verse to verses 10-12, but it should be remembered that the list of sins given in these verses is probably only a sample of all the evil that had been done.

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 .

Micah goes on to speak in verse 9 about the women and children who remained, as if their menfolk were taken away and were thus unable to offer them any protection. Micah thus seems to imply that the male debtors were eventually sold into slavery for failure to repay their debts. However, the women may be widows. The picture given is one of unrelieved misery. The husbands are either dead, or forced by misfortune into debt and finally sold into slavery, while the wives have nothing left but the homes they love. But the greed of the creditors is still not satisfied and even makes them drive the women of my people out of their homes.

You drive the women … out of their homes is a habitual or typical act of these rich men that Micah is criticizing, and if a language has a way of indicating habitual action, it should be used here. In languages where the same word is used for “women” and “wives,” it may be best to try to say this in such a way that it clearly means women who are living alone. These women are part of the group called my people by the Lord (see also verse 8).

The homes they love are called “pleasant homes” in Revised Standard Version. The expression is intended to emphasize how terrible this act is, by showing how much these homes meant to the women. Translators should feel free to use whatever term sounds best in their language.

You have robbed their children of my blessings forever: it is not certain exactly what the children are robbed of. The Hebrew is literally “my glory” (Revised Standard Version), but scholars have understood this in various ways. Some think it refers to the privilege of being free men, of that of being landowners in the promised land. Others think it refers to a glorious future, while others take it as a reference back to the children’s fathers, the peasant farmers who were the backbone of the nation. Good News Translation prudently translates as my blessings, which gives the general sense without being committed to any one specific interpretation. Blessings could be translated here as “all the good things I want to give them.”

Whatever it is that God’s “glory” refers to in this verse, it is probably something that the children would have enjoyed most fully after they had grown up. In some languages it may not be possible to use “rob” or “take away” of something in the future, and it may be better to say “you have prevented their children from ever having my blessings.”

Micah says that the evil men have robbed the children of God’s blessings or glory forever. This seems to be a way of stressing that there is no chance that the children will ever recover from the evil that has been done to them, and that they will die without receiving these blessings, if in fact they are not already dead. Translators should not use a term that suggests that the emphasis here is on their spiritual condition after death.

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 .

By force of arms they will conquer Assyria: in Revised Standard Version the first two lines are parallel, but Good News Translation has again combined them into one and expressed the meaning in more general terms. By force of arms means “by using weapons.” In many languages the word for conquer would imply that weapons are used, and it may not be necessary to mention weapons in that context. However, a translator could mention weapons or arms in the context of ruling Assyria, and say something like “they will conquer Assyria and rule it by force of arms” or “… and their army will rule it.”

In this verse the use of “shepherd” in the meaning of “ruler” is continued but given an ironic sense. The kind of ruling referred to here will not be the gentle, helpful kind that “shepherd” suggests. This is brought out in New English Bible and Jerusalem Bible when they say the shepherds will “shepherd Assyria with the sword” instead of the usual rod and staff as mentioned in Psa 23.4. Revised Standard Version drops the figure of speech here and translates “they shall rule the land of Assyria with the sword.”

The meaning of this clause is repeated in parallel language in the next line, “the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword.” “The land of Nimrod” is another name for Assyria, since, according to the tradition of Gen 10.8-12, Nimrod was the founder of its capital city, Nineveh. Some languages may have a special term for someone in the distant past who founded a city, and it would be helpful to use such a term here. If a translation is to have cross references, a reference to Gen 10.8-12 should be included here.

The second part of verse 6 contains a further textual problem. The Hebrew text has the subject of the main verb in the singular (“thus shall he deliver us” King James Version, “He will deliver us” New International Version), but there is no singular noun in the context for the pronoun “he” to refer to. Several modern English translations change the Hebrew text to “they” instead of “he” and refer it to the leaders in the first part of the verse. Good News Translation for instance has they will save us from the Assyrians. Jerusalem Bible retains the singular pronoun and moves the second half of verse 6 to the end of the previous section, following the first sentence of verse 5: “He himself will be peace. He will deliver us from Assyria should it invade our country….” If this is done, the “he” will then refer to the ideal ruler whose coming the prophet speaks of there. (See comments below on the interpretation of this verse.) New American Bible avoids the problem by using a passive verb and saying “we shall be delivered.”

“They shall deliver us from the Assyrian” (Revised Standard Version) is followed by two parallel clauses that are very close in both form and meaning to those at the beginning of verse 5. Good News Translation again combines the parallel clauses into one, as it did in verse 5, and translates when they invade our territory. Whether this is understood as referring to the ideal ruler or to the strong leaders, translators should note that the last part of verse 6 does not refer to something that happens after the events of the first part of the verse. It does not mean that the Assyrians will invade the land of Israel after they have been conquered by the people of Israel, but it refers to the invasion mentioned in verse 5. It may be clearer to begin the second half of the verse with “and in this way they (or, he) will save us from the Assyrians.” Some translators may find it clearer to combine verses 5 and 6, in order to mention the ideas in the order in which they happen.

Although the meaning of the words in these two verses is fairly clear, it is very difficult to know what situation the prophet is referring to. There never was any historical occasion when it seemed even remotely possible that Israel or Judah would be able to conquer Assyria. Even the deliverance from the invasion of the Assyrian King Sennacherib in 701 B.C. was in no way due to the leaders of Judah. Some scholars think that in these verses Assyria is used as a code name for some later enemy kingdom such as Babylonia, Persia, or Greece. (Compare the way in which the name Babylon stands for the Roman Empire in Revelation 18.) Others suggest that Assyria here is a symbol for any world power that is hostile toward the Lord and his people. If the translator prefers this last understanding, it is probably better to take verses 2-6 together in one section and thus to adopt section divisions that are slightly different from those of Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. This would have the effect of associating the miraculous conquest of Assyria in verse 6 with the coming of the ideal ruler in verses 2-4. This is quite an attractive possibility, and is followed by Knox in his translation and by McKeating and Allen in their commentaries. In any case if the last part of verse 6 is understood as referring to the ideal ruler of verses 2-4, a translator may need to use a noun (“this ruler” or something similar) rather than the pronoun “he,” to make this clear.

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 speaker and the addressee are both singular in Hebrew (as shown in Revised Standard Version). However, since these singular forms are to be understood as collective in meaning, Good News Translation translates them as plurals.

The verse opens with a command to the enemy, “Rejoice not over me, O my enemy” (Revised Standard Version). Good News Translation turns this into a statement, Our enemies have no reason to gloat over us, but in many languages it will be perfectly natural to keep the form of a command.

The word gloat implies that the enemies are rejoicing with bad motives. It will help to strengthen the emotional effect of the verse in other languages if translators can find a term that implies something similar.

The reason why the enemy should not gloat is expressed in the two statements that follow. Both are figurative, and both contain two clauses, of which the second contrasts with the first. The figure in the first statement involves falling and getting up again, and in the second, darkness and light. These figures can usually be retained in translation, since they speak of universal human experiences and do not depend on particular features of Hebrew culture.

Notice that there may be several ways of expressing the contrasts between the two clauses in each figure. Revised Standard Version has “when I fall, I shall rise; when I sit in darkness, the LORD will be a light to me,” using a subordinate temporal clause followed by a main clause. Good News Translation, with its We have fallen, but we will rise again. We are in darkness now, but the LORD will give us light, uses two pairs of main clauses, with each pair of clauses linked by the conjunction but. The construction is different, but the underlying relationship expressed is basically the same. Translators should consider what constructions are available to them in their own languages to express this relationship of contrast, and should use the one that is most clear and natural. They should be careful that they do not translate the “when” of Revised Standard Version or the but of Good News Translation literally without considering whether these terms express the correct relationships in their languages. They should be sure that the resulting construction in the receptor language really does carry the meaning of contrast.

Although Good News Translation says the LORD will give us light, the Hebrew is more precisely “the LORD will be a light to me (or, to us)” (see Revised Standard Version), and it may be quite meaningful in many languages to express the idea in this way.

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 differences between Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation in this verse may need explanation, as Good News Translation has adopted a different understanding of one clause and has reordered the four parts of the verse so as to bring together those parts related in meaning. First, in the second part of verse 4, Revised Standard Version takes “valleys” as the subject of the verb “be cleft.” Good News Translation, however, understands valleys as showing the place into which the melting mountains will crumble and pour down. This interpretation gives a better parallel between the two statements and links them together in a clearer logical sequence.

Second, in the Hebrew two statements are made in the first half of verse 4, and two similes or comparisons are added in the second half. The first simile relates to the first statement, and the second simile to the second statement. This is a type of Hebrew poetic structure that is not clear in meaning when transferred in the same order into English and many other languages. Good News Translation has therefore reordered the elements in the verse so that the first statement, the mountains will melt, is followed immediately by its related simile, like wax in a fire. The second statement, they will pour down into the valleys, is then followed by its related simile, like water pouring down a hill.

This type of adjustment makes the meaning much plainer to the reader and has been made frequently in the Good News Translation Old Testament. It is probably best to follow the Good News Translation order in most other languages.

The Lord is described in verse 3 as walking on the tops of the mountains, as though he is a great giant who can step from the top of one mountains to the top of another. When he steps on the mountains they melt. Melt can be translated as “dissolve” or “become like water.” The picture of hills or mountains melting in the presence of the Lord is quite common in the Old Testament. The idea is that God in his holiness is like a fire that destroys his enemies. Even the earth itself cannot remain unchanged by the Lord’s presence. See especially Psa 97.2-5.

This is compared to the way that wax melts in a fire, which gives the picture of something that happens very quickly. Wax is probably beeswax, but any term for wax can be used here. Most people today probably know candles, but if wax is not known, anything that melts quickly in a fire may be substituted. The picture of wax melting in a fire may be intended to remind the reader of a stream of lava from a volcano, while the next picture, water pouring down a hill, is probably intended to bring to mind a heavy thunderstorm.

If we follow the understanding of Good News Translation, the picture describes the liquid from these melted mountains pouring down into the valleys in a great rush, like water pouring down a hill. Valleys are the low places between the mountains, or at the feet of mountains. Hill can be translated as “cliff” or “steep place” if there is a term for some place where water might run especially fast. If there is no way to distinguish between hills and mountains, and no other appropriate word to use, it is of course quite all right to say “mountain” again in the last line.

If the meaning of Revised Standard Version is preferred, the second line refers to the valleys being split. This can be understood as the ground opening up, as it might do in a strong earthquake; but then it is difficult to connect it closely with the fourth line. In that case, the fourth line must be understood as another description of the melted mountains.

Another possibility is the meaning of New English Bible, which says “valleys are torn open, as when torrents pour down the hillside.” This suggests that the comparison is with the erosion caused by a large amount of water, which actually creates valleys as it runs down. This interpretation has the advantage of connecting lines 2 and 4, as Good News Translation does, and is probably the best one to follow.

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 part of verse 9 is almost identical with the parallel part of verse 1. Here the verb Listen has an object, “this,” which is absent in verse 1, and here, too, “house” is applied to both Jacob and Israel, whereas it is applied only to Israel in verse 1. There is no significant difference in meaning, however, and the double name is rendered in Good News Translation exactly as in verse 1 with the single expression you rulers of Israel. Translators should try to keep the beginning of verse 9 as similar as possible to the beginning of verse 1, as a small clue to the structure of this chapter.

The latter part of verse 9 repeats the general meaning of the opening part of verse 2, but in even stronger terms. The rulers of the nation do not merely hate the good and love the evil; they actually hate justice and turn right into wrong. Justice is both a reflection of the character of the Lord and the foundation of a stable society. By their attitudes and actions the rulers were really undermining the whole social structure of the nation and their own position within it. Hate justice might be translated as “hate to do what is right.” They are not content with bending the Law in their own interest, but by turning right into wrong they openly defy the Law’s most basic provisions. For similar expressions from other prophets, see Isa 5.20 and Amos 6.12. Turn right into wrong can be translated as “you act as though evil actions are good.” In some languages a figure of speech may be effective here, such as “you take what is straight and twist it.”

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 begins the actual words of the Lord, so Good News Translation has added the words The LORD says to make this clear. The Lord opens his case, but instead of a series of accusations, he starts with questions that are defensive in nature. It is as though Israel were accusing the Lord rather than the other way round. The assumption is that the people by their conduct have already acted as though the Lord had not kept his side of the covenant. Therefore he asks his questions, My people, what have I done to you? How have I been a burden to you? to demand an explanation of their apparent grievances. To be a burden is literally “to weary” or “to make someone tired.” It can be translated as “to give trouble to” or “to make someone’s life difficult or heavy.”

The questions are followed by the command Answer me, but the people give no answer. (Compare the German common language translation [Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch], “Why do you not answer?”) The implication is that, since the people really have nothing to complain about, they cannot answer, and so their behavior is not justified. Once this point has been made, the way is open for the Lord to state how he has kept his side of the covenant and blessed his people. This makes the people’s failure to serve the Lord stand out very clearly, and thus the whole paragraph (verses 3-5) amounts to an indirect but very effective accusation.

In other places, sentences that are questions in Hebrew can often be replaced by statements that convey the same meaning. However, in this passage such a procedure is unlikely to work. Here the questions are real questions, not merely rhetorical ones, and the absence of any answer to them is part of the logical development of the paragraph. If this form of argument will not be clear in the receptor language, it may be helpful to include a sentence at the end of verse 3 to the effect that “you cannot answer me.” Verse 4 can then begin with some expression of strong contrast such as “Far from being a burden to you, I have helped you (or, done only good to you). I brought you out of Egypt….”

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 .