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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. et al. A Handbook on Micah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1982, 1993. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

As the literal translation of the Good News Translation footnote and the Revised Standard Version text and footnote show, there is in this verse in the Hebrew a variation in personal pronoun forms that is very confusing. If the Hebrew text is translated as it stands, the English will be “I will show him marvelous things” (compare Revised Standard Version footnote, King James Version, rv, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). In this sentence the “I” must refer to the Lord and the “him” to the people of Israel. Since they have been called “you” in the earlier part of the sentence, the change is very awkward. Even Revised Standard Version and New International Version, which try to follow the Hebrew closely here, translate as “them” instead of “him,” referring to the people.

A relatively small change in the Hebrew lets us translate “I will show them” (footnote “him”) of Revised Standard Version as an imperative, and this change is accepted by Bible de Jérusalem, Jerusalem Bible, and New English Bible, as well as Good News Translation. This certainly gives a smooth and intelligible meaning to the verse, which on this understanding continues the prayer of the previous verse.

Good News Translation reorders the lines of this verse and puts the main clause first, Work miracles for us. This clause may have to be structured in quite a different way in other languages. Miracles are amazing, wonderful, unexpected acts. Some languages may have a single word for this, while others may have to describe the idea in a longer expression. For us may have to be translated as “in order to help us.” Another restructuring can be “Help us by doing marvelous things.”

Revised Standard Version “As in the days when you came out of the land of Egypt” is a reference to the idea of the Lord being at the head of his people at the time of the exodus. This is expanded and made more explicit in Good News Translation: as you did in the days when you brought us out of Egypt. The days can of course be translated as “the time,” or just “when.” You brought us can be translated as “you led us.”

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 location of Shaphir is not known, and the play on this name has also been lost. Some scholars want to restore the pun by emending the text to include the Hebrew word shophar, “ram’s horn trumpet.” Thus the beginning of the verse is translated “Sound the horn, you who live in Shaphir” in Jerusalem Bible. Since the pun cannot be translated, it is safer to follow the Hebrew text as it stands, as Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version do. The command to “Pass on your way” (Revised Standard Version) is to be understood as a reference to going into exile, as Good News Translation makes clear.

The prophet here once again names the people he is talking to: You people of Shaphir. Go into exile means to be taken away by their enemies to live in a foreign land. It may be translated as “You will go away with our enemies, as their prisoners” or as “Our enemies will force you to leave your homes.” This is actually a command in Hebrew, but what the prophet means is that these people will be forced to go into exile. He is not telling them that they should do this. The use of the command here suggests that it is something that is already happening, and in this way it makes the picture more vivid.

The people are going into exile naked and ashamed. Nakedness was commonly associated with shame in Hebrew culture (see Gen 2.25; 3.7-11; 1 Chr 19.4-5; Isa 20.4; Nahum 3.5). Naked here means completely naked, with no clothes on at all. They are ashamed because everyone can see them naked, as well as for the more basic reason that they have been defeated by their enemies. These two words describe the way they look and feel as they go into exile. In some languages it may be necessary to describe this before the idea of going to exile: “Our enemies will strip you naked (or, force you to strip naked), and you will be ashamed, and they will force you to go away into exile like this.” It is possible that the words “naked and ashamed” go with the next line, Those who live in Zaanan. New English Bible takes them this way, but the sense of the verse has a better balance if the punctuation of the Masoretic text is followed, as in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation.

Zaanan is perhaps the same place as the Zenan mentioned in Josh 15.37. Two of the Hebrew consonants in this name also occur in the word for come out and thus form the pun in this sentence. In saying that the inhabitants do not dare to come out of their city, Micah probably means that the city is under siege by the enemy.

Here Micah does not actually speak directly to Those who live in Zaanan but simply describes them. If they cannot come out, this may be the reason he does not actually address them. The Hebrew simply says that they do not come out. Good News Translation has added do not dare, suggesting that they are afraid of what the enemies will do to them if they come out. It is also possible to understand this as meaning that they cannot escape from the enemies. Both of these meanings suggest that this town must have had walls around it, so that they had some protection from the enemies.

In the third section of the verse, Bethezel is unknown and no pun can be noticed. In fact it is difficult to make any sense at all of this sentence, as the literal translation of Revised Standard Version shows. Jerusalem Bible assumes that “standing place” is to be taken in its plain meaning, and translates accordingly: “Bethezel is torn from its foundations, from its strong supports.” New English Bible and Good News Translation both take “standing place” figuratively but in different ways. New English Bible “she can lend you support no longer” seems to refer to military strength (compare New International Version). Good News Translation, on the other hand, takes “standing place” as a place where one can stand or stop fleeing, that is, a place of refuge.

The wide differences between the modern versions indicate the difficulties. Almost certainly the text we have today is not what was originally written, but no suggestions for restoring the original have gained general agreement among scholars.

Whatever the prophet is saying about Bethezel, he is saying it to some group of people whom he calls you. It is probably addressed to the people of Judah in general, the same group we assumed he was speaking to at the beginning of verse 10. It is also possible that it is addressed to the people of Shaphir (and perhaps the people of Zaanan), since they were mentioned most recently.

The people of Bethezel are mourning or wailing, making a loud noise to show their sorrow, presumably because of what the enemies have done to them. Because of what has happened to Bethezel there is no refuge there, if we take the understanding of Good News Translation. This means that the people that Micah is speaking to cannot go to Bethezel to be safe from the enemies. Good News Translation connects the two parts of the sentence by saying When you hear them wailing, you will know that Bethezel is not a place to hide. There could be other ways of connecting these two ideas, such as “the wailing of the people shows you that there is no refuge there.”

If the translator prefers to follow the New English Bible interpretation, “she can lend you support no longer,” this means “you cannot expect the people of Bethezel to come and help you when you are fighting the enemy.”

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 4 describes the happy results of worldwide peace in terms of an agricultural society such as that in which Micah lived. The description is given in traditional language (see also 1 Kgs 4.25; Zech 3.10). For everyone to “sit … under his vine and under his fig tree” (Revised Standard Version) means that they will be able to live in peace and enjoy the results of their own labors. For people who know fig trees, it is not hard to imagine sitting under one, but it may seem more difficult to sit under a grapevine. What is probably meant here is a vine that has been allowed to grow up onto a trellis, that is, a structure of raised poles that the vines can grow on. Even though in Hebrew only one vine and one fig tree are mentioned, Good News Translation gives the correct meaning when it speaks of vineyards and fig trees. In areas where these plants are unknown, it would be better to translate by a generic expression such as “among his own fields and gardens” rather than substituting local produce such as coconuts or mangoes, which were not known in Israel.

The peace each man enjoys will be so secure that no one will make him afraid. The fulfillment of the prophet’s vision was distant in time from his own day, but his confidence that it would eventually come about was based on the fact that The LORD Almighty has promised this. The literal form of this is found in Revised Standard Version, “the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken.” The mouth stands here for the whole being, and in English it sounds very unnatural when translated literally. However, in many languages this figure of speech would be perfectly normal, and in such cases it should be retained.

The expression “the LORD of hosts” (Revised Standard Version) is a traditional and literal rendering of the Hebrew. The “hosts” in this setting refers to armies of angelic beings who obey the Lord’s commands and thus demonstrate his supreme power. A literal translation is quite obscure in meaning to the average English reader, and Good News Translation has therefore abandoned it and attempted to make the sense clear with The LORD Almighty.

Translators will need to find a suitable expression in their own language to convey clearly the meaning of this phrase that occurs frequently in the Old Testament. In situations where there is already a traditional translation of the Bible, there will probably be a need to change a familiar but obscure expression into something more easily understood. One possibility would be “The Lord of the whole earth.”

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 also has textual problems, as is shown by the footnotes in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. The first word in the Hebrew, haʾish, may mean “Are there?” (as in King James Version) but is usually taken to be a short form of writing a longer word. This is thought to be either haʾeshsheh “Can I forget” (Revised Standard Version; compare Moffatt, New English Bible, New International Version; and among commentators, Smith, Allen, and Mays) or haʾessa “Can I bear?” (compare New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Deissler). Many translators and commentators also think that the Hebrew words translated in Revised Standard Version, “in the house of the wicked,” are too repetitive, and they therefore omit them (Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, New English Bible, Moffatt, Mays, Deissler). However, despite these uncertainties the Hebrew text can make sense as it stands, and Good News Translation translates it without any changes or omissions.

Note, however, that the Hebrew is in the form of a question, to which the answer “Yes” is clearly expected. Good News Translation turns this into a positive statement in order to avoid any misunderstanding of the question.

The theme of this verse is opposite of what the Lord required in verse 8. Evil men have in their houses treasures which they got dishonestly. These treasures included not only money but also all the rich goods and luxuries that money can buy. The adverb dishonestly may need to be expanded into “by cheating in business.” The following sentence shows that this is indeed its meaning.

The particular form of cheating mentioned here involved the use of false measures. These were measuring containers that held less than they should. When a customer bought something that needed to be measured, the merchant would measure it out with false measures, and the customer would get less than he had paid for. If it is difficult to express this concept in this way, a translator can try to describe what happened: “merchants cheat their customers by giving them less than they have paid for,” or something like that.

The Lord says that this is a thing that I hate. Thing here refers to the false measures, but if this is not mentioned in a translation, and the action of cheating is described instead, then a different word will have to be used in place of thing. A translator may say, for instance, “This kind of behavior is something I hate.” This type of cheating is mentioned frequently in the writings of the prophets (Hos 12.7; Amos 8.5).

Although the use of false measures was one way that the evil men became rich, it was obviously not the only way. The various things mentioned in this verse and in verses 11 and 12 should probably be understood as a list of various sins that are typical of the rich people. Good News Translation‘s wording of this verse does not mean that all the treasures of the evil men were acquired simply by using false measures.

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 .

It is hardly surprising that Micah’s stern message to the rich did not bring him popularity. Instead it earned for him mockery and rebuke, just as it did for Isaiah (Isa 28.9-10; 30.9-11) and Amos (Amos 7.12-13). This rebuke by Micah’s opponents is quoted directly in verse 6, but there is doubt about how far the quotation extends. Revised Standard Version ends it at the end of verse 6, but New International Version and the New Jewish Version (New Jerusalem Bible) continue it to the middle of verse 7, while Jerusalem Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible and Good News Translation carry it through to the end of verse 7. The last option is more convincing but depends on assuming an error in copying the Hebrew text and changing it slightly in two places. The text of these and the following verses contains a number of difficulties, and some changes are almost unavoidable (see discussion below.)

The people who heard Micah’s message evidently mimicked its manner of delivery in their retort. Thus Micah could say that they preach at me and say, “Don’t preach at us….” The Hebrew uses the same word for preach in both places. It is a common word for the preaching of the prophets, but some commentators feel that it also had another sense, meaning something like “to talk on and on about nothing.” In some languages it may quite difficult to use the same word in both parts of this line, for if the usual word for preach or prophesy means “to speak God’s message,” then it will not be correct in either part of this line; the people themselves were not speaking God’s message, and they would not have admitted that Micah was either. If a language has this sort of problem, it may be helpful to look for a word with a meaning like “speaking nonsense” that may fit into both places. (Compare Jerusalem Bible “rave” and New English Bible “rant.”)

Micah’s topics touched the consciences of his hearers, however, and they could not even bring themselves to mention the subject matter. They refer to it simply as “such things” (Revised Standard Version) or all that. Good News Translation captures well their scornful rejection of the message with Don’t preach about all that. Because Micah’s message about their sins and the coming punishment was unwelcome to the hearers, they were easily able to convince themselves that there was nothing in it to fear. God is not going to disgrace us is the expression of their wishful thinking. Again Good News Translation turns from an impersonal construction (“disgrace will not overtake us,” Revised Standard Version) and makes it clear that the implied actor is God. Disgrace can also be translated “shame” or “humiliate,” and it may refer back to verses 3 and 4, where the Lord says he will punish the evildoers and make other people mock them.

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 .

Because the town of Bethlehem is addressed in the second person singular in verse 2, Good News Translation treats the verse as a direct quotation and identifies the speaker as The LORD. In some languages it may not make sense to address a town as though it were a person. In such cases a translator may need to express the whole verse in indirect speech and in the third person: “The Lord says that though Bethlehem Ephrathah is only one of the smallest towns in Judah, yet out of it he will bring a ruler for Israel….”

Bethlehem is a town about nine kilometers (six miles) south of Jerusalem. It is important in this context because it was the place which the family of King David came from (1 Sam 16.1-13). Later generations looked back to the reigns of King David and his son King Solomon as a golden age. So when the prophets began to speak of an ideal king who would come to restore God’s people and rule over them, they often expressed their messages in terms drawn from the days of David, or in terms associated with him. It is in keeping with this way of thinking that Micah sees Bethlehem, David’s home, as the town from which the ideal king will come.

Ephrathah is a term added perhaps to distinguish David’s Bethlehem from other towns or villages bearing the same name. Probably Ephrathah is a name for the district in which Bethlehem was located. It comes from the name of Ephrath, one of the clans that made up the tribe of Judah (Ruth 1.2). David’s family were members of this clan (1 Sam 17.12). It is probably best to translate Bethlehem Ephrathah as the name of the town. If this seems too long for a name in some languages, then it is all right to translate as “Bethlehem in the region (or, district) of Ephrathah” (see New English Bible).

The Hebrew word translated “clans” in Revised Standard Version is a word with a very wide area of meaning. It is the numeral for “a thousand” and is also a term for a military unit consisting of a certain number of soldiers, probably considerably less than a thousand. Here it refers to a social unit, the clan. This is why Revised Standard Version translates “little to be among the clans of Judah.” But by a figure of speech called metonymy, the clan in this context stands for the town where the clan members lived. So Good News Translation drops the figure of speech and gives the plain meaning, you are one of the smallest towns in Judah. Smallest probably refers both to size and to importance.

Some translators understand the Hebrew here to say that Bethlehem is so small that it does not deserve to be considered as one of the clans of Judah (this seems to be the meaning of Revised Standard Version and New English Bible, among others). This is, of course, only an emphatic way of stating how unimportant the town is, and the plain meaning is still what Good News Translation has. However, in some languages it may be quite effective to use the more emphatic way of expressing the idea. In some languages it may be very difficult to talk about “one of the smallest towns,” and some similar expression may be used to give the same meaning, such as “a very small town.”

However, though the town was insignificant in itself, this was no barrier to God. Out of it he would in the future bring a ruler for Israel, just as he had once brought David. Translators may need to use different ways of showing the contrast between the small town and the great ruler to come from it. Some languages may use a word like but or “however.” In other languages it may be better to say something like “even though you are small.” Out of you or “from you” (Revised Standard Version) means that the ruler will be one of the citizens of Bethlehem, but that God will bring him from Bethlehem to be the ruler, as he brought David.

Revised Standard Version says that the ruler will “come forth for me.” This “for me” refers of course to God and means that the ruler will be acting in accordance with God’s will. Good News Translation felt that is was clearer to state plainly that God was the one who caused this to happen: I will bring a ruler. Some translations may prefer to say something like “a ruler who will act on my behalf” or “a ruler who will truly obey me.” It is possible that the term ruler is used here in order to avoid the usual word for king, since the people of Micah’s day were disillusioned with the kings whom they knew. If a language has one word for “king” and a different word such a “ruler” that can also refer to the king, it may be good to use the second word here. But in many languages this may not be possible, and if not, the usual word for king is acceptable.

The family line of this ruler is described in two phrases in Revised Standard Version. It is “from of old” and “from ancient days.” Good News Translation puts these two phrases together and says that the family line goes back to ancient times. This is to be understood as a description of the family of David. By Micah’s time there had been kings of Judah for about 300 years, and all of them had been descendants of David. (The older translation, “from everlasting” of King James Version and Revised Version [rv], is improbable in this context.) Micah thus implies that the ideal ruler who was to come was also to be a member of David’s family.

All of the concepts in Good News Translation‘s last clause could be difficult for some translators. Family line refers to the long line of ancestors from whom the ruler is descended. Goes back suggests that this line is being traced back from the present into the past. Ancient times means simply “long ago,” or more precisely, “from the early history of the country.” In other languages it may be necessary to look at these ideas from quite a different point of view. For example, this could be expressed as “he will be descended from men who were famous in the earliest days of the country” or “long ago his ancestor was an important man.” It is of course true that everyone’s family line goes back to ancient times. What is meant here is that these ancestors are people whose names are still remembered, and this suggests that they were famous or important people.

This verse is quoted in Matt 2.6, but translators who have already finished Matthew should note that there are a number of differences between the Old Testament verse and the New Testament quotation. One should not try to make them more alike than they really are.

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 .