Verses 3 and 4 speak in traditional language of the Lord coming down to visit the earth and of the effects his presence will have. These effects are described in terms of such upheavals in nature as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and thunderstorms. Similar descriptions are to be found elsewhere in the Old Testament, such as in Exo 19.16-20; Judges 5.4-5; Psa 18.7-12; 97.1-5; Isa 40.4.

Verse 3 in Hebrew begins with “For behold” (Revised Standard Version), which has been left out of the Good News Translation translation. It is intended to call the reader’s attention to the vivid picture about to be described. If languages have an expression used to draw someone’s attention to something, that expression can perhaps be used here. Such an expression may imply that the person spoken to can actually see something, as “behold” sometimes does in English. This would fit the context very well, but some other expression can be used even if it only asks for a person’s attention without suggesting that something can be seen. If a language does not have a good expression, then it is quite all right to do as Good News Translation has done and not translate this word.

The first thing described is The LORD … coming from his holy place, as though the people can actually see him leaving heaven. As in verse 2, holy here refers to something especially belonging to God and can be translated simply by “his,” “his own,” or “the place where he lives,” if holy is hard to translate. It is also possible to say “his good place.” Place can be a general term as in English, but if something more specific is needed, it can be connected with his house in verse 2, or the usual expression for heaven can be used.

The next line begins with he will come down. Both Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version put this in the future, which suggests that the people only see God coming from heaven, but that the other things talked about in verses 3 and 4 have not happened yet. Other versions translate verses 3 and 4 as though the people were watching all of this happen, and such a translation is probably more effective. By the time we get to verse 6, all versions switch to the future and say that Samaria will be punished. If it is not confusing to translate verses 3 and 4 in the present, and then switch to the future in verse 6, this may be more vivid and effective.

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 is a pivot between the three verses that precede it and the four that follow. On the one hand it goes closely with verses 5-7, since it gives the evidence that Micah himself is a true prophet, in contrast with the false prophets. On the other hand, by saying that the role of the true prophet is to denounce sin, it naturally leads into verses 9-12, where Israel’s sins are denounced. Because of these links both backwards and forwards, some translations include this verse in one paragraph with verses 5-7 (Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible), and others include it in one paragraph with verses 9-12 (New English Bible, Good News Translation, New International Version). In the Hebrew, the close parallel in language between verse 9 and verse 1 suggests that verse 9 is indeed the beginning of a new section, and that verse 8 is better taken with verses 5-7. However, if a translator feels that the flow of thought in his language will be made smoother by taking verses 8-12 together, he can of course do so.

The opening words of the verse, But as for me, mark a strong contrast between Micah and the false prophets. This type of contrast will be expressed in many different ways in other languages, so the translator’s main concern here should be the meaning rather than the words. For example, some languages might say “But I am not like them. Instead, I am filled….”

The passive form of Revised Standard Version “I am filled” is turned into an active in Good News Translation, with the implied actor expressed: the LORD fills me. In some languages it may not seem possible or natural to use the word for fills in the way it is used in this verse. The meaning is that God caused Micah to have these qualities in a very strong or special way, and it should be possible to find an expression that has this meaning.

Micah is filled with four things. The first is rendered power in both Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version, and implies not only physical strength but moral strength as well.

The second appears in Revised Standard Version as “the Spirit of the LORD.” The spelling of “Spirit” with a capital “S” implies the Holy Spirit, but it is perhaps out of keeping with Micah’s time to see here a reference to a doctrine that is developed in depth only in the New Testament. The Hebrew word has a wider meaning than the English word “spirit” and also covers the area of meaning for which English uses the words “wind” and “breath.” Probably something more general than a filling by the personal Spirit of God is intended here, and the Hebrew word is translated spirit with a small “s” in Good News Translation, and “breath” in Jerusalem Bible. To be filled with the Lord’s spirit in this sense means to share in his character, so as to be able to see contemporary society and events from the point of view of what the Lord wants people to do.

The third thing with which Micah was filled was “justice” (Revised Standard Version), which is interpreted more fully in this context by Good News Translation as a sense of justice. This means the ability to tell what things are wrong in the society, and what needs to be done to make them right.

The fourth thing is courage, and this is linked closely with the task for which the prophet is sent, to tell the people of Israel what their sins are. Revised Standard Version once again gives the literal form of two synonymous and parallel expressions, “to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin.” This repetitiveness is cut out in the single clause of Good News Translation, and many translators will wish to follow this example. The false prophets failed to rebuke the sins of their patrons and even encouraged them. But the true prophet who really was sent by the Lord opposed the sins of his time and society, even though such opposition was almost certain to bring unpopularity (1 Kgs 22.8) or even persecution (2 Chr 24.21-22).

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 .

Here the prophet addresses the witnesses directly and calls them to listen to the LORD’s case. The mountains are repeated from verse 1, but in place of the hills, the everlasting foundations of the earth are summoned as witnesses. These parts of the natural world were also witnesses to the original covenant that the Lord made with his people, as mentioned above. Therefore they are called now as witnesses in this court case, because they will be in a position to confirm the strength of the Lord’s complaint against his people. This complaint is essentially that they have broken the covenant. The everlasting foundations were pictured by the people of Israel as pillars upon which the earth was supported (see New English Bible), just as people might build a house supported on wooden posts. These pillars were thus the foundations of the earth. This idea is of course quite different from our modern understanding of the way the world actually is, and some translators may feel that there is no need to translate so as to show old views that are no longer accepted. But on the other hand, we should not translate so as to suggest that the ancient people believed things about the world that have only been discovered more recently.

There are at least three possible approaches to translation in situations like this. First, one can try to use an expression that gives modern readers some idea of what the people of Israel actually believed. This is what New English Bible has done with its “you everlasting pillars that bear up the earth.” Second, one can use a term that fits both the modern ideas and the ancient ones. This does not draw attention to the old ideas but at least does not deny them. This seems to be what Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version have done with the word foundations, which is accurate but is also a possible way of describing modern ideas of the world. Third, it is possible to add a footnote to explain in more detail what was originally meant by this expression.

Good News Translation can be understood to suggest that the mountains and the foundations are the same things described in two different ways. However, it seems better to assume that two different parts of the natural world are being spoken to here.

These foundations or pillars were the oldest and most unchanging part of the world, and it is in this sense that they are called “enduring” (Revised Standard Version) or everlasting. This may be translated as “very strong” or “firmly in place.”

The meaning of the rest of the verse is quite clear. It basically summarizes the position already outlined: The LORD has a case against his people. He is going to bring an accusation against Israel. Has a case against means basically the same thing as bring an accusation against, and it may be necessary in some languages to combine these two parallel lines into one line. If this is done, the translator should be sure to include both Israel and his people in this line. The use of the term his people suggests that the accusation will be about breaking the covenant with Israel that made them his people.

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 .

We have come to the last paragraph in the book, a prayer or hymn of praise to God. Verse 18 opens with a question, “Who is a God like thee…?” (Revised Standard Version). The answer expected is clearly that there is no one like God, and so Good News Translation restructures the question as a negative statement, There is no other god like you, and adds O LORD, to show who is being spoken to. No matter how this is expressed, some translators may be hesitant to allow people to think that there are any other gods at all, even if they are not like the Lord. The problems in 4.5 are somewhat similar to this, and it may be useful to reread the discussion there on how to talk about the “gods” of other nations. As for this verse, we should note that in many languages these words would not be understood as saying that other gods do exist. It may be just a way of speaking, looking at the situation from the point of view of other peoples. Therefore it would seem best to follow the Hebrew wording here if at all possible. But if a translation will definitely suggest to the readers that the prophet is stating that other gods exist, then a translator should try to find some others way of expressing this idea. In that case, something like “No other god like you exists” or “There is no one like you, O God” may be a possibility.

The characteristic of God that marks him off as unique is here stated as his ability and willingness to forgive sin. In the Hebrew in this verse and the next, three common terms for sin are used (Revised Standard Version “iniquity” and “transgression” in verse 18, and “iniquities” and “sins” in verse 19). This has the effect of emphasizing the completeness of God’s ability to forgive all kinds of sin. If a translator has several words available in his language for sin in its different aspects, it would be good to use a variety in this passage. Good News Translation uses only the word sins in both verses, partly because the other terms available in English are less commonly known and therefore more difficult to the reader. Good News Translation also cuts out the parallel expressions “pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression” (Revised Standard Version), combining these statements into a single one, you forgive the sins of your people.

This experience of forgiven sin is for “the remnant of his inheritance” (Revised Standard Version), that is to say, those of God’s people who are still alive after the nation has been punished. Good News Translation expresses this as your people who have survived. The Hebrew word that is used for “inheritance” is the same term that occurred in verse 14, and it is represented by the words your people in Good News Translation. In some languages it may be necessary to make explicit what it is that the people have survived. One can say something like “your people who are still alive after we have been punished” or “those of your people whom our enemies have not destroyed.” It may also be confusing in some languages for the people to refer to themselves simply as your people, as though they were speaking about someone other than themselves. It may be better to use an expression like “us, who are your people.”

In Hebrew the second half of verse 18 and the first half of verse 19 are in the third person, whereas the beginning of verse 18, the end of verse 19, and the whole of verse 20 are in the second person. Some scholars think that this indicates that these verses were used for responsive reading or chanting. For many translators the change from second person to third person and back to second is very awkward and interrupts the flow of the sense. A number of modern English translations (Good News Translation, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, New International Version, and Moffatt) keep the second person throughout the three verses, and most translators will prefer to do the same.

God may be angry with his people when they provoke him by their sins, but once they have been punished, he does not stay angry forever but takes pleasure in showing … constant love. Constant love is the quality that God has always shown toward his people in fulfillment of his covenant relationship with them. It is the quality that he expected his people to show toward him in return. At the opening of the court scene in 6.1-5, the Lord charged his people with failing to fulfill their side of the covenant, and in 6.8 the requirement of constant love was again emphasized. The same Hebrew root occurred again in 7.2, where the prophet complained of the lack of people “loyal to God.” Despite this he retains his assurance that the constant love of the Lord never changes, and that it is the basis for his willingness to forgive his people for their sins. The recurrence of this theme is one of the unifying factors in chapters 6 and 7, and it will be useful if translators can find some word or expression in their own language that may be used in all four places. However, this should not be done if there is no expression that sounds natural in all these contexts.

Note that Good News Translation makes explicit the objects of God’s constant love by including the word us. It may be necessary to restructure the last clause of this verse, since many languages may express these ideas in quite different ways. One possibility may be “you always love us faithfully.” There is a difference in emphasis between Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation in the way they relate the two clauses of this sentence. Revised Standard Version says that God does not stay angry “because” of his love. Good News Translation connects the two parts with the word but, simply contrasting the two attitudes. Translators may feel free to use whichever relationship sounds best in their languages.

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

Revised Standard Version begins this verse with “Therefore,” but this does not really make sense here. Good News Translation begins with And now, which fits the context in English but does not really add anything to the meaning. This whole passage is simply a list of unrelated comments based on the names of different towns, and there is no need to treat this one differently by using some introductory expression here. Of course it may be that in many languages some sort of introductory word or phrase will be needed before each idea in these verses.

The subject of the verb in the first sentence is simply “you” in Hebrew, as in Revised Standard Version. Good News Translation makes it explicit that this refers to the people of Judah in general. If this is not done, the reader will be confused and will naturally refer the “you” to the people of Lachish in the previous verse.

Moresheth is Micah’s home village (see 1.1). Its name as given in this verse, Moresheth Gath, probably indicates that it was not far from the Philistine town of Gath, and thus was near the border of Judean territory. The pun here is probably again one of sense rather than sound. The name Moresheth is similar to the Hebrew word for fiancée. When a girl got married, she would be given a “dowry” (Jerusalem Bible), and this is probably what the “parting gifts” (Revised Standard Version) are intended to refer to. This is the meaning of the same word in 1 Kgs 9.16. Micah here sees a similarity between parents saying good-bye to a daughter when she marries, and the people of Judah saying good-bye to Moresheth. What Micah implies is that the town will fall into enemy hands and no longer be part of Judah. As this was Micah’s own hometown (verse 1), we can well imagine his sadness at having to deliver such a message as this.

If a translator wants to try to keep the picture used in this line, it is possible to say “give Moresheth Gath the gifts you give to people who are leaving you” or “give gifts to Moresheth Gath, as you would to a daughter who is leaving home to be married.” In many languages it will be better to follow Good News Translation and use a simple expression to show that you are taking leave of someone. In English this is say good-bye, but in other languages there may be a simple verb or other expression to describe the action, and there may be nothing “said” at all. It may be necessary in some languages to add the explanation for this picture and to say “because enemies are about to capture this town.”

In the second half of the verse the pun is very clear. The town name Achzib is almost identical with the Hebrew word ʾachzab, translated as “deceitful thing” by Revised Standard Version. In Jer 15.18 the word is used of a stream that dries up in summer and thus disappoints the thirsty traveler. Achzib is the town mentioned in Josh 15.44. Micah here seems to think of a situation in which the kings of Israel depended on the people of Achzib for some help but were “disappointed” (New English Bible) in their hopes. This cannot be linked with any known historical event.

This part of verse 14 is simply a statement, like verse 12, and is not spoken directly to anyone. If it matters to the translator, however, we can assume that in places like this the prophet is speaking to all the people of Judah.

The use of the plural kings may indicate that this was written during a period of coregency, that is, a period when the reigning king’s son was associated with him on the throne. Such periods of coregency were quite common in the eighth century in Judah. For instance, Hezekiah was coregent with his father Ahaz from 728 B.C. to 716 B.C.

However, if the plural kings will sound strange to the readers, a translator may translate a singular “king.” Indeed, a number of scholars believe that the Hebrew text should be changed at this point to say “king” in the singular.

Israel is a confusing name in the Bible, because sometimes it refers to the whole people of God; other times it refers to the northern kingdom of Israel, as distinguished from the southern kingdom of Judah; and at yet other times it refers to the southern kingdom. In this passage it seems to refer to Judah. In some languages it may be better to say simply “the kings of Judah.”

According to Good News Translation, the kings will get no help from this town. If it is necessary to state what kind of help, it is best to assume that the kings hoped that Achzib would supply some men to help them fight, but that since Achzib had been conquered by the enemy, it could not help in this way. The translation of Good News Translation loses the idea of “disappointment.” This can be easily added by saying something like “the kings of Israel will look to Achzib for help, but they will get none” or “the town of Achzib will not be able to help the kings of Israel, and so they will be disappointed.”

The town of Achzib is literally “the houses of Achzib” (Revised Standard Version), but it has the meaning given in Good News Translation.

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 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 .