One of the ways in which the wealthy used the riches they had wrongly obtained was in building luxury houses (see Amos 5.11 for a similar charge against the rich in Samaria). These fine buildings no doubt beautified Jerusalem outwardly, but they could not hide the fact that the city’s moral foundation was one of murder and injustice: the rich could only afford these buildings because they were cruel and oppressive to the poor. That Jerusalem was God’s city made the rulers’ actions all the more hateful to him. Good News Translation has combined the repetitive parallelism of the Hebrew into a single main clause. The literal “with blood and … with wrong” (Revised Standard Version) become murder and injustice. Note that “blood” is a figure of speech called metonymy, which is given its plain meaning of murder in Good News Translation.

The twin names of the city, “Zion” and “Jerusalem,” are translated literally in Revised Standard Version. Jerusalem is the normal geographical name for the city and is the one used in Good News Translation. “Zion” refers to the same city but is a term that emphasizes here its religious importance as the site of the temple and the center of the worship of God. This sense is conveyed by Good News Translation with the words God’s city.

The figure of speech in this verse is translated by most English versions as though “blood” and “wrong” are the materials that the leaders are building Jerusalem with. In Good News Translation the figure has been changed slightly to suggest that murder and injustice are the foundation on which the city is being built. Most translators should be able to use one or the other of these figures. But if it is impossible, the figure can be dropped to say something like “You are able to do so much building in the city only because of the murder and injustice by which you gain your money and your power.”

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 words of the Lord continue in this verse and the next. The argument proceeds by stating some of the ways in which the Lord had blessed his people and thus carried out his obligations to them under the covenant. The two statements I brought you out of Egypt and I rescued you from slavery are two ways of referring to the events of the exodus. These two expressions are often joined together (see Exo 13.3; Deut 5.6; 6.12; Jer 34.13). God’s covenant with the people of Israel was actually based on the fact that he had saved them from Egypt (Exo 20.2). The acts of mercy mentioned in this verse therefore occurred before the covenant itself, before the Lord had such formal obligations to the people.

Slavery is literally “the house of slaves,” which is a figurative way of talking about Egypt in terms of the experience of the Israelite people there. If there is no good term for slavery in a language, this may be translated “the place where we were forced to work very hard.” A term like “prison labor” may be correct in some languages. Translators should be sure that it is clear that the two expressions (brought you out of Egypt and rescued you from slavery) refer to the same act, not to two completely separate acts.

It is also important to be sure that the connection between verses 3 and 4 is clear. One suggestion about this was given at the end of the discussion on verse 3. Moffatt connects them by putting verse 4 in the form of rhetorical questions such as “Did I not bring you up from Egypt’s land?” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible uses ironical questions that ask “Did I trouble you by bringing you up from Egypt?” and so on. In Hebrew the word for “be a burden” in verse 3 also sounds very much like “bring you out” in verse 4, which helps to show the contrast between what the people seem to think God did and what he actually did for them. In some languages it may be effective to use words with similar sounds, as the Hebrew does.

Another thing that the Lord had done was to send Moses, Aaron, and Miriam as leaders of the people, at the time of the exodus and afterward. Aaron and Miriam are mentioned only here in the writings of the prophets. They were both older than Moses, and probably Miriam was the oldest of the three. Translators need to consider the rules of their languages and decide whether it will be more natural to list the most important first or the oldest first. In languages where it is the custom to mention the oldest of a family first, the translator may give the names in reverse order: Miriam, Aaron, and Moses. In Hebrew and English, Moses is mentioned first because he was the main leader of the people. I sent them to lead you may be translated as “I chose them as your leaders.”

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 Abraham and Jacob are ancestors of the nation, but their names are used to represent their descendants, and Good News Translation makes the relationship explicit. The opening part of the verse uses typical Hebrew parallelism (Revised Standard Version “faithfulness to Jacob and steadfast love to Abraham”). Good News Translation retains all the elements of this parallelism but expresses them in an order that is more natural for English: You will show your faithfulness and constant love to your people, the descendants of Abraham and of Jacob. Notice that the names here occur in the order opposite to that in the Hebrew. This is because English prefers to follow the chronological order and mention the earlier ancestor first. Many translators will wish to do the same.

The Lord’s faithfulness and constant love are the proof that he observes his side of the covenant that he promised our ancestors long ago. Thus the Book of Micah, despite its threats of punishment in the earlier chapters, ends on a note of joy and confidence that the nation will eventually enjoy a restored relationship with the Lord. The ancestors referred to here are primarily Abraham and Jacob but could include all the ancestors alive at the time the covenant was made at Sinai. Constant love is the same expression as that used in verse 18. Faithfulness is a word used here as a parallel term for constant love, bringing out the part of the meaning already expressed by constant in Good News Translation. As long as translators use an expression that includes this meaning, there is no need to try to find two separate expressions in this verse.

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 forms the climax to the section and is expressed in a direct manner without the use of any wordplays. In Hebrew the verse is addressed to a singular rather than a plural “you.” This may simply be a way of talking to the whole nation by referring to each person individually. This seems to be the understanding of Good News Translation, which clearly states that the people addressed are the People of Judah. Others believe that this verse is addressed to Jerusalem, as though the town is a “parent” and all of the small towns and villages that the enemy is capturing are Jerusalem’s “children.” The Good News Translation interpretation seems preferable.

The two verbs, “make … bald” and “cut off your hair” (Revised Standard Version), are synonyms used for poetic effect, and many languages will follow Good News Translation in rendering them as a single verb cut off your hair. If both ideas are used, it will probably sound better to say “cut off your hair and make yourselves bald,” as baldness is the result of cutting off the hair. The shaving of the head was a common sign of mourning among the Israelites and is referred to several times in the Old Testament, for instance in Isa 15.2; Jer 16.6; Amos 8.10. In areas where this custom is not followed, the meaning of the action should be made explicit, as Good News Translation makes it with the words in mourning.

The people are to go into mourning for their children. This is not because the children have died but because they have been taken away from them, as the rest of the verse makes clear. The children are referred to as the children you love or “the children that give you joy.”

The second half of the verse begins by repeating the thought of the first half, Make yourselves as bald as vultures. In Hebrew there was no consistent distinction made between various large birds, and the same word sometimes means “eagle” (as in Obadiah verse 4) and sometimes “vulture,” as here. Revised Standard Version “eagle” in this verse is almost certainly wrong, as only the vulture has the bare, featherless head and neck that is the whole point of the reference here. This is recognized by Moffatt, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation, and New International Version. However, this is not primarily a literal reference to a particular bird but is a point of comparison for baldness. Therefore whatever bird is used in the translation, it should be a bird that is known to be bald. If there is no such bird known in the culture, it will probably be better to drop the comparison and say simply “completely bald.”

The final clause expands on what was said in the first half of the verse, by giving the reason for the mourning. This is that your children will be taken away from you into exile. It was the regular policy of the Assyrian kings, and later of the Babylonian kings also, to deport the surviving populations of territories that they had conquered. This policy was known and feared even by people who had not yet experienced its terrors. Such exile had been threatened before for the northern kingdom of Israel, for instance in Amos 5.27; 7.17, and here the same threat is extended to the southern kingdom of Judah. If the passage comes from a period later than 722 B.C., when Israel fell to the Assyrians, then the people had before them the example of a similar prophecy already fulfilled, to add urgency to Micah’s warnings. As it actually happened, the judgment on Judah was put off for over a century, and it was not until 586 B.C. that Jerusalem was captured by King Nebuchadnezzar and its surviving population was taken into exile by his Babylonian armies. See 2 Kgs 25.1-21.

For a discussion of the translation of going into exile, see 1.11. The ones who take the children away are of course the enemies, and some languages will need to make this explicit.

There are several features of this verse that come from the fact that it is poetry, and it may sound better if it is restructured. The whole point of the verse is saved for the last line. This is effective in poetry and may be good in some prose translations as well. But in some languages it may be necessary to put it first. Also it may be better to refer only once to cutting off the hair, rather than to mention it in two parts of the verse. If a translator made both these adaptations, the result could be something like this: “People of Judah, you love your children, but your enemies will take them away into exile. Therefore you should go into mourning for them, and should show this by cutting off your hair, thus making yourselves as bald as vultures.”

Most commentators, however, feel that the children of this verse really stand for Jerusalem’s neighboring towns and villages. If a translator wants to make this understanding explicit, then the verse can be handled in at least two different ways. First, it may be necessary in some languages to drop the figure of speech and give the plain meaning. The verse can then be addressed to the people of Jerusalem: “People of Jerusalem, your enemies are going to capture all the people of the towns and villages near you, and take them away into exile. Therefore you should….” Second, it may be possible to keep the figure, in which case the verse should address Jerusalem herself: “Jerusalem, the towns and villages near you are like children to you, and you love them. But your enemies will take them away into exile. Therefore….”

The tense of the Hebrew verb in the last line literally suggests that the children have already gone into exile, and this fits more with the command that the people should go into mourning now. However, the Hebrew prophets often spoke of things that they were predicting as though they had already taken place. This is a way of showing that the prophet is certain that they will take place, and it made his predictions more vivid to the people who heard the prophet’s messages. Perhaps the prophet had actually seen it already in a vision. Some of the English translations retain this tense literally as “they have gone into exile” (New English Bible and Jerusalem Bible, for example), but the meaning is really future, as Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation translate.

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 and 10 turn away from the theme of future restoration and glory, and deal with the sadness and agony of the people at the time of their exile. Because this is a new subject, some translators may want to begin a new paragraph here, even though Good News Translation does not. However, the prophet here continues to address the city of Jerusalem, and this forms a link with verse 8.

In the Hebrew of verse 9, as reflected in Revised Standard Version, the first and last clauses of the verse speak of the agony of exile, using the picture of a woman in the pain of childbirth. (This image is frequent in Jeremiah; for instance, Jer 4.31; 6.24.) The second and third clauses ask whether the king and counselors of the nation have been removed. Good News Translation has reordered so as to bring together the two clauses that refer to pain, and has put them at the beginning of the verse. Then it joins the two questions in a single sentence to complete the verse. This has the advantage of putting the full figure of speech before its application, rather than moving back and forth from figure to application and then back to figure.

Since the image uses the language of childbirth, some care in the choice of vocabulary in the receptor language may be needed. There may be technical terms for the cry or the pains that are suffered by a woman in labor. If such terms are well known, their use here would add vividness to the translation. However, in some languages there are cultural restrictions on the use of terms related to childbirth, and the translators must be careful not to offend the reader by the terms they choose. The image of childbirth is expressed in question form (Why do you cry out…? Why are you suffering…?), but the questions are rhetorical, and in some languages it may be clearer to use statements here in place of questions. The purpose of these questions is to force the people to think about what is happening to them, so that they will begin to understand what God is really doing to them. By using questions Micah pretends to be surprised at the way they are acting. Translators should decide whether questions or statements here will be best for giving this effect in their languages.

The third question suggests an answer to the first two: Is it because you have no king, and your counselors are dead? But in Hebrew this question is framed so as to indicate that it expects the answer “No.” The prophet does not suppose that the king and counselors have actually been taken away or killed. Rather he is mocking them and implying that even though they are there, they are as useless and helpless as if they were gone. It may be necessary to change the wording in many translations in order to make this clear, but the translator should still try to keep the mocking tone of the original. For example, one might say “What is the matter with your king and your counselors? Can’t they help you?”

The Hebrew, like Revised Standard Version, has the singular noun “counselor” here. This can be understood in two ways. It may be used collectively and refer to the counselors or advisors of the king. If so, it should be translated as a plural noun, as in Good News Translation and Jerusalem Bible. Or it may refer to the king himself as the counselor of the people, in which case it may be translated, “Is it because your king who advises you is dead?” The first possibility seems more likely.

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 .

Three of the main products of the land are mentioned. First, the people will sow grain, but not harvest the crop. Thus there will be no flour to make bread, and the staple element of their diet will be missing. Sow means to plant by scattering on the ground, but the form of planting is not really important here, and it can be translated simply by the general word for “plant.” Not harvest the crop can mean either that someone else will harvest the crop, or that something will happen to the crop before harvest time and no one will harvest it. If a translator cannot use a general term, either one of these possibilities is acceptable.

Second, the people will press oil from olives, but never get to use it (British edition “never be able to use it”). Olive oil was used for cooking, for burning in oil lamps, and for anointing the body; its loss would be a severe hardship. There were various ways to press oil, and the one actually mentioned here was for people to walk on the olives. Here, too, a general term is quite acceptable, and some translators may need to say simply “make oil from olives.” The Hebrew here mentions only one way to use the oil, pouring it on the body (“anoint yourselves” in Revised Standard Version). If olive oil is used this way in a particular culture, it may be good to mention such a specific use in a translation. Otherwise a more general expression like Good News Translation‘s can be used.

Third, the people will make wine, but never drink it. Wine was a normal daily drink and was very important in a country where water supplies were scarce and often impure. The way to make wine was also by walking or treading on the grapes. When this process was finished, the juice (or new wine) would have to ferment for some time before it became good wine. In areas where winemaking is known, and there are terms for the different stages in the process, translators may be able to follow the Hebrew closely and say “You will tread out the juice from the grapes, but never drink the wine.”

The reason why the people would not harvest the grain, use the oil, or drink the wine is not stated, but in the light of verse 14 it seems most probable that an enemy army would come and either destroy these things or take them for themselves.

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 continues the words of the Lord (Good News Translation) or the comment of the prophet (Revised Standard Version). In the previous verses the rich oppressors have been addressed directly, but with the words These people this verse talks about them rather than to them. Some translators may wonder who the Lord (or Micah) is talking to in this verse. This is not made clear in the text, but if it is necessary to choose someone, we can assume that this verse is addressed to the people who have remained faithful to God. This is the group that is addressed in verse 12, and it is possible to understand that the Lord first speaks to them about their oppressors before giving them his promises in the next verse. On the other hand, in some languages (including English) this type of comment in the third person is quite effective in the middle of a criticism. It is then understood simply as an aside, not addressed to anyone. It may also be quite acceptable to change this verse to the second person and have it continue to address the oppressors directly, in terms such as “you people.”

The word translated prophet, prophesy in this verse is the same Hebrew word as that translated preach three times in verse 6. This has the effect of forming a link between verse 6 and verse 11, verse 6 speaking of how people reject the true prophet, and verse 11 speaking of how they welcome the false prophet. Since the people had rejected the words of the true prophet, Micah, the question arose as to what kind of prophet they would accept. The answer was of course a prophet who would say whatever they wanted to hear, and who would excuse their evil conduct and encourage them to continue in extravagant living. There were plenty of professional prophets ready to fulfill such a role, as is clear from the story of Ahab and Micaiah the son of Imlah in 1 Kgs 22.1-28.

If the usual word for prophet is anything like “the one who speaks on behalf of God,” then it will be necessary to change it somewhat in this verse and say that “he claims to speak for God,” since what he is saying is of course not really God’s message.

Such people’s words were no more than lies and deceit intended to please the hearers rather than honor the Lord. Lies and deceit are really two ways of saying the same thing, and it may be necessary in many languages to use only one term here. Full of lies may be translated “speaking only lies.”

The rich clearly used their ill-gotten wealth on heavy drinking, and a false prophet who promised that wine and liquor will flow for you was certain to find their favor. Will flow for you means “you will have plenty of wine and liquor.” The word translated liquor or “strong drink” (Revised Standard Version) can mean beer or wine, but probably nothing stronger than this. If a language has terms for wine and beer, or for ordinary wine and stronger wine, these may be used here. It is not necessary to have two terms, however, if it is difficult to find two. “All kinds of intoxicating drinks” is another possibility.

Good News Translation reorders the clauses to put the statement These people want the kind of prophet before the description of the prophet’s characteristics. In English this presents the content of the verse in the order easiest for the reader to understand, but translators will need to follow the order that is most natural in their own 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 .

Verse 8 begins in a way very similar to verse 7. The phrase “remnant of Jacob” (Revised Standard Version) occurs again, but the statement of where the remnant is located is expanded into two parallel phrases, “among the nations” and “in the midst of many peoples.” These phrases refer again to the people in exile, and their meaning is combined in the single phrase among the nations in Good News Translation, in order to avoid clumsy repetition. Verse 8 is parallel in structure with verse 7 and continues with a double simile, or comparison, just as verse 7 did. The similes are “like a lion among the beasts of the forest” and “like a young lion among the flocks of sheep.” They are parallel repetitions of a single image, and Good News Translation puts them together in a single comparison, with its like a lion hunting for food in a forest or a pasture.

The lion is a dangerous hunter, whether he is searching for wild animals in the forest or for sheep in a pasture. In the same way the people of Israel who are left among the nations will be able to destroy their enemies, as verse 9 makes clear. Good News Translation has used a different expression for the “remnant” from that used in verse 7, but it is the same expression in the Hebrew. A translator can either use the same expression as in verse 7, or it may be possible by the use of pronouns to make clear that the same group of the people of Israel is being spoken of here. Or, if it sounds better to use a different term with the same meaning, as Good News Translation has done, that too is quite all right.

The remaining lines of verse 8 describe what a lion does when he gets among the sheep, helping to make more vivid the picture of how the people of Israel will deal with their enemies. As in verse 7, these last two lines of verse 8 are both relative clauses, but they are more complex in structure than those in verse 7. Revised Standard Version follows the Hebrew structure closely: “which, when it goes through, treads down and tears in pieces, and there is none to deliver.” There is no difficulty here with either the grammar or the meaning. Good News Translation expresses the same meaning, but with a sentence structure and a vocabulary that are much more natural in English: he gets in among the sheep, pounces on them, and tears them to pieces—and there is no hope of rescue. Pounces on them means “jumps on them” in the way cats do when catching prey. There is no hope of rescue can be translated “there is no one who can save the sheep from him.” In Good News Translation the lion is called he, but translators should of course follow the patterns of their own language. If a pronoun is used, it should be the appropriate one for a lion. In some languages it may seen strange to compare a group of people to a single “lion,” and it may be necessary to talk about “lions” instead.

The real problem is that the picture here of the effect that the people in exile will have on their neighbors is so different from that given in verse 7. The parallel structure of the two verses, which is closer in Hebrew than in English, makes it clear that they go together as a unit. Since this is so, we must come to one or the other of two conclusions. The first possibility is that these verses give opposite and complementary pictures of Israel’s relations with its neighbors in the exile. Many scholars do indeed accept the idea that one of these speaks of blessing and the other of destruction. Such contrasts can be found elsewhere, as in Prov 19.12, where images of a lion and dew are combined in one verse. Knox, Phillips, and Good News Translation all make it clear that this is the interpretation they are following.

The second possible conclusion is that verse 7 does not refer to blessing. Some scholars interpret it in the light of 2 Sam 17.12, where Hushai speaks of attacking David in these words: “we shall light upon him as the dew falls on the ground; and of him and all the men with him not one will be left” (Revised Standard Version). Here the falling of dew is likened to a sudden, silent, and irresistible attack. Good News Translation has “We will … attack him before he knows what’s happening.” It is possible to see a similar meaning in 5.7, with both the dew and the showers of rain standing for the power of God, which is in no way dependent on man. If a translator prefers this understanding, he will have the following meaning in verse 7: “The people of Israel who survive among the nations will fall upon (or, attack) their enemies just as suddenly as dew or rain falls on the plants. Their power will come from God, and not from man.” Such a translation will bring the message of verse 7 much closer to that of verse 8. Nevertheless the majority of scholars prefer to understand the image of the dew in verse 7 in its more common meaning as something refreshing and helpful. This means that verses 7 and 8 describe different aspects of the people of Israel in their 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 .