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 .

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 .