This verse is the reply to the questions of the previous two verses, and the prophet himself says these words as spokesman for the Lord. In Good News Translation the link with the preceding question is brought out by the introductory word No, which shows that this verse is a reply and that it rejects the assumptions of the previous speaker. Many translators will find it helpful to use some similar link. The previous speaker is addressed literally as “O man” (Revised Standard Version), a term so general that it strengthens the view that the speaker was a representative of the whole nation. As there is no good equivalent in English, Good News Translation drops this vocative, or term of address, and many translators will wish to do the same. But in other languages it will be necessary to keep a term of address. The translator will have to decide whether to use “man” or some other general term.

As is expected after a vocative, the speaker is addressed in the second person. Good News Translation has changed this “you” to a first person plural us, which has the effect of including the prophet with the people he is speaking to. But this example is not followed by Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and there seems to be no good reason for other translators to follow Good News Translation here. If a second person pronoun is retained, it may be singular or plural according to the usage of each receptor language. Some languages cannot use a collective singular in addressing a group, and in these languages a plural will be required.

The subject of the verb told (“showed” Revised Standard Version) is not altogether clear in Hebrew. Some translators, both ancient and modern, assume that the verb is passive, and so translate without naming anyone as the actor, as in “What is good has been explained to you” (Jerusalem Bible). The majority, however, believe that the verb is active, with the subject “He” (as Revised Standard Version). There is no noun in the immediate context for this pronoun to refer to, but the general context makes it clear that the subject must be the LORD (Good News Translation) or “God” (New English Bible). Both the LORD and “God” are used in the Hebrew of this verse, so a translator is free to use either one here. Translators should be careful, though, that the wording of this verse does not sound as though the Lord and God are two different persons.

The word good covers a broad area of meaning, and the term chosen to translate it should be a general term that refers to good moral qualities. The whole sentence the LORD has told us what is good refers in a comprehensive way to all the moral teaching the people of Israel have had. This includes both the written Law and the teachings of previous prophets. It may be clearer in some languages to say “the Lord has told us what is good for us to do.” The expression what is good also occurs in 3.2, though in a rather different context.

Micah then goes on to give his own summary of the Lord’s will as revealed through his predecessors. This summary is the best known sentence in the whole book and is indeed one of the high points of the Old Testament. In Hebrew it is put in the form of a question, as in Revised Standard Version, but a number of modern versions such as Jerusalem Bible and Good News Translation turn it into a statement. Many translators will also find it clearer to do this. What the Lord requires is explained in three brief phrases: to do what is just, to show constant love, and to live in humble fellowship with our God. This reply completely ignores the sacrificial system that the speaker in verses 6 and 7 was thinking about, and it expresses God’s will in moral rather than ceremonial terms. The prophet’s point is that the outward and ceremonial forms of religion should reflect an inner moral relationship with God, and without this relationship all ceremony is useless.

Requires of you can be translated as “asks you to do” or “expects you to do.” Some restructuring may be necessary in some languages. One possibility is “This (meaning ‘the following’) is the way the Lord wants you to live. He wants you to….”

To do what is just (“to do justice” Revised Standard Version) is a very broad term that involves right and fair relationships in the community, especially in legal and financial affairs. As 3.1 shows, this quality was often sadly lacking in the public life of Micah’s day.

Constant love is the Hebrew term chesed. Revised Standard Version has “kindness” in the text, with the alternative “steadfast love” in a footnote. This term has a general sense of faithfulness and reliability, but it is especially used in connection with covenant relationships. It seems that this aspect of the word is in the prophet’s mind here. In verses 3-5 the Lord had accused his people of failing in their covenant obligations to him, and here constant love refers in particular to loyalty to the Lord as God of the covenant. But it also implies kindness in dealings with other men, since this is one of the obvious ways by which a man shows his relationship with God. Many translators will not have a single term to cover this wide area of meaning, and they may need to use a phrase such as “constant love to God and man.” Constant can be expressed as “faithful” or “lasting.”

The third phrase is literally “to walk humbly with your God” (Revised Standard Version). Here “walk” is used in a figurative sense, and Good News Translation brings out its plain meaning with to live. In some languages it will be possible to retain the figurative term “walk” in this sense.

The word translated humble is a rare Hebrew term, occurring in the Old Testament only here and in Prov 11.2, where it is contrasted with “proud.” The meaning is not known for certain, but it probably means humble in the sense of not insisting on one’s own way but readily doing what God wants.

Fellowship with God can also be translated as “living one’s life by always doing God’s will,” though this would not suggest the close personal relationship implied by “walking with” or “fellowship.”

It has already been suggested above that most translators will want to follow the Hebrew and use “you” rather than “we” or “us” in this verse. However, even if this is possible in most of the verse, some translators may not want to have the prophet say “your God” here at the end, since in some languages this would sound as though he is denying that God is also his God. If this a problem, it is possible to translate either as “our God” or simply “God.”

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 gives a brief introduction to and summary of the whole prophecy of Micah. It was probably added after the rest of the book was complete, and is similar in form to the opening verses of other prophetic books, especially Hosea and Amos. It has three purposes: (1) to give a date for the prophecy, (2) to give background information about Micah, and (3) to state the main subjects of his prophecy.

(1) The prophecy is dated by the reigns of kings, just as the prophecies of Hosea, Amos, and Isaiah are. In Hos 1.1 and Amos 1.1, the kings of both the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah are mentioned. But here in Micah, as in Isa 1.1, the names mentioned are only those of kings of Judah.

(2) The background information about Micah is limited to the fact that he came from the town of Moresheth.

(3) The main topics of his prophecy are stated very briefly as Samaria and Jerusalem. These two cities were the capitals of the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah respectively, and in this verse they represent the two kingdoms.

During the time that Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah were kings of Judah: the words During the time are a way of expressing the idea that Micah’s ministry took place at some part of the time that each of these kings was ruling. It is literally “in the days” (Revised Standard Version [Revised Standard Version]) of these kings. This expression comes at the beginning of the sentence in Good News Translation, but in the translator’s languages it should be placed at any point where it sounds natural.

The translator should be careful not to suggest that all three kings ruled at the same time. There may be a term in the language meaning “one after the other” or “one at a time” that would be helpful here.

Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah: Jotham reigned approximately 740-736 B.C., Ahaz 734-716 B.C., and Hezekiah 716-687 B.C. In Jer 26.18-19 there is a reference to Micah prophesying in the reign of King Hezekiah, and scholars today believe that most of Micah’s prophecy is to be dated in the period 715-700 B.C. There is no need to go into further detail, since exact dating is rarely of importance to a translator.

For languages that do not have a word for kings, an expression like “great chiefs” or “the ones who command” may be the closest equivalent.

Judah is of course a country, and in many languages it would be helpful to identify the type of place that a name refers to, at least the first time that it is used; for example, “the country of Judah” or “the land called Judah.” The book of Micah will usually be printed only as part of a whole Bible, and it may be right to assume that most readers will have a certain amount of Bible background when they begin to read Micah. However, it is still helpful to treat each Bible book as a unit of its own, and not to assume that all readers will remember everything they have read in other parts of the Bible.

The LORD gave this message to Micah: Good News Translation restructures “The word of the LORD that came to Micah” (Revised Standard Version) to make the LORD the subject. Micah’s message carried authority as “The word of the LORD” (Revised Standard Version). In Hebrew, these words are the opening words of the book and so have more prominence than they do in Good News Translation, where the LORD gave this message to Micah comes in the middle of the sentence. If a language has a way of marking or bringing into focus the most important part of a sentence, then in this sentence, this the part that should be marked. In many languages this will mean it should come at the beginning of the verse, as in Revised Standard Version.

It may seem best to translate the LORD by some expression meaning “lord” or “master,” or in some parts of the world “boss,” rather than by trying to give the personal name of God (as “Yahweh” in the Jerusalem Bible [Jerusalem Bible]) or an expression with some other meaning (as Moffatt’s [Moffatt] “the Eternal”). The reasons for this are given in more detail in A Handbook on the Book of Ruth, page 10, and in this Handbook’s comments on The Book of Jonah, pages 50 and following, and page 62. See also the comments on Obadiah verse 1a. Many English versions have chosen to use small capital letters to mark the place where “Lord” translates the personal name of God, as in Good News Translation Micah 1.1, in order to distinguish it from places where the Hebrew word for “Lord” itself is used, as in Good News Translation Amos 9.1. It will not be necessary to follow this example in other languages unless there are enough readers who will understand the significance of the distinction, and who will want to have it marked in their own language. If only a few seminary students and pastors are interested, and if they are all familiar with Bibles in English or some other languages, it may be best to avoid these small capital letters.

In some languages it may sound odd to talk about a lord or master without saying whose lord he is. In this verse “our Lord” would be appropriate, but it will be necessary to use different pronouns in other verses, according to the sense of the verse.

This message: the Hebrew term used here means literally a single “word” (Revised Standard Version), but this does not imply that everything in the book was revealed to Micah on a single occasion. In some languages the form of the verb can show that this happened over a period of time, but it may also be helpful to say “these words.” Whatever expression is used, it should clearly refer to the whole book, and not only to the words that come right after this sentence.

Micah, who was from the town of Moresheth: Moresheth was a small and obscure place in the foothills of southwestern Judah, and this probably means that Micah himself was a peasant farmer typical of the area. He would thus be one of the poor and oppressed groups who were ill-treated by the rich. This helps to explain why he complains so sharply about their fate, for instance in 2.2, 8-9; 3.1-3.

This is the end of the first sentence in Good News Translation, but in Revised Standard Version and most English translations, verse 1 as a whole is not a complete sentence. The Hebrew begins with “The word of the LORD” (Revised Standard Version) and then adds various descriptive phrases to it, but does not complete the sentence. This verse is thus probably to be understood as something like a title for the whole book. However, it is better in translation to make the verse into one or more complete sentences. One way to do this is to follow the sense of the New English Bible (New English Bible), “This is the word of the LORD.” Another way is to make the Lord the subject of the sentence, as Good News Translation has done.

The LORD revealed to Micah: the Revised Standard Version translation “The word of the LORD that came to Micah … which he saw…” may be puzzling, since one does not normally see a word but rather hears it. The prophets of Israel often received visions through which they learned the Lord’s message (see Isa 6; Amos 7.1-9; 8.1-3, for examples), and thus they came to speak of seeing a word. The exact way in which The LORD revealed his message to Micah is not stated. We are not told that Micah had visions, though the use of the word “saw” could imply this, and some English translations (including Jerusalem Bible and New English Bible) use the word “visions” in the verse. The basic idea is that Lord used some spiritual experience to show Micah what he wanted him to say. The Hebrew form of expression (“to see a word”) should not be carried over into languages in which it is unnatural. In Good News Translation, for instance, the meaning of this phrase is divided between the two words gave and revealed.

All these things about Samaria and Jerusalem: in some languages it may be necessary to say something about the content of the message rather than simply that it concerned Samaria and Jerusalem. Good News Translation has added all these things in order to fill out the sense. Another possibility would be to say “what would happen to Samaria and Jerusalem.” The expression used should be as general as possible.

Samaria and Jerusalem were the capital cities of Israel and Judah respectively, and some translators may wish to make this explicit. If a languages has not word for “capital,” then it can be translated as “largest town.” Israel and Judah together made up the whole of God’s people, and Micah’s message thus reflects the LORD’s interest in all his people. It is not surprising that Micah took more interest in the affairs of Judah, both because he himself was a Judean citizen, and because Israel no longer existed after Samaria was destroyed by the Assyrians in 722 B.C.

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 .

Although most of the book of Micah has been translated as prose in Good News Translation, verses 2-4 have been translated as poetry. The translators probably felt the picture of the Lord speaking from heaven and walking on the mountains would sound better in English as poetry than as a rather complicated prose comparison. In many languages the translators will prefer to translate verses as prose, just like the rest of the book.

When changing from Hebrew poetry to prose, it is important to be aware of parallel lines and ideas. One important feature of Hebrew poetry is that two lines are often parallel to each other. This means that almost the same thing may be said in both lines by using different words with similar meanings. Or it may be that the second line will repeat most of the meaning of the first line, but add another idea as well. Many languages use types of expression like this, even in prose, but the translator should know what he is doing and not say something twice simply because it is said twice in Hebrew. Often it will be better to say it only once. This may mean leaving one of the lines out completely if does not add anything to the meaning of the other line. Or it may mean combining the ideas from both lines into a single line in the translation.

Verse 2 opens with two clauses that are parallel in meaning. In the first the prophet calls all … nations to Hear (compare 3.1; 6.1), and in the second he literally calls the “earth, and all that is in it” (Revised Standard Version) to listen. Good News Translation all who live on earth makes it clear that this is primarily a reference to the people who are the inhabitants of the earth, though it is not necessarily limited to people. Jerusalem Bible takes a wider meaning with “earth, and everything in it.”

If the second line of verse 2 is understood as referring to all people who live on earth, then it does not add anything to the meaning of the first line, and the two lines together mean listen to this, all who live on earth. If the second line is understood as referring to everything on earth, not only the people, then the meaning of the two lines together may be translated as “Listen to this, you people of every country, and everything else on the earth.”

This and to this after Hear and listen in Good News Translation seem to refer to what the prophet is saying. He is asking the people to listen to him as he tells that the Lord is going to speak. In other versions the meaning seems to be that the people should listen to the Lord as he speaks, and this sense may be the better one to follow. One may say something like “You people of every country, listen to the Lord as he testifies against you.” Translators should note, however, that the Lord’s own words do not begin until verse 6. This may make a difference in the way the sentence is worded.

The prophet of course does not expect that everyone on earth can really hear him speaking, but this type of exaggeration is common in poetry. If the Lord speaks, on the other hand, we can assume that everyone can hear him. So if necessary the verse may be rearranged to say that the Lord will speak to everyone, and they all must listen to him.

The people are to listen because The Sovereign LORD will testify or give evidence as a witness against them. For the translation of Sovereign LORD, see the comments on Obadiah verse 1a.

Will testify against you uses the picture of God being a witness against the people of the world in a court of law. If there is no special term for being a witness in a court, the meaning is “to speak about the bad things you have done.” This picture of God as witness must not be taken too literally, since God himself is of course the judge. If this will be a serious problem in some languages, the picture may be dropped, and the plain meaning may be given that God will speak about their bad deeds.

Listen! is repeated in Good News Translation in the last line of verse 2 for the poetic effect. The word does not appear at this point in the Hebrew.

He speaks from his heavenly temple: the last line of verse 2 says literally “the Lord from his holy temple” (Revised Standard Version). Jerusalem Bible connects this to the idea of verse 3, that the Lord is coming, and translates “the Lord, as he sets out from his sacred palace.” Most translations, however, understand this as referring to the place where the Lord is when he is testifying against the people. In many languages it will be necessary to put this line before the third line and say “the Lord is in his temple and speaks as a witness against you.”

His heavenly temple: the Hebrew refers to “his holy temple” here (Revised Standard Version), but the meaning is heaven, not the temple in Jerusalem, and it will probably be necessary to make this clear in the translation, as Good News Translation has done. “Holy” in this context does not really add much to the meaning, as it simply means something that especially belongs to God. If there is no good word for “holy” that fits this passage, the meaning is really covered by saying it is God’s temple.

Temple can be translated as “the Lord’s house” or “the Lord’s big house.” If “heaven” is a problem, an expression like “up above” may be helpful. The Old Testament writers sometimes refer to God having a temple in heaven (Psa 11.4; 18.6; Jonah 2.7; Hab 2.20), and even if this is really just a picture for something spiritual (see 1 Kgs 8.27), it is probably best to translate it literally. However, if a temple in heaven is a serious problem for some reason, it would be enough just to say “heaven” here.

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 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 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second paragraph in this section consists of verses 5-7. Verse 5 consists of four elements, the second parallel to the first, and the fourth parallel to the third. In the first pair the meanings of the two elements are synonymous and repetitive, as the Revised Standard Version text shows. Good News Translation has therefore dropped the parallel form and repetition of meaning, and expressed the total meaning in a single sentence with the two verbs sinned and rebelled. The double mention of “Jacob” and “the house of Israel” is combined into a single term the people of Israel. As the second half of the verse shows by mentioning both Samaria and Jerusalem, the prophet has both northern and southern kingdoms in mind.

All this refers to the terrible events described in verses 2-4. Whether the translator says will happen or “is happening” depends on whether “come down” in verse 3 (as well as the rest of verses 3 and 4) was translated as a future event, or as a present event that the people could actually see happening.

The rest of the sentence in Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version gives the reason why God is doing (or, will do) these things. It is because the people of Israel have sinned and rebelled. “To sin” is “to do bad things” or “to do things God does not like.” “To rebel” is “to refuse to obey God.” However, these two words are saying almost the same thing in this verse, so it is not necessary for a translator to use two terms. The word translated “rebel” is sometimes translated “to commit a crime.”

The meanings of the second pair of elements in verse 5 are not synonymous, and they are therefore kept as separate units in Good News Translation. In Hebrew each element consists of a rhetorical question, followed by a second question that is in fact the answer to the first. These second questions are translated as statements in Good News Translation in order to make clear that they do indeed serve as answers and are not really further questions. The first question asks Who is to blame for Israel’s rebellion? and thus takes up the verb rebelled from the first part of the verse. The answer, that Samaria is responsible, would have been unexpected and unwelcome to its inhabitants because, as Good News Translation makes explicit, it was the capital city of the northern kingdom. Samaria had become a center for the worship of the fertility gods Baal and Asherah after Jezebel, the pagan wife of King Ahab (874-853 B.C.), started this worship there. See 1 Kgs 16.29-33. Samaria thus became a major source of religious corruption for the whole of Israel, and in due course for Judah also, as is implied in verse 9. Samaria here stands for its inhabitants, and this may need to be made clear in some languages.

The literal meaning in the first question is simply “What is the transgression (or rebellion, or crime) of the northern kingdom?” We might expect a particular evil act to be mentioned as an answer. But the answer is given as Samaria itself. The people of Samaria are not a sin, however, but the cause of sins, or the ones who do sins. Good News Translation has tried to give this idea by asking the question as Who is to blame for Israel’s rebellion?

Who is to blame…? may be translated as “Who is the cause of…?” or “Who is it that has led the people of Israel to rebel?”

The answer is literally a rhetorical question, “Is it not Samaria?” (Revised Standard Version). If a language has a way of putting a question so that the answer is obviously “Yes,” then this can be used here. If there is any danger that a question used as an answer will sound like a real question, it is better to make the answer a statement, as in Good News Translation. The full form of the answer may be stated as “The people of Samaria, the capital city of Israel, are to blame.” But in many languages it will be better to leave out part of this, as it will sound more natural and will still be understood.

The second question in the verse is parallel to the first one. It asks who is responsible for idolatry in Judah, and the second answer is also parallel—it is Jerusalem. It may be necessary in some translations to state again that this is the capital city and that the city stands for its inhabitants. In the second question, Revised Standard Version with its “What is the sin of the house of Judah?” is not translating the Hebrew text but is following the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament begun in the third century B.C. The Hebrew literally asks “What are the high places of Judah?” (King James Version [King James Version]). “High places” is a common Old Testament name for the sites where idolatrous worship was practiced. The meaning of the question is thus “Who is to blame for the high places where the people of Judah go to worship idols?” or “Who is it in Judah who is guilty of going to high places to worship idols?” The main point is of course the idolatry and not the place where it was practiced, and Good News Translation has preferred not to mention the high places themselves. Many translators will prefer to follow the example of Good News Translation, but if the “high places” are mentioned, they can be translated as “hilltops.” However, this should not imply that they are the peaks of high mountains.

“Idols” are “false gods” or “statues.” Idolatry means the worship of idols.

The full form of the answer to this question may be stated as “It is the people of Jerusalem, the capital city of Judah, who worship idols” or “… who are to blame for the idolatry of Judah.”

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 and the next state in some detail the punishment the Lord is to bring for the sins of his people. They use the first person, and therefore Good News Translation introduces verse 6 with So the LORD says, to make clear the identity of the speaker. So means “Because of all these sins.”

We might expect that the punishment would be described for both Samaria and Jerusalem, but in fact only Samaria is dealt with. Historically, Samaria was destroyed by the Assyrians under their king Sargon II in 722 B.C. during the adult life of Micah. This event put an end to the political existence of the northern kingdom and served as a dramatic warning of what could happen to Judah also. Perhaps the fall of Samaria was just about to happen at the time when this prophecy was first spoken, and this could explain why Micah talks mainly about Samaria in these verses.

Instead of being a prosperous and well-populated city, Samaria will become just a pile of ruins in the open country. I will make Samaria a pile of ruins means that “I will destroy Samaria and she will become a pile of ruins.” The way God will do this is by sending enemies to destroy the city, so in some languages it may be necessary to be even more specific and say “I will send enemies to destroy Samaria” or “I will cause Samaria to be destroyed.”

The pile of ruins refers to the rubble of stone and wood left when the buildings and walls of the city are knocked down and probably burned. As long as this idea is given in the translation, there is no need for a word meaning “ruins.”

Samaria was the largest city in the northern kingdom, with many people living in and around it. But these ruins will be in the open country, which means “in a place where no one lives,” or at least where there may only be a farmhouse or two. The idea is that the city will be so completely destroyed that it will no longer be used as a place to live in.

This rocky and desolated area would be suitable as a place for planting grapevines, but not for any kind of agriculture that required a deeper or more fertile soil. However, if it is difficult to translate grapevines, it will be enough to say “a place for planting things.” since the main point is to show that it is no longer a place where people live. This clause in Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version connects to the “I will make Samaria” of the first line. In many languages it will have to be a separate sentence, possibly “Samaria will become a place for planting grapevines.”

It is the Lord who says I will pour, and in languages where this is possible, it may be most effective to suggest that the Lord is doing it himself. The more literal idea, however, is that this will happen as a result of the destruction that the Lord is sending by means of the enemies. In some languages it may not be possible to use pour in connection with something like rubble, and a translation like Jerusalem Bible may sound better: “I will set her stones rolling into the valley.”

Samaria was built on a hill rising about 100 meters (300 feet) above the adjacent plain. The city will not merely be demolished, but its rubble will be poured down into the valley, making its stones harder to recover for any future rebuilding. In this way even the city’s foundations will be uncovered, marking its total destruction.

Rubble is the broken stones left when the city is destroyed.

The foundations of the city refer to the stone or bare earth that the city was built upon. The idea here is that the destruction will be so complete that even these will be uncovered.

As a matter of historical fact, the destruction of Samaria in 722 B.C. was not as severe as Micah pictures it here. Nevertheless, it did mark the end of political independence for the kingdom of Israel, and the description here is an appropriate metaphor for the political fate of the country.

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 .

Since idolatry was the cause of this punishment, the precious idols will be singled out for particular attention and smashed to pieces. Gifts given to the temple prostitutes by their clients will be destroyed by fire. It is not certain what these gifts were, whether they were objects for use in religious ceremonies, or gifts that were sold to pay for the making of more idols.

The first and third poetic lines of verse 7 in Hebrew are very similar in meaning (see Revised Standard Version), and the translator may prefer to combine them into one sentence. Idols and images are the carved statues of gods, made of wood of stone and sometimes covered with metal such as gold, silver, or bronze. They will be broken into small pieces by these enemies that are coming. The verb used should be one that fits with breaking up stone, as this seems to be the main idea here. When the smashing is finished, they will just be a desolate heap of rubble.

As well as destroying the idols, the enemies will burn up everything given to Samaria’s temple prostitutes. Since we do not know just what these items were, this is rather difficult to translate. They are called “hires” in Revised Standard Version, and similar terms are used in other translations (New American Bible [New American Bible] “wages”; Jerusalem Bible “earnings”). This word simply means that they were the pay that the women received from the men who came to sleep with them. From the context it sounds as though this pay still had some importance in the false worship. The “hires” do not refer to coins, however, since they will be burned, and in any case coins were not in common use at that time.

The basic idea seems to be that “the enemies will burn all the things that the worship place has received from the men who came to sleep with the sacred prostitutes.” Not all of this needs to be said, of course, if it can be made shorter in any way. If there is no expression for prostitutes in a language, they are “women who let men sleep with them as part of their false worship.”

Some scholars interpret the “hires” in this second line (Revised Standard Version) as just another way of referring to the idols (compare New English Bible). If this interpretation is followed, then all of the first three lines of verse 7 say basically the same thing and may be combined in one sentence: “The enemies will smash the stone idols and burn the wooden ones, and only a heap of rubble will be left.”

The second half of verse 7 contains a figurative expression whose precise meaning is not clear. A literal translation is given in Revised Standard Version. The “hire of a harlot” refers to the false worship of which prostitution is frequently a picture in the Old Testament (see Ezek 16; Hos 1.2). Most likely literal prostitution was part of the false worship. This is the understanding that Good News Translation has expressed plainly with its mention of fertility rites and temple prostitutes. Whatever the details may mean, it is clear that the Lord’s intention is to make the punishment fit the crime. Thus the idols and images on which Samaria had spent its wealth will be taken away by its invaders to be used for temple prostitutes elsewhere.

The picture of the people of Israel being unfaithful to God as a woman may be unfaithful to her husband is used a number of times in the Old Testament. However, it is often difficult to translate without going into more detail than would fit the emphasis in some passages. It is because of the difficulty of keeping this picture that Good News Translation has left it out and simply given what it understands to be the meaning here.

Samaria is of course “the people of Samaria.” These things refer to the idols and other things used in worship that are mentioned in the first part of verse 7.

Fertility rites are the various ceremonies and other acts (including sacred prostitution) that were done as part of the false worship. Their purpose was to ensure that the gods would make the land fertile and make the women bear children. It may be difficult to try to give all of this meaning in translation, and if that is the case, it is probably enough here just to say “false worship.”

If the translator wants to try to keep the picture of the people of Israel being like a prostitute, there are several possibilities. A language may have a word meaning “unfaithful” that is usually used of a woman being sexually unfaithful, but which can also be used of people in relation to God. Then one can say “The people of Samaria have been unfaithful to me, and have acquired all of these things for worshiping other gods.” If there is no one word that can help to give this idea by itself, then it will be necessary to go into more detail, saying something like “the people of Samaria have gone after other gods just as a prostitute goes after many men, and that is how they have acquired all these things.”

Her enemies will carry them off for temple prostitutes elsewhere gives the probable meaning of the last line in verse 7. Elsewhere refers to the other country or countries that the enemies come from. The meaning is that they will take the idols and other things home with them to use in the immoral worship of their own false gods.

A translator must decide just what the prostitutes in this last line refers to. There seem to be at least two possibilities. One is that the enemy soldiers will take these things that they have captured, and use them as payment when they themselves go to the temple prostitutes. If this is the meaning, then these things really do become the “hire of a harlot” or “the pay for a prostitute.”

The second possibility is that the enemy people are being compared to prostitutes, just as the people of Israel were, because they worship false gods. If this is the meaning, it is better not to take it too literally, because it is not likely that Micah is suggesting that these enemy soldiers really ought to be worshiping the God of Israel. This meaning may be translated “but now these things will be carried off by people who are just as bad as the people of Samaria are, to use in the immoral worship of their own false gods.”

Moffatt has a particularly good rendering of these last two lines of verse 7, which seems to take this second meaning: “once the prize of faithless living, now the prey of faithless foes.” This is a good rendering for English because of the alliteration of “prize” and “prey,” and because “faithless” has two meanings that fit will here. We would not expect other translators to be able to follow this wording exactly, but it will be excellent if they can find a way to get the same effect in their own language.

If we say that the enemies will carry these things off, for whatever purpose, this sets up a logical clash with the earlier part of the verse if taken too literally; how could the idols and images once smashed or burnt be carried off for use somewhere else? These two statements are to be seen as alternative poetic ways of speaking of the ending of the false worship, together with the destruction of the city where it was carried out. There is no real contradiction. Such paradoxical statements occur elsewhere in Scripture and serve to emphasize a point. See, for instance, Micah 6.14 “You will carry things off, but you will not be able to save them; anything you do save…”; Mark 4.25 (Revised Standard Version) “from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away”; John 3.32-33 (Revised Standard Version) “… no one receives his testimony; he who receives his testimony….”

If possible a translator should simply allow the translation to follow the original, and not be worried about the seeming contradiction here. It may be that the prophet is simply predicting alternative possibilities. However, if it seems to create a serious problem in the language, it is possible to say that some idols will be smashed and burned and others will be carried off.

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 .