Micah 6:1-5What God Complains About

Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ The Redeemer Church of Manhattan, KS, 27 October 2024

Introduction

v. 1 This Court Is Now In Session

v. 2 I Have An Accusation To Make

v. 3 I Did You No Wrong

v. 4 I Own You

v. 5 Remember and Recognize God’s Righteousnesses

Conclusion

Micah 6:1-5 Side-by side comparison of versionsA

DouayB (Vulgate)

LXXC

BrentonD (Vaticanus)

KJVE

NAW

Masoretic HebrewF

15 And I will exe­cute ven­geance in wrath, and in indig­nation, among [all] the nations that have not given ear.

14 καὶ ποιήσω ἐν ὀργῇ καὶ ἐν θυμῷ ἐκδίκησιν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ἀνθ᾿ ὧν οὐκ εἰσ­ήκουσαν.

15 and I will exe­cute ven­geance on the heathen in anger and wrath, because they heark­ened not.

15 And I will exe­cute ven­geance in anger and fury upon the heathen, such as they have not heard.

15 Thus will I execute ven­geance in anger and in fury with respect to the nations which have not heeded.

(יד)וְעָשִׂיתִי בְּאַף וּבְחֵמָה נָקָםG אֶת הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא שָׁמֵעוּ.

1 Hear ye X what the Lord saith: Arise, contend thou in judgment against the moun­tains, and let the hills hear thy voice.

1 Ἀκού­σατε δὴ λόγονH [κυρίου]· κύριος εἶπεν Ἀνάστηθι κρίθητι πρὸς τὰ ὄρη, καὶ ἀκουσάτωσαν οἱ βουνοὶ φωνήν σου.

1 Hear now a word: [the Lord] God has said; Arise, plead with the moun­tains, and let the hills hear thy voice.

1 Hear ye now what the LORD saith; Arise, contend thou before the moun­tains, and let the hills hear thy voice.

1 Y’all give heed please to what Yahweh is saying: “Stand up, Sir; bring accusations before the mountains, and let the hills hear your voice.”

(א) שִׁמְעוּ נָא אֵת אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֹמֵרI קוּם רִיב אֶתJ הֶהָרִים וְתִשְׁמַעְנָה הַגְּבָעוֹת קוֹלֶךָ.

2 Let the moun­tains hear the judg­ment of the Lord, and the strong founda­tions of the earth: for the Lord will enter into judg­ment with his people, and he will plead against Israel.

2 ἀκού­σατε, βουνοί, τὴν κρίσιν τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ αἱ φάρ­αγγεςK θεμέλια τῆς γῆς, ὅτι κρίσις τῷ κυρίῳ πρὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ μετὰ τοῦ Ισραηλ διελεγχθήσεται.

2 Hear ye, O moun­tains, the contro­versy of the Lord, and ye valleys [even] the foun­dations of the earth: for the Lord has a con­tro­versy with his people, and will plead with Israel.

2 Hear ye, O moun­tains, the LORD'S contro­versy, and ye strong foun­dations of the earth: for the LORD hath a contro­versy with his people, and he will plead with Israel.

2 Mountains and steady foundations of the earth, listen to Yahweh’s accusation, because Yahweh has an accusation against His people, and He will bring justice to bear against Israel.

(ב) שִׁמְעוּ הָרִים אֶת רִיב יְהוָה וְהָאֵתָנִיםL מֹסְדֵי אָרֶץM כִּי רִיב לַיהוָה עִםN עַמּוֹ וְעִם יִשְׂרָאֵל יִתְוַכָּח.

3 O my people, what have I done to thee, or in what have I molestedO thee? ans­wer thou me.

3 λαός μου, τί ἐποίησά σοι [ἢ τί ἐλύπησά σε] ἢ τί παρ­ην­ώχλησά σοι; ἀπο­κρίθητί μοι.

3 O my people, what have I done to thee? [or wherein have I grieved thee?] or wherein have I troubled thee? answer me.

3 O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wear­ied thee? testify against me.

3 “My people, what have I done against you, or how have I exasperated you? Answer me!

(ג) עַמִּי מֶה עָשִׂיתִי Pלְךָ וּמָה Qהֶלְאֵתִיךָ עֲנֵה בִיR.

4 For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and delivered thee out of the house of slaves: and I sent before thy face Moses, [and] Aaron, and Mary.

4 διότι ἀνήγαγόν σε ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου καὶ ἐξ οἴκου δουλείας ἐλυτρω­σάμην σε καὶ ἐξαπέσ­τειλα πρὸ προσώπου σου τὸν Μωυσῆν [καὶ] Ααρων καὶ Μαριαμ.

4 For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and re­deemed thee out of the house of bondageS, and sent before thee Moses, [and] Aaron, and Mariam.

4 For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and re­deemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.

4 For I brought you up from the land of Egypt – indeed, from the house of slaves I ransomed you, then I commissioned Moses, Aaron, and Miriam to be in front of you.

(ד) כִּיT הֶעֱלִתִיךָ Uמֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם Vוּמִבֵּית עֲבָדִיםW פְּדִיתִיךָ וָאֶשְׁלַח לְפָנֶיךָX אֶת מֹשֶׁה Yאַהֲרֹן וּמִרְיָם.

5 O my people, remem­ber, I pray thee, what Balach, the king of Moab, purposed: and what Balaam, the son of Beor, answered him, from Setim to Galgal, that thou mightest know the justiceX of the Lord.

5 λαός μου, μνήσθητι δὴ τί ἐβουλεύ­σατο [κατὰ σοῦ] Βαλακ βασιλεὺς Μωαβ, καὶ τί ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Βαλααμ υἱὸς τοῦ Βεωρ ἀπὸ τῶν σχοίνωνZ ἕως τοῦ Γαλγαλ, ὅπως γνωσθῇ ἡ δικαιο­σύνη τοῦ κυρίου.

5 O my people, remember now, what counsel Balac king of Moab took [against thee], and what Ba­laam the son of Beor ans­wered him, from the reeds to Galgal; that the righteous­nessX of the Lord might be known.

5 O my people, remem­ber now what Balak king of Moab consulted, and what Balaam the son of Beor ans­wered him from Shittim unto Gilgal; that ye may know the righteous­nessX of the LORD.

5 My people, please remember what Balak King of Moab planned and how Balaam son of Beor answered him. [Remember] from Shittim to Gilgal so as to recognize the righteousnesses of Yahweh.

(ה) עַמִּי זְכָר נָא מַה יָּעַץAA בָּלָק מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב וּמֶה עָנָה אֹתוֹ בִּלְעָםAB בֶּן בְּעוֹרAC מִן הַשִּׁטִּיםAD עַד הַגִּלְגָּל לְמַעַן דַּעַת צִדְקוֹתAE יְהוָה.



1John Calvin (followed by Caspari, Keil, and Waltke) commented that these “mountains,” “hills,” and “foundations” refer to the “rocks… mute elements.” Matthew Henry commented that they refer to the Jews. Others, including G.E. Wright and F.M. Cross suggested they refer to angels. Gilby (followed perhaps by R.B.Y. Scott) is the only commentator I found to have agreement with me (“mighty men of the world”). It appears that, in most cases, commentators were so influenced by conforming this passage to Ancient Near East (ANE) suzerainty paradigms that they forgot to compare these words with the way Micah consistently used these words.

2B. Waltke compared this to ANE suzerainty documents, citing H. B. Huffmon: “[M]ountains … function as witnesses in validating I AM’s case,” and B. Renaud: “In the breaking of treaties by vassals, the wronged suzerain himself engaged the appropriate procedure. He therefore played at the same time the roles of plaintiff, of accuser, and of judge.”

3I found no other commentator who agreed with this interpretation, however. Of those which even commented on it, Keil related it to clauses which preceded the clause “Answer me,” and Waltke interpreted it as giving emotional emphasis to the statement which follows, both of which seem to be a stretch grammatically, the former for skipping over the nearest antecedent and the latter for failing to try to use the most common meaning of the word.

4“...redeemed them, not by price, but by force...”~M. Henry

5A lot of ink has been spilled in textual critical studies of this verse. Waltke gave some credence to the possibility that, since בןבעור (“son of Beor”) looks an awful lot like בעבור (“in crossing over”), something more should be there than is written in the Hebrew text, although he maintained that it was merely implied, not actually omitted.

6Gilby’s commentary treated it less like a figure of speech and more in terms of a reminder of the events at those locations: “In Sittam dyd I staye Balacke, and Bilham. I caused Moyses too destroye the Midianites withoute mercy, and did gyue vnto you theyr godes cattayle and substaunce (Num. xxxi). In Gilgall I dyd take awaye the reproche of Egipte from you. I caused you to be cyrcumcysed and dyd giue you of the fruits of the promysed lande (Josh. v).”
The Masoretic cantillation disassociates this phrase from Balaam’s answer and connects it with knowing the LORD’s righteousness, but Keil disagreed with that, commenting that this phrase indicates “the result, or the confirmation of Balaam’s answer” which took place while the Hebrews were between Shittim and Gilgal, in which Balak’s plan was frustrated, the Midianites were defeated, and the Hebrews were renewed in covenant with Jehovah. Waltke cited G. J. Batterweck in agreement with Keil, but Waltke sided with B. Renaud in interpreting it as “Israel’s crossing the Jordan” as a “salvific act” of God in parallel with the Exodus, and that seems to follow the sentiment of the commentaries of Calvin, Henry, and Cohen.

7NLT followed the NKJV in calling Shittim “Acacia Grove,” a translation instead of a transliteration.

8“...my ryghtuousnesse, that I would keepe my promyse, notwyth standynge thys manyfolde wyckednesse” ~A. Gilby
This can be correlated with 2 Peter 2:15 “They were made to wander astray after leaving the right way behind, following the way of Balaam from Bosor (who loved the salary of unrighteousness...)” (NAW)

9“The disappointing of the devices of the church's enemies ought always to be remembered to the glory of [Christ,] the church's protector.” ~M. Henry

10He may have been quoting B. S. Childs, whom he also quotes as saying “remembrance equals participation.”

11cf. G.W. Ramsey, as quoted by Waltke in loc, “The purpose of the ‘Complaint Speech’ was to facilitate restoration of the covenant relationship.”

12“This one tender word, twice repeated, contains in one a whole volume of reproof.” ~E. B. Pusey, 1880 AD

AMy original chart includes the following copyrighted English versions: NASB, NIV, ESV, Bauscher’s version of the Peshitta, and Cathcart’s version of the Targums, but I remove these columns from my public, non-copyrighted edition of this chart so as not to infringe on their copyrights. NAW is my translation. When a translation adds words not in the Hebrew text, but does not indicate it has done so by the use of italics or greyed-out text, I put the added words in [square brackets]. When one version chooses a wording which is different from all the other translations, I underline it. When a version chooses a translation which, in my opinion, either departs too far from the root meaning of the Hebrew word or departs too far from the grammar form of the original text, I use strikeout. And when a version omits a word which is in the original text, I insert an X. I also place an X at the end of a word if the original word is plural but the English translation is singular. I occasionally use colors to help the reader see correlations between the various editions and versions when there are more than two different translations of a given word. The only known Dead Sea Scroll containing Micah 6 is the Wadi Muraba’at Scroll, containing parts verses 1-7 & 11-16 and dated around 135 AD. Where the DSS is legible and in agreement with the MT, the MT is colored purple. Where the DSS supports the LXX/Vulgate/Peshitta with omissions or text not in the MT, I have highlighted with yellow the LXX and its translation into English, and where I have accepted that into my NAW translation, I have marked it with {pointed brackets}.

BDouay Old Testament first published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609, Revised and Diligently Compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner, Published in 1582, 1609, 1752. As published on E-Sword.

C“Septuagint” Greek Old Testament, edited by Alfred Rahlfs. Published in 1935. As published on E-Sword.

DEnglish translation of the Septuagint by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, 1851, “based upon the text of the Vaticanus” but not identical to the Vaticanus. As published electronically by E-Sword.

E1769 King James Version of the Holy Bible; public domain. As published electronically by E-Sword.

FFrom the Wiki Hebrew Bible https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%94_%D7%91/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA .
DSS text comes from https://downloads.thewaytoyahuweh.com

GPsalm 149:7 has very similar wording, but it is speaking of God’s people praising God “To execute vengeance on the nations, And punishments on the peoples” (NKJV)

HFields cited several Greek manuscripts which corrected this to the MT tradition by replacing “word” with the relative pronoun “what” and omitting the first “lord” (“Comp. Ald. Codd. 23, 42,49, alii, Hieron., Syro-hex.” and other marginal notes)

IWaltke labeled this Qal participle a “timeless present,” commenting, “I AM still speaks through these chapters.”

JOf the 4 times that this Hebrew word appears in this periscope, three are generally agreed to mark the next word as a direct object, but this one is generally agreed to be a preposition, as evidenced by the agreement of the Westminster Morphology, the OSHB Morphology, and all the English versions which employ a preposition here (“against/with/before”). The context demands that the mountains not be the direct object of what is prosecuted, since the next verse makes it clear that it is Israel being prosecuted. Rather, the mountains, like the “hills” in the last clause of this verse, are just witnesses which should “hear” the proceedings. A prepositional interpretation of this Hebrew particle allows the latter to be the case. (cf. LXX προς “to/before,” Calvin “I take it for lamed, ‘before or near,’” Waltke “before,” and usage in Gen 20:16 & Isa. 30:8.

KΑquilla’s 2nd Century Greek version is more accurate with στερεα (“firm”). Symmachus (παλαια) and Theodotian (αρχαια) were a little more off-base with “ancient”.

LThis word has more to do with “steadiness/stability” than with “depth.” It is often used to describe streams that run all year long and don’t have dry seasons, but also to describe households that are stable and not susceptible to threats. It is not used alongside “foundations” anywhere else in the Hebrew Old Testament (HOT).

M“Foundations of the earth” occurs as a phrase in the HOT in only 5 other places. Four of them appear to be describing earthquakes (Ps. 18:8; Prov. 8:29; Isa. 24:18; Jer. 31:37), but one (Ps. 82:5) appears to parallel Micah here, portraying wicked national leaders as “foundations of the earth.”

N“The construction ryb lĕ always designates a trial where the person introduced by the preposition seems to take the initiative. Thus in 2 Sam 15:2, 4, it is a plaintiff who asks for justice from the royal court; in Jer 25:31, the formula is in parallel with ‘to enter into judgment.’ The preposition ʿim (or ), when it is found joined to the formula ryb lĕ, introduces the adversaries of the plaintiff, the accused (Hos 4:1; cf. Hos 12:3[2], whereas in Mic 6:2 God starts the trial).” ~B. Renaud, as quoted by B. Waltke

OMolestiam. cf. Jerome: Labore te pressi (“oppressed you with labor”)& Junius: fatigavi (“fatigued”)

PWaltke called this a “lamed of disadvantage,” noting that it is commonly used in that sense with the interrogative מה.

QThe only real complaint in the Bible of God “wearying” someone is in Job 16:7 “But now He has worn me out; You have made desolate all my company.” (NKJV) There’s also Isaiah 43:22-23 “Yet it wasn't me that you called, Jacob, for you are weary with me, Israel. You have not brought to me a lamb of your burnt offerings or honored me with your sacrifices. I have not caused you to serve with offerings, and I have not wearied you with frankincense.” (NAW)
Keil commented: “[T]o make a person weary, more particularly to weary the patience of a person, either by demands of too great severity (Isa. 43:23), or by failing to perform one's promises (Jer. 2:31).”
Waltke suggested that it referred specifically to Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem. He also noted how similar this word (hel’eitiyka = wearied you) is to the word which occurs four words later (he‘eltiyka = brought you up), suggesting that Micah is using poetic word play.

RWaltke, following R.B. Alden and KJV, insisted that, in a court context, this phrase means specifically “testify against.”

SThe Greek is plural here, following the Hebrew which is also plural. Brenton is not the only one who arbitrarily made this word plural in their English translation.

Tcf. NET = “In fact,” Geneva/Waltke = “Surely,” Omitted by NIV. I think this causal introduces the reason why God has a right to be answered, namely that He owns them as a result of having redeemed them from their previous owner.
Keil interpreted it slightly differently: “The kı̄ (for) may be explained from the unexpressed answer to the questions in verse 3: ‘Nothing that could cause dissatisfaction with me;’ for I have done nothing but confer benefits upon thee.”
Waltke also had a different take: “ (surely) is a disjunct adverb modifying a clause in relation to the act of speaking, and, in this case, conveys I AM’s zealous attitude toward the content.”

UFor the creedal use of this phrase “brought up out of the land of Egypt” by the ancient Israelites, see Waltke’s quote of G. Wehmeier on pp. 275-276.

VThis conjunction introduces a synonymous parallel clause. The next conjunction introduces a subsequential clause. It’s a shame that most English versions did not pick up on this and translate them “Indeed… then” (as I have), instead of “and… and” (as they have). Waltke did pick up on this, calling this conjunction “ascensive” and the following one “sequential,” although he noted that “in historical fact they overlapped.”

WThis word (“slaves”) is plural in Hebrew, and the Latin, Greek, and Aramaic versions all render it plural, but Brenton, Bauscher, and Cathcart arbitrarily changed it to singular (“slavery”) in their English renderings. Most modern commentators also rendered it singular (e.g. Waltke “slave house”). This didn’t damage the overall meaning, however.

XLiterally “sent [on a mission] before your face.” NIV, NET, NLT changed the words to “sent to lead/help you,” which, despite its paraphrasm, communicates the meaning better than some woodenly-literalistic versions.

YVulgate, LXX, and Peshitta (followed only by NIV among the English versions) insert an “and” here. Targums don’t. There is no DSS which is legible at this point to corroborate the MT. This leaves some doubt as to which was the original, but it makes no difference in meaning.

ZLXX translated the Hebrew word as “reeds.” Later Greek versions transliterated it as a place-name (Σετιμ). Waltke quoted Ryssel noting that if you shorten the vowels in the LXX word, you get σχινον (“mastich tree”) which would be closer to the meaning of the word in the MT.

AALXX and Peshitta insert “against you,” but that insertion is not supported by the DSS, Vulgate, or Targums. It is particularly surprising not to find it in the Targums. It doesn’t change the meaning, however.

AB“According to A. Wolters, the Balaamite inscription found at Tell Deir ‘Alla and dated to the time of Micah... confirms Israel’s memory that Balaam was a pagan prophet from northern Syria centuries before the time of Micah. Furthermore, according to Wolters, the Balaamites who wrote it were a colony of exiles who had been deported there by the Assyrians from one of the Aramean states of northern Syria. The presence of this colony in Transjordan would have caused Micah’s audience to fear the dreaded Assyrians (cf. 2 Kgs 18:31–35), but I AM asks Israel to relive the situation centuries before when he conquered the dreaded Balak and Balaam and instead blessed them so as to prevail over all their enemies.” ~B. Waltke

ACThere is a strong disjunctive accent here in the Masoretic text which divides the verse in half, thus the phrase “from Shittim to Gilgal” goes with “to know/remember” rather than with “Balaam answered.” Although Keil contradicted it, Waltke agreed, commenting that “...from Shittim to Gilgal... does not modify ʿānâ, for although Balaam met Israel at Shittim, he did not accompany them to Gilgal.” A lot of ink has been spilled in textual critical studies of this verse. Waltke surveyed a bit of this in his commentary and gave some credence to the fact that בןבעור (“son of Beor”) looks an awful lot like בעבור (“in crossing over”), but he denied the assertions of A. Weiseer and of R. Vuilleumier that the Bible was misspelled, and he denied H. Wolff’s assertion that a similar-looking word had been overlooked in copying. He took the position, with B. Renaud, that min is a “pregnant preposition implying [the missing participle ‘in crossing over’].” It seems to me, however, that this is too much of a stretch grammatically, and that they only see the preposition being “pregnant” with the word בעבור because they have read so many critical scholars discussing that word which isn’t actually in the Hebrew text. Ellipses – applying the verb which occurs early in a verse to clauses later in the verse which need a verb – makes more sense to me and is a more standard pattern in Hebrew grammar.

ADLXX, NKJV, and NLT translated this word “reeds/Acacia grove” while other versions transliterated it “Shittim.” Waltke noted that the definite article “raises” the meaning from “Acacia trees” to the proper noun “Shittim.”

AE“Righteousnesses” is plural in the Hebrew and Aramaic Bibles (although you wouldn’t know it from Lamsa’s and Bauscher’s English translations of the Peshitta), but the Greek and Latin versions rendered it singular.

12