Micah 6:6-8 How To Worship The God of Grace

Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ The Redeemer Church of Manhattan, KS, 3 November 2024

Omitting greyed-out text should bring presentation time down to about 50 minutes

Introduction

v. 6 What Does It Take To Get Right With God?

v. 7 Three Sacrifices That Aren’t Enough

v. 8 Three Things God Is Looking For

    1. do justice”

    1. love mercy/kindness”

    1. walk humbly with your God”

Micah 6:6-9 Side-by side comparison of versionsA

DouayB (Vulgate)

LXXC

BrentonD
(Vaticanus)

KJVE

NAW

Masoretic
HebrewF

6 What shall I offer to the Lord [that is worthy? wherewith] shall I kneel before the high God? shall I offer holocausts unto him, and calves of a year old?

6 ἐν τίνι καταλάβω τὸν κύριον, ἀντιλήμψ­ομαι θεοῦ μου ὑψίστου; εἰ καταλήμψ­ομαι αὐτὸν ἐν ὁλοκαυ­τώμασιν, ἐν μόσχοις ἐνιαυσίοις;

6 Where­withal shall I reach the Lord, [and] lay hold ofG myH God most high? shall I reach him by whole-burnt-offer­ings, by calves of a year old?

6 Where­with shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?

6 With what shall I come before Yahweh – bend myself before the High God? Shall I come before him with whole-burnt-offerings – with the year-old calves?

(ו) בַּמָּה אֲקַדֵּםI יְהוָה אִכַּףJ לֵאלֹהֵי מָרוֹםK הַאֲקַדְּמֶנּוּ בְעוֹלוֹת בַּעֲגָלִיםL בְּנֵי שָׁנָה.

7 May the Lord be appeased with thou­sands of rams, or with many thousands of fat he goats? shall I give my firstborn for my wickedness, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

7 εἰ προσ­δέξεταιM κύριος ἐν χιλιάσιν κριῶν [] ἐν μυριάσιν χειμάρρων πιόνωνN; εἰ δῶ πρωτό­τοκά μου ἀσεβείας X, καρπὸν κοιλίας μου ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτίας ψυχῆς μου;

7 Will the Lord accept thousands of rams, or ten thousands of fat goatsO? should I give my first-born for X un­godliness, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgres­sion, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

7 Will Yahweh be pleased with thousands of rams? With tens of thousands of streams of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression – the fruit of my womb for the sin of my soul?

(ז) הֲיִרְצֶה יְהוָה בְּאַלְפֵי אֵילִים בְּרִבְבוֹת נַחֲלֵי שָׁמֶן Pהַאֶתֵּן בְּכוֹרִיQ פִּשְׁעִי פְּרִי בִטְנִי חַטַּאתR נַפְשִׁי.

8 I will shew thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requir­eth of thee: Verily to do judgment, and to love mercy, and to walk so­licitous with thy God.

8 ε Sἀν­ηγγέλη σοι, ἄνθρωπε, τί καλόν; ἢ τί κύριος ἐκ­ζητεῖ παρὰ σοῦ ἀλλ᾿ ἢ τοῦ ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ ἀγαπᾶν ἔλεον καὶ ἕτοιμον εἶναιT τοῦ πορεύεσθαι μετὰ [κυρίου] θεοῦ σου;

8 Has it not been told thee, O man, what is good? or what does the Lord require of thee, but to do justice, and love mercy, and be ready to walk with [the Lord] thy God?

8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

8 Man, Yahweh has communicated to you what is good and what He is seeking from you, namely: to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

(ח) הִגִּידU לְךָ אָדָםV מַה טּוֹב וּמָה יְהוָה דּוֹרֵשׁW מִמְּךָ כִּי אִםX עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וְאַהֲבַתY חֶסֶדZ וְהַצְנֵעַAA לֶכֶת עִם אֱלֹהֶיךָ.

9 The voice of the Lord crieth to the city, and salvation [shall be to them that] fear thy name: hear O ye tribe[s], and who shall approve it?

9 Φωνὴ κυρίου τ πόλει ἐπι­κληθήσεταιAB, καὶ σώσει φοβουμένους τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. ἄκουε, φυλή, καὶ τίς κοσμήσει πόλιν;

9 The Lord's voice shall be pro­claimed in the city, and he shall save those that fear his name: hear, O tribe; and who shall order the city?

9 The LORD'S voice crieth unto the city, and the man of wisdom shall see thy name: hear ye the rod, and who hath ap­pointed it.

9 It is the voice of Yahweh that calls out to the city, so, it is the one who is prudent who will respect Your reputation. Y’all give heed to the rod; indeed, who will partner with her?

(ט) קוֹל יְהוָה לָעִיר יִקְרָא וְתוּשִׁיָּהAC יִרְאֶהAD שְׁמֶךָ שִׁמְעוּ מַטֶּהAE וּמִי יְעָדָהּAF.



1קִדֵּם does not here mean to anticipate, or come before, but to come to meet, as in Deut. 23:5.” ~C. F. Keil, 1891 AD

2“God had hitherto contended with them for no other end and with no other design, but to restore the people to the right way; for if his purpose had only been to condemn the people for their wickedness, there would have been no need of these questions... whenever God chides his people, he opens to them the door of hope as to their salvation, provided those who have sinned repent.” ~J. Calvin, 1559 AD

3cf. Mat. 6:33, 7:7, Acts 17:27, Col. 3:1 – Many more references could be added from the O.T.!

4“Being made sensible of the justice of God's controversy with them, and dreading the consequences of it, they were inquisitive what they might do to be reconciled to God and to make him their friend. They apply to a proper person, with this enquiry, to the prophet, the Lord's messenger, by whose ministry they had been convinced.” ~M. Henry, 1714 AD

5This was even being practiced in Judah during Micah’s lifetime (2 Kings 16:13 “But he [Ahaz] walked in the way of the kings of Israel; indeed he made his son pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the nations...”)
“But the farther manne wadeth in hys fonde intentes and fantastical imaginacion, the farther he slydeth from God, vnsure that he hathe done any thing acceptable in the sight of God. Therfore must we which are seruaunts and creatures, learning our own weaknes by ye fal of others, turne to our master, lord and creator, to know what his word cōmaundeth.” ~A. Gilby, 1551 AD
“Being yet unwilling to be regarded as alienated from God, they, at the same time, obtrude on him their meritorious works, to prevent his judgment, and to exempt themselves from the necessity of doing the principal thing, that which he especially requires — to bring a sincere heart.” ~J. Calvin, 1559 AD

6cf. Leviticus 18:21, Jeremiah 7:31, Ezekiel 16:20-21& 23:37

7“[T]hey are not, as ceremonial observances, good because they are commanded, but commanded because they are good… The good which God requires of us is not the paying of a price for the pardon of sin and acceptance with God, but doing the duty which is the condition of our interest in the pardon purchased.” ~M. Henry, 1714 AD
“[W]hat is good = ‘the good things to come’ under Messiah, of which ‘the law had the shadow.’ The Mosaic sacrifices were but suggestive foreshadowings of His better sacrifice (Heb. 9:23; 10:1).” ~A. R. Faussett, 1871 AD

8Most of the time this verb occurs in the Bible, it is describing men seeking either a false God or the True God.

9“Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him.” (NKJV)

10“And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.” (NKJV)

11“Then he shall deal with the second [as] a whole-burnt-offering according to the regulation, and the priest will make atonement…” (NAW)

12“On the fourteenth day of this month, at twilight, you shall keep it at its appointed time. According to all its rites and ceremonies you shall keep it.” (NKJV) Underlined words match the Hebrew root words for “do” and “just” in Mic. 6:8. It is also interesting how closely Ezekiel 18:5-8 parallels the study I did on the specific citations of “doing justice” in the Law.

13In Deuteronomy alone it occurs at 4:1, 5, 14; 5:1, 31; 6:1; 7:11-12; 11:32; 12:1; 17:11; 26:16. (Cf. also Gen. 18:19, Lev. 18:4, 1 Kings 2:3, 6:12, Isaiah 56:1, Jer. 22:3, Ezek. 20:19, Zech. 7:9, 8:16, etc.)

14In the New Testament, “doing justice” (κριμα) doesn’t show up, but “doing good” (αγαθα) does (Mat. 5:44; 12:12; Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9,27,33,35; Rom. 7:21; Gal. 6:10; 1Ti. 6:18; Heb. 13:16; Jas. 4:17; 1Pe. 2:14,20; 3:6,11, Mark 14:6-7, Rom. 13:3, Gal. 6:9, 2Th. 3:13, Heb. 13:21, 3 John 1:11).

15“The whyche worshyppe is so greate, that he wyl aske accomptes of none other thynge at the daye of iudgemente, but if we haue clothed him, when we did see him naked, if we haue fedde him when he was hongry and so foorthe. Math. xxv. For because theese dedes of mercye and loue, doothe presuppose, boothe faythe and feare of God… For of thys doth God make tryal whether we do loue hym or no. If we do not loue our brother whom we se, how can we loue God whom we se not? Ihō .iiii.” ~A. Gilby , 1551 AD

16Cohen: “The lexicon turns to Rabbinic Hebrew for elucidation of its meaning, and there the word signifies “modesty, decency, chastity, personal purity.”

17עניthe more common Hebrew word for “humble,” a synonym for the word צנע in Micah.

18Πτωχος (“poor/lowly”). The LXX translation of Micah’s word was ἕτοιμον (“prepared”), and of the other use of that Hebrew word in Prov. 11:2 was ταπεινος (“humble/low”).

19-ב , a synonym for Micah’s preposition עם.

20אַחֲרֵי, another synonym for Micah’s preposition.

21There are many other passages which state the same thing, including Deut. 8:6, 31:16, Josh 22:5, 1 Ki. 2:3, 8:61; Ezek. 20:19, etc.

22Many other passage could be listed, such as Deut. 4:3, 11:28, Josh. 23:16, 1 Kings 15:3, Titus 2:12, Jude 16-18, etc.

23Many other passages could be listed, such as Rev. 3:4, Acts 9:31, 2 Cor. 5:7, Gen. 5:24, 6:9, etc.

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

GPerhaps the LXX translator misheard the Hebrew as from the root עקב (due to the similarity of ‘aqav to akaf) or perhaps he was unfamiliar with the rare כפף root and thought it was related to כף (“hand”). I think the former more likely.

HAbout 500 years after Micah, the LXX translator read the final yod in the Hebrew word as a first person pronoun (“my”), which is a valid interpretation of the unpointed Hebrew text. About a thousand years after the LXX, the Masoretic scribes added pointing which instead interprets the yod as a masculine plural construct form (“God of”), also a valid way to interpret the unpointed Hebrew text. Neither interpretation contradicts the rest of Biblical revelation, so it is not an important controversy. Latin and Aramaic traditions agree with the Masoretic interpretation.

IThis word is not so much about “offering” (Vulgate offeram) or “worshiping/serving” (Targums‎ אַפלַח) as it is about pursuing (cf. LXX καταλάβω) a face-to-face meeting (the LXX and NASB translations don’t seem to capture the “meeting” aspect as much). (The LXX word is used in describing Christian relationship with God in the GNT in Rom. 9:30; 1 Cor. 9:24; Eph. 3:18; and Phil. 3:12-13, whereas the other verb in the LXX – αντιλαμβανομαι – is not.)
Waltke commented that this is a “Torah liturgy” like that of Psalms 15 and 24 (and Isa. 33:14-15) where a questions is posited as to what the requirements are for entering a temple, and an answer is given, catechism-style. Waltke puts verses 6-7 in the mouth of a haughty, impious king, but I don’t see how it couldn’t be Micah using a question-and-answer style of teaching.

JUncommon word for “bow/double over” found only here and Ps. 57:7; 145:14; 146:8; and Isa. 58:5 – always of the human body, and mostly in the context of grief rather than of worship. This could indicate a genuine crisis rather than traditional worship ritual. Waltke commented, “Willis notes… The ‘exaggerated, extreme, absurd’ questions in vv 6–7 are to be explained in light of a very severe crisis threatening the Jewish community, perhaps Sennacherib’s invasion of Jerusalem in 701 B.C. The worshippers may have reasoned that the great destruction which threatened the land was an indication of Yahweh’s wrath, which could be appeased only by an abundance of sacrifices… One can plausibly reconstruct the setting at the temple as follows: besieged worshippers are seeking access to I AM’s presence to win his favor and protection against the attacking Assyrians. The King-Priest, however, through his envoy, Micah, judicially accuses them of breaking covenant and invites them to renew it. They blindly and unrepentantly respond by offering costly gifts as their sin offering. I AM’s envoy reproves them for their ignorance and reasserts the terms of the covenant: I AM requires justice from renewed hearts that understand the nature of the covenant.”

KThis phrase “God of exaltation/highness” does not occur anywhere else in the HOT.
There is only one phrase which is even similar, and that is in Ps. 71:19וְצִדְקָתְךָ אֱלֹהִים עַד־מָרוֹם Also Your righteousness, O God, is very high” (NKJV). The Greek phrase θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου, however does occur a few times in the GNT: thrice in the mouth of an evil spirit (Mark 5:7 || Luke 8:28 "...What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? …" and Acts 16:17 "These men are the servants of the Most High God…" ~NKJV) and once in Hebrews 7:1 “... Melchisedek -- king of Salem, priest of The Highest God…” (NAW) Owen of Thrussington asserted that it means “‘the God of the height,’ that is, of heaven.” Fifty years later, C. F. Keil commented, “The God of the high place is the God dwelling in the high place (Isa. 33:5; 57:15), or enthroned in heaven (Ps. 115:3).” In the 21st Century, Waltke also agreed that it speaks of “heaven.”

LLev. 9:3 – the people’s whole-burnt-offering

MThis word is used in the GNT to describe devout persons who are “receiving” the kingdom of God, but never of God “receiving” a person, for the latter, the words χαριτόω (Luke 1:28; Eph. 1:6), παραλαμβανω (John 14:3), and the simple root δεχομαι (Luke 16:9) served. This could be explained, however, in terms of vocabulary shifts over centuries of time.

NThe reading of the LXX matches the plain reading of the MT, Targums, and English versions, and the Greek versions of Aquilla (χειμαρρων ελαιου) and Symmachus (‘ρειθρα ελαιου) substantiate “torrents of olive-oil.”

OThe LXX reads χειμαρρων (“torrents”) but Vaticanus reads χιμαρων (“goats”), perhaps a visual copy error or a misheard dictation error, or perhaps even intentional to adjust to the Vulgate (or was it vice versa?).

PDespite the reading of the Peshitta (“hosts of heifers”) and the Vulgate (“fat of he-goats”), all the Greek versions, Targums, and standard English versions agree with the MT (“rivers of oil”). Waltke noted that the minchah offerings only required a scant pint to a quart of oil per person.

QThe firstborn of cattle were to be sacrificed to God (Gen. 4:4, Lev. 27:26, Deut. 14:3). The phrase “my firstborn” in parallel with the phrase “fruit of my womb/body” ( a phrase also found in Gen. 30:2; Deut. 7:13; 28:4, 11, 18, 53; 30:9; Ps. 127:3; 132:11; and Isa. 13:18 – always describing human sons) indicates that this is the firstborn of human sons. These were also holy to God, but they were to be “given” (נתן), not “offered as sacrifices” (זבח ,שחת ,קטר ,קרב) like the pagan Molech worshippers did. (Exodus 22:29 "You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.” ~NKJV) God considered all the firstborn Jews His special possession since He made the provision of the Passover lamb’s blood to spare them from the angel of death who killed the firstborn son of every family that did not paint the sacrificial lamb’s blood on their door. In the Law, God claimed the whole population of the tribe of Levi as His special possession as a substitute for the firstborn sons in all the other tribes. In Numbers 3, a census was taken of the Levite tribe, but the population of Levi was less than the total of firstborn sons in all the other tribes, so those extra firstborns were allowed to pay a fee to ransom themselves and stay with their families. If they couldn’t (or didn’t want to) ransom themselves, they would become a servant in the temple, like Samuel did. Interestingly, the singular Greek word from the LXX of this verse is only ever used of Jesus in the Greek New Testament (Luk. 2:7; Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 1:5). (It occurs in the plural twice, referring to the “destroyer of firstborns” in Heb. 11:28; and the “church of firstborns” in Heb. 12:23.)

ROwen of Thrussington suggested the plausible alternative of interpreting the “tresspass” and “sin” as the “tresspass offering” and “sin offering.” (“Shall I make my first-born my trespass-offering, The fruit of my loins a sin-offering for my soul?”) Waltke agreed with Owen, but noted that T. Robinson, T. Lescow, J. T. Willis, A. Deissler, and R. Renauud disagreed. My objection lies in assigning the meaning “make” instead of “give” to the Hebrew word that normally means “give.” The lack of prepositions in the Hebrew text does makes this challenging to translate, though.

SLXX interpreted the initial he in the Hebrew as an interrogative he, but the Hebrew word would have been spelled without a yod in it if that had been the case. Aquilla, Theodotion (ερρεθη), and Symmachus (ειπε) corrected this in their versions with the simple translation, “he said.” (Lucian and Cateneram editions of the LXX omit ει, but it doesn’t change the meaning.)

Tcf. Theodοtian ασφαλιζου (“guardedly”), Symmachus επιμελεσι (“careful”), and E. φροντιζειν (“to be thoughtful”).

UKeil (and Waltke, who also cited Wellhousen and the passive in the LXX in support) saw this 3rd person subject as “impersonal, ‘one has told,’ or ‘they have told thee,’ namely Moses in the law.” Keil suggested that since Yahweh isn’t mentioned until later in the verse He shouldn’t be considered the subject here, but it could be just as reasonably argued that since no other 3rd person subject is mentioned in the context, Yahweh should be considered the subject of the first verb too.

VI take this as Man – the clay-creature, the opposite of God. Waltke quoted L. Allen as also holding this position, but Waltke preferred Renaud’s position that this was a covenant term for the human party to the divine covenant, and that is not objectionable.

WWaltke agreed with my interpretation of this participle as “durative” – God continues “seeking” for these things from His worshippers; He is not merely requiring a one-time performance of these things.

XI interpreted this phrase as introducing a list. C.F. Keil interpreted it instead as a reduction of expectation: “The use of כִּי אִם... may be accounted for from the retrospective allusion to the gifts mentioned by the people: not outward sacrifices of any kind, but only the fulfilment of three following duties: namely…” Waltke agreed with Keil that it was “restrictive” and further emphasized that it was adversative “but rather.”

Y“‘Love’ (ʾahăbat) is the language of ancient Near Eastern international covenants, of covenant obedience, and of covenantal spiritual commitment. W. L. Moran demonstrated that the term ‘love’ in covenant relationship between I AM and Israel is the juridical language of international law. It is also the language of obedience, for it can be commanded (Deut 11:13, 22; Mic 6:8). Finally, as D. Hillers has shown, it is the language of emotional/spiritual commitment.” ~B. Waltke, 2007 AD

ZḤesed connotes at one and the same time faithfulness, love, mercy, grace, and kindness... The word occurs commonly in a context where one of the parties finds himself in a weaker situation and is utterly dependent upon the stronger party to meet his need. The stronger party accepts freely the responsibility of providing deliverance and protection to the one in need... the practice of ḥesed is closely related to mišpāṭ: both pertain to the deliverance of an oppressed, weaker party by the stronger party, but whereas mišpāṭ puts the emphasis on the action, ḥesed puts it on the attitude behind the action.” ~B. Waltke, 2007 AD

AAAncient versions (except for Vulgate iet sollicitum) read as though they saw a verb of being in the original which is not in the MT: Targums‎ וִהוִי צְנִיַע (“and be discrete” Cathcart = “be modest”), LXX ἕτοιμον εἶναι (“be prepared” Brenton = “be ready”), Peshittaותהוא עתיד (Bauscher “and you shall be prepared,” Lamsa “and be ready”). This verb occurs only one other place in the HOT: Prov. 11:2 “When pride comes, then comes shame; But with the humble is wisdom.” (NKJV)

ABΑquilla rendered this word actively καλεσα (“called”) like the MT. The root common to the LXX and Aquilla is a better translation of the Hebrew than the English word “proclaimed” (which would be rendered with a different Greek root such as αγγελω). The Hebrew word Micah used implies greeting, meeting, and initiating conversation rather than unilaterally making an announcement.

ACRelatively-rare wisdom word found only here and Job 5:12; 6:13; 11:6; 12:16; 26:3; and Prov. 2:7; 3:21; 8:14; 18:1 (where English versions translate it: success, enterprise, deliverance, judgment, plans, what is, common sense, sound wisdom, advice, knowledge, prudence, insight, and counsel); and Isa. 28:29 “… Yahweh Commander of armies: He makes counsel wonderful; He increases sound wisdom.” (NAW) It is feminine (agreeing with the feminine “city”), so the Geneva/KJV “man of wisdom” (following Kimchi and Ibn Ezra) is not technically accurate. Vulgate and LXX mistakenly related it to the root ישע (“save” - the LXX erroneously making it a verb), while the Aramaic versions translated it more in terms of “teaching/doctrine.” Malbim suggested “deeds performed according to the rules of wisdom.”

ADWestminster Morphology, Davison’s Critical Lexicon, Owens’ Analytical Key, Beall/Banks/Smith Parsing Guide, Geneva Bible, KJV, NKJV, ASV, and AJV all considered the root of this word to be ראה (“see”), whereas the OSHB Parsing website, Vulgate, LXX, Peshitta, Targums, NASB, NIV, ESV, NLT, NET considered the root to be ירא (“fear, respect”). It is easy to see that the former considered the last three letters of Micah’s word to be the root, making the initial yod an imperfect verb prefix, while the latter considered the first three letters of Micah’s word to be the root, making the final he a feminine ending. Either can be supported in the unpointed text, but the weight of history as well as the grammar is in favor of “fear,” because “wisdom” is feminine and must be the subject of the verb, but if the verb were interpreted as from the root “see” it would require a masculine subject.

AEAll the ancient versions (plus the NASB) interpreted this as “tribe” (with the exception of the Targums “king[s]”). “Tribe” is a figurative extension of the literal meaning of this Hebrew word, “rod,” which is what the KJV, NIV, and ESV went for. Additionally, the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts read singular (although the Vulgate and one of the Targums reads plural “tribes”). LXX and Peshitta (followed by NASB) changed the plural imperative (“y’all hear”) into a singular (which would require removing the last consonant from the Hebrew text) in order to make the “tribe” the vocative of the command (“Hear, O tribe”), but in Hebrew (and the majority of the English traditions), the plural form requires that the “tribe/rod” be the object (“Heed the rod”).

AFThe feminine singular ending on this verb (dropped out of the Peshitta) rules out the masculine “rod/tribe” or the plural “you” as the antecedent. The feminine singular “city” and “wise one” must therefore link up with this and be the party which is “met with” when it “regards” the “call” of God. LXX made this explicit by repeating the word “city” (and perhaps the Targums as well, which inserted the word “people” but butchered the Hebrew). NASB (and Gilby), on the other hand, inserted the feminine singular word “time,” upon the critical theory supposition that Micah originally delivered his prophecy with the word for “time” as well as the word for “appointed/partnered” here, but since those two words are spelled the same in Hebrew, a careless scribe skipped over the word “time” thinking he had already copied it. This probably would have to have happened in the first 500 years after Micah, because no manuscript in existence shows any evidence of there having been an extra word that was skipped, and the manuscripts we have are based on manuscripts from the first centuries BC. Why didn’t NASB adopt the alternative critical theory that the harder reading is more likely the original?

2