Micah 6:9-12 Responding To An Offended God

Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ The Redeemer Church of Manhattan, KS, 10 November 2024

Removing greyed-out text should bring presentation time down to about 45 minutes

Introduction

v. 9 The Wisdom of Giving Heed to God

v. 10-12 – Seven Things Offending God

CONCLUSION

Micah 6:9-13 Side-by side comparison of versionsA

DouayB (Vulgate)

LXXC

BrentonD (Vaticanus)

KJVE

NAW

Masoretic HebrewF

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 ἐπι­κληθήσεταιG, 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 have regard to Your reputation. Y’all give heed to the rod; indeed, who will partner with her?

(ט) קוֹלH יְהוָה לָעִיר יִקְרָא וְתוּשִׁיָּהI יִרְאֶהJ שְׁמֶךָ שִׁמְעוּ מַטֶּהK וּמִי יְעָדָהּL.

10 As yet there is a fire [in] the house of the wicked, the treas­ures of ini­quity, and a scant meas­ure full of wrath.

10 μ πῦρ [καὶ] οἶκος ἀνόμου [θησαυρίζων] θησαυροὺς ἀνόμους καὶ μετὰ ὕβρεως ἀδικία;

10 Is there not fire, [and] the house of the wicked [hea­ping up] wicked treasures, and that with the pride of un­righteous­ness?

10 Are there yet the treas­ures of wickedness [in] the house of the wicked, and the scant meas­ure that is abominable?

10 Is there still a house of a wicked man, treasuries of wickedness, or an upsettingly-short-changed bushel?

(י) עוֹד הַאִשׁM בֵּית רָשָׁע אֹצְרוֹתN רֶשַׁע וְאֵיפַת רָזוֹן זְעוּמָהO.

11 Shall I justifyP X wicked balances, and X the deceitful weights of the bag?

11 εἰ δικαιω­θήσεται ἐν ζυγῷ ἄνομ­ος καὶ ἐν μαρσίππῳ στάθμια δόλου;

11 Shall the wickedQ be justified by the bal­anced, or X deceitful weights in the bag,

11 Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights?

11 Would I come off clean using wicked balance-scales or using a bag of deceptive weights?

(יא) הַאֶזְכֶּהR בְּמֹאזְנֵי רֶשַׁע וּבְכִיס אַבְנֵי מִרְמָה.

12 By which her rich men were filled with iniqui­ty, and the inhabitants thereof have spoken lie[s], and their tongue was deceitful in their mouth.

12 ἐξ ὧν τὸν πλοῦτον αὐτῶν ἀσεβείας ἔπλησαν, καὶ οἱ κατ­ικ­οῦντες αὐτὴν ἐλάλουν ψευδῆ, καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτῶν ὑψώθη ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν.

12 whereby they have accumulated their ungod­ly wealth, and they that dwell in the city have uttered false­hood[s], and their tongue has been exaltedS in their mouth?

12 For the rich men thereof are full of vio­lence, and the inhabi­tants there­of have spo­ken lie[s], and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth.

12 Because her rich men have been full of violence and her residents have spoken falsehood (indeed their tongue is unreliable in their mouth),

(יב) אֲשֶׁרT עֲשִׁירֶיהָU מָלְאוּ חָמָס וְיֹשְׁבֶיהָ דִּבְּרוּ שָׁקֶרV וּלְשׁוֹנָם רְמִיָּה בְּפִיהֶם.

13 And I therefore began to strike thee [with] deso­lation for thy sins.

13 καὶ ἐγὼ ἄρξομαιW τοῦ πατάξαι σε, ἀφανιῶ [σε] ἐπὶ Xταῖς ἁμαρτίαις σου.

13 There­fore will I X begin to smite thee; I will des­troy [thee] in thy sins.

13 Therefore also will I X make thee sick in smit­ing thee, in making thee desolate because of thy sins.

13 so also I Myself will begin to cause strikes against you – to cause desolation because of your sins.

(יג) וְגַם אֲנִי הֶחֱלֵיתִיY הַכּוֹתֶךָ הַשְׁמֵםZ עַל חַטֹּאתֶךָ.



1“Implicitly, the judgment oracle calls for the wicked rulers and its citizens to repent of the unjust commercial practices catalogued in the indictment (vv 10–12) and escape the sentence of doom (vv 13–15).” ~B. Waltke, 2007 AD

2And as he sayth by hys Apostle Paule: Al the daye long haue I stretched foorthe my handes vnto an vnbeleuing people, and a people that striueth against me. Rom. x. And by hys owne son he sayth: Ierusalem Ierusalem, how oft wold I haue gathered the together, as the hen gathereth her chyckens vnder her wynges, & thou wouldest not. Math. xxiii. Whych doothe vtter the fatherlye care of oure God, alway callyng and crying vpō vs.” ~Anthony Gilby, 1551 AD

3And A. R. Fausset and B. Waltke

4Among the commentators I consulted, A. Gilby, J. Calvin, M. Henry, J. Owen, A. R. Fausset, and C. F. Keil agreed. The latter wrote, “Hear ye, i.e., observe, the rod, viz., the judgment threatened by the Lord, and appointed for His rebellious nation. The reference is to the imperial power of Assyria...”

52 Sam. 7:14 “As for me, I will belong to him [Solomon] as a father, and, as for him, he will belong to me as a son, who, when he does wrong, I will then bring justice to bear on him using the rod of men and using blows from the sons of mankind.” (NAW), Job 21:9 “Their houses are safe from fear, Neither is the rod of God upon them.” Psalm 89:32 “Then I will punish their transgression with the rod, And their iniquity with stripes.” Lam. 3:1 “I am the man who has seen affliction by the rod of His wrath.” (NKJV) cf. Heb. 12:5-9 “...My son, don't keep belittling the Lord's training, and don't keep coming undone when you are being reproved by Him, for it is the one whom the Lord loves that He trains, and He whips every son whom He accepts… we have indeed had the fathers of our flesh [as] trainers, and we were chastened. Will we not much more submit ourselves to the Father of our spirits and live?” (NAW)

6Alternately, the rod could represent the “scepter” of Messiah, which would still fit with the responsive attitude of His people to want to walk with Him, the “rod out of Zion” in Psalm 110, to whom His people “volunteer,” but the context of this passage in Micah is God prosecuting His own people, which seems to require a disciplinary interpretation.

7This wordמועד is based on the same root as the word יעד, which occurs in Micah and also later in this verse in Exodus.

8Matthew Henry, Owen of Thrussington, and C. F. Keil thought it referred to the “rod,” but in Hebrew it is the wrong gender for “rod.”

9Some of Bibles say “forget,” or “say,” or “overlook,” or “man,” or even “fire.” The beginning of this verse is hotly debated among Bible translators (and if you want my opinion, you can look at the endnotes), but these introductory words are not so important as the list of things God is bringing charges on, so we needn’t obsess over the preliminaries.

10Eccl. 12:14 “...God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.” (NASB)

11תועבת – a synonym to Micah’s word זעם

12In https://creation.com/carbon-dating-fooling-whom, Dr. Carter wrote, “The[y] sound like they have everything tied together in a neat little bundle, with multiple independent correlating measurements. But, how much of this is due to them rejecting any method that did not already give them what they want? And how much of this is due to one or more of the primary methods being based on wrong assumptions and so the following methods only appear to correlate?” His co-author noted, “Willard Libby, the Nobel Prize winner who invented the 14C method, assumed an equilibrium condition between the production of 14C and its disintegration. It was a critical assumption. Subsequently, scientists have found that the system (Earth and atmosphere) has not yet reached a steady state, which means the Earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old, because it only takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium based on the half-life of 14C.”

13קטנה – a synonym for Micah’s word רצון

14Calvin observed: “not that the rest [the poor] were without fault or guilt, but because iniquity was more conspicuous in the rich, and that, because their wealth… gave them more power.”

15כזבa synonym for Micah’s word שקר

16ויתעום כזביהם – synonyms for Micah’s words שׁקר and רמיה

17מרמה – a synonym for Micah’s word שקר

18“Whereas the accusation was delivered impersonally in third person… the Judge hands down his sentence in second person singular, addressed presumably to each person in the city.” ~B. Waltke, 2007 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

GΑq. corrects to καλεσα (“called”). 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.

HWaltke, following Jouön, believed that this is an exclamation, not the subject of “calls,” but he admitted that Wolff disagreed with this. All of the standard English versions interpret it as a plain subject, in which case it is emphatic.

IRelatively-rare wisdom-literature 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, counsel, etc.); 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 KJV “man of wisdom” (following Ibn Ezra, Kimchi, and Calvin) is not technically accurate. Vulgate and LXX erroneously 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.” According to Cohen, Malbim defined it as “deeds performed according to the rules of wisdom.” Keil plausibly suggested it be the object rather than the subject: “Thy name sees wisdom.” Waltke essentially agreed, translating it, “he who fears I AM is sound judgment.”

JWestminster Morphology, Davison’s Critical Lexicon, Owens’ Analytical Key, Beall/Banks/Smith Parsing Guide, Geneva Bible, KJV, NKJV, ASV, AJV, Calvin, Keil, and Waltke all considered the root of this word to be ראה (“see”), whereas the OSHB Parsing, Vulgate, LXX, Peshitta, Targums, NASB, NIV, ESV, NLT, NET, and Newcome, Deissler, and Wolff 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.

KAll the ancient versions (followed by Wellhausen, NRSV, NASB, and Waltke) interpreted this as “tribe” (with the exception of the Targums “king”). “Tribe” is a figurative extension of the literal meaning of this Hebrew word, “rod,” the latter of which is what the KJV, NIV, and ESV went for. Additionally, the Latin, Greek, and Aramaic texts read singular (although the Vulgate and one of the Targums read 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”). As for the interpretation of this rod and how it should be “heeded,” consider v.13, 2 Sam. 7:14, Isa. 10:5-6, 24, Job 21:9, Psalm 89:32, Lam. 3:1. Owen of Thrussington commented in Calvin’s commentary, “מטה is evidently the rod of correction… the chastening rod.”

LThe feminine singular ending on this verb (dropped out of the Peshitta and dropped by Waltke – who also dropped out the interrogative) 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, on the other hand, inserted the feminine singular word “time,” upon the supposition of textual criticism that Micah originally delivered his prophecy with the word for “time” as well as the word for “witness” 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. (If it happened, it 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.) The NASB should have adopted the alternative critical theory that the harder reading is more likely the original.
Concerning the switch from “you” to “her,” Waltke explained, “The chiasm from third person to second person and then from second person to third person unifies the indictment.”

M“Fire” is the traditional reading which the church used for its first 1500 years, and “the fire” is a legitimate possible reading of the unpointed Hebrew text. Modern translators, however, see this as a compound of the interrogative he with an affirmative particle, thus the KJV, NASB, and Targum “is/are there?” (cf. Calvin, Keil, Waltke). NASB (following some Hebrew manuscripts as well as Junius and Tremelius) reads as though the word is “man,” which would require adding an extra letter yod to this Hebrew word, but nowhere else in the Hebrew O.T. is the word “man” spelled like this with the yod dropped out, so that is too much of a stretch. The NIV and ESV followed Wellhausen, who inserted an extra letter (ה) to the end of this word to change it to mean “Shall I forget?” (However, the only times we see the phrase “I forget” in the HOT, it is spelled אשׁכח not אשה). The NET and NLT tried changing other letters in the Hebrew word to invent “I overlook” (אביט or אצפה ?) and “I say” (אמר) – neither of which have a plausible explanation for the morphological changes which would be required to get such words. Furthermore, every English version (except, commendably, the NIV and NET) inserted the preposition “in” (or “about”) after this word, but no such preposition is there in the Hebrew or Greek (although “in” was inserted in the Vulgate, Peshitta, and one of the two Targums). Keil commented, “...the emphasis is laid upon the עוֹד, which stands for that very reason before the interrogative particle, as in Gen. 19:12, the only other place in which this occurs. אִשׁ, a softened form for יֵשׁ, as in 2 Sam. 14:19... The meaning of the question is..., ‘Does the wicked man still bring such treasures into the house?’”

NThe only “treasuries/storehouses” ever mentioned in the O.T. history books were the ones in the temple and in the king’s palace (cf. Isa. 2:7, 39:2-4). During Micah’s time, the kings of Judah used the contents of these two treasuries to pay off foreign kings every time they were threatened with invasion: 1 Kings 15:18 (Asa), 2 Kings 12:18 (Jehoash), 2 Kings 14:13-14 (Amaziah), 2 Kings 16:8 (Ahaz), 2 Kings 18:14-15 (Hezekiah).

OWaltke suggested that, instead of God cursing those who use the scant measure (as He clearly did in the Law), the curse came from the mouth of the defrauded party against the oppressor, and that is why Micah used this adjective, but I remain skeptical.

POwen of Thrussington reported: “Jerome renders the phrase, numquid justificabo? Junius and Tremelius, an purum haberem? Grotius, numquid approbabo? Our own version is no doubt correct.”

QAlthough in Hebrew, it would be possible to construe the word “wicked” as the object of the verb (“Shall I justify the wicked by means of scales?”), it is not grammatically possible to construe the “wicked” as the subject of the verb, as the LXX did here. All the other versions construed “wicked” in construct with “scales” (“Shall I come off clean using scales of wickedness?”).

RThis word appears also in Job 15:14; 25:4; Ps. 51:6; 73:13; 119:9; Prov. 20:9; and Isa. 1:16. Geneva, NASB, NIV, and ESV all translate it “acquit/justify,” following the Vulgate and LXX traditions, but lexicographers agree it does not have this meaning, and in none of the standard versions is it translated “acquit/justify” in any of those other places except for Ps. 51, where the KJV, NIV, and ESV translated it “justified” and the NKJV corrected the KJV to “blameless.” The standard meaning is “clean/purify” (cf. Keil). MT, Vulgate, all standard English versions, and one of the Targums (also the commentators Metsudath David, Calvin, Fausset, Keil, and Waltke) spell this verb in 1st person active voice (although the NET Bible makes the mistake of changing the interrogative into a negative), but LXX, Peshitta and one of the Targums read as 3rd plural middle /passive voice (“How can they be justified?”), which, despite the subject change, amounts to the same idea. Fausset commented, “But as “I,” in Mic. 6:13, refers to Jehovah, it must refer to Him also here.” Waltke oddly inserted a whole phrase (“If I forgive”) and then wrote commentary on the phrase he inserted!

SThis mistake in the Greek translation is understandable because the Hebrew word for “exalted” also has the two strong letters רמ, but the Hebrew spelling here is nothing like a passive verb.

TI suspect that this goes together with the beginning of the next verse to form a sort of protasis – apodosis. Fausset agreed with me, and Waltke cited Wolff in agreement with me. However, Caspari, Owen, Keil and Waltke interpreted it according to its more-common meaning as a relative pronoun (“which”): “There is nothing in what goes before for which a reason is given here: hence this אשר cannot be rendered [“for” as Calvin did]. It is an instance of a peculiarity in Hebrew, when a double pronoun is used. Literally it is, ‘Which the rich men of hers;”” ~Owen
“[T]he true explanation of אֲשֶׁר, has been a matter of dispute. We must reject... the combination of Mic. 6:12 and 6:13 (“Because their rich men, etc., therefore I also,” etc.)... because Mic. 6:12 obviously forms the conclusion to the reproof, and must be separated from what precedes it [which seems self-contradictory ~NAW]… take אֲשֶׁר as a relative, as Caspari does, and understand the verse as an exclamation, which the Lord utters in anger over the city: ‘She, whose rich men are full [but that is not a relative but a vocative, which seems to me a stretch ~NAW]”” ~Keil

U“Rich men” and “residents” are in emphatic positions in Hebrew. Of all people, it should not be the rich who are violent or the citizens who are liars!

VVulgate, LXX, and Targums all render this word singular, as the Hebrew does, so it is strange that most English versions rendered it plural “lies.” The Peshitta (‎דגלותא) looks plural to me, but Lamsa translated it plural and Bauscher translated it singular. It really makes no difference in meaning, though. Waltke agreed with me that the conjunction which comes next is ascensive “yes/indeed.”

WAquilla’s and Theodotian’s Greek versions support this translation. Symmachus, however, chose a different word that means “strike/sicken.”

XCuriously, both Aq. and Theod. add the word “all,” which isn’t in any manuscript as far as I can tell.

YCohen summarized Kimchi as saying, “Just as they smote the poor and the oppressed with their devices and guile, so will God smite them with sore wounds.”
Pointed differently, this word can mean “begin,” and that was the interpretation of the church for its first 1500 years. Despite the concurrence of the modern English versions on the Masoretic pointing meaning “weaken/sicken,” BHS (perhaps influenced by Newcome) suggested going back to the ancient interpretation (which advice the NIV and I have followed).

ZIn fulfillment of the curses of Lev. 26. It is interesting that all the Greek and Aramaic versions insert the pronoun “you” as the object of this verb. NASB and NIV followed them. The Latin versions follow the MT without “you,” followed by KJV and ESV. No DSS are legible at this point for corroboration of the Hebrew text.

2