For Commentary Compass, “recent” means published in 2020 or later. That cutoff gives Micah an unusually strong field. Within only a few years readers have received Daniel Timmer’s revised Tyndale commentary, Jason Soenksen’s massive Concordia volume, Elaine Phillips’s Apollos commentary, John Goldingay’s BCOT treatment, Johannes de Moor’s HCOT, Burkard Zapff’s English IECOT, Bob Becking’s Anchor Yale commentary and James Nogalski’s new stand-alone NICOT.

This list should not be confused with an overall ranking of Micah commentaries. Bruce Waltke remains my first all-round commentary regardless of date, while Stephen Dempster and Mark Gignilliat remain especially important for biblical and theological interpretation. The question here is more specific: among works published from 2020 onward, which volumes add the greatest value to a contemporary Micah library?

The recent books also perform very different tasks. Timmer is compact and theological; Soenksen is enormous and technical; Phillips tries to integrate serious exegesis with biblical theology and the church; Nogalski is especially concerned with composition and Micah within the Twelve; de Moor and Zapff represent major contemporary European technical scholarship; Becking combines textual, Assyriological and historical-critical work; Goldingay is deliberately concise, independent and theological.

That diversity is one reason the recent Micah field is so worthwhile. Readers are not simply choosing between eight newer versions of the same interpretation.

1. Daniel C. Timmer — Obadiah, Jonah and Micah — revised Tyndale Old Testament Commentary (2021) — ★★★★★

Timmer is my best recent commentary on Micah overall. This may seem surprising beside several volumes many times its length, but Commentary Compass does not equate usefulness with page count. Timmer consistently identifies the interpretive centre of a passage, works carefully enough with the Hebrew and historical setting to remain exegetically credible, and then places the passage within the theological movement of the whole book.

The revised Tyndale format helps enormously. Each section moves through Context, Comment and Meaning, which prevents detailed exegesis from becoming detached from the argument of Micah. The reader is repeatedly reminded why a particular oracle appears where it does and what theological work it performs.

Timmer is particularly perceptive on the controversy with Micah’s opponents. Their error is not simply that they believe false things about God. They appear to appeal selectively to Yahweh’s patience and graciousness as though divine patience made judgment against God’s people impossible. Timmer connects this with Exodus 34:6–7 and exposes the deeper theological problem: a true doctrine of grace has been turned into a doctrine of immunity.

That insight helps make the whole book more coherent. Micah’s opponents use God’s gracious character prematurely to deny the possibility of judgment; Micah 7 finally celebrates that same gracious character after rebellion has been exposed and judgment has been taken seriously. Grace has not changed. The people’s relationship to the truth about themselves has.

Timmer is equally good on the remnant. The remnant does not remain a static theological category. In Micah 2 it is the flock gathered and led out by the Shepherd-King. In chapter 4 it consists strikingly of the lame, scattered and afflicted whom Yahweh restores. In chapter 5 the remnant appears among the nations. In chapter 7 it becomes the object of divine forgiveness and covenant faithfulness.

The Davidic ruler in Micah 5 is also handled with unusual clarity. Timmer refuses to begin with Matthew 2. The present ruler of Jerusalem has been humiliated, and the prophecy turns toward insignificant Bethlehem, the birthplace of David. The future ruler therefore represents a renewed Davidic beginning in response to failed contemporary kingship.

His finest section may be Micah 7:18–20. Timmer brings together Exodus 15 and Exodus 34. “Who is like you?” evokes the Song of the Sea, while forgiveness, compassion and steadfast love recall Yahweh’s self-revelation after the golden calf. Micah then radically develops the exodus image: God once threw Pharaoh and his army into the sea; now he throws all the people’s sins into the depths.

That is not merely a clever intertextual observation. It gives the entire book a theological destination. Micah begins with sin producing judgment and ends with God dealing decisively with sin itself.

Timmer also traces the Abrahamic horizon unusually well. Restoration is not simply ethnic Israel returning to a small geopolitical space. Zion’s future involves the nations, and the Abrahamic promises of descendants and blessing provide a theological framework capable of including non-Israelites within God’s saving purposes.

The obvious limitation is brevity. Anyone writing an academic paper on the Hebrew text of Micah 1:10–16 or the textual history of Micah 5 will need Soenksen, de Moor, Nogalski, Becking or an older technical commentary beside Timmer.

But that limitation scarcely affects the ranking. For the best combination of concision, insight, final-form coherence, biblical theology and practical usefulness among recent Micah commentaries, Timmer is first.

2. Jason R. Soenksen — Micah — Concordia Commentary (2020) — ★★★★½–★★★★★

Soenksen occupies almost the opposite end of the spectrum from Timmer. At roughly six hundred pages, this is the major recent conservative technical commentary on Micah and one of the largest modern treatments of the book.

Its principal strength is the sheer comprehensiveness of the research. Soenksen gives extensive attention to the Hebrew text and ancient versions, surveys major exegetical proposals, interacts with scholarship in several languages, discusses literary and rhetorical questions, engages New Testament use of Micah and still provides theological and homiletical reflection.

That combination makes the volume more than a philological repository. Many technical commentaries solve linguistic problems and then leave pastors to construct theology themselves. Concordia’s confessional series commitments mean that Soenksen also asks what Micah contributes to Christian proclamation.

The volume is particularly useful when interpreters disagree over obscure Hebrew. Micah contains several famously difficult sections, especially the place-name poetry of chapter 1, parts of chapter 2, the transition material of chapters 4–5 and passages in chapter 7. Soenksen gives readers enough evidence to understand why competing translations exist rather than simply announcing a preferred answer.

His interaction with previous scholarship is another major advantage. Waltke, Andersen–Freedman, Hillers, Wolff and other major interpreters can be compared in one place. For students doing serious exegetical work, that alone can make the commentary extraordinarily valuable.

Soenksen’s theological position is explicitly Christian and Lutheran. Readers from other traditions will occasionally frame law, gospel, Christology or ecclesial application differently, but the confessional clarity is generally an advantage because theological assumptions are not hidden behind supposedly neutral exegesis.

The price of comprehensiveness is that the commentary can feel like a research library compressed into one volume. Readers may work through several pages of options without always receiving the same immediate sense of theological hierarchy that Timmer, Dempster or Phillips provide.

That is why I place Soenksen second rather than first. He is arguably more useful than Timmer for detailed research, but less consistently helpful for seeing the movement of Micah as one theological argument.

For advanced students, pastors who work with Hebrew and researchers wanting a modern conservative technical commentary, however, Soenksen is exceptional.

Bottom line: Best recent conservative technical reference commentary and one of the most substantial modern resources on Micah in any tradition.

3. Elaine A. Phillips — Obadiah, Jonah & Micah — Apollos Old Testament Commentary (2022) — ★★★★½–★★★★★

Phillips is perhaps the best balanced substantial recent commentary. She occupies a valuable middle ground between Timmer’s compactness and Soenksen’s encyclopaedic scale, and her method fits Micah particularly well because geography, history, rhetoric, covenant theology and canonical context are all allowed to interact.

Her introduction is one of the strongest features. Phillips reconstructs the eastern Mediterranean and Assyrian political environment, narrows the focus to the Shephelah and Micah’s own region, considers the cities lamented in chapter 1 and then moves into Micah’s place among the prophets and the Twelve.

That geographical work makes Micah’s opening chapters much more concrete. The prophet from Moresheth is not delivering abstract lectures about social justice from a secure capital. His own lowland world lies exposed to military campaigns and the consequences of policies shaped by more powerful centres.

Phillips then frames Micah’s theological criticism largely through covenant care for community and land. This is particularly useful in chapters 2–3. Land seizure, corrupted judgment, venal prophecy and failures of leadership are not isolated moral violations; together they show the breakdown of the responsibilities by which God’s people were supposed to sustain communal life.

Her treatment of prophetic rhetoric also deserves emphasis. Micah’s violent imagery, sarcasm, laments, abrupt dialogues and apparently jarring transitions are not ornaments around propositional theology. The rhetoric is part of the prophetic act itself. The text is intended to disorient false confidence and force hearers to experience the moral seriousness of judgment.

Phillips’s discussion of Micah 3:12 is especially valuable. The prophet announces Zion’s destruction in apparently unconditional language, yet Jeremiah 26 remembers that Hezekiah responded to the prophecy and disaster was postponed. Phillips therefore treats prophetic fulfilment dynamically: a warning can succeed precisely by eliciting the response that prevents its immediate fulfilment.

Because the same volume includes Jonah, this becomes an especially fruitful theological connection. Nineveh’s response to Jonah and Hezekiah’s remembered response to Micah both challenge overly mechanical models of prophetic prediction.

Her treatment of the remnant is another strength. The motif begins as a tattered portion of the flock, becomes the lame and displaced gathered to Zion and later develops into a significant presence among the nations. The progression allows judgment, survival and vocation to remain connected.

Phillips is also appropriately restrained on the Book of the Twelve. She recognises real canonical and lexical relationships but does not assume that every correspondence enables us to reconstruct a detailed editorial programme. This makes her a useful methodological counterweight to Nogalski.

She is not as technically exhaustive as Soenksen and does not give as concentrated a biblical-theological synthesis as Timmer. Yet she is more balanced than almost any other recent commentary.

Bottom line: Best recent substantial evangelical all-rounder and probably the safest recent purchase for readers wanting scholarship, theology and ministry usefulness in one volume.

4. James D. Nogalski — The Book of Micah — NICOT (2024) — ★★★★½

Nogalski’s new stand-alone NICOT is the most important very recent addition to Micah scholarship. It replaces Leslie Allen’s older NICOT but represents a fundamentally different scholarly approach shaped by Nogalski’s decades of work on prophetic composition and the Book of the Twelve.

The commentary gives substantial attention to the Hebrew text, textual variants, current bibliography, historical setting and theological reflection. It is not merely a specialised essay about redaction inserted into a commentary series. The verse-by-verse exegesis is extensive and frequently useful even for readers who reject Nogalski’s reconstruction of the book’s growth.

His particular strength is Micah’s role within the Twelve. Nogalski sees Micah functioning as a major literary and theological hinge. Hosea and Amos have concentrated heavily on the northern kingdom; Micah opens with Samaria and Jerusalem together before increasingly shifting prophetic attention toward Judah, Zion, remnant and future restoration.

That canonical location produces fruitful connections. Micah’s themes of remnant, Jerusalem and the nations continue to reverberate through later books. The final form therefore participates in a larger prophetic conversation rather than standing as seven isolated chapters.

Nogalski’s principal point of controversy is compositional history. He identifies an eighth-century early core but regards substantial parts of chapters 4–7 as later developments, including hopeful material shaped after major historical events had already occurred.

This means that several texts traditionally read as predictive prophecy become retrospective theological interpretation. Postexilic readers, in his model, hear earlier historical events represented as prophetic promises of Yahweh’s fidelity.

Readers committed to a substantially eighth-century Micah will find this unnecessarily sceptical, and even historically critical readers may question whether the stages can be reconstructed with the precision proposed.

Yet disagreement with the compositional model should not obscure the commentary’s value. Nogalski is current, learned, clear and especially important for readers who want to understand where contemporary critical discussion of Micah and the Twelve now stands.

He also deserves credit for treating the theological significance of the final book rather than assuming that reconstructing sources exhausts interpretation. The commentary recognises that later communities heard judgment, remnant, Zion and restoration as a coherent theological inheritance regardless of how the individual units originated.

Bottom line: Best recent advanced commentary for Micah within the Twelve and an essential conversation partner for current critical research, though its compositional reconstruction prevents it from being my first all-round choice.

5. John Goldingay — Hosea–Micah — Baker Commentary on the Old Testament: Prophetic Books (2021) — ★★★★½

Goldingay’s Micah treatment is much shorter than the major research volumes, but it deserves a high recent ranking because it repeatedly asks the theological question that larger commentaries can bury under detail.

His independent translation is part of the value. Familiar verses sound less familiar, and that can expose assumptions readers bring to them after decades of hearing standard English wording.

Micah 5 is a good example. Goldingay reads Bethlehem not merely as the geographic location of a future messiah but as a theological restart of Davidic kingship. Jerusalem’s existing ruler has been humiliated, so Yahweh goes back behind the failed royal establishment to the small town from which David first emerged.

This combination of continuity and discontinuity is important. The Davidic promise is not abandoned, but neither is the existing monarchy simply reinforced.

Goldingay is equally stimulating on Micah 5:10–15. Salvation involves Yahweh removing horses, chariots, fortified cities, divination and religious objects. The passage therefore challenges the assumption that salvation means only the destruction of external threats. God may also dismantle the things his own people use to construct false security.

His treatment of Micah 7 is especially rich. The closing hymn piles image upon image: Yahweh carries iniquity, passes over rebellion, shows compassion, subdues sins and throws them into the sea. Goldingay allows the multiplicity of metaphors to communicate the extravagance of forgiveness.

He is also good at preserving the tension between judgment and mercy. The remnant receives mercy precisely after the book has refused to trivialise sin. God’s delight in steadfast love is therefore not sentimental tolerance.

Goldingay’s weakness as an all-round commentary is the same as his strength: he is selective and independent. A reader would not normally use him alone to settle a disputed Hebrew phrase, and some of his historical or contemporary applications invite disagreement.

But in a library already containing a technical commentary, he is exceptionally valuable because he rarely merely repeats it.

Bottom line: Best recent short theological countervoice and especially strong on failed kingship, false security, judgment and the language of forgiveness.

6. Johannes C. de Moor — Micah — Historical Commentary on the Old Testament (2020) — ★★★★½

De Moor’s HCOT is one of the least discussed major recent Micah commentaries in English-language evangelical circles, but it deserves considerably more attention. It represents the mature work of a scholar who had been studying Micah and the structural analysis of Hebrew poetry for decades.

The commentary’s principal strength is close attention to the text’s architecture. De Moor has long been associated with structural analysis, and Micah provides unusually difficult material for that method because poetic units, speaker shifts and thematic reversals can be hard to delimit.

His work therefore becomes particularly useful where interpretation depends upon where one unit ends and another begins. Chapters 4–5, the place-name lament and parts of chapter 7 all benefit from this kind of disciplined attention.

The philological work is likewise substantial. Difficult Hebrew is examined carefully, and de Moor interacts extensively with textual and structural proposals rather than treating the Masoretic Text as either automatically transparent or hopelessly corrupt.

What is especially attractive about de Moor as a critical commentator is his comparative restraint. He certainly allows editorial development, but he is often more respectful toward the received text and more tentative about speculative reconstruction than older redaction-critical approaches.

That methodological modesty matters in Micah because the history of scholarship is filled with elaborate attempts to decide precisely which line came from which period or speaker. De Moor does not assume that difficulty itself proves interpolation.

The volume’s limitation for Commentary Compass readers is theological and practical. Its greatest contribution lies in technical exegesis and structure rather than sustained movement into Christian biblical theology or preaching.

For Hebrew students and scholars, however, it is one of the most important recent works and arguably more dependable as a technical reference than its public profile suggests.

Bottom line: Best recent specialist option for structural and philological analysis and one of the most important technical Micah commentaries of the last decade.

7. Bob Becking — Micah — Anchor Yale Bible (2023) — ★★★★½

Becking’s Anchor Yale volume is another major recent critical commentary and in some respects the most stimulating recent critical alternative to Nogalski. Its strengths lie especially in textual history, Assyriology, political language, literary analysis and the interpretation of Micah’s different historical horizons.

His use of Neo-Assyrian material is particularly valuable. Treaties, loyalty oaths, royal ideology and prophetic texts provide a broader ancient Near Eastern setting in which Micah’s covenant language and images of imperial power can be heard.

Becking argues that Micah sometimes appropriates the conceptual language of empire and turns it against imperial ideology. This is more useful than merely saying that Assyria forms the political background. The prophet is engaging a world whose political vocabulary is itself capable of being theologically subverted.

His treatment of Micah 4 is one of the commentary’s highlights. The peace vision is centred upon the declaration that instruction comes from Zion and Yahweh’s word from Jerusalem. The nations’ disarmament therefore results from transformed judgment and instruction, not simply from military exhaustion.

Becking also makes an important observation about verse 5: the future vision has ethical force in the present. A community that affirms Yahweh’s coming peace is summoned to live now in accordance with the world it confesses will come.

His heading “A Future for the Lame” captures another of the book’s central reversals. The restored community is formed from the lame, banished and afflicted. Political insignificance becomes the starting material for Yahweh’s restored people.

Becking’s historical-critical model will not persuade everyone. He distinguishes significant historical layers and treats chapters 6–7 as a later composition associated with the period before Josiah. His resistance to reading Micah 5 as intrinsically messianic will likewise challenge traditional Christian readings.

That disagreement is useful when held in conversation with Timmer, Waltke, Dempster or Gignilliat. Becking forces Christian readers to distinguish what the Micah text itself claims within its Old Testament horizon from later Christian appropriation.

Bottom line: Excellent recent mainstream critical commentary, especially for Assyrian background, Micah 4, the lame remnant and current historical-critical debate.

8. Burkard M. Zapff — Micah — International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament, English translation (2022) — ★★★★☆

Zapff’s IECOT is a major scholarly commentary and should not be omitted simply because it is less frequently discussed in English-language commentary surveys. The English translation appeared within the present 2020+ window and brings a substantial continental historical-critical voice into the recent field.

The commentary works extensively with the Masoretic Text while also attending to other textual traditions, particularly the Septuagint and, to a lesser extent, the Peshitta. This is valuable in Micah because several difficult readings cannot responsibly be evaluated from the MT alone.

Zapff’s strongest interest is diachronic. His earlier work on Micah was heavily redaction-critical, and that expertise continues to shape the commentary. He is interested in how older prophetic material has been reapplied, expanded and repositioned as later communities encountered new historical circumstances.

That can be illuminating where Micah’s abrupt transitions resist straightforward historical sequencing. Later interpretation may become part of the biblical text itself, and Zapff helps the reader ask how rereading contributed to the formation of the book.

The drawback is that redactional reconstruction can become too dominant. Readers primarily interested in the final literary form can find themselves spending more energy separating strata than hearing the theological effects created by the received arrangement.

This is particularly significant in Micah because judgment and salvation stand so abruptly beside one another. A diachronic explanation may plausibly illuminate how those materials arose, but it does not necessarily exhaust what their juxtaposition means in the finished book.

Zapff should therefore be read with a final-form theological commentator rather than alone. Dempster, Gignilliat, Timmer or Phillips would all provide useful counterweights.

Bottom line: Major recent continental critical commentary, especially useful for textual traditions and redactional development, but less balanced for the average Commentary Compass reader than the seven volumes above it.

What the recent generation has changed

The most obvious development is that recent Micah scholarship gives readers far more methodological choice than even a decade ago. One can now choose among a massive conservative technical commentary, compact evangelical theological exegesis, a substantial evangelical synthesis, several distinct forms of historical criticism and a strong theological commentary without leaving the 2020+ window.

Timmer has strengthened final-form evangelical interpretation by showing that a short commentary need not be superficial. His reading of Exodus 34, the remnant and Micah’s final second exodus supplies a coherent theology of the whole book.

Soenksen provides something recent evangelical scholarship badly needed: a genuinely large technical work capable of standing beside the major critical reference commentaries in textual and philological depth while still engaging explicitly in Christian theology and preaching.

Phillips offers perhaps the most balanced modern midpoint between those two. Her work shows how geography, history, rhetoric and covenant theology can belong together without the commentary becoming either a devotional exposition or a technical archive.

Nogalski and Becking show how much current critical scholarship has moved beyond simple source dissection. Both remain strongly interested in historical development, but both also take seriously literary shape and theological meaning.

De Moor demonstrates that detailed critical exegesis need not involve endless confidence in hypothetical layers. His long experience with Hebrew poetic structure produces a more restrained technical approach.

Goldingay reminds the entire field that a commentary does not have to be enormous to ask the most important theological questions.

Zapff keeps alive the major continental redaction-critical tradition and ensures that English readers have access to a methodological approach still highly influential in European scholarship.

What the recent generation has not replaced

None of this makes Waltke obsolete. His 2007 commentary still gives the strongest overall combination of Hebrew exegesis, rhetoric, literary coherence, historical work and Christian theology.

Dempster and Gignilliat also remain essential because the 2020+ field does not contain an obvious replacement for what either contributes. Dempster’s treatment of Micah’s final form, the remnant, the nations and the Twelve remains one of the most coherent biblical-theological readings available. Gignilliat’s sustained theological and canonical interpretation remains distinctive.

Andersen–Freedman still offers literary and philological insights unavailable elsewhere, while Hillers remains remarkably efficient as a concise critical Hebrew commentary. Smith-Christopher’s 2015 OTL still provides the strongest sociohistorical and trauma-informed account of the Shephelah, imperial economics and “economic cannibalism.”

The recent list should therefore be viewed as an expansion of the library rather than a replacement programme.

My updated recent ranking

My current 2020+ ranking is:

1. Daniel C. Timmer — revised TOTC (2021) — ★★★★★
Best recent overall; exceptional balance of concision, exegesis, whole-book coherence and biblical theology.

2. Jason R. Soenksen — Concordia Commentary (2020) — ★★★★½–★★★★★
Best recent conservative technical commentary; exhaustive Hebrew and textual work with theological and preaching value.

3. Elaine A. Phillips — Apollos (2022) — ★★★★½–★★★★★
Best substantial recent evangelical all-rounder; especially strong on geography, covenant theology, rhetoric, prophetic fulfilment and the remnant.

4. James D. Nogalski — NICOT (2024) — ★★★★½
Best recent advanced commentary for Micah within the Twelve and contemporary compositional discussion.

5. John Goldingay — BCOT (2021) — ★★★★½
Best recent short theological countervoice; especially valuable on kingship, false securities, judgment and forgiveness.

6. Johannes C. de Moor — HCOT (2020) — ★★★★½
Best recent specialist commentary for structural analysis, Hebrew poetry and detailed philology.

7. Bob Becking — Anchor Yale Bible (2023) — ★★★★½
Major current critical commentary, particularly strong on Assyrian background, the peace vision, the lame remnant and historical horizons.

8. Burkard M. Zapff — IECOT, English edition (2022) — ★★★★☆
Substantial recent continental historical-critical treatment, especially useful for textual traditions and redactional analysis.

If I were buying recent Micah commentaries today

If I could buy only one recent commentary, I would choose Timmer. It is the volume I would most consistently use from the beginning of sermon or teaching preparation to the end, and its theological synthesis is unusually strong for its size.

If I could buy two for teaching and preaching, I would add Phillips. Timmer gives the compact theological map; Phillips supplies much more historical geography, rhetoric and exegetical interaction without becoming unwieldy.

If I could buy two for advanced research, I would choose Soenksen + Nogalski. Soenksen gives a current conservative technical treatment with extensive Hebrew work; Nogalski supplies a contemporary critical and Book-of-the-Twelve perspective. The methodological contrast is significant and useful.

If I wanted maximum methodological breadth with three, I would choose Phillips + Nogalski + Becking. That set would provide a balanced evangelical final-form approach beside two distinct critical models, one particularly focused on the Twelve and the other on Assyrian and historical-literary context.

If I already owned Waltke and Dempster, my first recent additions would probably be Timmer and Phillips, followed by Nogalski if research into the Twelve or compositional history mattered significantly.

For a serious Hebrew research library, Soenksen + de Moor + Nogalski would give an exceptionally strong recent technical trio.

Final assessment

The current Micah field is unusually healthy because recent commentators disagree not merely about isolated Hebrew words but about what kinds of questions matter most.

Timmer asks how the disparate parts of Micah form a coherent theological drama culminating in the forgiveness of sin. Soenksen asks what painstaking textual, grammatical and historical work can establish before theology proceeds. Phillips asks how geography, covenant, prophetic rhetoric and the final literary form illuminate one another. Nogalski asks how Micah grew historically and functions within the Twelve. Goldingay asks what familiar passages actually force us to say about God and human security. De Moor asks how poetic and structural precision can discipline interpretation. Becking asks how Micah’s language relates to Assyrian imperial culture and changing historical horizons. Zapff asks how the book’s successive layers bear witness to continuing prophetic reinterpretation.

Those questions produce different Micahs, but the strongest interpretations continue to converge around certain realities. Power has become predatory. Religion has learned how to reassure people who need repentance. Zion cannot be preserved unchanged but must be judged and transformed. God’s future begins with the lame and scattered. Failed kingship receives a new Davidic beginning. The nations belong within the horizon of God’s purposes. Worship cannot substitute for justice, covenant loyalty and humble life before God.

And at the end, Micah’s deepest crisis is no longer Assyria, corrupt elites or even exile. It is sin.

That is why the closing image remains so powerful and why Timmer’s recent treatment captures the theological movement so well. The exodus once culminated with Egypt’s forces disappearing into the sea. Micah’s final exodus culminates with sin itself cast into the depths.

The best recent commentaries help us see how the whole book has been moving toward that astonishing conclusion:

“Who is a God like you?”