I understand what you are saying but it seems strange to invoke a statement about all the bad at the time of Micha (who then promises the people that God will, when they repent, swoop in a raise them up again) and use that text to describe what Jesus has brought. It is as if he is taking responsibility to the difficulties in his time. Instead of the state of disarray's being a problem, he views it as a desirable position for which is takes credit. That is what I don't understand.
I don't understand why you say Jesus is taking responsibility for the state of disarray. I certainly would never have thought that Jesus was seeing it as a desirable position. In fact, it seems to me that Jesus is saying - things need to change. But rather than taking a superficial approach, let's go for the deep seated reasons for the state of disarray and heal them.
I think the other thing here is that - Micah knew just like Jonah knew that God was slow to anger but quick to forgive. Jonah might have embraced that in relation to Israel, but not for the Gentiles. God however was much bigger and much more merciful than even Jonah could fathom or perhaps liked. Micah is rightly concerned for his own people in his own land. Yet Micah was also aware that even after repentance, even after reconciliation with God, that the Jews would once again go back to their old ways. The history of Israel and indeed the world, shows that this path is inevitable.
Jesus was very aware of this. His mission was therefore both the same but different. It was like the John the Baptist's a gospel to call his people to repentance - but it was also more than that. He, as the messiah, would not only deliver them from their sins, but would do it comprehensively. Hence, the clear message that he was not coming to bring peace in the way that people would normally have been thinking. Peace from the Romans. Peace with each other. Even peace with God for a temporary moment - only to fall back into their old ways again. It was to bring a sword. A sword that would cut away that which would send them back to their old ways and enable them to remain with God forever.
This sword as I mentioned above is not a big swashbuckling broadsword. It was a short dagger. One which could maim but also was used to remove arrows from the body after an attack. Jesus' was not taking responsibility for the situation at the time, he was not taking pleasure in the situation either. He wanted to change it. Remember these verses are in the context of a discussion Jesus is giving to his Apostles as they were being sent out as his disciples to help in the swooping up of those who are repentant.
Yet Jesus also knew that this message of his would be divisive. Hence the imagery of the sword as well. Some people would see sword and think "dangerous fool". Others however would see sword and think "savior". Those who rejected him would continue in their sin - perhaps from time to time dealing with it - but then just going back to the old ways. Those who embraced him would have their sin dealt with - once and for all. This is why Jesus then talks about loyalty in this context.
Families divided again. But this time it would be a division brought about loyalty to Jesus or those who were opposed to him. This has been the story of the world since then. Those who have embraced Jesus and those who have not. Jesus wanted his apostles to be fully informed of this as they went about their task. These verses - are therefore not directed to the world at large. They were directed at his apostles as instructions in how they would be received or not - in their mission to draw people back to God.
