He's citing Micah 7:1-10:
Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grapegleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the firstripe fruit. The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up. The best of them is as a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy watchmen and thy visitation cometh; now shall be their perplexity. Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house. Therefore I will look unto the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me. Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the LORD shall be a light unto me. I will bear the indignation of the LORD, because I have sinned against him, until he plead my cause, and execute judgment for me: he will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness. Then she that is mine enemy shall see it, and shame shall cover her which said unto me, Where is the LORD thy God? mine eyes shall behold her: now shall she be trodden down as the mire of the streets.
More context is Luke 12:49-53:
I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
For Luke's "I am come to send fire" Thomas has "I am come to cast ... fire". For Luke's "I am come to give ... division" Thomas has "I am come to cast divisions ..., sword, war". So, same event. But when he quotes Micah he is combining his causality with the local causality of human sinful nature without putting himself directly in the passage, but the indirect is implied.
Now, though he alludes to the very broad "peace upon the world" (aka "peace on earth"), he does not pivot to world war but to Micah's war in a single household. In rabbinical style that means he is arguing "lesser to greater": he is implying that just as he casts division in one house he certainly can and does cast it in larger divisions. But that implication is a secondary reading and his primary focus is that even single houses have blood betrayers that will be "trodden down". The context implies that the solution to the division is justice. 1 Peter 4:16-18 alludes to the same then:
Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
This passage is also about betrayal in households and comparison to judgment of the nations. Traducing was common then as statists betrayed others to the government with the insulting name "Christians" (compare the fate of Jesus's disciples in the Talmud). Peter makes the lesser-to-greater (kal wekomer) argument explicit (which affirms that Jesus intended it also), by pointing out that righteous houses are judged more strictly and exactly, and thereby judgment cannot fail for sinful nations that heap up their ungodliness. So it sounds like Peter (especially with the rest of his context) is confident the sins of the nations will be judged righteously.
You focus on the ordinary daily work of love that is designed to wear down via its light. Sure. But pacifism cannot be the universal rule because you know that evil nations must be judged by competent courts. Let me share a 42 with you if it will not tempt you to object to my related treatment of OP. I discerned that the earliest teaching can be read as saying the good work of a weekday leads to resting on Sabbath in 1/6 proportion, but the evil work of unjust murder yields evils that must be fixed in 7 times the proportion (even if it pretends to be just vengeance like an attack upon Cain). Therefore we can adjust a truism by saying that for every time one speaks negatively one should speak positively 42 times. (This may be seized upon by the calculation that you need to be 45 times further from average for evil than you need to be for good; but I think it kind of inverts it.) An evil act automatically does 42 times as much evil as a good act does good. That is, good is intended to be cumulative because it is eternal and unlimited and rewarded forever, but bad is permitted to have a limited short-term "high" because it is temporal and limited and judged asap. Then when Lamech mocks this principle and declares the right to be avenged seventy and seven (which can mean 490), that is shown to be a disproportion and distortion, and Jesus later redeems the number 490 for forgiveness indicating there is no limit on goodness like there is on evil. (So note that even "Ra" has to admit a qualitative difference between good and evil and cannot pretend they both go to the same place.)
But I recall that when I gave a list of passages about Jesus's approval of just war you started with changing my inference by using the word "fulfill" from the text where it didn't apply and then saying the first two-millionth of my text had such a blatant error. I understand you want to communicate MEGO about math but if you're asking the meaning of 2 vs. 3 then let's allow it. "The question might be put to you: If you belong to a military at war with modern Israel, dedicated to destroying targets where it is known that Israel is constantly using children as human shields, how would you proceed: give up, or attack after all regulations are met?"
Add: While we're at it, Jesus's Father is violent:
Jesus said: The kingdom of the Father is like a man who wanted to kill a great man. He drew the sword in his house and drove it into the wall, that he might know that his hand would be strong. Then he slew the great man. (Thomas 98)
And Jesus appears to be comfortable blazing up a world full of children (context of 16 shows this is not peaceful fire):
Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze. (Thomas 10)
He's citing Micah 7:1-10:
Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grapegleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the firstripe fruit. The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up. The best of them is as a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy watchmen and thy visitation cometh; now shall be their perplexity. Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house. Therefore I will look unto the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me. Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the LORD shall be a light unto me. I will bear the indignation of the LORD, because I have sinned against him, until he plead my cause, and execute judgment for me: he will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness. Then she that is mine enemy shall see it, and shame shall cover her which said unto me, Where is the LORD thy God? mine eyes shall behold her: now shall she be trodden down as the mire of the streets.
More context is Luke 12:49-53:
I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
For Luke's "I am come to send fire" Thomas has "I am come to cast ... fire". For Luke's "I am come to give ... division" Thomas has "I am come to cast divisions ..., sword, war". So, same event. But when he quotes Micah he is combining his causality with the local causality of human sinful nature without putting himself directly in the passage, but the indirect is implied.
Now, though he alludes to the very broad "peace upon the world" (aka "peace on earth"), he does not pivot to world war but to Micah's war in a single household. In rabbinical style that means he is arguing "lesser to greater": he is implying that just as he casts division in one house he certainly can and does cast it in larger divisions. But that implication is a secondary reading and his primary focus is that even single houses have blood betrayers that will be "trodden down". The context implies that the solution to the division is justice. 1 Peter 4:16-18 alludes to the same then:
Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
This passage is also about betrayal in households and comparison to judgment of the nations. Traducing was common then as statists betrayed others to the government with the insulting name "Christians" (compare the fate of Jesus's disciples in the Talmud). Peter makes the lesser-to-grater (kal wekomer) argument explicit (which affirms that Jesus intended it also), by pointing out that righteous houses are judged more strictly and exactly, and thereby judgment cannot fail for sinful nations that heap up their ungodliness. So it sounds like Peter (especially with the rest of his context) is confident the sins of the nations will be judged righteously.
You focus on the ordinary daily work of love that is designed to wear down via its light. Sure. But pacifism cannot be the universal rule because you know that evil nations must be judged by competent courts. Let me share a 42 with you if it will not tempt you to object to my related treatment of OP. I discerned that the earliest teaching can be read as saying the good work of a weekday leads to resting on Sabbath in 1/6 proportion, but the evil work of unjust murder yields evils that must be fixed in 7 times the proportion (even if it pretends to be just vengeance like an attack upon Cain). Therefore we can adjust a truism by saying that for every time one speaks negatively one should speak positively 42 times. (This may be seized upon by the calculation that you need to be 45 times further from average for evil than you need to be for good; but I think it kind of inverts it.) An evil act automatically does 42 times as much evil as a good act does good. That is, good is intended to be cumulative because it is eternal and unlimited and rewarded forever, but bad is permitted to have a limited short-term "high" because it is temporal and limited and judged asap. Then when Lamech mocks this principle and declares the right to be avenged seventy and seven (which can mean 490), that is shown to be a disproportion and distortion, and Jesus later redeems the number 490 for forgiveness indicating there is no limit on goodness like there is on evil. (So note that even "Ra" has to admit a qualitative difference between good and evil and cannot pretend they both go to the same place.)
But I recall that when I gave a list of passages about Jesus's approval of just war you started with changing my inference by using the word "fulfill" from the text where it didn't apply and then saying the first two-millionth of my text had such a blatant error. I understand you want to communicate MEGO about math but if you're asking the meaning of 2 vs. 3 then let's allow it. "The question might be put to you: If you belong to a military at war with modern Israel, dedicated to destroying targets where it is known that Israel is constantly using children as human shields, how would you proceed: give up, or attack after all regulations are met?"
Add: While we're at it, Jesus's Father is violent:
Jesus said: The kingdom of the Father is like a man who wanted to kill a great man. He drew the sword in his house and drove it into the wall, that he might know that his hand would be strong. Then he slew the great man. (Thomas 98)
And Jesus appears to be comfortable blazing up a world full of children (context of 16 shows this is not peaceful fire):
Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze. (Thomas 10)
He's citing Micah 7:1-10:
Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grapegleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the firstripe fruit. The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up. The best of them is as a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy watchmen and thy visitation cometh; now shall be their perplexity. Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house. Therefore I will look unto the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me. Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the LORD shall be a light unto me. I will bear the indignation of the LORD, because I have sinned against him, until he plead my cause, and execute judgment for me: he will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness. Then she that is mine enemy shall see it, and shame shall cover her which said unto me, Where is the LORD thy God? mine eyes shall behold her: now shall she be trodden down as the mire of the streets.
More context is Luke 12:49-53:
I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
For Luke's "I am come to send fire" Thomas has "I am come to cast ... fire". For Luke's "I am come to give ... division" Thomas has "I am come to cast divisions ..., sword, war". So, same event. But when he quotes Micah he is combining his causality with the local causality of human sinful nature without putting himself directly in the passage, but the indirect is implied.
Now, though he alludes to the very broad "peace upon the world" (aka "peace on earth"), he does not pivot to world war but to Micah's war in a single household. In rabbinical style that means he is arguing "lesser to greater": he is implying that just as he casts division in one house he certainly can and does cast it in larger divisions. But that implication is a secondary reading and his primary focus is that even single houses have blood betrayers that will be "trodden down". The context implies that the solution to the division is justice. 1 Peter 4:16-18 alludes to the same then:
Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
This passage is also about betrayal in households and comparison to judgment of the nations. Traducing was common then as statists betrayed others to the government with the insulting name "Christians" (compare the fate of Jesus's disciples in the Talmud). Peter makes the lesser-to-grater (kal wekomer) argument explicit (which affirms that Jesus intended it also), by pointing out that righteous houses are judged more strictly and exactly, and thereby judgment cannot fail for sinful nations that heap up their ungodliness. So it sounds like Peter (especially with the rest of his context) is confident the sins of the nations will be judged righteously.
You focus on the ordinary daily work of love that is designed to wear down via its light. Sure. But pacifism cannot be the universal rule because you know that evil nations must be judged by competent courts. Let me share a 42 with you if it will not tempt you to object to my related treatment of OP. I discerned that the earliest teaching can be read as saying the good work of a weekday leads to resting on Sabbath in 1/6 proportion, but the evil work of unjust murder yields evils that must be fixed in 7 times the proportion (even if it pretends to be just vengeance like an attack upon Cain). Therefore we can adjust a truism by saying that for every time one speaks negatively one should speak positively 42 times. (This may be seized upon by the calculation that you need to be 45 times further from average for evil than you need to be for good; but I think it kind of inverts it.) An evil act automatically does 42 times as much evil as a good act does good. That is, good is intended to be cumulative because it is eternal and unlimited and rewarded forever, but bad is permitted to have a limited short-term "high" because it is temporal and limited and judged asap. Then when Lamech mocks this principle and declares the right to be avenged seventy and seven (which can mean 490), that is shown to be a disproportion and distortion, and Jesus later redeems the number 490 for forgiveness indicating there is no limit on goodness like there is on evil. (So note that even "Ra" has to admit a qualitative difference between good and evil and cannot pretend they both go to the same place.)
But I recall that when I gave a list of passages about Jesus's approval of just war you started with changing my inference by using the word "fulfill" from the text where it didn't apply and then saying the first two-millionth of my text had such a blatant error. I understand you want to communicate MEGO about math but if you're asking the meaning of 2 vs. 3 then let's allow it. "The question might be put to you: If you belong to a military at war with modern Israel, dedicated to destroying targets where it is known that Israel is constantly using children as human shields, how would you proceed: give up, or attack after all regulations are met?"