Chadash

there is no neutrality: one has either the beast's mark or God's seal.

Why did Jesus tell His Disciples to buy 2 swords? Let's weigh the matter righteously on the scales of the Word of God And I am happy to explain, since it's widely used for evil instead of good Jesus explicitly gives the reason in v. 37 to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12 (“And he was numbered with the transgressors”, “counted among the lawless”, “numbered with the criminals”) This is part of the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 53, which describes the Messiah’s atoning death. When Jesus first sent the disciples out on mission (Luke 9:1-6 and 10:1-12), they went without money, extra clothes, or provisions and lacked nothing, God provided through hospitality. Now the situation is changing dramatically as Jesus is about to be arrested, tried, crucified, and the disciples will face hostility, persecution, and a new era without His physical presence. They will need to be more self-reliant (purse/bag for basic needs). The swords specifically is NOT a general command for self-defense or arming up for future ministry. Jesus ties it directly and immediately to the Isaiah prophecy. By having (and visibly carrying) swords/weapons, the group would (appear to the authorities as armed rebels or “transgressors") a band of lawless criminals or political revolutionaries. This would justify treating Jesus as a dangerous criminal (which the Romans and Jewish leaders did) and fulfill the prophecy that the Messiah would be “numbered with” such people. It was prophetic, the swords created the outward appearance required for the arrest and crucifixion to unfold as Scripture foretold. “That’s enough!” (v. 38), Not “two swords are plenty to fight with,” but either (1) “That is sufficient [for the prophetic purpose]” or (2) a way of ending the conversation because the disciples were missing the point (they immediately took it literally and produced the two they already had). Two swords among 11+ men (Judas had left) are USELESS FOR ACTUAL COMBAT or DEFENSE against a mob or Roman soldiers, exactly the point. the swords ensured the group did "not appear" as a harmless, peaceful band of innocent teachers or pilgrims. Instead, they appeared as potential lawbreakers/revolutionaries (“transgressors”), which was necessary for the events to align with prophecy. It was NEVER about fighting or using the swords in battle. Jesus immediately stops any use of the sword, when Peter draws one and attacks, Jesus rebukes him sharply, heals the victim, and says “No more of this!” He never intended or allowed violence. BEAUTIFUL King Jesus could have overpowered everyone supernaturally, He references calling angels (Matthew) but chooses not to, so Scripture (including Isaiah 53) would be fulfilled. His kingdom “is not of this world” (John 18:36), IT DOES NOT ADVANCE BY THE SWORD. The arresting party’s own words were, They come “with swords and clubs” as if against “a rebellion”/robber (Luke 22:52). The presence of even two swords among Jesus’ group made them look exactly like that, fulfilling the prophecy. He consistently taught non-retaliation, loving enemies, turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-44), and laying down His life voluntarily. The apostles later emphasize the same (e.g., Romans 12:18-21; 1 Peter 2:21-23). The early church did not take this as a call to arms; they faced persecution without violence. At the Last Supper, as Jesus prepared to drink the cup of suffering, He gave this final instruction so that, when the authorities came, He would be arrested and executed precisely as the suffering Messiah prophesied in Isaiah: “numbered with the transgressors.” The two swords were stage props for that fulfillment, not weapons for a fight He had zero intention of allowing or winning on human terms. This is the unified understanding across the vast majority of biblical studies, however seems to be forgotten by those who worship Rome. I pray this pricks your heart in understanding ✝️🫂💚🙏

Exterminating lesser demons #vidu #viducpp