What does Matthew 11:12 mean?

Ask Your Question
1

Hi friends,

As recorded in Matthew 11:12, Jesus said,

From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been suffering violence, and the violent have been seizing it by force.

I recently heard there are many interpretations of this verse, and I thought it could bring clarity and encouragement to discuss them together.

Many sources argue that Jesus is referring to the energetic enthusiasm of the crowds to hear his message, and the zeal that his disciples should have.

Here’s GotQuestions:

The “kingdom of heaven suffers violence,” figuratively speaking, in that people were so thronging to hear the gospel that they resembled an army trying to besiege a city. And the “violent take it by force”; the people entering the kingdom were not violent literally, but their eagerness to see the coming of the Messiah was so overwhelming that it was as if they were attacking a city and beating down the doors to enter.

Charles Spurgeon, in his devotional “Holy Violence,” argued the violence is a kind of spiritual zeal:

Only the violent are saved, and all the violent are saved. When God makes a man violent after salvation, that man cannot perish. The gates of heaven may sooner be unhinged than that man be robbed of the prize for which he has fought.

Ah, my fellow men, if ye sit down and fold your arms, and say, “I am so good I have a right to heaven,”—how deceived you will be. But if God has convinced you of your lost, ruined, and undone condition, and if he has put his quickening Spirit within you, you will use a bold and desperate violence to force your way into the kingdom of heaven.

A similar interpretation from John MacArthur (other concerns with MacArthur are here):

So the sense of this verse may be rendered this way: “The kingdom presses ahead relentlessly, and only the relentless press their way into it.

However, I want to propose a different understanding. Dr. Craig Blomberg, in the New American Commentary, proposes this translation of the Greek:

from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent people attack it.

There are two reasons that Dr. Blomberg provides for preferring this interpretation.

First, it better fits the Greek syntax and vocabulary.

Second, it better fits “the narrative flow of Matthew.”

Let’s look at the second argument since that’s easier to evaluate without technical knowledge of the Greek.

First, in Matthew, do we see anyone violently attempting to become a disciple of Jesus? No, not really.

Second, are the disciples seized with zealous enthusiasm for God? Again, no, not really.

Third, does Matthew repeatedly illustrate how violent men are attacking the kingdom of God, ultimately culminating in the crucifixion of Jesus? Yes, definitely.

In particular, for me, the decisive text in determining between these choices is Matthew 26:36-56.

First, this passage shows that the disciples in God’s kingdom do not demonstrate holy zeal, much less spiritual violence, but hapless sleepiness.

The disciples fall asleep in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36-46). But even though the disciples have very weak resolve, Jesus graciously includes them in his kingdom.

Second, we do see the kingdom of heaven, personified in Jesus, suffering violence, and violent people attacking him.

In particular, in this passage, a large mob comes with weapons to arrest Jesus. And Judas uses a kiss to betray Jesus.

Third, when we do see a disciple attempting violence in the name of Jesus, they are rebuked, and Jesus overturns their action.

We read that one of Jesus’ disciples (Peter) draws his sword and cuts off the ear of the high priest’s servant.

But Jesus responds by saying, put your sword away. Why? “Because all who take up the sword will perish by the sword.”

So Jesus emphatically rejects violence on his behalf, even to the point of publicly rebuking Peter for being violent.

And in Luke 22:51, we get the note that Jesus healed the servant’s ear. That is, Jesus acts to undo the effects of violence.

How do you understand Matthew 11:12? What other interpretations have you heard?

4 Likes
2

This is one of the saddest things about translations and the divisions it creates among religions today. It’s like trying to translate pictures where everyone sees a different meaning. There is so much evidence against violence with only a few demonstrations of even anger. “Violence” is a dangerous word in itself that gives righteous allowance for it to be repeated. Even causing some religions to be motivated by it! Causing "wars and reports of wars’ (MAT 24:6) to be a constant way of life in an area where it started in a garden wanting to be “like God knowing good AND bad” (GEN 3:5) (not good FROM bad) and we still haven’t decided how to balance either one together like our Creator…there will always be negative and positive energy within this reality.

4 Likes
3

I’m not a Biblical scholar but I wonder if the violence can be referring to killing the old man, Adam. Only, I’m not sure if that’s been taught already by this time.

2 Likes
4

This is one interpretation I have heard before but with a twist, with a layer a positive confession teachings added on (which can be a separate discussion all by itself!). In a nutshell, the teaching in connection with this verse is that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross has paid for healing for all sicknesses and all promises of God and believers can have their prayers answered and promises fulfilled in their life depending on how strongly they declare with faith that something will happen. I disagree with this interpretation on many levels. Like you mentioned @Carson , the context seems to suggest violent people have been attacking the spread of the message of the kingdom of God. Secondly, believers violently praying that God satisfy their demands doesn’t convey humility before God. We dont always know to pray in God’s will and not all promises of God are universally applicable to all in all situations.

@renee2 mentioned possible problems with bible translations. To be fair to the many good bible translations, the religious wars seem to be related to the false interpretation of descriptive narrative texts and abuse of bible as a means toward a selfish end. Yet, I think she raises an important concern about differences in translation when it comes to this particular verse. Matt 11:12 ESV, Matt 11:12 NKJV, Matt 11:12 NASB, Matt 11:12 NLT give slightly different interpretation.

I find that the meaning conveyed in NASB and NLT translations fit the context better. In Matt 11: 16-19, Jesus explains how that generation wasn’t receiving the words of the gospel of the kingdom and attacking its messengers. In other words, the kingdom of God is suffering violence. This theme of violence or expecting persecution for faith is what Jesus ends Matt 10 with as well.

This idea is also seen in Hilary of Poitiers AD 368 commentary from the Catena Bible, which explains violence as rejection of Jesus’ message by the religious authorities of the day.

What violence? People did not believe in John the Baptist. The works of Christ were held to be of no importance. His torment on the cross was a stumbling block. “Until now” prophecy has been dormant. But now the law is fulfilled. Every prediction is finished. The spirit of Elijah is sent in advance through John’s words. Christ is proclaimed to some and acknowledged by others. He is born for some and loved by others. The violent irony is that his own people rejected him, while strangers accepted him. His own people speak ill of him, while his enemies embrace him. The act of adoption offers an inheritance, while the family rejects it. Sons refuse to accept their father’s last will, while the slaves of the household receive it. This is what is meant by the phrase “the kingdom of heaven suffers violence.” Earlier expectations are being torn apart. The glory that was pledged to Israel by the patriarchs, which was announced by the prophets and which was offered by Christ, is now being seized and carried off by the Gentiles, through their faith.

Its great to hear different viewpoints! Killing the old man is a good way of applying the gospel message. Matthew Henry’s commentary had a similar idea presented and he seems to be interpreting this verse in terms of believers laying hold of the gospel with force by denying themselves.

Multitudes were wrought upon by the ministry of John, and became his disciples. And those strove for a place in this kingdom, that one would think had no right nor title to it, and so seemed to be intruders. It shows us what fervency and zeal are required of all. Self must be denied; the bent, the frame and temper of the mind must be altered. Those who will have an interest in the great salvation, will have it upon any terms, and not think them hard, nor quit their hold without a blessing.

Scholars seem to be divided on interpretation of this verse and its difficult to come to a straightforward answer. This seems to be because the Greek verb used here may be either in the middle voice, “forces its way violently,” or passive as in English translations - “the kingdom of God suffers violence”, though passive is preferred given the context. Also in the second part, ‘the violent take it by force’ - the Greek noun is without the article, “men who are violent or use force’. ( Ellicott’s commentary).

No matter how we apply the violence, to believers or unbelievers, what is definitely a misapplication is demanding God for what we want based on some bible promises taken out of context. In Luke 4, Satan tried to tempt Jesus to test if God will keep his promises, which was clearly wrong ( Luke 4:12).

3 Likes
5

Yes, this seems to be more like casting magic spells than Christian faith…

The message is: “If you learn the right techniques, the right names for the deity, the right spiritual energy, then you can direct what the supernatural being does.”

That’s something out of a spell book, not the Bible!

4 Likes
6

Hi @diane1,

It could be, but one thing we can all do, Bible scholar or not, is see what details would support that interpretation.

We know that God wants to make us like Christ. That would require removing sin from not only our behavior, but also the sinful tendencies from our hearts.

For instance, consider Ezekiel 36:24-27,

“‘For I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries, and will bring you into your own land. I will also sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your impurities and all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will place my Spirit within you and cause you to follow my statutes and carefully observe my ordinances.

It seems that this verse supports the idea that the initiative and grace of God cleanses us. And that the process continues as we rely on the Spirit’s work in our hearts.

Do you know of any verses that teach that we should be violent with ourselves?

3 Likes
8

What if it means: The violent people of the world experience true salvation and will take back YAH’s kingdom by force. We will stake our claim, and stand our ground. we will not back up, we will not bow down. We will stand and pray until YAH moves into that darkness and it goes away.

1 Like
9

Matthew 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now…
This tells me that the violence started recently in their time. I believe it continues today.
The Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence…
Violence from who and why? Jesus brought the gospel and the forgiveness of sins. People may have become so excited, even desperate, they might be described as violent.
Suffers violence…
Can the Kingdom of Heaven ever truely suffer? I think so many people desperately trying to enter Heaven all at once is what is meant.
And the violent take (seize) it by force. No one can take from God what He does not allow.
Jesus preaching the gospel brought believers to Heaven.

1 Like
10

Hi @alexis, @diane1,

I appreciate your contributions to the discussion.

There is a sense that participating in the kingdom of God awakens our passion for serving God and our neighbors. I can see a sense in which the ‘violence’ of this passage is a dramatic way of referring to the energetic way in which believers devote themselves to God.

However, if we look more closely at the words, I arrive at a different conclusion. For instance, D.A. Carson notes,

Moreover, the verb harpazō (“lay hold of,” GK 773), a fairly common verb, almost always has the same evil connotations (a rare exception is Ac 8:39). For these reasons most commentators see a reference to violent men and then read the verb in the preceding clause as a passive: “the kingdom of heaven is suffering violence and violent men are seizing it” …

There are many conflicting views about who the violent men are — Zealots, Pharisees, evil spirits and their human hosts, Herod Antipas, Jewish antagonists in general. But the thrust is the same in any case.

D.A. Carson also points our attention to the rest of the chapter.

Consider Matthew 11:25-30, where Jesus says:

At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, because this was your good pleasure. All things have been entrusted to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son desires to reveal him.

Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, because I am lowly and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

What we see in this passage is that the kingdom of God is not something that people can violently enter. Rather, it is a gift that God reveals to those with childlike faith - and especially to those who are weary and burdened.

The most emphatic point for me is that Jesus represents the kingdom of God - where the King is, there you can find the kingdom.

We do not see Jesus advancing the kingdom with violent means. Rather, he models a willingness to suffer violence for the sake of love.

For these reasons, I think the CSB translation is best:

From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been suffering violence, and the violent have been seizing it by force.

4 Likes
11

I compare Matthew 11:12 to Luke 16:16 which seems to me to be speaking of or same. "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

3 Likes
12

@diane1 I think Luke 16:16 is for sure the strongest support for understanding Matthew 11:12 to mean that the kingdom is forcefully advancing as in MacArthur’s and Spurgeon’s interpretations that @Carson shared in the first post (see in that post too other concern’s on MacArthur). I think you brought up some good questions about Blomberg’s translation “from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent people attack it” in your last post as well.

I have a few thoughts on the context of Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16 that I think may help answer your questions and support Blomberg’s interpretation.

Jesus’s speech in Matthew 11:7-14 is speaking to the crowds about the identity of John the Baptist (Matt 11:7) and he concludes that John is “Elijah who is to come,” (Matt 11:14).

So, what does verse 12 have to do with the identity of John the Baptist and why does the conclusion in Matt 11:13 start with the word “for” as though the point had just been proved?

Well, a consistent thread throughout Matthew concerning “all the prophets” in v. 13 is that they were persecuted seized and killed (Matt 5:11-12; Matt 21:33 - 46). Notably, Jesus is giving this speech identifying John as not just a prophet, but the prophet to prepare the way for the LORD (Matt 11:10) just after John sent men to inquire of him from prison (Matt 11:1). So, just like all the prophets before him, and like Jesus after him, John suffered violence and had been seized by force. It makes sense then to use “for” in verse 13 in concluding that John is a prophet and in fact the awaited Elijah, because John’s current suffering is exactly what is expected for a prophet and for those in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Thus, in answer to your first question, I would say that the Kingdom of Heaven can be said to suffer or experience violence due to the violence that is inflicted in opposition to it. From the days of the very first proclamation of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew (Matt 3:1-2) there was violent opposition to the kingdom (Matt 2:16-18; note the connection of this to chapter 3 through the words in 3:1 “in those days”). This violence continued through the seizing and killing of John and would continue through the seizing and killing of Jesus as well.

This seizing of John and Jesus is then what I would take “the violent seize it by force” to mean - not that the ones attacking it have actually attained it, but to show one of the means by which they attack it, namely seizing those within it.

You are absolutely correct that, “no one can take what God does not allow,” but Christ willingly gives himself over to those who come with violence to arrest him and willing gives his life. This non-violence in his approach convinces me further that Matt 11:12 is best understood as speaking of violence as something targeted against the kingdom instead of a metaphor for its advancement.

The Greek words for both “violence” and “seize” have overwhelming negative connotations. So much so that the only examples of positive moral connotation for the word translated as violence in Matt 11:12 that are listed by BDAG (one of the top Greek Lexicons) are Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16 - the very verses in question. So, IF the positive interpretation of violence in these verses is correct, to my knowledge they would be the only examples of such use within the Greek literature that still exists.

Using a positive metaphor with words of such negative moral connotation does not seem to me to fit the approach of Jesus. So, the kingdom forcefully advancing and being attained only by the forceful seems like a very unlikely interpretation, particularly since the context of John’s identity and imprisonment seems to fit the interpretation of the kingdom suffering violence and being attacked through seizure so well.

Luke 16:16 is more difficult to understand as the violence coming from enemies of the kingdom, since the preposition eis (generally meaning something like “into”) is used. It could be that it truly is meant here in a positive connotation, “everyone forces (or enters forcefully) into it.” Perhaps the metaphor is forcing past worldly allegiances such as serving money (the context of the surrounding passages). If this is true, it would give precedence for Matt 11:12 to potentially be positive as well. Many have interpreted both verses this way such as Spurgeon and MacArthur spoken of earlier.

However, the word’s regular usage and Jesus’ non-violence still make me question the positive interpretation. Even if Luke 16 does provide precedent for a positive interpretation though, the context of Matthew 11 and the word’s overall usage seems to strongly support a negative one in Matthew 11:12.

I also think it is possible that the word here in Luke 16:16, as a few translations say it, means “everyone is trying to force their way into it,” such that they try to enter their own way. However, like the rich man in the parable afterward (Luke 16:19-31), they fail because they did not listen to the Law and the Prophets (Luke 16:31), which shall never pass away (Luke 16:17), nor would they listen when Christ was risen from the dead (Luke 16:31).

The feasibility of such a meaning of the syntax in Luke 16:16 is something I don’t yet quite have the ability to discern; but it at least seems possible that, even in Luke 16:16, the word for force/violence still retains its negative connotations. Which, if true, would mean that to my knowledge there would be 0 uses of the Greek word throughout existent literature in which it has a positive connotation.

So, you’re right that in Luke 16:16 the word is used in a similar context and in that verse it seems more likely to be positive. Many people for that reason take the word as a statement of positive zeal or effort in Matt 11:12. But I do think there are reasonable answers to your questions about Blomberg’s style of interpretation and translation and that even Luke 16:16 could be translated in a style more similar to Blomberg’s in Matt 11:12.

For me then, though I’m less certain on Luke 16:16, these contextual and lexical considerations make me think Blomberg’s translation, “from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent people attack it,” is the best translation of the verse.

These are tough verses though and there is definitely a reason they are some of the most debated verses in the Gospels!

I hope these thoughts were helpful and I’d be curious to hear what you think!

3 Likes
13

Thank you for such a thoughtful and thorough response.
I believe you are right that the violence is against Jesus, John the Baptist and those who believe in the gospel. Once we believe in Christ who are members of God’s Kingdom. This fits well with Jesus warnings that His followers would be persecuted,
Matthew 5:10-12

2 Likes
14

Hi @diane1, that’s such a good point.

If Christians act violently towards non-Christians, how would that communicate that we love them?

How would threatening, hitting, burning, or bullying someone show them that we follow Jesus? I don’t see how stealing from someone, making fun of them, harassing them, or using a weapon would help anyone see the kingdom of God. Or if we gather our forces and literally go to war against ‘the infidels’…

All of these actions - and other violent acts - are what we expect in a selfish world. It’s because these are so common that the non-violence of God’s kingdom is so strange.

Jesus doesn’t tell his followers to persecute others. Instead, he models and prepares them to be the ones who are persecuted. Even so, we respond with love.

I recognize there’s a complex ethical discussion about self-defense and just wars - I don’t want to make it too simplistic.

But in terms of these particular verses, the most consistent interpretation from my perspective is that Jesus is challenging his opponents - the religious and political leaders who violently ended his life - to see that their violent opposition to his ministry is one clear way to discern there is a problem with their spiritual condition.

2 Likes
15

@Blake, I had never seen this verse in the way that you explained it. However, now that you’ve situated this interpretation within the rest of Luke 16, I think it is a very compelling way to make sense of it.

Your argument retains the uniform nature of the Greek words having a negative connotation and explains how and why it is problematic for people to insist on their own way when approaching God.

Rather than attempting to seize God’s kingdom for ourselves, we are to be humble, repentant, and reliant upon God’s grace. As Jesus taught: Thriving (Blessed) are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

Thank you.

2 Likes
16

I agree with you.

3 Likes