The Violent Take it By Force

[Bible Highlighter]

That is true, but its language in some areas of Scripture is poor and we are left to look at it in the light of the rest of Scripture. The word violent there either had at that time as one of its meanings a meaning close to forceful or the word was not translated well due to a lack of knowledge...some experts have said we actually have better understanding of the Greek and Hebrew now then back then due to discoveries of more ancient documents. I cannot attest to this claim, however, violence on part of believers does not fit in the passage unless you are perhaps able to discern an ancient meaning by it that is akin to forceful. Christians are forceful in a non-physical manner for we have to forcefully overcome the sinful nature, the sinful world and the Devil...all this is done by the help of God.

Again, in your selected translation, what can the last half of the passage mean while still faithfully fitting into the bible as a whole with no contradictions?
Here's the last half of the passage to which I am referring...
"the violent take it by force"

"the violent" would be refering to Christians taking hold of the faith (the Kingdom).
\

I don't believe that. God does not make mistakes. God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25).

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I think your interpretation works. But I think persecution and Satan trying to eradicate the kingdom has a more literal history.

You miss my meaning I believe. No one can take hold of the Kingdom by force. No one gets into God's Kingdom without faith and the faithful are not to be violent in any way. I believe you are misunderstanding what the passage is saying. Perhaps ask yourself , "what is the kingdom of heaven." To enter the kingdom of heaven you must have faith, be born again. The ancient language is misleading some on this thread. That language has spilled over into the texts of some of the not so translated versions such as the ESV and NKJV.

 

[topher694]

That is true, but its language in some areas of Scripture is poor and we are left to look at it in the light of the rest of Scripture. The word violent there either had at that time as one of its meanings a meaning close to forceful or the word was not translated well due to a lack of knowledge...some experts have said we actually have better understanding of the Greek and Hebrew now then back then due to discoveries of more ancient documents. I cannot attest to this claim, however, violence on part of believers does not fit in the passage unless you are perhaps able to discern an ancient meaning by it that is akin to forceful. Christians are forceful in a non-physical manner for we have to forcefully overcome the sinful nature, the sinful world and the Devil...all this is done by the help of God.

Again, in your selected translation, what can the last half of the passage mean while still faithfully fitting into the bible as a whole with no contradictions?
Here's the last half of the passage to which I am referring...
"the violent take it by force"

"the violent" would be refering to Christians taking hold of the faith (the Kingdom).
\

Yes, this is it. People are making this WAY too complicated. Jesus is telling us we don't have to be ashamed of our faith and spreading the gospel.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I don't believe that. God does not make mistakes. God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25).

I'm not claiming God makes mistakes at all and it is a high insult supposedly coming from anyone naming him or herself a Christian!
How are YOU explaining the differences in translation?

 

[Dave L]

You miss my meaning I believe. No one can take hold of the Kingdom by force. No one gets into God's Kingdom without faith and the faithful are not to be violent in any way. I believe you are misunderstanding what the passage is saying. Perhaps ask yourself , "what is the kingdom of heaven." To enter the kingdom of heaven you must have faith, be born again. The ancient language is misleading some on this thread. That language has spilled over into the texts of some of the not so translated versions such as the ESV and NKJV.

Many have attacked the kingdom (the Church).

 

[RDKirk]

Matthew 11:12

ESV - From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.

NASB - From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.

NIV - From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it.

KJV - And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Greek - ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ ἕως ἄρτι ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν βιάζεται καὶ βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν.​

A similar expression can be found in Luke 16:16 but it's not clear that Luke's usage is the same as Matthew's. They could mean entirely different things.

What did Jesus mean?

RedLegHunter is close in post #27.

If you go back to the old commentaries, 19th century and earlier, you get the proper understanding. It's mostly a matter of archaic language and social concepts, which are so archaic to us that even modern translators stumble over it.

First, up until the 20th century, in both later Europe and in Jesus' time, there was social stratification that identified certain people by wealth, education, and upbringing to be "gentlemen" and "gentlewomen."

Those words used to have hardcore meanings in society, as hardcore as the Jim Crow segregation laws. You had people who were the refined, educated "gentlefolk," and then you had the rough, the uneducated, the uncouth: The "violent." In some 19th and 18th century English writings, the low-class is sometimes referred to as "ruffians" and "violent men" simply as a matter of their economic class.

Second, the word "suffer" also means "to bear" or "to carry," and it's frequently used that way in scripture, particularly the KJV...which is archaic language.

In this verse, Jesus is pointing out that it's not the gentlefolk of society who are readily accepting the Kingdom.

Rather, it's the thieves and prostitutes, the uneducated, the uncouth who are snatching up the gospel and running with it like they stole it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm not claiming God makes mistakes at all and it is a high insult supposedly coming from anyone naming him or herself a Christian!
How are YOU explaining the differences in translation?

But you implied that the King James has mistakes in it. Do you not regard the KJV as the Word of God?

 

[Tree of Life]

RedLegHunter is close in post #27.

If you go back to the old commentaries, 19th century and earlier, you get the proper understanding. It's mostly a matter of archaic language and social concepts, which are so archaic to us that even modern translators stumble over it.

First, up until the 20th century, in both later Europe and in Jesus' time, there was social stratification that identified certain people by wealth, education, and upbringing to be "gentlemen" and "gentlewomen."

Those words used to have hardcore meanings in society, as hardcore as the Jim Crow segregation laws. You had people who were the refined, educated "gentlefolk," and then you had the rough, the uneducated, the uncouth: The "violent." In some 19th and 18th century English writings, the low-class is sometimes referred to as "ruffians" and "violent men" simply as a matter of their economic class.

Second, the word "suffer" also means "to bear" or "to carry," and it's frequently used that way in scripture, particularly the KJV...which is archaic language.

In this verse, Jesus is pointing out that it's not the gentlefolk of society who are readily accepting the gospel.

Rather, it's the thieves and prostitutes, the uneducated, the uncouth who are snatching up the gospel and running with it like they stole it.

The problem with this is that you're exegeting english language and not Greek. The word "suffer" (i.e. allow) does not occur in the Greek. The english phrase suffer violence is one Greek word βιάζω. Biadzo means to treat violently. But in this passage it's in the passive voice which means to be treated violently. So we translate it with our english phrase suffer violence. The idea of allowing or accepting in the english sense of suffering is not present at all in the Greek.

 

[mark kennedy]

Matthew 11:12

ESV - From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.

NASB - From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.

NIV - From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it.

KJV - And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Greek - ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ ἕως ἄρτι ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν βιάζεται καὶ βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν.​

A similar expression can be found in Luke 16:16 but it's not clear that Luke's usage is the same as Matthew's. They could mean entirely different things.

What did Jesus mean?

It calls to mind this passage for me:

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:11-12)
​

Then there is this one:

You stiff-necked people with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit, just as your fathers did. Which of the prophets did your fathers fail to persecute? They even killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One. And now you are His betrayers and murderers— you who have received the law ordained by angels, yet have not kept it.” (Acts 7:51-53)
​

A servant is no better then his master, if they hated him they will hate you. At the death of John the Baptist I believe Jesus grieved deeply, not just for John but the prophets who came before him suffering the same fate. Our beloved Apostles would suffer miserable deaths in the name of Christ, we celebrate their sacrifice, while despising the cruelty of their treatment. I can think of no worse news then for God to speak to me and tell me I now have a burden to speak to the people as the prophets did, some argued, they still didn't get the burden lifted until they completed their commanded task. I wouldn't want the job, Jeremiah even tried to quit, Ezekiel wanted to argue he was too young, Isaiah said he had unclean lips, Moses said he was not a very good talker, all to no avail. The burden once laid on a prophet cannot be removed until the message is delivered and they will shine with the brightness of the sun in the resurrection.

We must turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, give asking nothing in return and trust that God will repay those persecutors who would suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Yet another thought provoking thread TOL, you sure got my attention.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Tree of Life]

It calls to mind this passage for me:

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:11-12)
​

Then there is this one:

You stiff-necked people with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit, just as your fathers did. Which of the prophets did your fathers fail to persecute? They even killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One. And now you are His betrayers and murderers— you who have received the law ordained by angels, yet have not kept it.” (Acts 7:51-53)
​

A servant is no better then his master, if they hated him they will hate you. At the death of John the Baptist I believe Jesus grieved deeply, not just for John but the prophets who came before him suffering the same fate. Our beloved Apostles would suffer miserable deaths in the name of Christ, we celebrate their sacrifice, while despising the cruelty of their treatment. I can think of no worse news then for God to speak to me and tell me I now have a burden to speak to the people as the prophets did, some argued, they still didn't get the burden lifted until they completed their commanded task. I wouldn't want the job, Jeremiah even tried to quit, Ezekiel wanted to argue he was too young, Isaiah said he had unclean lips, Moses said he was not a very good talker, all to no avail. The burden once laid on a prophet cannot be removed until the message is delivered and they will shine with the brightness of the sun in the resurrection.

We must turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, give asking nothing in return and trust that God will repay those persecutors who would suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Yet another thought provoking thread TOL, you sure got my attention.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I think this is correct. Jesus is talking about persecution. John was surprised that the Kingdom was not yet coming with power (resulting in his deliverance from prison). But Jesus doubles down and affirms that the Kingdom of God will suffer violence in the present age and will not come in power and final victory until his return.

 

[RDKirk]

I think this is correct. Jesus is talking about persecution. John was surprised that the Kingdom was not yet coming with power (resulting in his deliverance from prison). But Jesus doubles down and affirms that the Kingdom of God will suffer violence in the present age and will not come in power and final victory until his return.

That makes no sense in context. Jesus is talking about people failing to see the message of the Kingdom for what it is, expecting something different.

 

[Tree of Life]

That makes no sense in context. Jesus is talking about people failing to see the message of the Kingdom for what it is, expecting something different.

The immediate context is about John's imprisonment via Herod.

 

[RDKirk]

The immediate context is about John's imprisonment via Herod.

No, it isn't.

 

[Tree of Life]

No, it isn't.

Matthew 11:2-3 - 2 Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?”

 

[RDKirk]

Matthew 11:2-3 - 2 Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?”

That's the pretext, not the context.

The context is Jesus speaking of how John's message was received by the people.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think this is correct. Jesus is talking about persecution. John was surprised that the Kingdom was not yet coming with power (resulting in his deliverance from prison). But Jesus doubles down and affirms that the Kingdom of God will suffer violence in the present age and will not come in power and final victory until his return.

John must have known it would not go well for him, he only asked Jesus are you the promised Messiah, Jesus sent back a message.

Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.” (Matt. 11:4-6)
​

Then comes the praise that comes from God rather then men. Please pardon the length of the quote, I just think the context is important:

As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces. Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written:

“‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.’

Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. Whoever has ears, let them hear. (Matt. 11:7-11)
​

When Elijah was being pursued God asked him a simple question, 'Why have you come here'? John asking the question at the end of the prophetic age, naturally wanted to know why this had befallen him. Jesus let's him know, you were my messenger, coming in the spirit and power of Elijah and greater things are coming.

The strangest part of all, the least in the kingdom of heaven are greater then him. Greater then John the Baptist, who was greater then all the prophets who came before him? As long as I've studied this guy we call Savior and Lord, I have not ceased to be astonished at the things he said. I trust I never will be.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it isn't.

You have got to be kidding.

 

[mark kennedy]

Matthew 11:2-3 - 2 Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?”

Yea....obviously...

 

[Tree of Life]

That's the pretext, not the context.

The context is Jesus speaking of how John's message was received by the people.

The phrase in question occurs in the middle of a point that Jesus is making about John being a prophet. Jesus says that John was no shaky reed or man of luxury. Rather, he was a prophet and more than a prophet. He was the greatest prophet. He was Elijah who was to come. And just like all the OT prophets John suffered violence.

 

[Tree of Life]

I agree. Still, the outward persecution is only part of the struggle. The inward persecution from the demons and the will of the flesh (the passions) that tempt us to sin is the other and most important part.

It is important to recognize this inward struggle. We don't merely battle against flesh and blood enemies. Our greatest enemies are spiritual and even germane to our own person.