We’ll continue from the last lesson in Matthew 11. This is verse 12. “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.” Historically there has been much confusion regarding this verse. Some think Jesus is saying the kingdom was so highly prized, and men were so anxious and determined to enter into it that they rushed to receive it with ardent zeal, as they would a precious possession. Or, that the kingdom was advancing so forcefully, that men were eager to force their way into it. But, neither the Gospel record nor the history that followed illustrate that view.
Both Jesus and His kingdom were rejected. He was crucified, rose again and returned to the Father. His earthly kingdom was delayed until His return. In this present age various religions (most of which know nothing of Jesus) dominate the inhabitants of the earth with deception and outright error. In most cultures people are born, live their lives and die, without ever knowing the valid claims of Jesus. And many of those who do know about Him have a distorted, deceptive view based on whatever branch of Christianity they follow may have taught them (read the article “Going to God or Religion”).
The kingdom did not advance forcefully. In Luke 13:23-28 Jesus is asked, “Lord, will only a few be delivered (from final judgment)?” And in His response, Jesus answers in the affirmative. The parables found in the Gospel accounts describe this present age and illustrate the failure of men to recognize and follow truth (we will look at some of these parables in detail in coming lessons). History shows us Christianity advanced rapidly (and in many cases violently and forcibly), but truth did not necessarily advance with it. And Christianity in its many forms and belief systems flourished (read the article “Deception in the Church”).
So, let me break down verse 12 and let’s see if we can make sense of it. In the first part of the verse it says, “the kingdom of heaven suffers violence”. The verb is biazo in the Passive Voice, so it is the kingdom that receives the action of the verb. The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says, “the kingdom of the heavens is forcibly treated, and forceful men seize it.” Here, “violent men” is biastes, again, violent or forcible. The verb is harpazo, to seize upon with force, to spoil or rob. This is not a positive statement.
There is a similar expression found in Luke 16:16 that says, “Before John came, there were the Law and the Prophets. Since then the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached and everyone strives violently to go into it.” Here, “strives violently” is from biazomai, to overpower or compel with force. In addition, it is in the Middle Voice, telling us the one doing the action is doing so out of self-interest. This has been, I believe, wrongly interpreted to mean that everyone is recognizing the value of the kingdom Jesus is preaching and is striving to enter into it with eagerness and a willingness to overcome any opposition.
So, let me offer a different view consistent with the text and history. From the very beginning the kingdom of heaven was opposed by violent men out of their own religious self-interest. The leaders of Judaism knew very early Jesus posed a serious threat to their positions of power, wealth and the tenuous position they held with the Romans; so they wanted Him dead (John 5:18, 11:47-50).
And as we progress through the rest of this chronology of Jesus’ public ministry, we’ll see how their hatred of Jesus grows to a fever pitch and will look at some of the heated exchanges Jesus has with them. Then, in the end, the crowd will call for Jesus to be crucified (Luke 23:13-26). So, it doesn’t appear that everyone was “striving to enter into it with eagerness”.
As we move forward in time the disciples are martyred at the hands of Jewish zealots (with the exception of the beloved John), the apostle Paul is harassed at every turn and finally beheaded and eventually “Christianity” becomes widely accepted in a form that has no affinity with Scriptural truth with many of its tenets based on the traditions and rituals of men. It spreads through many parts of the world through political manipulation and violence. And, as time goes on, it spawns many other forms under different names, but with definite similarities to the original counterfeit. Let me be clear – there is absolutely no justification for any of the religious institutions that exist today.
We should get back to the text. Matthew 11:14 says, “And if you will accept it, (John) is Elijah, who was to come”. Here Jesus identifies John as the one predicted in Malachi 3:1, 4:5 and again to Zachariah in Luke 1:17, where John is said to represent Elijah in spirit and power. He was, however, not Elijah in person (John 1:21).
This, then, is Matthew 11:15 commonly translated, “He that has ears to hear, let him hear.” It would be better translated something like, “Listen to this and understand.”
Now, Jesus begins to denounce unbelief (it’s not going to sound like everyone is eager to press into the kingdom). He starts by pointing out the hypocrisy of those who oppose both Him and John. This is verses 16-19. “But to what should I compare this generation? They are like little children sitting in the marketplace and calling to their friends, saying, we played the flute for you, but you would not dance; we wailed dirges, but you would not mourn. John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said; he has a demon! The Son of Man came both eating and drinking, and they said; He’s a glutton and a drunkard, a friend to tax collectors and other sinners! Yet wisdom is vindicated by the reality of what it produces.”
I’ll try to make this short. Jesus is saying this generation is like obstinate children. Do you want to play like we’re in a wedding and dance? No! Well then, do you want to play like we’re having a funeral and mourn out loud? No, I don’t want to! In other words, it doesn’t matter what John says or what I say, you’re going to oppose it like stubborn, little kids. John wouldn’t socialize, so you said he has a demon. I was invited to dinner and accepted, so I’m a glutton and drunkard. It doesn’t matter what we do, you’re going to find fault and oppose it. The truth is it was OK for John to live the way he did and there is nothing wrong with what I’m doing either.
And just as a little side issue, several lessons back we looked at Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana. I mentioned then that Jesus had no problem providing alcoholic wine for the guests. And I pointed out He told His disciples at the occasion of their last Passover meal together that He would not drink (what was probably the customary watered down alcoholic) wine again until He drank it “new” (kainos, of a better quality) with them in the kingdom. Here, He says that just because He drank wine at dinner, His critics used it to accuse Him of being a drunkard.
For all those religious moralists, the problem was never alcohol; it was the excessive misuse of alcohol. I know I’m chasing a rabbit here, but can’t resist. It goes with the idea of people being overly critical in their religious fervor. I remember back in my religious days, when the subject of alcohol came up, someone always quoted Ephesians 5:18. “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” In this verse “drunk” is methuskomai, used again in I Thessalonians 5:7, it is a reference to idolatrous orgies where men and women would get drunk for the express purpose of participating in all kinds of sexual perversions. “Wherein is excess” is literally, where there is asotia, a word used to describe various forms of depravity.
Here, Paul is not saying, “don’t drink anything with alcohol in it.” He’s saying, “don’t get involved in idolatrous, sexual perversions.” Moralistic religion apologists aside, the truth is Paul recommended to Timothy “Don’t drink just water, but mix wine with it for the sake of your stomach and frequent illnesses.” (I Timothy 5:23) And the wine he’s talking about is oinos, always connected with fermentation. Simple grape juice would not have alleviated Timothy’s digestive problems.
We’ll finish this passage in the next lesson.