The text I spoke on was Matthew 11.12, a passage I shared some reflections about a few years ago.
Matthew 11.12 is one of the more perplexing sayings of Jesus in the gospels. Here it is:
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. (NIV)
What makes the interpretation of the passage difficult is that the verb for violence--biazetai, from the root biazó "to force"--in the phrase "the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence" (NIV), can be in the middle or passive voice. That is, the kingdom of God can be subject to force or the agent of force.
Our knee jerk response to those options is that the kingdom of God wouldn't be the agent of force. Thus, most translations, like the NIV above, interpret the verb in the passive voice: the kingdom is subject to or suffers violence:
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. (KJV)
From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. (ESV)
From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. (NRSV)
This interpretation seems to fit well with the rest of the saying that "the violent take [the kingdom of God] by force" (NRSV). In short, the meaning of the passage suggests that the kingdom of God is under siege and being attacked.
As a first pass that seems to make sense, but upon deeper reflection it raises some questions. The kingdom of God can't be taken by force, can it? If the "gates of hell" can't prevail against the kingdom (Matt. 16.18) how could the kingdom ever be "taken by force"?
So, maybe an alternative translation is in order, making the kingdom the agent of force. Few translations go this direction, but the NLT does:
And from the time John the Baptist began preaching until now, the Kingdom of Heaven has been forcefully advancing, and violent people are attacking it.
Unlike the other translations, here the kingdom is the agent of force: "the Kingdom of Heaven has been forcefully advancing." But the NLT keeps the main idea of the other translations, that the kingdom is being attacked by violent people.
So, who are these violent people who are attacking the kingdom?
Some see a hint in the context of the passage. The saying in Matthew 11.12 occurs in a larger conversation where Jesus is discussing the witness of John the Baptist. The conversation takes place because John, who was in prison at the time, sends emissaries to ask of Jesus, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” The mention of John being in prison in 11.2 is taken by some to be the clue to interpreting 11.12. Maybe Herod is the violent person who, in his persecution of John, is attacking the kingdom of God, trying to take it by force. Maybe the opposition both John and Jesus are facing are the violent people who are attacking the kingdom.
In my opinion, however, I think the key to the interpretation of Matthew 11.12 lies in the context of Jesus' speech about the kingdom's reception. Again, all major translations translate Matthew 11.12 as a saying about the kingdom of God being attacked by forceful or violent persons. But that interpretation is the exact opposite of what Jesus is describing in the context of Matthew 11. According to Jesus in Matthew 11, the kingdom isn't being attacked. The kingdom is being rejected.
I don't want to quote the entire text of Matthew 11.1-24, but it might be good for you to read it. But here are the highlights. The passage begins with John questioning from prison if Jesus is indeed the Messiah. Jesus responds:
“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.”
Note the final line, "Blessed in anyone who does not stumble on account of me." John seems to be having doubts, and Jesus offers both evidence and a warning. In short, the context of Matthew 11 is one of doubt and warning. Jesus then turns to the crowd and begins to tell them about John. Jesus says John is a prophet. In fact, John is Elijah, the long-awaited herald of the Messiah. So the issue before the crowd is if they will accept this fact:
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.
The trouble is, the people aren't willing to accept John or Jesus. The people have rejected both John and Jesus. So Jesus offers up a stinging rebuke:
Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”
This should illustrate the point I made above. The context of Matthew 11 isn't one of violent people attacking the kingdom. From the start, with John's doubts and Jesus' warning to John, to the end, with Jesus' judgment upon the lack of faith he was encountering, the context is about the rejection of the kingdom. The issue here is doubt and a lack of faith.
And it's here, in the middle of this conversation about doubt and a lack of faith, that the puzzling lines of Matthew 11.12 appear. How does that passage fit with the context?
It might be helpful to render Matthew 11.12 more neutrally. In the passage Jesus uses the root verb biazó "to force" twice, and the root verb harpazó "to take/seize with force" once. So the idea of "force" flows through the whole passage. Some more neutral renderings of the passage might be:
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully coming, and the forceful seize it.
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully coming, and the forceful forcefully take it.
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully coming, and the forceful grab it.
Rendered more neutrally I think we see the point of the saying. From John to Jesus the kingdom of heaven had been forcefully advancing. And yet, the kingdom was being met with doubt and questioning. Even John was starting to waver. So, Jesus declares that the kingdom is advancing. The army is on the move, so now is the time to forcefully seize this opportunity. But sadly, the people were meeting the kingdom with doubt and a lukewarm reception. The people lacked urgency or interest. Instead of forcefully seizing the kingdom there was apathy. Matthew 11.12 is a rebuke, a call to action, a challenge to doubting and questioning audiences to forcefully seize the kingdom.
I think additional support for this interpretation can also be found in linking Matthew 11 with the story of the Syrophoenician woman in Matthew 15:
Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
“Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment. (Matthew 15.21-28)
We're familiar with the controversy here. Jesus calls the woman a dog. More, Jesus appears to have a very parochial view of his vocation and mission, privileging Israel over the nations. But the woman persists and forces her way into the kingdom. She refuses to be denied, and that force wins the day.
I think this story in Matthew 15 is illustrating what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 11.12, how forceful people forcefully seize the kingdom. I think Matthew is using this story to draw a contrast between the forceful faith of this pagan woman and the apathy Jesus was receiving in the towns of Israel. Let me illustrate this connection between Matthew 11 and Matthew 15:
Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." (Matthew 11.20-21)
Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” (Matthew 15.21-22)
What Jesus predicted Matthew 11 comes true in Matthew 15. In contrast to the apathy the kingdom was being met with in Israel, the pagans in Tyre and Sidon were forcefully seizing the kingdom. The woman would not be denied. She forced her way into the kingdom.
Yes, Jesus does throw up a barrier in Matthew 15. But I think the deeper point of the story is to display a contrast between how the kingdom of God can be met with either apathy or urgency. Jesus finds in the Syrophoenician woman the forceful response he's looking for but can't find in Israel. The kingdom is forcefully coming and the forceful, like the Syrophoenician woman, forcefully seize it.
