Matthew 11:12 “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and forceful people lay hold of it.”

(a) Forceful entry?

The NIV translation links this difficult saying with Luke 16:16 “The law and the prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urged to enter it.”  But it is not at all certain that both sayings are teaching the same thing.

Richard Bewes: ‘Take the woman with the haemorrhage (Lk 8:42-48).  With the Levitical law against her she would have had to fight her way through the crowd to get to Jesus’ side’  (The Top 100 Questions, p257).  Bewes cites as other examples the friends of the paralysed man, who lowered him down through the roof in order to bring him to Jesus (Mk 2:1-12), and the blind beggar, Bartimaeus, who by shouting for help was able to bring Jesus’ walk through Jericho to a standstill (Mk 10:46-52).  Bewes concludes: ‘the difficulties were so many, the possibilities were so great, and the opportunities were so fleeting, that those with everything against them won the kingdom by the violence of the determination.’

Hendriksen supports this view: ‘Entrance into the kingdom requires earnest endeavor, untiring energy, utmost exertion…The kingdom, then, is not for weaklings, waverers, or compromisers. It is not for Balaam (2 Peter 2:15), the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:22), Pilate (John 19:12, 13), and Demas (2 Tim. 4:10). It is not won by means of deferred prayers, unfulfilled promises, broken resolutions, and hesitant testimonies. It is for strong and sturdy men like Joseph (Gen. 39:9), Nathan (2 Sam. 12:7), Elijah (1 Kings 18:21), Daniel and his three friends (Dan. 1:8; 3:16–18), Mordecai (Esther 3:4), the Peter of Acts 4:20, Stephen (Acts 6:8; 7:51), and Paul (Phil. 3:13, 14). And here let us not forget such valiant women as Ruth (Ruth 1:16–18), Deborah (Judg. 4:9), Esther (Esther 4:16), and Lydia (Acts 16:15, 40).’

This view is also supported by Ridderbos and Keener.  Among older commentators, it is advanced by Henry, Poole, and Barnes.

(b) Violent opposition?

According to NBC, the more natural meaning is: ‘the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent men attack it’  ‘The reference in that case is to the violent opposition which the true work of God has always aroused, seen already in the imprisonment of John and soon to be seen in the official rejection and execution of Jesus as well.’  Morris supports this interpretation.

France remarks that the word translated ‘men of violence’ is an unusual one, and always refers to violence in the bad sense.  It would refer, then, to violence inflicted on the kingdom.  This was ‘already seen in the arrest and imprisonment of its herald, and more ominously foreshadowed in the growing official opposition to Jesus himself. In the context of John’s question from prison this seems the more relevant sense.’

Mounce: ‘Jesus is saying that ever since the days of John the Baptist the kingdom of heaven has been under assault by violent men who are trying to overcome it by force.’

Blomberg: ‘Despite the many blessings of the arriving kingdom, from the early days of John’s ministry to the present moment in Jesus’ life, God’s reign has nevertheless received increasing opposition. John has been arrested by Herod. The Jewish teachers are increasingly opposing Jesus, and people are growing more and more discontent with Jesus’ refusal to promote revolution.’

Wilkins remarks that the two parts of this saying should probably viewed as parallel.  ‘Thus, in the light of the negative circumstances of John the Baptist and the rising opposition to his own ministry, Jesus points to the ongoing opposition that the kingdom of heaven has encountered since the days of John the Baptist. The first clause probably indicates opposition from the religious establishment generally, while the second clause probably points to the forces of specific evil people, such as Herod Antipas, who has even now imprisoned John. The saying foreshadows the gathering opposition to Jesus, which will come to a climax in his arrest, trial, and execution by the Jewish high priest, Caiaphas, and the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate.’

This view is also supported by Hagner (who offers a detailed discussion of the options), Bruner and Osborne.

(c) Powerful advance, and violent opposition?

Carson advances the view that both positive and negative aspects are intended.  There is vigorous energy of both those who sought to end the kingdom and those who tried to resist it.  The reaction to John had been vigorous, both in support and opposition.  ‘simultaneous with the kingdom’s advance have been the attacks of violent people on it. That is the very point John could not grasp. Now Jesus expressly affirms it. The statement is general because it does not refer to just one kind of opposition. It includes Herod’s imprisonment of John, the attacks by Jewish leaders now intensifying (9:34; 12:22–24), and the materialism that craved a political Messiah and the prosperity he would bring but not his righteousness (11:20–24). Already Jesus warned his disciples of persecution and suffering (10:16–42); the opposition was rising and would get worse.’