# Matthew 11:12: The Christian and Holy Violence



## matthew11v25

Matthew 11:12


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



Luke 16:16



> The law and the prophets [were] until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.



1. Is it the "violent" Christian that takes heaven by force?
2. Must a Christian be violent after his/her salvation.

See spurgeon's SERMON on matthew 11:12

See Edward's SERMON on Luke 16:16 (also matthew 11:12)

See Gill's COMMENTARY on Matthew 11

SUMMARY of Watson's book "Heaven taken by Storm"


This verse (matthew 11:12) has been intriguing me. A few other commentaries I have looked at give mixed views of this verse (including the "Reformation Study Bible" that differs from Edwards, Gill, Spurgeon and Watson). But I am thoroughly enjoying Watson's treatment of it in "Heaven taken by storm"

Any thoughts?


----------



## matthew11v25

Here is exerpt by John Gill...



> and the violent take it by force; meaning either publicans, and harlots, and Gentile sinners; who might be thought to be a sort of intruders: or rather the same persons, as being powerfully wrought upon under the ministry of the Gospel; who were under violent apprehensions of wrath and vengeance, of their lost and undone state and condition by nature; were violently in love with Christ, and eagerly desirous of salvation by him, and communion with him; and had their affections set upon the things of another world: these having the Gospel preached to them, which is a declaration of God's love to sinners, a proclamation of peace and pardon, and a publication of righteousness and life by Christ, they greedily catched at it, and embraced it.


----------



## Puritanhead

> 1. Is it the "violent" Christian that takes heaven by force?
> 2. Must a Christian be violent after his/her salvation.



That's one of the problems I have with a postmil theonomic or dominion theology mindset now... that is taking heaven by force, or somehow seeking to hasten the second coming through political activism and/or rigid implementation of the Old Covenant Law. I think a secularized version of that dominion mandate unleashed the Wilsonian idealism and make the world save for democracy obsession of American interventionists in the past century. (Dispensationalists, on the other hand try to subconsciously hasten the Second Coming by inviting conflict in the Middle East.)


[Edited on 3-2-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## matthew11v25

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is it the "violent" Christian that takes heaven by force?
> 2. Must a Christian be violent after his/her salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one of the problems I have with a postmil theonomic or dominion theology mindset now... that is taking heaven by force, or somehow seeking to hasten the second coming through political activism and/or rigid implementation of the Old Covenant Law.
> 
> [Edited on 3-2-2005 by Puritanhead]
Click to expand...


This is somewhat new to me...please explain.


----------



## TimV

Me too, and I studied up at Rushdoony's for two years.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Watson's (and Bunyan's) is the proper take, in my view. There are many metaphors in the Bible about the spiritual life, and not any single one of them can tell the full story. Thus, salvation is sometimes described passively, and at other times actively, and neither of them cancels out the others. They simply speak of different aspects.

In this passage the Kingdom of Heaven is a _prize_ to be won, like a city ringed by many walls, obstacles, and hostility. Bunyan represented the situation this way in Pilgrim's Progress:

At Interpreter's house, Christian saw a beautiful gate with four strong men in armor standing before it. To the side sat a man at a desk with a book in which to write the namse of those who entered. Above, on the walls, stood a host robed in white, watching. No one seemed willing to go in, until a brave man stepped forward as said to the scribe, "Write down my name." Having done, he donned a helmet, drew his sword and rushed forward to fight the men blocking the gate. They fought him with deadly force. But slashing and hacking his way most fiercely, and giving and receiving many wounds, he succeeded in cutting his way into the palace. There he was welcomed, clothed in white, and took his place in the city.

As for the contentious advance of the kingdom, the verse speaks to it not at all. The Kingdom is indeed militant, and confrontational with the kingdom of darkness, but the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual, and the battle belongs to the Lord.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> That's one of the problems I have with a postmil theonomic or dominion theology mindset now... that is taking heaven by force, or somehow seeking to hasten the second coming through political activism and/or rigid implementation of the Old Covenant Law. I think a secularized version of that dominion mandate unleashed the Wilsonian idealism and make the world save for democracy obsession of American interventionists in the past century. (Dispensationalists, on the other hand try to subconsciously hasten the Second Coming by inviting conflict in the Middle East.)
> 
> 
> [Edited on 3-2-2005 by Puritanhead]



No offense, but this straw-man is getting old really quick. I knwo that you don't mean it in a bad way. I will quote Joe Morecraft of the Chalcedon Presbyterian Church--probably one of the most knowledgable theonomists today. He was asked should we implement a top-down system:



> No, we never accomplish God's goals by man's methods. The spearhead of our takeover of AMerica will always be evangelism.



Why critics of theonomy never realize these qualifications is beyond me. Yes, I know the Gary North quote about top-down takeovers, so don't quote it to me. Suffice it to say that the most popular (and the proper authorities) on theonomy say quite the opposite (Doug & Howard Philips, JOe Morecraft, Ken Gentry, Greg Bahnsen, etc.) I forgot Rushdoony's view but I will quote The Chalcedon Foundation:



> Misconception 2: Political Dominion
> Because we believe that the Bible should apply to all of life, including the state; and because we believe that the Christian state should enforce Biblical civil law; and finally, because we believe that the responsibility of Christians is to exercise dominion in the earth for God's glory, it is sometimes assumed that we believe that capturing state apparatus and enforcing Biblical law on a pervasively unbelieving populace is one of our hidden objectives. Our critics sometimes imply or state outright that we are engaged in a subtle, covert attempt to capture conservative, right-wing politics in order to gain political power, which we will then use to "spring" Biblical law on our nation. This is flatly false. We do not believe that politics or the state are a chief sphere of dominion.
> 
> It is understandable why many people assume that we do hold this position, however. We believe firmly in social change. Liberals believe firmly in social change. Liberals believe that social change is the effect almost exclusively of politics and state coercion. For example, they believe that we can change society by means of state-financed and governed "public education"; health, education, and welfare programs; and speech codes. In other words, they believe, like communists, that man is essentially a plastic being that can be fundamentally reshaped by external means "” education, wealth, health, penitentiaries, and so forth. Since no later than the French Revolution, most civil governments in the West have believed that social change occurs by revolution, not by regeneration. When, therefore, liberals (and even some alleged Christians) see us supporting and working toward social change, they presume that we are interested in political power. In simpler words, because they believe in social change exclusively by means of politics, they assume that anyone who supports social change or gets involved in politics is attempting to gain state power in order to further a social agenda.
> 
> This is a serious miscalculation. We believe in regeneration , not in revolution. Men are not changed fundamentally by politics, but by the power of God. Men's hearts are changed by regeneration (Jn. 3:3). They are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col. 1:13). From that point, they progressively work to reorient their lives and every sphere they touch in terms of God's holy, infallible Word. Long-term, pervasive social change is the result of extensive regeneration and obedience by the people of God. This means, of course, that there can be no Christian society of any significance or longevity unless a large number of its members are Christians.
> 
> We do encourage Christian political involvement, but not for the reason that many people suppose. In fact, we believe it is important for Christians to get involved in politics because we do not believe politics is too important. The great problem with modern politics is that it is used as an instrument of social change. We at Chalcedon passionately oppose this. The role of the state is in essence to defend and protect, in the words of the early American Republic, life, liberty, and property. It is to reward the externally obedient by protecting them from the externally disobedient (Rom. 13:1-7). Its role is not to make men virtuous; we have a name for civil governments that attempt to create a virtuous society: totalitarian. Biblically, the role of the state is to suppress external evil: murder, theft, rape, and so forth. Its role is not to redistribute wealth, furnish medical care, or educate its citizens' children.
> 
> We do believe that the state one day will be Christian, but this no way implies that the role of the state is to Christianize its citizens. The Christian state is highly decentralized (localized). Our objective, therefore, in supporting Christian political involvement is to scale down the massive state in Western democracies, reducing it to its Biblical limits. We do not believe in political salvation of any kind.


----------



## RamistThomist

BTW,
You are correct in one sense: I do plan to take over the world.


----------



## TimV

Thanks for that, Jacob. Rushdoony always spoke of Regeneration, not Revolution.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

to Bruce's comments. I also concur with Jacob that theonomists -- at least the ones I know about -- are not aiming to take over society by force. _I speak as a non-theonomist._ They believe in the power of the civil magistrate with respect to all Ten Commandments, but then, so do I. They also recognize, though, as Bruce said, that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual.


----------



## RamistThomist

One more thing, I do agree with Watson's (Bruce) interpretation of this verse. 

Does anybody know why James Jordon broke from the Theonomy camp a few decades ago? Bahnsen appreciated his honesty in his position, but made it clear to Contra Mundum journal that Jordon was not a theonomist. However, and this is where it gets interesting, Jordon labels himself as a postmillennial theocrat. Andrew, do you know how he is making this distinction? I guess I am trying to figure out his position.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Jacob,

James Jordan is always tough to figure out and I wouldn't really want to try, but here are his own words from 1999 (which as usual I don't endorse):

Mr Jordan's comment from the CRT-L discussion group, 8/4/1999: 

I was invited to join this list and at least clarify things as regards me.

I stopped using the term "theonomy" to describe my thinking well over a decade ago. I also stopped using "Christian Reconstruction" shortly thereafter, because all of the public leading lights of CR were continuing to promote Bahnsenian theonomy.

As to the issue at hand: It is impossible for any human being or institution to be "neutral" as regards moral issues. The civil magistrate will either call good evil and evil good, or he will call good good and evil evil, and he will act in terms of these standards. Now, man hates God more than he hates anything else, and thus men hate other men because other men are images of God -- and people hate themselves because when they look in the mirror they see the image of God. Accordingly, all civil government is simply organized sadomasochism, until changed by the gospel.

If you think "common grace" restrains this sadism to any significant degree, you are really, really, really, really, really ignorant about the real world. It is really amazing how Christians living in the comforts of the USA dispense this "common grace" idiocy to the rest of the world. Go there and live under their governments, and then tell us all about the wonders of "common grace"! God does restrain men, but it does not amount to much.

Ah, the wonders of common grace!! Let's see. Millions of wives forced to immolate themselves on the funereal pyres of their husbands. Millions of babies put in baskets to be eaten alive by ants as an act of worship. Child prostitution as national industries. You gotta love it! Why would anyone want Biblical law when you can have common grace?

God tells us in His Word what evil and good are. Theonomists are way too naive in how they read the Bible and seek to understand what God has to say, but that does not change the fact that the gospel includes the wonderful benefit of a Christian legal order. Ask any of the tribes of early modern Europe, who joyously embraced the faith and instantly adopted Biblical law as their deliverance from anarchy and horror.

Finally, just because the heart of the Kingdom is the Church, and thus the first application of Biblical principles is in the Church, does not mean that the Kingdom has no wider dimensions. You'd have to be blind as a bat not to see that the God of the Bible is concerned with all of life, and with the reformation/transformation of all of life. Biblical principles will be applied first in the worshipping community, but then outward to all spheres of life. That's my view, and since his name came up, Leithart's as well.

Discipling the nations means extending the theocratic rule of Christ from the one nation of the Old Creation, to all the 70 nations of the world. What else would a first century Jew have understood by the command? Some kind of Baptistic individualistic person-by-person evangelism? Gimmeabreak. Genesis 10 gives us the 70 nations (which are now a lot more!), and then God selects one nation to theocratize. Now that theocratization is to be extended to all.

I cannot imagine NOT wanting King Jesus and His wonderful laws as the ruler of my nation!

James B. Jordan 8/4/1999


----------



## RamistThomist

Most of that I would endorse.


----------



## TimV

> If you think "common grace" restrains this sadism to any significant degree, you are really, really, really, really, really ignorant about the real world. It is really amazing how Christians living in the comforts of the USA dispense this "common grace" idiocy to the rest of the world. Go there and live under their governments, and then tell us all about the wonders of "common grace"! God does restrain men, but it does not amount to much.



What an ignorant, parochial, chauvinistic dunce.


----------



## matthew11v25

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> One more thing, I do agree with Watson's (Bruce) interpretation of this verse.



Agreed. Watson does an excellent treatment of this verse.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Jordan's attack on common grace is what bothered me the most about this statement. Not to mention his weird reference to government as sadomasochism. I prefer Calvin and Kuyper to Jordan on civil government any day. 

BTW, I don't mean for this thread to stray so far from the original topic. The question of what it means to take the kingdom of God by force or violence has always fascinated me, and as I mentioned, Bunyan and Bruce said it well.


----------



## matthew11v25

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The question of what it means to take the kingdom of God by force or violence has always fascinated me, and as I mentioned, Bunyan and Bruce said it well.


----------



## RamistThomist

I always like to think of this verse in terms of "Holy Desperation." Most definitey it needs to enhance the mentality of "Warfare in the life of a Christian," not limited only to the struggle with sin. The reason we don't fight like we are in a state of war (as against The Kingdom of Satan, ACLU, Big Government, etc.) is because we convince ourselves that war doesn't exist.



> My thy mighty word
> Inspire a feeble worm
> To Rise up,
> And take Heaven as by Storm!


----------

