# Who get it wrong on Matthew 11:12?



## tantely (Oct 10, 2015)

Thomas Watson, in 'The Christian soldier or Heaven taken by storm...' expounded on Matthew 11:12. And as far as I read the book, he meant that Christians must offer violence to themselves, the devil and the world to enter heaven. In the latest Tabletalk, M. David E. Briones proves that the " violent take it by force" refers to those who oppose the kingdom like Herod Antipas, the Jewish leaders,... So anyways the verse is not at all a command for Christians to offer any violence. Any thought on that?
Thanks



T.A


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 11, 2015)

Hello Tantely (belated welcome to the PB!),

Here are Briones' thoughts you referred to: http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/violent-take-it-force/ . I don't believe his to be the right exegesis, but rather Watson's. Here is Calvin on the passage:
Matt 11:12. Since the days of John I have no doubt that Christ speaks honorably of the majesty of the Gospel on this ground, that many sought after it with warm affection; for as God had raised up John to be the herald of the kingdom of his Son, so the Spirit infused such efficacy into his doctrine, that it entered deeply into the hearts of men and kindled that zeal. It appears, therefore, that the Gospel, which comes forward in a manner so sudden and extraordinary, [16] and awakens powerful emotions, must have proceeded from God. But in the second clause is added this restriction, that the violent take it by force The greater part of men were no more excited than if the Prophets had never uttered a word about Christ, or if John had never appeared as his witness; and therefore Christ reminds them, that the violence, of which he had spoken, existed only in men of a particular class. The meaning therefore is, A vast assembly of men is now collected, as if men were rushing violently forward to seize the kingdom of God; for, aroused by the voice of one man, they come together in crowds, and receive, not only with eagerness, but with vehement impetuosity, the grace which is offered to them. Although very many are asleep, and are no more affected than if John in the wilderness were acting a play which had no reference to them, yet many flock to him with ardent zeal. The tendency of our Lord's statement is to show, that those who pass by in a contemptuous manner, and as it were with closed eyes, the power of God, which manifestly appears both in the teacher and in the hearers, are inexcusable. Let us also learn from these words, what is the true nature and operation of faith. It leads men not only to give, cold and indifferent assent when God speaks, but to cherish warm affection towards Him, and to rush forward as it were with a violent struggle.​
John Gill does mention Briones' view (earlier than my quote below), though apparently prefers the same as Watson:
...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.​
I personally believe we must do violence to ourselves—our carnal and sluggish tendencies—so as to cleave to Christ and His gospel, trampling under foot the raging or seducing world, flesh, and devil, for "this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith" (1 John 5:4). It is indeed a battle to the godly. And "overcome" surely signifies that.

So I hold with you, T.A., and your view.


----------

