I engage in many conversations with people of faith on just about any topic. I remember one conversation (on the topic of guns, I believe) in which a fellow believer cited Mathew 11:12 in support of a Christian defense of gun ownership.
“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. 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.” Matthew 11:12-14 NIV
My friend also mentioned Jesus turning over tables and instructing his followers to buy swords (Luke 22:36, though he tells them in the same chapter to but them down (Luke 22:49-51); “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)). My friend believes that Jesus was saying that force, and even violence, is ok as long as it is used for a good purpose.
I am reminded of his comments as I read through Matthew 12 in my yearly reading plan. I didn’t follow up on his comment then, but reading this passage in context brings it to mind, and it brings clarity to me at the same time.
Does this passage justify violent or forceful behavior in defending Christianity? That is the question
Let’s start with the context. Jesus is preaching in Galilee where John the Baptist has recently been imprisoned for calling out Herod for adultery. John was no shrinking violet. He was bold and forthright, and it landed him behind bars when Herod didn’t take kindly to the criticism.
While in prison, John heard reports of the miraculous things that Jesus was doing. These reports prompted John to send his own followers to ask Jesus, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matt. 11:3).
I imagine John the Baptist was wrestling with doubt as he languished in prison. In his mind, and in the minds of most Jews at that time, the Messiah was expected to come and take over the world, but it didn’t seem to be happening. The Roman Empire was still very much in charge.
John’s imprisonment must have given him second thoughts about the Messiah stuff. The miraculous signs seemed to mark Jesus as the Messiah, but why was he not wielding the power and the glory of God against the Roman occupation and Roman Empire? John the Baptist may have been hoping that Jesus was just biding his time when he sent for a report.
Jesus sent this message back:
“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.” (Matt. 11:4-6) (quoting Isaiah 35:5-6)
Was that the report John was expecting? Jesus didn’t say anything about driving out Rome and restoring King David’s throne. He didn’t pull from the prophetic messages about a conquering messiah. He pulled a different thread in the prophets.
When John’s followers left, Jesus praised John the Baptist to the disciples. He affirmed that John the Baptist is the one spoken of in Malachi 3:1 – the messenger sent ahead of the Messiah to prepare the way. He affirmed that he is the Messiah, but the Messianic message he sent back to John was about healing, cleansing, and good news to the poor.
In this context, Jesus said, “the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it.”
Jesus seems to be confirming only what John was already hearing about the miraculous signs, but John already knew about those things. Therefore, I think Jesus was doing more than confirming what John already knew. Jesus was tying what he was doing to prophetic passages like the language he quoted from Isaiah when he announced his public ministry (Luke 4:18-19):
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
These words from Isaiah 61:1-2 with overtones from Isaiah 58:6 were read aloud by Jesus in his hometown synagogue in Nazareth before he sat down with all eyes on him and said, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:21) These are the words Jesus used to to characterize the purpose for which he came.
We know, of course, that Jesus came to die on a cross, but John and his followers didn’t know that and probably could not have imagined it. Jesus’s followers didn’t get it even when he tried to tell them.
Jesus pulled passages from Isaiah that alluded to the suffering servant motif to affirm his identity. John the Baptist would have immediately recognized the thread Jesus was pulling, but it wasn’t what he was expecting.
First Century Jews were expecting the Messiah to reestablish the Davidic kingdom “here and now”. The Romans were well aware of that Jewish sentiment and had been putting down factions of zealots who took up the sword to attempt to bring it about.
Imagine Pontius Pilate’s confusion that prompted him to ask Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews? …. Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” This is how Jesus responded to Pontius Pilate:
“My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)
With this as the backdrop, let’s turn back to Matthew 12. If we understand the context, and the bigger picture, we see that Jesus is not advocating violence or force: he is doing just the opposite.
Continue reading “What Does It mean that the Kingdom of Heaven Is Subjected to Violence, and Violent People Take It By Force?”
Navigating by Faith 