PDA

View Full Version : Could someone explain Matthew 11:12 to me?



TransformedSon
Jan 5th 2009, 01:55 AM
"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force."

Is this talked about anywhere else in scripture? I thought heaven was completely separated from evil and things of that sort?

Butch5
Jan 5th 2009, 03:16 AM
"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force."

Is this talked about anywhere else in scripture? I thought heaven was completely separated from evil and things of that sort?

I could be wrong but I don't think this is referring to heaven but to the kingdom here. Consider Jesus words,

Luke 17:20-21 ( KJV ) 20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Here is what Justin Martyr says regarding this, I don't know itf this will help you.

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Chap. LI.—It Is Proved That This Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled. And when I ceased, Trypho said, “All the words of the prophecy you repeat, sir, are 221 ambiguous, and have no force in proving what you wish to prove.” Then I answered, “If the prophets had not ceased, so that there were no more in your nation, Trypho, after this John, it is evident that what I say in reference to Jesus Christ might be regarded perhaps as ambiguous. But if John came first calling on men to repent, and Christ, while [John] still sat by the river Jordan, having come, put an end to his prophesying and baptizing, and preached also Himself, saying that the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and that He must suffer many things from the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again, and would appear again in Jerusalem, and would again eat and drink with His disciples; and foretold that in the interval between His [first and second] advent, as I previously said, priests and false prophets would arise in His name, which things do actually appear; then how can they be ambiguous, when you may be persuaded by the facts? Moreover, He referred to the fact that there would be no longer in your nation any prophet, and to the fact that men recognised how that the New Testament, which God formerly announced [His intention of] promulgating, was then present, i.e., Christ Himself; and in the following terms: ‘The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist; from that time the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. And if you canreceive it, he is Elijah, who was to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.’ (Matt. 11:12-15)

mikebr
Jan 5th 2009, 03:31 AM
Matthew 11:12
(NIV) From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.



(NLT) 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.



(NASB) "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.



(Amplified Bible) And from the days of John the Baptist until the present time, the kingdom of heaven has endured violent assault, and violent men seize it by force

Sirus
Jan 5th 2009, 04:03 AM
I could be wrong but I don't think this is referring to heaven but to the kingdom here.Right!


Consider Jesus words,

Luke 17:20-21 ( KJV ) 20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.How can a non observable kingdom within us be the same as the one here taken by force?

Why does it say -until now -until John?

Sirus
Jan 5th 2009, 04:06 AM
Matthew 11:12
(NIV) From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.



(NLT) 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.



(NASB) "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.



(Amplified Bible) And from the days of John the Baptist until the present time, the kingdom of heaven has endured violent assault, and violent men seize it by force
Ok.....
two say one thing
two say another
which two is correct?
the context answers that

saved and know it
Jan 5th 2009, 04:12 AM
Consider the following...
Matt 11:12 With regards to the kingdom of heaven (JN Darby translation says, the kingdom of the heavens) from the opening of John the Baptist ministry to his present imprisonment the kingdom of heaven had suffered violence. This means the Pharisees and scribes had vigorously opposed it. Herod the king had done his part to buffet the kingdom by seizing its hearald (John the baptist). Later John was beheaded.
With regards to the violent that take it by force, the foes of the kingdom did their best to take the kingdom in order to destroy it. That is one intrepretation. Another intrepretation may be that those who were ready for the King advent responded vigorously to the announcement and strained every muscle to enter. This thought is found in Luke 16:16 where we read the words - and every one is pressing into it. Here in Luke 16 the kingdom is pictured as a besieged city, with all classes of men hammering at it from the outside trying to get in. A certain spiritual violence is necessary.
Whatever intrepretation you take, the thought is that John the baptist preaching touched off a violent reaction, with widespread and deep effects.
Hope this helps.
God bless

Sirus
Jan 5th 2009, 04:29 AM
problem-

kingdom of heaven/until now
Mat 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.
Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
-stop-

kingdom of God/since
Luk 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John:.....
-continue-
.....since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

scourge39
Jan 5th 2009, 04:40 AM
Matthew 11:12 is not easily translated. It is better translated, "from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent people attack it." The Greek words employed by Jesus normally have both a negative and passive meaning. Jesus is saying that the kingdom of heaven will suffer opposition from sinners even though it is expanding. The NIV's translation, 'forcefully advancing' and 'forceful men' is highly unlikely given the consistently negative connotations of the words found in Matthew's account.

Biastai
Jan 5th 2009, 04:44 AM
I'm personally in favor of the translation describing a forceful advancing of the kingdom itself over the kingdom suffering violence. It seems to make more sense alongside John's and Jesus' original message at the start of their ministry, "Repent, for the kingdom of God is near!" It is coming not on man's terms but on God's, so man better dramatically make a quick turnaround in their own lives even though the "timing" might not be to their liking. George Eldon Ladd in Presence of the Future describes an interpretation where the forceful or violent men are good men who throw away everything to gain entrance into the kingdom thus in their eagerness, it resembles a forceful entry. Its along the lines of the merchant selling all he owns to gain the plot of land or that precious pearl.

Chimon
Jan 5th 2009, 05:01 AM
According to Dr. Matthew J. Wilkins, Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary [author] and Dr. Wayne Grudem, Ph.D., The University of Cambridge, of Phoenix Seminary [editor]:

"That the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence (Gk. βιαζῶ) probably indicates opposition from the religious establishment and the violent take it by force probably refers to the actions of specific evil people like Herod Antipas, who had arrested John."



"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force."

Is this talked about anywhere else in scripture? I thought heaven was completely separated from evil and things of that sort?

Sirus
Jan 5th 2009, 06:03 AM
I'm personally in favor of the translation describing a forceful advancing of the kingdom itself over the kingdom suffering violence. It seems to make more sense alongside John's and Jesus' original message at the start of their ministry, "Repent, for the kingdom of God is near!"That was not the original message. The original message was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"

Sirus
Jan 5th 2009, 06:13 AM
According to Dr. Matthew J. Wilkins, Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary [author] and Dr. Wayne Grudem, Ph.D., The University of Cambridge, of Phoenix Seminary [editor]:

"That the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence (Gk. βιαζῶ) probably indicates opposition from the religious establishment and the violent take it by force probably refers to the actions of specific evil people like Herod Antipas, who had arrested John."Religious opposition isn't violence. The king's domain (kingdom), Jesus being king, suffered violence.

Gen 49:10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

scourge39
Jan 5th 2009, 06:17 AM
As I've stated, it's a difficult passage. I've actually heard viable sermons preached on one of the two translational options. Scholars differ greatly on this. The view/translation I espoused above is held by Craig Blomberg and favors the NASB translation over that of the NIV. While I believe that one translation is more viable than the other, I'm not going to completely rule out either of them. There's no need to divide over this. Maybe God, in his providence, intended a two-sided meaning. Both teach us a great deal about the kingdom of God.

Sirus
Jan 5th 2009, 06:26 AM
Do they both? To learn I am born again and going through my trial of faith for a kingdom that can be taken by force by man from a God I believe to be sovereign? I don't think it's even plausible. Quite comical really. After all, one of the interpretations teach us nothing about the kingdom of heaven and uses both passages to teach about the kingdom of God as if synoptic with the kingdom of heaven both having different aspects of one kingdom.

scourge39
Jan 5th 2009, 06:32 AM
Do they both? To learn I am born again and going through my trial of faith for a kingdom that can be taken by force by man from a God I believe to be sovereign? I don't think it's even plausible. Quite comical really. After all, one of the interpretations teach us nothing about the kingdom of heaven and uses both passages to teach about the kingdom of God as if synoptic.

You misunderstand, brother. One translation warns us that God's kingdom will face opposition and persecution from the world. The other suggests that the expansion of the kingdom of God must be tenaciously sought after. Are these not complimentary concepts that we can learn much from?

Sirus
Jan 5th 2009, 07:02 AM
If what you say was true for both terms, yes, I guess, but it's hard for me to imagine.

Again, opposition and persecusion is not a taking by force by violent men. The bridegrooms best man put in prison and beheaded kinda put a damper on the wedding and feast don't ya think?

Jesus said the seed (word -kingdom of God) sown bears fruit of itself without tares and ready for harvest (Mar 4). The expansion of the kingdom of God is not tenaciously sought after. You are applying Luke 16 to John until now. All it says is since John. Doesn't say after the resurrection and pentacost does it?

Again, it is hard to imagine the kingdom that sinners won't inheret, that cast out devils, healed all manner of sickness and disease, made the blind see and lame to walk, raised the dead, and was finally seen on the mount of transfiguration, taken by violent men. Just doesn't sit well with me. You?

It's very clear throughout scripture the kingdom of God faces opposition. Seized by violent men is just a little different.

Biastai
Jan 6th 2009, 04:04 AM
That was not the original message. The original message was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"

"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"
Mark 1:15

It is the same message. The kingdom of heaven is synonymous with the kingdom of God. The use of the word "heaven" in this case as is seen in Matthew is to suit Jewish Christians who do not wish to utter the name "God." Greek speaking believers would have no reservations about saying "God" because they commonly do. Therefore, Mark and Luke speak of the kingdom of God which is Matthew's kingdom of heaven.

Sirus
Jan 6th 2009, 05:15 AM
"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"
Mark 1:15When did he says that? After John…..!!!!
Mar 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

What was fulfilled? What time had come?
We just read ‘until now' and 'until John', then we read 'since that time' -since John and the law and the prophets.
Jesus said the Son of man (bridegroom) must suffer of them like it was written Elias (best man) suffer of them.

Now, after that time, the kingdom of God is preached and for the first time we see the word believe which was never said for the kingdom of heaven.

Anyone can post similarities, for there are many. They must be compatible with each other in order to coexist with each other (natural/spiritual). Can you explain the differences, is the question?



It is the same message. The kingdom of heaven is synonymous with the kingdom of God. The use of the word "heaven" in this case as is seen in Matthew is to suit Jewish Christians who do not wish to utter the name "God." Greek speaking believers would have no reservations about saying "God" because they commonly do. Therefore, Mark and Luke speak of the kingdom of God which is Matthew's kingdom of heaven.This is not true. There is absolutely no historical evidence of this, not to mention you just have to read the Bible. None of the apostles or Jesus had a problem saying God either.

Furthermore, Matthew used both terms. Was he confused? He certainly wasn’t concerned about using God if he used God. That's a no-brainer!

What’s more, Matthew used both terms verse by verse/back to back. Was he under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and confuse? Hardly! Was the Spirit confused? Hardly!

Biastai
Jan 6th 2009, 06:02 AM
When did he says that? After John…..!!!!
Mar 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

What was fulfilled? What time had come?
We just read ‘until now' and 'until John', then we read 'since that time' -since John and the law and the prophets.
Jesus said the Son of man (bridegroom) must suffer of them like it was written Elias (best man) suffer of them.

Now, after that time, the kingdom of God is preached and for the first time we see the word believe which was never said for the kingdom of heaven.

Anyone can post similarities, for there are many. They must be compatible with each other in order to coexist with each other (natural/spiritual). Can you explain the differences, is the question?


He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables."
Mark 4:11

He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them."
Matthew 13:11

Again he said, "What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground."
Mark 4:30,31

He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field."
Matthew 31:31

When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."
Mark 10:15

He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 18:2-4

Are you trying to tell me these are two different kingdoms? The above three pairings tell me pretty clearly these are two interchangeable terms. In the Markan account, John the Baptist is not said to have preached the kingdom of heaven followed by Jesus preaching the kingdom of God. I confess I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me with your post, but I still hold to the opinion that the verse in question is referring to the dawning of the kingdom. John marks the end of an age, and from this point the least in this kingdom is greater than John. The violence done to the kingdom is a later idea after the church had expanded as is seen in Augustine's City of God.

Biastai
Jan 6th 2009, 06:30 AM
Whichever interpretation is decided upon, it is hard to prove either one definitively since the verb biazetai is used in both active (forcing) and passive (treated forcibly) without changing its spelling. Thayer in his Greek lexicon of the NT goes with the active form to describe the kingdom.

However, this is what stumps me. If the kingdom suffering violence is such a prominent idea that marks such a dividing point, where are the parables which describe this kingdom suffering violence?

Sirus
Jan 6th 2009, 07:10 AM
Are you trying to tell me these are two different kingdoms?Yes. One kingdom split with sin in Eden and man banished from the garden of God and tree of life. All throughout scripture we see the natural/spiritual contrast. We are stuck in only one, strive for the other, and in the end it is both where God dwells with man on earth that he created not in vain but to be inhabited forever. Like the resurrected Jesus having flesh and bone, but no blood for man to be susceptible to sickness, disease, weakness and death.

Doesn't really sound all that strange now does it?

Again, you have only posted similarities. That's easy. Now post differences and explain them!

A few examples.....
-poor in spirit=kingdom of heaven
-poor=kingdom of God

-tares in the kingdom of heaven
-no tares in the kingdom of God (must be born again)

-hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven (works)
-impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of God (faith)

-enter the kingdom of heaven by your righteousness (works)
-your righteousness are filthy rags and will not get you into the kingdom of God (faith)

talent parables
-kingdom of heaven the servant cast into outer darkness (works)
-not cast into outer darkness in the kingdom of God parable (faith)

-forgive to be forgiven in the kingdom of heaven (works)
-believe to be forgiven in the kingdom of God (faith)

Sirus
Jan 6th 2009, 07:24 AM
However, this is what stumps me. If the kingdom suffering violence is such a prominent idea that marks such a dividing point, where are the parables which describe this kingdom suffering violence?There must be a parable?
This alone should be enough.
Gen 49:10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

Reading John, the bridegrooms best man, being imprisoned and his head cut off, Jesus saying time if fulfilled, and Jesus saying He must also suffer as did Elijah (John), isn't enough? There's only wha...about another 500 passages I could post on the topic.

Biastai
Jan 6th 2009, 04:54 PM
Yes. One kingdom split with sin in Eden and man banished from the garden of God and tree of life. All throughout scripture we see the natural/spiritual contrast. We are stuck in only one, strive for the other, and in the end it is both where God dwells with man on earth that he created not in vain but to be inhabited forever. Like the resurrected Jesus having flesh and bone, but no blood for man to be susceptible to sickness, disease, weakness and death.

Doesn't really sound all that strange now does it?

Again, you have only posted similarities. That's easy. Now post differences and explain them!

A few examples.....
-poor in spirit=kingdom of heaven
-poor=kingdom of God

-tares in the kingdom of heaven
-no tares in the kingdom of God (must be born again)

-hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven (works)
-impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of God (faith)

-enter the kingdom of heaven by your righteousness (works)
-your righteousness are filthy rags and will not get you into the kingdom of God (faith)

talent parables
-kingdom of heaven the servant cast into outer darkness (works)
-not cast into outer darkness in the kingdom of God parable (faith)

-forgive to be forgiven in the kingdom of heaven (works)
-believe to be forgiven in the kingdom of God (faith)

Since you have not bothered to post scriptural citations, I'm not going to go through my notes to go over minute differences of wording. For your example with the tares parable, you are counting on the fact that a parable is lacking in one gospel account as opposed to another which is something which happens commonly. If a parable is lacking in one gospel account, it simply means the author used a different source. Let's start simple...

"At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 18:1-4

Please explain to me how this kingdom in the above passage determines entry by works. Is this humbled child now about to burst forth with great works? In Jewish culture, a child is not thought to be innocent as is commonly taken from this passage but is considered lost. The purpose for the bar mitzvah rite is to celebrate a lost child's introduction to the light through the learning of the Torah.

"He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."
He told them still another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."
Matthew 13:31-33

Also, in the above passage why would the kingdom entered by works be in expansion as is inferred here? Shouldn't it be passing away?

"When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 8:10,11

In the above passage, faith is associated with the kingdom you state as being associated with works. Please explain it to me.

However, I must thank you because you inadvertently pointed something out to me. For the first 20 chapters of Matthew, the kingdom is referred to as the "kingdom of heaven" while it is the "kingdom of God" thereafter.

BroRog
Jan 6th 2009, 07:14 PM
"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force."

Is this talked about anywhere else in scripture? I thought heaven was completely separated from evil and things of that sort?

This verse comes in the middle of what I believe to be an emotional moment for Jesus as he expresses his admiration for his friend and cousin, John the
Baptist. If we go all the way back up to verse 11:2 we get a sense of what is going on.

2 Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent [word] by his disciples 3 and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?"

Let's key in on this phrase "Are you the expected one?" as this will be the subtext in the following verses. Jesus is going to subtly draw a comparison between himself and John the Baptist in this respect. Often times there is a difference between what we expect to see, how things appear on the outside, and what is really true.

Apparently, John's disciples notice an apparent disconnect between the works of Christ, and his reluctance to take his place as King of Israel. Let's come back to this later and fast forward to Jesus' remarks about John the Baptist.

7 As these men were going [away], Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John, "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 8 "But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft [clothing]? Those who wear soft [clothing] are in kings' palaces! 9 "But what did you go out to see? A prophet?

Here Jesus asks us to compare our "expectations" with what we actually observe. Jesus asks the crowd, "when you went out into the wilderness, what did you expect to find?" (paraphrase) The emphasis is on the wilderness. What do we expect to find in the wilderness? Well, we expect to see wild plants and men dressed in shabby clothing.

What did the people actually see? They saw a man dressed in camel skins and eating wild honey. Did they expect to find a man dressed up in a suit? Not really. Everyone knows that people in soft clothing are found in palaces. We expect to find people living out on the edge of town to be dressed in shabby clothing.

But why would we go out to see a bum? What does a bum have that I need? What can he offer me? Well, I might go out to see the bum if he was also a prophet. Were the crowds prepared to accept that a guy who looked like a bum could also be a prophet?.

What did they expect; and what did they see?

9 "But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and one who is more than a prophet. 10 "This is the one about whom it is written, `Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way before You.' 11 "Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen [anyone] greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

The crowds went into the wilderness with a certain expectation, wanting to see a prophet of God. What they actually saw with their two eyes was a bum, living on the edge of subsistence and dressed in rags. What they saw with their eyes did not reveal John's true nature or his true status as a human being.

The contrast is striking. Here we have a bum, living on the edge of town with very little to eat, dressed in rags like a pauper. But hidden under his clothing and outward appearance was the greatest man born of woman. No man has every been more important. No man has every had a greater role to play in the establishment an inauguration of the kingdom. And yet, John was treated like the lowest of the low.

Herod took the greatest man who ever lived and threw him into prison. And eventually, he will remove his head. Get this. A man in a suit, living in a palace, dressed in soft clothing, whom the crowds considered the greatest among men, imprisoned the real and actual greatest man ever born, who just happened to live out on the edge of town, in a cave, eating honey and bugs for dinner, and dressed like a bum.

At this point we can draw a parallel, as I'm sure Jesus did, between John's experience at the hands of violent men and what will be Jesus' fate at the hands of other violent men. John's disciples, what did they expect to see? They expected to see the messiah coming in all his glory. What did they actually see? They saw a street preacher, modestly dressed, hanging out with sinners, and living in hiding from the authorities.

When Jesus says about John, "one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." he says this sarcastically as if speaking from the point of view of the crowds and the violent men like Herod. From all appearances, John was a bum. And from the way he was treated by the officials, one would not conclude that John was the greatest man ever born.

Therefore, we find a difference between what we expect to see, what we see with our eyes, and what is actually, really true.

Hope this helps.

Sirus
Jan 7th 2009, 03:34 AM
For your example with the tares parable, you are counting on the fact that a parable is lacking in one gospel account as opposed to another which is something which happens commonly. If a parable is lacking in one gospel account, it simply means the author used a different source.Not at all. The parable are complete alone. I do not believe they are synoptic. Making them so causes us to miss the mysteries.



"At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 18:1-4

Please explain to me how this kingdom in the above passage determines entry by works. Is this humbled child now about to burst forth with great works? In Jewish culture, a child is not thought to be innocent as is commonly taken from this passage but is considered lost. The purpose for the bar mitzvah rite is to celebrate a lost child's introduction to the light through the learning of the Torah.
What does it say?
"you change and become"

The parallels in Mark and Luke for the kingdom of God say 'receive' as....



"He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."
He told them still another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."
Matthew 13:31-33

Also, in the above passage why would the kingdom entered by works be in expansion as is inferred here? Shouldn't it be passing away?
Jesus is describing the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. That it grows to be the greatest of trees because of corruption. You don't think man took over this thing and ran it right do you? Everything in scripture is to the contrary.

I do find the question a bit humorous. Just look at the religions of the world. They grow and are works.

Maybe I don't understand your point?



"When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 8:10,11

In the above passage, faith is associated with the kingdom you state as being associated with works. Please explain it to me.
Yes, but the kingdom of heaven ruled by Christ when Abraham Isaac and Jacob will be here is future, is it not?

Luk 13:28-30 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

The transfiguration was kingdom of God. They will merge in Christ's earthly reign. Glorified and mortal on earth. Is that so strange?

Faith has always been. That's not strange either. Abraham was a Gentile. In Mat 8 there it is a centurion's faith not an Israeli. A Greek womans faith not an Israeli. Like Jesus used the example of Elijah sent only to leapers and a widow and not Israel. People cannot be forced to believe.



However, I must thank you because you inadvertently pointed something out to me. For the first 20 chapters of Matthew, the kingdom is referred to as the "kingdom of heaven" while it is the "kingdom of God" thereafter.What trans?
This isn't just the KJ, it's in the Greek!

Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

...and while you are there
Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Sirus
Jan 7th 2009, 04:38 AM
If interested there is a book on the subject.
http://shop.nogreaterjoy.org/product_info.php/products_id/167
I don't agree with everything in it but it more than covers the concept. Of course always study for yourselves.

Biastai
Jan 7th 2009, 05:44 AM
Not at all. The parable are complete alone. I do not believe they are synoptic. Making them so causes us to miss the mysteries.

We have different approaches in this respect. Neither of us has to tell the other he is wrong on this.



What does it say?
"you change and become"

The parallels in Mark and Luke for the kingdom of God say 'receive' as.....

You haven't cleared this up at all. Are you trying to tell me changing and becoming like a child is considered a work and not an act of faith? Here, the entry into the kingdom of heaven is still unmerited. A lost child enters the kingdom you state as being one entered by good works.


Jesus is describing the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. That it grows to be the greatest of trees because of corruption. You don't think man took over this thing and ran it right do you? Everything in scripture is to the contrary.

I do find the question a bit humorous. Just look at the religions of the world. They grow and are works.

Maybe I don't understand your point?.

If my question is humorous, your interpretation is uproarious. You are (I'm sure) alone on this whole board if you maintain that the kingdom of heaven described in the Matthean mustard seed/yeast parables is a kingdom of corruption.



Yes, but the kingdom of heaven ruled by Christ when Abraham Isaac and Jacob will be here is future, is it not?

Luk 13:28-30 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

The transfiguration was kingdom of God. They will merge in Christ's earthly reign. Glorified and mortal on earth. Is that so strange?

Faith has always been. That's not strange either. Abraham was a Gentile. In Mat 8 there it is a centurion's faith not an Israeli. A Greek womans faith not an Israeli. Like Jesus used the example of Elijah sent only to leapers and a widow and not Israel. People cannot be forced to believe.

In the Matthew passage, Jesus doesn't even hint at the kingdom of heaven becoming the kingdom of God. I might be misunderstanding your point altogether on this one. Superimposing the transfiguration onto the passage doesn't satisfy me though it may work for you.

Anyway, this part of the discussion is way off topic from the original question, so I'll refrain from going further on distinctions (or lack thereof) between the two kingdoms. It seems we remain unconvinced of each other's views, but its unimportant whether one of us is or not. Thank you for your replies.

Ezer Kenegdo
Jan 7th 2009, 01:51 PM
We have different approaches in this respect. Neither of us has to tell the other he is wrong on this.
The Holy Spirit is not a sloppy writer. When we read the words of the Word, and not just gloss over differences, we begin to understand Scripture in an amazingly wonderful way, and everything begins to fall into place and make sense.


If my question is humorous, your interpretation is uproarious. You are (I'm sure) alone on this whole board if you maintain that the kingdom of heaven described in the Matthean mustard seed/yeast parables is a kingdom of corruption.
The bible defines for us what leaven (yeast) is, and it is always bad. The yeast we use for baking is a fungus that puffs up dough by eating the sugars and giving off gas. Kinda gross if you think about it.
Mat 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Mat 16:7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
Mat 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Mat 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Mar 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

Luk 12:1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trod one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Gal 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Sounds exactly like "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

Biastai
Jan 8th 2009, 04:01 AM
The Holy Spirit is not a sloppy writer. When we read the words of the Word, and not just gloss over differences, we begin to understand Scripture in an amazingly wonderful way, and everything begins to fall into place and make sense.

No, the Spirit doesn't wrong, but the inspired human authors may. I know the Timothy passage states that our scriptures are "God-breathed," however, I prefer the English translation which uses "inspired" in place of that expression. Its my personal approach compatible with my personal faith, so I do not compel others to adopt it.


The bible defines for us what leaven (yeast) is, and it is always bad. The yeast we use for baking is a fungus that puffs up dough by eating the sugars and giving off gas. Kinda gross if you think about it.

Mat 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Mat 16:7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
Mat 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Mat 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Mar 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

Luk 12:1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trod one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Gal 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Sounds exactly like "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

Thank you for pointing this out. I have marked the scriptures you posted before in my notes for that very reason, that yeast is described in a negative light. But then a new difficulty is found in the Lukan version...

"Again he asked, "What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."
Luke 13:20, 21

Is this kingdom of God as well as the kingdom of heaven to be corrupted?

Sirus
Jan 8th 2009, 04:21 AM
You haven't cleared this up at all. Are you trying to tell me changing and becoming like a child is considered a work and not an act of faith? Here, the entry into the kingdom of heaven is still unmerited. A lost child enters the kingdom you state as being one entered by good works. You don't see a different from being told to change and become and receiving? I'm sure you have heard that John's baptism of repentance is not the same as the baptism of faith, right? In Acts, those still going on John's baptism hadn't heard and received the Spirit. John preached repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. So did Jesus, but as shown throughout the thread the time came when Jesus began preaching repent and believe the gospel for the kingdom of God is at hand.

In other words, what John preached was superseded by Christ just as he said. Jesus said, the law and prophets were UNTIL John, since that time the kingdom of God is preached......



If my question is humorous, your interpretation is uproarious. You are (I'm sure) alone on this whole board if you maintain that the kingdom of heaven described in the Matthean mustard seed/yeast parables is a kingdom of corruption.Actually I am not, but if I was the only person in the world I'd be just as confident. I accept it for what it says, and my interpretation is also holistic and bears no conflict with the rest of scripture. That cannot be said for your interpretation. You must redefine the meaning of leaven in scripture, giving it a meaning scripture never does, and you must ignore all passages about the church becoming more and more corrupt from the days of the apostles to the end. Oh, and you must also right out deny factual church history.



In the Matthew passage, Jesus doesn't even hint at the kingdom of heaven becoming the kingdom of God. I might be misunderstanding your point altogether on this one. Superimposing the transfiguration onto the passage doesn't satisfy me though it may work for you.I said 'merge' -coexist
Jesus said some (Peter and John) would see the kingdom of God before they died. He previously said it does not come with observation for us now. I'd say they saw what we will see, wouldn't you?



Anyway, this part of the discussion is way off topic from the original question, so I'll refrain from going further on distinctions (or lack thereof) between the two kingdoms. It seems we remain unconvinced of each other's views, but its unimportant whether one of us is or not. Thank you for your replies.Is it off topic? The thread is discussing the meaning of a statement made about the kingdom of heaven. It is clear in Greek, as others have affirmed, it is not to made metaphysical and is in fact speaking of the physical. For the physical view to be rectified many a passages must be examined and explained for affirmation to take place in the believers mind. It has to make sense and cannot contradict. Why? Because the kingdom of God cannot be taken by force by anyone much less mortal man. A kingdom placed under mans authority and dominion can be taken by another man. That makes sense, does it not?

Thank you for your replies!

Sirus
Jan 8th 2009, 04:25 AM
Is this kingdom of God as well as the kingdom of heaven to be corrupted?Yes, the Church is corrupt. Looked around lately? Paul used this towards the Corinthians he called brothers, justified, sanctified etc....

The kingdom of God as in the Spirit, of course not, but scripture often speaks of bringing shame to Christ with our behavior. The angels (created beings -made to be spirits) are a part of the kingdom of God and many of them rebelled.

Biastai
Jan 8th 2009, 04:58 AM
Yes, the Church is corrupt. Looked around lately? Paul used this towards the Corinthians he called brothers, justified, sanctified etc....

The kingdom of God as in the Spirit, of course not, but scripture often speaks of bringing shame to Christ with our behavior. The angels (created beings -made to be spirits) are a part of the kingdom of God and many of them rebelled.

Don't assume I take the kingdom of God as being the church. Not everyone does. Paul's words to the Corinthians could be referring to a future kingdom.

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?"
1 Cor 6:9

"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."
1 Cor 15:50, reference to the resurrection

Sirus
Jan 8th 2009, 05:28 AM
Right. For now, the kingdom of God (spiritual) operates in the kingdom of heaven (natural) through the Church. The kingdom of God is within you. I assumed nothing. BTW; that's something else that is not said for the kingdom of heaven.

Biastai
Jan 8th 2009, 05:49 PM
You don't see a different from being told to change and become and receiving? I'm sure you have heard that John's baptism of repentance is not the same as the baptism of faith, right? In Acts, those still going on John's baptism hadn't heard and received the Spirit. John preached repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. So did Jesus, but as shown throughout the thread the time came when Jesus began preaching repent and believe the gospel for the kingdom of God is at hand.

In other words, what John preached was superseded by Christ just as he said. Jesus said, the law and prophets were UNTIL John, since that time the kingdom of God is preached......

No, I don't see a difference. One becomes like a child so he may receive the kingdom as a child does. Repeating your previous argument doesn't increase its strength.

Take a look at the Matthew passages of the earliest ministry of Jesus compared to that of John.

In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."
Matthew 3:1,2

From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."
Matthew 4:17

Verbatim. In order to prove your point, you deliberately pieced different gospel accounts together.


Actually I am not, but if I was the only person in the world I'd be just as confident. I accept it for what it says, and my interpretation is also holistic and bears no conflict with the rest of scripture. That cannot be said for your interpretation. You must redefine the meaning of leaven in scripture, giving it a meaning scripture never does, and you must ignore all passages about the church becoming more and more corrupt from the days of the apostles to the end. Oh, and you must also right out deny factual church history.

Why must I be accused of ignoring factual history? I simply choose to believe that the parable isn't referring to these events. Must every parable include all that has happened to the church or the kingdom? Its clear that certain parables only purpose to communicate to us one single element of the kingdom. I suppose you believe there are parables prophesying the Reformation too? We mustn't ignore that piece of church history.

Leaven is bad, so the yeast describes a bad element of the kingdom? We know of a parable where a dishonest steward is commended by his master. Another parable tells us of a man who digs up a treasure in a plot of land that he doesn't own, reburies it, and buys the land. Good/bad is not a key distinction in such cases.

If you must take all the other scriptures on leaven into account as you claim I must do with the leaven parable, then how do you explain your mustard seed idea? Daniel 4:12 and Ezekiel 31:3-6 show that a tree sheltering birds in its branches represents kingship. You've said it means spreading corruption in Matthew. To me, the parable is illustrative of the kingdom's seemingly insignificant origins (or unobservable as you said). Thus Jesus' parable is a refutation of the prevailing ideas in rabbinic and apocalyptic literature of an earth-shattering inbreaking of God to dawn the kingdom. This view of mine may be reworked and revised as I continue with study.


I said 'merge' -coexist
Jesus said some (Peter and John) would see the kingdom of God before they died. He previously said it does not come with observation for us now. I'd say they saw what we will see, wouldn't you?

We will see in the future what they saw as the kingdom of God? Then how is it the church?


Is it off topic? The thread is discussing the meaning of a statement made about the kingdom of heaven. It is clear in Greek, as others have affirmed, it is not to made metaphysical and is in fact speaking of the physical. For the physical view to be rectified many a passages must be examined and explained for affirmation to take place in the believers mind. It has to make sense and cannot contradict. Why? Because the kingdom of God cannot be taken by force by anyone much less mortal man. A kingdom placed under mans authority and dominion can be taken by another man. That makes sense, does it not?


Again, you've assumed I share your views or that everyone shares your views on certain things. I don't believe the passage refers to men attacking the kingdom.

"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it."
Luke 16:16

Here, we have men forcing their way into the kingdom of God, not of heaven. Its the closest parallel (the only?) to the original verses in question.

keck553
Jan 8th 2009, 05:56 PM
It's about praying. That's all there is to it.