Monday: The Frontiers of Darkness
Bible students through the ages have struggled with Matthew 11:12 because the words that describe the kingdom and the people here can be used in either a positive or negative sense. The Greek verb basmati can mean either “forcefully advancing” or “suffering violence.” And the Greek word biastes can mean “forceful or eager men” or “violent men.”
Image © Justinen Creative from GoodSalt.com
So, does this verse mean that the meek and mild kingdom of heaven is suffering violence, that violent people are attacking it? Or is the kingdom of heaven forcefully advancing in a positive sense, and the forceful men seizing it are actually followers of Christ?
Is it possible for followers of Christ to be this aggressive, even forceful, in their pursuit of the kingdom?
Read the following texts. What are they saying that could shed some light on the last question asked above?
Some have argued that the most likely interpretation of Matthew 11:12 is to apply the most common uses of biazomai (typically positive) and biastes (typically negative), giving us this interpretation: the kingdom of heaven is forcefully advancing with “holy power and magnificent energy that has been pushing back the frontiers of darkness”; and while this is happening, “violent or rapacious men have been trying to plunder it.”—D.A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary With the New International Version: Matthew, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), pp. 266, 267.
This interpretation appears to ring true to the wider gospel of Matthew. In fact, this interpretation also captures the bigger picture, that of the struggle between light and darkness, between Christ and Satan, a theme that permeates the Bible but is made explicit in the New Testament. There is indeed a war, seen and unseen, in which we are all involved, in which we all take a side, in which we all experience every day, regardless of how much we do or do not understand what’s going on. This is what living amid the great controversy is all about.
(15)
Is there a typo in the second line of Monday's Lesson? Is the word "basmati" given as a transliteration of Strong's #971 which is "Biazo"?
It does appear to be a typo, David. The word "biazo" translated "suffereth violence" (in Matt 11:12 KJV), definitely ends with an omega - the equivalent sound being given to our "o", as in the English word, "proviso".
Again, it appears to be a technical error, but the writer may have a valid reason for using the word "basmati". (Although it does look out of place to me.)
Mondays statement regarding Matt11:12 and the struggles over the different understandings through the centuries, would precipitate a question.What has changed in the last several months or even years, and what is the significance? Questions regarding upbraided cities in Matt11:20-30 are seemingly more important, to the significant future of our salvation. There is plenty of first hand evidence to understand what true darkness and violence is.
Paul, it seems to me that in the early days of our church there was agreement on the meaning of Matt 11:12.
As far as I can tell, the voices of all our workers were united/harmonious on that text.
The following is an excerpt from one of James White's books :
"The mental struggle in order to break away from the powers of darkness, and by faith receive the blessings of the kingdom of grace, is thus described by our Lord: “And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” Matthew 11:12. See Luke 16:16." (The Two Thrones p.21.)
All our ministers appear to have understood it as referring to the striving that was/is necessary to enter "the strait gate".
The hard copy lesson guide has it as biastes
Original Word Origin
biasthvß
Definition
1. strong, forceful
2. using force, violent
Whenever there is a difficult text that the scholars cannot agree upon, I would search EGW writings to see how she used and understood the text. I'm surprised that the lesson author didn't include this passage I found:
Thanks alot for your elaboration.
Yes Edwards, I agree with your discussion. Thanks
Very true Ray Edwards...Ellen White must be the first port of call for complex issues...even simple..in harmony with the study of the Word...see below...
From that quote you see that EGW understood the "violent taking by force" to be the good people and the "suffering violence" refers to the enemy of souls. This is the opposite of D. A. Carson interpretation quoted in the lesson.
Dear Stewart Crafts and Ray Edwards,
Because of all the good notes you have supplied on Matthew 11:12, the meaning of the verse seems clear. Your notes have been very helpful to assist in teaching the Sabbath School lesson. Thank you!
Could you help me to understand what the frontier of darkness represents.
I suggest that the "frontier" is the border between the realms of light (i.e. knowledge, understanding, and righteousness) and the realms of darkness (ignorance, selfishness, and sin).
We should be able to say that the church is the realm of light, and that the "world" is the realm of darkness, but over the years the "border" has become blurred, and in many places quite porous. Sometimes it can be difficult to know just "where" we are, because "the line of demarcation between worldlings and many professed Christians is almost indistinguishable." (8T p.118)
Ellen White uses thoughts like the following one. I think the meaning will be relevant, and self-evident --
"...the world is to be warned. The message is to go forth in power to the people. And we are not to restrain our labors within our own borders, but we are to advance constantly, that the truth shall go to those that are in the darkness of error. God wants us to be light-bearers to the world..."
We are to advance into the world and push back the darkness (ignorance).
Thanks for the insightful comment Stewart. May I ask where the last quote you shared comes from exactly?
Thanks again.
Hello Chris, the last quote is from an Ellen White Manuscript (Ms Ms 138, 1909).
If you Google part of the quoted piece, you will get a link to the more complete article.
Can someone help me to a useful link for the definition of basmati, please? I am a noob. Please don't use big words. Much appreciated.
If you will read the comments on this page, you will find that that is likely a typographical error. It should be a reference to the Greek word, (transliterated) biazo.
For a reference see The Blueletter Bible on Matthew 11:12.
Also read the comments on the lesson portion of Sabbath. You can often find that your questions are already answered in comments by others.
Thank you, Ms. Anderson.
I am not a church member. I am just a lay person who is new and wants to know more about SDA.
The frontiers of darkness will be pushed back. We do not always get every detail of last day events from the pulpit. For those who watch Utube you will see the gospel message forgeing ahead by SDA's and non SDA.
The lesson tells us that the King of the Lord will pass through. (Micah2:13)The time has come for forceful attention of the gospel of salvation,pushing back the frontiers of darkness in this world which has reached rock bottom against the odds of violence/ violent men. The struggle is unseen and seen but those with eyes of descernment will see that prophecy is being fulfilled.
We must not be afraid in speaking truth to those who will listen Keep pressing on my brethren.
Thanks for sharing Ray. There is so much evidence to prove what Sis. White stated there. Everyday I see it played out in my own life and in the life of those around me. Satan is not happy when we are working together with Christ, far from that, he is wroth. He will not give up his subjects (and we are included here) without a fight! But the victory is already won! We only need to keep that foremost in our minds and claim it in Jesus name! This is our only hope.
It is my humble view that the lesson author, in an effort to stimulate thought and discussion, may have "opened up a can of worms" regarding Matt. 11:12, by presenting numerous open-ended questions and possibilities for interpretation, and the plethora of postulations, commentaries and opinions have not ceased for the past three days.
As some members have said before, including myself, whenever these seemingly "difficult" verses come up for study, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him" (James 1:5). He is the only wise God. Therefore, His wisdom alone can give insight to shed light on the matter. They are HIS WORDS. Whom else should we ask?
As far as I can see, God has already answered by pointing us to the clarifications given by His servant, the prophetess, which have been referenced by several participants in the discourse since Sabbath's lesson onward. I don't get it. Why do we persist in looking for things that are right before our very eyes?
My prayer today is Lord:
Open my eyes that I may see
Glimpses of truth Thou hast for me;
Place in my hands that wonderful key
That shall unclasp and set me free!
True Claudette...We are people of the Word and SOP, so it is prudent we always look to those sources well before inviting even "educated scholars" opinions on topics that as you put, are a can or worms... EGW is crustal clear that the emphasis of Matthew is on us pressing boldly onto the throne of grace and praying for the blessing as did Jacob..While yes the kingdom of God suffers from violent assaults of wicked men, people, nations etc, it is probably not the point Matthew was bringing out for us in his gospel there.
Please forgive me Denford, I mean you no disrespect by asking this question, but might there a contradiction in what you've just said here?
You say that we are people of the Word and SOP, and I agree with that. But then toward the end of your comment you mention the thought about the kingdom of God suffering violent assaults from wicked men, etc. You go on to say that that is PROBABLY NOT the point Matthew was bringing out. This troubles me a little, because "it is probably not" implies that IT POSSIBLY IS the point of Matt 11:12.
If we are a people of the Word and the SOP, then can't our "yes" be a definite "yes", and our "no" be a definite "no" on this issue?
___________
Some years ago I studied some of the characteristics of the Jewish Talmud, and can agree with the historian, Schaff, when he refers to it as "a vast debating club, in which there hum confusedly the myriad voices of at least five centuries". (Schaff, vol.2 chp.1 sec.14) The SOP expresses a similar thought in the words - "the Rabbis spoke with doubt and hesitancy, as if the Scriptures might be interpreted to mean one thing or exactly the opposite." (Evangelism p.488) It is not beyond the realms of possibility, I feel, that we can drift toward the same kind of thing. When we have clear explanations in the SOP (and especially when these can be supported by 'other' voices, to allay the doubts of skeptics), I feel that our "yes" can be a definite yes, and our "no" can be a definite no.
Couldn't the passage mean BOTH things?The kingdom of heaven is being attacked by violent evil forces. So in order to gain the Kingdom the followers of Christ must be eager, forceful, "violent" even, in our spreading of the gospel and our resistance of evil.
It is a reasonable question Patrick, but I would still have to answer, "No, I don't think it can be both."
My reason for responding this way, is,
Jesus mentions a time-frame : "FROM THE DAYS OF JOHN THE BAPTIST UNTIL NOW" the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. (I find it interesting that the time period mentioned by Jesus excludes the violent killing of the babies/infants at Bethlehem.)
And during that specific period, Jesus' [and John's] popularity was high among the people. It was not until some time afterward (when Jesus had healed the man with the withered hand during the Sabbath), that the Pharisees, FOR THE FIRST TIME held a council against Him : i.e. "then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against Him, how they might destroy Him." (Matt 12:14.)
It is true - John had been put in prison - but "the kingdom of heaven" [during that time period] had not literally been taken "by [the] force" of evil, violent, men.
I suggest that Jesus' words (in Matt 11:12) refer to quite a different scenario than that which is represented in the two following verses :
Rev 11:7 (involving God's Two Witnesses) when "the Beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them",
and
Rev 13:7, when the Beast was given power "to make war with the saints, and to overcome them". Yes, THEN it was that the kingdom of heaven suffered the kind of violence inspired by the enemy, and yes, in a sense, THEN "the kingdom" was taken by force.
Stewart Crafts, you are very correct. My use of the phrase "probably not" was really in respect to the author of the lesson and his opinion on the issue in the public forum. Else in verity, it is NOT what Matthew was bringing out in the passage...It is as EGW was stressing about persevering faith.
....However it does not remove the ability of the holy Spirit to inspire us with varied understandings of His Word. Which is why I mentioned that the author was not wrong to have such as a secondary thought on the subject. However the primary meaning of the passage in question was as EGW said. If you read EGW you will notice she at times has unique thoughts on passages of Scripture which are normally clear cut...So I didnt want to bring it out as if the author was speaking heresy; cause he wasnt in respect of the whole theme of the great controversy.
This lesson is very powerful. The kingdom of heaven is being attacked by violent men. God's kingdom starts here on earth. Just like the sanctuary in heaven, throughout the days of Moses, a type was set up to administer God's work for His chosen people. For example, Christians are living in fear of their lives in certain countries. They are persecuted for seeking the kingdom of God. Thus there are men of God who are advancing His kingdom. They smuggle bibles and other inspirational materials into these countries to believers who are living underground. They conduct branch Sabbath Schools and many other witnessing programs to strengthen these persecuted believers faith, in the kingdom of God. This we can say that God's kingdom is under attack by these violent men. The kingdom will endure and grow until God delivers it. The more the kingdom is attacked, the more rapidly it grows. There's no stopping it. There's a war Satan is raging against God's kingdom here on earth. We as true and sincere believers make up this kingdom.
5BC1089.6-7 Has this to say.
From the above, we see that the possession of the kingdom of God does not require people who are weak and timid. When we humble ourselves before God, allowing Him use as as His battle as Scriptures put it,however violent the powers of darkness may be, victory is ours.
The fact that battle as is mentioned in scripture, one can conclude that it not an easy battle,
The word "suffer" in the KJV means to allow or permit. "Suffer the little children to come...." (Mat 19:14); "Suffer it to be so now...." (Mat 3:15). Christ is saying that the Kingdom of God allows and approves of the use of spiritual violence by candidates of the kingdom in order to enter therein. It cannot mean that God will allow evil men to attack the kingdom, and allow them to take it by force! We know that the devil and his angels tried, and continue to try. They failed then, and they will continue to fail. Why would God allow that, when He fought the devil and cast him and his angels out of heaven? The Bible says "Resist the devil, and he will flee..." (James 4:7). The word resist here urges relentless and persistent opposition to the devil (spiritual violence) through submission to God, prayers and steadfastness in faith as amply explained by Sister EGW. "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds" (2 Col 10:4) Now, that is violence!
Good thoughts! May I comment on the idea of resisting the Devil?
God's way is often quite different to our natural, human concepts, isn't it? For example if somebody strikes us on the cheek (perhaps this happens more figuratively than literally today, in the form of spite or contempt), but if somebody smites us on the cheek, how can we best resist? We "resist the devil" by offering our vulnerability AGAIN, don't we?
Jesus' words, "But I tell you NOT TO RESIST AN EVIL PERSON" (Matt 5:39), is no contradiction to James 4:7, but it is often the very best means of achieving/performing resistance. I suggest that this is often the case.
Worldly, "carnal" resistance, on the other hand, is really no resistance at all. And instead of making the Devil flee, some of the so-called resistance, can actually encourage the enemy. That kind of 'encouragement' can be seen in the Pentecostal movement I believe, where spiritual warfare almost always results in the Pentecostal mode of "speaking in tongues". The Devil is actually drawn close at the very time they imagine he has fled.