“A time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace” (Eccl. 3:8).

“From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force” (Matthew 11:12, ESV).

As a person examines violence as a concept, virtue and violence seem to be antithetical. If something is violent it is not virtuous and visa versa. Generations of Americans conditioned to idolize human autonomy, egalitarianism, and grace to the exclusion of almost any other aspect of theology often view any idea of God that would sanction force by one group over another as inherently evil.

Contrary to 21st century demure, the Bible is filled with violence. So, when a person reads where Jesus may not only approve of violence but calls for the use of it, like in Matthew 11:12, we are either startled or blithely read past it with a shrug of the shoulders, “Well it must not really mean that.” Yet, this is but one of a host of scriptures that not only exemplifies violence, but sanctions it.

In our culture, it is difficult to divorce any form of aggression toward another human being as being anything other than morally wrong. Exerting force on the unwilling is perceived as bullying. Forcing someone to act against his or her will has all kinds of felony criminal ramifications – kidnapping, enslavement, unlawful imprisonment, et al. So, it is extremely difficult for us to extract any virtue from violence.

Today, we use the term most often to refer to domestic violence. So, we associate it with extreme physical or verbal abuse. There is a tinge of immorality associated and a certain out-of-control aspect that creates havoc to those who experience it. Some may go even further and envision demonstrations of power that are devastating and indiscriminate, like nuclear bombs. Whether someone thinks in terms of a lack of morality or indiscriminate overwhelming power, they have not clearly grasped the kingdom of God’s brand of violence.

In the West, we drink violence like water. Through all manner of media, a steady diet of macabre images dull the senses over time. Diminished affection and cool detachment make us emotionally impotent when hearing about violence in the Semitic world. What should startle and disgust us, we yawn with a detached indifference.

Without belaboring the uses of the Greek word, Biazo, during the time of Jesus, the common vernacular of the day always referred to some kind of force being exerted. It was used in connotations of goodness, oppress wrongdoing, and freedom by the likes of Thucydides, Josephus, Plutarch, and Philo. They used it broadly to mean to “forcibly enter into something” (Bauer et al., 1957, p. 140). The inspired use in Matthew 11 as well as other narratives, proverbs, and other literary devices referring to the kingdom, reveal that kingdom violence enforces God’s rule. So, notions of some out-of-control, malevolent force needs to be fully dispensed with when referring to this kind of violence.

Yet in the Biblical narratives, not only do we read accounts of people deemed wicked who force violence upon both the good and bad, but people declared righteous executing violence against both the good and bad. Just a cursory skimming of the texts show Cain murdering Abel (Genesis 4), Dinah raped (Gen. 34), an entire army drowned (Exodus 14), religious leaders who slaughtered brothers, friends, and neighbors (Exodus 32), multiple accounts of genocide to include human sacrifice and dismemberment of a concubine (Judges 1-12, 19), and David stealing another man’s wife and arranging his death (II Sam. 11:14-15). As violence drips from every account, some events are sanctioned by God while others condemned.

Some condemnations of violence are not addressed toward specific events, but the general tenor altogether. God condemns those who “drink the wine of violence,” “have an appetite for violence,” fill “the towns with violence,” “employ violence,” and “fill their master’s house with violence” (Prov. 4:17, 13:2; Hab. 2:17; Hos. 4:2; Zeph. 1:9). The explanation as to why early in human history that God eradicated the entire human race, except Noah and his family was because of corruption and “the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11). Moreover, the Psalmist affirms that the “one who loves violence His soul hates” (Psalms 11:5). Not only does God hate their ways, He hates them! Keil and Delitzsch (1980/1892) notes of this passage, “He hates him with all the energy of His perfectly and essentially holy nature” (p. 189).

By asserting that the kingdom suffers violence, Matthew is not pointing to those who aggressively pursue it as the ones to whom the kingdom yields. The text refers to John the Baptist and Jesus as the agents who are ushering in the kingdom (Matt. 11:12). The word “violence” can be read in the passive or active-middle voices because the word is the same, Biazetai, meaning either “the kingdom is brought forward powerfully [violently]” or “the kingdom itself comes forward powerfully [violently]” (Lenski, 1961, p. 437). The ESV, NAS, NIV, and KJV translators all chose the passive voice as the more correct one. But either way, it speaks of an invasion of a heavenly royal order that is causing violent upheaval toward all opposition toward God’s rightful rule. The same root word was used in Acts 2:2, as the disciples were praying in the upper room and came the sound of a violent (Biaias) wind that filled all the house. This exemplifies the use of the term is not limited to human confrontations. When the Holy Spirit comes in power, kingdom violence (i.e. “force”) occurs.

Both John the Baptist and Jesus announced the dropping of a plumb-line that would mark a clear discontinuity between a previous age and the new manner in which God’s sovereignty would now be employed and understood. Along with this fundamental paradigm shift came too many acts of violence to be chronicled in the Bible itself, much less a brief essay (John 21:25). Snapshots include John the Baptist beheading (Mark 6), John’s brother James murdered (Acts 12:2), Judas’ hanging himself (Matthew 27; Acts 1), and the most horrific torture in human history – Jesus crucified (Mark 16).

With the ushering in of this kingdom, demons were cast out, ekballo, meaning “hurled or thrown out,” not politely excused), illnesses upended, death overthrown, powerful rulers opposed, the poor fed, and weak strengthened. As his disciples continued the work, their antagonists levied charges against them that they had “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6). This kingdom brought overpowering force to dark powers, miraculous force to the natural order, and forces of redemption and judgment on human beings. Kingdom violence.

Jesus never envisioned a love-fest where all of humanity holds hands and sings, “We are the world….” He revealed that his worldview was fundamentally kingdoms in conflict when he said, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34-36). The line of demarcation widened with comments like, “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you… I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you” (Jn. 15:18-19). Furthermore, you are blessed when they hate you (Lu. 6:22).

When we think of Jesus, violence is probably the last adjective we’d attribute to him. Those of us raised on hymnology sang, “Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, Look upon a little child…” Yet, he casts the oracular “woe” (i.e., curses) on the religious leaders and spoke derogatory names directly at them – “hypocrites,” “fools,” “son of hell,” “whitewashed tombs,” “brood of vipers,” and “murderers” (Matt. 23). If one may rightly assume that his words contained power, it is reasonable to attribute these as expressions of kingdom force or violence.

Christians like to vilify the leaders of the day who opposed Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah by adopting a “serves them right” attitude. But in order to cultivate a little empathy and humility, consider this. Those being disparaged were someone’s child and/or a child’s parent. They were conditioned by their culture and probably had some appealing character-traits as well as failings. They may have been enjoyable at parties, had a sense of humor, and cared for their circle of friends. They were mere humans being called, “a son of hell.”

Yet, Jesus was not unfairly tarnishing their reputations. He was telling the harsh, unvarnished truth about what lurked in their hearts, minds, and behavior. He rightly hurled invectives directly at them. His brand of truth-telling was a kind of force.

While on earth, Jesus not only exerted force upon dark powers and the natural order, but human beings. Most notably, he turned over tables of money changers, and whipped them out of the temple (John 2:13-16). This is not the behavior we expect from the refined, genteel metro-male in which we like to portray him. As C. S. Lewis portrayed, Jesus was not a tamed animal like a dog, but a wildly powerful lion that cannot be tamed (Lewis, 2001).

As one turns to the apostle John’s account in Revelations 19, it is startling to see him riding a white horse, “judging and waging war.” His eyes are “like a blazing fire” and his robe “dipped in blood.” If that were not enough of a terrifying picture, “from his mouth proceeds a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations.” He “tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.” And on his robe and thigh are written “King of kings and Lord of lords.” The One indisputable potentate. An overwhelming force imposed upon a hostile world-order, not subjected to the whims, opinions, or aspirations of fallen humanity. Kingdom violence.

The upside-downed ethics of the kingdom outlined by Jesus to his followers upended the morality of the day. Over and over he referred to the moral code of the Judaizers, then replaced it with laws of His kingdom. Disciples were not to hate the world back, not even their enemies (Matt. 5:43). They were not to “resist an evil person,” but “turn the other [cheek]” should they be slapped (Matthew 5:39).

Still, allegiance to the kingdom was quite different. In comparing the most cherished filial relationships to following Christ, it should be as though the disciple “hate” them (Lu. 14:26). Likewise, they should have that same contempt for their own souls by contrast. If they do not, they “cannot” be his disciple. In effect, these were non-negotiable terms for citizenship in this new order – the total abandonment of all allegiance to the old world-order. A violent overthrow of social norms and conventional wisdom.

Furthermore, he tells his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords (Lu. 22:36). Before you imagine the hum of spinning swords from wild-eyed John-Brown-type vigilantes who are charging on snorting horses and beheading enemies of Christ, consider the context.

I cannot infer that Jesus was being metaphorical, referring to a spiritual sword, like that of some commentators. Contrary to Pope Boniface VIII’s bull, Unam Sanctam, there is no indication in the text itself that it symbolizes temporal and spiritual authority of the church. Neither can I claim that Jesus was affirming the basic human right to self-defense. Nor, can I assert that Jesus was deferring to their fear as a human weakness, much like allowing for divorce because of hardness of heart (Mk. 10:5). Although that speculation may reconcile the text with other passages that indicate non-violent responses to hostility, nothing actually in the text suggests any of these.

What is clear is that Jesus’ entourage is headed into hostile territory at the Mount of Olives. Jesus knew it quite well as he prayed in anguish and made note that “He was numbered with transgressors” in the next verse (Lu. 22:37). In Jesus’ conflicting-kingdoms motif, he was aware that his hour had come and Satanic forces were going to be unleashed. He was going to be subjected to these dark forces for a season. If the extent of his kenosis before the final Passion precluded him from knowing all of the ramifications of this hour, by telling them to “buy swords” he may have wanted to protect the disciples from being possible collateral damage caused by the free moral agency of wicked men.

Conjecture aside, though, it is important to note that when Peter uses a sword to protect Jesus, he is told to put it away. Also, Jesus immediately healed the soldier’s ear. Further, he said, “Those who use the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:51-52). So, it cannot be inferred by this brief side-note to the narrative that he was endorsing arbitrary use of weaponry.

It is well-documented that both during and after the accounts in the Bible, all of the apostles were horrifically tortured and/or murdered. Their followers were stoned, tortured, torn to pieces by animals, murdered, and left destitute in exile. They were doused in oil, hung on spikes, and lit on fire to serve as human candles for Nero’s parties. Tyrants were driven to madness at the ushering in of Christ’s kingdom.

It is clear that neither Jesus nor the apostles thought of the world as reluctant friends who agree to observe a mutually agreed upon truce and moral framework in the interest of being civilized. They portray it as being diametrically opposed, pitted totally against the interest of Christ and his kingdom.

Their worldview attested that the believer is being thrust into a kingdom conflagration of cosmic proportions. It is not restricted to a spiritual realm, as they were neither Gnostics nor Manicheans. There are no demilitarized zones, no safe-havens. It encompasses all of reality, all that exists. It is a life or death, no holds barred war.

Throughout Luke’s account in Acts, violent forces continue after Christ’s ascension. The cowardly were emboldened. Christian leaders were arrested multiple times and then supernaturally released by angels or other miraculous acts. Both civic and religious rulers were boldly rebuked, opposed, and disobeyed. Multiplied thousands were liberated from unbelief and granted saving faith. Ananias and Sapphira immediately died for lying to the Holy Spirit. Hundreds if not thousands of sick were healed. Demons, “crying out with a loud voice” were expelled (Acts 8:7). Dead persons were raised to life. Christians saw visions of the risen Christ upon martyrdom. The overwhelming force of the kingdom through the power of the Holy Spirit continued to upend the old world order and enforce the titular rights of King Jesus. Violence.

Further, endorsements of various kinds toward the use of violence are employed by the apostles of Christ. Paul called Elymas a “son of the devil” and “enemy of all righteousness” (Acts 13:10). Subsequently, the man was struck blind when trying to refrain a proconsul from believing the gospel. Paul wished his opponents castrated (Galatians 5). He called a category of persons as “evil seducers” (II Tim. 3:13-17).
Paul boldly told Governor Felix that he will be judged by God (Acts 2:25). King Herod immediately was struck by an angel because he did not give glory to God, was eaten by worms, and died (Acts 12:23). Kingdoms in conflict… duality… justice… violence.

Jesus assumed all authority after his Passion in both heaven and earth (Matt. 28). In turn, he gave incredible authority to his church, entrusting them with the “keys of the kingdom” such that whatever they bind or loose on earth is bound or loosed in the heavens (Matt. 18). In concert with the church’s authority to bind and loose things on earth, Paul excommunicates someone and turns him “over to Satan” to destroy his flesh (I Cor. 7; Matt. 16:19). This is not a mere disfellowship like someone being removed from the Kiwanis Club. It was an unleashing of dark powers that are normally prevented from ravaging those in right fellowship with Christ and His church.

Although Paul clearly states that “we wrestle not against flesh and blood,” he is not erstwhile taking humanity or the material world off the table. He notes that “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men…” (Rom. 1:18). This is a far cry from Bill Bright’s Four Spiritual Laws, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” It is more akin to “God is angry at you and is actively opposing all of the bad things you do.” Conflict. Violence.

Moreover, Paul chastises believers for their lack of judgment regarding the affairs of the church when they will be authorized and commissioned to “judge the world” (I Cor. 6:2). If this conflict did not include human beings, how would the Ephesians 6:12 admonition make any sense?

It seems more in keeping with other passages. Here, Paul is not saying that we refrain from conflict with fallen human beings at all. It seems to indicate that he is pointing to spiritual forces that animate them as the ultimate source of the conflict. In effect, as believers aspire to align with the Holy Spirit, these enemies of Christ confederate with cosmic evil forces.

Though prominent in the records, Paul was not alone. In describing people who reject reason, Peter stated, “They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed…” (II Peter 2:12). Jude also compares them to “unreasoning animals,” “clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever” (Jude 10, 12-13). All the while, these despicable people were cavorting with genuine believers.

These are hardly kind comments about others with whom we may disagree. Beyond harsh rhetoric, the apostolic admonition was to take care not to follow them since they are headed for certain destruction, build up yourselves, pray in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, have mercy on doubters, deliver others by “snatching them” out of the fire (II Peter 3:17; Jude 20-23). “Snatch” them. A biblical use for exercising force to safeguard believers.

Dabney, R. L. (1972). Lectures in systematic theology. Zondervan.

Derrida, J. (1997). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). John Hopkins University Press.

Goldman, A. I. (1999). Epistemology and postmodern resistance. Knowledge in a social world, 3-40.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Harper.

Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great: How religion poisons everything. Twelve.

Hodge, C. (2014). Systematic theology. Ravenio Books.

Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1980/1892). Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 5). Eerdmans.

Kioupkiolis, A., &

Katsambekis, G. (2016). Radical democracy and collective movements today: The biopolitics of the multitude versus the hegemony of the people. Routledge.

Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St Matthew’ Gospel (Vol. 1). Augsburg Publishing House.

Lewis, C. S. (2001). Mere christianity. Zondervan.

Luther, M. (2002/1528). On war against the Turk. http://www.lutherdansk.dk/On%20war%20against%20Islamic%20reign%20of%20terror/On%20war%20against%20Islamic%20reign%20of%20terror1.htm

Lyotard, J.-F. (1993). The postmodern explained: correspondence, 1982-1985. U of Minnesota Press.

Maher, B., & Charles, L. (2008). Religulous. Lionsgate.

Metaxas, E. (2010). Bonhoeffer: Pastor, martyr, prophet, spy. Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Murray, J. (1957). Principles of conduct: aspects of biblical ethics. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Nietzsche, F. W. (2004). Ecce homo: How one becomes what one is (T. Wayne, Trans.). Algora Publishing.

Rutherford, S. (1644). Lex, Rex. Sprinkle Publications.

Schaeffer, F. A. (1968). The God who is there; speaking historic Christianity into the twentieth century. Inter-varsity Press.

Turrettini, F. (1992/1685). Institutes of elenctic theology. Puritan & Reformed Publishers.

Vattimo, G. (1988). The end of modernity: Nihilism and hermeneutics in post-modern culture.

Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical investigations (3d ed.). Macmillan.