Violence
Violence
Violence (Lat. vis), an impulse from without tending to force one without any concurrence on his part to act against his choice. The stimulus or moving cause must come from without; no one can do violence to himself. The person compelled to act or to abstain from action not only does not assist this external force but resists and as far as possible strives against it: if he is merely indifferent, there is no violence. Violence cannot affect the will directly, i.e. the elicited acts of the will, since it is contrary to the essential notion of an act to the will that is should not be free. Acts however that are merely commanded by the will and exercised through the medium of some other faculty, internal or external, may be coerced, since these faculties may be impeded by violence from putting into execution the behests of the will. Not only elicited acts of the will, but likewise acts commanded by the will, are called voluntary. Since, then, acts commanded by the will may suffer violence, violence to that extent causes involuntariness and freedom from imputability. It is apparent that in so far as coercion is irresistible, the agent is not responsible for the external act resulting. Volition, and consequently imputability, proceeds from an internal principle; violence from without. Violence that is not absolute may be weakened or overcome by resistance: the more vehement it is, the more is our freedom limited. He, then, who can, by resisting, repel violence and does not, at least indirectly, desires to suffer violence. If the will yield a reluctant but nevertheless real consent, we are culpable, though in a less degree than if there had been no reluctance. Often fear and force go hand in hand, since not infrequently force begets fear, but they are not to be confounded. In what is done through violence the will is quiescent, but in what is done through fear the will is active. An act performed through fear is voluntary in the concrete, involuntary in the abstract, i.e. it is willed under the circumstances, but in itself it is not desired. [See FEAR; IMPEDIMENTS, CANONICAL (vis et metus), VII, 698a.]
———————————–
ANDREW B. MEEHAN Transcribed by Dave Ofstead
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Violence
VIOLENCE.In Luk 3:14 part of the advice given by John the Baptist to the soldiers was, Do violence to no man ( ), the verb meaning, like concutio in juridical Latin, to extort from one by intimidation money or other property (Grimm-Thayer). The word occurs again in Mat 11:12, where the adjective violent is also found in Authorized Version . The adverb violently appears in Luk 8:33 Authorized Version , the herd ran violently () down a steep place, and in Luk 16:16 Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 , every man entereth violently into it (). Interest centres chiefly on the two passages Mat 11:12 and Luk 16:16, which are so much alike, though in different contexts, that they are obviously two versions of the same saying. We place them side by side in order that they may be more easily compared.
Mat 11:12-13.Luk 16:16.
(a) (Mat 11:13).() .
(b) .() .
(c) .() .
(d) .() .
It is evident that a, b, d closely correspond to , , ; why, then, should not c be taken to convey the same idea as ? This is the view of Melanchthon, Stier, Banks, and others, who hold that in Mt. is the Middle voice, as it undoubtedly is in the last clause of Luke. The translation will then be, the kingdom of heaven advanceth violently, it forcibly introduces itself, coming with urgency and beating down all obstacles, sese vi quasi obtrudit (Bengel, who adds saepe LXX Septuagint ponunt, vim adhibeo). This is quite in keeping with the context, where Christ is extolling the work which John the Baptist had done as a pioneer and forerunner (cf. Mat 3:5 f., Mar 1:5, Luk 7:29). It may be illustrated by the parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (Mat 13:31-33), and it has the great advantage of conveying the same sense as the parallel clause in Lk. the kingdom of God is preached. The only serious objection urged against such a rendering by Meyer, Alford, and Bruce (in Expos. Gr. Test.) is that it would be inconsistent with the words followingthe violent take it by force. Is there necessarily any inconsistency, however? May we not have here one of those passages where by a slight change in the expression, by a turning of the coin, as it were, a new and complementary truth is conveyed? Would there be any inconsistency if one were to say the train is advancing quickly, and those who are quick succeed in entering it? On the other hand, the translation of the Authorized and Revised Versions is open to the charge of being tautological.
is, however, usually taken as Passive in Mat 11:12 (suffereth violence, Authorized Version and Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ; is gotten by force, AVm [Note: Vm Authorized Version margin.] ; vim patitur, Vulgate ; , Hesychius). The image may be taken from the storming of a city or from forcing an entrance through an opposing army: the word is used in Thucyd. Hist. vii. 70, 72, of the Athenian fleet forcing its way out of Syracuse ( ), and in Xen. Hell. [Note: Hellenistic.] v. ii. 23, of cities forced into a union ( ).
The further question now arises, From whom does the violence proceed? and three answers are possible: (1) from true disciples, (2) from other aspirants, (3) from enemies, e.g. the scribes and Pharisees. If the last be adopted, the meaning will then be, the kingdom of heaven is violently resisted, is crushed, and violent men tear it to pieces. So Dalman explains the passage (see below), and similarly Hilgenfeld in Mt. (is violently crushed), but he would render in Lk. every man is constrained by the gospel, taking as Passive). This, however, is partly an anachronism, for the imprisonment of John hardly justifies such strong language, and is partly forbidden by the connexion with v. 13 and with what goes before (see Meyers note). Non est h. l. querela de vi mala, nam querela incipit versu 16 (Bengel). The subject is not the resistance made to the kingdom of heaven, but the difference between a prophesied and a present kingdom of heaven (Alford). The second answer is based on the supposition that Jesus here meant to rebuke a wrong method, not to commend a right one, and expressed disapproval of the violence of those who, misled by the free invitations of the gospel, were inclined to force an entrance, disregarding the requirements of the Law. In its favour it may be urged that this explanation admirably snits the difficult context of Luk 16:16 and the use of , every man entereth violently into it. Jesus shows in v. 17 f. that the same orderly methods were to obtain in the Kingdom as under the Law; so much so that the Law itself might be said to be maintained in every detail. The Gospel was not a release from, but a deepening and widening and spiritualizing of the Laws requirements (Canon Bindley, who advocates this view in a paper entitled The Method of the Christ, Expos. Times, Feb. 1905).
The first answer, however, is preferred by most commentators, viz. that the are the disciples who seek a share in the Heavenly Kingdom with ardent zeal and intensest exertions, who strive to obtain its privileges with the utmost eagerness and effort (Grimm-Thayer), men of violence (Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ; there is no art. in the Greek), violent men (Wycl. [Note: Wyclifs Bible (NT c. 1380, OT c. 1382, Purveys Revision c. 1388).] ), they that go to it with violence (Tind. [Note: Tindales NT 1526 and 1534, Pent. 1530.] ), the violent (Authorized Version , Cran. [Note: Cranmers Great Bible 1539.] , Gen. [Note: Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560.] , Rhem. [Note: Rhemish NT 1582.] ), (Chrys.). Like the publicans and sinners, like Zacchaeus, they take the Kingdom by force, they drag it to themselves (, cf. Joh 6:15), they clutch at it like spoils and make it their own, ut raptim, celerrima vi, perruptis obstaculis, ad se redigant bonum in medio positum (Bengel). This explanation agrees best with Pindars use of the similar word , which has always a good sense (Meyer), mighty, strong, and closely corresponds to Lukes , entereth violently into it (Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ), vi ingruit pia (Bengel); presseth into it (Authorized Version ) is too weak. The hindrances are like a hostile army round a city which must be broken through with force; the same strenuous effort is required which is commanded in such passages as strive () to enter in by the narrow door (Luk 13:24), ask, seek, and knock (Mat 7:7), fight the good fight of the faith (, 1Ti 6:12), so run that ye may attain (1Co 9:24), contend earnestly for the faith (, Jud 1:3). Every man () is perhaps emphatic, showing that the Pharisees and the scribes must no longer look on the Kingdom as the exclusive possession of their nation or class; it was open to all nations, and might be entered by even the lowest men, though it would appear from the warning of the following verses that not all would seek it in the right spirit. Jesus uses this strong figurative expression of violence and seizure, which in their peculiar meaning were applied to the unjust, forcible appropriation of others goods, not because He finds the point of analogy in the injustice and violence, as if men could appropriate a share in the Kingdom of God in opposition to the Divine will, but because He sought to lay stress upon the necessity of urgent energetic laying hold of a good to which they can make no claim. It is of no avail in regard to the Kingdom of God to wait idly, as in other cases men may take a waiting attitude in regard to a gift; nor does it avail to seek laboriously to earn it: but it does avail energetically to lay hold of and to retain it. It is ready as a gift of God for men, but men must direct their desire and will towards it (Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, ii. 49, English translation ). It is possible, however, to take the words as a description rather than as a commendation of the disciples, and to find in them a reference to those earthly ideas of the Messianic Kingdom which even the Apostles held until the day of the Ascension (cf. Act 1:6).
Dalman (The Words of Jesus, pp. 139143, English translation ) in an important section, the substance of which is here transcribed, seeks to find the probable Aramaic antecedent of . A. Meyer suggests , cf. Dan 7:18; Dan 7:22; but this would mean merely to take possession of, and would hardly cause one writing in. Greek to use . He finds a better equivalent in , which means in Peal to be strong, in Aphel to hold fast; in Deu 22:25, Onkelos has for Heb. , while the LXX Septuagint renders by . It is important to remember that has no Passive; from this it would follow that the Passive , is not derived immediately from an Aramaic prototype. A solution more in conformity with the Greek may be arrived at provided he made the starting-point, for it can mean to use force and to rob. The text (Mat 11:12) thus refers to that period of the theocracy (i.e. the Kingdom of God) which was introduced by the imprisonment of John the Baptist; it is its peculiarity that the theocracy suffers violence, not, of course, from believers, but from those in authority. The words () are not intended to suggest that the violent seize the theocracy, but merely that they maltreat it in the persons of its representatives. The utterance occurs in St. Luke in an entirely different connexion. According to him, it is applied in opposition to the Pharisees, who despised the admonition as to the right use of money. Jesus declared to them that the proclamation of the theocracy since the time of John made it possible for any one to intrude himself violently into it: nevertheless it was not their own estimate, but the judgment of God that decided who was worthy of entrance. The context, however, in Lk. may be pronounced peculiarly Greek. Neither the Passive nor is capable of being directly rendered into Aramaic, especially if is used.
If it be supposed, adds Dalman, that by using (Luk 16:15-18) sayings of our Lord which originally had quite a different association, Lk. obtains the transition to a new parable, it may be surmised that he has given to Luk 16:16 its present form to accommodate it to the context. The saying which Mt. and Lk. found in their sources made mention only of the violent treatment of the theocracy since the time of John. St. Luke thought of attempted entrance into it, and thus found it natural to insert it here. St. Matthew, with greater reason, understood it to refer to the violent treatment of the preachers of the theocracy, and therefore connected it with the answer of Jesus to John. Neither by Jesus nor by the Evangelists is it suggested that any one could actually appropriate the theocracy by force. Unless absolutely driven to it, we ought not to try to discover beneath these words an idea so distinctly at variance with the whole style of our Lords teaching.
Literature.In addition to the works cited above, a good article in Expos. Times, 189293, p. 510, by J. S. Banks, will be found useful. See also Expositor, i. iii. [1876] 252, v. [1877] 197, iv. vii. [1893] 224.
W. H. Dundas