The Kingdom of God is within You?

December 26th, 2007 by Sean

Luke 17.21-22
20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

This verse has been used to demonstrate that the kingdom of which Jesus spoke constantly was not actually a political kingdom but rather something spiritual inside the Christian (i.e. Jesus reigns in my heart). We have addressed this verse before on this blog (click here). Here is another explanation of this verse that I find quite compelling.

Jesus Before Christianity
by Albert Nolan, pages 58-59, 1992

Many Christians have been misled for centuries about the nature of God’s “kingdom” by the well-known mistranslation of Lk 17:21: “The kingdom of God is within you.” Today all serious scholars and translators agree that the text should be read: “The kingdom of God is among you or in your midst.” The Greek word entos can mean “within” or “among” but in the presenyt context to translate it “within” would mean that in answer to the Pharisees’ question about when the “kingdom” of God would come (17:20) Jesus told them that the “kingdom” of God was within them! This would contradict everything else Jesus ever said about the “kingdom” or about the Pharisees. Moreover, since every other reference to the “kingdom” presupposes that it is yet to come and since the verb in every other clause in this passage (17:20-37) is in the future tense, this verse must be understood to mean that one day they will find that the “kingdom” of God is suddenly and unexpectedly in their midst.

The “kingdom” of God, like any other kingdom, cannot be within a person; it is something which a person can live. Somewhere in the background behind Jesus’ use of the term “kingdom of God” there is a pictorial image. He speaks of people entering into the “kingdom” (Mk 9:47; 10:15, 23, 24, 25, parr; Mt 5:20; 7:21; 18:3; 21:31; 23:13; Jn 3:5). They can sit down in it and eat and drink in it (Mk 14:25; Mt 8:11-12 par; Lk 22:30). The “kingdom” has a door or a gate (Mt 7:13, 14; Lk 13:24) on which one can knock (Mt 7:7-8 par; 25:10-12 par). It also has keys (Mt 16:19; Lk 11:52) and can be locked (Mt 23:13; Lk 13:25). The pictorial image behind this is obviously that of a house or a walled city.

…The fact that his way of speaking about the “kingdom” is based upon a pictorial image of a house, a city or a community leaves no doubt about what he had in mind: a politically structured society of people here on earth. A “kingdom” is a thoroughly political notion. It is a society in which the political structure is monarchical, that is to say, it is ruled and governed by a king. Nothing that Jesus ever said would lead one to think that he might have used this term in a non-political sense.

This quotation was written by Albert Nolan in 1976. His book, Jesus Before Christianity has gone through six printings and still sells in bookstores today. Albert Nolan is a native South African who worked with others to liberate the oppressed victims of Apartheid. He is a Dominican priest. This portion of his book can be found on page 58-59 of the 1992 version of his book.

15 Responses to “The Kingdom of God is within You?”

  1. on 27 Dec 2007 at 1:53 am1 Wolfgang

    Hi Sean,

    this author nicely words what one could call the justification for the Roman Catholic kingdom … or other “church kingdoms” …

    I agree, that Jesus obviously was not speaking about “God reigns within your [the Pharisees’] heart” … he was speaking about himself exercising God’s rule even at that time, which is more clearly stated when Jesus explained some more about him casting out devils and doing other healings (cp. Lk 11:20)

    The “kingdom of God” is about “THE RULE” of God, and not about a nation, a country in a political sense with a political monarchical structured society over which a political king reigns … God rules in His kingdom (sphere of influence) and as Jesus was exercising the authority God had given him, God’s rule was seen and felt and it was “among them” and had “come upon them” as he exercised that authority and was performing miracles of healing, etc. … it had nothing to do with Jesus acting as a “political leader”.

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  2. on 27 Dec 2007 at 11:26 am2 JohnO

    So then, in your view, the Kingdom of God has absolutely nothing to do with apocalyptic, or eschatalogical thoughts about restoring the Kingdom of David? Even though Jesus and John the Baptist both use eschatalogical and apocalyptic terms, and Jesus is also called the son of God, a royal title, and the Messiah, another royal title specifically linked to restoring the throne of David? You’re saying that these terms linked with concrete Jewish thoughts mean absolutely nothing when we talk about Jesus?

  3. on 27 Dec 2007 at 1:49 pm3 Wolfgang

    Hi John,

    did Jesus affirm that the kingdom of God was already “among them” and “upon them” as seen in his miraculous ministry and specifically him casting out devils? if he did, was he telling the truth or was he mistaken and should have told them that he would come back in some undefined future day to set up another political state of Israel?

    I am saying one should be careful with what one calls “Jewish thoughts” when it comes to correctly understanding the scriptures … it may just not be such a good idea to follow wrong expectations and ideas as held by the Jews at the time of Jesus (or even many centuries since), seeing that Jesus quite often confronted them concerning their wrong ideas about the Messiah, the kingdom, etc …

    I am also saying one should keep the overall scope of the various covenants in view when trying to understand how the new relates to the old … and how things in the physical realm during the old covenant age were foreshadows etc of the spiritual realities of the new covenant age …

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  4. on 27 Dec 2007 at 5:45 pm4 JohnO

    The historical studies and ancient texts do well to tell us about “Jewish thoughts”. And contrary to what is commonly thought, the concept of Messiah was no where near universally agreed upon. All scholars tell us that Jesus falls into the concept of Messiah acceptably in his ministry. The only unexpected events were the Messiah dying, and his subsequent resurrection in history, which we’ve talked about a great deal before.

    I’m curious if you’ve been reading Sean and my posts about this very passage that go against your view. You’ve not brought any evidence or support for your side, other than your dogged insistence that you are correct.

  5. on 27 Dec 2007 at 7:12 pm5 Dustin Smith

    Wolfgang, what text teaches us that Jesus casted out “devils?”

    Dustin

  6. on 28 Dec 2007 at 11:51 am6 Wolfgang

    Hi Dustin,

    here’s the verse Lk 11:20 again (mentioned already in my initial reply to Sean above)

    Lk 11:20 (KJV)
    But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

    I did utilize KJV English in my earlier remarks … if you prefer some other translation which does not use the word “devils” but “demons” or words it another way, feel free to do so and - please - just adjust my wording accordingly …

    Perhaps you want to make a point of “But IF I …” and say that Jesus never actually DID do what he mentions ? IF so, I’d say that there are quite a number of scriptures in the gospels which make reference to Jesus doing various healings of folks who are said to have been “possessed by devil” / “had an uncleen spirit” / etc …

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  7. on 28 Dec 2007 at 11:54 am7 Wolfgang

    Hi John,

    I’ve read some of your posts on this passage and other passages … any “evidence or support” for a different position from yours is simply “not heard” by you … :-)

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  8. on 29 Dec 2007 at 10:01 pm8 Dustin Smith

    Just making the point that “devils” is not what the Greek reveals, since the post is about what does the text honestly say. Maybe your KJV of luke 17:21 holds the key to the error in thinking.

    Dustin

  9. on 29 Dec 2007 at 11:58 pm9 JohnO

    Wolfgang,

    I’ve not heard any compelling evidence whatsoever towards another understanding of “kingdom”. Nothing that resonates with a Jewish construct of return to Davidic Kingdom, which is what all Jewish people looked toward, which Jesus was the key to (see the Magnificat in Luke). Even NT Wright’s meta-narrative of exodus seems to be lacking in our view, no offense Karen, we love NT too :)

  10. on 31 Dec 2007 at 8:07 am10 Karen

    “Even NT Wright’s meta-narrative of exodus seems to be lacking in our view, no offense Karen, we love NT too”

    Heh - no offense taken. His exodus theme is one of the few areas where I disagree with him, because I think he stretches scripture in a number of places in order to accommodate it.

  11. on 31 Dec 2007 at 9:55 am11 Sean

    Indeed, but we I do agree that the biblical thought world lends itself much more naturally to a grand narrative or even a set of poignant stories over the typical systematic theology approach that we usually take. I don’t think there is anything wrong with isolating all the verses on a particular doctrine in order to determine one’s belief on that point, but the problem with it is that one must necessarily take each verse out of context in order to do it. Stories work differently. They are more powerful because one can to some degree experience a story in a way that one cannot experience a creed. The key is to get the right story.

    The traditional evangelical story goes something like this.
    About 6,000 years ago the triune God who always existed in harmony with himself (themselves?) decided he (they?) wanted to share his (their?) love. Therefore, God created the heavens and the earth. From the beginning God knew exactly who would obey and who would not (and everything else for that matter) and yet humankind was given the choice to live in harmony with God and enjoy him or eat from the forbidden tree. Satan duped Eve & Adam, but no worry because God saw it coming from a long way off and at this point began to reveal his plan (Gen 3.15). As time progressed several important people came along (Noah, Abraham, Israel, Joseph, David, Solomon, the Prophets, etc.). They lived their lives but no one was found who could atone for the sins of the world.

    Then about 2,000 years ago God himself (the 2nd member of the trinity) humbled himself by taking human flesh in an incarnation. He came and lived among us as a human and even died on the cross. Thus, God took his own medicine; the son was crushed by the Father who poured out his wrath on him that we all deserved. Following his 3 day separation from his body, God the son came was reunited with a glorified human body never to die again. (Some more mythical versions of the story insert here a scene where Jesus goes to hell–the burning place under the earth–defeats Satan and takes the keys from him of death).

    Jesus then ascended to heaven (where he belongs) in triumph to be reunited with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The downside for the Son is that he cannot undo the incarnation, but this is his greatest demonstration of love towards us; he is permanently embodied so he can relate to us better (and die for the sins, etc.). When the believer dies, his separable, immortal, immaterial, soul ascends to heaven to enjoy the presence of the trinity forever. Eventually Jesus will come back to earth to rapture the church so they don’t have to experience the tribulation. At this point those who were in heaven are given the same type of glorified body that Jesus has. Then we live happily ever after.

    How do you think the biblical story goes?

  12. on 31 Dec 2007 at 10:15 am12 JohnO

    The other problem with using a meta-narrative/story approach is that a story can be very compelling but not sufficiently handle all the evidence. Unfortunately the history and future of creation is complex, and requires a complex explanation (not that the basic ideas aren’t simple, there are just a lot of them).

    For instance, I just finished reading Boyd’s “The Myth of a Christian Nation” - and he has many powerful things to say which are true. However, they are put within a story that does not take into account all the evidence. In his story, Jesus’ coming in judgment at his return would be totally contradictory to his main thesis. So, he can’t talk about that at all. And I can only wonder what he would do with those verses.

    On the other hand NT’s exodus as grand-narrative tries to take into account all the data, we just don’t see that there is enough direct data to support it. Many pitfalls occur in this search for the story.

  13. on 31 Dec 2007 at 11:58 am13 Karen

    The other problem with using a meta-narrative/story approach is that a story can be very compelling but not sufficiently handle all the evidence.

    I think we need both approaches: for those of us with systematic minds, the story can present another way of understanding what God is doing in Christ (which is why I’m so bowled over by NTW - his writings re-energized my faith). For those of us who are more drawn to narrative and the ‘big picture’ story, a systematic approach can sharpen our thinking.

    And that’s why no one can have it all right - the truth is larger than any of us thinks, and parts of it are beyond our grasp (we see through a glass, darkly). In the end all will be revealed in the light of Jesus Christ.

  14. on 31 Dec 2007 at 12:16 pm14 JohnO

    Well, I think the biggest problem with Systematic is that it has the side-affect of reducing faith to believing propositions. Faith, the Gospel, the Kingdom, and Jesus are not propositions.

  15. on 01 Jan 2008 at 12:03 pm15 Dustin Smith

    Well said Obo, well said. Some of my academic friends could use to hear that.

    Although, the writters of the NT did proof-text to make their points =)

    Dustin

Leave a Reply