The Kingdom Of God Is Within You, A Look at Luke 17.21 Options

[Asyncritus]

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU

“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Lu 17:21 AV)

We have all heard that the explanation of this single verse is that we are possessors of the Kingdom of God now. Allied to that, and probably the cause of it, is the view that since many of the Lord’s parables which begin with “the kingdom of heaven is like…” never actually say anything about the coming kingdom, but concentrate on the present instead, then the kingdom has got to be now.

This view suffers, and it may well be fatally, from the fact that in no single place in the OT that I can discover from the concordance, does the word ‘kingdom’ have any other meaning besides the usual one. That fact alone rings loud warning bells in my mind, and causes me to suspect that Greek ideas may be being imported here.

The view is fraught with difficulties from this technical point of view:
A ‘kingdom’ has to meet three requirements before it can be called a ‘kingdom’. Those requirements are:
1. A King 2. A People and 3. A Land/ Territory.

It does violence to language to say that a kingdom existed in the person of a king who was, say, in exile – irrespective of how many followers he had round him, and however loyal they were to him. Israel in Babylon is the prime example of this. They were deported. Their king was exiled. Their land was far away. The Kingdom had ceased to exist. (Anyone who told them that they possessed the kingdom while they were in Babylon would quite rightly be viewed as being slightly loopy).

He whose right it is came, but was violently rejected as King. He left and went into a far country, to wait the time when they would say “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord”. Then He will return, be enthroned, and the Kingdom will exist once more. It only exists now in prospect, to be viewed by the eye of faith. It is only when the King returns and is enthroned that the Kingdom can be said to exist. Till then, there is something else – but not a kingdom.

The Lord Himself says so: “He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.” (Lu 19:12 AV) This is a very revealing verse in this discussion. He Himself did not possess the kingdom while He was here: it was not His present possession – otherwise He would not have had to go away to receive it! Since He had to receive it, then He wasn’t the kingdom, nor did He possess it at the time.
If He didn’t, then, it is most unlikely that we possess it now.

The parallel with a king in exile is exact. We are, and can be His followers now, loving Him, living by the laws He has uttered. But to say that His kingdom exists now is to make nonsense of language.

How then can we say that the kingdom exists now? If it exists now, why does the King want to or have to come back, anyway?

So what about the passage from Luke quoted at the head of this article? And what about the present aspect of all those parables which begin with “the kingdom of heaven is like…”?

The germ of the solution comes from the realisation that the Lord and His apostles, frequently use shorthand expressions which we fail to recognise. Jargon, if you like. We do the same, and a classic example is our use of the expression “the Truth”. By that we mean ‘the system of beliefs held by Christadelphians worldwide’. Similarly, the ‘breaking of bread’ means ‘that meeting where we break bread, drink wine, sing hymns, pray and listen to words of exhortation.’ Shorthand, you see.

The NT writers do the same, and we see it in the use of such terms as ‘The Way,’ ‘The Church’, ‘The Faith’, the Spirit. I want to suggest that they often did the same with the expression ‘The kingdom of God / heaven’. What is more, they confidently expected that Joe-in-the-mud-hovel would easily understand what was meant, so it couldn’t be that difficult.Here is the verse which opened my eyes to the fact:

“For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Ro 14:17 AV)

I doubt if even our wildest expositors – or anybody else for that matter – would, or could ever say that the kingdom of God is food or drink. (Mind you, I may be tempting fate here!!!). No, it is pretty clear that he meant something else, something easily comprehensible to his readers, but which we may have lost after 2000 years. What exactly did he mean?

The context solves the problem. They were warring about what foods to eat, and what drinks to drink thinking that that would get them into the Kingdom of God. Somehow, this verse is intended to stop that dispute. So what does he mean? I will place the text in bold type and my attempts at explanation in (normal type and brackets).

“For (getting into) the kingdom of God is not (by eating or not eating certain kinds of) meat and (by drinking or not drinking certain kinds of) drink; but (by the imputed) righteousness (which comes from faith, and not from the works of the Law- such as eating or not eating), and (being at) peace (with God through Christ, and with one another), and joy in the (common fellowship created by the work of the) Holy Spirit (among you all).”

I regret the necessity for all the additions, but the meaning, I believe, is now clear, and is consistent with the context of the whole passage. The correct solution to the problem is probably somewhere along those lines, though others will no doubt be able to do better than this.

Using this as a template, maybe when the Lord uses the expression “The kingdom of God/ heaven is like…” He may mean “people getting into (or not getting into) the kingdom of God/ heaven is like…”

This one suggestion removes all of the difficulties at a stroke.

Think of the parables:

“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:” (Mt 13:24 AV)
This parable is about the things which prevent people entering the Kingdom of God.

“ Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:” (Mt 13:31 AV)
This one is about people who prevent others entering the Kingdom of God.

“ Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.” (Mt 13:33 AV) This one is about people who prevent others entering the Kingdom of God.

“ Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:” (Mt 13:44-45 AV)

Both of these are about what is necessary in order for people to enter the Kingdom of God

“ Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.” (Mt 25:1 AV)
This tells what disciples must do, or not do to enter the Kingdom of God

“ For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.” (Mt 25:14 AV)
This tells what disciples must do, or not do to enter the Kingdom of God.

Leaving the parables, we find that He preached that “…the Kingdom of heaven is at hand” (for example in Matt.4: 17). This clearly had two possible meanings in addition to the 'present possession' view:1 That if they accepted him as the Messiah and the Son of God, then the kingdom would be established there and then. This didn’t happen, therefore the second possibility and meaning of His words, in line with the suggestion made above, came into play:2 “The way for people to enter the Kingdom of heaven is at hand”. ie Jesus Himself, the Way, the Truth and the Life was right there, right then. Listen to me, or you will perish, He says. It is this second meaning which comes into force on many occasions.


The verse in Luke now becomes very straightforward: “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, ( the way for people to enter) the kingdom of God is within you.” (Lu 17:21 AV) So what does 'within' mean?

Grimm-Thayer’s Lexicon says that: “entos means within, inside: with genitive within you i.e. in the midst of you Lk17.21” They also say: “ within you (i.e. in your souls) is a meaning which the use of this word permits, but not the context.”End quote.

I was interested to read this, and then thought of the context. Who was Jesus talking to at the time? “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come…” The context rules firmly in favour of the interpretation I have advanced. Could the kingdom of God be inside/ within such people as these? So I understand Jesus to be saying to them: “Don’t waste time looking at whatever you look at (i.e. with observation) to find out when the kingdom is going to come. The time is not important: the really important point is how to get into it, and Behold! (The Way for you to get into…) the kingdom of God is standing in the midst of you now!!” i.e. that’s Me!

Viewed like this, all the difficulties vanish into thin air. We no longer need to say that we are present possessors of the kingdom of God with all the difficulties that concept brings. We hold the title-deeds, that's for certain (Heb.11.1 Faith is the substance “= title-deeds” of things hoped for). But to go further than that is unwise. Are we better than Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – all of whom ‘looked for a country’ which they have not yet received? If we think so, then haven’t we stepped completely out of the line of those who looked for the city whose builder and Maker is God? Is God going to make us perfect without them? Highly improbable, I would have thought..

Asyncritus

Here are a few other verses which may create the impression that they support the present possession view. Note how many physical/ political points are made:
“Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? [ ie the King of the political kingdom of Israel, the one we’re looking for?] But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. [No, say they. He doesn’t derive his power from the God of David. He derives his power from Beelzebub. That’s the wrong God] And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them [note the heavily loaded political and physical dimensions of the reply:] Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God [and I do!], THEN THE [way to get into the] KINGDOM OF GOD IS COME UNTO [not into!] YOU. [Because I - the Son of David, the Way, the Door, the One with the Keys - am here now]. Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.” (Mt 12:22-29 AV)

[Kremlin]

Have you considered that God told the Israelites that they were a kingdom to him, if they did what he asked of them. Exodus 19.

I think its clear that, whilst not in the ultimate sense that we understand "The Kingdom" to be (ie, the future age of glory when Jesus Christ will rule over the earth), the kingdom of God is actually within us in that sense - Jesus was saying the kingdom was there, because he was there (as the king of that kingdom). The kingdom is wherever God's will is done.

God's purpose is to fill the earth with his glory, so wherever his glory is being reflected (ie, his will/character shown) then that is where his purpose is being fulfilled and his kingdom is.

[Interpretum]

Hi Asyncritus

This is an excellent post.

You quoted Lu 19:12 AV: "He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return."

This is the reason JWs believe that Jesus took up his kingdom INVISIBLY, IN THE HEAVENS... before he returns at some future time.

Many Christians simply assume that the Kingdom begins upon his return... but this scripture shows that Jesus goes "into a far country" to RECEIVE FOR HIMSELF A KINGDOM... and THEN returns.

It's the equivalent of the king going away to receive the crown, and then returning to claim the actual land. When he receives the crown, he receives the legal right of kingship... but that's only good "on paper". Only when he actually returns from the "far country", can he actually start wielding power and kicking butt :-)

[JesusMyWisdom]

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU

“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Lu 17:21 AV)

We have all heard that the explanation of this single verse is that we are possessors of the Kingdom of God now. Allied to that, and probably the cause of it, is the view that since many of the Lord’s parables which begin with “the kingdom of heaven is like…” never actually say anything about the coming kingdom, but concentrate on the present instead, then the kingdom has got to be now.

This view suffers, and it may well be fatally, from the fact that in no single place in the OT that I can discover from the concordance, does the word ‘kingdom’ have any other meaning besides the usual one. That fact alone rings loud warning bells in my mind, and causes me to suspect that Greek ideas may be being imported here.

The view is fraught with difficulties from this technical point of view:
A ‘kingdom’ has to meet three requirements before it can be called a ‘kingdom’. Those requirements are:
1. A King  2. A People and  3. A Land/ Territory.

It does violence to language to say that a kingdom existed in the person of a king who was, say, in exile – irrespective of how many followers he had round him, and however loyal they were to him. Israel in Babylon is the prime example of this. They were deported. Their king was exiled. Their land was far away. The Kingdom had ceased to exist. (Anyone who told them that they possessed the kingdom while they were in Babylon would quite rightly be viewed as being slightly loopy).

He whose right it is came, but was violently rejected as King. He left and went into a far country, to wait the time when they would say “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord”. Then He will return, be enthroned, and the Kingdom will exist once more. It only exists now in prospect, to be viewed by the eye of faith. It is only when the King returns and is enthroned that the Kingdom can be said to exist. Till then, there is something else – but not a kingdom.

The Lord Himself says so: “He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.” (Lu 19:12 AV) This is a very revealing verse in this discussion. He Himself did not possess the kingdom while He was here: it was not His present possession – otherwise He would not have had to go away to receive it!  Since He had to receive it, then He wasn’t the kingdom, nor did He possess it at the time.
If He didn’t, then, it is most unlikely that we possess it now.

The parallel with a king in exile is exact. We are, and can be His followers now, loving Him,  living by the laws He has uttered. But to say that His kingdom exists now is to make nonsense of language.

How then can we say that the kingdom exists now? If it exists now, why does the King want to or have to come back, anyway?

So what about the passage from Luke quoted at the head of this article? And what about the present aspect of all those parables which begin with “the kingdom of heaven is like…”?

The germ of the solution comes from the realisation that the Lord and His apostles, frequently use shorthand expressions which we fail to recognise. Jargon, if you like. We do the same, and a classic example is our use of the expression “the Truth”. By that we mean ‘the system of beliefs held by Christadelphians worldwide’. Similarly, the ‘breaking of bread’ means ‘that meeting where we break bread, drink wine, sing hymns, pray and listen to words of exhortation.’ Shorthand, you see.

The NT writers do the same, and we see it in the use of such terms as ‘The Way,’ ‘The Church’, ‘The Faith’, the Spirit.  I want to suggest that they often did the same with the expression ‘The kingdom of God / heaven’. What is more, they confidently expected that Joe-in-the-mud-hovel would easily understand what was meant, so it couldn’t be that difficult.Here is the verse which opened my eyes to the fact:

“For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Ro 14:17 AV)

I doubt if even our wildest expositors – or anybody else for that matter – would, or could ever say that the kingdom of God is food or drink. (Mind you, I may be tempting fate here!!!). No, it is pretty clear that he meant something else, something easily comprehensible to his readers, but which we may have lost after 2000 years. What exactly did he mean?

The context solves the problem. They were warring about what foods to eat, and what drinks to drink thinking that that would get them into the Kingdom of God. Somehow, this verse is intended to stop that dispute. So what does he mean? I will place the text in bold type and my attempts at explanation in (normal type and brackets).

“For (getting into) the kingdom of God is not (by eating or not eating certain kinds of) meat and (by drinking or not drinking certain kinds of) drink; but (by the imputed) righteousness (which comes from faith, and not from the works of the Law- such as eating or not eating), and (being at) peace (with God through Christ, and with one another), and joy in the (common fellowship created by the work of the) Holy Spirit (among you all).”

I regret the necessity for all the additions, but the meaning, I believe, is now clear, and is consistent with the context of the whole passage. The correct solution to the problem is probably somewhere along those lines, though others will no doubt be able to do better than this.

Using this as a template, maybe when the Lord uses the expression “The kingdom of God/ heaven is like…”  He may mean “people getting into (or not getting into) the kingdom of God/ heaven is like…”

This one suggestion removes all of the difficulties at a stroke.

Think of the parables:

“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:” (Mt 13:24 AV)
This parable is about the things which prevent people entering the Kingdom of God.

“ Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:” (Mt 13:31 AV)
This one is about people who prevent others entering the Kingdom of God.

“ Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.” (Mt 13:33 AV) This one is about people who prevent others entering the Kingdom of God.

“ Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:” (Mt 13:44-45 AV)

Both of these are about what is necessary in order for people to enter the Kingdom of God

“ Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.” (Mt 25:1 AV)
This tells what disciples must do, or not do to enter the Kingdom of God

“ For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.” (Mt 25:14 AV)
This tells what disciples must do, or not do to enter the Kingdom of God.

Leaving the parables, we find that He preached that “…the Kingdom of heaven is at hand” (for example in Matt.4: 17). This clearly had two possible meanings in addition to the 'present possession' view:1 That if they accepted him as the Messiah and the Son of God, then the kingdom would be established there and then. This didn’t happen, therefore the second possibility and meaning of His words, in line with the suggestion made above, came into play:2 “The way for people to enter the Kingdom of heaven is at hand”. ie Jesus Himself, the Way, the Truth and the Life was right there, right then. Listen to me, or you will perish, He says. It is this second meaning which comes into force on many occasions.


The verse in Luke now becomes very straightforward: “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, ( the way for people to enter) the kingdom of God is within you.” (Lu 17:21 AV) So what does 'within' mean?

Grimm-Thayer’s Lexicon says that: “entos means within, inside:  with genitive within you i.e. in the midst of you Lk17.21” They also say: “ within you (i.e. in your souls) is a meaning which the use of this word permits, but not the context.”End quote.

I was interested to read this, and then thought of the context. Who was Jesus talking to at the time? “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come…” The context rules firmly in favour of the interpretation I have advanced. Could the kingdom of God be inside/ within such people as these? So I understand Jesus to be saying to them: “Don’t waste time looking at whatever you look at (i.e. with observation) to find out when the kingdom is going to come. The time is not important: the really important point is how to get into it, and Behold! (The Way for you to get into…) the kingdom of God is standing in the midst of you now!!” i.e. that’s Me!

Viewed like this, all the difficulties vanish into thin air. We no longer need to say that we are present possessors of the kingdom of God with all the difficulties that concept brings. We hold the title-deeds, that's for certain (Heb.11.1 Faith is the substance “= title-deeds” of things hoped for). But to go further than that is unwise. Are we better than Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – all of whom ‘looked for a country’ which they have not yet received? If we think so, then haven’t we stepped completely out of the line of those who looked for the city whose builder and Maker is God? Is God going to make us perfect without them? Highly improbable, I would have thought..

Asyncritus

Here are a few other verses which may create the impression that they support the present possession view. Note how many physical/ political points are made:
“Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? [ ie the King of the political kingdom of Israel, the one we’re looking for?] But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. [No, say they. He doesn’t derive his power from the God of David. He derives his power from Beelzebub. That’s the wrong God] And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them [note the heavily loaded political and physical dimensions of the reply:]  Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God [and I do!], THEN THE [way to get into the] KINGDOM OF GOD IS COME UNTO [not into!] YOU. [Because I - the Son of David, the Way, the Door, the One with the Keys - am here now]. Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.” (Mt 12:22-29 AV)

Actually the Greek word basileia is not equivalent to our Enlgish word God. It is just the best word we can come up with.

It does necessary mean a "bounded land or place" as does the English word "kingdom." In fact, that is what Jesus was meaning when he said it is "not here or there."

The verb form is usually translated as "reign."

The verse in question is not intended to mean that the kingdom is inside of us. It is meant to say it is among us, that is, it within our plural community.

What Jesus is saying here is the same thing as when he said, "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."

Same idea. Jesus was saying the Kingdom of God is a reality is the things that are HAPPENING. It is now a FUNCTIONAL reality. When Jesus comes again it will be a SUBSTANTIAL reality.

Jesus My Wisdom

[Asyncritus]

The verse in question is not intended to mean that the kingdom is inside of us. It is meant to say it is among us, that is, it within our plural community.

What Jesus is saying here is the same thing as when he said, "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."

Same idea. Jesus was saying the Kingdom of God is a reality is the things that are HAPPENING. It is now a FUNCTIONAL reality. When Jesus comes again it will be a SUBSTANTIAL reality.

Jesus My Wisdom

Erm...

"When he was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, he answered THEM and said......the kingdom of God is within you" If it is among us, our plural community, then we are the Pharisees or their descendants: not a description I would take to myself, nor would you, I'm sure.

As to your second quotation, could you let me have your comments on the postscript to the article?

Thanks a bunch

Asyncritus

PS If something is FUNCTIONAL, then it must exist substantially, I would have thought. Equally, if it is SUBSTANTIAL then it must be functional. Mustn't it?

[Asyncritus]

It's the equivalent of the king going away to receive the crown, and then returning to claim the actual land. When he receives the crown, he receives the legal right of kingship... but that's only good "on paper". Only when he actually returns from the "far country", can he actually start wielding power and kicking butt :-)

I like that!!!

[Asyncritus]

I think its clear that, whilst not in the ultimate sense that we understand "The Kingdom" to be (ie, the future age of glory when Jesus Christ will rule over the earth), the kingdom of God is actually within us in that sense - Jesus was saying the kingdom was there, because he was there (as the king of that kingdom). The kingdom is wherever God's will is done.

Uh..

If that is true, then why does the Lord's prayer say "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" in that order?

[JesusMyWisdom]

The verse in question is not intended to mean that the kingdom is inside of us.  It is meant to say it is among us, that is, it within our plural community.

What Jesus is saying here is the same thing as when he said, "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."

Same idea.  Jesus was saying the Kingdom of God is a reality is the things that are HAPPENING.  It is now a FUNCTIONAL reality.  When Jesus comes again it will be a SUBSTANTIAL reality.

Jesus My Wisdom

Erm...

"When he was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, he answered THEM and said......the kingdom of God is within you" If it is among us, our plural community, then we are the Pharisees or their descendants: not a description I would take to myself, nor would you, I'm sure.

As to your second quotation, could you let me have your comments on the postscript to the article?

Thanks a bunch

Asyncritus

PS al. If something is FUNCTIONAL, then it must exist substantially, I would have thought. Equally, if it is SUBSTANTIAL then it must be function Mustn't it?

Good grief. How do you come up with these things?

Jesus happened to be talking TO the Pharisees in this account. To then conclude that if anyone has the kingdom of God among them they must then be the Pharisees is ridiculous hermeneutics.

Jesus was saying the reign of God was a present reality among them. For example, he drove out demons saying the Kingdom has come upon you. Jesus point is that the kingdom of God is a reality here and now. It is not something that you have to go looking for like a mystical Camelot.

"If something is FUNCTIONAL, then it must exist substantially, I would have thought. Equally, if it is SUBSTANTIAL then it must be functional."

You are totally incorrect. "Those who are led by the Spirit, these are sons of God." (Rom 8:14) Here Paul is saying that we are sons of God functionally in what we do. It is the Spirit of God that makes one a son of God. But it will not be until the resurrection that we are "life-giving Spirit" and only then will we be sons of God substantially..... which is why Paul goes on to say we eagerly await the sonship, the resurrection of the body (8:17-25).

Jesus said he and the Father were one. He was not referring to one substance. He was referring to unity he had with the Father functionally in the works that he did. He even says so. He was not substantially one with the Father until he rose from the dead.

Those are just two of many examples.

You can function like a dog if you like. It won't substantially mean you are one.

What you do is take an apparent truth and read it into the Bible wherever you like as if any truth can be applied to any given passage. That is a very bad practice.

"Judas hung himself" True

"Go and do likewise" True



Jesus My Wisdom

This post has been edited by JesusMyWisdom: Mar 27 2004, 09:49 PM

[Asyncritus]

Jesus happened to be talking TO the Pharisees in this account. To then conclude that if anyone has the kingdom of God among them they must then be the Pharisees is ridiculous hermeneutics.

Jesus was saying the reign of God was a present reality among them. For example, he drove out demons saying the Kingdom has come upon you. Jesus point is that the kingdom of God is a reality here and now. It is not something that you have to go looking for like a mystical Camelot.

Since he is talking to the Pharisees, and said that the kingdom of God is in the midst of YOU, then it is difficult to see that the 'YOU' isn't referring to the Pharisees.

How you can extrapolate that into the current believing community, I don't quite know, but it's a long stretch.

Why do you find it necessary to substitute 'the reign of God' for the 'kingdom of God'? Is 'kingdom' too hot to handle?

My lexicon (and it is only a small one) says that basileia means:

a kingdom, realm, the region or country governed by a king; kingly power, authority, dominion, reign; royal dignity, the title and honour of king.

I suppose they give these in descending order of frequency or importance of meaning. If so, then reign is a long way down. Moreover, RV, RSV, Phillips, NEB all translate as 'kingdom'. Maybe you have access to other versions and might like to check and then let me know why all these reputable translating committees and individual translators all translate as 'kingdom' and not 'reign'.

Strong's:

AV-kingdom (of God) 71, kingdom (of heaven) 32, kingdom (general or evil) 20, (Thy or Thine) kingdom 6, His kingdom 6, the kingdom 5, (My) kingdom 4, misc 18; 162

1) royal power, kingship, dominion, rule
1a) not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom
1b) of the royal power of Jesus as the triumphant Messiah
1c) of the royal power and dignity conferred on Christians in the Messiah’s kingdom
2) a kingdom, the territory subject to the rule of a king
3) used in the N.T. to refer to the reign of the Messiah

I don't see that any of the above gives the slightest support for your 'reign' rendering. I imagine that they all knew the word 'reign' but chose not to use it.

Why do you suppose that's so?

Asyncritus

[JesusMyWisdom]

Since he is talking to the Pharisees, and said that the kingdom of God is in the midst of YOU, then it is difficult to see that the 'YOU' isn't referring to the Pharisees.

Well duh.

How you can extrapolate that into the current believing community, I don't quite know, but it's a long stretch.

It is huh? Well I guess you would know.

I think you need to read your Bible a little more carefully. Jesus was here telling the Pharisees what is taught everywhere else in the NT. The reality of the presence of the Spirit is the reality of the kingdom of God.

Why do you find it necessary to substitute 'the reign of God' for the 'kingdom of God'? Is 'kingdom' too hot to handle?

I didn't substitute anything. I said "reign" is the verb form of kingdom. You want to embrace the naive notion that the kingdom of God is a "place" something like the Kingdom of Norway. It isn't. The Greek word itself does not even mean that. However, you don't seem to care do you? A closer word is "kingship" but that just isn't a real congeniall word to use is it?

And too hot to handle? What kind of fantasy world are you living in?

My lexicon (and it is only a small one) says that basileia means:

a kingdom, realm, the region or country governed by a king; kingly power, authority, dominion, reign; royal dignity, the title and honour of king.

Note there it says "dominion." With respect to the present reality of the Kingdom of God that is what jesus is tallking about. And when you pray, "thy kingdom come' I suppose you are praying that God would show up here at the end of the age? Is that really what you are thinking? I hope not. You should be thinking about his lordship over your life. And I suppose when you pray "thy will be done" you aren't thinking about yourself either are you?

I suppose they give these in descending order of frequency or importance of meaning. If so, then reign is a long way down. Moreover, RV, RSV, Phillips,  NEB all translate as 'kingdom'.

this is the problem when people like you get into this kind of thing and think you actually know something. When an English word is used to translate a Greek word it does not mean that is what that Greek word therefore precisely means. It simply means this is one of the better options we have to choose from for English words. Do you comprehend that?

Maybe you have access to other versions and might like to check and then let me know why all these reputable translating committees and individual translators all translate as 'kingdom' and not 'reign'.

Strong's:

AV-kingdom (of God) 71, kingdom (of heaven) 32, kingdom (general or evil) 20, (Thy or Thine) kingdom 6, His kingdom 6, the kingdom 5, (My) kingdom 4, misc 18; 162

1) royal power, kingship, dominion, rule
1a) not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom
1b) of the royal power of Jesus as the triumphant Messiah
1c) of the royal power and dignity conferred on Christians in the Messiah’s kingdom
2) a kingdom, the territory subject to the rule of a king
3) used in the N.T. to refer to the reign of the Messiah

I don't see that any of the above gives the slightest support for your 'reign' rendering. I imagine that they all knew the word 'reign' but chose not to use it.

Why do you suppose that's so?

Because you have no idea what you are talking about. You are just babbling.

It took me all of 5 seconds to do a search and find good information:

http://ntwords.com/kingdom.htm

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=932

Jesus My Wisdom

This post has been edited by JesusMyWisdom: Mar 28 2004, 05:43 AM

[Grace]

Hi JesusmyWisdom,

Nice to have you back. Can you take it easy on the sarcasm please?

Thanks.

[Asyncritus]

I didn't substitute anything.  I said "reign" is the verb form of kingdom.  You want to embrace the naive notion that the kingdom of God is a "place" something like the Kingdom of Norway.  It isn't.  The Greek word itself does not even mean that.  However, you don't seem to care do you?  A closer word is "kingship" but that just isn't a real congeniall word to use is it?

And too hot to handle?  What kind of fantasy world are you living in?

My lexicon (and it is only a small one) says that basileia means:

a kingdom, realm, the region or country governed by a king; kingly power, authority, dominion, reign; royal dignity, the title and honour of king.

Note there it says "dominion." With respect to the present reality of the Kingdom of God that is what jesus is tallking about. And when you pray, "thy kingdom come' I suppose you are praying that God would show up here at the end of the age? Is that really what you are thinking? I hope not. You should be thinking about his lordship over your life. And I suppose when you pray "thy will be done" you aren't thinking about yourself either are you?

I suppose they give these in descending order of frequency or importance of meaning. If so, then reign is a long way down. Moreover, RV, RSV, Phillips,  NEB all translate as 'kingdom'.

this is the problem when people like you get into this kind of thing and think you actually know something. When an English word is used to translate a Greek word it does not mean that is what that Greek word therefore precisely means. It simply means this is one of the better options we have to choose from for English words. Do you comprehend that?

Maybe you have access to other versions and might like to check and then let me know why all these reputable translating committees and individual translators all translate as 'kingdom' and not 'reign'.

Strong's:

AV-kingdom (of God) 71, kingdom (of heaven) 32, kingdom (general or evil) 20, (Thy or Thine) kingdom 6, His kingdom 6, the kingdom 5, (My) kingdom 4, misc 18; 162

1) royal power, kingship, dominion, rule
1a) not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom
1b) of the royal power of Jesus as the triumphant Messiah
1c) of the royal power and dignity conferred on Christians in the Messiah’s kingdom
2) a kingdom, the territory subject to the rule of a king
3) used in the N.T. to refer to the reign of the Messiah

I don't see that any of the above gives the slightest support for your 'reign' rendering. I imagine that they all knew the word 'reign' but chose not to use it.

Why do you suppose that's so?

Because you have no idea what you are talking about. You are just babbling.

It took me all of 5 seconds to do a search and find good information:

http://ntwords.com/kingdom.htm

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=932

Jesus My Wisdom

Unfortunately (for you) we aren't talking about the verb form here. It's the noun form, which has the meanings I have listed, so where do you go from there?

Sorry, I thought you wanted me to read 'reign' and now 'dominion' for 'kingdom'. Is that substitution or not?

Somebody pointed out that the nobleman 'went into a far country TO RECEIVE a kingdom and to return'. He WASN'T the kingdom - or he wouldn't have to receive it - and he didn't HAVE it, or he wouldn't have to receive it. If he did have it, then why does he have to come back anyway?

Yup, that is exactly what I mean when I pray 'thy kingdom come'. By the way, why is 'thy kingdom come' BEFORE 'thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven'? If you're right, then it should be the other way round.

I don't think I know a lot about Greek. I know a little, but it isn't that much. However, AV,RV, RSV, Phillips, NEB and a cartload of others did know a lot. So I depend on them.

Do answer the point: why did they all, without exception, translate 'kingdom'

It just occurred to me, why are you arguing with me? My suggestion was: when Jesus said the kingdom of God is within you, he meant, because he was using shorthand, that THE WAY TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD -which is to say, HE,HIMSELF, was standing in the midst of them. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Isn't that your point too?

Asyncritus

This post has been edited by Asyncritus: Mar 28 2004, 08:29 AM

[Flappie]

Archelaus went to Rome to officially receive his part of Herod's kingdom, or was it one of his brothers?

Anyway, it's probably talking about that kind of thing. As most of the Jews then would know what he was talking about. A man who went to Rome to receive rulership over a certain part of the empire.

[Kremlin]

I think its clear that, whilst not in the ultimate sense that we understand "The Kingdom" to be (ie, the future age of glory when Jesus Christ will rule over the earth), the kingdom of God is actually within us in that sense - Jesus was saying the kingdom was there, because he was there (as the king of that kingdom). The kingdom is wherever God's will is done.

Uh..

If that is true, then why does the Lord's prayer say "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" in that order?

This literary device is employed quite frequently in scripture, mate.....

Like the conception of Jesus - "the Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the highest overshadow you" - did that mean first the Holy Spirit and then the power came? It's correlating the two. Thanks for that passage though - whilst it demonstrates my point, I hadn't considered it before.

The Kingdom of God is a reality wherever His Will is accomplished.

For the record, I thought that the concept of a distinction between a "fuctional reality" and a "substantial reality" has it's merits - certainly whilst a measure of the Kingdom of God is seen when his Will is being performed, his glory will not truly fill the earth until his Kindom does (the two go hand in hand).

[Asyncritus]

The kingdom is wherever God's will is done.

Assertions, assertions.

The disciples, in Acts 1, asked Jesus 'wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?'

They were doing God's will at the time - and plainly didn't think that the kingdom existed.

Jesus doesn't correct them, but simply says, 'It's none of your business. You've got a job to do till it does come' to paraphrase.

Why's that?????

[Fortigurn]

The kingdom is wherever God's will is done.

Assertions, assertions.

Scriptural definition of the Kingdom of God is 'The place where God's will is done' (Exodus 19:5-6, Matthew 6:10).

The disciples, in Acts 1, asked Jesus 'wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?'

They were doing God's will at the time - and plainly didn't think that the kingdom existed.

Jesus doesn't correct them, but simply says, 'It's none of your business. You've got a job to do till it does come' to paraphrase.

Why's that?????

You've missed the point of what Krem is saying. He is not making a binary argument.

Oh, and Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, 2 Peter 1:16-18.

[Asyncritus]

Perhaps you'd better let him explain himself.

[Kremlin]

Like Fortigurn said, the definition of the kingdom of God as being the place where his will is done is a scriptural one. I am NOT saying that this is the same thing as the future kingdom of God here on earth - if you read those passages, and my posts, it should be fairly clear that I'm talking about a principle here.

How else would you interpret those passages?

[Asyncritus]

Very simply.

Ex 19: The nation, in the land, would be a kingdom with God as king, land as land, and Israel as people, and the Law as Law.

The 4 transfiguration passages are visions of the Kingdom established with Christ in his glory.

Your point about 'thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth' seems to be that they are two parallel statements, and to a certain extent they are.

However, as Ps 72 and others indicate, the kingdom will be established, and His will will still not be done (as per Zech 14.8). Hence to say that the kingdom exists where His will is being done seems a bit dubious to me. The kingdom will exist where His will is not being done. The prime example of course, being Israel - wicked and faithless, but still the kingdom of God.

There can be no question that God's will was done perfectly by the Lord Jesus - yet, as He said, he had to go into a far country to receive a kingdom and to return.

This post has been edited by Asyncritus: Mar 31 2004, 05:46 PM