The Kingdom of God Is Within You

[John Reece]

Herein, the Greek word εντος is often presented in transliterated form ENTOS to stay within 12000 characters.

Luke 17:20-21
Some Pharisees asked Jesus when the Kingdom of God would come. His answer was "The Kingdom of God does not come in such a way as to be seen. No one will say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!'; because the Kingdom of God is within you." -Good News Bible: Today's English Version.

In response to the question, "when is the Kingdom of God coming?" (= literal translation), Jesus responded by saying how the Kingdom of God does not come. Why did Jesus not give a direct answer to the question, "when?" Because the question was based on an erroneous presupposition, which Jesus countered by his response to the question.

The Pharisees presupposed a visible, political fulfillment of typological scriptures that were to be fulfilled (contrary to their erroneous presupposition) in a way that did not duplicate the typology but rather transcended it. They were expecting a political kingdom ruled by a physical Messiah in the natural nation of Israel. Jesus deflected their question as to when such a kingdom would come, because the Kingdom of God is not that kind of kingdom.

In the quote of the Bible text above, the words in such a way as to be seen are a translation of a Greek preposition, which some translations render by the word "with" (RSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV), and a Greek noun (present in no other verse in the Bible) that the NKJV renders "observation", and the NIV renders "careful observation". The verb form of the noun occurs only in the following verses in the New Testament: Luke 6:7 (= Mark 3:2) - And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath.... Luke 14:1 - One Sabbath when he went to dine at the house of a ruler who belonged to the Pharisees, they were watching him. Luke 20:20 - So they watched him, and sent spies, who pretended to be sincere, that they might take hold of what he said. Acts 9:24 - ...but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night, to kill him. Galatians 4:10 - You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years!. An excellent translation, which clearly expresses the sense of the preposition and noun in Luke 17:20 is provided in The Revised English Bible (REB): You cannot tell by observation when the kingdom of God comes.
In John 3:3, Jesus said, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. The implication corresponds to what Jesus said in Luke 17:20-21; that is, the Kingdom of God cannot be seen by natural vision. Therefore, Christians in the 20th century who are expecting the same kind of kingdom expected by the Pharisees in the 1st century are destined for disillusionment. According to Jesus, The Kingdom of God of God does not come in such a way as to be seen. A physical Messiah ruling a visible kingdom with headquarters in Jerusalem, as the capital of the nation of Israel, is what the ancient Pharisees expected and many modern Christians expect. But such a kingdom would be one about which it could be said, "Look, here it is!" or "There it is!" But Jesus said, No one will say, "Look, here it is!" or "There it is!" with reference to the Kingdom of God.

The phrase in Luke 17:21, which the TEV, NIV, and NKJV render "within you", is rendered by J. B. Phillips "inside you". Other versions render the phrase "in the midst of you" (RSV), "in your midst" (NASB), or "among you" (NJB, NEB, and NRSV). Versions that do not render the phrase "within you" or "inside you" do so render the phrase in the margin or in a footnote. All the words highlighted in bold print thus far in this paragraph are used to translate the Greek word ENTOS. A complete survey of all the other occurrences of the word entos in the Greek texts of the Bible (Septuagint/LXX and New Testament) may help to determine which of the translations (highlighted in bold blue in this paragraph) is likely to be the more accurate of the options for rendering the Greek word ENTOS in Luke 17:21.

Psalm 39:3 (38:4 in LXX) ...my heart became hot within (ENTOS) me (NRSV).
Psalm 103:1 (102:1 in LXX) Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within (ENTOS) me, bless his holy name (NRSV).
Psalm 109:22 (108:22 in LXX) For I am poor and needy, and my heart is pierced within (ENTOS) me (NRSV).
Song of Solomon 3:10 He made its posts of silver, its back of gold, its seat of purple; its interior (ENTOS) was inlaid with love (NRSV).
Isaiah 16:11 My heart laments for Moab like a harp, my inmost being (ENTOS) for Kir Hareseth (NIV).
Daniel 10:16 (Theodotion) Lord, at the sight of you my inmost being (ENTOS) is changed in me and I have no strength (my more-literal-than-the-versions translation -JR).
I Maccabees 4:48 They rebuilt the sanctuary and the interior (ENTOS) of the temple. (NRSV). Brenton's translation of this verse is ...and made up the sanctuary, and the things that were within (ENTOS) the temple... (Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English).
Sirach 19:26 There is the villain bowed down in mourning, but inwardly (ENTOS) he is full of deceit (NRSV).
Matthew 23:26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside (ENTOS) of the cup, so that the outside (EKTOS) also may become clean (NRSV).

The standard classical Greek lexicon in the English-speaking world is that of Liddell and Scott edited by Jones (LSJ). This massive lexicon was first published by Oxford in 1838. From 1838 to 1968 nine successive editions plus 13 reprintings were published. During those 130 years there was not a single reference in the LSJ article on εντος to any occurrence of the word in the sense of "among" or "in the midst of". The definition given for εντος in Luke 17:21 was "in your hearts". In 1968 a supplement was added as an appendix in the back of that year's reprinting of LSJ, and in the supplement was this entry: εντος I.1, line 7, after "hearts" add "among you" or "in your midst". Luke 17:20-21 consists of teaching by Jesus about perhaps the most controversial subject in the Bible: the nature and time frame of the Kingdom of God. A question therefore arises as to whether or not the anomalous construing of the sense of εντος as "among" or "in the midst of" in Luke 17:21 has its origin in theological presuppositions about the Kingdom of God, rather than in an objective assessment of the sense of the word εντος in the context of this verse and in the larger context of the Bible.
To assess the worth of this unusual construing of εντος to mean "among" or "in the midst" in Luke 17:21, on March 4, 1998, a request was posted on the Internet for an expert opinion from a professional scholar of Greek literature regarding the meaning of entos in classical as well as biblical writings when ENTOS is related to a plural number of entities in the genitive case (as is the case in Luke 17:21). This is the response: "I just did a check of the Perseus LSJ on ENTOS and find it regularly used with a partitive genitive of the boundaries within which X is located, including in particular TEIXEWN (calculations,) HUMWN (our Lucan passage), MAQHMATWN (learning), GRAMMATWN (literature). Most of these are not instances of a group of persons, so that I don't know that it would be the normal way to say "among", but to be very precise about the sense of a partitive genitive, I'd think it is not so terribly different from epi + genitive = "somewhere within the boundaries of X" -- so ENTOS + genitive = "at some point within the boundaries of X" - Carl W. Conrad, Department of Classics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
Note two things in Professor Conrad's response: (1) the consistent sense of "within" in the definition of ENTOS; (2) the question of the normal way to say "among". The latter gives us a clue as to how to investigate further the anomaly of how modern scholars have construed ENTOS in Luke 17:21. We will do a thorough analysis of the normal way to say "among" and "in the midst" in the Greek New Testament.

The Eerdmans Analytical Concordance to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, compiled by Richard E. Whitaker, is an exhaustive concordance which lists every occurrence of every word in the RSV, and identifies the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin words which are rendered by the English words in each verse of the RSV. The word "among" occurs 188 times in the RSV New Testament to render 15 different Greek words or phrases. The Greek word ENTOS does not occur in the list of 15 Greek words or phrases rendered "among" in the RSV NT. The concordance shows that the most frequently occurring normal way to say "among" in the Greek New Testament is by means of the Greek preposition EN + dative, which accounts for 116 of the 188 occurrences of "among" in the RSV NT. The next most frequently occurring normal way to say "among" is by means of the Greek word ENTOS, which accounts for 25 of the 188 occurrences of "among" in the RSV NT. Since ENTOS accounts for not a single one of the 188 occurrences of "among" in the RSV NT, it cannot be considered a normal way to say "among" in the Greek NT. The word "midst" occurs 18 times in the RSV NT. In 16 of the 18 occurrences, the Greek word MESOS is rendered "midst"; in 1 occurrence the Greek phrase ana MESON (MESON = MESOS with accusative case ending) is rendered "midst". And the RSV NT anomalously renders ENTOS as "midst" in Luke 17:21. Let's look at how Luke communicated the sense of "among" and "midst" in the rest of the Gospel of Luke and Acts. The words "among" and "midst" occur 69 times in the RSV of Luke and Acts, with the only occurrence of ENTOS being in Luke 17:21. The way Luke most often communicated the meaning "among" was by use of the Greek preposition EN + dative. The way he communicated the meaning "midst" was by use of the Greek word meso". Examples: Luke 7:16 -_A great prophet has arisen among us! (EN + dative). Acts 2:22 Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst (MESOS).
The writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts was a rather erudite translator of the Aramaic words used by Jesus and his disciples, and writer of two of the largest books in the New Testament. The Aramaic words spoken by Jesus and translated by Luke have a different semantic range than do the Greek words Luke used to translate them. The Aramaic word rendered ENTOS in Luke 17:21 is rendered differently by Luke in other contexts, just as the writers of other New Testament books render the same Aramaic word differently in various other contexts. This phenomenon is evident in The New Covenant, Commonly Called the New Testament: Peshitta Aramaic Text with a Hebrew Translation, edited by the Aramaic Scriptures Research Society in Israel (Jerusalem: The Bible Society, 1986). The same phenomenon is evident in the translation of the Hebrew word rendered ENTOS in the LXX. Luke was more qualified than any of us moderns to accurately ascertain the precise sense of the words spoken by Jesus, and to render Jesus' words as unambiguously a possible. Why did Luke use ENTOS in Luke 17:21? Because the usage in that context, and the importance of what Jesus said therein, required careful wording to make very clear what Jesus meant by what he said. And ENTOS, however remarkably misconstrued by theological presuppositions in the controversial context of Luke 17:21, is a very precise word with a very consistent sense in all classical and biblical Greek literature: the sense of "within" or "inside" as distinguished from without or outside.

[John Reece]

Here are additional comments which space limitations excluded from the above post:

One of the presuppositions that intrude into the interpretation of ENTOS in Luke 17:21 is the thought that "Surely Jesus would not say to the Pharisees that the Kingdom of God was in their hearts". A great Greek grammarian of an earlier generation countered that objection with this comment: '21. "Within you" (ENTOS HUMWN). This is the obvious, and, I think, the necessary meaning of ENTOS. The examples cited of the use of ENTOS in Xenophon and Plato where ENTOS means "among" do not bear out when investigated. Field (Ot. Norv.) "contends that there is no clear instance of ENTOS in the sense of 'among'" (Bruce), and rightly so. What Jesus says to the Pharisees is that they, as others, are to look for the kingdom of God within themselves, not in outward displays and supernatural manifestations. It is not a localized display "Here" or "There." It is in this sense that in Luke 11:20 Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God as "come upon you"..., speaking to the Pharisees. The only other instance of ENTOS in the N.T. (Matthew 23:26) necessarily means "within" ("the inside of the cup"). There is, beside, the use of ENTOS meaning "within" in the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus saying of Jesus of the Third Century (Deismann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 426) which is interesting: "The kingdom of heaven is within you" (ENTOS HUMWN ) as here in Luke 17:21.' - A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament.

In the 19th century there was a scholar in France who produced commentaries on books of the Greek New Testament that were of such quality as to be deemed worthy of translation into English, and then to be reprinted many times in succeeding decades. His comment on ENTOS in Luke 17:21 dispels the cloud of confusion that has arisen over the word in this verse: "The words ENTOS HUMWN are explained by almost all modern interpreters in the sense of "in the midst of you". Philologically this meaning is possible; it may be harmonized with GAR [= "for" -JR]. But the verb ESTIN [= "is" -JR] would in this case necessarily require it to be put before the regimen; for this verb "is" would have the emphasis, 'it is really present.' The idea "among you" would be secondary. If the regimen ENTOS HUMWN has the emphasis (and its place proves it has), it can only be because these words contain the reason introduced by "for". They should therefore serve to prove that the kingdom of God may have come without it's coming being remarked; and this is what follows from its internal, spiritual nature. The meaning of this regimen is therefore "within you". Besides, the prep. ENTOS, "within", always includes a contrast to the idea "without". If, therefore, we give to it here the meaning of "among", we must still suppose an understood contrast, that between the Jews as people "within", and the Gentiles as people "without". There is nothing in the context giving rise to such an antithesis. In giving to ENTOS the meaning "within", we are led back to the idea expressed in the answer of Jesus to Nicodemus: 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,' which confirms our explanation." - Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke.

[John Reece]

Greek word: εντος
Transliteration: ENTOS
Pronunciation: en-TOSS
Meaning: "inside"/"within"

Antonym: εκτος
Transliteration: EKTOS
Pronunciation: ek-TOSS
Meaning: "outside"

Scripture in which both words/antonyms occur: Matthew 23:26

[Solly]

Thanks for all that spade work John. It'll take a while to digest it, but I think I get the point. :yipee:

[John Reece]

Thanks for the kind response, Solly.

[Athanasius]

John,

I appreciate the hard work you put into that.

I think that it would be a mistake for someone to apply these observations to the Second Coming.

Jesus answered the demands of the Pharisees by pointing out that during the present time, the kingdom advances not by outward physical force, but within the hearts of men. The word "cometh" in verse 20 is in the present tense, indicating how the kingdom of God is CURRENTLY advancing. However, He further clarifies to his disciples in verse 24, "For as the lightning that lighteneth one part under heaven shineth unto the other part under heaven, so shall also the Son of Man be in His day." The word "be" here is in the future tense, indicating how the kingdom, which always comes where Jesus goes, will come at a future time. At that time it will come suddenly and visibly. If lightening lighting up the whole sky doesn't indicate extreme suddenness and visibility, I don't know what does. That's how the Son of Man will be in His day. "Every eye shall see Him".

Therefore, it is my belief that these words have particular application to how the Kingdom of God was advancing during the First Coming, and is currently advancing during the Age of Grace, but not to the Second Parousia. The Second Coming will be sudden, like a thief in the night, which is to be contrasted with the gradual advancement of the Kingdom of God within the hearts of men.

[John Reece]

It's good to hear from you again, Athanasius.

I appreciate your irenic spirit.

Your comments express personal beliefs and presuppositions, which are interesting.

I do not see Jesus talking about a Second Coming, or more than one Kingdom of God.

Theological debate is not what I seek.

I seek exegetical challenge, which would have to deal with the fact (if C.C. Torrey was right) that the Gospels were written in Aramaic and translated into Greek.

Assuming the thesis that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, and that the original text was (as Torry insisted) written in Aramaic, the only question in my mind is, Did Luke accurately render in Greek the sense of what Jesus said in Aramaic?

[Athanasius]

John,

Your comments express personal beliefs and presuppositions, which are interesting.

I suppose that we often, myself included, have a tendency to see the beliefs of those who interpret scripture differently from us as being based on presuppositions, while we consider our own beliefs to be based on objective fact, so I can't point a finger at you for that without the other three pointing back accusingly to myself. I am grateful that you at least find my comments interesting!

In relation to the thesis that the gospels were originally written in Aramaic, your comment reminded me of something I had read years ago in my copy of Giuseppe Riccioti's Life of Christ. I thought that you or others might find it interesting, but ask your forgiveness should you consider it too unrelated to the purpose behind this thread:

About AD 120, Papias of Hierapolis - whom we have already mentioned - wrote five books entitled Explanations of the Sayings of the Lord, in which he asserted that "Matthew put the sayings (logion) in order in the Hebrew dialect; then each one interpreted them as he was able. (In Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 39, 16). Subsequent testimonies...confirm more or less that of Papias."

Ricciotti has much more to say regarding the writing of Matthew, and takes a fascinating look at the writing of the other gospels, as well.

[GrayPilgrim]

03-08-2003 @ 09:46 AM
John Reece:

I seek exegetical challenge, which would have to deal with the fact (if C.C. Torrey was right) that the Gospels were written in Aramaic and translated into Greek.

Assuming the thesis that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, and that the original text was (as Torry insisted) written in Aramaic, the only question in my mind is, Did Luke accurately render in Greek the sense of what Jesus said in Aramaic?

This presupposition needs to be proven. If we beleive that the Book of Luke was inspired by hte Holy Spirit then we do not need to worry about the Aramaic that might possibly lay behind the text. Any presuposed Aramaic Ur-text is lost to us and so all reconstruction would be based on supposition (read guess-work). It reminds me of the silliness of Fortress Press publishing The Crticial Edition of Q. For the same reason I reject the historicity of a document which is now called Q, I find searching for the Aramaic Ur-text just as unsatisfactory.


It is a baseless theory. That is outside of Eusebius' enigmatic statement we have no evidence for it and as it is NO ONE takes it at face value.
It gives too much wiggel room. It allows someone to change the plain meaning of the text by saying, "Oh, the Aramaic behind this text would mean..."
As no copies of this supposed Ur-text remains it is just a waste of time and calls into question the Authority of Scripture in much the same way that the Documentary Hypothesis does for the Old Testament. As an aside, I find it odd that more and more critical scholars have rejected the documentary hypothesis as untennable and yet many Christian scholars are moving in that direction, and also its equivalent theories in NT studies.
The smell text while the least important, I still say it just smells, well fishy


GP



Edited because upon a closer reading of John's post I saw that I had originally misread it.

[John Reece]

GP,

Thanks for a very welcome response.

Re:

This presupposition needs to be proven.

Please note that I said, “if C.C. Torrey was right.”

I'm glad you think he's wrong - 'strengthens the case for my exegesis of Luke 17:21. :smile:

I agree with your dismissal of "the historicity of a document which is now called Q." I also agree with your rejection of the documentary hypothesis in OT scholarship.

But I think Torrey is in a quite different category and is not taken seriously enough in contemporary NT scholarship. Not surprising, I suppose, since it is so difficult to find a contemporary scholar who is familiar with Aramaic, one who knows just enough to tell me about one single word in Aramaic. :smile:

Have you read Torrey’s writings? Books: Documents of the Christian Church, Our Translated Gospels, The Four Gospels, The Apocalypse of John; Articles: “Studies in the Aramaic of the First Century A.D.”, “The Aramaic of the Nascent Christian Church”, “Julius Wellhausen’s Approach to the Aramaic Gospels”, "Armageddon" – just to mention the ones here at hand.

I was introduced to Torrey’s work by my Hebrew teacher, William F. Stinespring, Late Professor of Semitic Languages at Duke University (by far the best teacher I ever had).

Torrey was the founding director of The American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem (1901), and Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale (1900-1932). Which does not necessarily mean he is right about anything, but neither is he one whose work deserves to be cavalierly dismissed without having been read.

But you are no doubt right about it being "guess work" to ascertain the Aramaic behind the Gospels (oral or written), and I suppose it is the paucity of primary sources that accounts for the dirth of expertise in Aramaic among modern NT scholars.

Again, I'm glad you think Torrey is wrong. :smile:

Now, back to my solicitation of challenge to my exegesis of certain biblical texts.

I started making a big deal about questions re Aramaic in response to your criticism of my dealing only with the Hebrew and the Greek re the meaning of γενεα in the NT.

Now that we have set aside any question re any Aramaic factor, which was the only potential weakness I could think of re the possibility of flaws in my exegesis of εντος, I'd appreciate your pointing out to me any fallacy you may see in the exegesis.

P.S.: In case anyone is interested in sampling just one of Torrey's writings, I recommend The Apocalypse of John, Yale University Press, 1958, which provides a very interesting comparative supplement to R.H. Charles' A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Revelation of St. John (ICC).

[Athanasius]

Gray Pilgrim,

I appreciate your reply, and agree with your concerns regarding this theses. I share your belief that the Greek gospels are inspired writings. That is outside of Eusebius' enigmatic statement we have no evidence for it and as it is NO ONE takes it at face value.

Actually, I don't think that this statement of Eusebius provides support at all for the theses that all of the gospels were originally written in Aramaic. It may provide support to the idea that Matthew alone was.

Other historical sources of the Gospels surely included the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles and others, and perhaps catechesis, which was based on rote memorization (katecheo, re-echoing, in which a disciple was taught to echo a teachers words) and was highly accurate. Whatever were the reliable historical sources that the gospel writers drew upon, these men wrote as they were borne along by the Holy Spirit.

Although the idea of Matthew being originally written in Aramaic is supported by some of the Church fathers, there are nevertheless difficulties with this idea, including:

Why are there no surviving copies of such an important document? What about God's promise to preserve His Word? Since the Word of the Lord endures forever, if Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, then we must regard the Greek translation that has been passed down to us as inspired and authoritative, since the Lord would not allow all copies of the Aramaic autograph to perish without an accurate translation to replace it.

The idea that Luke, John-Mark, or John would have written their gospels in Aramaic is especially difficult to swallow, since it would make sense, given what we know of these three men and the time of writing of these gospels, that they would have wanted these gospels to reach as wide a Gentile audience as possible.

[MuggleOrSquib]

From www.peshitta.org
Transliterated using the Syriac table from http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/TC-translit-main.html
Luke 17:21
wl) )mryn h) hrk) hy wh) hrtmn hy h( gyr mlkwth d(lh( lgw mnkwn hy

Nor saying "Behold here it is" or "Behold there it is" for the Kingdom of God is within you.

The word/phrase lgw {lgaw} is the Syriac phrase meaning within. The word 'Gawaita' means Inner.


Thus, the Peshitta agrees with the general argument here--namely that ENTOC should be translated as 'within' rather than 'among'.

The Sinaitic Syriac, ( http://209.19.227.169:8083/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/BibleMSS/SyrSin?seq=250 )
on the other hand, uses the word byntkwn (baynatkon), which is roughly equivalent to EN TWi YMWN MECWi , byn being often translated to (or from) Mesos [modern Assyrian name of Mesopotamia is Bet Nahren, here meaning Between the Rivers]

I have read that the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexion has the complete Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac texts, but due to a hardware failure the site is down at present ( http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ )

YMIN EN IHCOY XRICTWi
Bob Griffin

[John Reece]

MuggleOrSquib,

I am most grateful to you for the information, especially this statement:

Thus, the Peshitta agrees with the general argument here--namely that ENTOC should be translated as 'within' rather than 'among'.

Blessings,

John

[John Reece]

Bob Griffin,

What can you tell me about this:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1594 ?

John

[MuggleOrSquib]

I'm not familiar with the term. I would check out the CAL (see my post above) but that's down until maybe March 14th.

Just checked at Peshitta.org:
Root--Shin Resh Bet,
Generation
Verses (including where it's used with prepositions and suffixes)
Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39,41f,45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:30,34
Mark 8:12,38; 9:19; 13:30
Luke 1:48,50,61; 2:4; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29ff; 16:8
Acts 2:40; 3:25; 4:6; 7:24; 10:28; 13:21,26,36; 26:7
Romans 11:1
1Thes 2:14
1 Tim 1:4
Titus 3:9
Hebrews 7:3,6,13f
James 1:1; 3:6
1 Peter 2:9

Let me know what conclusions you draw after reviewing these references.

Yours in Jesus Christ
Bob Griffin

[MuggleOrSquib]

I'm putting another post on the other thread.

Bob Griffin

[John Reece]

Got it.

Thanks, Bob

[Ted]

I was approached in another thread about a comment I made related to these scholarly words above (not knowing that they were here.) I said that Jesus' intent was that the "kingdom power" was within the subjects of Jesus' conversation.

I wish I could take credit for that observation. It actually comes from Brad Young's book Jesus the Jewish Theologian. In it, Young proposes, and well supports, the idea that "the kingdom" has dual application, and is context sensitive.

The obvious application is that of the Jews, who wanted a literal kingdom to displace the Romans. The second is that the kingdom manifests itself in the believer in the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe that Young is correct.

If we consider the history of Israel, the root meaning of the word is "the people of God, set as missionaries, with the (kingdom) power to carry out the mission." I discuss this at length in chapter 2 of my book I Want to be Left Behind. When we recognize that the disciples were the leaders of true Israel after Christ's ascension, then the kingdom power was among them. And certainly Jesus had it.

I don't think that it is necessary to apply "kingdom" in only a (divine) political way. Rather, it legitimately can refer to the Holy Spirit power within God's people.

Ted

[John Reece]

Thanks for your response, Ted.

Blessings,

John

[barryrob]

Luke 17:20-21
Some Pharisees asked Jesus when the Kingdom of God would come. His answer was "The Kingdom of God does not come in such a way as to be seen. No one will say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!'; because the Kingdom of God is within you." -Good News Bible: Today's English Version.

As Jesus here was addressing the Pharisees of whom he said:-

KJV Matt Ch. 23
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

So we see Jesus feelings about them, so please tell me how could the Kingdom of God be "within" them??
They did not follow Jesus but set about murdering him so How could God be even with Them??
How could the Kingdom of God be "within" them when they where going to "damnation" by Jesus own words???

"Within" here MUST BE Wrong!!!

Barryrob

[John Reece]

As Jesus here was addressing the Pharisees of whom he said:-

KJV Matt Ch. 23
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

So we see Jesus feelings about them, so please tell me how could the Kingdom of God be "within" them??
They did not follow Jesus but set about murdering him so How could God be even with Them??
How could the Kingdom of God be "within" them when they where going to "damnation" by Jesus own words???

"Within" here MUST BE Wrong!!!

Barryrob

:smile:

Perhaps you are right.

And perhaps A. T. Robertson was wrong when he countered the objection you raise with this comment:


"Within you" (entoV umwn). This is the obvious, and, I think, the necessary meaning of entoV. The examples cited of the use of entoV in Xenophon and Plato where entoV means "among" do not bear out when investigated. Field (Ot. Norv.) "contends that there is no clear instance of entoV in the sense of among" (Bruce), and rightly so. What Jesus says to the Pharisees is that they, as others, are to look for the kingdom of God within themselves, not in outward displays and supernatural manifestations. It is not a localized display "Here" or "There." It is in this sense that in Luke 11:20 Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God as "come upon you"..., speaking to the Pharisees. The only other instance of entoV in the N.T. (Matthew 23:26) necessarily means "within" ("the inside of the cup"). There is, beside, the use of entoV meaning "within" in the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus saying of Jesus of the Third Century (Deismann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 426) which is interesting: "The kingdom of heaven is within you" (entoV umwn) as here in Luke 17:21.' - A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament.