The Presence of the Kingdom

The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Theology by  Robert Saucy · 2010

Along with the primary teaching of the epistles that the kingdom is future, there are a few statements that relate it to the present experience of believers. Some passages speak of spiritual characteristics of the kingdom that are already in operation through the Spirit. Paul’s teaching that “the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Ro 14:17) is plainly attempting to encourage these traits in the present church. But applying kingdom characteristics is not necessarily the same as declaring that the kingdom has come and is presently established. According to William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, the “kingdom” here, in accord with Paul’s normal use, is the messianic kingdom, which is “the reward and goal of the Christian life.” The principles of that kingdom mentioned in this passage are, however, already exhibited in this world through the indwelling Spirit.(83) Viewing the kingdom Christologically, Cranfield, following Käsemann, says that “it is in the presence and activity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and only so, that the kingdom of God is experienced in the present.”(84)

Paul’s statement to the Corinthians that “the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power” (1Co 4:20) is another application of the kingdom to the present. Instead of arrogant human “talking,” the apostle sought the power of the kingdom—a reference, according to the context, to the power of God in the gospel that was manifest by the Spirit (cf. 1Co 1:18, 24; 2:4–5). While this teaches a present relation to the kingdom and the experience of its power, it hardly demonstrates a present established kingdom in distinction to the apostle’s general teaching of a future kingdom. As C. K. Barrett says, “It is always an eschatological concept (though sometimes brought forward into the present), and the power with which it works is the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom. xiv. 17), by which God’s purpose is put into effect and the future anticipated in the present.”(85)

The apostle has just chided the Corinthians for their boasting as if they had already attained the kingdom and were reigning as kings (cf. 4:8). He would hardly talk of a present kingdom just a few verses later.

The verse that most clearly expresses some kind of present position in the kingdom is Paul’s statement that the Father “has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Col 1:13). Many scholars view this “kingdom of the Son” as a present spiritual kingdom of salvation that believers enter into at the moment of conversion.(86) For example, Peter T. O’Brien, concurring with C. F. D. Moule that the kingdom is “entirely moral and spiritual … for the disciples of Christ,” declares, “It is here an existing reality, a present possession.”(87) Curtis Vaughn pointedly states, “The ‘kingdom’ (rule) is not to be interpreted eschatologically. It was for the Colossians a present reality (cf. John 3:3–5).”(88)

The context, however, favors an eschatological meaning for the kingdom in this verse.(89) Immediately preceding this statement, the apostle wrote that the Father “has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light” (Col 1:12). Several terms in this statement point to the future. Werner Foerster says that the term inheritance (klēros) “is used to denote the eschatological portion assigned to man.”(90) In addition, according to O’Brien, to describe the inheritance as belonging to “the saints in the kingdom of light” means that it is “in the realm of the light of the age to come” and is the equivalent of the “hope laid up in heaven (v. 5; cf. 3:1–4).”(91) Therefore the saints are presently qualified (the Greek aorist tense) to share in the inheritance, but the reference is to a future blessing.

That this “inheritance … in the kingdom of light” (Col 1:12) is related to being “brought into the kingdom of the Son” (v. 13) is seen in the connection of “light” and “darkness” in these two verses. T. K. Abbott notes that the apostle spoke here of an inheritance in “light” rather than “in the heavenlies” because he wanted to represent the condition of natural mankind as “darkness” in verse 13.(92) To be qualified for “the kingdom of light” (v. 12) is therefore the equivalent of being “rescued … from the dominion of darkness and brought … into the kingdom of the Son” (v. 13).

If such is the case, then this reference to the kingdom, like many others in Paul’s writings, belongs to the eschatological category of an inheritance that is already assured. It is the equivalent of the saints’ having their “citizenship in heaven” (Php 3:20). This is the view of Charles A. Briggs, who acknowledges that he came to it after for many years holding the position that believers were already in a present kingdom.

Elsewhere in the Pauline epistles the kingdom has always had an eschatological reference and has been an inheritance, a kingdom of glory….My final study of it [Col. 1:13],in its connection with the Messianic conception of the Epistles of the Imprisonment, leads me to the opinion that the kingdom is eschatological here also. It is parallel with the inheritance in light. As the kingdom is elsewhere an inheritance, its parallelism with inheritance and its substitution for it in a common antithesis to authority of darkness favors that reference here. The only difficulty is in explaining how Christians may be said to be transferred into a kingdom which in its nature is eschatological. The solution of this difficulty is found in the parallelism with citizenship in heaven of the Epistle to the Philippians; and with the life hid with Christ of our Epistle [Col. 3:3].(93)

This relationship to the future kingdom, however, does carry with it a present blessing. Believers whose citizenship has been transferred into Christ’s kingdom are now free from “the dominion of darkness,” by which the apostle means the “satanic or demonic powers,”(94) whose slaves they had formerly been and over whom Christ had triumphed. But this deliverance is not yet all-encompassing. It relates to the believer’s inner personal or spiritual freedom from the domination of the evil powers, but not yet deliverance from outward evil.(95) The present effect of belonging to Christ’s kingdom is elaborated in the following verse: “… we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col 1:14). According to Thomas Sappington, Paul in this verse, which by construction is intimately related to verse 13, “reminds his readers what they possess because of redemption ‘in Christ.’”(96)

Being presently “brought into the kingdom of the Son,” therefore, signifies not a kingdom reign, but spiritual salvation through a relationship with the coming King (cf. “in whom,” Col 1:14), even as we saw previously concerning the present relationship to the kingdom in the teaching of Jesus. The same essential truth is expressed by Paul in relation to his commission. Christ had sent him to the Gentiles “to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Ac 26:18). According to the Colossians passage, that place among the sanctified means heirship in “the kingdom of light” and citizenship in “the kingdom of the Son”—which is presently in heaven but will come to earth with Christ.

The teaching of the early church, therefore, yields the same picture of the kingdom as that found in the Gospels. The establishment of the kingdom on earth is still future. The believer is related to this kingdom through faith in the King and is therefore an heir and already a citizen of the coming kingdom. The King has already bestowed some of the blessings of the kingdom on its citizens, so it is possible to speak of the presence of the kingdom now. This presence is described in terms of righteousness, peace, and joy (Rom 14:17), the forgiveness of sins (Col 1:13–14), and power (1Co 4:20), but never in terms of a present “reign.”

Footnotes

⸻

83 William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), 391–92. Charles A. Briggs says of this verse, “It is not clear whether the kingdom of God here is the kingdom of glory, or the kingdom of the Church in this world. Paul thus far has always used it of the kingdom of glory. The presumption is that it has the same reference here. Eating and drinking are not the characteristics of that kingdom of glory. Eating and drinking are not the preparation for it. But its characteristics are righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. These things are to be sought for. Only those who have them will inherit the kingdom” (The Messiah of the Apostles [Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1895], 172–73).

84 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979), 2:718.

85 C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 118. Compare also H. A. W. Meyer’s comment on this verse: “The βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, again, is not here, as it never is elsewhere . . ., and in particular never in Paul’s writings (neither in this passage nor in Rom. xiv. 7; Col. 1:13, iv. 11 . . .), the church, or the kingdom of God in the ethical sense . . ., but the Messianic kingdom” (Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians, 2 vols. [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1877–79], 104).

86 Some scholars distinguish “the kingdom of Christ” from the “kingdom of God,” seeing the former as the present reign of Christ and the latter as a future event occurring after Christ hands over the kingdom to the Father (1Co 15:24; cf. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 45 [Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1982], 37; Eduard Lohse, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], 37–38; Gerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953], 259). Vos does acknowledge, however, that this distinction is not uniform in Paul.

Such a radical distinction does not appear to be valid. In various passages there is reference to “the kingdom of God and of Christ” (cf. Eph 5:5). Particularly telling against this distinction is the statement associated with the coming of Christ: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” (Rev 11:15). Even in the eternal state the throne is “of God and of the Lamb” (Rev 22:1). Bertold Klappert first shows that the “kingdom of God” is bound up with the person and work of Jesus both in the Gospels and the epistles; then he rightly concludes that “the kingdom of Jesus Christ is in the NT view the same as the kingdom of God” (“King, Kingdom,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 2:386–89); cf. also Schmidt, “βασιλεία,” in TDNT, 1:581, 588–89.

87 Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 44 (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1982), 28. C. F. D. Moule further adds the very questionable negative statement that “there is no trace of a nationalistic Messianism in the N. T. conception” (The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Cambridge Greek Testament [Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1962], 58).

88 Curtis Vaughn, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 180.

89 According to Per Beskow, all of the New Testament references to the kingdom of “the Son of Man or of Christ” are “distinctly eschatological in character” (Rex Gloriae, 44).

90 Werner Foerster, “κλῆρος,” in TDNT, 3:763.

91 O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 27; similarly, T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, n.d.), 207.

92 Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, 207.

93 Charles A. Briggs, The Messiah of the Apostles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1895), 211–12.

94 Ralph Martin, “Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Colossians,” in Reconciliation and Hope, ed. Robert Banks (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 107.

95 The present limitation of freedom from the “dominion of darkness” is evident in that the apostle’s language has an Old Testament—Qumranic background. Ralph P. Martin points to one Qumran reference to this evil “dominion” as that “which inflicts persecution on the children of righteousness (1 QS iii.22f.).” The continuing persecution of the New Testament church thus made it evident that complete deliverance was not yet the believer’s experience (Martin, Reconciliation and Hope).

96 Thomas J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, Journal for the Study of the New 

The Road to Atheism

To deny the existence of Satan, called the Devil by Scripture, is not some minor doctrinal matter, some non-essential “little deal.” It raises a major theological problem. Once the Bible’s repeated presentation of the Devil as a real, external, personal being is dismissed, there is no clear reason why the same method could not also be used to dismiss the existence of God Himself. Therefore, the road to atheism begins with denying the Devil.

First, the Hebrew word Satan and the Greek Diabolos are understood in Scripture as proper nouns, that is, personal names. As The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible notes (1999, p. 244):

“As a proper noun in intertestamental Jewish texts and Christian writers the word denotes the great Adversary of God and righteousness, the Devil.”

Likewise, Vine’s Concise Dictionary of Bible Words, on the Greek diabolos (1228), defines it as “an accuser; a slanderer” (from diaballo, “to accuse, to malign”), and explains that it is one of the names of Satan. From it the English word Devil is derived and should be applied only to Satan as a proper name. Daimon, “a demon,” is frequently, but wrongly, translated “devil”; it should always be translated “demon.” There is one Devil; there are many demons.

Second, the Old Testament presents the Devil as the chief external enemy of God’s creation from beginning to end. The serpent in Genesis 3 is no mere literary device in the story of fallen humanity. In Job 1–2, Satan appears as the accuser. In Zechariah 3:1–2, he stands to accuse Joshua the high priest.

Third, the New Testament leaves us in no doubt, since Jesus speaks in the same way. He does not treat the Devil as a symbol for sinful human inclinations or as a poetic way of describing evil. Jesus says:

“He was a murderer from the beginning... and the father of lies” (John 8:44).

In the temptation narratives, Jesus is confronted by a real, external individual, not wrestling with his own evil (Matt. 4:1–11; Luke 4:1–13). Indeed, in Matthew 4 the Devil “came up to” speak with Jesus. Using precisely the same language, we are later told that “angels came up to him” to care for Jesus (Matt. 4:3, 11). Clearly, both the Devil and the angels of God came from outside. These are not internal temptations or delusions. Certainly, Jesus was not talking to himself. If the angels are personal beings in that context, then so is the Devil. To say that the Devil was merely Jesus’ internal struggle creates even greater problems.

James says that each person is tempted when he is “drawn away and enticed by his own desire,” and that such desire gives birth to sin (James 1:14–15). But Jesus never sinned (Heb. 4:15; 2 Cor. 5:21). Nor could he have been the source of a temptation designed to lure him into disobedience. To suggest otherwise would compromise both his sinlessness and his perfect obedience to the Father (John 8:29). Only a real external Devil makes sense of the narrative, especially one who twists Scripture in an effort to divert Jesus from his purpose-driven life and mission (Luke 4:43; Matt. 4:6; cf. Ps. 91:11–12).

The same Jesus who speaks of the Devil as a real individual also identifies God as his real Father, “the only true God” (John 17:3). So the question becomes unavoidable: if Jesus is reliable when he speaks about who God really is, why is he suddenly unreliable when he speaks about the Devil? Once the reader begins deciding which parts of Jesus’ supernatural worldview make sense to him and which do not, his authority as the one sent by that God has already been placed beneath human judgment. And the problem extends to the whole mission of Jesus.

The New Testament describes his ministry as a real conflict with real, external enemies:

“The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8).

His exorcisms, his confrontations with demons, and his victory over the Devil are not incidental to the gospel story. They are part of his proclamation of the coming Kingdom itself, a preview of its power (Matt. 12:28; Luke 10:18). If the Devil is only a metaphor, then Jesus’ whole mission is reduced to symbolism. But the New Testament does not present it that way.

As a result, Paul speaks of the Devil as one who “fell into condemnation” (1 Tim. 3:6) because of his rebellion against God. This clearly shows that the Devil exercised free will and, as a result, was condemned for his rebellion (Gen. 3:14–15; Rom. 16:20; Rev. 20:2–3). These are things that can only be ascribed to a real, external individual.

Likewise, Peter warns Christians:

“Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion” (1 Pet. 5:8).

It would make no sense for the apostles’ words here to mean merely a synonym for the internal sinful tendency of humans. Your own lusts and evil inclinations are one and the same as yourself. What purpose, then, would it serve to describe them in ways external to you?

Finally, Revelation describes “the original serpent, the one called the Devil and Satan, who is deceiving the whole world, was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him” (Rev. 12:9; cf. 20:2). The reference is to a final battle against the Devil and his fallen angels in our future. Again, it would make no sense at all for this to be describing merely human sin or evil inclinations.

The fact is that Scripture reveals both God and the Devil as real, external individuals. We know God because He once spoke to the Hebrew patriarchs and the prophets, and now to us in His Son (Heb. 1:1–2). In the same way, we know of the Devil because that same revelation speaks of him as a real personal fallen being. If one part of that revelation can be explained away because it is too supernatural or too uncomfortable for modern taste, then the same can eventually be done with the rest. To alter the meaning of words like Devil or Satan is an assault on the integrity and consistency of Scripture. God’s revelation must never be made a slave to human theories.

For that reason, denying the existence of the Devil as a real, external being is no harmless revision. It is a hermeneutical warning sign that should never even be entertained in the Christian mind, let alone allowed anywhere near a church. Once the Christian becomes the final authority over what Scripture may and may not mean, the door is opened not only to denying the Devil, but eventually to denying the God who revealed him. The road to atheism has then been solidly paved, and though one may think he is on the path of truth, its end is death (Prov. 14:12).

The Restoration of the Church

The New Testament defines the role of a presbyter—an overseer, pastor, or elder—in a way that closely resembles the role of the judges in the Old Testament. Just as Moses appointed qualified men to help bear the burden of leading Israel (Exod. 18:21-22; Num. 11:16-17), the apostles likewise appointed qualified men to help oversee and lead the growing Christian movement. This pattern appears clearly and consistently throughout the New Testament.

Acts 14:23 tells us that Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders for them in every church.” Later, at the Jerusalem council, Acts 15:22 says:

"The Apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leaders among the brothers."

Paul gives the same instruction to Titus:

“The reason I left you in Crete was that you might set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you” (Titus 1:5).

He then goes on to describe the kind of men who are fit for this role, giving what we might call a list of do's and don'ts. These qualifications make clear that such leaders were to be male, a “one-woman man,” and preferably married with children under proper control (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5; Titus 1:6). This is consistent with the wider biblical pattern in which the man is presented as the head of the woman and of the household (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23). For that reason, Paul treats a man’s ability to manage his own household well as evidence that he is capable of caring for the church of God (1 Tim. 3:4-5).

This is reinforced by Paul’s instruction to Timothy. Just before giving similar qualifications for overseers, he says:

“I do not allow a woman to teach or to domineer over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12).

In that context, Paul does not permit a woman to exercise teaching authority over men in the congregation in the way required of a presbyter. This clearly implies that Paul would never have even contemplated the oridination of women. He grounds this instruction in the order of events in Genesis:

“Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was completely deceived, fell into sin” (1 Tim. 2:13-14; cf. Gen. 2:7, 18-23; 3:1-6).

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Paul’s reasoning, his conclusion is plain. The governing and teaching office of presbyter was reserved for qualified men. This also fits the broader New Testament pattern of male leadership over the woman and his own home. It is therefore no surprise that qualified men were appointed to shepherd and oversee the people of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3).

These are legitimate reasons to question churches and ministries that ordain or appoint women to this role. If we want to model the New Testament church faithfully, then we must allow apostolic instruction—not man-made custom or modern culture—to define this very important office.

Richard Hiers on Luke 17:20-21

Chapter 2 of The Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Tradition, 1970.

The present tense is used to point to the future coming of the Kingdom of God in the verse containing the Pharisees’ question that introduces the pericope [v. 20], and appears similarly in Jesus’ response, which actually is the first part of the sentence that carries through v. 21. Furthermore, the future is clearly intended and the future tense is used in v. 21a and in the description of events with which the saying closes (17:22–37).

Another prominent feature of the context, the phrase “not…with signs to be observed,” (RSV) in v. 20b has been variously interpreted…Usually…the term parateresis (“signs to be observed”) and in fact the whole saying have been interpreted in an anti-apocalyptic sense: Jesus intended to deny that it was possible to predict when the Kingdom of God would come by consulting prophecies and deciphering the signs of the times. If the Kingdom had already come, there would be no need at any future time to search for signs of its coming. Is that what Jesus (or Luke) meant? It is not likely. For one thing, Jesus and Luke clearly expected the coming of the Kingdom of God in the future, whether or not they also thought that it was already present or had come previously.

Furthermore, it is not evident that the term “signs to be observed” in v. 20b should be understood to designate a preliminary apocalyptic sign at all, at least not the kind of sign that could be used as the basis for calculating the “day and the hour.”…Despite this fact, Luke 17:20 is commonly read by those who see it as an anti-apocalyptical polemic as if it [meant]: the Kingdom of God is not coming after(preliminary) signs. In 17:20ff, however, it is not a matter of preliminary signs. Rather, Jesus declares, there will be no accompanying sign to mark the arrival or imminence of the Kingdom.

The most significant portion of the context has generally been overlooked, namely Luke 17:21a: “nor will they say, ‘Behold here!’ or ‘There!’” It is particularly interesting that this wording, which appears here in connection with the arrival of the Kingdom of God, is repeated nearly verbatim in v. 23, but with explicit reference to the future arrival of the days of the Son of man. This parallelism or repetition suggests what is generally evident elsewhere in the synoptic tradition, that Jesus associated the coming of the Kingdom of God with the coming of the Son of man. The latter event, clearly, is thought of as still future (v. 23ff). But while v. 21a reads, “…nor will they say, ‘Lo, here!’ or ‘There!’” v. 23 reads, “And they will say to you, ‘Lo, there! Lo, here!’” Why do the prospective bystanders on one occasion claim to have identified or located the Kingdom of God (and/or the days of the Son of man) but on another occasion keep silent? How explain this apparent contradiction? What is the point here? In particular, why, on the one occasion, will they not say, ‘Lo, here!’ or ‘There!’?

The Pharisees, Luke says, have asked Jesus when (pote) the Kingdom of God is coming. To this he replies that its coming is not or will not be accompanied by a sign (17:20b). Note that they do not ask him about signs. His reply, however, passes over their question concerning “when.” Instead, he answers as if they had asked him whether there would be some sign by which the arrival of the final period could be identified, as if he were responding to the second part of the question raised by the disciples in Matt. 24:3 = Mark 13:3 = Luke 21:7.

Interpreters generally have overlooked the fact that Luke 17:21a is also a response to this latter kind of question, a question that, to be sure, may be implied in the first: when the time comes, how will men know that the Kingdom of God is here? What is said in 17:23ff is obviously in answer to this second point: when the Son of man comes, there will be no mistake about it. Thus, those who in the meantime, in the interim before his coming, say “Lo, there!” or “Here!” should be ignored, “for just as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of man be in his day.” Those guides who will point to some sign or clue in order to prove that the days of the Son of man have come, or will offer to lead Jesus’ disciples to a hidden Son of man somewhere, will be in error, therefore, and the disciples should not follow them. This is the meaning of Matt. 24:26ff; Luke 21:8, and also, perhaps, of the “vultures” saying in Matt. 24:28 = Luke 17:37.

Elsewhere, Jesus had stated, against the desire of the Pharisees and “this generation” for a sign, that none would be given (Mark 8:11ff). The Markan context does not show whether Jesus (or the Pharisees) had in mind a future sign that would (or would not) accompany the eschatological events, or a sign that would be given in advance. Perhaps the Pharisees sought a sign that would demonstrate Jesus’ prophetic authority. Signs and wonders are mentioned in Mark 13:22 = Matt. 24:24; however, these are to identify the presence of false prophets and false Christs. Such might point to signs as evidence of “realized eschatology” (Mark 13:21–23 = Matt. 24:23–26), but when the real Son of man comes, there will be no need for signs of the times. The evidence will be clearly visible and incontrovertible (Matt. 24:27; Mark 13:24–27 and parallels).

The negative statement “nor will they say: lo here, or there” in v. 21a, and the positive declaration “and they will say to you ‘lo, there, lo here’” in v. 23a do not contradict each other. In both instances Jesus is saying exactly the same thing about the Kingdom of God or the Son of man. In the earlier saying, the point is that the Kingdom will not come with an accompanying sign, i.e. in such a way that it will be necessary to look for some way of verifying it in case of doubt. The latter saying warns that in the coming days, before the Kingdom of God has come and while the disciples are passionately longing for the coming days of the Son of man, some will claim to have found him (the Son of man) or it (the Kingdom of God), but the disciples must not be misled, for the arrival of the Kingdom of God and Son of man will be so distinctive as to be self-evident and self-authenticating. There will be no doubt about it.

The parallelism extends beyond the anticipated silence and exclamations of the respective future bystanders; in each case, their responses are explained by reference to the character of the coming events, and the explanation is introduced by the conjunction “for” (gar). Verse 24 explains that the disciples are not to follow those who will mistakenly say “Lo, there!” or “Here!” for when the Son of man or the day of the Son of man really comes, it will be just as evident as when the lightning flashes from one side of the sky to the other (cf. Mark 13:24–26). Similarly, our crux interpretationis, v. 21b, follows v. 21a to explain why, when the Kingdom of God really comes (or while it is coming), the bystanders will not say, “Lo, here!” or “There,” the reason being that then the Kingdom of God will be visibly and dramatically in their midst. When the Kingdom of God comes, one will neither have to look for any special sign to identify it nor need a guide to find it somewhere.

The reason it is pointless to look for signs is not that the coming of the Kingdom of God and the Son of man will be invisible, but that, on the contrary, it will be universally and unmistakably visible, “as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other.” That is why then the bystanders will not say, “Lo, here!” or “There!” And that is why those who in the meantime say “Lo, there!” or “Here!” are to be ignored…

In 17:21b Luke understands Jesus to have meant that the coming of the Kingdom of God would be a future, obvious, and all-encompassing event…All of the sayings in Luke 17:20–18:8 have to do with the coming of the Kingdom of God and the Son of man, and with the responses men will or should make in the interim and at the time the Kingdom and Son of man are revealed. Throughout this section, it is clear that these decisive events are to take place in the future…Elsewhere also, as has been mentioned, the peculiarly Lucan material speaks only of a future coming of the Kingdom of God…There is…no reason to suppose that Luke thought that the Kingdom of God has come or appeared in or with Jesus and his ministry. Lucan eschatology is unequivocally futuristic, so far as the Kingdom of God is concerned.

What Jesus meant by the saying in Luke 17:20ff…cannot be determined as a matter of certainty…However, it does not support the view that Jesus considered the Kingdom of God to be present in his own person, or, for that matter, present at all. On the contrary, these verses point to its appearance dramatically and unmistakably in the future. When Luke 17:21b is taken in its context, the meaning emerges clearly enough: when the Kingdom of God comes, everyone will know it; there will be no need for authenticating clues or signs. Such also was the OT expectation — “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together” (Isa. 40:5).

Did Jesus Teach an Invisible Kingdom? Luke 17:20-21

Luke 17:20–21 is often cited as proof that Jesus taught the Kingdom of God to be present and invisible, “within” Christians. Yet that reading becomes difficult to defend once the passage is read in its immediate and wider biblical context.

When the Pharisees ask Jesus when the Kingdom of God will come, he answers: 

“The Kingdom of God does not come with careful observation. Nor will people say, Look, here it is, or, There it is, because the Kingdom of God will be all over, in the midst of you.”

Far from describing an invisible, present kingdom, Jesus immediately turns to the future, visible, unmistakable, and sign-laden appearing of the Son of Man. This points instead to a future event that introduces the sudden, universal, and impossible-to-miss coming of the Kingdom itself.

This reading reflects the consistent biblical pattern. For the Old Testament prophets, for Jesus, and for the apostles, the Kingdom does not arrive in slow historical stages, like a building under construction. It comes decisively, abruptly, and with world-shattering force. Daniel 2:35, 44 portrays “the eternal Kingdom” of the age to come as a stone striking and crushing the temporary kingdoms of this present evil age. Zephaniah 1:18 depicts “the day of the Lord” as a consuming fire bringing swift judgment upon all evil. In both cases, the imagery is not one of gradual expansion or invisibility, but of sudden divine intervention.

The immediate context of Luke 17 confirms the same point. Jesus compares the coming of the Son of Man to lightning flashing across the sky from one end to the other (Luke 17:23–24). He says that day will be like the flood in Noah’s time, which came suddenly and swept all away (Luke 17:26–27). He also likens it to the destruction of Sodom, when fire and brimstone fell without warning (Luke 17:28–30). In every case, the emphasis falls on suddenness, visibility, and finality. The same framework appears again in the larger context of Luke 21:24–31, where the coming Kingdom is associated with cosmic signs and the public vindication of the Son of Man.

For that reason, it is not proper to reduce the Kingdom in Luke 17:21 either to the mere presence of Jesus or to the popular notion of “God’s rule and reign in your life now.” At most, Jesus may have meant that he, as the appointed King, stood among them unrecognized. But even if that is granted, it does not alter the fundamentally future orientation of the Kingdom in biblical prophecy. From the Old Testament through the New, the Kingdom remains the rule of God to be imposed upon rebellious nations at the parousia, bringing to an end this present evil age (Matt. 24:3). Any interpretation of Luke 17:21 must reckon with that fundamental prophetic and biblical definition of the Kingdom.

This is why the Greek estin, usually translated “is” in verse 21, is better understood as a prophetic present-tense, “will be all over,” capturing its idiomatic force. The sense is not that the Kingdom had already arrived invisibly “within” individuals, as in the KJV, nor that it was already emerging through some hidden spiritual process. Rather, Jesus’ meaning is that when the Kingdom does come, it will not be confined to one place so that people must say, “Look here,” or “Look there.” When the Son of Man appears to establish the Kingdom on a renewed earth, the Kingdom will be worldwide, all around, and everywhere at once. No one will need to ask when the Kingdom is coming, because it will be public and undeniable.

This interpretation is strengthened later in Luke 19:11, where the expectation is explicitly stated that “the Kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.” Jesus immediately corrects that expectation by telling a parable of a nobleman, representing the Son of Man, “who went to a distant country to receive a kingdom and then return….after receiving the kingdom”! In biblical thought, then, the Kingdom is not an invisible process of gradual social improvement or inward spiritual development. It is a real, physical, visible Kingdom that will replace the kingdoms of this world.

Luke 17:21, therefore, should not be isolated from its literary and theological context and turned into a proof text for “Already Not Yet,” or for the Kingdom as some inward, invisible reign of God or Jesus in the heart. Read in context, the passage teaches the opposite. Jesus’ point is that the coming of the Kingdom will be so comprehensive, so sudden, and so openly visible that no careful observation will be necessary. Unlike the signs that precede its coming, as detailed by Jesus in Matthew 24 and echoing the prophecies of Daniel 7 and 9, the Kingdom itself, when finally established on a renewed earth, will be everywhere—decisive, public, and unmistakable.