The Essential Nature of the Kingdom of God

By Gerald F. Hawthorne

Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois

The Kingdom of God is a tremendously important and complex subject. Some insight into its importance can be gained by a perusal of John Bright’s recent book, The Kingdom of God (1953). Bright, at least, sees in the concept of the Kingdom the theme which gives to the Bible its unity and ties all its parts together (pp. 10f). He even offers a new title for the Old and New Testaments together: “The Book of the Coming Kingdom of God” (p. 197). For a brief introduction to the complexity of this problem, the opening pages of George Ladd’s The Gospel of the Kingdom, are most helpful. The purpose of this paper, however, is to show that Luke 17:20–21 contains the clearest enunciation of the essential nature of the Kingdom anywhere recorded in the words of Christ.

It was called forth by a question from the Pharisees—a religious-political party that was particularly hostile to our Lord during his earthly ministry. They emphasized the externals; he emphasized the spiritual. They emphasized ceremonial cleanness; he personal moral holiness. They withdrew from sinners; he associated with them. They stressed the Law of God; he stressed the love of God as the fulfillment of the Law. It is important to keep in mind who it was that asked this question: “When is the Kingdom of God coming?”

The Pharisees’ question was not at all involved, but it was revealing, nonetheless, and showed exactly what their concept of the nature of the Kingdom was, and what it was they were emphasizing. For to the Pharisees the Kingdom of God was primarily something that could be comprehended in a space-time concept: “When shall the Kingdom come?” To them it was “a world-embracing order, into which men may ‘enter,’ or from which they may be excluded”;[1] political, national, especially involving them as God’s chosen people; physical, primarily, of this world. The answer given that day is perhaps the most-discussed and most-tortured saying of Jesus[2] contained in the entire Gospel record.[3] And yet it is also one of the most-important statements of our Lord about the Kingdom. For whatever interpretation an exegete may give to these words of the Saviour, he is bound to be impressed by them and say with Rudolf Otto that they were intended to startle and “to shatter the dogmatism of a finished eschatology and burst its too narrow limits”.[4] In effect, Jesus told them by way of reply: “You think that the Kingdom of God is confined to some definite time, for you ask ‘When?’ But I tell you that it is not something confined exclusively, to any particular time. It transcends time. It belongs to the eternal. It is not temporal only. It is not exclusively a matter of ‘When?’

“You think that it is something you will be able to see—that it has physical dimensions. But I say to you that it does not come with observation (KJV), it is not something that has signs to be observed (RSV). The Kingdom of God is not coming visibly! (Goodspeed)”. The word used here for observation (παρατηρήσεως) comes from a verb often used by medical writers for the careful watching of the symptoms of disease.[5] It implies close observation and scrutiny.[6] So what Christ is saying is this: “No matter how carefully you study the signs of the times, or how carefully you look for outward evidences of the Kingdom’s arrival, if this is all that interests you you will miss it altogether. For the nature of the Kingdom of God is not to be thought of as something primarily externally observable!

“You think that the Kingdom of God is geographical and can be located in some place. ‘Lo here!’ or ‘Lo there!’ you think men will say. But neither is this conception right, for I say to you that the Kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed nor will they say, Lo here it is or there! The Kingdom I am talking about is neither temporal, geographical, nor observable, for, ‘and this conjunction is what makes all other speculation regarding the Kingdom unacceptable,’ for the Kingdom of God is ἐντὸς ὑμῶν!”

The problem now before us is to determine what our Lord meant by ἐντὸς ὑμῶν. The majority of modern expositors, whether dispensational[7] or otherwise,[8] understand this expression to mean “among you,” “in your midst”. That is to say, the Kingdom of God was present among the Pharisees and the Jewish people in the person of Jesus Christ and his disciples, or that it would be present suddenly in their midst (taking the ἐστίν as an apocalyptic, or futuristic, present).[9]

There is much to be said for this exposition. Although the translation “among” is not the obvious meaning for ἐντός yet there have been examples taken both from classical Greek[10] and from Symmachus’ translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek[11] which seem to support such a meaning. In addition, this interpretation may be traced as early as Cyril of Alexandria (376–444),[12] and perhaps even in Ephraim Syrus (306–373) in his Commentary on the Diatessaron, who wrote: “‘Behold the Kingdom is within your heart’, which He (Jesus) said concerning Himself, who was standing in their midst”.[13] It is also supported by the old Syriac version and the Syriac Vulgate.[14]

Still further, this understanding of ἐντὸς ὑμῶν finds some support from the immediate context of vv. 22–37. Says Noack, in an article cited by Paul Bretscher of Concordia Seminary, only if the Kingdom is “among” them can it disappear, can it then become hid, and the manifestation of its powers cease[15] as v. 22 seems to imply: “The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it”.

The wider context of the Synoptics’ teaching on the Kingdom of God seems also to lend its support to “among” as the meaning of ἐντὸς. For example, the Synoptics frequently emphasize the fact that the Kingdom of God was not altogether a matter of some future time when it would come, but rather that in some sense it was already present in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Hence it was in their midst. Jesus’ own words summarize this idea: “If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt 12:28). We are indebted to men like Professor C. H. Dodd for directing our attention once again to this important and inspiring aspect of the Kingdom,[16] even though we might not agree wholly with them in their analysis of the subject. Our Lord was indeed the αὐτοβασιλεία.[17]

On the other hand, however, there are many serious objections to interpreting ἐντὸς as “among”, not the least of which is the lexical usage of the word. P. M. S. Allen, in an article entitled “Luke xvii.21”, after examining those passages in which this word is employed concludes “that if, on general grounds, ἐντὸς ὑμῶν in Lk 17:21 be rendered ‘in your midst,’…this rendering is a violation of the known usage of the word”.[18] Allen’s conclusion is further confirmed by the fact that when Luke means “in the midst”, he generally uses ἐν μέσῳ, an expression occurring about a dozen times in Luke-Acts.[19]

A further criticism is this: although there may be a few ancient expositors who advocate “among” for ἐντὸς, as we have already noted, the great weight of exegetical tradition is quite opposed to such an interpretation. How, then, does one account for so many modern scholars espousing this view? Noack, in the article referred to previously,[20] explains the shift as the result of a changing theological emphasis regarding the kingdom of God, so that whether one follows a futuristic eschatology, a realized eschatology, a mediating position, namely, that with Jesus’ ministry the Kingdom of God dawned, or a postponed kingdom view, all are now interested in the meaning “among” for ἐντὸς. It is important for their theses.

The context itself does not wholly support the rendering “among”. In fact, in my opinion, it really opposes it. For if here it was meant that the Kingdom were among the Jewish people in the person and work of Jesus Christ, it would have been observable. It would have been located in space so that one could say “here”. It would have been located in time so that one could say “now”. But these are the very things Jesus denied in his opening words to the Pharisees.

The syntax of the passage, as Frederic Godet has so ably demonstrated, is also opposed to this meaning for ἐντὸς. Though he admits that such an interpretation may be possible philologically, yet he points out that for it to be admissible, ἐστιν would have to be put before the regimen ἐντὸς ὑμῶν, since the verb “is” would need to have the emphasis—”it is really present”—and the idea “among you” would then be secondary. But it is just the other way around. “If the regimen ἐντὸς ὑμῶν has the emphasis (and its place proves that 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 its coming being remarked”,[21] and this is what follows, as we shall attempt to demonstrate, only if the meaning is other than “among” or “in the midst”.

A second interpretation offered for ἐντὸς ὑμῶν was suggested by Colin H. Roberts in an article entitled “The Kingdom of Heaven (Luke XVII.21)”,[22] namely that this expression means “within your reach”. In this very thorough article the Oxford papyrologist quotes from unpublished Oxyrhynchus papyri in support of this meaning for ἐντὸς when applied to persons. One of these is a note written to C. Minucius Italus, prefect of Egypt in A.D. 99-100, from a wine merchant who claims that his partner’s wife is defrauding him: ἡ δὲ ἔχουσ(α) τὸ φορτίον το(ῦ) οἴνου ἐντὸς αὑτῆς τὴν τίμην ἐνεβόλευσε πᾶσαν—”Having the wine crop ἐντὸς ὑμῶν, she has seized the whole proceeds” (a translation given by Harald Riesenfeld in Nuntius, No. 2, 1949).

Though Roberts himself gave no translation for this fragment, it is quite clear that he understands ἐντὸς αὐτῆς to mean “in her hands, in her possession”—”Since she has the wine crop within her reach (possession) she has seized the whole proceeds”. Roberts concludes his article by saying that the Kingdom of God does not come at all if you strain your eyes to look for it, “because it is with you, in your possession if you want it now. To ask whether the Kingdom is external or internal, a state of mind or a state of society, a process or a catastrophic event is (in this context) to ask the wrong question; it is no wonder that both answers are wrong, or rather partial and incomplete. Both may in a sense be right. It is a present reality, but only if you wish it to be so. The misconception to be removed is that the Kingdom is something external to men, independent of their volitions and actions.”[23] Bornkamm writes, “In this way, both in word and action, Jesus fastens upon today, this present moment in which are contained the decisions of the ultimate future”.’[24]

Professor H. J. Cadbury writing for the Christian Century also endorses Roberts’ thesis saying that so understood “the sentence means…the availability, the accessibility, the opportunity, of the Kingdom”.[25] This is to say that God has offered the Kingdom, he has done his part, now each person must do the rest—each must decide for himself. It is an expression stressing the individual responsibility of all who hear the gospel of the Kingdom. Strive to attain the Kingdom, for it is “within you”, that is to say, “to take it lies among your choices and within your power”.[26] This interpretation, perhaps uncritically, is already finding its way into our commentaries with Leaney in the new Harper-Black series leading the way.[27]

Harald Riesenfeld, however, questions the validity of Roberts’ interpretation of this expression as “within one’s reach, or possession”, and ventures to suggest that the papyri examples Roberts used are actually dealing with an abbreviated mode of expression: ἐντὸς ἑαυτοῦ (αὑτῆς) instead of the more complete phrase ἐντὸς τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ (αὐτῆς).[28] Professor Allen Wikgren of the University of Chicago, in a study which he made on ἐντὸς, and which he allowed me to use, supports Riesenfeld’s objection to Roberts’ interpretation of the papyri finds with additional references to ἐντὸς where an ellipsis of οἶκος or the like is entirely possible. One instance, which he suggests has remained unnoticed, so far as he has observed, by commentators on the meaning of ἐντὸς, occurs in Job 18:19 of the LXX, where Codex Alexandrinus reads ἐντὸς αὐτοῦ instead of ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ (see H. B. Swete’s ed. of the LXX). Wikgren says,

“That these readings are interchangeable idioms for ‘in his house’ or ‘in his dwelling’ is clearly indicated by the context of the verse, which reads as follows in Rahlfs’ text:

οὐκ ἔσται ἐπίγνωστος ἐν λαῷ αὐτοῦ
οὐδὲ σεσωσμένος ἐν τῇ ὑπ᾿ οὐρανὸν ὁ οἶκος αὐτοῦ
ἀλλ᾿ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ ζήσονται ἔτεροι.

The fact that a scribe could easily mistake one reading for the other only serves to indicate the naturalness of the idiom.”

Hence, it seems that Roberts’ interpretation of ἐντὸς ὑμῶν as “within your reach” is rather tenuous in so far as it is based on the evidence derived from these new unpublished papyri finds.

We come now to the third, and I believe the correct interpretation of ἐντὸς ὑμῶν, namely, “within you,” i.e., “within your hearts”. The reasons for returning to this view, which is really the oldest, are as follows.

First of all, philologically, to take ἐντὸς as meaning “within” is the least objectionable. Even those scholars who reject this interpretation on other grounds are forced to admit that the natural way to translate ἐντὸς is by “within” or “in”.[29] The Liddell, Scott, Jones lexicon gives no other meaning for ἐντὸς, noting that it is always opposed to ἐκτός (outside), and giving as the translation for the example in Luke 17:21, “within your hearts”. Moulton and Milligan in their The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament preface their remarks on ἐντὸς by saying, “we have no citation that throws any light on the much disputed meaning of ἐντὸς ὑμῶν” (p. 218), and yet a study of the examples they give only serves to confirm the interpretation “within” whether it be in a local sense, a temporal sense, “or a development of these uses with the meaning within the limits of, up to”.[30] This is also borne out by the LXX. It is only fair, however, to point out, as Andrew Sledd has done so incisively in his article entitled, “The Interpretation of Luke 17:21”, that even when the translation “within” is correct and idiomatic, “within” itself has different shades of meaning.[31] Nevertheless, it is at least important to keep in mind that ἐντὸς always includes a contrast with the idea without.[32]

Secondly, this interpretation of ἐντὸς ὑμῶν is in keeping with the great weight of exegetical scholarship until recent times. Even Colin Roberts, who espouses a different interpretation, confesses that ἐντὸς ὑμῶν, as “within you” is “sanctioned by a tradition of exegesis almost unbroken until modern times”.[33] Moulton and Milligan cite an early example from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri containing the second of the new sayings of Jesus (P. Oxy. IV.65416) which shows how very ancient this interpretation of Luke 17:21 really is: ἡ βασ[ιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν] ἐντὸς ὑμῶν [ἐ]στι [καὶ ὅστις ἄ́ ἑαυτὸν] γνῷ ταύτην εὐρή[σει…, and in the judgment of Moulton and Milligan, the context definitely favors the translation “within you”. Tertullian interpreted Luke 17:21 as In praecepto est Del regnum. Origen thought of the Kingdom of God as in us in opposition to the Kingdom of sin in sinners. Athanasius said that the Kingdom in us is Christ. Faber Stapulensis wrote, “The Kingdom is within us”. Calvin taught that the Kingdom is within us; it is an inner and spiritual renewal of the soul (interior et spiritualis animae renovatio).[34] It is not necessary to extend this list further, for these names, well-known to all, are representative of the great mass of traditional exegesis on this subject, and their testimony must be seriously taken into consideration.

A third reason for returning to the ancient interpretation is that it is consistent with the immediate context, and is not inconsistent with the wider context of Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom. Recall that, in this passage, our Lord had said that the Kingdom of God is not a matter of geographical location, “lo here!” or “lo there!”, nor of physical dimension, “The Kingdom of God does not come with sign to be observed (μετὰ παρατηρή́σεως), for the Kingdom is ἐντὸς ὑμῶν”.

As Dalman has so well expressed it, “a complete negation of μετὰ παρατηρήσεως requires the affirmation of an advent of the theocracy in the secrecy of men’s hearts”.[35]

It may immediately be objected, however, that this interpretation is not possible, since the context teaches that Jesus was addressing the Pharisees. Surely they would be the last group on earth of whom he would say, “The Kingdom of God is within your hearts!” This difficulty, however, “disappears if ὑμῶν is taken impersonally, as often in our Lord’s teaching. Thus Otto, in the Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, p. 135: ‘you’ here (Luke 17:21) means neither the Pharisees in particular, nor the scribes, but the same ‘you’ as are generally addressed by Jesus….’To you’ is a stereotyped phrase employed whenever anything is said about the coming kingdom’“.[36] What our Lord meant, as Alfred Plummer has put it so well, is that the “Kingdom is essentially spiritual: it is in your hearts, if you possess it at all”.[37] And this would apply to Pharisees and publicans alike!

A more serious objection is that the interpretation of ἐντὸς ὑμῶν as a state of mind, as something within the human soul, is alien to the teaching of Jesus throughout the Gospels.[38] Those who raise this objection consider the prime emphasis of the Svnoptics to be on the Kingdom as a world-embracing order into which men can enter or be excluded,[39] not as something that enters them. There are, however, some important data too often overlooked by such critics, which, if carefully considered, will tend to modify this objection or dissolve it entirely. For example, how is it that Paul could write so soon after our Lord’s ministry that “the Kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17)? Is this a Pauline departure? Is this a developed idea reflective of a new eschatological outlook of the early Church? James Moffatt replies in this way: “We have no business to assume that what was possible to Paul was beyond the reach of Jesus”.[40] I prefer to express it in this manner: this was possible to Paul because it was original with Jesus! For it can be demonstrated from the Gospels that what Paul stated so clearly to the Roman church was already expressed, though perhaps only implicitly, in the recorded teachings of the Saviour.

We may note the thought of Mark 10:15: “Whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child will never enter into it”. Professor Dodd suggests that this is parallel to the Rabbinic expression “to take upon oneself the malkuth of heaven”, which means being voluntarily obedient to the revealed will of God.[41] Here the Kingdom of God is something to be received within and to enter into at the same time. Christ’s words suggest also the need for a proper heart attitude as a prerequisite for receiving the Kingdom.

Recall also Christ’s words in the Beatitudes: “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matt 5:3); “blessed are those persecuted for righteousness’ sake for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven” (5:10). Here the Kingdom is closely associated with an inner quality of heart; at least it belongs to the poor and the persecuted.

We may also note Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:33: “Seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness”. Has any one ever thought to interpret the καί as ascensive (see Dana and Mantey, Grammar, p. 250): “Seek first the Kingdom of God, even his righteousness”? Perhaps Paul got his cue from this very logion!

There is all interesting parallel to Matthew 23:14 which also points to the fact that the Kingdom of God was not always thought of as wholly external even by the Synoptic writers. Where Matthew has the statement that the Pharisees shut up the Kingdom of Heaven before those who wish to enter, Luke 11:52 interprets their action as taking away the key of knowledge. “Thus basileia (theou) is even the same as gnosis (theou)!”.[42]

It is quite clear from the Synoptic Gospels that the Kingdom of God (Heaven) is sometimes equated with eternal life. Take for example, Matthew 18:9 where it is said that “it is better to enter into life one-eyed, than to be cast into Gehenna with both eyes”. The parallel passage, Mark 9:47, has “Kingdom of God” for “Life” (cf. also Matt 25:34 with 25:46). It is also quite clear from the Gospel of John that the believer not only enters into life (which has been equated with the Kingdom), but that this life enters into him; it is something he possesses (John 5:24; 3:16, etc.). Though many may consider this to be a later interpretation, who is to say that it does not correctly set forth Jesus’ meaning?

Still a fourth reason is the one long ago suggested by Frederic Godet and referred to earlier in this article: the argument from syntax. Since “the regimen ἐντὸς ὑμῶν has the emphasis (and its place proves that 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 its coming being remarked; and this is what follows from its internal, spiritual nature”.[43]

A fifth and final reason leads to “within you”, “in your hearts” as the correct understanding of ἐντὸς ὑμῶν. It is that the meaning of the word “Kingdom” conforms best with this sense. βασιλεία does not refer primarily to the territor over which a king rules, though it is inevitable that this meaning is involved. “A survey of the O.T.… of the Pseudepigrapha and Apocalyptic literature (with the rabbinic literature…) and the other hellenistic writers (above all, Philo…) shows that the meaning status, or power [the being, essence, situation of a king] is in the foreground [in βασιλεία]. For the N.T. too, this basic meaning is decisive”. So concludes K. L. Schmidt in his article written for Kittel’s Theologisches W Örterbuch.[44]

Therefore, if this is the real meaning of Basileia (Kingdom), then the expression Basileia tou theou (Kingdom of God) refers primarily to the dominion of God, and only secondarily to the domain over which his rule is extended. Alan Richardson captured this idea when he translated basileia tou theou as The Kingship of God.[45] Thus the basic idea contained in this expression is given full significance in Luke 17:21 only if the meaning “within your hearts” is attributed to ἐντὸς ὑμῶν. Because the Pharisees’ question revealed the wrong idea of the nature of the Kingdom of God, and because it stressed too strongly its space-time qualities, our Lord did not reply to their “When?”, but sought to correct their understanding of the Kingdom’s essential nature. In its essential nature it is neither temporal or spatial but spiritual. It is the rule of God over the heart of one who has willingly submitted his will to the supreme will of God.

Jesus had a great many things to say about the Kingdom. In a sense it was the central core of his teaching. We have already taken note of the complexity of this subject evidenced by the fact that sometimes he proclaimed the Kingdom as a present reality, describing it as “God’s sovereign power becoming manifestly effective in the world of human experience”,[46] telling his listeners that the Kingdom is not wholly promise but is also fulfillment and that they might even now enjoy its power and blessings. At other times he spoke of it as future, something yet to come: “Whenever the Son of Man sits upon his glorious throne, you will also sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt 19:28); “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming upon the clouds of heaven” (Matt 26:64).

But in Luke 17:20–21 neither of these aspects seems to be in view, or perhaps it would be better to say that what our Lord has in mind here applies equally well to both aspects of the Kingdom—present and future: “Whenever and wherever the Kingdom of God exists, it exists truly within the human heart”. “So understood, the sentence indicates the spiritual character of the Kingdom (rÈgne) of God: it implies that its nature is not a cosmic or political revolution, but a renewal (renouvellement) of the heart, a work of grace by the Holy Spirit which is not perceived from without”.[47]

Notes

1. J. M. Creed: The Gospel according to St. Luke, p. 219.
2. R. Otto: The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, p. 131.
3. For summaries of various views of interpretation of this passage see: H. A. W. Meyer: Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospels of Mark and Luke; Bent Noack: Das Gottesreich bei Lukas, Eine Studie zu Luk. 17:20–24 (Symbolae Biblicae Upsaliensis, SupplementhÄften till Svensk Exegetisk årsbok, 10), Uppsala, 1948; Paul M. Bretscher: “Luke 17:20–21 in Recent Investigations”, Concordia Theological Monthly, 22 (1951), pp. 895–907 (to whom I am indebted for all the material used from the Noack article); Colin H. Roberts: “The Kingdom of Heaven (Luke XVII.21)”, Harvard Theological Review, XLI 1, Jan 1948, p. 1. See also a recent article by A. RÜstow, “ENTOσ YMWN EσTIN, zur Deutung von Lukas 17/20–21” in Zeitschrift fÜr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 51 (1960), 197–224.
4. Otto: op. cit., p. 136.
5. Alfred Plummer: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (ICC), p. 405.
6. Ibid., p. 406.
7. See L. S. Chafer: Systematic Theology, IV, p. 178; V, pp. 339, 343.
8. See Bretscher’s article in Concordia Theol. Journal, 1951, for a list of these. See also C. H. Dodd: Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1938); GÜnther Bornkamm: Jesus of Nazareth; John Bright: op. cit., p. 200, passim; George Ladd: The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 17.
9. So Alfred Loisy: Les Évangiles synoptiques, Vol. II, 1908, who contends that “this fragment serves as a preamble to an instruction on the coming of the reign of God” which is found in Luke 17:22–34 (p. 401).
10. Xenophon: Anab. 1.10.3; Hell. 11.3.19, but see Roberts; op. cit., p. 3 for a discussion of these references and a rejection of their validity. See also Andrew Sledd: “The Interpretation of Luke xvii.21”, Expository Times 50 (1939), pp. 235–237.
11. Lam 1:3; Ps 87:16; 145:5. See Roberts: op. cit., and B. S. Easton: “An Exegetical Study”, American Journal of Theology, 16 (1912), p. 275.
12. So Noack, as cited by Bretscher, op. cit., p. 899.
13. H. D. A. Major, T. W. Manson, C. J. Wright: The Mission and Message of Jesus, p. 595.
14. Ibid.
15. Op. cit., p. 897.
16. Parables. See also George Ladd: op. cit., and Crucial Questions Regarding the Kingdom; Otto: op. cit.; Bornkamm: op. cit.; Bright: op. cit.
17. An expression coined by Origen in Bretscher, op. cit., p. 907n.: κἄν ζητῇς δὲ τὸ· “αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν,” δύνασαι λέγειν, ὅτι “αὐτῶν” ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, καθὸ αὐτοβασιλεία ἐστί, βασιλεύων καθ᾿ ἑκάστην ἐπίνοιαν αὐτοῦ τοῦ μηκέτι βασιλευομένου ὑπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας.
18. Expository Times, 49 (1938), pp. 476–477. One should also note Sledd’s article, in op. cit., which tends to modify Allen’s statements.
19. Dodd: op. cit., p. 84.
20. In Bretscher’s article, in op. cit., p. 899.
21. Godet: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, ad loc.
22. Op. cit.
23. Op. cit., p. 8.
24. Op. cit., p. 68.
25. “The Kingdom of God and Ourselves”, Vol. 67 (1950), pp. 172f.
26. Idem.
27. R. C. Leaney: A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, 1958, ad loc.
28. Riesenfeld, in Nuntius, No. 2, 1949.
29. Major, Manson and Wright: op. cit., p. 595.
30. So E. Mayser: Grammatik, II, 2, p. 539, cited by Roberts: op. cit., p. 3.
31. Op. cit., p. 236.
32. Godet: op. cit., p. 403.
33. Op. cit., p. 1, where he refers to J. Maldonatus’ Comm. in IV Evang. (Paris, 1629, ad loc.) for a selection of early opinions including that of Gregory of Nyssa who held that it was another way of saying that man is made in the image of God.
34. Cited from Noack’s article by Bretscher: op. cit., p. 899. See also Roberts: op. cit., p. 8n., and Major, Manson and Wright: op. cit., p. 595.
35. G. Dalman: The Words of Jesus, p. 146.
36. P. M. S. Allen: op. cit., p. 477. Cf., also, Matt 23:35.
37. Alfred Plummer: Luke in the ICC series, p. 406.
38. Roberts: op. cit., p. 2; Major, Manson and Wright: op. cit., pp. 595–7.
39. Creed: op. cit., ad loc.
40. James Moffatt: The Theology of the Gospels, p. 82.
41. Dodd: op. cit., p. 35.
42. K. L. Schmidt et al.: Basileia (Bible Key Words), p. 41.
43. Godet: op. cit.
44. Schmidt: op. cit., pp. 33f.
45. Alan Richardson: An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, p. 86.
46. Dodd: op. cit., p. 38.
47. Albert Valensin, and Joseph Huby, S.J.: Évangile selon Saint Luc, in the Verbum Salutis series, vol. III. (1952), in loc.