I’ve been watching some videos in my free time and would like to share some thoughts occasioned by this one.

Does Jesus say the kingdom is within, even in the hearts of the hard hearted pharisees? The Old Testament says the heart is corrupt beyond all things, but God will renew their hearts. Paul talks of the crucifixion/resurrection circumcising people’s hearts to reveal the law written on it.

Jesus said something very close to that directly to the Pharisees in Luke 17:20-21, though the exact meaning of “within you” (or “in your midst”) is debated.

The Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God would come. He replied:

“The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you [or in your midst / among you].” (Luke 17:20-21, various translations)

• Many scholars and translations prefer “in your midst” or “among you” because Jesus (the King) was standing right there with them, and the kingdom had already begun breaking in through His ministry, even if they were blind to it.

• Jesus was correcting their expectation of a dramatic, observable political/military kingdom. Instead, it arrives inwardly and spiritually first.
• The Pharisees personally possessed the kingdom in their hearts, the law being written on their hearts, it was just that their hearts needed to be circumcised. Jesus frequently denounced them as hypocrites, “whitewashed tombs,” and a “brood of vipers” (e.g., Matthew 23). The statement highlights the kingdom’s presence near them (in Jesus and His followers) despite their hardness.

Regarding the heart in the Old Testament:

• Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” This describes the natural, fallen human heart—corrupt and untrustworthy.

• Yet God promises renewal: Ezekiel 36:26 — “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” (See also Ezekiel 11:19, Jeremiah 31:33 on the law written on hearts.)

This is the New Covenant promise: God sovereignly transforms the corrupt heart rather than just reforming behavior.  Paul connects this directly to Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection:

• Pseudo Paul Colossians 2:11-12: “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism…” (Spiritual “putting off” of the old nature through union with Christ’s death and resurrection.)
• Romans 2:28-29: True Jewish identity (and covenant belonging) is “inward” — “circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.” Praise comes from God, not people.

Paul echoes Deuteronomy 30:6 (God will circumcise your heart to love Him) and contrasts external religion with internal transformation by the Holy Spirit. The cross/resurrection enables this new heart where God’s law is written inwardly (fulfilling Jeremiah/Ezekiel).

• The natural heart (including hard-hearted Pharisees) is corrupt (Jeremiah 17:9) and needs radical renewal—not self-effort.
• Jesus announced the kingdom’s arrival “within/among” people even while addressing resistant Pharisees, pointing to its spiritual, present reality in Him.
• Full internalization (new heart, law written within, Spirit-circumcision) comes through faith in Christ’s death and resurrection, as Paul explains. It’s God’s work, removing the stone heart and enabling true obedience and relationship with Him.

This ties the themes together beautifully: the kingdom isn’t (only) external rules or future spectacle—it’s God’s reign transforming hearts from the inside out, fulfilling the Old Testament promises. The Pharisees saw the King but missed the kingdom in their hardness; the gospel offers that renewal to all who believe.

Similarly, the Gospel of Thomas entirely lacks the idea of a traditional parousia (the literal, future second coming of Christ and a cataclysmic end of the world).  Rather than looking to the future for a physical return of Jesus or an apocalyptic judgment day, the text redefines eschatology entirely. This core difference can be understood in the following ways:

Realized Eschatology: In Thomas, the Kingdom of God is not a future event or a physical location. Instead, it is a present, spiritual reality that is already here, but that the world fails to see (Saying 113).

The Divine Within: The text focuses on self-knowledge and recognizing the divine light already dwelling within the individual (Saying 3). Salvation is achieved through awakening to this internal reality rather than waiting for a historical rescuer to arrive from the skies.

Critique of Apocalypticism: Scholars note that the author of Thomas often purposefully omits or reworks the apocalyptic and historical frameworks found in the canonical Gospels, transforming them into mystical riddles focused on the present.

Some say the notion of the parousia isn’t just a future arrival of Christ, but what is going on right now with the idea of the indwelling of the risen Christ in believers in Paul’s letters such as the idea of the risen”Christ in you,” boosting your ability to resist Satan.   Plato in the Phaedo talks like this with the parousia of the idea of the beautiful in the beautiful thing.

In Roman political thought and state religion, the direct concepts related to parousia that indicate a leader who was already physically present but whose power or divinity was being unveiled are Epiphaneia (Epiphany) and Praesentia (Presence). While the Latin word Adventus was used specifically for a ruler’s physical arrival or entry into a city, Roman imperial ideology heavily utilized Epiphaneia and Praesentia to address the ruler’s active, living existence among the people.  Epiphaneia (The Unveiling of the Present Ruler) Epiphaneia (from which we get “Epiphany”) is a Greek term that was deeply integrated into Roman imperial worship: It does not mean a distant ruler traveling to a location. It refers to the manifestation or unveiling of a divine presence that is already there. Roman Use: Roman Hellenistic rulers and later Roman Emperors took the title Epiphanes (the Manifest God). When an Emperor took power, or when his image entered a province, it was treated as an epiphaneia. The theology was that the god-king was already living among the people, but an event or ceremony was pulling back the veil to reveal his active, divine majesty. Praesentia (The Active, Saving Presence): The closest direct Latin concept to a leader “already being there” is Praesentia (Presence): In Roman thought, the physical adventus (arrival) was secondary to the praesentia (the ongoing reality of the ruler being with the people).

Roman literature praised the Emperor for his praesentia, viewing it as a protective, life-giving force. Pliny the Younger, in his praise of Emperor Trajan, explicitly noted that the Emperor’s physical presence in Rome brought security, peace, and order. The concept emphasized that because the leader was present, the benefits of his empire were actively available to the citizens right then and there.  When Jesus told the Pharisees that the Kingdom of God was “in you” or “in your midst” (Luke 17:21), he was operating on this exact concept of unveiled presence. The Pharisees were looking for a future adventus (a grand, physical arrival of a military Messiah).  Jesus corrected them using what Romans and Greeks would recognize as an epiphaneia or praesentia framework: The King is already standing right in front of you. The Kingdom was not waiting to arrive; it was already present and active because Jesus was present, even if their hard hearts refused to perceive the veil being lifted.  This ultimately in Paul points to the mind of the risen Christ in the believer, or the radiant glow of Christ on the face of Stephen in Acts.

The New Testament’s language of the kingdom, Parousia, and Christ’s indwelling does carry resonances with Greco-Roman concepts of presence, manifestation, and imperial ideology—often in a subversive way—while also drawing on deeper Jewish roots. Parousia in the New Testament means “presence” or “arrival/coming.” In Hellenistic usage, it often referred to the official visit of a ruler or dignitary, with all the pomp and benefits that entailed (similar to Adventus). In the NT, it frequently points to Christ’s future return in glory (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:1; Matthew 24:3, 27).

However, Paul and others also emphasize the present reality of Christ’s presence through the Spirit:

• Colossians 1:27: “Christ in you, the hope of glory” — the great mystery now revealed.
• Galatians 2:20: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”
• Romans 8:9-11: The Spirit of Christ dwells in believers; the same Spirit who raised Jesus gives life now.
• 2 Corinthians 13:5: “Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you?”

This indwelling is the down-payment and foretaste of the full future Parousia. The kingdom is “already/not yet”: present in power and transformation (new hearts, as I noted from Ezekiel/Paul), but awaiting consummation. Jesus’ statement in Luke 17:21 fits here—the King is present, so the kingdom is in you or “in your midst” (entos hymōn), even if veiled to hard hearts. Socrates discusses how particular beautiful things are beautiful by the presence (parousia) or participation in the divine eternal Form of Beauty itself. The Form is not “arriving” from afar but manifests in the thing through participation.

This “unveiling” or participatory presence has echoes in how Paul describes believers participating in Christ’s death/resurrection and having the risen Christ formed in them. Early Christian thinkers (like Justin Martyr or the Alexandrians) often engaged Platonic ideas, seeing them as pointers toward Christ as the true Logos and Form.

Roman Imperial Context: Epiphaneia, Praesentia, Adventus.  This is spot-on and well-documented in scholarship on the NT in its Roman setting:

• Adventus: The ceremonial physical arrival/entry of the emperor into a city, with processions, acclaim, and displays of power. It marked a decisive “coming.”

• Epiphaneia (manifestation/unveiling): From Hellenistic ruler cults (e.g., Antiochus IV “Epiphanes”). It emphasized the divine or god-like presence of the ruler being revealed—often when power was exercised, images sent, or victories won. Not a distant journey, but the active shining forth of one already sovereign.

• Praesentia: The ongoing, protective, life-giving presence of the emperor among the people. His mere being there (or his cultic presence) brought peace, order, and salvation (soteria). Pliny and others praised this active presence.

Early Christians subverted this language. Jesus is the true King whose Parousia brings real peace and renewal—not through military force or emperor cult, but through heart-circumcision, forgiveness, and the Spirit. The Gospels portray Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (with palm branches, etc.) in ways that echo adventus, yet He comes humbly on a donkey, heading to the cross. Paul’s “Christ in you” democratizes what imperial ideology reserved for the ruler: the divine presence now dwells in ordinary believers, Jew and Gentile, transforming stone hearts.Tying It to the Kingdom and Renewed Hearts.  Our bridge is powerful: The Pharisees wanted a future Adventus of a conquering Messiah. Jesus declared the Epiphaneia/Praesentia of the kingdom in His own person—”the King is already here, in your midst.” Many missed it due to hardness of heart (Jeremiah 17:9), but through the cross and resurrection, God performs the promised heart surgery (Ezekiel 36:26; Colossians 2:11-12). The veil is lifted for those who believe, revealing the law written on the heart and Christ dwelling within.  This present “unveiled presence” empowers believers now (new life, fruit of the Spirit) while pointing to the future full revelation when “every eye will see Him.” It’s participatory, transformative, and deeply personal—far beyond Roman propaganda.  This framework enriches reading the NT without reducing it to cultural borrowing. The gospel fulfills and transcends these ideas: the true Sovereign has come, is present by His Spirit, and will return to make all things new. It’s a helpful lens for seeing how the early church communicated in a world saturated with imperial theology.

Paul says the archons of this aeon (demons) killed Christ, but this is not mythicism, but the the apocalyptic framework evil forces who ruled and influenced this world, like when Satan entered Judas. We see similar language in Psalm 82 that John quotes where the “gods” are corrupt human judges. And the idea is also Aristotelian where the thinker is athanatizein.

This is a coherent apocalyptic and participatory reading of Paul that avoids mythicism while integrating Jewish, biblical, and Greco-Roman philosophical categories. Paul operates in a multi-layered worldview where spiritual powers, human authorities, and divine purposes intersect—especially around the crucifixion.  With Paul’s “Archons of This Aeon” (1 Corinthians 2:6-8), Paul writes that the “rulers [archons] of this age” did not understand God’s hidden wisdom; if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

• This is not mythicism (the fringe view that Jesus was a purely celestial myth). Paul grounds the crucifixion in recent historical events involving real people (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:3-8; references to Pilate implicitly via the Gospels and early tradition; his own interactions with eyewitnesses).
• Apocalyptic framework: “This age/aeon” is the present evil age under rebellious powers (see Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 2:2, 6:12). The archons likely have dual reference:
  • Human rulers: Jewish leaders, Herod, Pilate—political and religious authorities who condemned Jesus.  They propped themselves up as gods by manipulating god’s will (the Jewish elite) and executing Jesus rather than applying justice because it was less of a nuisance to just kill him and be done with it (Pilate).
  • Demonic/spiritual forces: These influence and operate through human agents. The powers of darkness thought they were winning by killing the Messiah, but it was God’s wisdom to defeat them through the cross (Colossians 2:15; the “powers” are disarmed).  The world turning on sinless Jesus as though he was a criminal reveals their vile nature to them as they become horrified at themselves, like Judas coming to terms with what he did and out of intense remorse and guilt committing suicide.

Satan entering Judas (Luke 22:3; John 13:27) perfectly illustrates this: a spiritual being directly influencing a human agent’s will and actions. The betrayal and crucifixion involve both culpable humans and the satanic realm, yet remain within God’s sovereign plan (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28).  Psalm 82 and John 10:34 fits seamlessly. In Psalm 82, God judges the elohim (“gods”) in the divine council for corrupt rule and injustice. They were appointed as representatives of divine justice but failed, so they will “die like men.” Scholars widely see these as human judges or rulers in Israel who wield God-given authority (hence called “gods” in a representative/functional sense), not primarily fallen angels (though some cosmic readings exist).

Jesus quotes it in John 10:34-36 during accusations of blasphemy: If Scripture can call corrupt human judges “gods” (to whom the word of God came), how much more can the one sanctified and sent by the Father claim to be the Son of God? It undercuts their charge while affirming Scripture’s authority. This shows the Bible’s flexible use of “gods”/rulers language for empowered humans who are still accountable and mortal—echoing how Paul Similarly there is Aristotelian “Athanatizein (godliness of the thinker)” referring to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book X (esp. 10.7-8). In discussing the contemplative life (theoria), Aristotle says humans should strive to immortalize themselves (athanatizein) as far as possible—identifying with the divine element in us (the active intellect/nous), which is immortal and god-like, rather than merely the composite mortal nature. The thinker, through highest activity, participates in what is eternal and divine. This is not full deification but a kind of assimilation or participation in immortality through intellect and virtue:

• Paul speaks of believers being transformed by the renewing of the mind (Romans 12:2), having the “mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16), and Christ (the true divine Logos/Wisdom) dwelling within—leading to new life, heart renewal, and future resurrection immortality.
• The cross defeats the archons, enabling this participatory transformation: from corrupt “gods”/rulers under death’s power (Psalm 82) to renewed humans indwelt by the risen Christ, participating in divine life (2 Peter 1:4—”partakers of the divine nature”).
• Early Christian thinkers (e.g., patristics) loved bridging this with Aristotle/Plato: the gospel fulfills the philosophical longing for athanatizein through union with the incarnate, crucified, and risen Son.

In the apocalyptic framework, the archons (human + demonic) of this passing age thought they could eliminate the threat by killing Jesus—much like corrupt judges/rulers/human “gods” in Psalm 82. But their action unveiled God’s wisdom: the cross judges the powers, circumcises hearts, and makes possible the indwelling presence of the risen Christ (“Christ in you”). What looked like defeat was the epiphaneia of God’s reign, lifting the veil for those with renewed hearts while the old aeon’s rulers are exposed and passing away.

This integrates the Roman/Hellenistic presence ideas from before with Jewish apocalyptic and philosophical participation. The kingdom is present now through the Spirit-indwelt church, even as we await the full Parousia. It’s participatory immortality—not self-achieved contemplation, but grace-enabled union with the one who conquered the archons. Solid connections.

Substantial evidence shows that various Jewish groups and texts from the late Second Temple period (roughly 2nd century BCE to 1st century CE) criticized the Jewish elite—especially the high priesthood and Temple aristocracy—as corrupt, greedy, illegitimate, or compromised.

This was not a universal view, but it was prominent enough among certain sects and in surviving literature to indicate real discontent among some Jews. The elite were often linked to the Sadducees (an aristocratic, priestly group tied to the Temple and often collaborating with Hellenistic or Roman rulers) versus more populist or rigorist groups like the Pharisees and Essenes.

Evidence from Jewish Sources

• Essenes and Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran community): The Essenes (or a closely related group) withdrew to the desert, viewing the Jerusalem Temple and its priesthood as defiled by improper practices, wrong calendar, impurity, and corruption. They saw themselves as the true remnant preserving purity. The scrolls repeatedly attack the “Wicked Priest” (likely one or more Hasmonean high priests), accusing him of betraying the law for wealth, plundering the poor, defiling the sanctuary, and pursuing the “Teacher of Righteousness.” This reflects deep opposition to the ruling priestly elite, dating back to the 2nd–1st centuries BCE.

• Other Second Temple texts: Works like the Testament of Moses (early 1st century CE) and passages in Josephus describe priestly greed, bribery, violence, and nepotism. Rabbinic traditions (later but reflecting earlier views) also criticize the high-priestly families for oppression, loving money, and hatred.

• Josephus (1st-century Jewish historian): He notes accusations of bribery and perversion of justice by some priestly figures, alongside political maneuvering under Roman rule.

• Pharisees and broader critiques: Pharisees often clashed with Sadducees over ritual purity, authority (written Torah vs. oral traditions), and the elite’s practices. While not as separatist as the Essenes, they represented a more populist strain that questioned aspects of priestly legitimacy and opulence.

Jesus’ actions and sayings (e.g., Temple cleansing as a “den of thieves,” woes against scribes and Pharisees in the Gospels) align with existing Jewish critiques of commercialization, exploitation of the poor, and hypocrisy among the elite. Scholars note that such portrayals fit broader Jewish sentiments rather than being purely later inventions.

Not every Jew held these views—the priesthood retained ritual authority for many, and some high priests were seen as legitimate. However, socioeconomic tensions (wealthy urban priests vs. rural populace), Hellenistic/Roman influence, and disputes over proper Temple observance fueled significant criticism. This diversity of Jewish thought in the period is well-attested in sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, and New Testament writings (read critically as Jewish texts from the era). In short, yes—sects like the Essenes explicitly rejected the elite as corrupt, and similar complaints appear across multiple independent Jewish sources.

The Jewish elite were known to turn over annoyances to Rome when severely punishing them could be put off onto someone else.  As the Gospel of John notes they couldn’t execute Jesus because it was contrary to God’s will, as was the case with the Roman torture of the doomsayer Jesus ben Ananeus in Josephus. 

This reflects a documented pattern in Roman Judea. Under direct Roman provincial rule (after 6 CE), the Jewish authorities (Sanhedrin and high priestly elite) generally lacked independent legal authority to carry out capital punishment, especially for cases that could be framed as threats to public order or Roman interests. They often deferred or handed over troublesome individuals to Roman governors to avoid direct responsibility or to leverage Roman power.

In John 18:31, during Jesus’ trial, the Jewish leaders tell Pilate: “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” This aligns with the Roman policy of reserving ius gladii (the right of the sword/execution) for the governor. Scholars generally view this as historically plausible for formal, legal executions in the early 1st century CE, though enforcement was inconsistent and mobs or informal actions sometimes occurred anyway.

This a clear parallel from Josephus’ Jewish War 6.5.3 (around 62–66 CE, under procurator Albinus):

• A peasant named Jesus son of Ananias began crying “Woe to Jerusalem!” in the Temple during a festival.
• Jewish leaders (“our rulers”/magistrates) were annoyed, arrested him, beat him severely, and then handed him over to the Roman procurator.
• Albinus had him scourged (flayed to the bone) but released him as a harmless madman after he continued his lament without defending himself.

This mirrors aspects of the Gospel accounts of Jesus of Nazareth: arrest by Jewish authorities, handover to Romans, Roman flogging, and a figure who doesn’t mount a conventional defense. Josephus presents it neutrally as the rulers dealing with a disruptive “divine fury” by escalating to Roman power.

Broader Historical Context

• Limited Jewish autonomy: Rome allowed local courts and the Sanhedrin significant internal religious and civil authority, but capital cases—especially those with political implications—required Roman approval. Josephus notes that the first Roman prefect, Coponius, received explicit authority over life-and-death matters.

• Exceptions and inconsistencies: Informal mob actions (e.g., stoning of Stephen in Acts 7) or executions during power vacuums (e.g., high priest Ananus executing James, brother of Jesus, between procurators, which led to complaints) did happen. Romans didn’t always intervene if it was low-profile or religiously framed. But for high-visibility or politically sensitive cases, deferring to Rome was safer.

• Motivations: This could shift blame (“the Romans did it”), maintain order without risking unrest among the Jewish populace, or ensure a more severe Roman-style punishment (crucifixion was Roman, not Jewish).

This practice wasn’t unique to Jews—it was standard imperial administration: local elites managed day-to-day affairs but escalated threats to Roman authority. The high-priestly families, often appointed or confirmed by Romans, had incentives to cooperate to preserve their position.

Our observation fits well with the sources: Jewish leaders did turn over “annoyances” or perceived threats to Rome when it suited them, as seen in both the New Testament and Josephus.

And so we see the contrast of Jesus with the Jewish elite whereby Jesus was accused of blasphemy, but it was the Jewish elite who found a loophole around God’s will by getting the Romans to kill Jesus.  As Hamilton inadvertently shows the Jewish trial of Jesus is satire where point after point of Jewish custom is repeatedly contravened, only with loopholes found to justify the proceedings. 

However, the Synoptic chronology is not impossible, for as [Josef] Blinzler says, the prohibition of legal proceedings on feast days was less strictly enforced than that of holding courts on the Sabbath, ‘therefore it is quite thinkable that it did not seem to the Sanhedrists an infringement of an important rule to start a legal trial even on the night of the Pesach’. It is the argument of this article that all the Gospels witness to such a trial which, while viable in its date, contravened accepted practice as subsequently enshrined in the Mishnah at many points, as Blinzler shows. For example, the proceedings took place in the house of Caiaphas, not in the Temple, and though Jesus had not actually pronounced the Name of God, he was condemned as a blasphemer. He was not offered an advocate; the witnesses were not warned before being examined; nor were they called to account for false witness. The members of the Sanhedrin, although witnesses of the alleged blasphemy, took part in the passing of the sentence, though it was not legal for them to do so… As Blinzler says, one is not able ‘to spare the Sanhedrin the reproach of very serious infringement of the law’. The question is, why did they do this?‘ It will not do to suggest that the occasion was a sham—the proceedings were undoubtedly carried through before a competent bench of judges’. Nor can their contraventions of the Mishnaic code be simply dismissed by saying that it was not yet in force. It is true that it was not codified until about 200 AD, and reflects conditions which obtained then, but it certainly enshrines earlier practice to a considerable extent. For example, Segal says that in describing Temple ritual, it may be employed with confidence. May not the same apply to legal practice?… Before the Feast of the Passover Caiaphas is reported to have said in council: ‘It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish’ (Jn. 11:50). Expediency was the factor which determined his conduct. When the opportunity unexpectedly presented itself to secure Jesus’ death, he and the priests avidly took it. Spurred on by their hatred of him; persuaded that as he was a false teacher, his execution on a feast day would be appropriate; and pressurized by shortage of time, they held his trial on the paschal night. In this trial they contravened normal legal practice at many points. The fact that they could do this in the legal sphere makes it likely that they could, because of the exceptional circumstances, also contravene ritual practice. For the exigencies of the case demanded that they work through the night. Early next morning therefore, they still had not eaten their paschal meal [emphasis mine]. (Hamilton, 1992, pp. 335-336) … Certainly therefore, an execution would have been contrary to the sabbatical nature of the first paschal day. However, Deut. 17: 12-13 prescribes the death penalty for anyone who opposes the decisions of the priests, to be carried out so that ‘all the people shall hear and fear’, and the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 11:4) gives special instructions for the execution of a rebellious teacher: ‘He was kept in guard until one of the three feasts, and he was put to death on one of the three feasts’. This shows that in certain circumstances executions were permitted on feast days. Moreover, [Paul] Billerbeck says that where an example is required ‘to protect the Torah from wilfully severe transgressions, an execution may, as an exception, supersede a feast day’. (Hamilton, 1992, p. 335)

The character Judas thus, as the name suggests, represents the Jewish elite and crowd, who just as Judas committed suicide over terrible guilt and regret, the Jews would come to terms with what they had wrongfully done to innocent Jesus with the destruction of the second temple, like the first temple as God’s punishment.  The name Judas Iscariot from Galilei may be a play on Judas the Galilean, whereby the anti-Roman Judas contrasts with the Judas who betrays Jesus to the authorities.  The culpability of the Jews in Jesus death is widely attested to from Paul in 1 Thess to Matthew (“There blood be on the hands of us and our children”).