An obscure verse should not determine the meaning of unambiguous verses. Matthew 12:28 ‖ Luke 11:20 is an obscure, puzzling statement—Jesus’ rejoinder to hostile critics who were accusing him of working in league with Beelzebul. Should problematic Matthew 12:28 ‖ Luke 11:20 be the hermeneutical cornerstone for interpreting the Kingdom? 

This question becomes acute when one notes that there are more than a hundred statements concerning the Kingdom of God in the Synoptics. The majority of these statements present the Kingdom as a place, not an exorcistic power. The majority of these statements present the Kingdom as future hope, not a present reality… 

When this wider interpretive task is undertaken, when all the evidence is considered, hermeneutical weight would have to be assigned to the scores of synoptic statements portraying the Kingdom as a future realm, rather than to Matthew 12:28 ‖ Luke 11:20 (which—according to Dodd—portrays the Kingdom  as a curative power). 

Realized eschatologists reverse this procedure. They assign hermeneutical weight to problematic Matthew 12:28 ‖ Luke 11:20 and ignore the scores of statements portraying the Kingdom as a future realm. - Clayton Sullivan, Rethinking Realized Eschatology.