Anyone opening George N. H. Peters’ The Theocratic Kingdom for the first time quickly discovers that it is unlike any other theological work. It is not a commentary, not a systematic theology, and not merely a historical survey. Peters builds his case using a chain of logically connected hypotheses that form a massive yet cohesive argument.

To make the most of this study, it helps to understand how his work is organized and why he structured it the way he did.

A Work Built on “Propositions”

The backbone of Peters’ work is a series of 206 propositions statements that assert a specific truth about the Kingdom of God. Each proposition functions like a foundational stone. When placed together, they form an unbroken chain of argument from Genesis to Revelation.

A typical proposition looks something like:

Prop. 19 “The New Testament begins the announcement of the kingdom in terms expressive of its being previously well known.”

This is Peters’ thesis. Everything that follows—citations, arguments, references to scholars, historical observations—is assembled to defend that statement.

Peters’ reasoning is cumulative. The propositions are arranged so that:

  • early propositions establish core definitions and principles
  • middle propositions defend the literal covenants and prophetic expectations
  • later propositions deal with Christ’s first advent, the kingdom’s postponement, and the millennial reign

This layout means skipping around is not ideal. Each statement builds off the last.

Observations: The Meat of His Argument

Under each proposition are numbered Observations, where Peters:

  • analyzes the biblical text
  • engages with opposing theological systems
  • quotes theologians from all eras
  • explains historical context
  • answers objections
  • strengthens the proposition’s internal logic

Peters’ observations can range from a few paragraphs to several pages. They contain some or all of the following:

  • extensive quotations from church fathers
  • excerpts from rabbinical writings
  • refutations of spiritualizing interpretations
  • surveys of modern and ancient critics
  • connections across biblical covenants
  • analysis of Hebrew and Greek terminology

It can feel like Peters is circling a point repeatedly, hitting it at every angle, but that’s intentional. His goal is to show that each proposition is not merely an opinion but can withstand doctrinal, historical, and theological tests.

Scriptural Citations

One of the reasons Peters’ work remains unparalleled is the sheer density of its scriptural documentation. Every proposition is anchored in Scripture, cross-referenced across the Law, the Prophets, the Writings, the Gospels, and the Epistles.

These biblical citations are carefully arranged to demonstrate:

  • the unity of Old and New Testament expectation
  • continuity between prophetic promises and apostolic teaching
  • the immutability of God’s covenants
  • the coherence of Scripture’s testimony when interpreted consistently

As the propositions accumulate, you can see that Peters does not build his case verse-by-verse in isolation, but Scripture-wide, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Extra-Biblical Citations and Historical Witness

Alongside this extensive use of Scripture, Peters includes over 4,000 extra-biblical citations1, these include:

  • the apostolic fathers
  • medieval writers
  • Reformers
  • post-Reformation theologians
  • Jewish interpreters
  • modern critics and rationalists

These sources are not introduced as doctrinal authorities. Rather, Peters uses them as historical witnesses to demonstrate two critical realities:

  1. What earlier generations of believers understood and expected, often with remarkable consistency.
  2. How later reinterpretations developed, hardened into systems, and ultimately displaced earlier views.

Why Peters’ Structure Matters

Peters wrote in a theological landscape dominated by systems like Reformed theology, covenant theology, rationalism, postmillennialism. He wanted no part in building another system. Instead, he sought to:

  • let Scripture speak in its ordinary meaning
  • gather every strand of biblical evidence
  • dismantle interpretations that rely on spiritualization or theological accommodation
  • defend God’s faithfulness to His promises

His structure reflects that mission.

The propositions give clarity. The observations give depth and reasoning. The citations give historic grounding and objectiveness. The cross-references give biblical integrity and supremacy.

  1. On Peters’ use of extra-biblical sources: Peters deliberately cites not only orthodox theologians and early Church fathers, but also secular historians, Jewish writers, rationalists, and outspoken critics of Christianity. His purpose is not to grant them doctrinal authority, but to establish historical fact. When even hostile witnesses concede that first-century Jews, the apostles, and the early Church expected a literal, earthly Kingdom, the question shifts from whether such an expectation was valid or existed to why it was later abandoned. By allowing critics to testify against modern reinterpretations (often unintentionally) Peters strengthens the case that literal kingdom expectation is not a theological invention, but the original understanding inherited from Scripture itself. ↩