In this post we will jump right in and explore the first proposition. Then, we will take a brief detour to establish a high-level context and backdrop before moving on to proposition 2 and beyond.

Proposition 1 The kingdom of God is a subject of vital importance.

Peters begins with a stark warning about the necessity of this doctrine:

“The Scriptures cannot be rightly comprehended without a due knowledge of this kingdom. It is a fact… that the doctrine respecting the kingdom has materially affected the judgments of men concerning the canonical authority, the credibility, inspiration, and the meaning of the writings contained in the Bible.”
— Prop. 1, Intro

And if we are in error regarding the Kingdom, Peters argues, it “will inevitably manifest itself, e.g., in exegesis and criticism.”

The Organizing Principle of Scripture

For centuries, theologians have debated the central theme of the Bible. Peters aligns with scholars like Van Oosterzee, who observed that “the idea of the kingdom of God is the golden thread which runs through all.”

To demonstrate why this subject deserves the “first rank,” Peters lists numerous particulars in Observation 1, showing the doctrine’s sheer magnitude:

The Kingdom is the object guaranteed by God’s oath-bound covenant.
It is the central theme and burden of biblical prophecy.
Scripture devotes more space to the Kingdom than to any other doctrine.
It was the leading topic preached by John the Baptist, Christ, the disciples, and the apostles.
It was a cherished theme in the preaching of the early Church.
It is the foundation of true biblical preaching, since the Gospel itself is “the gospel of the Kingdom.”
Jesus came, suffered, died, and will return for the purpose of establishing and manifesting this Kingdom.
Christ is deeply invested in it, for it is His honor, His inheritance, and His appointed destiny.
Believers are invited to inherit this Kingdom as a supreme privilege.
It is the constant object of Christian faith and hope, shaping prayer, duty, and watchfulness.
It is the goal toward which all prior dispensations have been moving.
It contains the completion of redemption, where all God’s promises reach fulfillment.
It outwardly displays God’s will in saving humanity and liberating creation.
It unifies all divine revelation, vindicating Scripture and its prophetic design.
It affirms both the humanity and divinity of Christ and displays His majesty as the Theocratic King, together with the exaltation of His co-heirs.

He concludes this observation by noting that the Kingdom “enforces not only the humanity… of Christ, but also His Divinity… with the strongest reasoning.”

Does Exalting the Kingdom Diminish the King?

A common objection arises whenever the literal, covenanted Kingdom of God is emphasized: Does focusing so heavily on the Kingdom detract from the glory of Jesus Christ? Does it shift attention away from His redemptive work and elevate an earthly hope above the Person of the Savior?

Peters addresses this head-on in Observation 3.

Rather than diminishing Christ, the Kingdom places Him in His biblically intended role. The King is always greater than the Kingdom—and Peters insists that any proper understanding of the Kingdom forces us to see Christ in a higher and more exalted light, not a lower one.

The Kingdom exists because of Christ; it is His inheritance, His coronation, and His publicly manifested glory (Ps 2:6–8; Rev 11:15).

To deny or minimize that Kingdom is, ironically, to diminish the very glory Scripture assigns to the Son. We cannot honor a King while denying the realm He is prophesied to rule.

The relationship between the King and the Kingdom is therefore inseparable. Christ is not absorbed into the doctrine of the Kingdom—He is the very center of it. The covenants themselves point directly to Him as the heir of David’s throne (2 Sam 7:12–16; Lk 1:32–33). The Kingdom is not a competing theme alongside Christ; it is the arena in which His redemptive work reaches its full and visible expression.

Peters captures this beautifully when he reminds us:

“In the kingdom, Jesus Himself is evermore the central figure, and He can never be regarded in a higher, holier, clearer light than that reflected upon Him by His theocratic relationship. This will hereafter be brought forth in detail.”
— Prop. 1, Obs. 3

This is why the apostles consistently connect His exaltation with His future reign (Luke 22:30, Acts 2:29–36; Heb 2:5–9). It’s why Jesus ties His own return to the renewal of the world and the restoration of Israel’s fortunes (Mt 19:28; Acts 1:6–7). And it’s why Scripture speaks of the Kingdom as His inheritance—the place where every promise of God finds its “Yes” in Him (2 Cor 1:20).

Far from reducing Christ’s significance, the Kingdom doctrine heightens it. It shows that His mediatorial work does not end at the cross or even at the resurrection but culminates in His visible, earthly, covenant-fulfilling reign—the moment when creation itself is liberated and restored (Rom 8:19–23).

In Peters’ words, Christ can “never be regarded in a higher, holier, clearer light” than when He is beheld as the King who inherits and manifests the Kingdom in all its fullness.

To preach the Kingdom is to preach Christ.
To exalt the Kingdom is to exalt the King.

And to understand the Kingdom as Scripture presents it is to see Jesus not merely as Savior and Redeemer—though He is gloriously both—but as the long-promised Davidic monarch whose reign brings redemption’s story to its consummation.

The Consequence of Neglect

Despite its centrality, church history shows a tragic drift away from this doctrine. Peters notes this shift in Observation 2, pointing out the irony that a subject so prominent in Scripture has become so minor in theology:

“It is significant to the thoughtful student… that the idea of a distinctive Divine kingdom related to Christ and this earth, a kingdom which decidedly holds the foremost place in the teaching of Jesus, should be made… to come down from its first position in the Bible and occupy, when alluded to, a very subordinate one.”
— Prop. 1, Obs. 2

In modern theology, the Kingdom is often spiritualized into an abstraction. Peters laments the state of Christian literature in his day:

“In hundreds of books, where it reasonably ought to be conspicuous, a few references of a somewhat mystical and unsatisfactory nature… dismisses the entire subject; while inferior subjects have long chapters and even volumes in their interest. There is, to the reflecting mind, something radically wrong in such a change of position.”
— Prop. 1, Obs. 2

More on this neglect, subordination, and distortion will be covered in more detail when we discuss Proposition 3, where we explore the “theological fog” that has obscured this vital doctrine.

Validating the Apostles

One of the most powerful aspects of Peters’ argument is how the doctrine of the Kingdom defends the integrity of the New Testament writers against modern criticism.

Critics often claim that the apostles were mistaken in their expectation of a literal Kingdom, dismissing their views as “Jewish husks” that the Church eventually outgrew. Peters argues that if we spiritualize the Kingdom, we inadvertently agree with these critics. Instead, we must return to the apostolic definition to defend the faith.

As stated in Observation 8:

“A deeper investigation of this doctrine and a correspondent return to the old faith, held by men who, by position and association (as e.g. Apostolical Church), were pre-eminently qualified to comprehend it, will remove those painful concessions now made to unbelief, which stigmatizes the apostles and early Church as still under the influence of ‘erroneous Jewish forms.’”
— Prop. 1, Obs. 8

It is only by accepting their definition of the Kingdom that we can hope for “a consistent pleading, justification, and protection against the Strauss and Bauer school.” The doctrine of the Kingdom vindicates the apostles and proves that the Bible is a unified document rather than a collection of evolving religious sentiments.

More on Strauss & Bauer School

In the nineteenth century, German higher criticism reached a decisive stage with figures such as David Friedrich Strauss and Ferdinand Christian Baur, whose work collectively shaped what later writers (including Peters) referred to as the Strauss–Bauer school. Strauss argued that the Gospel narratives—especially miracles and Kingdom expectations—were not straightforward history but mythical expressions of early Christian belief. In his view, the apostles sincerely expected a Jewish, earthly kingdom, yet their expectation reflected first-century apocalyptic imagination rather than divine reality.

Baur, founder of the Tübingen School, advanced a more systematic and influential critique. He did not deny apostolic sincerity, but he treated apostolic theology as historically conditioned and developmentally limited. Using a Hegelian framework, Baur argued that early Christianity evolved through stages—thesis, antithesis, and synthesis—culminating in a mature “church consciousness” that surpassed the apostles’ original understanding. In this model, the apostles proclaimed the Kingdom using Jewish categories that later theology was required to transcend.

Though Strauss and Baur differed the severity of their criticism, they shared a decisive conclusion: the apostles were not final authorities on the nature of the Kingdom they preached. As Peters later observed, this judgment exerted enormous pressure on subsequent theology. Once apostolic expectation is labeled provisional (whether as myth (Strauss) or limitation (Baur)) Scripture no longer functions as the final interpretive court. Even where skepticism is rejected, the logic of development correcting apostolic understanding quietly remains.

A later post will trace how this logic survives—often unintentionally—within modern theological systems of most churches today. While these traditions reject higher criticism outright, they frequently retain its verdict at a methodological level, spiritualizing the Kingdom and re-locating fulfillment away from the concrete expectations held by the apostles themselves and believed in by the early Church for nearly three centuries.

We briefly discussed Apostle expectation and secular criticism in this and the prior 3-part series The Kingdom Framework beginning with The Familiar Announcement. Later propositions (e.g. 19-22) will explore this in much greater depth.

A Subject of Magnitude

Ultimately, the study of the Kingdom is not just for theological debates or seminaries; it is the inheritance of the believer. It connects the past, present, and future into one cohesive plan.

“The kingdom embraces so much, both in preparation and in actual realization, that, in view of its extent, the doctrine exceeds all others in magnitude, enfolding in itself nearly all doctrine.”
— Prop. 1, Obs. 7

To study the Kingdom is to study the heart of God’s plan for the ages. It is, as Peters concludes, the key that unlocks the unity of the Divine will, “exhibiting manifested unity… and vindicating the inspiration of Holy Writ.”

Proposition 2 takes us behind the curtain of history itself. Peters argues that the Kingdom is not an afterthought, not a reaction, not a patch added to a failing world. It was designed, established, and prepared before the foundation of the world—woven into the very architecture of creation and redemption.

Before, however, we move onto proposition 2, it will help to briefly dive into a very high-level overview of the kingdom. The following post, A Familiar Announcement, begins a 3-part series titled The Kingdom Framework, which lays out the essential background and context of this Kingdom we seek to understand.