Before we put on the scuba gear and plunge into the sea of Peters’ propositions, let’s begin in the helicopter. First comes the broad view—the lay of the land, the shape of the coastline—before we descend into the depths. This will have us touch on some later propositions which we will of course return to in greater detail later with dedicated posts. For now, we will start with a broad discussion on the kingdom by diving straight into scripture. For this we begin with the announcement of the Kingdom.

To understand what the announcement of the kingdom actually meant we need to step into the world of a first-century Jew. Before we impose later theological systems, the task is simple: hear the announcement the way they heard it.

This post works closely with George N. H. Peters’ nineteenth proposition:

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

Peters points out a striking feature of the early chapters of the New Testament: the preaching of the kingdom comes to the people without a single word of definition.

“The preaching of the kingdom, its simple announcement, without the least attempt to explain its meaning or nature… presupposed that it was a subject familiar to them. John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Seventy all proclaimed the kingdom in a way, without definition or explanation, that indicated their hearers were acquainted with its meaning.”
— Prop. 19, Intro

If this observation is true—and it is plainly seen on the surface of the text—it becomes a crucial piece of evidence for understanding Jewish expectations and the truthfulness of a literal restoration of Israel under the reign of the Messiah.

The Announcement Itself

“Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’” -Matthew 3:1–2

The simplicity of this announcement is easy to glide over. Many words and phrases in Scripture are dismissed because they do not fit modern interpretive frameworks. But here the simplicity is the point: John assumes his hearers already know exactly what “the kingdom” means.

Theologians across traditions acknowledge this but often treat it as unimportant—or worse, attempt to explain it away. Peters notices that some simply pass the issue in silence, while others produce explanations that unintentionally insult the intelligence of the age, undermine the believers living then, and disturb confidence in the Word itself. All of which we will delve into more in future posts.

The Dilemma Modern Interpretations Create

Here is the unavoidable question:

If the kingdom is what many modern theologians claim; something spiritual, ecclesiological, inward, or (in postmillennial thought) the gradual cultural triumph of the gospel within history, how do we account for the way it was preached in the first century?

John’s hearers were never told:

  • “Actually, this kingdom is spiritual, not literal.”
  • “You have misunderstood the prophets.”
  • “The kingdom is your inner transformation.”
  • “The kingdom will unfold as society progressively Christianizes.”

Nothing like that appears in the announcement. Instead, the preaching assumes familiarity with the concept.

This creates a sharp dilemma for anyone holding to church-kingdom theology. If one acknowledges the announcement’s importance, one must choose a theory to justify why John and Jesus used language that, according to those systems, the Jews would have fundamentally misunderstood.

And this is where the real trouble begins.

How Spiritualizing the Kingdom Empowered Critics

Peters notes that modern attempts to reinterpret the kingdom have given destructive critics enormous leverage. Rationalists capitalized on these inconsistencies, using them as grounds to attack the reliability of Scripture, the authority of the apostles, and even the character of Christ.

“The prophecies referring to the Kingdom of God, as now interpreted by the large majority of Christians, afford the strongest leverage employed by unbelievers against Christianity.”
— Prop. 17, Obs. 4

Some critics went so far as to say:

  • Jesus and the apostles were deceived by Jewish expectations.
  • They attempted to apply Messianic prophecies to themselves and failed.
  • Jesus’ ministry began under prophetic “illusions” that later had to be reshaped.

Others argued that the disciples and early church simply absorbed “Jewish forms” and that the New Testament contains deposits of erroneous ancient expectations.

Peters summarizes the problem pointedly: If the kingdom is not what the prophets described—if Jesus preached something fundamentally different—then the critics look painfully reasonable.

Standing in a First-Century Crowd

Pause the modern debate and imagine yourself as a first-century Jew.

John the Baptist appears—the very forerunner Isaiah and Malachi predicted, arriving after four centuries of prophetic silence. His arrival is itself a literal fulfillment of prophecy. He calls the nation to repentance. He announces that the kingdom is at hand. He identifies the Messiah.

If your entire expectation of the kingdom were mistaken—if you had fundamentally misunderstood its nature—why does this announcement arrive with no correction at all?

Why would God present the message:

  • with familiar language,
  • assuming shared meaning,
  • and linking it to every literal promise made to the fathers?

If Christ intended to preach an entirely different, spiritualized kingdom, why did He and His forerunner speak as if the Jews already knew what the kingdom was?

This question alone exposes the weakness in “kingdom-now” systems.

The Critics Exploit the Inconsistency

French philosopher Ernest Renan and others—open unbelievers—saw the opportunity immediately. They argued:

  • Jesus sincerely preached the kingdom the Jews expected.
  • When the literal kingdom failed to materialize, the church retrofitted the meaning.
  • Therefore, prophecy must be discarded as unreliable.

Peters cites also von Ammon and Edmond Schérer, both rationalists, who made the same charge: The New Testament reflects Jewish Messianic expectations that did not come to pass, proving (to them) that Scripture is flawed.

Their reasoning was wrong—but unfortunately understandable if modern interpretations are right.

Why This Matters for the Church Today

The real issue is not simply that critics attack the faith. It is that modern theological systems, by abandoning literal interpretation, have inadvertently handed those critics the ammunition.

If theologians claim:

  • John’s preaching “accommodated” Jewish error
  • Jesus spoke in phrases He didn’t actually mean
  • The true meaning of the kingdom was hidden or transformed later

…then Christianity is left explaining why God permitted His Word to mislead His own people for centuries.

Peters’ conclusion is sharp and compelling:

Rejecting the plain grammatical sense “makes the ancient faith an ignorant one, the early Church occupying a false position, and the Bible a book to which man adds any sense under the plea of spiritualization.”
— Prop. 17, Obs. 4

This is the heart of the problem. If the kingdom is spiritualized, the unity of Scripture fractures. The integrity of God’s promises is obscured. And critics gain ground the Bible never intended to yield.

Where This Series Goes Next

This first post establishes the central observation: The announcement of the kingdom was preached as something already understood.

From this foundation, the next posts will ask:

  • What exactly did first-century Jews expect the kingdom to be?
  • Who held those expectations, and on what grounds?
  • When the disciples expressed those expectations, did Jesus correct them—or confirm them?

Post 2 will explore how various theories attempted to reconcile the announcement with non-literal interpretations—and why those attempts fail.

Post 3 will turn fully to the expectations themselves: the Davidic covenant, the prophetic promises, and the way Mary, Zechariah, John, Jesus, and the disciples all understood the kingdom’s meaning.

From there we will then turn to Proposition 1 to begin the deep dive.