Short History of George Peters
The eschatological emphasis of our day has been partially responsible for bringing into prominence prophetic works
written in the past century. The millennial problem especially has been accentuated by the present amillennial-
premillennial controversy. One frequently quoted prophetic study of the past century is The Theocratic Kingdom by
G. N. H. Peters. However, the expanse of these tomes has discouraged any consistent attempt to analyze Peters'
system as a whole. He has been quoted in support of premillennial arguments by those who would disagree with his
complete system.
Therefore, a real need exists for a critique of this important work in order to understand not only the strength, but also
the weaknesses inherent in the theology presented therein. This need is apparent because premillennial theologians
quote Peters for support, yet amillennial theologians have not attempted an answer to this exhaustive work.
...G. N. H. Peters was not an unknown country pastor whose work was overlooked by his brethren because of his
obscurity. Proof will be offered from several sources to show that Peters was well-known in the millenarian circles of
his day. The reason for the present popularity of this extended presentation is found in an examination and comparison
of the theological emphases of Peters' time and of this present generation....
It seems that often a genuine masterpiece is not recognized until many years after its production. Through the
centuries a Rembrandt painting has gained value and brought fame to the artist. The Shakespearean plays today bring
acclaim to the bard that he never received in his lifetime. In like manner, the expansive tomes authored by G. N. H.
Peters have become more appreciated in this present generation than in that of the writer. In each individual case there
are numerous militating circumstances which, when seen together, furnish a reasonable answer for this phenomenon.
No one factor is wholly responsible, but several different and yet concurrent influences contributed to a greater
acceptance of The Theocratic Kingdom today than in Peters’ lifetime.
The preface of the reprinted edition of this voluminous work contains the following statement, "Its author lived and
worked in an oblivion that seems almost mysterious, ...."(1) However, this statement is not altogether accurate, since
the evidence seems to indicate that Peters was fairly well-known in premillennial circles.
George Nathaniel Henry Peters was born in the year 1825.(2) During his early years an accident occurred that was to
influence his entire future; his eyes were injured by an explosion of gunpowder.(3) Due to this disability, he was later
pressed toward his ministry of writing.(4) Peters studied a short time at Pennsylvania College at Gettysburg,
Pennsylvania. In 1846 he accompanied his parents in a move to Springfield, Ohio, and there he entered the second
session of Wittenberg College. The organization of the Philosophian Literary Society on the Wittenberg campus was
partially a result of Peters' effort. After helping to organize the society he took part in several public contests.(5) His
studies continued until the junior year of college, when his old eye injury necessitated a discontinuance of classroom
work. Medical attention improved the condition of his vision, and he was able to pursue a seminary program at
Wittenberg in view of his desire to enter the ministry.(6) S. Sprecher led his theological studies during his seminary
training. He was graduated in 1850, but it is not clear what degree he received, since his name appears with an A. M.
degree in several instances. At the age of twenty-five George N. H. Peters entered the ministry.(7)
Premillennial Influences on Peters
Early in his ministry George came under the influence of S. S. Schmucker, an ardent premillennialist who had likewise
influenced J. A. Seiss to accept the premillennial position.(8)
The years after 1850 were spent in gaining a background for his enormous work in defense of premillenarianism.
However, according to Peters' own words, 'the draft for the present work" had been drawn up years before.(9)
Perhaps this draft was a result of the years he taught the premillennial hope to a class of over one hundred pastors and
Christian workers of the Springfield area who were interested in premillennialism.(10) Even though the draft which
formed the basis for the Theocratic Kingdom was completed years before, the publication was held in abeyance out of
caution.(11) Perhaps the unfriendly attitude of postmillennial Christians, constantly referred to by Peters, caused this
caution. At any rate, the publication of the three volume set came only after years of reflection on the finished draft
and then a mature decision to publish the work even though it was "far from being exhaustive."(12)
Out of Peters' years of Bible study in prophecy came the huge three volume set, The Theocratic Kingdom. The date of
publication was 1883, and I. K. Funk and Company were the publishers of the original work. There are no known
reviews of this work at that time.
However, there must have been some notice taken of Peters' position and contribution to premillenarianism. While
previous to this time he seems to have been known only within the Lutheran denomination in the Springfield, Ohio,
area, yet only three years after the publication of his monumental work Peters' name is found listed on the roster of
speakers addressing the International Prophetic Conference in 1886 at Chicago. Such well-known premillennial men as
A. T. Pierson, Henry M. Parsons, W. G. Moorehead, Nathaniel West, A. J. Frost, W. E. Blackstone, George C.
Needham, A. J. Gordon, and W. J. Erdman were also listed. These men include the most prominent premillenarians of
the last century. The very inclusion of Peters with them would indicate acceptance on their part and the fact that he
and his work were generally known.
It must be noted that Peters' initials are reversed in the listing of speakers. He is listed as G. H. N. Peters from
Springfield, Ohio.(13) His actual name is G. N. H. Peters. However, the home city, the style of writing (he read a
paper), and the subject, The Covenants in Their Relation to the Kingdom," all correspond to known facts concerning
Peters. Therefore, it may be safely assumed that the same man is in view, and the initials were reversed by a
typographical error. It is interesting to note that in binding the report of this prophetic conference, the publishers
included an advertisement in the first and the last few pages, as was the custom in those days. In the advertisements
books which set forth the premillennial position are listed, and the three volume set by Peters was priced at nine dollars
a set.
James H. Brookes was on the committee that called the International Prophetic Conference of 1886. Since Brookes'
name is linked with that of Peters numerous times following the conference, it would seem to indicate that
it was through the influence of Brookes that the comparatively little-known Peters was included on a roster of such
well-known speakers. Brookes was counted as the outstanding leader of the Bible conference movement, from 1875
until his death in 1897.(14) One of the contributing factors in Brookes' acceptance as leader of the premillennial Bible
conference movement was the magazine, The Truth, which he edited from 1875 to 1897.
Brookes undertook, through the medium of The Truth magazine, to answer Nathaniel West's attack on the imminent
coming of Christ. West had held this view, but under the influence of Robert Cameron had changed his viewpoint.
West's changed position was expressed in two pamphlets, entitled The Coming of the Lord in the "Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles" and The Apostle Paul and the Any-Moment Theory. The first of these was published in 1892 and the
latter in 1893. In both of these he attacked the any-moment return of Christ. To answer this attack Brookes chose to
use a series of articles written by G. N. H. Peters.
These articles by Peters continued from the January, 1895, edition of The Truth through the July, 1895, issue. In the
introduction of this series, Peters states the purpose to be, "a reply to the unscriptural attitude assumed by Rev. N.
West, D. D., in his attack upon prominent premillenarians."(15) It is important to note that by this time Peters had
become well enough known and was esteemed to be of sufficient stature to answer such a giant as N. West.
Another fact that these articles contribute to our knowledge of Peters is that he had completed notes on Matthew,
Mark, and Luke for publication. Furthermore, these notes on the synoptic gospels must have been very extensive in
bulk, since the series of articles answering West was simply the note inserted under Luke 17. Moreover, Peters
indicated that it was at the insistence of other men, as well as Brookes, that he allowed his reply to West to appear in
The Truth. This is seen in his following words:
While the writer was engaged in preparing his notes on Luke there appeared the violent and misleading attack
of Rev. Dr. N. West. . . . Believing the series of articles to be dangerous. . . , it was deemed best to incorporate into
the Notes a reply to Dr. West, to be published when the volumes on Matthew, Mark, and Luke should appear. This
fact, of a reply being inserted in the Notes under Luke ch. XVII, becoming known to prominent brethren in the faith,
they, . . . insisted upon an immediate publication of the reply in its present form for general distribution. Acceding to
this request, an exact copy is here presented of that portion only of the Notes. (16)
Apparently the effect of this series of articles was sufficient to bring Peters to the attention of A. C. Gaebelein, who,
after quoting a portion of the article by Peters on "The Imminency of the Second Advent," in Our Hope magazine,
added the following remarks.
The author of the article is Mr. G. N. H. Peters, a scholarly Lutheran preacher. The article speaks for itself. It is a
powerful rebuttal against the statement which appears now in Watchword and Truth.(17)
Other Writings of Peters
Peters' later years were actively engaged in writing. He refers to an article called "The Keys," published in the
Evangelical Review.(18) From 1895 on the pages of The Truth seemed to have been open to his articles. In February,
1897, he contributed an article concerning John 19:14 and the phrase, "and about the sixth hour."(19) In the forward
to this article is the illuminating phrase, "being an extract from Notes on the Gospels and Acts in course of
preparation." Apparently by this time the notes on the synoptics were finished and the notes on John through the
nineteenth chapter.
In March, 1897, another article on "The Witness of the Spirit" appeared in The Truth magazine.(20) This article is
an exposition of Romans 8:16. It is significant that this contribution appears only one month after the previously
mentioned article. It is apparent that Peters was well-known to the magazine readers and was accepted by both the
editor and subscribers.
Upon the death of James Hall Brookes in April, 1897, an issue in memoriam of him was published in June, 1897. In
this issue an extract of a letter written by Peters was included. Again a closeness of association with Brookes is
indicated in the following words:
The news deeply affected and saddened me, especially for two reasons: In this "evil age" we so much needed his
faithful and noble testimony; and Dr. Brookes was to me a brother beloved.--Dr. G. N. H. Peters(21)
It is obvious from the foregoing facts that Peters was not an unknown backwoods preacher whose very obscurity
detracted from the importance of his contribution to the cause of premillennialism in his lifetime. The very fact that he
had been chosen to speak at the 1886 prophetic conference with a full complement of well-known and outstanding
millenarians indicates he was known beyond his Lutheran circles.
Nor was the Theocratic Kingdom his only effort as an author, since he contributed numerous articles to more than
one religious periodical. Moreover, he had finished copious notes on the four gospels which had been completed for
publication several years before his death. These notes were known to several "prominent brethren," and this would
indicate that his area of influence was broad. There is no record that these notes were ever published; if they had been,
the name of Peters would have been perhaps even more widely known.
However, enough has been set forth to indicate that an obscurity (which did not in reality exist) was not the reason
Peters' Theocratic Kingdom failed to make more of an impact on his own generation.
The theological emphasis of the last century shifted during the last part of the century. As early as 1842
premillennialism was pitted against postmillennialism. John Duffield, a Presbyterian pastor, wrote in that year,
Dissertations on the Prophecies Relative to the Second Coming of Christ. This work was a strong defense of
premillennialism against postmillennialism.(22) Just ten years before the publication of Peters’ Theocratic Kingdom,
another masterful defense of premillennialism against postmillennialism was published. This work also contained an
answer to Dr. W. G. T. Shedd's faulty conclusion concerning the history of millenarianism in The History of Christian
Doctrine.(23)
However, the postmillenarians opposed were fellow believers. By 1880, the impact of German higher criticism wan
being felt on the American continent. As a result, those who accepted German rationalism and assumed the position of
liberals embraced postmillennialism as best representing their position. In the area of postmillennialism there were then
two resulting groups, liberals and conservatives. The premillennial camp saw both groups as dangerous to their
doctrinal position, but counted the liberal element to be the greater peril. An attack upon either group in a sense was an
attack on both. However, the emphasis in premillennialism was designed primarily to stem the tide of unbelief.
It was through religious periodicals, Bible institutes, and Bible conferences that this emphasis was concentrated.
The reason was that by 1895 many of the theological chairs of the major seminaries had fallen to the liberals. The plan,
therefore, was not to present the case for premillennialism to the scholar, but rather to the layman. This emphasis is
seen in a statement of the reasons for calling the Prophetic Conference of 1886 in Chicago.
The summary of these reasons follows,
1. To give prominence to neglected truths of Scripture.
2. To emphasize the true principle of Scriptural interpretation, i.e., literal vs. "figurizing."
3. To waken Christians to the philosophicalism of the times and to the need of their neighbors.
4. To present the highest motive for world evangelization--the Lord's return.
5. To present the doctrine of last things as a bulwark against skepticism and thus make premillennialism a breakwater
against the advancing tide of unbelief.
6. To give a chance for saints who love His appearing to fellowship together.(24)
Peters' Theocratic Kingdom was caught in the middle of this shift of emphasis. The work was too scholarly for
the layman, and it was too copious and weighty for the liberal to refute, so he simply ignored it. Moreover, at nine
dollars per set, it was far too expensive for wide distribution, since this amount represented almost a week's wage for
the laboring man.
Premillennialism held against the tide of liberalism, and thus there has been another shift in emphasis. The new foe
of premillennialism is amillennialism, which has concentrated its attack on the scholarly level. Thus, this generation of
premillennialists is interested in a scholarly formulation and exposition of their system. As a result the scholarly three
volumes of Peters have a greater reception by friends now than previously.
It was, therefore, the emphasis and trend of the times, plus the enormous size and price of the work that militated
against the hearty acceptance of The Theocratic Kingdom during the last century. The apparent obscurity of the
writer was in no wise responsible for this phenomenon.
(1) George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, I, 1.
(2)Ibid. (3)Ibid., I, ii. (4)Ibid., I, iii. (5)ibid., I, ii. (6)Ibid.
(7)Ibid. (8)Ibid., 1, ii-iii (9)Ibid., I, 16
(10)Ibid., I, iv. (11)Ibid., I, 16. (12)Ibid., I, 15.
(13)Needham, G. C., Prophetic Studies of the International Prophetic Conference (Chicago, 1886). PP. 157-66.
(14)Norman Kraus, Dispensationalism in America, p. 36.
(15)G. N. H. Peters, “The Imminency of the Second Advent," The Truth, 21:45, January, 1895.
(16)Ibid.
(17)G. N. H. Peters, "The Imminency of the Second Advent," Our Hope, 9:117, November, 1903.
(18)Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, I:408.
(19)Peters, "The Sixth Hour," The Truth, 23:100-05, February, 1897.
(20)Peters, "The Witness of the Spirit," The Truth, 23:157-61, March, 1897.
(21)Peters, "Extract of Letter in Memoriam of Dr. Brookes," The Truth, 23:321, June 1897.
(22)Kraus, op. cit., p. 54.
(23)R, C. Shimeall, The Second Coming of Christ, pp. iii-v.
(24)Needham, op. cit., p. 215.
written in the past century. The millennial problem especially has been accentuated by the present amillennial-
premillennial controversy. One frequently quoted prophetic study of the past century is The Theocratic Kingdom by
G. N. H. Peters. However, the expanse of these tomes has discouraged any consistent attempt to analyze Peters'
system as a whole. He has been quoted in support of premillennial arguments by those who would disagree with his
complete system.
Therefore, a real need exists for a critique of this important work in order to understand not only the strength, but also
the weaknesses inherent in the theology presented therein. This need is apparent because premillennial theologians
quote Peters for support, yet amillennial theologians have not attempted an answer to this exhaustive work.
...G. N. H. Peters was not an unknown country pastor whose work was overlooked by his brethren because of his
obscurity. Proof will be offered from several sources to show that Peters was well-known in the millenarian circles of
his day. The reason for the present popularity of this extended presentation is found in an examination and comparison
of the theological emphases of Peters' time and of this present generation....
It seems that often a genuine masterpiece is not recognized until many years after its production. Through the
centuries a Rembrandt painting has gained value and brought fame to the artist. The Shakespearean plays today bring
acclaim to the bard that he never received in his lifetime. In like manner, the expansive tomes authored by G. N. H.
Peters have become more appreciated in this present generation than in that of the writer. In each individual case there
are numerous militating circumstances which, when seen together, furnish a reasonable answer for this phenomenon.
No one factor is wholly responsible, but several different and yet concurrent influences contributed to a greater
acceptance of The Theocratic Kingdom today than in Peters’ lifetime.
The preface of the reprinted edition of this voluminous work contains the following statement, "Its author lived and
worked in an oblivion that seems almost mysterious, ...."(1) However, this statement is not altogether accurate, since
the evidence seems to indicate that Peters was fairly well-known in premillennial circles.
George Nathaniel Henry Peters was born in the year 1825.(2) During his early years an accident occurred that was to
influence his entire future; his eyes were injured by an explosion of gunpowder.(3) Due to this disability, he was later
pressed toward his ministry of writing.(4) Peters studied a short time at Pennsylvania College at Gettysburg,
Pennsylvania. In 1846 he accompanied his parents in a move to Springfield, Ohio, and there he entered the second
session of Wittenberg College. The organization of the Philosophian Literary Society on the Wittenberg campus was
partially a result of Peters' effort. After helping to organize the society he took part in several public contests.(5) His
studies continued until the junior year of college, when his old eye injury necessitated a discontinuance of classroom
work. Medical attention improved the condition of his vision, and he was able to pursue a seminary program at
Wittenberg in view of his desire to enter the ministry.(6) S. Sprecher led his theological studies during his seminary
training. He was graduated in 1850, but it is not clear what degree he received, since his name appears with an A. M.
degree in several instances. At the age of twenty-five George N. H. Peters entered the ministry.(7)
Premillennial Influences on Peters
Early in his ministry George came under the influence of S. S. Schmucker, an ardent premillennialist who had likewise
influenced J. A. Seiss to accept the premillennial position.(8)
The years after 1850 were spent in gaining a background for his enormous work in defense of premillenarianism.
However, according to Peters' own words, 'the draft for the present work" had been drawn up years before.(9)
Perhaps this draft was a result of the years he taught the premillennial hope to a class of over one hundred pastors and
Christian workers of the Springfield area who were interested in premillennialism.(10) Even though the draft which
formed the basis for the Theocratic Kingdom was completed years before, the publication was held in abeyance out of
caution.(11) Perhaps the unfriendly attitude of postmillennial Christians, constantly referred to by Peters, caused this
caution. At any rate, the publication of the three volume set came only after years of reflection on the finished draft
and then a mature decision to publish the work even though it was "far from being exhaustive."(12)
Out of Peters' years of Bible study in prophecy came the huge three volume set, The Theocratic Kingdom. The date of
publication was 1883, and I. K. Funk and Company were the publishers of the original work. There are no known
reviews of this work at that time.
However, there must have been some notice taken of Peters' position and contribution to premillenarianism. While
previous to this time he seems to have been known only within the Lutheran denomination in the Springfield, Ohio,
area, yet only three years after the publication of his monumental work Peters' name is found listed on the roster of
speakers addressing the International Prophetic Conference in 1886 at Chicago. Such well-known premillennial men as
A. T. Pierson, Henry M. Parsons, W. G. Moorehead, Nathaniel West, A. J. Frost, W. E. Blackstone, George C.
Needham, A. J. Gordon, and W. J. Erdman were also listed. These men include the most prominent premillenarians of
the last century. The very inclusion of Peters with them would indicate acceptance on their part and the fact that he
and his work were generally known.
It must be noted that Peters' initials are reversed in the listing of speakers. He is listed as G. H. N. Peters from
Springfield, Ohio.(13) His actual name is G. N. H. Peters. However, the home city, the style of writing (he read a
paper), and the subject, The Covenants in Their Relation to the Kingdom," all correspond to known facts concerning
Peters. Therefore, it may be safely assumed that the same man is in view, and the initials were reversed by a
typographical error. It is interesting to note that in binding the report of this prophetic conference, the publishers
included an advertisement in the first and the last few pages, as was the custom in those days. In the advertisements
books which set forth the premillennial position are listed, and the three volume set by Peters was priced at nine dollars
a set.
James H. Brookes was on the committee that called the International Prophetic Conference of 1886. Since Brookes'
name is linked with that of Peters numerous times following the conference, it would seem to indicate that
it was through the influence of Brookes that the comparatively little-known Peters was included on a roster of such
well-known speakers. Brookes was counted as the outstanding leader of the Bible conference movement, from 1875
until his death in 1897.(14) One of the contributing factors in Brookes' acceptance as leader of the premillennial Bible
conference movement was the magazine, The Truth, which he edited from 1875 to 1897.
Brookes undertook, through the medium of The Truth magazine, to answer Nathaniel West's attack on the imminent
coming of Christ. West had held this view, but under the influence of Robert Cameron had changed his viewpoint.
West's changed position was expressed in two pamphlets, entitled The Coming of the Lord in the "Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles" and The Apostle Paul and the Any-Moment Theory. The first of these was published in 1892 and the
latter in 1893. In both of these he attacked the any-moment return of Christ. To answer this attack Brookes chose to
use a series of articles written by G. N. H. Peters.
These articles by Peters continued from the January, 1895, edition of The Truth through the July, 1895, issue. In the
introduction of this series, Peters states the purpose to be, "a reply to the unscriptural attitude assumed by Rev. N.
West, D. D., in his attack upon prominent premillenarians."(15) It is important to note that by this time Peters had
become well enough known and was esteemed to be of sufficient stature to answer such a giant as N. West.
Another fact that these articles contribute to our knowledge of Peters is that he had completed notes on Matthew,
Mark, and Luke for publication. Furthermore, these notes on the synoptic gospels must have been very extensive in
bulk, since the series of articles answering West was simply the note inserted under Luke 17. Moreover, Peters
indicated that it was at the insistence of other men, as well as Brookes, that he allowed his reply to West to appear in
The Truth. This is seen in his following words:
While the writer was engaged in preparing his notes on Luke there appeared the violent and misleading attack
of Rev. Dr. N. West. . . . Believing the series of articles to be dangerous. . . , it was deemed best to incorporate into
the Notes a reply to Dr. West, to be published when the volumes on Matthew, Mark, and Luke should appear. This
fact, of a reply being inserted in the Notes under Luke ch. XVII, becoming known to prominent brethren in the faith,
they, . . . insisted upon an immediate publication of the reply in its present form for general distribution. Acceding to
this request, an exact copy is here presented of that portion only of the Notes. (16)
Apparently the effect of this series of articles was sufficient to bring Peters to the attention of A. C. Gaebelein, who,
after quoting a portion of the article by Peters on "The Imminency of the Second Advent," in Our Hope magazine,
added the following remarks.
The author of the article is Mr. G. N. H. Peters, a scholarly Lutheran preacher. The article speaks for itself. It is a
powerful rebuttal against the statement which appears now in Watchword and Truth.(17)
Other Writings of Peters
Peters' later years were actively engaged in writing. He refers to an article called "The Keys," published in the
Evangelical Review.(18) From 1895 on the pages of The Truth seemed to have been open to his articles. In February,
1897, he contributed an article concerning John 19:14 and the phrase, "and about the sixth hour."(19) In the forward
to this article is the illuminating phrase, "being an extract from Notes on the Gospels and Acts in course of
preparation." Apparently by this time the notes on the synoptics were finished and the notes on John through the
nineteenth chapter.
In March, 1897, another article on "The Witness of the Spirit" appeared in The Truth magazine.(20) This article is
an exposition of Romans 8:16. It is significant that this contribution appears only one month after the previously
mentioned article. It is apparent that Peters was well-known to the magazine readers and was accepted by both the
editor and subscribers.
Upon the death of James Hall Brookes in April, 1897, an issue in memoriam of him was published in June, 1897. In
this issue an extract of a letter written by Peters was included. Again a closeness of association with Brookes is
indicated in the following words:
The news deeply affected and saddened me, especially for two reasons: In this "evil age" we so much needed his
faithful and noble testimony; and Dr. Brookes was to me a brother beloved.--Dr. G. N. H. Peters(21)
It is obvious from the foregoing facts that Peters was not an unknown backwoods preacher whose very obscurity
detracted from the importance of his contribution to the cause of premillennialism in his lifetime. The very fact that he
had been chosen to speak at the 1886 prophetic conference with a full complement of well-known and outstanding
millenarians indicates he was known beyond his Lutheran circles.
Nor was the Theocratic Kingdom his only effort as an author, since he contributed numerous articles to more than
one religious periodical. Moreover, he had finished copious notes on the four gospels which had been completed for
publication several years before his death. These notes were known to several "prominent brethren," and this would
indicate that his area of influence was broad. There is no record that these notes were ever published; if they had been,
the name of Peters would have been perhaps even more widely known.
However, enough has been set forth to indicate that an obscurity (which did not in reality exist) was not the reason
Peters' Theocratic Kingdom failed to make more of an impact on his own generation.
The theological emphasis of the last century shifted during the last part of the century. As early as 1842
premillennialism was pitted against postmillennialism. John Duffield, a Presbyterian pastor, wrote in that year,
Dissertations on the Prophecies Relative to the Second Coming of Christ. This work was a strong defense of
premillennialism against postmillennialism.(22) Just ten years before the publication of Peters’ Theocratic Kingdom,
another masterful defense of premillennialism against postmillennialism was published. This work also contained an
answer to Dr. W. G. T. Shedd's faulty conclusion concerning the history of millenarianism in The History of Christian
Doctrine.(23)
However, the postmillenarians opposed were fellow believers. By 1880, the impact of German higher criticism wan
being felt on the American continent. As a result, those who accepted German rationalism and assumed the position of
liberals embraced postmillennialism as best representing their position. In the area of postmillennialism there were then
two resulting groups, liberals and conservatives. The premillennial camp saw both groups as dangerous to their
doctrinal position, but counted the liberal element to be the greater peril. An attack upon either group in a sense was an
attack on both. However, the emphasis in premillennialism was designed primarily to stem the tide of unbelief.
It was through religious periodicals, Bible institutes, and Bible conferences that this emphasis was concentrated.
The reason was that by 1895 many of the theological chairs of the major seminaries had fallen to the liberals. The plan,
therefore, was not to present the case for premillennialism to the scholar, but rather to the layman. This emphasis is
seen in a statement of the reasons for calling the Prophetic Conference of 1886 in Chicago.
The summary of these reasons follows,
1. To give prominence to neglected truths of Scripture.
2. To emphasize the true principle of Scriptural interpretation, i.e., literal vs. "figurizing."
3. To waken Christians to the philosophicalism of the times and to the need of their neighbors.
4. To present the highest motive for world evangelization--the Lord's return.
5. To present the doctrine of last things as a bulwark against skepticism and thus make premillennialism a breakwater
against the advancing tide of unbelief.
6. To give a chance for saints who love His appearing to fellowship together.(24)
Peters' Theocratic Kingdom was caught in the middle of this shift of emphasis. The work was too scholarly for
the layman, and it was too copious and weighty for the liberal to refute, so he simply ignored it. Moreover, at nine
dollars per set, it was far too expensive for wide distribution, since this amount represented almost a week's wage for
the laboring man.
Premillennialism held against the tide of liberalism, and thus there has been another shift in emphasis. The new foe
of premillennialism is amillennialism, which has concentrated its attack on the scholarly level. Thus, this generation of
premillennialists is interested in a scholarly formulation and exposition of their system. As a result the scholarly three
volumes of Peters have a greater reception by friends now than previously.
It was, therefore, the emphasis and trend of the times, plus the enormous size and price of the work that militated
against the hearty acceptance of The Theocratic Kingdom during the last century. The apparent obscurity of the
writer was in no wise responsible for this phenomenon.
(1) George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, I, 1.
(2)Ibid. (3)Ibid., I, ii. (4)Ibid., I, iii. (5)ibid., I, ii. (6)Ibid.
(7)Ibid. (8)Ibid., 1, ii-iii (9)Ibid., I, 16
(10)Ibid., I, iv. (11)Ibid., I, 16. (12)Ibid., I, 15.
(13)Needham, G. C., Prophetic Studies of the International Prophetic Conference (Chicago, 1886). PP. 157-66.
(14)Norman Kraus, Dispensationalism in America, p. 36.
(15)G. N. H. Peters, “The Imminency of the Second Advent," The Truth, 21:45, January, 1895.
(16)Ibid.
(17)G. N. H. Peters, "The Imminency of the Second Advent," Our Hope, 9:117, November, 1903.
(18)Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, I:408.
(19)Peters, "The Sixth Hour," The Truth, 23:100-05, February, 1897.
(20)Peters, "The Witness of the Spirit," The Truth, 23:157-61, March, 1897.
(21)Peters, "Extract of Letter in Memoriam of Dr. Brookes," The Truth, 23:321, June 1897.
(22)Kraus, op. cit., p. 54.
(23)R, C. Shimeall, The Second Coming of Christ, pp. iii-v.
(24)Needham, op. cit., p. 215.
| This short history is from a Doctoral Thesis written by H. LaVern Schafer while attending Dallas Theological Seminary in 1963. It contains the introduction and first chapter of the thesis. The historical points are quite interesting and shed more light on Mr. Peters. |