Engaging the World With Christ: Participating in the Royal Office of Christ

A burnished gem of Reformed theology is set within the ordination prayer printed in the 1946 edition of the Book of Common Worship. The Presbyterian Church (USA) would do well to recover this biblically incisive prayer:

Send down thy Holy Spirit upon this thy servant, whom we, in thy name and in obedience to thy holy will, do now by the laying on of our hands ordain and appoint to the office of the holy ministry in thy church, committing unto him authority to preach the word, administer the sacraments, and to bear rule in thy church.1

Despite the prayer’s time-bound language (we should read “…committing unto him/her authority… ”), it is one of the clearest liturgical expressions of an essential and momentous doctrinal belief.

When individuals, under the call of God, are ordained to the ministry of Word and Sacrament, they are ordained to the ministry of Jesus Christ. This holds true for elders and deacons as well. It is Christ’s ministry, not our own, to which we are set apart. Hence, we participate in a ministry that preceded us and which will long follow us, and we participate in a living active ministry that far transcends and exceeds anything that we could author ourselves. Despite the constant demands and drains of ministry, it is a unique and superlative privilege to participate in the ministerial offices of Jesus Christ; to engage the world with Jesus Christ!

If for no other reason, the ordination prayer commends our theological reflection given its clear and purposeful language. At once and at the same time it exegetes the minister’s authority in view of the munus triplex (the three offices of Christ), and it links the commission of the one being ordained to the larger ministry of Jesus Christ. “Authority” is conferred to 1) preach the Word, 2) administer the sacraments, and 3) bear rule in Christ’s church. We are familiar with the first two authorizations since they are overtly named in the current designation of the minister’s office, that is, he or she is set apart to be a Minister of Word and Sacrament. The third authorization, “to bear rule in Christ’s Church,” may, however, give us pause. What does it mean for a minister, or for an elder or deacon, to bear rule in Christ’s Church? Even the phrase, “bear rule,” seems anachronistic and perhaps hostile to our seemingly enlightened, kinder, gentler age. I have read church information forms that express great anticipation for a pastor to preach the Word. Congregations are hungry for pastors to bring them into the sacramentally powerful presence of the Triune God. But most congregations are timid when it comes to their pastors, elders, and deacons “bearing rule.” And yet, the polity of the Presbyterian Church (USA) requires ruling, albeit always for purposes of redeeming and building up the body.2 “Bearing rule” is as important for the graceful exercise of ministry as the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments.

The authorities conferred on the minister at the time of ordination are derived from nothing less than the ontological reality behind the doctrinal description of Christ’s three offices. According to this biblical-dogmatic construction, Christ was the one and only true prophet, the one and only true priest, and one and only true king. Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment, in both his earthly and exalted states, of the most essential “offices” of God’s economy during the Old Testament period. Although this is a rudimentary doctrine of the Reformed tradition, few pastors and lay persons can articulate it, let alone be guided by it. Moreover, I am convinced that the present confusion in the Presbyterian Church (USA) regarding the nature of ordination as well as our reluctance to engage in church discipline ultimately stems from the denigration of the three offices of Christ in preaching, teaching, and theological formulation. Whereas the prophetic and priestly offices have too easily fallen to neglect, it has been the royal office of Christ that has been most seriously discounted.

The theological discounting of the royal office has been due, in large part, to an overly negative evaluation of passages in Scripture where Judah’s and Israel’s royal ideology can be discerned. Actually, the negative evaluation of these materials is simply the logical outcome of a set of ideological commitments that biblical scholars have brought to bear on the scriptural texts from which the three offices were classically derived. The anachronistic and culturally arrogant assumption that egalitarianism is superior to any form of hierarchy, even benevolent and servant rulership, has encouraged many to label a number of the key biblical texts as antiquated and theologically passé.

Important for this article, a number of psalms critical to the biblical-theological formulation of the three offices have been misinterpreted. However, once rightly understood, these psalms strongly undergird the traditional Reformed view of the royal office, demonstrating it to be not only theologically constructive but also biblically sound.

The Three Offices of Jesus Christ

Before turning to the biblical foundations of the doctrine of the munus triplex, it will be helpful to review the theological construction itself. The classical Reformed doctrine of the three offices of Jesus Christ is the most comprehensive and essential formulation of our Lord’s ministry to us and, at the same time, our directive for a lovingly responsive ministry to him. Although the seeds of the doctrine can be traced to the fourth century AD, John Calvin was the first to clearly and extensively articulate the biblically-derived formulation of the three offices of Christ.3 Calvin’s thorough exposition of the three offices can be found in Book II, Chapter XV of the Institutes.

Therefore, in order that faith may find a firm basis for salvation in Christ, and thus rest in him, this principle must be laid down: The office enjoined upon Christ by the Father consists of three parts: for he was given to be prophet, king, and priest. Yet it would be little value to know these names without understanding their purpose and use.4

The vitality of a right understanding of the three offices of Christ, without which a proper understanding of Jesus’ title “Christ” is impossible, is evidenced by question thirty-four of Calvin’s 1541 Geneva catechism.

Q. 34. What is meant by the name ‘Christ’?

A. By this title his office is still better expressed—for it signifies that Christ was anointed by the Father to be ordained King, Priest, and Prophet.

As Reformed theology developed beyond Calvin, the requisite magnitude of the three offices to a right understanding of the meaning of “Christ” continued to be stressed in confession and catechism.5

Most recently, the power of this classic Reformed dogmatic formulation has been recovered by the New Catechism Committee of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in their proposed First Catechism. Set within a recital of the covenant, questions nineteen through twenty-one explain how God sought to redeem his far too often rebellious people, first through kings, priests, and prophets, and then through the Messiah who was the fulfillment of each of these offices.

Q. 19. Did the people keep their covenant with God?

A. No, they turned away to worship other gods and did not love each other as God commanded.

Q. 20. What did God do when these people kept turning away?

A. Although God judged the people, they were not left without hope. God sent them prophets to speak God’s word. God gave them priests to make sacrifices for their sins. God called kings to protect the needy and guarantee justice. At last God promised to send the Messiah.

Q. 21. How did God keep that promise?

A. God sent Jesus to be the Messiah. Another word for Messiah, which means “anointed one,” is Christ. Jesus is called the Christ, because God anointed him to be the Savior who would rescue us from sin and death.

Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Christ, the anointed one, because his ministry, in both his state of humility and his state of exaltation, was the true fulfillment of God’s redemptive intent in the Old Testament offices of priest, prophet, and king.

The Two-sided Nature of the Three Offices of Christ

Essential to Calvin’s formulation is his holding together the two-sided reality of these offices. Even though Christ is the true fulfillment of each of the Old Testament offices, and hence Christ’s work was not merely personal nor accidental, the offices themselves stand on their own, and through Christ we are invited to participate in them. Note how Calvin expresses this in commenting on the priestly office:

Now Christ plays the priestly role, not only to render the Father favorable and propitious toward us by an eternal law of reconciliation, but also to receive us as his companions in this great office [Rev. 1:6]. For we who are defiled ourselves, yet are priests in him, offer ourselves and our all to God, and freely enter the heavenly sanctuary that the sacrifices of prayers and praise that we bring may be acceptable and sweet-smelling before God (emphasis mine).6

Because Christ has become our true and effective priest, prophet, and king, we are compelled out of our gratitude and love to throw ourselves into his ministry. More properly stated, once we receive the benefits of Christ’s three-fold office, we directly become participants with Christ within his offices. The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) states this well in its thirty-second question, logically extended from the thirty-first:

Q. 31. Why is he called Christ, that is the Anointed one?

A. Because he is ordained by God the Father and anointed with the Holy Spirit to be our chief Prophet and Teacher, fully revealing to us the secret purpose and will of God concerning our redemption; to be our only High Priest, having redeemed us by the one sacrifice of his body and ever interceding for us with the Father; and to be our eternal King, governing us by his Word and Spirit, and defending and sustaining us in the redemption he has won for us.

Q. 32. But why are you called a Christian?

A. Because through faith I share in Christ and thus in his anointing, so that I may confess his name, offer myself a living sacrifice of gratitude to him, and fight against sin and the devil with a free and good conscience throughout this life and hereafter rule with him in eternity over all creatures.

As Christians, we share in Christ’s anointing! We, then, participate with Christ in his messianic ministry and rule, even to the point of ruling with him in eternity. Otto Weber, in his wonderfully helpful Foundations of Dogmatics, expands upon the vital linkage of faith and praxis inherent in the munus triplex:

The doctrine of the “threefold office” of Christ is a dogmatic conception. At the same time, and in this we go beyond Calvin, it is an ethical conception. For this “for us” always means that the Community itself participates in what the One on whom it is dependent is and was the Proclaimer. It cannot pass man’s misery by when it knows that One who as a priest took upon himself all the perversion and distress of man. It cannot be complacent about the arbitrary rule of the mighty when it knows the One who is the King. It does not prolong his work. But it follows him. Because he has done everything, it does its part.7

In simpler terms, because of Christ’s love and work for us, we thrill to engage the world with Jesus Christ!

The vital importance of the 1946 edition of the ordination prayer should, at this point, be clear. In ordination, pastors (and elders and deacons) are set apart to a particular office that is derivative of Christ’s threefold office. Pastors preach the Word, administer the sacraments, and bear rule in the Church because Christ has already preached the Word, instituted the sacraments, and ruled the Church—and as the living Lord, he maintains and fulfills these ends in the present. Pastors, then, participate with Christ, and churches, then, engage the world with Christ. This is the two-sided nature of the three offices of Christ.

Biblical-Exegetical Issues Pertaining to the Royal Office

Although the priestly office of Christ has been poorly neglected in contemporary ministry,8 it is the royal office of Christ that has proved most controversial. It must be admitted that there are many cultural barriers to a clear understanding of this doctrine (we live in a democracy, not a monarchy; kingship can be viewed as antiquated, patriarchal, etc.). For the remainder of this article, however, I will focus on the key biblical-exegetical issues and pitfalls, especially as they are set within the modern scholarly context.

Classically, the biblical-theological exposition of the doctrine of the royal office has been largely founded upon the New Testament’s reappropriation of a handful of psalms, today commonly referred to as the “royal psalms,” which are in some way “fulfilled” in the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ.9 For example, note how the writer of the book of Hebrews draws together lines from Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:4.

Christ did not glorify himself in becoming High Priest, but (God) did, saying to him,
You are my Son
Today I have begotten you; as he says in another place,
You are a priest for ever,
after the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 5:5-6)10

Rather straightforwardly, and along the lines of their New Testament reappropriation, Psalms 2 and 110 were held to be “messianic” psalms which anticipated the future reign of the Messiah. Since they provided a view of the ideal king, they also provided one of the clearest theological foundations for understanding the royal office in God’s economy. In the same vein, when Calvin describes the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingly office he suggests that Psalm 2:9, Psalm 45:7, and Psalm 110:6 each prophetically reference none other than Jesus Christ.11

Although the messianic interpretation of Psalms 2, 45, 72, 110, and others, remained commonplace well into the twentieth century, as early as 1811, the German scholar Wilhelm de Wette launched a strong challenge to the simple messianic understanding of these psalms. De Wette argued that Psalms 2, 20, 21, 45, 72 and 110 were originally composed neither by King David nor for the coming Messiah, but instead for various historical kings of Northern Israel or Judah.12 If this were the case, then how could it be maintained that the royal psalms described the “ideal” king? Perhaps they, individually, reflected contemporary propagandistic views of particular kings. At the same time, de Wette did allow for a later reinterpretation of these psalms in the New Testament that could, in some ways, be considered “messianic.” However, the messianic reinterpretation of the psalms had little or nothing to do with their original compositional purpose.

Increasingly, as archaeological finds were unearthed throughout the ancient Near East, comparative data was brought to bear on the interpretation of these psalms. In 1914, another German scholar, Hermann Gunkel, published a monograph that argued the correct context for a clear understanding of the royal psalms was not, first, their canonical context, but their original socio-historical context.13 Designating Psalms 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 72, 101, 110, and 132 as royal psalms, Gunkel made three forceful arguments. First, the royal referents within the psalms referred to bona fide historical kings of Northern Israel or Judah. Second, the psalms were not composed for some future messianic figure. And third, elements of royal hyperbole which had led others to believe that the psalms had to be messianic, simply mimicked contemporaneous royal propaganda (with its unseemly bravado) observable in artifacts unearthed in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

For example, that a psalmist could address a human king in Psalm 45:7 as “god” (the correct translation is “your throne, O god,”), seemed to be at odds with Israel’s strident monotheism. For this reason, most nineteenth century theologians maintained that the psalm had to refer to the Messiah, the only being that could, besides Yahweh, be referred to as “god.” Gunkel correctly pointed out, however, that in ancient Babylon King Hammurabi was attributed a divine lineage and called the “son” of the god Marduk, and that the Egyptian Pharaoh was not only considered the Sun god’s son, but was actually referred to as “Good god.”14 Other examples and exegesis could be cited. Suffice it to say that Gunkel successfully demonstrated that there was nothing unusual or atypical in the biblical royal psalms once they were properly compared to other ancient Near Eastern materials. During the course of this century, the ever-burgeoning archaeological record of text and artifact overwhelmingly supported Gunkel’s argument, now almost a century old.

Whereas the early reformers could point to the exalted language of the royal psalms as a key indicator of their messianic thrust, since Gunkel the elements of royal ideology, consonant with royal ideologies throughout the Ancient world, became the great stumbling block for many scholars, theologians, and pastors. Of course the stumbling block is removed if one holds to a strong view of the canonical context of the royal psalms—a stance most compatible with the Reformed tradition’s view of the nature and authority of Scripture. And yet, many of the exegetical resources available to lay person and pastor do not interpret the texts within the canonical context and, instead, attempt to privilege certain “voices” in Scripture over others. For this reason, it will be expedient to briefly outline the two dominant theological assessments of the royal psalms post-Gunkel.

Modern Theological Appraisals of the Royal Psalms

At the risk of oversimplifying, there are basically two camps of interpretation when it comes to the theological assessment of biblical royal ideology in general, and the royal psalms in particular. In part, the disagreement between the camps is an outgrowth of what at first might seem to be two different perspectives on the nature of kingship found in 1 Samuel.

On the one hand, 1 Samuel 8 suggests that God acquiesced to Israel’s petition to have a king “like the other nations” because of their persistent rebellion. Yahweh spoke to Samuel:

Obey the request of the people in its entirety; for they have not cast off you, but they have cast off me from being king over them, consistent with all of their actions from the very day I brought them out of Egypt up to this day, abandoning me and revering other gods… .(1 Samuel 8:7-8).

Read alone, this passage suggests allegiance to a human king was a clear rejection of Yahweh’s own kingship and rule over the tribal league.

On the other hand, the next three chapters of 1 Samuel, chapters 9-11, present a very different and even promonarchical evaluation. According to these chapters, the rise of Israel’s monarchy was a gracious and loving gift from God in the face of a devastating Philistine threat.

Yahweh uncovered the ear of Samuel one day before Saul arrived, saying:

Tomorrow about this time I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin. Anoint him as ruler over my people Israel. He shall deliver my people from the hand of the Philistines; for I have observed the suffering of my people, indeed, their outcry has reached me (1 Samuel 9:15-16).

Since the royal psalms name and celebrate the human king as Israel’s savior, they are consonant with this unabashedly positive and salvific perspective on kingship. Thus, the royal psalms are usually theologically evaluated together with texts like 1 Sam 9:15-16 as espousing similar royal ideology.

Although it is hardly surprising that there was some theological ambiguity, even ambivalence, to the institution of human monarchical rule in Israel’s memory, many scholars have privileged the seemingly antimonarchical texts over the promonarchical texts. Accordingly, scholars of the first camp argue that pagan royal propaganda from Israel’s surrounding environs was superimposed upon the more democratic and theocratic traditions of Israel. For example, in 1975 George Mendenhall scorned the development of human kingship among the Hebrews in his often-quoted Interpretation article: “…the cultic/political system of Jerusalem during the Monarchy had nothing to do with the Yahwist revolution and was actually completely incompatible with that religious movement.”15 One could hardly voice a stronger claim that Israel’s desire for kingly rule was tantamount to apostasy.

Although Mendenhall represents the extreme, other scholars have followed his bifurcation of royal ideology from true Yahwism. More recently this view has been articulated by Rainer Albertz in his historical survey of Hebrew religion.16 Such historical appraisals continue to influence the discipline of modern biblical theology. The proponents of the “polarities-and-tensions” biblical theology movement, at best, view royal theology and Yahwistic faith as authentic bipolar voices within the biblical tradition.17 Others consider the royal theology of Jerusalem to be an idolatrous departure from the true biblical faith.18

In marked contrast, scholars of the second camp stress that within the full view of Scripture, the first camp’s negative assessments of royal ideology are simply shortsighted. This has been forcefully stated by J. J. M. Roberts:

…the implications of such a stance are profound, because many of what have been taken to be central biblical themes owe their existence or their peculiar biblical shape to the imperial theology first developed in the Davidic-Solomonic court and then transmitted and elaborated in the royal cult of the subsequent Judean court.19

If one uncritically accepts the viewpoint of the first scholarly camp, one must at least wonder when, in view of New Testament claims that Jesus was the Davidic Messiah, royal theology, foundational for biblical messianism,20 was delivered of its idolatrous connotations. Or, is one to conclude that biblical messianism itself is a paganization of authentic Yahwism? Such an assessment would not only be contrary to the theological development of the royal office within the canon, but it lies well beyond the bounds of the church historical and the church ecumenical. Unfortunately, too many pastors and presbyters have uncritically accepted the argumentation of the first camp, and because of this, have not fully appreciated the necessity in God’s economy for the royal office.

Key Theological Issues In The Royal Psalms

Since there is such an affinity between the content of the biblical royal psalms and the general royal literature of the ancient Near East, the preponderant theological issue has been whether there is anything unique or even “of God” in these psalms. In fact, the recognition that the verbiage of the royal psalms compares synonymously with that of the surrounding cultures of the biblical world effectively chiseled an ever-widening gap between the royal psalms of the Old Testament and their reapplication in the New Testament, raising the question whether the New Testament’s appropriation of these psalms was, in fact, theologically valid.

Most importantly, since several royal psalms have classically served as primary biblical underpinnings for the doctrine of the royal office of Christ, does their similarity with pagan ideologies of other cultures undercut the doctrine itself? That is, are the royal psalms so culturally conditioned that it is, in the least, unwise to construct a theological program for the modern church upon them?

The informed answer to both of these questions is “no.” However, an informed answer must take into consideration the unique character of the royal psalms of the Hebrew Psalter. Once their distinctiveness is fully comprehended, it is no longer possible to make hasty generalizations and simply lump the royal psalms together with other royal ideology in the ancient Near East. Moreover, it is precisely their distinctiveness that allows the royal psalms to thoroughly and intelligently undergird the biblical-dogmatic formulation of the royal office for the contemporary church.

The Unique Character of the Biblical Royal Psalms

While it is true that the language of the biblical royal psalms is consistent with the language (metaphor and simile) of royal literature in the ancient Near East, the royal psalms significantly stand alone in one way. Unlike the royal inscriptions of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia, the biblical royal psalms never include the personal name of a historical king of Northern Israel or Judah! This radical dissimilarity provides key evidence in support of the theological importance of the royal psalms within Israel’s own development, their reappropriation in the New Testament, and their theological pertinence to the classical formulation of the royal office of Christ and our participation in it.

In virtually every royal hymn or prayer we have from Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia, the personal name of either the praying king or the personal name of the king being praised is explicitly mentioned. The complete absence of this seemingly requisite element in the biblical royal psalms is arresting. The singularity of this phenomenon in the Psalter is heightened by the fact that there is another royal poem (psalm) in the Hebrew Bible that does fit the Ancient Near Eastern pattern of naming the “name” of the king. Note 2 Samuel 23:1-4b:

And these are David’s last words:
The oracle of David, son of Jesse,
the oracle of the man whom God raised up;
the Anointed of the God of Jacob,
the Favorite of the Strength of Israel:
“The Spirit of Yahweh spoke through me,
his word was upon my tongue.
The God of Jacob spoke,
to me the Rock of Israel said:
‘He who rules over people as legitimate
is he who rules in the fear of God.
He is like the light of morning as the sun rises—
a morning without a cloud (born) out of the
brightness.’”

Although this poem was not included in the Hebrew Psalter, it was included by the Dead Sea Scroll community in their psalter unearthed in Cave 11. This is hardly surprising, since 2 Samuel 23:1-7 shares almost complete affinity with other royal psalms, except in its explicit use of the king’s name. Although it cannot be demonstrated here, it is my assessment that the reason 2 Samuel 23:1-7 did not make it into the Hebrew Psalter was its explicit mention of the king’s name. In this regard, it is important to note that 2 Samuel 22, of which Psalm 18 is a copy, did make it into the Hebrew Psalter.

In another place I produced a rather lengthy and detailed demonstration that the royal psalms of the Hebrew Psalter were at least secondary editions or copies of antecedent texts that originally, like 2 Samuel 23:1-7, and like virtually every other royal hymn or prayer we have from the ancient Near East, named the royal name!21 This means that the biblical royal psalms, as we receive them in Scripture, have been reappropriated and edited from another historical context. That is, they are copies or reappropriations of hymns and prayers that were sung by or for actual kings of Israel or Judah, but copies that skillfully and purposefully eliminated the original royal referents.

Without explaining the purposeful omission of royal names at this point, we can note that this critical observation carries several important implications. First, it can no longer be credibly maintained that the royal psalms are merely crude borrowings from Israel’s environs. This, in fact, has been the dominant complaint of many biblical scholars over the last century. Second, it cannot be sustained that the royal psalms made it haphazardly into the Hebrew Psalter. Instead, careful and deliberate adaptations to the psalms were made so that they might be useful to Israel’s continuing devotion to God.

But why were the names of historical kings excised in the reappropriation process? The answer to this question can be best approached through an examination of a very familiar text that occurs outside of the Hebrew Psalter, Isaiah 9:6:

For a child has been born for us
a son granted to us.
Command rests upon his shoulders.
And one will call his name:
‘He Who Proffers Wonders’,
‘Divine Warrior’,
‘Father of the Testament’,
‘Prince of Peace’,
‘_______________’.

Most scholars believe that a personal name of a historical king of Judah, most probably Hezekiah, followed the fourth epithet (“Prince of Peace”). There are two reasons for this. First, the Hebrew text following verse 5 is corrupt, and it is obvious that something has been dropped out of the text, most probably a name. Second, if a personal name were restored, then the five-fold pattern of the text would be identical to the standard five-fold royal titulary used by Egyptian kings.

Thus, almost certainly Isa 8:23b-9:6 was originally an element of Hezekiah’s coronation which would have occurred around 715 BC. In all likelihood, as Hezekiah was being crowned king, the Assyrian king, Sargon II, was in conflict with Merodach-Baladan of Babylon. With Assyria preoccupied with Babylon, even little Judah could hold grand aspirations for its life under a new king. But later in Hezekiah’s reign these hopes would be dashed to pieces when he attempted to revolt against Assyria and was nearly crushed by Sennacherib in 701 BC. Despite his intensive preparations for battle, Hezekiah turned out to be anything but a “Divine Warrior.”

When the book of Isaiah was being compiled, its editors were given the choice of being historically accurate or theologically incisive. They, rightly, opted for the latter. It would have been historically accurate to leave Hezekiah’s personal name within the titulary and Isaiah’s prophecy. However, the promise of God’s wonderful and magnificent rule through an anointed one, a Messiah, so beautifully and powerfully expressed in Isa 8:23b-9:6, could not possibly be limited to one occasional human situation. Rather, once extracted from its original social-location, Isa 8:23b-9:6 became a visionary statement for generations to come. What was really at stake was not the rule of a particular king, but the efficacy of the royal office which participated in God’s eternal and beneficent rule.

In the same way, the royal psalms were recast prior to their inclusion in the Psalter so that they would emphasize the office of kingship itself, rather than a particular holder of that office. This observation explains why the New Testament writers could reappropriate the royal psalms and apply them to Jesus. Since the royal psalms of Scripture espoused the ideal of the office of kingship, and since Jesus was the fulfillment of that ideal, the connection between the two is not only comprehensible but necessary and profound.

At the same time, even prior to the New Testament’s application of the royal psalms to Jesus, the office of kingship was applied more broadly than to singular fulfillment in one particular individual. The unique covenant promised to King David in the royal psalms (Ps 89:25; see also 2 Sam 23:5 and 2 Sam 7) is extended by God to the whole Hebrew people in the exile:

Incline your ear and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast and sure love for David (Isaiah 55:3-4).

In this passage, God promises to make a royal covenant with the entire people of Israel. In other words, God invited them to participate in the royal office that continued to exist in his economy, despite the fact that historical kings had long been obliterated from the thrones of Israel and Judah. In the same way, it is my conviction that all original references to historical kings were removed from the royal psalms so that, just as the entire community of Israel was able to pray the psalms as their prayers, in the same way even the royal psalms could be sung and prayed as the community’s prayers. As they did this, they discovered themselves to be participants in the royal office itself, initially constituted by God and eventually, and finally, fulfilled and clarified in Jesus Christ.

Summary

The classical formulation of the munus triplex was founded upon the New Testament belief that 1) Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of the true royal office and that 2) it was God’s plan to fulfill that office rather than abrogate it. Christ’s fulfillment of the royal office at the same time beckons our participation with him in it. When we participate in the work of any of the three offices of Christ, we engage the world with Christ!

Until recently, many biblical scholars have called into question point two above. They have viewed the royal ideology expressed in the Scriptures, and especially in the royal psalms, to be an idolatrous move away from God’s economy. However, once the texts are rightly understood, there is little justification to these claims. Rather, already in the biblical period the royal materials, particularly the royal psalms, went through a process of democratization so that the entire community might participate in this essential office.

All of this lends strong support to the suggestion made at the beginning of this article that the PC (USA) return to its deep biblical theology in its ordination services. For bearing rule in Christ’s church means not only discipline, but care and concern for matters of justice and healing. If we can step up to God’s invitation, we will, as a church, provide a radical and compelling alternative to the materialistic and power-laden anarchy of our times.

Christ is our King. We are given the privilege of bearing rule with him. May we embrace and fulfill this awesome privilege and call.

This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jan/Feb 1998).