OFFICES OF CHRIST. Christology has been traditionally divided in three parts: (1) The Person of Christ (His deity and humanity united in one person); (2) The states of Christ (the humiliation and exaltation of the Mediator); (3) The work of Christ.
The last topic has been frequently and conveniently dealt with under the title of “The Offices of Christ.” The principle which underlies this terminology is simply that the work that Christ accomplished is the perfect fulfillment of certain basic functions or offices in which the essential relationship of God and man is expressed.
These offices often are classified as prophetic, priestly and kingly. While these categories are not fully exhaustive of all that Christ accomplished and while some overlapping may be occasionally observed between them, there are good reasons why these may continue to be used.
1. One of the most significant (and common) designations of Jesus is the Christ (Heb.: מָשִׁיחַ, H5431) which means “The Anointed One.” Now in the OT three offices were commonly inaugurated by a ceremony of unction as indicative of God’s sanction: the offices of priest (Exod 30:30; 40:13, 15 and many other references), of king (1 Sam 10:1; 15:1, 17; 16:3, 12, 13; 1 Kings 1:34; 19:15, 16 etc.), and of prophet (1 Kings 19:16; and Isa 61:1; cf. Ps 105:15). A development of the nature of Christ’s work along this structure would therefore be particularly well suited to exhibit the correspondence between OT and NT, between the expectation of the Old Covenant and the fulfillment of the New Covenant.
2. The terms prophet, priest and king are in fact used by the NT with reference to Jesus Christ, and while other titles could also be pressed into service here, there is no good reason to question the appropriateness of these designations.
3. This division is consecrated by great antiquity. It appears notably in the beginning of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (I, iii, 8, 9) and frequently since that time. It has been favored esp. since the Reformation, perhaps because of its effective use by John Calvin (Institutes II, xv).
I. The prophetic office
A prophet is a person used by God to transmit messages that God desires to communicate to men (Exod 7:1; Deut 18:18). The element of prediction, which is prominent in the popular idea of a prophet, is not an essential of the Biblical concept.
As early as the life of Moses, we have a promise from God that He would provide His people with prophetic guidance (Deut 18:15, 18). This promise, which received a partial accomplishment through the succession of OT prophets, was fulfilled in a most complete and satisfying manner in the coming of Jesus Christ as is indicated by Peter (Acts 3:22-24) and Stephen (Acts 7:37). Christ’s coming did meet the yearning of those who were looking for the advent of the Messiah; and the prophetic character of His mission received recognition even among the people of His day (Matt 16:14; 21:11, 46; Luke 7:16; John 1:23; 4:19; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17). The disciples particularly acknowledged that He had the words of eternal life (John 6:68), and that He uttered the words of God (John 3:34). Christ referred to Himself as a prophet (Matt 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24; 13:33; John 4:44), and claimed to present a message from the Father (John 8:26-28, 40; 12:49, 50; 14:10, 24; 15:15; 17:8). He came to bear witness to the truth (8:45, 46; 19:35). In fact “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (1:17), who could say of Himself: “I am...the truth” (14:6), or again “I am the light of the world” (8:12; 9:5; cf. John 3:19; 12:35, 36, 46). Even the Father from the heavenly heights bore witness to the authority of Christ’s prophetic word (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35; John 5:37; 8:18). In the Book of Revelation we read that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev 19:10).
There are two major ways in which Christ exercised His prophetic office: instruction and example, to which may be added a word about miracles.
A. Instruction. One of the chief activities of our Lord in His earthly ministry was preaching (Matt 4:17; 11:1; Mark 1:38; Luke 4:18, 43) and teaching (Matt 7:29; 11:1; Luke 11:1; Acts 1:1). A good share of the Gospel account is devoted to a record of His discourses and statements.
He taught with authority (Matt 7:29). He set His own statements on a level with the Word of God in the OT law (Matt 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; 19:9), not of course to discredit inspired writ, but to provide a divinely accredited interpretation of the OT law. He did not hesitate to give commandments vested with divine authority (Matt 28:20; John 14:21; 15:12). He emphasized that His words would not pass away (Matt 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33) and that the truth He proclaimed should extend to the whole world (Matt 26:13; 28:19, 20). He asserted that men’s ultimate destiny could depend on their treatment of His words (Matt 7:24-27; Mark 8:38; John 8:24; 12:48). He described these words as spirit and life (John 6:33). After Christ’s ascension, God the Holy Spirit will bring to their remembrance what Jesus had taught them (14:26).
The true disciples therefore were always eager to receive Christ’s teaching. They accepted it even when others viewed His utterances as a “hard saying” (John 6:60). They addressed Jesus by the title “Rabbi” (or, Rabboni), which is an acknowledgment of His authority. Mary who sat at His feet and listened to His teaching received commendation (Luke 10:39, 41). Those who wish to be closest to Christ must hear the Word of God coming from His lips (Luke 8:21; 11:28).
The ministry of Jesus is repeatedly compared to a light which illumines those who are in darkness (Matt 4:16; Luke 2:32; John 1:4, 7, 8, 9; etc). After Christ’s resurrection the apostles were always eager to proclaim the truths revealed by Jesus (1 Cor 7:10; 11:23; 1 John 1:3; 2:3, 4; 3:22-24; 4:21; 2 John 6; Rev 22:4). In fact the authority of Christ’s teaching was never seriously questioned in the Christian Church. Those who did want to discard some elements of it almost invariably had recourse to the doubtful expedient of questioning the authenticity of what they wished to remove, rather than to admit its genuineness and then presume to disagree with Jesus.
Perhaps the best summary of this aspect of Christ’s ministry came from the lips of soldiers who were sent to arrest Him: “No man ever spoke like this man” (John 7:46).
B. Example. The prophets were occasionally called to present the truth not merely in verbal expression, but in certain dramatic portrayals in which they were to be the center of an “object lesson” given by divine mandate (cf. Ezek 4:5; Hos 1; etc.). In fact, the whole character of the prophetic life was ordinarily to be in such conformity to the divine commandments that the prophet could be called “the man of God.” The case of some rebellious prophets like Balaam (Num 22-24), is really an exception to the rule that God chose to speak of old through holy men (cf. possibly 2 Pet 1:21). Yet even the most notable and dedicated prophets were under the curse of sin, and failed to portray with complete faithfulness the image of God. For its full implementation, the prophetic office demanded one whose life would follow a pattern of perfect conformity to the divine will.
This is precisely what Christ accomplished. His food was “to do the will of him who sent” Him (John 4:34). He who sees Him sees the Father who sent Him (John 12:44; 14:9). In the high-priestly prayer of Jesus, He sums up His earthly ministry in these words: “I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me” (John 17:6; cf. also v. 26). In the truest and deepest sense “He made God known,” He “exegeted” God (John 1:18). No one can really claim to know God, but those to whom Christ willed to reveal Him (Matt 11:27).
Thus Christ could commend His own course as worthy of the imitation of His disciples (Luke 14:27; John 13:15, 34; 15:12; 21:19, 22) and in turn the apostles presented Christ as the supreme example (1 Cor 11:1; Phil 2:5; 1 Pet 2:21; 1 John 2:6). As the image of God (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3) Christ is the perennial ideal of the believer, toward whom his every aspiration tends (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:17; 1 John 3:2).
C. Miraculous activity. There is some question whether the miracles of Christ fit more appropriately under His kingly office or under His prophetic functions. Certainly in His miracles, He manifested His royal power over nature and men, yet God often was pleased to accredit the ministry of a prophet through miraculous interventions (e.g. the cases of Moses, Elijah, Elisha, etc.). Christ did point to His signs as grounds for acceptance of Him (Matt 11:4, 5, 20-24; 12:28; Mark 2:9-11; John 5:36; 10:25, 38; 11:42; 14:11). Many were indeed impressed by this evidence of God’s supernatural assistance and found in it the proof of a divine mission (Mark 1:27; John 1:50; 2:11, 23; 3:2; 4:53; 6:14, 30; 7:31; 9:16, 31-33; 11:45, 48; 12:11, 18). This may in fact be considered one of the dominant themes of the fourth gospel.
The nature and variety of Christ’s miracles are considered elsewhere in this encyclopedia. It will suffice to point out here that in range and frequency His miracles far excel those of other ages of supernatural intervention (e.g. Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Apostolic age, etc.). For the apex of prophetic utterance, we have the utmost divine sanction in miraculous power.
“In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son” (Heb 1:1, 2).
II. The priestly office
In contrast to the prophet who addresses the congregation in God’s name, the priest appears before God as spokesman and representative of God’s people. In the OT, this sacred office was carefully protected, perhaps more so than any other (cf. notably the severe punishment of King Uzziah for infringing on sacerdotal prerogatives, 2 Chron 26:16-21).
Undoubtedly this feature was meant to impress upon Israel the great majesty and holiness of God who could not be approached, except by those whom He had specifically approved. From the time of the Sinaitic legislation only Aaron and his descendants were admitted to the sacerdotal office (Exod 29:9; 40:15), and permitted to enter the Holy Place. Only the high priest was allowed to approach God in the Holy of Holies (Heb 9:3), and that once a year and after a bullock had been slaughtered as a sin offering for himself (Lev 16:11). As the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews points out, these restrictions were fraught with the important lesson that the OT priesthood was still imperfect, and that God’s people must be looking expectantly to one who can represent man without being himself entangled in sinfulness, one whose appearing before a Holy God is not merely temporary, but perennial. The somewhat enigmatic OT passages concerning Melchizedek (Gen 14:18-20; Ps 110:4) may have given substance to these aspirations. They were certainly interpreted by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews as foreshadowing the priesthood of Jesus Christ (Heb 7), a priesthood that is sinless (7:26-28), permanent (7:24, 25, 28), and grounded in a divine oath (7:20-22).
Accordingly, the sacrificial language has an important place in the NT, but it is arresting that Christ is expressly referred to as a priest only in Hebrews.
There are two major ways in which Christ performs His sacerdotal office; oblation and intercession, to which a word may be added about healing.
A. Oblation. It is a very salient feature of the NT that the death and resurrection of Christ have a place of sing. prominence in all the strata of its teaching (cf. V. Taylor, The Atonement in New Testament Teaching [1940], pp. 72f.). This fact does in no wise minimize the significance of His life and teaching, but it marks an emphasis which no serious student of the NT can afford to ignore. The oblation of Christ involves two basic relations: Christ as the spotless victim; and Christ as the perfect offerer. In this article obviously the latter must receive primary consideration, but a brief paragraph on the former is needed as well, since Christ as Great High Priest offered Himself (Heb 7:27; 9:14).
1. The victim. Certain NT designations of Christ manifest with great clarity the connection of His work with the practice of OT sacrifices. He is called “the Lamb” more than a score of times in the Book of Revelation; the Lamb of God (John 1:29), our Passover (1 Cor 5:7). Moreover there are many passages referring to the blood of Christ (Matt 26:28; Acts 20:28; Eph 1:7; Heb 9:14; 1 Pet 1:18, 19; etc.) or where He is represented as a sacrifice (Eph 5:2; Heb 9:26, 28; 10:12; etc.).
In this connection the sinlessness of Jesus (John 8:29, 46; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 John 3:5; etc.) is in striking parallel to the OT prescription that the victims be without blemish (Exod 12:5; Lev 4:3, 23; etc.).
The precise purpose of the Biblical sacrificial institution has been the object of intensive discussion. It is not necessary to insist that all the forms of sacrifice were exclusively intended for the expiation of sin, but the expiatory, or more specifically propitiatory, strain is a very prominent feature of the Scriptural representation. Elaborate efforts to dispense with this element have been put forth (C. H. Dodd, F. N. Hicks, O. C. Quick, V. Taylor, and others), but the explanations advanced appear contrived and incapable of giving to the NT message the kind of impact that it has had through the ages and still has today. What won the hearts of men since the days of the apostles is the good news that by His oblation Christ has wiped out the sins of those who believe in Him. It is this great truth which makes all other sacrifices superfluous so that animal sacrifices of all sorts are stopped wherever Christianity is accepted.
The supreme value of this offering lies in the fact that this victim is not only a spotless human being, but that it is the God-man, the only Son of God, whose life is worth more than the whole created universe. There is no need, therefore, of a constant repetition in the oblation, but the sacrifice of Christ has been offered once for all on the cross of Calvary (Heb 7:27; 9:12, 25-28; 10:10, 12, 14). Even those who hold that there is a sacrificial significance in the Eucharist, do not think that the latter is the presentation of a different sacrifice, but insist that we have here a re-enactment of the one offering of Christ on the cross.
It is important to recognize the relation of Christ’s sacrifice to the Christian sacraments. It is true that there is considerable diversity of opinion concerning the meaning and effect of the sacraments, but whatever more may be involved, one can at least assert that in baptism the identification of the believer with Jesus Christ in His death and resurrection and the cleansing from sin through His blood are symbolized (Rom 6:3-7; 1 Pet 3:21); while in the Lord’s Supper the elements used are directly related to Christ’s sacrifice, to His broken body and shed blood, and the participation of the believer implies identification with Him (Matt 26:26, 28, etc.; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:26, etc.)
(In Matt 20:22, 23; Mark 10:38, 39 there is an arresting case of the use of the terminology of baptism and of the cup with reference to the death of Christ.)
2. The perfect offerer. The author of Hebrews emphasizes this aspect of the work of Christ, esp. in chs. 5-10. He stresses that one could not assume this office at will, but that only divine appointment would permit one to appear in God’s presence. This was true of Aaron and his descendants (Heb 5:4), as well as of Melchizedek and of Christ (5:5, 6, 10). The dignity of Christ’s priesthood is accentuated by the fact that it is sanctioned by a divine oath (7:20, 21, 28) as well as by the eminence of His Person. (He is exalted above others as a son is above a servant [Heb 3:3-6]; He, like Melchizedek, is greater than Abraham [Heb 7:4-10]; He is higher than angels [Heb 1:4; 2:9].)
Earlier forms of priesthood were handicapped by the fact that the priests were tainted by sin, while Christ is “holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens” (Heb 7:26; cf. 4:15; 5:3; 9:14 and other passages listed earlier). This freedom from sin has not caused a gap between Christ as priest and those whom He represents, for He has entered in full into our situation, even including temptation (2:14, 17, 18; 4:15; 5:2); He has become wholly accomplished for His office through His sufferings (2:10; 5:7-9).
Because of their human limitations, OT priests had constantly to repeat their ministrations; Christ by contrast has made an offering that is unique (cf. above under 1. Victim). Because of their subjection to mortality, OT priests inevitably passed away from the scene and new ones had to be appointed, but Christ’s priesthood is established for ever (6:20; 7:16, 17, 24, 25, 28).
Moreover the effect of OT sacrifices was only temporary but Christ has secured for His own “an eternal redemption” (Heb 5:9; 7:25; 9:12, 15). This feature should be kept firmly in mind by those who are inclined to quote the Epistle to the Hebrews to support the possibility of the final apostasy of some regenerate individuals (6:4-6; 10:26-29, etc.).
In keeping with the dignity of Christ, the sanctuary in which His priestly ministry is exercised is not marred by the weaknesses of the earthly scene, but it is marked by the majesty and perfection of heaven itself (4:14; 6:20; 8:2; 9:11, 24). There is, of course, a sense in which Christ performed His priestly office on earth in the days of His flesh (5:7), offering His own body as a sacrifice upon Calvary’s cross as the altar. What the author of Hebrews points out is that these earthly events do not exhaust the meaning of the transaction, but that there are cosmic implications which can be recognized fully only in the perspective of heaven, that is to say, in divine terms.
For the execution of His priestly work, it is apparent how Christ needs to be both divine and human. His deity qualifies Him to find acceptance with God and to perform a work of eternal significance and power. His humanity is essential to secure real contact with those whom He came to redeem, to make possible their identification with Him by virtue of His prior identification with them (2:14-18 and passim. One should consult on this topic Geerhardus Vos, “The Priesthood of Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews [1956], pp. 91-114).
In keeping with some critical views of the Scripture and of the development of religious ideas among the Jews, it often has been fashionable of late to deprecate priesthood and to view the whole priestly establishment of Israel as a corruption of the nobler outlook favored by some of the OT prophets. In the NT the designation of Christ as a priest and the ascription to Him of sacerdotal functions preclude endorsement of such positions. In keeping with the dominant orientation of the Bible as a whole, it is incumbent upon us to view the priesthood as a divinely initiated and sanctioned institution, evident well before the Mosaic legislation, articulated with great fullness and notable centrality in that legislation, and brought to its full bearing and significance in the work of Jesus Christ as the great mediator. Of course, there have been many unworthy priests in Israel’s history. Even the best priests have had some failings in their performance of the sacred office, not to speak of their private lives; and in some periods of history, notably at the time of Christ’s life on earth, certain abuses were apparently dominant in the priesthood, but this does not warrant a blanket condemnation of the institution as such, when the Scripture makes it so clear that it is a paramount need of mankind after the Fall and represents Jesus Christ as the perfect answer to that need.
B. Intercession. The verb ἐντυγχάνω, G1961, tr. “intercede,” means “to deal or transact with one person in reference to another” (W. Milligan, The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of Our Lord [1908], p. 151). The nature of the transaction is not indicated in this term, and the context must determine whether this is in a favorable, or unfavorable sense. With reference to Christ, the term is found in Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25 where the phrase “for us,” “for them” leaves no doubt that the intervention is to the advantage of those concerned. In 1 John 2:1 Christ is named our advocate (parakletos) who has offered Himself for our sins, and in Hebrews 9:24 we read that Christ appears “in the presence of God on our behalf.”
This type of activity is in line both with certain OT priestly functions and with some ministrations of Christ in the days of His flesh.
The Aaronic high priest wore the names of the twelve tribes on his ephod and on his breastplate (Exod 28:11, 12, 21, 29, etc.), and it is not difficult to see in this arrangement a symbol of the priest’s representation before God of those for whom he stood.
The ceremonies involving incense (Exod 30:8, 27; etc.), may well be viewed as symbolic of prayer as well. This connection is intimated in Psalm 141:2; Revelation 5:8; 8:3, 4.
During the course of His ministry on earth our Lord frequently engaged in prayer. In a number of cases there is no express indication as to the contents of these prayers, but there are several vv. which record intercession for His own (Matt 19:13; Luke 22:31; John 17:9, 15, 20, etc. cf. also Mark 9:29; John 11:41, 42). In the sublime high-priestly prayer of John 17, the mood is so lofty that the conditions of our Lord’s earthly life are well nigh transcended, and we seem to be transported to the atmosphere of heaven where Christ appears at the right hand of God. Likewise John 14:16 introduces us to the intercessory ministry of Christ after the resurrection.
This ministry is expressly emphasized in Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25; 9:24; 1 John 2:1. It is also prefigured in passages like Isaiah 53:12. We are naturally led to ask the questions, What is the bearing of this intercession? What is the blessing requested? From whom is it implored and for whom? Interpreters appear to have been sometimes puzzled by these questions. Some matters, however, may be clarified at once. The one to whom the intercession is directed is surely the Triune God, represented, as is frequently the case, by the Father. It is doubtful that it is just one person of the Trinity in contrast to the other two.
The One who offers the intercession is Christ, the God-man, in His office of mediator, thus not merely as man, nor merely as God. This point is surely made amply clear in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
The blessing sought can scarcely be a favor that God would be reluctant to grant and that is wrested away from Him on the ground of personal privilege. It is here that one must note with care the close connection between the atonement and the intercession of Christ. These are distinct, but inseparable aspects of the priestly work of Christ, and they appear in conjunction in a number of crucial texts (e.g. Isa 53:12; Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25-27; 9:24-28; 1 John 2:1, 2). Perhaps no one has articulated this connection between oblation and intercession as carefully as Hugh Martin in his great book on The Atonement (1870, pp. 96-160). In the light of this relationship we may feel some confidence in asserting that the primary purpose of the intercession of Christ is to provide a continued application of the merits of His life and death for those whom He has redeemed, so that they are sheltered from the righteous wrath of a Holy God and, viewed through the interposition of Christ, their covenant head, they are in a position to receive the full measure of the blessings which flow from His redeeming activity (cf. Eph 1:3-11).
If we are correct in this basic understanding, the intercession of Christ might be compared to a filter which absorbs rays which would be deadly for us, and at the same time would enable God to look at us through Christ, as covered by His interposition (justification). This type of illustration may help us to grasp the importance of having an eternal high priest and an eternal redemption. It is only “in Christ” that these blessings are ours and this relationship needs to be sustained in order for us to continue to enjoy the benefits. It is of great importance here to safeguard the close unity between the forensic and the recreative aspects of Christ’s redemptive work. Failure to give sufficient attention to the forensic aspect is at the foundation of the onesided views of the Socinians in the 16th cent. and more recently of W. Milligan and B. F. Westcott. Conversely those who view the intercession of Christ exclusively in terms of justification are falling short of the full amplitude of His gracious ministration.
We might conclude that the object of Christ’s intercession is the full measure of the manifold graces which He has secured for His own. While the most eminent of these are the benefits of salvation, Romans 8:32 permits us to feel confident that nothing that we need is excluded from His intercessory concern. (Cf. also John 14:13; 15:7; 16:23, etc. as well as Jesus’ prayers during His life on earth.)
What a comfort for the believer, besieged by ills of various sorts and burdened by a sense of his own weakness and unworthiness, to think of the perpetual intercession of Christ on his behalf! This is the precise point of the Scriptures which speak of this theme.
If the question be raised for whom Christ does intercede, the answer appears to be given clearly in the words of John 17:9: “I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine.” This Scripture seems to teach that the intercession concerns mainly those who are encompassed in God’s saving purpose. In some instances these may be alive at the time of the prayer, although not yet brought consciously into the circle of the redeemed (cf. Luke 23:34). In John 17:20 the prayer concerns men who are not even alive at the time. The magnitude of Christ’s mind and heart transcends in His intercession the limits of time and space that usually circumscribe us.
And so in keeping with His supreme majesty the great mediator intercedes constantly (Heb 7:25) and effectually (John 11:42), securing for His own the full measure of the blessings which He purchased for them by the blood of the cross.
C. Ministry of healing. In the OT, the priests had certain medical responsibilities (Lev 13 and 14; cf. Matt 8:4; Luke 17:14; etc.), and while they had no special power to effect a cure, they were those appointed by God to safeguard public health.
This aspect of the priesthood may find its supreme expression in the healing ministry of Jesus Christ. The prophecy of Isaiah 53:4, “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows,” is interpreted by Matthew to have reference, at least in part, to Jesus’ healing activity (Matt 8:17).
B. F. Westcott has a classification of gospel miracles (Introduction to the Study of the Gospels [1896], pp. 466-469) which shows that out of thirty-four miracles of Jesus related with some detail in the gospels, twenty-five were miracles of healing (this includes three cases of resurrection and six cases of exorcism). Thus the work of Christ could well be characterized by Matthew as “teaching...preaching...and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people” (Matt 4:23 cf. Matt 14:36; Mark 6:56; Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38; etc.).
Christ delegated to His disciples some share in this work (Matt 10:1; cf. also Mark 16:18; Acts 5:16, and James 5:14, 15). Faith healing may be viewed as an extension of Christ’s priestly office.
III. The kingly office
The term “king” in the Biblical language has a far greater scope than what is commonly understood in the 20th cent. A king cumulated legislative, executive, judiciary, economic and military prerogatives within his realm. He often wielded unlimited power over the life and properties of his subjects. His rule which had to provide leadership in so many areas, could easily slip into tyranny and despotism.
In Israel, the original approach to civil government was a “theocracy” in which God’s rule was emphasized and carried out through appropriate representatives who exercised leadership in God’s name: Moses, Joshua, the judges. Later on Israel desired to have visible kings, even as the surrounding nations (1 Sam 8:5; etc.). Some of these provided luster and power to Israel and led the armies to victory, but the great majority of them turned out to be a snare in the path of the nation. In the Babylonian exile the kingship collapsed, together with the independence of the nation. The kingship of the Herods was a far cry from what the people of God desired, and the pious souls in Israel were yearning for a promised renewal of the rule of David, the king after God’s own heart.
It is this kind of expectation of a Messianic kingship which was alive in the hearts of pious men when Christ was born (Isa 55:3, 4; Jer 23:5; 30:9; Ezek 34:22-24; 37:24, 25; Amos 9:11; Zech 9:9; etc.).
In the gospel accounts, esp. in Matthew, the kingship of Christ and His relation to David are emphasized. This is evident in Jesus’ genealogy (Matt 1:1, 6), in the annunciation to Mary (Luke 1:32, 33), in the visitation of the magi (Matt 2:2), in the confession of Nathanael (John 1:49), in the payment of the tribute (Matt 17:25, 26), in the triumphant entry in Jerusalem (Matt 21:5-9; Mark 11:9, 10; Luke 19:38; John 12:13), in the conversations with Pilate (Matt 27:11; Mark 15:2, 9; Luke 23:2, 3; John 18:33, 37; 19:14, 15), in the dying request of the penitent malefactor (Luke 23:42), and in the inscr. of the cross (Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19). In this last instance it is noteworthy that an official public recognition was given to Christ’s kingship, although in derision.
Jesus Himself used the language of kingship extensively in the course of His earthly ministry, notably in the expressions “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of heaven” which frequently recur on His lips, but also in a number of other occasions: when He uses or countenances the title “Lord” (Matt 7:21, 22; 21:3; and parallels in Mark 11:3 and Luke 19:31; Matt 22:43-45 and parallels in Mark 12:36, 37 and Luke 20:41-44; John 13:13, 14; 20:28, 29); when He uses the title “king” in reference to Himself (Matt 25:34, 40; 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3; John 18:37; cf. also Luke 19:12, 15, 27; 22:30); when He compares Himself to Solomon (Matt 12:42; Luke 11:31); when He speaks of His glory or His throne (Matt 16:27 and parallels in Mark 8:38 and Luke 9:26; Matt 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; 26:64 and parallels in Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69; John 13:31, 32; 17:1, 3, 24); when He refers to His own authority (Matt 28:18; John 5:27-29; 17:2); when He asserts that the kingdom is within them (Luke 17:21) or not of this world (John 18:36).
It is evident from these statements that our Lord was far transcending the nationalistic and earthly aspirations of those who were looking for the promised Messiah-king. Beyond the rule over Israel is the dominion of the anointed of God over His people and over the cosmos. It is generally in terms of these broadened categories that the apostles envisioned the kingship of Christ (1 Thess 2:12; 2 Tim 4:1; Rev 11:15). This outlook is perhaps best summarized in the title “king of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tim 6:15; Rev 17:14; 19:16).
1. The subjects of Christ’s kingship. Considerable differences of opinion have prevailed on this theme. The best approach appears to be comprehensive rather than exclusive.
There are those who hold that Christ is to rule over Israel, viewed as an earthly nation, while others think that Scripture does not give appropriate warrant for expecting a future renewal of this sort. This is hardly the place to give the details of the discussion. We may perhaps be content to note that, even if this type of kingship is to be envisioned, it will be at best a temporary one and does not need to retain our attention here in a primary manner.
The kingship of Christ over His Church is the point of major emphasis in the NT. In addition to the passages mentioned above where the word “king” and its derivatives are used, we note the texts where Christ is presented the “head” of the Church and the Church as “the body” of Christ (1 Cor 11:3; 12:27; Eph 1:22, 23; 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:18; 2:10, 19. In 1 Cor 11:3 and Col 2:10 the headship may have an even wider reference than the Church). Another expression which deserves attention here is the term ἀρχηγός, G795, captain, pioneer (Heb 2:10). This word relates to the thought that Christ as the leader moves ahead while His disciples follow Him (Matt 4:19; 9:9; 16:24; 19:21 and parallels in Mark and Luke; John 1:43; 10:27; 12:26; 21:22; 1 Cor 11:1; Eph 5:1, 2; Heb 12:1, 2; 1 Pet 2:21). Another element implicit in this language is the representation that Christ as the ruler leads His troops into battle and assumes for them the role of the champion who engages in the death-struggle for the sake of His people (John 16:33; Eph 6:10-17; Col 2:15; 1 Tim 6:12; Heb 2:14-16; Rev 6:2; 19:11-16. Cf. on this general theme G. Aulén, Christus Victor [1931], and R. Leivestad, Christ the Conqueror [1954], where the element of victory in the atonement is stressed, although perhaps in too one-sided a fashion).
Here also one must note the title Kyrios, Lord, which occurs scores of times in the NT. This term has a rich content involving even an acknowledgement of deity when used in a religious sense (cf. B. B. Warfield, The Lord of Glory [1907] and W. Foerster and G. Quell “KYRIOS,” TWNT, Eng. tr. III [1965], 1039-1100), but what specifically concerns us here is that it implies dominion or kingly rule, and that it is a particularly appropriate expression of allegiance to Christ on the lips of those who acknowledge the sovereign authority of Christ as Lord (John 20:28; 1 Cor 12:3). These constitute precisely the company of the redeemed, the Church of God: the kingship of Christ over His Church is therefore clearly in view. We find no trace in the Scripture of a distinction between accepting Christ as Savior and acknowledging Him as Lord, as if some people could take the former step while refusing the latter. The full implications of the Lordship of Christ, it is true, are not perceived at once at the moment of conversion (nor for that matter at any subsequent moment of this life’s course), but they are gradually unfolded and apprehended in the development of the Christian life (sanctification). From the very start, however, to the very end, the Christian is taught to pray “Thy kingdom come” (Matt 6:10; Luke 11:2) and this must include a yearning for an increasing manifestation of Christ’s rule over self, whatever else may also be encompassed in this petition.
Christ is presented as the judge of His people (1 Cor 4:4; 2 Cor 5:10; James 5:9; 1 Pet 4:17). This too is a royal prerogative.
There is also the kingship of Christ over the universe. We may do well to distinguish here between the eternal kingship of the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, and the mediatorial kingship of Christ the God-man. The former is a natural prerogative of the divine essence, while the latter is presented in Scripture as a special investiture received as His reward when He was raised (Pss 2:8, 9; 110:1, 2; Matt 28:18; Eph 1:20-22; Phil 2:9-11). This rule extends to mankind at large (Ps 2:8; John 17:2), to the angelic world (Col 2:15; Heb 2:14; Rev 1:18), and to irrational and inanimate creation (Heb 2:8). Christ fulfills in perfection the destiny which had been appointed to Adam (Gen 1:26, 28). Where the first Adam forfeited his privileges by his rebellion, the second Adam has excelled in His obedience (Rom 5:19) and obtained the glorious fulfillment of the divine plan for man.
The kingdom of Christ involves not only His sovereign rule over creation, but His victory over all enemies (Pss 2:9; 110:6; John 16:33; 1 Cor 15:54-57; 2 Cor 2:14; Col 2:15; Rev 6:2; 19:15-21 etc.) and His right to judge (Matt 25:31-46; John 5:22, 27; 2 Tim 4:1; etc.).
Christ exercises the rights of this universal rule not only for Himself, but He has chosen to permit His redeemed to share with Him in His victory (John 16:33; 1 Cor 15:57; 2 Cor 2:14; 1 John 5:4), in His judgment (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30; 1 Cor 6:2, 3; Rev 20:4), and in His reign (2 Tim 2:12; Rev 5:10; 20:4; 22:5).
2. The time of Christ’s kingship. When? The question whether the kingdom of Christ is present or future has been the object of extensive, and sometimes passionate discussion. Those who opt exclusively for one alternative encounter serious exegetical difficulties. A median course of interpretation appears possible in which it will be acknowledged on one hand that Christ reigns now, and that His kingship is manifested wherever His rule and His law are obeyed; and on the other hand, that there is a climactic fulfillment of His kingship that is yet future and that will be ushered in with cataclysmic changes (Matt 24; 1 Thess 5:3; 2 Pet 3:10-12) at the consummation of history. Both of these perspectives appear to be firmly imbedded in the scriptural outlook. (Cf. George Ladd, “Can the Kingdom be Both Future and Present?” Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God [1952], pp. 63-74.)
How long will Christ’s future kingdom last? This is a difficult question, inasmuch as many passages assert that the kingdom is forever (Ps 45:6; Isa 9:7; Dan 2:44; Luke 1:33; 2 Pet 1:11; Rev 11:15; 22:5), while other Scriptures appear to teach some limit of time (1 Cor 15:24-28; Rev 20:1-7).
The difficulty may not be as great as it might seem, if we take due note of the fact that there are various aspects of the kingdom. The rule of the triune God is surely eternal like God Himself. The mediatorial rule of Christ, on which we focus our attention in thi