S2: Kingdom, Culture, and Theology

E4: The Boys Are Back in Town in 2020

Without any doubt, men have been under the hammer for the past decade and some of it has been justified. Aside from deserved hammering, the cultural mood of the last decade has left a certain tone for the beginning of a new decade. Ten years of inserting a variety of nouns into social rhetoric has negatively typecast men in their societal roles today. For example, man-splaining, man-spreading, man-listening, man-talking, man-standing, and man-history-ing are just a few phrases that paint a picture of men behaving badly - allegedly.

I acknowledge the 195 countries in the world[1] paint different pictures of men in their respective cultures. One only has to notice that the continent of Africa has 54 countries, Asia 48, Europe 44, Latin America 33, 14 in Oceania, and 2 in North America. All this must be considered before digging deeper into the sub-cultures and varying traditions of each country to paint a kaleidoscope picture of men. There does not seem to be a one-size-fits-all that describes and explains men. A blog like this one - and even a book - is not substantial enough to cover the subject from country to country and culture to culture. I dare say it requires numerous volumes and much research.  

In light of the current social rhetoric, what I would like to do in this simple blog is provoke your theological thinking about men. Do not be put off by the word theological. If you have not been to church in a while, read the Bible, or even pondered on anything remotely theological, do not count yourself out. This blog is for you, whether you are a man or a woman.  

So, what I mean by theological is an explanation and/or description of men found in Scripture without getting stuck in the ancient Mesopotamian world in which the Old Testament was written, or the Greco-Roman world in which the New Testament was written. Neither do I want to get into the origin of man in Genesis. Instead, I want to offer Christ as the exemplar (model) for men in the world of 2020. My reasoning for avoiding original man is relatively simple. The first man sinned, therefore all men sin (Rom. 5:12). Christ, however, is the second life giving man who knew no sin whatsoever (1 Cor. 15:45). It makes sense that Christ is the exemplar for all men, since all men have sinned.     

Scripture points to Christ as the Prophet, Priest, and King. Take a quick look at this with me. Moses said, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him” (Deut. 18:15). This is precisely what Peter quoted referring to Christ (Acts 3:22-23). Christ also refers to himself as a prophet “without honor” (Matt. 13:57), and as a prophet would could not die outside of Jerusalem (Luke 13:33).

Throughout his epistles, Paul points to Christ not just as our Priest, he also points to him as our sacrifice and mediator of that sacrifice (Eph. 5:2; Heb. 6:20; 9:11; 9:26-27; 10:12; 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 John 1:7). Christ is quickly identified as the King by the Magi shortly after he was born (Matt. 2:2), and later acknowledging that role himself (Matt. 21:5; 27:11). In addition, there are numerous connections made between the Kingdom of God and His Son throughout the gospels.

However, even with this very brief survey of Scripture, Christ did not refer to himself as Prophet, Priest, and King, as a triad of roles. This came later with Paul. Then, throughout church history, the Latin phrase triplex munus (threefold office) emerged. It is a phrase that theologians in the past and present have used to describe the post-resurrected Christ as Prophet, Priest and King.

Sources that support this claim date back to the Early Church Fathers in the works of Justin Martyr (100-165), Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339), and Peter Chrysologous (406-450). During the Middle Ages, the works of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) further developed the idea of triplex mumus. John Calvin (1509-1564) added more developments by making the threefold office of Christ a significant feature in the Protestant Reformation. John Wesley (1703-1791) committed himself to preaching Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King during the Great Awakenings in England and the United States. Vatican II (1962-1965) readdressed triplex munus in the Code of Canon Law with controversial effect among reformed theologians, echoed by its Anglican counterparts in 1983.  

Today, we hear very little about Christ as the Prophet, Priest, and King. So, I would like to resurrect the discussion in light of the current rhetoric about men. In what way is Christ the exemplar for all men in 2020 as Prophet, Priest, and King?

I want to start by referring to the Westminster Confession of Faith from 1647 that explains and describes Christ: “It pleased God, in His eternal purposes, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of His Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world.”[2] Now, wouldn’t you be delighted if a president or prime minister declared this today?  

The men who held the office of prophet, priest, or king had unique characteristics, though they were sinful men (Rom. 5:12). In general terms, these characteristics describe and explain three types of men. What follows is a brief description of those characteristics. Admittedly, a thorough explanation is needed beyond the scope of this blog. 

Man as a Prophet:

Prophets were driven by personal and vivid revelation from God. It went something like this: “In the year of (king so and so), in the month of (specific to the Hebrew calendar), by the (specific location), the Word of the Lord came to (said prophet).”[3] From this clear and dramatic revelation, prophets tended to view the world from how it used to be, how it was presently, and how it could be in the future – for good or bad.

Quite often they articulated revelation from God with remarkable imagery and colorful imagination to inspire people. [4] Prophets like Jonah, Habakkuk, and Elijah frequently became frustrated by people. Quite often a prophet would demonstrate their frustration by pulling out their own hair and tearing their clothes. Other self-abasing actions included anti-social behavior creating the persona of an anti-social troublemaker.

Prophets challenged the status quo typically calling for repentance, a change to the way things were, and immediate action so the future would be prosperous. For example, Obadiah, Joel, Amos, Hosea, Jonah, Micah, Isaiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk and Jeremiah all prophesied prior to the exile calling for repentance. The people did not repent so Israel and Judah went into exile. Daniel and Ezekiel prophesied during the exile looking back at the glory of what used to be prophesying restorative hope for the future. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi prophesied post-exile calling for renewal.

In each case, the prophets looked back in order to look forward with vision and reform. They did so by setting out a plan of restoration that always included doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly before God. Prophets dreamed dreams, announced possibilities, and strained towards the moral and ethical ideal. Though prophets spoke the dramatic revelation they heard from God, they were frequently marginalized, abused, and ultimately killed.

In summary, a prophet was a bit of a loner, idealist, policy keeper, easily frustrated, who wanted to do the right thing.

Man as a Priest:

Unlike prophets, the priests looked for ways to reconcile and bring healing through ritual and sacrifice. They provided the way, or means, for restoration for individuals and the community as a whole. Their focus was the inherent baggage that came with people, and how to deal with it – so their work was never done. Priests frequently looked back acknowledging what people had done to explain the baggage of guilt and shame. However, priests were generally driven by grace.

Priests tended to be sensitive and given to the duty of nurturing, comforting, and caring for the people. They recognized human frailty including their own. As such they were empathetic. Quite often their role was to support the King as his counsel reminding him of Scripture and his duty to God and the people. Part of that duty was to copy the Scriptures for himself and commit them to memory (Deut. 17:18). So, the priest’s role enhanced the prophets voice.  

Law and order were frequently linked to the duties of a priest so they would often appear like a dogmatist – unduly arrogant about truth. In many ways they were between a rock and a hard place. This is the position that Aaron found himself in while Moses was up the mountain. Sadly, it resulted in the creation of a golden calf for the people to worship (Exodus 32). The role of a priest was difficult as law and order, ritual and sacrifice, were equally linked to reconciliation. Any unbalance to this rhythm was often at the peril of the priest. Think about the sloppiness of Eli (1 Sam. 3), and the corruption in Malachi’s day (Mal. 2).

In summary, a priest leaned towards caring, nurturing, sensitivity, and wanting everyone to get along.

Man as a King:

Prophets may have led the way forward with a word from God, but they lacked the vantage of regal power. This is where the role of a king comes into play. He had authority, and with it, all the blessings and curses that come with power. Kings did not challenge the status quo, they created it with policy. With presence and command, they made decisions regarding taxes, employment, housing, agriculture, and the military. Preoccupied with the national interest, they were less concerned with the individual.  

Unlike a prophet, they pulled out the hair of other people in one way or another. Kings were all about productivity, security, provisions, reward, and punishment. They set goals and made every attempt to exceed them. Very rarely did a king look back like a prophet or priest. They lived mostly for the present as it related to their own legacy seen in the frequent phrase, “recorded in the book of the kings” (2 Chron. 20:34).

They got things done and expected people to follow. Kings were far more visible than prophets or priests. As such, they were often painted in the image of a dictator. In fact, the pressure on the king was far more severe than a prophet or priest. In all the kings of Judah and Israel, Scripture only paints David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Asa, Josiah, Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, and Jotham in varying degrees of doing “right in the eyes of the Lord” (1 Kings 15:11) – 8 out of 39 is a huge statement!

In summary, a king was rather commanding, authoritative, decision-making, and wanting to get the job done, sometimes at the cost of the individual.

So, having briefly viewed the characteristics of a prophet, priest, and king in their fallen and sinful state, here is a simplified view:

Prophet: appeal to past ideals; challenge the status quo with fresh vision; loves mercy and justice; loves the law of God; resolves issues of apathy, laziness, and carelessness; frustrated by people; low implementation; uncompromising.

Priest: community development; dealing with guilt from the past; reconciling, healing, and forgiving; resolves issues of sin, guilt and shame; law and process must be balanced.

King: securing resources and power to carry out goals; builds strategy for present challenges; driven by policy, power, and reward; loves justice; resolves issues of inefficiency, disorder, and danger; abuse of power, materialism, and legacy.

One must bear in mind the office of a prophet, priest, or king was held by men who were all guilty of sin (Rom. 5:12). When Paul writes about Christ occupying all three offices, he did so post-resurrection (1 Cor. 15:45). Christ not only occupied all three offices (triplex munus), he radically transformed them. Paul writes, “But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises” (Col. 8:6). Now Christ is the Prophet, Priest, and King, the view would look something like this:

Prophet: all the promises of God are yes in Christ (1 Cor. 1:20); his Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom ( 2 Cor. 5:17); mercy triumphs over judgement (James 2:13); under grace not the llaw (Rom. 6:14); he has given us the Holy Spirit (John 14:18)

Priest: Christ will build his church (Matt.; 16:8); New life through death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 5:17); he reconciles the world to himself (1 Cor. 5:19); He is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29); he lives to intercede for us (Heb. 7:25).

King: all power and authority belong to him (Matt. 28:18); he is with us always (Matt. 28:20); reward is with him (Rev. 22:12); all things are under Christ (Eph. 1:10); he has conquered sin, death, and the grave (1 Cor. 15:55-57).

So, when we compare the first table with sinful men and the second table with the resurrected Christ, it becomes obvious that Christ really is the exemplar of all men. I want to suggest that men tend to major in one type of role and minor in the other two. The combination would look something like this:

Prophet, priest, and king; or, prophet, priest, and king; or prophet, priest, and king.

I think a quick summary reminder of the three roles will help keep us on track to where we want to go with this thought:

1.     Prophet: loner, idealist, policy keeper, easily frustrated, wants to do the right thing

2.     Priest: caring, nurturing, sensitive, wants everyone to get along

3.     King: commanding, authoritative, decision-making, wants to get the job done

First, let me address the male readers of this blog by asking two questions: (1) How do you see yourself? (2) How do others see you? I know we all want to be a king at work, a priest with our spouses, and a prophet with our children but it simply does not work like that.

Second, let me ask the wives or girlfriends two questions about the man they married, or the man they date: (1) What attracted you to your partner in the first place? (2) Do you impose the perfection of Christ who is equally Prophet, Priest, and King onto your fallible man?

It is not unfamiliar for a woman to become attracted to a man because he is like a prophet, priest, or king. But as time goes by, she may become frustrated by the very characteristics she was drawn to in the first place. If her man is commanding, authoritative, decision-making, getting the job done like a king, is it possible for that same man to become like a prophet or priest? What if the attraction occurred because he was caring, nurturing, and sensitive like a priest? Is it possible for this man to become like a king or prophet? Maybe she was attracted to the man because of his idealism wanting to do things right like a prophet. Is it possible for that man to become a priest or king?

I admit that women legitimately become frustrated with their men for many reasons – my wife certainly does with me. However, there is a singular reason that is illegitimate. It is when a wife or girlfriend imposes on their man the impossible roles that only Christ can fulfill. Perhaps this is a significant reason why there are far more women in church than men? I promise to write about this in another blog.

For every woman (and every man) there is the very real and ideal man. Paul writes to Timothy, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Timothy 2:5-6). Make no mistake, the resurrected Christ is still a human man. Christ himself said as much, “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (Luke 24:39).

I’ll conclude with a bit of fun attempting to identify the social rhetoric in 2020 with the three roles of prophet, priest, and king.

Man-splaining:

He is more or less a king or prophet because they explain something in a manner that could come across as condescending or patronizing. However, he may be saying it for your benefit, while unconcerned in how he is saying it. What should you do? Accept he is saying it for your benefit.   

Man-spreading:

He is undoubtedly a king and comes nowhere near a priest or prophet. It is the practice of a man sitting with legs apart – like a man – possibly covering more than one seat. However, a good king will make room for his queen, a child, senior, or pregnant woman. He may need a little persuasion for anyone else.

Man-listening:

In all probability he is a priest with a hint of being of prophet, but certainly not a king. However, men are bad listeners. So, scream with excitement the next time your man actually listens. It will frighten him.

Man-talking:

He could be a prophet, priest or king because it refers to when he actually speaks. Only you will know. Before he even utters his first word, shout this to any women nearby – while gasping like a Home-Alone character – because he might have something to say that is worth listening to.

Man-standing:

Again, he could be a priest or prophet because he decides to stand directly next to you even though he does not need anything from you. Or, when you are standing at the counter at the supermarket, he is standing directly behind you in line even though you are not done checking out yet. Whatever situation it is, he just sees a line and wants to comply with social order.

Man-history-ing:

Undoubtedly a prophet because he explains various details about history that impact the present. He may assume you do not know about these historical details. It may also be true that you did not pay attention in your history class in high school, but you have a man to help catch you up. It can be boring, but remember, he is talking to you.  

Considering all that has been said, I will do a little re-write the Westminster Confession of 1647: “It pleased God, in His eternal purposes, to choose and ordain men, His beloved brethren, to be the head of their family between God and family; the prophet who hears His voice, the priest who tends to his family, and the king who can make good decisions, the head of his home, the legacy handed down to his children, and a faithful husband in his world.”     

[1] 193 countries plus the State of Palestine and the Holy See.

[2] “The Westminster Confession of Faith” in Our Confessional Heritage: Confessions of the Reformed Tradition Within a Contemporary Declaration of Faith, 1978, 91. Chapter VIII: Christ the Mediator.

[3] Examples Isaiah 1:1; Jeremiah 1:1-3; Ezekiel 1:1-3; Hosea 1:1; Amos 1:1-2.

[4] I highly recommend reading “The Practice of Prophetic Imagination” by Walter Brueggemann (Fortress Press, 2012).