06 - CHAPTER THREE

THE OFFICE OF CHRIST “Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?” (John 4:29). At least forty-nine times in his Epistles, Paul uses the expression “the/our Lord Jesus Christ,” bringing together the three primary names of Jesus. As noted already in our study, “Lord” is His title, “Jesus” is His name, and “Christ” is His office. Actually, “Christ” is a favorite name of the Apostle Paul, and he uses it independently of other titles some 211 times in his writings. In addition, he often uses this title with other names and titles of Christ. For this apostle, the title “Christ” had a very special significance. The Greek word Christos, translated “Christ,” literally means “anointed one” and was used in the Septuagint to translate the word “Messiah” (cf. Dan 9:25-26). The Messiah in the Old Testament and the Christ in the New Testament, therefore, refer to the same Person, although their contextual use affects their perspective somewhat. In the Old Testament, “Messiah” is always used in the context of a Messianic hope, whereas the predominate use of “Christ” in the New Testament is as an official name of Jesus in the context of a work completed.

Theologians speak of the three anointed offices of Christ, meaning Christ as prophet, priest, and king. This expression seems to have been first used by Eusebius in the third century to explain the Biblical teaching concerning the office of Christ. Even though the writers of Scripture did not express it in so many words, the fact that Christ was viewed by them in the context of the Old Testament anointed offices is particularly evident in the book of Revelation. The title of the book implies the nature of the prophetic office in revealing or making known what was otherwise hidden from man (Rev 1:1) . In John’s first vision of Christ (Rev 1:13), the Lord is viewed wearing a talar, a technical word referring-to the robe of the priest. The office of king is seen in Rev 11:15, where the theme of the book may be summarized: “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.” This theme is developed throughout the book until the Lord is pictured as returning and having “on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS” (Rev 19:16).

Although the Old Testament context is important in understanding the implications of the name “Christ,” we must again remember that Jesus not only took the reputation of a name upon Himself but also added something of His reputation to the name. This is certainly evident as we see how the Apostle Paul gave the title “Christ” greater clarity in his writings. Paul ministered mostly among Gentiles, to whom the title “Christ” would be meaningless without the Old Testament background. In his various epistles he gave the title “Christ” a fuller meaning for such readers, particularly in the context of the union and communion of Christ and the believer. In many respects, therefore, the apostle must be credited with transforming the office of Christ into a personal name for the One who was the Messiah and much more.

When a young man graduates from medical school and moves to a small town to begin private practice, the members of the community might use the title “Doctor” with great respect as a prefix to his name. But as the years pass and the doctor becomes more and more a part of the community, the title “Doctor” often becomes the nickname “Doc.” Similarly, Paul took the title “Messiah” and made it the personal name of Christ by which many Christians today refer to Jesus Christ. THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Throughout the pages of Old Testament revelation, the prophets of Israel and Judah displayed a pervasive Messianic hope. In their messages, which were often characterized by judgment or doom, often there was also a distant hope that ultimate deliverance would come from God. This deliverance was more than a supernatural phenomenon; it was the work of an anointed servant of God designated “the Messiah” (cf. Dan 9:25). This title, which became a name of Jesus, was a title of the preincarnate Christ in that eternal day before the beginning of time. From the very beginning, opposition to God is the same as opposition to “his anointed” (Psa 2:2). In the consummation of this age, the kingdom of Jehovah is identical to the kingdom “of his Christ” (Rev 11:15). In the context of the Old Testament, the term “Messiah” or “Anointed One” had specific relevance to the three offices into which the candidate was normally initiated by an act of anointing-the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. Because of this I have called it the “Threefold Anointed Office.” Prophetically, the coming Messiah (“anointed one”) was portrayed as holding each of the offices. Typically, the New Testament identifies Christ in the context of the past principal holders of these offices-namely, the Prophet Moses (cf. Deu 18:15-19), the Priest Melchizedek (cf. Psa 110:4), and the King David (2Sa 7:12-13). The candidate for each of these offices was anointed with oil (cf. 1Ki 19:16; Exo 29:6-7; 1Sa 16:13). In fulfillment of the type, Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit as He began His public ministry (Mat 3:16; Mark 1:10-11; Luk 3:21-22; John 1:32-33).

We must assume that the early disciples understood the title “Christ” in the Old Testament context of “the Messiah. “ John the Baptist confessed that he, himself, was not the Christ (John 1:20), yet those who left John to follow Jesus announced boldly, “We have found the Messias” (John 1:41). The divine anointing of Jesus for specific service was important in both the teaching of Jesus and the Jerusalem church (cf. Luk 4:18; Acts 10:38). From the very beginning, the early church understood Jesus in terms of His Threefold Anointed OfficeProphet, Priest, and King. The Anointed Prophet

Few people would deny the prophetic ministry of Jesus even if they might reject the content of His teaching. It is a common practice among those who deny His deity and the unique redemptive nature of His work at least to acknowledge Him to be a moral teacher and religious prophet. Of course, the prophetic office of Christ as revealed in Scripture was far more specific than the vague description of Jesus as a prophet by a liberal teacher.

There are no fewer than five designations which identify the prophet in the Old Testament. First, he was called “the man of God” (Deu 33:1; 1Sa 2:27; 1Sa 9:6; 1Ki 13:1; Psa 90:1-17 :title). This expression related particularly to his unique relationship to God and the uniqueness of his message. Most probably it also assumed that the prophet had a godly character. The second title of the prophet was the “servant of God” (2Ki 17:13, 2Ki 17:23; 2Ki 21:10; 2Ki 24:2; Ezr 9:11; Jer 7:25). Although no prophet ever called himself the servant of God, God often referred to His prophets as His servants. Some commentators think this might be part of the reason the writers of the New Testament so often began their epistles with such expressions as “servant of God” or “the servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Also, inasmuch as it was customary for a Jew to begin his prayer to God by identifying himself as the servant of God, we may assume that this title, when applied to the prophets, referred to them as men of prayer. The predominant feature of this designation is that of the Master/slave relationship that existed between God and His servants the prophets. A third and by far most common designation of the prophet in the Old Testament was the Hebrew word nabi’. Although there is some debate as to the origin of this word, scholars generally agree that it derives from an Akkadian root, meaning “to call.” The word could be identifying the prophet as one who is called by God, one who calls to men in the name of God, or one who calls to God on behalf of men. In the Old Testament, each of the above descriptions was characteristic of the prophet, and it might be best to think of the term as implying all three aspects. The final two terms applied to Old Testament prophets derive from Hebrew roots for “sight.” Ro’eh is an active participle of the verb “to see” and is always translated “seer” in Scripture. The second term, hozeh, is an active participle of another verb for “seeing” which has no English equivalent. It is sometimes translated “seer” (1Ch 29:29) and sometimes “prophet” (Isa 30:10). It is, with one exception, always mentioned in the context of a king, leading some to conclude that this kind of prophet was a resident court historian with prophetic ability (cf. 2Ch 29:30). 1Ch 29:29 seems to prove that these three Hebrew terms distinguish three varieties within the prophetic office, for the verse uses each term of different persons who were prophets. That there are similarities in these three kinds of prophets is evidenced in passages such as Amo 7:12 ff., where Amaziah addresses Amos as a hozel, asking him to prophesy (nabi’) in Judah. Amos on that occasion refused, claiming he was not a nabi’. In the New Testament, two Greek verbs identify prophesying. The word prophaino means “to reveal” and includes the idea of predicting the future and revealing the message of God. The other term, prothemi, conveys the meaning “to tell forth,” to speak to others on behalf of God though not necessarily with a predictive message. The noun prophetes was used by the Greeks as early as the fourth century B.C. to identify those who could interpret the oracles of the gods. The word literally refers to one who speaks forth or openly, and was loosely applied to anyone who proclaimed a divine message. The word prophetes was used in the Old Testament Greek version (the Septuagint or LXX) to translate both nabi’ and ro’eh. It, therefore, came to be understood by the Jews to refer to one anointed of the Holy Spirit who received revelation from and communicated a message for God.

One of the early Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament was that God would raise up a Prophet like unto Moses (Deu 18:15). Although the character of this Prophet came to be the standard by which other prophets were evaluated, the Jews clearly understood the prophecy as Messianic. Many Old Testament prophets engaged in prophecy, but only Jesus possessed the credentials and practiced the ministry of the Prophet in perfection. His ministry gave evidence of all three of the following aspects of prophetic preaching:

Spokesman for God-”For-teller” Jesus was a spokesman for God and so fulfilled the office of the prophet. Everything Jesus said was the Word of God. Also, “His name is called the Word of God” (Rev 19:13). Jesus consciously said and did the will of the Father while here on earth. He told the religious leaders of His day, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” (John 5:19). Later in the same conversation, Jesus said, “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father who hath sent me” (John 5:30).

Prediction-”Foreteller” Normally, when people think of prophecy, their first idea is that of predicting future events. In His role as foreteller, Jesus made several prophecies. He told His disciples about the coming of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), which was fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Further, He described the ministry of the Holy Spirit in this age (John 16:13-14) and the details of His own death, burial, and resurrection (Mat 16:21). Additional predictive teachings of Christ dealt with His return (John 14:2-3), the existence of the church (Mat 16:18), and the course of the church age (Mat 13:1-58). A Preacher to People-”Forth-teller” Jesus taught the people truth concerning God. Nicodemus, a Pharisee and ruler of the Jews, acknowledged, “Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him” (John 3:2). When Jesus taught, “the people were astonished at his doctrine; for he taught them as one having authority” (Mat 7:28-29). Jesus spoke with authority for God. Several extended discourses of Jesus are recorded in Scripture, including the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5:1-48; Mat 6:1-34; Mat 7:1-29), the mystery parables (Mat 13:1-58), the Olivet discourse (Mat 24:1-51; Mat 25:1-46), and the Upper Room discourse (John 13:1-38; John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33).

Jesus was certainly consistent with the prophetic tradition of Israel; and, as such, those who heard Him understood Him to be a prophet (cf. Mat 14:1-36). But Jesus was more than just another prophet; He was the Prophet. Although there were many similarities between Jesus and the other prophets, there were also differences. The most notable of these was His authority in preaching. The prophet of God almost always prefaced his remarks with the expression “Thus saith the Lord”; but, characteristically, Jesus began by saying, “But I say unto you.”

The Anointed Priest A second anointed office in the Old Testament was that of the priest. Primarily, the priest acted as man’s representative before God. The priest offered the sacrifice upon the altar. Because God is by nature both just and forgiving, the priest could always tell the people God would forgive them if they met His conditions. The priest was a channel of forgiveness, whereas the prophet was usually the channel of judgment. Priests were, by far, more popular than prophets. The office of the priest was an anointed office because the candidate could not practice this office until he was first dipped in water and anointed with oil. This normally occurred at age thirty, and for twenty years the candidate then served as a functioning priest. It is significant that Luke notes this was the age of Jesus when He was baptized by John and anointed with the Holy Spirit (cf. Luk 3:23). The fullest development of New Testament teaching on the priesthood of Christ is understandably in the book of Hebrews. There it is demonstrated that He is both a priest and a high priest. His priesthood is considered superior because it succeeds to the order of Melchizedek rather than of Aaron. Some commentators have interpreted this claim to mean that Melchizedek was a Christophany, but it is more likely we should view him as a type of Christ! Actually, “Melchizedek” was not a name but a dynastic title, which may also be applied to Jesus. This explains why the Scriptures appear to call Melchizedek “Jesus. “ In reality, they are calling Jesus “Melchizedek. “ The office of the priest was unique in nature. First, if one was a priest, the implication is that he had been called of God to that task. Also, as a priest, he could represent another before God. If Jesus is a priest, then He serves two major functions-that of offering sacrifices and that of intercession for others.

Jesus was not only a priest but also the High Priest. In addition to his other responsibilities as a priest, the High Priest was particularly involved in the activities of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:1-34) and in the use of the Urim and Thummin (Num 27:21). He was Israel’s mediator on the Day of Atonement, for he took the blood of the slaughtered goat into the Holy of holies, where he offered propitiation for the nation’s sins and effected the atonement or covering of their sin for another year. He wore the Urim and Thummin on his breastplate, which contained the names of the twelve tribes and, as such, represented the nation. By using this means, he alone could discern the will of God for the nation. In contrast with the limited national ministry of Israel’s High Priest, Jesus “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1Jn 2:2). The names “priest” and “High Priest” primarily relate to the redemptive work of Christ, for they help explain it within the context of the legal system of Moses. Yet, these names also relate to His person as He fulfilled the ideal qualifications for these offices. He is in both person and ministry our priest, high priest, propitiation, mediator, and guide. Many of the secondary names of Jesus to some extent belong to the function and office of the priest.

The Anointed King In the Old Testament one of the designations of the coming Messiah was that of Israel’s king (cf. Psa 2:7; Zec 9:9). It is interesting to note Nathanael’s recognition of Jesus as “the Son of God ... the King of Israel” (John 1:49). In the Gospel of Mark, the title “King” occurs six times but always as a term of contempt or derision. It is the Gospel of Matthew that really develops this theme. Matthew begins with the legal genealogy of Jesus, noting Him to be the legal heir to the throne of David. The number fourteen is particularly emphasized in this genealogy (cf. Mat 1:17). This is significant for two reasons. First, the numerical value of the name “David” is fourteen. Secondly, fourteen is the product of two times seven, seven being the number of perfection or completeness. Most Jews considered David their most nearly perfect king, and Matthew is introducing the “second David.” Although several kings are listed in the genealogy, only David is called king. In the next chapter of Matthew, the magi looking for Jesus ask, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews?” (Mat 2:2); and Herod responds by inquiring of the chief priests and scribes “where Christ should be born” (Mat 2:4). Matthew develops this theme further until he records Jesus Himself acknowledging, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Mat 28:18). Jesus is the king with ultimate authority. When the early church practiced the implications of this aspect of who Christ is, it was not without negative consequences. They called Jesus their king (Acts 17:7), recognizing Him alone as the supreme Ruler in their lives; but this was offensive to Rome, who viewed Caesar as both god and king. Much of the later persecution of the church was related to Rome’s view that recognition of Jesus as king was seditious. It is, therefore, significant that the theme of the final book written to the persecuted church is the regal status of Jesus (cf. Rev 11:15; Rev 19:16).

Jesus is King The kingship of Christ follows from His deity. Because He is God, He is also king. Paul gave praise to King Jesus: “Unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever” (1Ti 1:17). In heaven “they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints” (Rev 15:3). The Romans considered their Caesar to be a god. Christians, on the other hand, recognized Jesus alone to be their king. Calling Jesus “king” implied they believed in His deity.

Jesus has a kingdom Every king has a domain over which he rules, and Jesus is no exception. He acknowledged, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), but He never denied He had a kingdom. It was the custom of the Romans to identify the crime of a condemned man by writing it on a shingle and nailing it on the cross upon which he died. Jesus was executed as “the King of the Jews” (John 19:19). When He returns to this earth, He will do so to establish His kingdom for a thousand years (Rev 20:1-6).

Jesus has subjects Christ is now a ruler to those who submit their wills to Him. Someday, “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth and things under the earth, and ... every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord” (Php 2:10-11). Today, those who receive Christ as Lord and Saviour recognize the kingship of Christ in their lives. Jesus taught a parable which equated His disciples with servants (Luk 17:10), and that was the attitude of the early church. They were eager to serve their King.

THE CHRIST IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Many of the New Testament references to Christ must be understood in the context of e Old Testament Messiah. This is the probable meaning when Peter confessed Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mat 16:16), and when Caiaphas asked Jesus whether He was the Christ (Mat 26:63). On the day of Pentecost, Peter concluded his sermon by declaring Jesus to be “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36), again to be understood in the context of the Old Testament Messiah. But “Christ” was also the favorite title of Paul, who ministered primarily among Gentiles that lacked the understanding of the Jews concerning the Messiah. In Paul’s letters the title “Christ” took on a special significance-a new dimension.

Jesus did not use the title directly of Himself, although He answered “I am” when people asked Him whether He was the Christ (Mark 14:62), and He approved of others calling Him by that title (John 4:25-26; Mat 16:16-17). On occasion He also mentioned that His disciples belonged to Christ, although we cannot be conclusive from the context that He was necessarily referring to Himself (Mark 9:41; Mat 23:10). In his epistles, Paul often used the title “Christ” with the name “Jesus,” and when he did so, the order of the names was significant. The name “Christ Jesus” referred to the exalted One who emptied Himself (Php 2:5-9), emphasizing His preexistence and having reference to His grace. The reverse order of “Jesus Christ,” however, referred to the despised and rejected One who was afterward glorified (Php 2:11).

One of the great themes in Paul’s epistles was that of the union and communion of the believer with Christ. In this connection, he uses the expression “in Christ” 172 times and speaks also of Christ’s indwelling the believer. Interestingly enough, it is always “Christ,” never “Jesus,” that he uses to teach indwelling. Paul’s use of this title of Jesus is foundational to our understanding of the Christian life.

Union with Christ-Our Position in Heaven The expression “in Christ” refers to our union with Christ, an aspect of the Christian’s experience of salvation. Being “in Christ” is a non-experiential state-that is, it occurs at the moment of salvation in the life of every believer, whether he realizes it or not. This is our position or standing in Heaven. In Paul’s writings “Christ” becomes the positional name of Jesus after His resurrection. The nature of the union between Christ and the believer is difficult to define and may be best understood if we describe several aspects of this relationship. Although in themselves each aspect falls short of what this union is, together they give us a more complete portrait of the nature of this union. This union is a mystical union, for, in a sense, there is a blending of the life of God into the life of the believer so that, although believers remain distinct persons, there is the development of oneness in will and purpose. This union transcends the limits even of the marriage union. By this union we also become Jesus’ friend (cf. John 15:14-15).

Secondly, there is a legal or federal aspect of this union. In this sense, our union with Christ becomes the basis of our justification and adoption. It is legal or federal in the sense that we are in our lawyer or senator while he represents us before the court or in government. Again, although this is one aspect of our union, it also goes much deeper. Our union is of an organic nature in which not only does the believer become a member of the body of Christ, but Christ also becomes a part of the believer. Furthermore the Christian life is the result of a vital union with Christ. It is Christ living in us, not merely influencing us from without. Because the Holy Spirit is the author of this union, we call it a spiritual union.

Moreover, this union is both indissoluble and inscrutable. The believer is so bonded to Christ that he has entered into an indissoluble relationship with Him. The omnipresence of Christ makes this union possible. Also, because this union involves the nature of God, there is a sense in which we can never fully understand it.

Finally, the union of the believer and Christ must be regarded as both complete and completed. To speak of a believer partially united with Christ is as impossible as to speak of a woman who is only partially pregnant. Although we may grow in the realization of this truth, we are never more deeply united with Christ by any means than we are at conversion.

Communion with Christ-Our Experience on Earth Not only are we “in Christ,” but Christ is also in us. This is the basis of our communion with Christ, which is an experience of our sanctification. The writings of Paul sometimes use the title “Christ” without the article. Paul does this consistently in order to signify the One who by the Holy Spirit and also His own Person indwells the believer and molds the believer’s character into a closer conformity to Christ (Rom 8:10; Gal 2:20; Gal 4:19; Eph 3:17). The practical application of this truth results in our abiding in Christ.

Many writers distinguish two aspects of abiding in Christ. First, it means to have no known sin unjudged and unconfessed so as to hinder our communion or fellowship with Christ. Secondly, it assumes that we give all burdens and concerns to Him and rely upon Him for the strength, wisdom, faith, and character we need to meet the particular challenges of life. Not only is His position our position (union), but His life is also our life (communion).

CONCLUSION When the prophets of Israel and Judah spoke of the coming Messiah, their highest thoughts of Him were those of Prophet, Priest, and King. Jesus functions today in each of those offices in the life of the believer. But He is also far more. He is no longer merely “the Christ” but also “Christ,” the One in whom we dwell and depend upon for the very essence of spiritual life and the One who lives within, providing all that is necessary for effective Christian living. For Discussion:

1. What is the literal meaning of the name Christ? Why was it Paul’s favorite name for the Saviour?

2. How did Christ fulfill His office as prophet?

3. As an anointed priest, how does Christ minister to us today?

4. Describe the kingdom and rule of Jesus Christ, the King.

5. God’s Word teaches that believers are “in Christ” and Christ abides in believers. What effect does this have on your everyday life?