The doctrine of the munus triplex (Christ's threefold mediatorial office as prophet, priest and kingFootnote ¹) is a traditional schema for understanding the person and work of Jesus Christ, according to which ‘Christ fulfilled in his work all the anointed offices of the old covenant’.Footnote ² Found in many popular and academic works today, the doctrine remains a significant conceptual tool by which to account for the unity of the work of Christ. One form of the current interest in this conceptual scheme revolves around the way that the unified diversity inherent in the tripartite office of Christ suggests a tripartite work of Christ. It thus unifies what are often thought to be the three main aspects of Christ's atoning work: his substitutionary sacrifice, his defeat of Satan and the example he provides us.Footnote ³ For example, Robert Sherman argues that ‘theology should recognize a certain correspondence and mutual support between the three persons of the Trinity, the threefold office of Christ, and the three commonly recognized models of his atoning work’, offering what is to date one of the more detailed biblical accounts of the relationship between the munus triplex and the doctrine of the atonement.Footnote ⁴ While not all follow his thesis concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, many are sympathetic when it comes to using this scheme to unify their account of Christ's atoning work, for the unified diversity proper to the threefold office would seem to bear promising fruit for integrating the diverse aspects of Christ's work.Footnote ⁵

While there is much to appreciate in this line of thought, particularly the way that it draws on the Old Testament for its understanding of the work of Christ,Footnote ⁶ it is also prone to significant weaknesses. One should heed Karl Barth's warning that ‘the particular danger of dogmatics is to think schematically’ (CD IV/2, p. 7), for this is precisely the great temptation attending the use of the munus triplex schema: to take a helpful conceptual device and use it as a comprehensive or sufficient account of the unity of Christ's work. Consequently, the schema takes on a life of its own, threatening to divorce itself from the resources and constraints offered by the biblical witness and to operate with an increasingly ambiguous understanding of the key concepts involved.

In order to bring the church's attention to this delicate relationship between a helpful schema and dangerous schematic thinking with regard to the munus triplex, I will delve into Barth's use of it. This line of inquiry is helpful for two reasons. On the one hand, most scholars contend that Barth uses the munus triplex to significantly shape the formal structure and material content of his doctrine of reconciliation – so we have in him a theologian deeply sympathetic towards the strengths of this schema. On the other hand, there can be little doubt that Barth is wary of schematic thinking. He thus manifests the two primary concerns motivating this inquiry. We will find that Barth's use of the munus triplex is considerably more modest than his interpreters recognise – a point which I will draw upon for a constructive proposal regarding the church's use of the munus triplex as a significant but insufficient conceptual device for understanding Christ's atoning work.

Current views of the munus triplex in Barth's thought

Eberhard Jüngel's now famous chart of Barth's doctrine of reconciliation notes the role of the munus triplex within that volume. Each part-volume covers christology, hamartiology, soteriology and pneumatology, resulting in a threefold account of each doctrinal locus, with the former, christology, including an account of Christ's threefold office: priest (CD IV/1), king (CD IV/2) and prophet (CD IV/3).Footnote ⁷ The chart is ambiguous, however, as to whether the munus triplex (1) is one of several discrete topics or (2) has a formative role to play in the shaping of the whole. Jüngel himself has no doubt on this matter: ‘Barth broadly deploys his Christology [including the munus triplex] as the basis of his treatment of sin, justification, sanctification . . . vocation [and] the work of the Holy Spirit’.Footnote ⁸ Along these lines, Eberhard Busch writes that ‘the arrangement of the doctrine of reconciliation . . . followed Calvin's doctrine of the munus triplex . . . Each of these three aspects was considered in turn, first in terms of Christology, then of soteriology [including hamartiology] and finally of pneumatology’.Footnote ⁹ In short, the munus triplex seems to be at the heart of Barth's christology, playing an important structural and material role within the whole by ordering and shaping his soteriology.Footnote ¹⁰

Phil Butin strengthens this interpretation, drawing on several of Barth's works to demonstrate his consistent appreciation of and reliance upon the munus triplex. He argues that the Geneva and Heidelberg Catechisms and ‘their use of the munus triplex . . . had a profound impact on the shape of the Church Dogmatics, volume IV’, providing it with a ‘comprehensive Christological paradigm’, or its ‘basic, if subterranean structure’.Footnote ¹¹ Georg Pfleiderer takes the role of the munus triplex a step further, suggesting that Barth ‘finds a systematic explanation for [this] threefold typology . . . [which] is provided by the doctrine of the Trinity’, such that ‘the soteriological aspect of Christ as a priest is (dialectically) related to the work of the Father . . .; the image of Christ as a king is related to the work of the Son . . .; the metaphor of Christ as the prophet is connected with the work of the Holy Spirit’.Footnote ¹² And with this claim we have come full circle back to Robert Sherman's point tying together the Trinity, munus triplex and the three main aspects of Christ's atoning work.

To be sure, Barth uses the munus triplex throughout his work. In his explanation of the three forms of the doctrine of reconciliation early in CD IV/1, he states that ‘we shall still follow the traditional path to the extent that in content and meaning this division corresponds exactly to what earlier dogmatics worked out as the doctrine of the high-priestly and kingly office of Christ’, incorporating Christ's prophetic office a few pages later (CD IV/1, pp. 135–7).Footnote ¹³ He further establishes this point while summarising his hamartiology (CD IV/1, pp. 143–4), confirming thereby Jüngel and Busch's view of the formative role of the munus triplex. In short, there seems to be every reason to think that CD IV/1–3 is an unprecedented development of the munus triplex, mining it for its full material and formal dogmatic potential, unifying Barth's account of the doctrine of reconciliation.

That Barth made consistent use of the munus triplex throughout his theological career is indubitable.Footnote ¹⁴ My concern is with the precise nature of the relationship between the munus triplex and the shape of Barth's thought. As I have shown, the majority view among scholars is that the relationship is a deeply formative one. In the next section I challenge the paradigm that the munus triplex decisively shapes Barth's doctrine reconciliation, paying particular attention to his Christocentric hamartiology. My thesis is that Barth's constructive use of this traditional schema is quite limited, serving as a traditional gloss to his own christological framework (‘Lord as Servant’, ‘Servant as Lord’, and ‘the Servant Lord’).Footnote ¹⁵ While Barth is eager to show that in retrospect his constructive project aligns with the traditional view, he does not rely upon the munus triplex for the material or formal content of his doctrine of reconciliation in the Church Dogmatics.

The munus triplex in Barth's doctrine of reconciliation

Barth clearly has the threefold office of Christ in mind throughout his doctrine of reconciliation, as evidenced in extended and occasional references to the subject.Footnote ¹⁶ But just how formative is its role? To answer this question, we will examine Barth's Christocentric hamartiology.Footnote ¹⁷ Given that Barth's hamartiology finds its dogmatic location strictly within christology, if the munus triplex does not play a formative role in his hamartiology, either it is not significant for his doctrine of reconciliation, or Barth was blatantly inconsistent. The tension between Barth's explicit claims regarding the role of the munus triplex in his hamartiology, and the actual course his argument takes, will provide us with a firm foundation for answering our question. We will then briefly consider Barth's doctrine of the atonement in the ‘Judge Judged in Our Place’.

Barth gives every reason to think that he builds his hamartiology upon the foundation of the munus triplex. Recapitulating his argument, he writes: ‘in the first part (“The Lord as Servant” [CD IV/1]) we saw [sin] reflected in the high-priestly work of Jesus Christ. It appeared as the strange opposite of the humility with which the Son of God humbled Himself in obedience to the Father’ – as pride. ‘In the second part [CD IV/2] . . . it was set in light of His kingly work. It thus appeared as the strange opposite of the exaltation and majesty of the Son of Man’ – as sloth. Now, ‘in the encounter with the prophetic work of Jesus Christ [CD IV/3.1], as a negative reflection of the self-revelation and glory of the Mediator . . . his sin appears in guise of falsehood’ (CD IV/3.1, pp. 368–9). In short,

Matt Jenson's summary is entirely in line with Barth's explicit statement – it seems clear that the munus triplex undergirds the formal and material content of Barth's hamartiology. But it is precisely in this summary that significant difficulties emerge. For instance: what connection does the priesthood have with pride that in any way sets it apart from the other offices? Is sloth the besetting sin of kings? And is the prophetic office any more closely related to the sin of falsehood than that of disobedience? In short, is the threefold office of Christ really motivating Barth's hamartiology?

The biblical warrant for the connection between Barth's hamartiology and the munus triplex is weak at best. Moses’ great sin was not trusting in the Lord (Num 20:12), the prophet's disobedience in 1 Kings 13 causes his downfall, and Jonah sought to flee from God's presence (Jonah 1:3). Falsehood is not at issue here. With regard to kings, Saul lost his kingdom through disobedience (1 Sam 15:22–3), David's greatest sin was utterly scorning the Lord and despising his word (2 Sam 12:9, 14), Solomon disobeyed the Lord by marrying foreign women, who then turned his heart from the Lord (1 Kgs 11:1–4), and in the books of Kings, the question is whether or not the kings walk in the way of the Lord. Does sloth emerge from the biblical account of the kings? The demise of Nadab and Abihu resulted from offering incense to God in a way other than that commanded (Lev 10:1), the Lord poured his anger on Israel for the blood of the righteous shed by the priests (Lam 4:12–13), and Malachi accused the priests of despising the name of the Lord, cheating him with their sacrifices, not guarding knowledge, and not instructing the people (Mal 1:6–7, 2:6–7). While we could integrate pride into this account of the sins of the priests, this is not demanded by the text. There is no obvious connection between the Old Testament's account of the priests, kings and prophets and Barth's hamartiology.

Compounding this difficulty, the passages from which Barth draws do not tend to correspond with the offices in question. In his treatment of pride Barth examines Israel's sin at Mount Sinai, followed by the sin of Saul, Ahab and finally Jeremiah (CD IV/1, pp. 423–32, 437–45, 453–8, 468–78). Ironically, Barth thus covers every office except that of priest. While there is some emphasis on King David in his exposition of sloth, we still see signs of ambivalence with regard to the munus triplex in Barth's development of the sin of Nabal, Amos, David and Bathsheba, and the spies sent by Moses to investigate the Promised Land (CD IV/2, pp. 424–32, 445–52, 464–7, 478–83). This is all the more the case in CD IV/3, which offers a fourfold exposition of the book of Job (CD IV/3.1, pp. 382–8, 398–408, 421–34, 453–61) without reference to the prophets.Footnote ¹⁹ In short, neither the biblical account of the priests, kings and prophets nor the exegetical material developed by Barth suggests that the munus triplex plays a significant role in his account of sin as pride, sloth and falsehood.

It may be helpful to examine the sin of pride, which Barth characterises as the desire to be one's own lord and judge (CD IV/1, pp. 432, 449). While there is no unique connection between the priestly office and this understanding of pride, it is obvious how pride fits within Barth's christological framework of the Lord who becomes servant. Barth writes: ‘we recall our main Christological definition that the Lord became a servant. His rule consists in the fact that He became a subject . . . But the man for whom God is God in this way in Jesus Christ is the very opposite – the servant who wants to be Lord’ (CD IV/1, p. 432). Pride is the desire of the servant to be lord, in opposition of the Lord who became servant. This emphasis on lordship and servanthood furthermore explains the emphasis on obedience and humility throughout this section (cf. CD IV/1, p. 417), which has little to do with features unique to the priestly office and everything to do with the Lord who became our servant in obedience to the Father.

Why then does Barth offer such a staunch affirmation of the relationship between the munus triplex and his own material exposition, when it appears that the munus triplex does not play a significant role after all? To answer this question we turn to one of his key statements on this theme.

Butin, for one, emphasises the ‘exact correspondence’ mentioned by Barth.Footnote ²¹ One could note as well that the only difference mentioned by Barth between his and the traditional view is that the former includes the ‘doctrine of the person of Christ’ (CD IV/1, p. 135).Footnote ²² Earlier, Barth claimed that the tradition distinguished the person and work of Christ too rigidly, using the munus triplex to account for the latter (CD IV/1, p. 123).

Barth's point in this passage, though, does not go so far as to indicate that the munus triplex has a formative role in his thought. In fact, the net effect is ambiguous. Barth follows the tradition ‘to the extent that in content and meaning’ his own view ‘corresponds exactly to what earlier dogmatics worked out as the doctrine of the [munus triplex]’, though he notes that he prefers his own titles ‘as more precise and also more comprehensive’. Where does the emphasis lay? Does Barth's account take up the tradition within a bigger picture, or does the tradition provide the foundational framework for his own work? The qualification ‘to the extent that’ places the munus triplex in a distinctly secondary role, as does Barth's claim that his own titles are more precise and comprehensive. And though he explains that this precision and comprehensiveness is due to its inclusion of the ‘doctrine of the person of Christ’, this does not exclude the possibility of further factors (which Barth does not here mention) making them a more fitting choice.

My sense is that this passage is inconclusive – the primary evidence lies in the role played by the munus triplex in Barth's doctrine of reconciliation. And as we have seen, correlating the munus triplex with Barth's account of sin as pride, sloth and falsehood is problematic. But if we correlate these aspects of sin with Barth's preferred categories (‘Lord as Servant’, ‘Servant as Lord’, and ‘the Servant Lord/True Witness’) a correspondence readily emerges: pride contradicts the humility of the servant, sloth opposes the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and falsehood is the antithesis of the Servant Lord who as such is the ‘true Witness’.

Accordingly, we should interpret Barth as including within his account the role, material and concerns of the traditional doctrine of the munus triplex (for, as usual, he is eager to adhere to the Reformed tradition wherever possible), while doing so only inasmuch as it corresponds to his own fuller and more comprehensive exposition. Despite his affirmations concerning the significance of the munus triplex, his hamartiology consistently draws upon his own christological structure, whereas the munus triplex offers little or nothing to the argument.Footnote ²³ In other words, Barth claims that his view coincides with doctrine of Christ's threefold office, thereby emphasising his proximity to the tradition, while correcting the misuse of the munus triplex by taking it up within his own more precise and more comprehensive framework. Despite the strength of some of his assertions, therefore, Barth is not in fact building his account on a ‘subterranean structure’Footnote ²⁴ of the munus triplex, but rather using that doctrine as something of a gloss to his own account, so as to show its compatibility with the Reformed tradition.

Turning briefly to Barth's treatment of Christ's atoning work, we see once more the minor role played by the munus triplex. First, note that Barth's account of the ‘Judge Judged in Our Place’ (CD IV/1, §59.2) is forensic rather than sacrificial, despite the fact that in this part-volume Barth supposedly follows Christ's priestly work. This is all the more significant because of the conclusion of this section, where Barth develops the sacrificial standpoint of Christ's work in a recapitulation of his argument (CD IV/1, pp. 274–83). Barth notes that his forensic/judicial treatment of the atonement, while functioning in harmony with Christ's priestly work, is distinct from it.Footnote ²⁵ That Barth shows thereby ‘how each of his previous points could be effectively restated in terms of the priestly and sacrificial language of the munus Christi sacerdotale’ only accentuates the fact that he does not in fact do this. Moreover, Barth critiques the ‘older Protestant dogmatics’ because even though they gave

If Barth critiques the older Protestant dogmatics on such grounds, surely we cannot argue that Barth's forensic treatment of the atonement is in fact a validation of the shaping influence of Christ's priestly office in his thought. In short, Barth is quite clear that his primary development of the atoning work of Christ is anything but an account governed by Christ's priestly office.

Justyn Terry likewise senses that Barth's use of the munus triplex is in some way problematic. He notes that Barth interprets justification ‘in terms of the humbling of the Son of God who enters the far country to overcome the pride of humankind’.Footnote ²⁶ But while Terry senses the incongruity between Barth's hamartiology and the munus triplex, his solution differs:

Unfortunately this solution resolves certain difficulties only by attributing to Barth a blatant structural error, and should thus be used only as a last resort. Furthermore, it does not answer my earlier questions regarding the material relationship between the munus triplex and Barth's hamartiology. In short, it creates more problems than it solves.

On my reading, Barth's affirmation of the munus triplex distracts Terry from the structure of the doctrine of reconciliation. In sum, Barth is eager to demonstrate that his account is consistent with the traditional schema of the munus triplex, but the decisive shaping influence comes from his own distinctive christological framework. His affirmation that ‘we shall still follow the traditional path [of the munus triplex]’ (CD IV/1, p. 135), therefore, ought to emphasise the qualifier (‘to the extent that’), not because the munus triplex conflicts with his position, but because the latter is ‘more precise and also more comprehensive’. While he is eager to note the correspondence between his account and the traditional Reformed view, my thesis accounts for the surprisingly sparse development of traditional and biblical accounts of Jesus Christ's threefold office as well as the frequency with which the details of Barth's account fail to mesh with the relevant ‘office’ of Jesus Christ.Footnote ²⁸

Simply put, the primary force energising the material and formal content of Barth's doctrine of reconciliation lies elsewhere than the traditional doctrine of the munus triplex.Footnote ²⁹ Christ's role as priest, king and prophet, while significant for Barth, ultimately distracts those seeking to understand his hamartiology and doctrine of reconciliation, if focused upon too rigidly.Footnote ³⁰

Schemas without schematising: using the munus triplex

The result of over-reading Barth's statements concerning the munus triplex is a series of structural and biblical difficulties which distract from Barth's focus. This is precisely the danger of schematic thinking which Barth so adamantly opposes – what at first seems to be a fruitful framework rooted in scripture takes on a life of its own, hampering our appreciation of and submission to the Bible. My concern with contemporary uses of the munus triplex (such as those of Sherman, Wainwright and Williams) is that, despite its elegance and usefulness (particularly for integrating the theocratic aspects of Israel into Christ's work), this framework is simply too constricting to be of abiding service to the church in offering sufficient conceptual unity to Christ's saving work. To put the point more positively, it is a significant though insufficient aid to the church's understanding, and must be complemented by other approaches to the work of Christ.

The limitations of this scheme are directly related to its greatest strength. For as Schleiermacher notes, the munus triplex ‘make[s] clear the relation of the Kingdom of heaven to this earthly theocracy [of Israel]’ by representing Christ ‘as uniting all these three offices in Himself’.Footnote ³¹ Clearly this is a tremendous benefit, offering the church great resources for understanding the person and work of Christ in light of the Old Testament, and rendering the latter more fruitful in the preaching of the church.

However, before drawing upon the munus triplex to create a comprehensive account of the unity of Christ's work, we must consider how the theocratic offices of Israel are related to Israel as a whole. Do they subsume its other elements within themselves, such as the marriage relationship, poets, shepherds and the role of kinsman redeemer? While many of these offices, roles, vocations and relationships can and do overlap, are they not distinct, each possessing its own unique significance within the history and vocation of Israel? What is to prevent us from expanding beyond the constraints of the munus triplex, to consider Jesus Christ in such ways as the bridegroom, wise man, servant, shepherd and kinsman-redeemer, in addition to his role of priest, king and prophet?

A second question lies close on the heels of the first: while Jesus fulfilled in his person and work the vocation of Israel (including its theocratic offices), is this a sufficient framework from which to understand Christ's work? If so, then what do we make of the host of concepts employed throughout the New Testament to explain Christ's work?Footnote ³² While some of these relate more closely than others to the Old Testament offices of priest, king and prophet, does integrating them under this rubric strengthen and invigorate the New Testament concepts, or do some of them become weaker and less poignant in the process? While this remains an open question, it is clear that we must allow the integration of the munus triplex with these concepts to be an exegetically driven conclusion rather than a presupposition, in order to ensure that we allow each of these concepts to play their own distinct role in contributing to our understanding of the work of Christ.

With these reflections in place, we do well to return to Calvin – the one largely responsible for the prominence of the munus triplex in the past half-millennium. As Robert Peterson notes, ‘Calvin uses six biblical themes of the atonement to describe the saving work of the Mediator.’Footnote ³³ Leaving to the side the precise nature of these themes and the question of whether they ought to be revised or expanded, this point is significant because Calvin used the munus triplex as one part of a full account of Christ's work rather than a sufficient conceptual scheme by means of which to unify the whole. In other words, the munus triplex is an important though limited conceptual device rooted in scripture to account for certain aspects of Christ's work, particularly as it relates to the Old Testament theocracy.

What might this mean for the use of the munus triplex in the church's teaching ministry? First and foremost, the church should use this schema as a way of integrating the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Messiah or anointed one of Israel, with the history of that people and particularly its offices of prophet, priest and king. Such a line of thought opens up a host of interconnections, tensions and questions between the Old and New Testament which are of great value to its teaching ministry.Footnote ³⁴ Second, we should be cautious in our use of this schema lest it take on a life of its own and outstrip the biblical foundation upon which it rests – for Calvin and Barth would agree that while the munus triplex is valuable, in and of itself it does not sufficiently explain the work of Christ. Finally, integrating these two points, we should use the munus triplex as an impetus for understanding and employing other dimensions of the people and history of Israel which Jesus takes up and fulfils. For if the munus triplex is significant but insufficient, this motivates our appropriation of further aspects of the person and work of Christ in order to give a fuller account.