Priest, King, Prophet

A couple of brave readers of my book Totus Christus have pointed out an apparent discrepancy in my ordering of the above three roles. One kindly writes:

The only question of substance I have for you concerns the prophet, priest and king flow of OT history. It may be that you disagree with Jim, but he’s quite insistent that the proper order is priest, king, prophet. He discusses this in From Bread to Wine, p. 9-15. In any case, it might be helpful to explain why you deviate…

My answer is that the process is cyclical, like the octaves on a piano. Middle C is the same note as High C, but I call Middle C Prophet and High C Tranfigured King, to denote the mature man whom God then uses to begin the next cycle with his words as Prophet. Thus:

Prophet – (from previous dominion cycle)
PriestPriest
KingKing
Transfigured King - Prophet
This man begins the next cycle as prophet, initiating it as the “prime mover” Word. A Moses always comes before an Aaron, but it is a Moses who has previously been through the process himself. In Israel’s “former days” (pre-captivity), these roles were typified in the greater pattern by Moses (prophet), Aaron (priest), David (king), with the Sabbatical fulfilment of the kingdom in Solomon as a resurrected and glorified David, a transfigured king in a city of peace. Solomon is presented as a new Adam, naming the animals etc. As such, he is the new prophetic Word that begins a new cycle of history.

So there is really no disagreement as far as I can see (I could be wrong of course!) Feel free to comment. Thanks also to those taking the time to read the book.

I highly recommend Jordan’s From Bread to Wine, Toward a More Biblical Liturgical Theology, available from www.biblicalhorizons.com

See also the diagram on page 30 of Jordan’s The Handwriting on the Wall.

Share Button

Comments are closed.