By underemphasizing the biblical teaching about the priesthood of all believers––and, by imposing a functional munex triplex onto the office of pastor (i.e, elder or bishop)––we can treat pastors as priestly mediators between God and man–when in fact, every pastor is himself in need of the priestly mediation of the High Priest of the Church, Jesus Christ. Both pastors and people can now carry out the intercessory function of their priesthood in Christ in their relationship with other believers. 

With the five hundred and third anniversary of the inception of the Protestant Reformation upon us, it will do us good to remember that the Reformation was not simply a defense of sola Scriptura and the rediscovery of the doctrine of justification by faith alone–it was a reformation in worship and ecclesiology. Since Rome had rooted its sacerdotalism (i.e., priesthood) in its faulty doctrine of transubstantiation, the Reformers emphasized the fact that all believers were priests and that there is no special office of Priesthood, other than that filled by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In short, there are no mediators between God and man except for the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:15). Accordingly, believers are not to view pastors as priestly mediators between God and man. Every believer has the same direct access to God. To fail to emphasize this point, is to rob believers of the saving benefits and mediation of Christ.

About a decade ago, a number of influential church leaders rifely promoted the munex triplex as a leadership typology. According to the proposal, leadership roles should be distinguished by applying a “prophet, priest, and king typology” to pastors. According to this scheme, churches should recognize that some ministers were more kingly in their giftedness; some are more priestly; and, some are more prophetic. While there is value in acknowledging that some pastors are stronger in one gift set than another, there are also significant dangers in imposing such a construct onto the office of elder in a way that Scripture does not. In fact, the only thing that the New Testament knows by way of the prophet, priest, and king distinction is that Christ alone fills the office of Prophet, Priest, and King of His Church; and, that in union with Him, every new covenant believer now carries out the functions of a prophet, priest, and king. Timothy Paul Jones explains what a proper approach to the munus triplex paradigm looks like, when he writes,

No individual within the body of Christ can become more kingly or more priestly than anyone else, because every aspect of Christ’s royal priesthood is already ours in him. This isn’t to suggest, of course, that different church leaders don’t have distinct gifts that are best deployed by focusing their energies on particular areas of ministry. But the identities of priest and king in particular aren’t individual capacities that some individuals possess more strongly than others; they’re identities shared by the whole community in union with Christ . . . The munus triplex should indeed shape our leadership, but it shapes our leadership best when these offices are treated not as a leadership typology but as functions that have been fulfilled in Christ and conveyed to the whole people of God through union with him.

This, of course, raises the question about the relationship of church leaders and the Old Covenant offices of prophet, priest, and king. The Roman Catholic Church–with its emphasis on the papacy and the priesthood–advanced a heirarchical view of church officers. Martin Luther confronted the essence of Rome’s error when he wrote,

It is pure invention that pope, bishop, priests, and monks are called the spiritual estate while princes, lords, artisans, and farmers are called the temporal estate. This is indeed a piece of deceit and hypocrisy. Yet no one need be intimidated by it, and for this reason: all Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except that of office . . . It is because we all have one baptism, one gospel, one faith, and are all Christians alike; for baptism, gospel, and faith alone make us spiritual and a Christian people.

As Protestants, we believe that we have freed ourselves from the error of Rome; however, there is is an ever present danger of separating confessional adherence from functional practice. When we functionally elevate pastors to the place of priestly mediators, we run the risk of creating an essential dychotomy between pastors and the people. An application of the “prophet, priest, and king typology” to pastoral ministry can lend itself to this danger.

By underemphasizing the biblical teaching about the priesthood of all believers––and, by imposing a functional munex triplex onto the office of pastor (i.e, elder or bishop)––we can treat pastors as priestly mediators between God and man–when in fact, every pastor is himself in need of the priestly mediation of the High Priest of the Church, Jesus Christ. Both pastors and people can now carry out the intercessory function of their priesthood in Christ in their relationship with other believers.

There is, however, an opposite error when highlighting the priesthood of all believers. We can allow ourselves to slide into a functional Brethrenism–a position that confuses the “priesthood of all believers” with the “right of private judgment.”

The Reformers rightly defended the truth of the “right of private judgment” as over against Rome’s claim to the infallibility of the church. In his excellent book, The Infallibility of the Church, George Salmon explained the necessity believers have to reject Rome’s insistance on ecclesiastical infallibility and to embrace the “right of private judgment.” He wrote,

It is common with Roman Catholics to speak as if the use of private judgment and the infallibility of the Church were things opposed to each other . . . it must be remembered that our belief must, in the end, rest on an act of our own judgment, and can never attain any higher certainty than whatever that may be able to give us. We may talk about the right of private judgment, or the duty of private judgment, but a more important thing to insist on is the necessity of private judgment. We have the choice whether we shall exercise our private judgment in one act or in a great many; but exercise it in one way or another we must. We may either apply our private judgment separately to the different questions in controversy-–Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, and so forth––and come to our own conclusion on each . . .

Read More