# Was Adam: Prophet, Priest, King?



## rembrandt (May 12, 2004)

Was Adam (pre-fall) Prophet, Priest, and King, like the new Adam (Christ)? If so, are we being restored to Prophet, Priest, King? I suppose the answer would be in the affirmative...

Rembrandt


----------



## VanVos (May 13, 2004)

I believe so, he was just not confirmed in those offices like Christ was. I think his work of keeping and looking after the garden speaks of his work as a priest. I think his role towards Eve hints to his office as a prophet. And think the dominion he was to take speaks of his kingship. All of which would have been confirmed and established in glorification.

Good thought VanVos


----------



## Saiph (May 13, 2004)

[quote:fca7a9a395]
Was Adam (pre-fall) Prophet, Priest, and King, like the new Adam (Christ)? If so, are we being restored to Prophet, Priest, King? 
[/quote:fca7a9a395]

Yes, but the proper biblical order is Priest, King, and Prophet.

Priest : The Law, childhood stage.
King : Wisdom, judgment, adult stage.
Prophet : Creates new worlds with words. Has a vision for the Priest and Prophet to live up to.

We have to go through each stage without losing any as we progress.


----------



## DanielC (Jun 1, 2004)

Dr. Ames (Marrow of Theology) said that the proper biblical order is prophet, priest, king. Christ first taught others, declaring the will of God to them (prophet); then he offered Himself (priest); afterwards He entered His kingdom (King). Besides, you have the Law in the section for priest, and that is in error. Moses was the prophetic type (Christ of course being the antitype), and he gave the law (God will send you a prophet like Moses...) from Mt. Sinai, just as Christ gave the law (Sermon on the Mount), after having in Matthew's gospel account left Egypt (like Moses and Israel), been baptized in the Jordan (as Israel was baptized in the Red Sea), and went into the wilderness for 40 days (like Moses on Sinai and Israel for 40 years). The role of the prophet is to reveal God's will to the people - the OT paradigm being the 10 Commandments, in the NT it is Christ Himself Heb 1:1-3. The prophet mediates the message of God to the people, the priest speaks to God on behalf of the people. The Law is the former, not the latter. Look at the WCF LC and SC on the how Christ fulfills the offices - it gives a good description of the task of each office.

True, the typical priest was Melchizedek, and he came before Moses, but if you wanted to order chronologically by type then the order would be Priest, Prophet, King (David being the typical King). Then again, does the order really matter?

Just to throw it out there, the order in Hebrews 1:1-3 is prophet, priest, king, as well as the order for the book as a whole - Moses and the prophetic role before Aaron and Melchizedek. Once Moses is seen to be the prophetic type, its sheds light on many other passages, such as the transfiguration (Moses and Elijah - prophetic types for Christ and John), showing Christ to be the ultimate prophet (God saying &quot;LISTEN to Him&quot.

Fascinating though... Adam holding all three offices. And yes we do parallel the offices of Christ now, professing Him, praying for His body the Church, and reigning with Him. Heidelberg gives a good parallel on that one - check it out. Not enough definitive scholarly work has been done of the offices of Christ for sure. If anybody knows a good one lemme know.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 2, 2004)

what about Seth, Enoch, Noah?


----------



## DanielC (Jun 2, 2004)

Now that I've thought about it some more, I'm not sure if Adam could rightly be considered a priest or a prophet. Could their even be a priest in a pre-fall world? For what reason would he interceed or offer sacrifices? I'm not sure that office what fit under his role as our representative head.uzzled:

Seth and Enoch probably offered sacrifices, and I'm sure Noah did. I guess they might be considered to have these offices, but only in a very primitive form.

One thing to note - what connection the Law did have with the priesthood was with the AARONIC priesthood (for on the basis of it it people received the Law). Christ was of a different, eternal order, not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. He wasn't even a Levite. Still a lot for me to think through though - and I'm confusing myself. Can anyone help out here? Can someone trace the development of the offices through history? Or point me to someone who has? (Besides the author of Hebrews)


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:bbbff1ac39]Now that I've thought about it some more, I'm not sure if Adam could rightly be considered a priest or a prophet. Could their even be a priest in a pre-fall world? For what reason would he interceed or offer sacrifices? I'm not sure that office what fit under his role as our representative head.[/quote:bbbff1ac39]

I was thinking on the lines of him being a &quot;prophet&quot; as he is the one who God speaks to and he 'knows' God (God walking in the Garden is prophetic). &quot;Priest,&quot; I was thinking about him dealing spiritually with his household (whole race at the time) and administering the covenant of God to his family (whatever that would look like). If we are ALL priests (1 Pet.), then I don't see why Adam wouldn't be. And if Moses wants us ALL to be prophets (forgot verse), then I don't see why Adam wouldn't be.

Paul


----------



## DanielC (Jun 3, 2004)

Maybe you're right. I just always think of the annointed offices as having a mediatorial role between two parties where a division has occured. I have difficulty conceptualizing post-fall civil terminology to a pre-fall context, particularly in terms of mediation between separated parties - I think thats where my confusion lies. Should there be a distiction between the priestly function and federal headship?


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:b92336d2b6]Should there be a distiction between the priestly function and federal headship?[/quote:b92336d2b6]

Good question. Maybe we just think of the roles of his federal headship in terms of what we know in redemption and the second Adam... I mean, as you say, he must have been a prophet and priest in a different sense. But how else could we conceptualize it?

I'm sure some theologian in history thought about these things (Adam's offices). Anybody know?

Paul

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by rembrandt]

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:a040b02997][i:a040b02997]Originally posted by VanVos[/i:a040b02997]
I believe so, he was just not confirmed in those offices like Christ was. I think his work of keeping and looking after the garden speaks of his work as a priest. I think his role towards Eve hints to his office as a prophet. And think the dominion he was to take speaks of his kingship. All of which would have been confirmed and established in glorification.

Good thought VanVos [/quote:a040b02997]

good thoughts. It appears to me like we are reading redemptive ideas into the first Adam. Are prophet and priest always redemptive? Can we really say that him taking care of a garden was priestly? If so, we must enlarge our conceptions of these offices. I don't see anything wrong with doing so, because they are all concepts to begin with. And besides, this is the only way we can really grasp Christ's fulfillment of these 3 offices as the second Adam.

Paul


----------

