¹ For a brief note on the traditional arrangements of these three offices and Barth's unique position, cf. Barth, Karl, Karl Barth's Table Talk, ed. Godsey, John Drew (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1963), pp. 17–18Google Scholar. There is some question concerning whether there is one threefold office or three offices. The roots of this ambiguity go back to Calvin himself, who spoke variously of the one office of mediator, and the three offices. Cf. Institutes, II.xii, p. 464; II.xv.2, p. 495. While ultimately the munus triplex understands Christ to have one threefold office, it is necessary at times to speak of his distinct offices.

² Muller, Richard A., Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), p. 197Google Scholar. For the history of this doctrine, see CD IV/3.1, 5–6, 13; Jansen, John Frederick, Calvin's Doctrine of the Work of Christ (London: J. Clark, 1956), pp. 13–38Google Scholar; McCulloh, Gerald W., Christ's Person and Life-Work in the Theology of Albrecht Ritschl: With Special Attention to Munus Triplex (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), pp. 86–145Google Scholar; Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Jesus: God and Man, tr. Wilkins, Lewis L. and Priebe, Duane A. (London: SCM, 1968), pp. 212–25Google Scholar. The three ‘offices’ are rooted in Jesus’ identity as the Messiah, the ‘anointed one’. That kings (1 Sam 10:1; 16:1–13; 1 Kings 1:39; 2 Kings 9:1–6) and priests (Ex 29:7, 21; Lev 8:2–12; 21:10–12) were anointed is clear in the Old Testament. The lone reference to the anointing of a prophet occurs in 1 Kgs 19:16, making for an exegetically weak connection between the name ‘anointed one’ and the prophetic office, though it was traditional to read Ps 45 and Is 61:1 as supporting this thesis.

³ Aulén, Gustaf, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, tr. Hebert, A. G. (New York: Macmillan, 1951)Google Scholar; Gunton, Colin E., The Actuality of Atonement: A Study of Metaphor, Rationality, and the Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989)Google Scholar.

⁴ Sherman, Robert, King, Priest and Prophet: A Trinitarian Theology of Atonement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), p. 9Google Scholar.

⁵ Cf. Torrance, T. F., Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ, ed. Walker, Robert (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), pp. 56–60Google Scholar; Van Dyk, Leanne, ‘The Three Offices of Christ: The Munus Triplex as Expansive Resources in Atonement’, Catalyst 25/2 (1999)Google Scholar; Wainwright, Geoffrey, For our Salvation: Two Approaches to the Work of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 99–186Google Scholar; Williams, David T., ‘Towards a Unified Theory of the Atonement’, in Tidball, Derek, Hilborn, David, and Thacker, Justin (eds), The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the Theology of Atonement (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008)Google Scholar.

⁶ Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, p. 224.

⁷ Jüngel, Eberhard, Karl Barth: A Theological Legacy, tr. Garrett E. Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), pp. 48–9Google Scholar.

⁸ Ibid., p. 46.

⁹ Busch, Eberhard, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts, tr. Bowden, John (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), p. 377Google Scholar.

¹⁰ This is the majority view by Barth scholars. Others who mention this role of the munus triplex in Barth's thought include: von Balthasar, Hans Urs, The Theology of Karl Barth: Exposition and Interpretation, tr. Oakes, Edward T. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1992), pp. 391–2Google Scholar; Gunton, Colin E., The Barth Lectures, ed. Brazier, Paul (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), p. 201Google Scholar; Hunsinger, George, Disruptive Grace: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 141–2, n. 18Google Scholar; Jones, Paul Dafydd, The Humanity of Christ: Christology in Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), pp. 122–6Google Scholar; McCormack, Bruce L., ‘Karl Barth's Historicized Christology: Just How “Chalcedonian” is it?’, in Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), p. 202Google Scholar; Neder, Adam, Participation in Christ: An Entry Into Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics (Louisville, KY: WJK, 2009), pp. 74–5Google Scholar. Of the major Barth scholars, Geoffrey Bromiley de-emphasises the munus triplex, as evidenced in his series of reviews of CD IV/1–3 in the Scottish Journal of Theology. Bromiley attends instead to the ‘foundation of the threefold confession of Jesus Christ as very God, very Man and the God-man’. Bromiley, Geoffrey William, ‘Doctrine of the Atonement: A Survey of Barth's Kirchliche Dogmatik IV.1’, SJT 8 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The same is true of his work: Bromiley, Geoffrey William, An Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979)Google Scholar. John Webster does much the same in his survey of Barth's doctrine of reconciliation, focusing on Barth's use of Chalcedonian categories. Webster, John, Barth (New York: Continuum, 2004), pp. 114–17Google Scholar.

¹¹ Butin, Phil, ‘Two Early Reformed Catechisms, the Threefold Office, and the Shape of Karl Barth's Christology’, SJT 44/1 (1991), pp. 195–6, 200CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Similarly, Bruce McCormack notes that Barth ‘uses the “threefold office” of Christ to order the material which would classically have been treated under the headings of “divine nature,” “human nature,” and the “unity” of the two, respectively’. McCormack, Orthodox and Modern, p. 202.

¹² Pfleiderer, Georg, ‘The Atonement’, in Metzger, Paul Louis (ed.), Trinitarian Soundings in Systematic Theology (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), pp. 129–30Google Scholar.

¹³ On the role of the prophetic office in Barth's theology, see Bornkamm, Karin, Christus: König und Priester. Das Amt Christi bei Luther im Verhältnis zur Vor- und Nachgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), pp. 382–5Google Scholar; Bornkamm, Karin, ‘Die reformatorische Lehre vom Amt Christi und ihre Umformung durch Karl Barth’, in Momkamm, Karin and Jüngel, Eberhard (eds), Zur Theologie Karl Barths (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1986)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Cf. Barth, Karl, Credo: A Presentation of the Chief Problems of Dogmatics with Reference to the Apostles’ Creed (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936), pp. 41–7, 110–12Google Scholar; Barth, Karl, Dogmatics in Outline, tr. Thompson, G. T. (New York: Harper, 1959), pp. 74, 77–8Google Scholar; Barth, Karl, The Faith of the Church: A Commentary on the Apostle's Creed According to Calvin's Catechism, tr. Vahanian, Gabriel A. (New York: Meridian, 1958), pp. 58, 65–9Google Scholar; Karl Barth, Table Talk, pp. 17, 34; Barth, Karl, Unterricht in der christlichen Religion, ed. Stoevesandt, Heinrich (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1925–6), pp. 74–197Google Scholar. In his second commentary on Romans, Barth was opposed to the use of the munus triplex, on the grounds that it ‘obscures and weakens the New Testament concentration upon the death of Christ’. Barth, Karl, The Epistle to the Romans, tr. Hoskyns, Edwyn C. (London: OUP, 1968), p. 159Google Scholar. This may have to do with Barth thinking of the munus triplex in light of the work of Albrecht Ritschl, which he cites in this context – a point confirmed, I think, in Barth, Karl, Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century: Its Background and History, tr. Cozens, Brian and Bowden, John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 647Google Scholar.

¹⁵ An exposition of Barth's christological framework is beyond the scope of this article, which pursues the more modest question of the role of the munus triplex within Barth's doctrine of reconciliation.

¹⁶ These casual references (cf. CD III/2, p. 342) are quite significant, for they show how often this schema was on Barth's mind.

¹⁷ On Barth's Christocentric hamartiology, cf. Jorgenson, Allen, ‘Karl Barth's Christological Treatment of Sin’, SJT 54/4 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krötke, Wolf, Sin and Nothingness in the Theology of Karl Barth, tr. Ziegler, Philip G. and Bammel, Christina-Maria (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Theological Seminary, 2005)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Jenson, Matt, Gravity of Sin: Augustine, Luther and Barth on ‘Homo Incurvatus in Se’ (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), pp. 156–7Google Scholar.

¹⁹ While Barth makes fairly regular mention of the munus triplex, it is significant (though inconclusive) that he never offers an extended analysis of the historical or biblical foundation of the munus triplex in such a way as to draw upon it for his own constructive project. Admittedly, he offers exegetical excurses in proportion to the controversiality of his thesis, and this thesis is not particularly controversial. However, if the munus triplex is as structurally significant as Butin and others suggest, I would expect more in this regard than Barth in fact offers.

²⁰ Shortly thereafter Barth incorporates the third dimension into his account.

²¹ Butin, ‘Two Early Reformed Catechisms’, p. 201.

²² One possible difficulty with this position is that Barth seems to suggest elsewhere that the munus triplex integrates the doctrines of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Remarking on the munus triplex as found in the Geneva Catechism, he notes: ‘According to the Apostles’ Creed, whatever Christ is he does. What comes next is simply the execution, the working out of what his name and title indicate. Therefore whatever is said about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ will simply repeat and explain this: he is king, priest, prophet of the Holy Spirit.’ Barth, Faith of the Church, p. 69. This, according to Robert Peterson, is in keeping with Calvin's original intent for the munus triplex: ‘in chapter xv [of the Institutes, book II], Calvin via Christ's threefold office of prophet, king and priest, forms a bridge between preceding and subsequent chapters of Institutes II . . . [This] was one of Calvin's ways of telling his readers not to separate the person and work of Christ.’ Peterson, Robert A., Calvin and the Atonement (Fearne, Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2008), p. 60Google Scholar. Cf. Wendel, François, Calvin: The Origins and Development of his Religious Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 224Google Scholar.

²³ References to it occur largely in the context of summary statements.

²⁴ Butin, ‘Two Early Reformed Catechisms’, p. 200.

²⁵ Ibid., pp. 202–3. Is Barth critiquing the older Protestant dogmaticians for the same mistake he is making?

²⁶ Terry, Justyn, The Justifying Judgement of God: A Reassessment of the Place of Judgement in the Saving Work of Christ (Eugene, OR: Paternoster, 2007), p. 112Google Scholar.

²⁷ Ibid. Terry might have drawn on Barth's connection between Jesus’ kingship and justice: ‘Jesus is king. He preserves and defends a dominion and its participants. To do so, he is just and living.’ Barth, Faith of the Church, p. 66.

²⁸ This is not surprising. The munus triplex offers a promising framework for integrating the Israelite theocracy into our understanding of the person and work of Christ. Cf. Schleiermacher, Friedrich, The Christian Faith, ed. Mackintosh, H. R. and Stewart, James Stuart (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1968), pp. 439–40Google Scholar. While this is an admirable strength, why should we limit our attention to the ‘theocratic’ aspects of Israel? Why omit a consideration of Jesus as shepherd, wisdom and husband? Furthermore, while salvation is from the Jews and Jesus is the promised Messiah, must we not also consider him in light of scriptural aspects of his being and work which are not inherently or uniquely Jewish? In other words, the munus triplex offers too limited an approach to the person and work of Jesus Christ inasmuch as it is used as a sufficient conceptual framework.

²⁹ An alternative is that Barth employs the munus triplex flexibly and creatively, and my argument is overly rigid. The problem is that the munus triplex becomes increasingly superficial and dangerous in direct proportion to the schema's generality or looseness with regard to the biblical development of its concepts. Inasmuch as we find ourselves creatively developing the meaning and significance of Christ's high-priestly office, apart from the specific meaning of that office as witnessed by scripture, we are better off employing a category more suited to the task at hand. For if it is not the biblical account of the high-priestly office which energises and sustains our thought while simultaneously constraining it, what is playing that role?

³⁰ We do best, concerning Barth's hamartiology, to think of Barth's analysis of sin as being ‘in relation to the self-humbling action of God in Jesus Christ . . . God's exaltation of humanity to partnership with God in Jesus Christ . . . [and] in relation to the true and radiant witness of Jesus Christ’. The munus triplex adds nothing essential to this framework. Cf. Migliore, Daniel L., ‘Sin and Self-Loss: Karl Barth and the Feminist Critique of Traditional Doctrines of Sin’, in Many Voices, One God (Louisville, KY: WJK, 1998), p. 147Google Scholar.

³¹ Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 439–40.

³² The New Testament explains Christ's death and resurrection in such diverse ways as a ransom (Mark 10:45), seeking that which is lost (Luke 15), defeat of Satan (John 12:31 and 14:30), propitiation (Rom 3:25), justification of God (Rom 3:25), justification of sinners (Rom 5:18), Passover (1 Cor 5:7), redemption (Gal 4:5), reconciliation (Col 1:20) and payment of our debt (Col 2:14), to name but a few. While many of these are deeply rooted in the Old Testament, some also have a strong relationship to the Graeco-Roman context.

³³ Peterson, Calvin and the Atonement, p. 61.

³⁴ As Barth notes, the munus triplex opens up a perspective in which ‘the Old Testament . . . contains a truth, but this truth points beyond itself: this truth announces the New Testament which, for this very reason, is already contained yet concealed in the same truth’. Barth, Faith of the Church, p. 61.

³⁵ Thanks to Phil Butin, Justyn Terry and Jeremy Treat for comments on earlier drafts of this article.