Christological Anthropology is a methodological approach to Theological Anthropology which identifies Christ as the proper and primary model of true humanity rather than pre-lapsarian Adam. Within this methodological approach, it would be proper to ask whether Christ’s three-fold office of prophet, priest, and king popularized by Calvin and codified in the Westminster confession may apply to proto-humanity as well. There is a robust body of scholarship arguing that Genesis 1-2 uses temple/priestly language to describe creation and prelapsarian humanity’s role in that creation (GK Beale, J Arcadi, C Fletcher-Louis), as well as kingly language related to the first humans’ commission to take dominion over creation (W Brueggemann, D Kiddner). What is less common are arguments for an evident prophetic role for humanity in Genesis 1-2. S Wellum has developed a theological argument for the three-fold office of Adam from the perspective of covenantal type and antitype. But is there textual warrant for such a move, specifically for the prophetic role of Adam, as there is for the kingly and priestly roles?
This paper will argue for the textual warrant for the prophetic role of humanity in both Genesis 1 and 2. After examining the canonical witness regarding prophetic activity, I will propose the following as an essential definition: A prophet is one who sees with Yahweh’s eyes and speaks Yahweh’s words to intended addressees. I argue in this paper that there is indeed protological prophetic activity between God, humanity, and creation evident in Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis 1, God speaks with effectual speech, with creation responding in perfect obedience. But the speech is not addressed to creation, until the creation of Adam and Eve in the image of God. The sixfold pattern of וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים used throughout Genesis 1 shifts in verse 22 to וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים לֵאמֹר. I will argue that this is an election of humanity to the role of prophet within creation, understanding election both as privilege (being blessed in the ability to receive the word of God) and responsibility (the commission to be fruitful and multiply and to take dominion and subdue the earth). In Genesis chapter 2, I will argue that we see Adam working on God’s behalf to name the animals. The use of לִרְא֛וֹת (the infinitive construct of ראה) is unusual in Genesis. Given the root’s connection to prophetic activity, and the use of the infinitive construct in the rest of Genesis, it signals the presence of prophetic work in this small scene. Furthermore, Adam’s speech seems to be effective speech in the way God’s speech is in Genesis 1.
The argument of this paper will contribute to current conversations in Theological Anthropology, as well as hold implications for conversations regarding the Image of God as well as the impact of the Fall on humanity.