Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:11:08.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consecration and Ordination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

T. F. Torrange
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In order to understand the NT teaching about consecration and ordination we have to examine the rites and language of the OT tradition. The rites were not carried over as such into the Christian Church, for they were fulfilled in Christ and abrogated, but the NT does use the language of the rites to speak both of Christ and His Church, and it does adapt some of the OT rites for its own use, but with entire freedom and new significance. The basic line we have to consider is the consecration of the priest, and king, and prophet in the OT, and see how they are fulfilled in Christ, and then see how in this Christ the NT thinks of the ministry as consecrated and ordained.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 1958 , pp. 225 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 235 note 1 In this section I am somewhat indebted to the illuminating discussions of A. Ehrhardt, The Apostolic Ministry (shortly to be published as an Occasional Paper of SJT), and D. Daube, The NT and Rabbinic Judaism, the chapter on ‘The laying on of hands’.

page 236 note 1 I cannot follow Professor Daube in giving samakh a psychological interpretation to mean the ‘extending’ or ‘pouring‘ of personality from one to another. It is surely not extending of personality but conjunction of responsibility that is intended in these OT accounts.

page 237 note 1 According to Sanhedrin 1.6 a community of one hundred and twenty men was entitled to elect its local sanhedrin of seven elders. Is this the significance of Acts 1.15: ‘the number of names together were about one hundred and twenty’?