Matthew’s Gospel In Outline Form

There are multiple ways to outline Matthew’s Gospel.  One way is to follow the form of a suzerain covenant,  Here is another approach from an application of that approach, keeping in mind that the temptation narrative itself follows the form of a suzerain covenant.  I. Matthew 1 - 3  : Introduction The author/authors introduce us to Yeshua via a gematria laden eschatological genealogy, a very brief birth narrative, a note about Yeshua’s ascent into manhood, & His baptism by John the Baptist that ends in a theophany. II. Matthew 4  : Prophet, Priest, King   Each of the 3 temptations highlights one of Yeshua’s 3 offices —- Prophet, Priest, & King, in that order. This provides the narrative framework (ie outline) for the remainder of the Gospel. Yeshua calls His disciples, essentially putting together a school of highly prophetic people who would serve as functional levites ministering to the poor, the sick & infirm, the marginalized, even Rom...
Post a Comment

Covenant Theology In Outline Form: Part 15.

Romans (Soteriological Covenant)

Shema: 1: 1 - 7 
Historical Prologue: 1:18 - 2:5 
General & Specific Stipulations: 2:6 - 8:39 
Doc. Clause, Witnesses, Renewal, Victory.: 9 - 16 

Note: There are probably a few more ways to outline Romans this way, but this one is what stands out to me on an initial pass.  

I call this a soteriological covenant insofar as the focus of Romana is, by & large, the doctrine of Soteriology.  It also tells us that all rightful (and when you think about it non-rightful) authority is established by God (Romans 13:1) & draws attention to the relationship between the Decalogue (as to our sanctification) & our duties to corporate entities like our worship community and the nation-state &/or city-state by which we are governed. 






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Favorite Fallacies & Homosexuality

Thesis - The tradition bound view on homosexuality commits a number of logical, epistemic, & exegetical fallacies.  1-  Is - Ought Fallacy  - Human anatomy is said to provide    a blueprint for sexual ethics.  We examined this in my previous article.  A moral “ought” is derived from a physical “is.”  The disputant makes an illicit leap from what is to what ought to be. A classic example is the way some homosexuals defend their sexual ethics by appealing to their biology/genetics.  2 -  Vicious Circularity   - Human anatomy & physiology are raised to the status due a non-arbitrary epistemic warrant.    A non-arbitrary epistemic warrant must be necessary, reasoned, & principled.  In truth, the body is unnecessary to deduce sexual ethics. By way of contrast, God’s nature is definitionally necessary, insofar as God is a necessary being, &, since God is infinite, eternal, & unchangeable in being, w...
Read more

City Of God Study Module 2

            ✨ 👑 GALLIFREY 👑✨                       EDISON/ADONAI                           CAMBRIDGE BASTILLE & PLUME     SAGACITY & THORN                            Zodiac ICONOCLASTS LAW & ORDER         Bishop     Vanity Fair          Forge      Toymaker    Archibaptrix     Chameleon         Enigma     Governess         Corsair       Jodpurs         Sextant       Dauphin       Carnevale       Libertine           Arsenal                  Mosaic  ...
Read more

On “A Christian Defense of Real Marriage”

The Christian Post article is here .  In the view of mainstream culture today, there is no such thing as a principled case for the Christian view of marriage that limits it to one man and one woman. Opposition to same-sex marriage, in this view, can only spring from bigotry, hate, or fear.    It can also spring from recognition that the defenders of traditional marriage do so on shaky biblical grounds, insofar as their defense of the traditional view of marriage proceeds from poor biblical hermeneutics & unsound reasoning principles.     For example, Robert Gagnon writes: By “against nature” Paul meant that the evidence from the material structures of creation—here the complementary embodied character of maleness and femaleness—gives clear evidence of God’s will for human sexual pairing. Some have argued that this could not have been what Paul intended by his nature argument, despite Paul’s clear statement in Rom 1:19-20 that such matters are “transpare...
Read more