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 Romans & others while simultaneously challenging the ecclesiastical Establishment, thus anchoring & expanding God’s Kingdom on Earth, not just Heaven and governing the world as the Redeemer-Mediator Prophet-Priest-King, all of which culminates in His crucifixion, resurrection, & ascension & the passing of the torch on the Earth to those He left behind. 

III. Matthew 5 - 11 - “It is written,

“ ‘Man shall not live by bread alone,

but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ”  (Matthew 4:4, ESV)


IV.  Matthew 12 - 20 - “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ” (Matthew 4:7, ESV)


V.  Matthew 21 - 28 - “Be gone, Satan! For it is written,

“ ‘You shall worship the Lord your God

and him only shall you serve.’ ” (Matthew 4:10, ESV)


This Is the Way; O LORD, Hear our prayers! 

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