Introduction
Images of Jesus in the NT
Images of God in TNK
References to Jesus in the Qur'an
NT Statement
Avoiding Offence

Note on abbreviations of books: 

NT is New Testament. It is the self designated name for these writings (see Hebrews 8:8, 13, 1 Corinthians 11:25, Matthew 26:28). The term is used also in Jeremiah 31. I have tried to distinguish reasoning based on NT thinking from later Christian thinking. Many will assume that Christians think in NT terms. This is only approximately correct. Christian is a rarely used word in the NT and is first used almost as a term of derision for a Jewish sect. Christians became dominant 300 years after the NT texts were written and largely collected. The derivation of much Christian teaching is certainly traceable to the NT.  For a starting point on NT see The New Testament Gateway.

TNK is Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim, the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. This is a common name for the Hebrew Bible among the Jews. The Christian canon of the Old Testament is in a different order, ending with the Prophets. OT is not the common designation or order of the Hebrew Bible in its own eyes. For a starting point for information on TNK, see .

Qur'an is the book of teachings foundational to Islam. This book depends for its meaning on both TNK and NT from which it has some derivative doctrine and with which it has some major contradictions. A source of translations and imagery is at http://quran.al-islam.com/. While this is a first impression of an infidel, I understand that the Qur'an was a product of recitation, and has a history of textual variants just as the TNK and NT have. It is clear that Mohammed was influenced by both Judaism and Christianity and particularly by their inability to agree. What is variant in story in Qur'an, then, could be attributed to the both pragmatic and imaginative mind of the messenger of Islam in his desire to create the possibility of agreement, tolerance, and peace. To the extent that the human is not an automaton, doctrine shared by all the faiths deriving from Abraham, the work of the Spirit of God can be seen in his response to the revelation he was given.

Introduction

There are three keywords in the thesis apart from its general subject: offence, relationship, and walls. The wall picks up the hope of the deutero-Pauline epistle to the Ephesians: For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us (2:14). The relationship is of the essence. If we cannot respect and learn to love each other, we can hardly say that we follow the commandments of God. The offence is my focus so that we might know ourselves and seek an alternative to our current behaviours.

These are references that outline the issue of offence:

Proverbs 18:19 A brother offended [is harder to be won] than a strong city: and [their] contentions [are] like the bars of a castle.

Isaiah 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (alluded to in Romans 9:32-33, 1 Peter 2:8)

Ecclesiastes 10:4 If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences.

Matthew 11:6, Luke 7:23 And blessed is [he], whosoever shall not be offended in me.

Matthew 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

John 16:1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.

I recognize at the outset that this is a huge undertaking and that there are serious problems in areas of mutual respect and even self-respect. Dialogue is already well begun by Hans Küng (see Bibliography below). But each of us must stretch in his own way. My first tentative steps are 

• to collect language about Jesus as imagery as recorded in NT and about God as in TNK.
• to collect the areas in the Qur'an that reference Jesus.
• to formulate a statement of the thesis based on NT images in conjunction with images from TNK,  
• to formulate what I see as areas of offence to Judaism and to humanity in general,
• to formulate what I see as the Islamic appropriation of both TNK and NT and areas of conflict.

The NT  statement needs to deal with the later formulations of Trinitarian doctrine by the Christians. The statement of offence needs to deal with the faith of the first century Jews according to the New Testament - how did they avoid offence? Why did they explain in the way that they did? The Islamic point of view needs to deal with the evolution of the experience of Christ in the first 6 centuries of the common era. Islam needs to deal with its own texts in a critical way - not to undo the fact of the experience, but to seek out the motives and messages more completely. Whatever truth they point to will emerge. And those things that are pointer only and not the essence will take their appropriate perspective. There are a few issues related to Islamic teaching in what follows, but they are not the main subject of my analysis at present.

It is immediately recognizable that my thesis and approach are centered on Jesus Christ. The bias is from a believing perspective. This is not to prejudge dialogue, but to clarify my bias. I wish to note also that I sometimes express the bias of what I see as a purely human view - without theological references.

WERFF, Adriaen van der, Sarah Presenting Hagar to Abraham, 1699 Staatsgalerie, Schleissheim.  It is abundantly clear that our world is fighting wars that date back 4000 years to Abraham's intercourse with Hagar and Sarah and that the focus of the battle is over the Holy places shared by three religions that all claim to look to Abraham as a model of faith. This image does not spare us a further question as to Abraham's motive.

From the Jewish point of view, their call recognizes the requirement for both justice and mercy in our actions. 

He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God. (Micah 6:8)

In a world where self protection is paramount, such obedience is difficult to achieve. 

From the Islamic point of view to quote a reading from a recent Advent service, the Qur’an calls humanity into a relationship of universal respect.

‘O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know and honour each other (not that you should despise one another). Indeed the most honourable of you in the sight of God is the most righteous.’ Surah Hujurat (No 49: verse 13)

And if anyone should agree with thee about this truth after all the knowledge that has come unto thee, say: “Come ! Let us summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and your selves: and then let us pray together humbly and ardently.” Surah Al-Imran (No. 3: verses 59-61)

[Note the above is not translated at all like this in one Web version of Qur'an. These verses follow the annunciation in book 3 and are quite negative in tone. "(59) Surely the likeness of Isa (Jesus) is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was. (60)  (This is) the truth from your Lord, so be not of the disputers. (61) But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our near people and your near people, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars."]

From a NT point of view, let us consider the hope expressed in the priestly prayer of Jesus in John 17

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

As with the exodus, God is concerned not only with those whose salvation he demonstrates, but also with those whose salvation he has not explicitly demonstrated (cf. What would the Egyptians say? as noted by Moses Exodus 32:12.)

The point of this is to fulfill the law of love. For the Jew, this is the establishing of Torah, for the law shall go forth from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:3, Micah 4:2). For Islam, the point is to be researched, perhaps the establishment of a righteous government. For the Christian, it is for the glory of their Saviour. It is not necessarily for the glory of any one person or religion. For all of us, whether Jew, Christian or Muslim, there is no established unity that we can speak in the name of. All religions are disintegrated, at odds within themselves as well as with other religions and the secular world. At this stage I will not go into detail, but consider just the following:

1. Christians are divided through schism whether from Rome or through more ancient differences.
2. Jews inherit the history and tradition of Israel, but not all tribes are represented politically. Galilee of the gentiles was part of the promised land, but only a part of Israel and united with Judea for a small part of its history. Today of course, divisions over secularism divide Jew from Jew much as divisions over Hellenism did in the Maccabean age.
3. Islam is likewise not unified. Divisions over power bases began early in its history. Sunni, Shiite, and Sufi find themselves unable to dialogue much as protestant and catholic in the Christian tradition.

This situation is neither unanticipated nor hopeless. In both the prophetic traditions of Israel and the NT, the tendency to divide or to protect oneself by forms of parochialism or tribalism is strongly noted and not exactly praised. Mercy provides a remedy. Curious then that Islam should name God the All Merciful, surely a positive and accurate note on which all these religions could agree.

Images of Jesus in the NT

Even a cursory skimming of the NT leaves no doubt as to who it is about. These many (more than 60) titles and roles are attributed to Jesus directly. I have divided them into twelve groups.

1. First Jesus is called Christ. This is a summary title concerning his humanity. As a title, it is Greek for anointed or Messiah in the Hebrew. Peter's confession (Matthew 16:16) puts another title in apposition: the son of the living God. Already early in the post-resurrection ministry of the followers of Jesus a link is made between his human role and what will come to be regarded as his divinity. A question remains as to what Peter's confession would have meant to an Israelite of the first century. Is it a reflection of Psalm 2:7? Is it the expected title of Messiah? It is not in the parallel passage in Mark, for example. Related to this is the attribution by John the Baptist, the one that should come (Matthew 11:13), and in Revelation (1:4, 1:8, 4:8): who is, who was, and who is to come. 
2. Then there are titles respecting his human lineage. Son of David (Matthew 1:1 and many others in the synoptics), Son of Man, Seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16), Son of Mary (Mathew 13:55), Son of Joseph (Luke 3-4:22, John 6:42), the carpenter's son. The first three have Messianic overtones, the last three identifying a particular human and his parents. The scandal of particularity is one we all have to deal with. As Nathaniel asks: "Can anything good come out of Galilee?" (John 1:46)  Or Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."
3. There are at least 14 titles respecting roles that could have been played by any human, but are applied to him also: teacher, healer, preacher, leader, physician, rabbi, master, faithful witness, bishop, apostle, shepherd, prophet, lawgiver, and servant - a favorite of Acts (e.g. 3:13, 26, 4:27, 8:26 ff). The servant motif is striking in Romans 15:8, where Paul describes Christ as "a servant to the circumcision", reflecting Matthew's written assertion of Jesus that "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (15:24). 
4. In his human role, he is uniquely the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2),  firstborn (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1, Hebrews 12:23), and firstfruits (1 Corinthians 15:20-23). In his human and divine roles, he is mediator of the new covenant (Hebrews 12:24), and even temple (John 3), and veil of the temple (Hebrews 10:20). 
5. There are several titles that link him to sacrifice: sacrifice itself (Ephesians 5:2), propitiation (Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2), Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7), Lamb of God (John 1:29,36 and Revelation), and High Priest (Hebrews 3:1).  The name Jesus is closely identified with the word for salvation in Hebrew. The salvation is effected through the sacrifices by substitution. These images result in many identifying other Levitical sacrificial rites with Christ (scapegoat, red heifer), but though comparisons are invited (Hebrews 10:1), they are not explicit in the NT. (From a purely human point of view, sacrifice meets a fundamental human need. All ancient cultures have followed it to some extent and for various reasons. As the hymn says, however, "Types and shadows have their ending, for the newer rite is here." Rite testifies to the power of the reality it points to. The liturgy of the Churches is effective. The people who discover this are filled with joy for themselves and on behalf of others. Even one who knows all mysteries or is carried away by such religious heights, may, by a simple error and a simple gift arising out of repentance, rediscover the meaning of an ancient guilt offering.) 
6. Closely allied with these, the sacrifice requiring an unblemished animal, he has attribute titles: Righteous One, Just One, Holy One of Israel - both attribute and political role. The most obvious political role is the title King of the Jews (both nativity and passion stories). The most tender human attribution is from God at his baptism, the Beloved, my Chosen One (Matthew 3:17). Perhaps this is a strong link to the role of Messiah - something to consider in determining what was expected from TNK and other writings.
7. Metaphorically, he is the vine (John 15:1,5). I.e. all Israel is taken up in his own body (Psalms 80:8). This corporate role allows all who believe to share his attributes.
8. Also metaphorically, he is the Bridegroom (Mark 2:19-20). This is an overarching personal role incarnated for each of us and noted in Romans 7 in a particularly poignant legal image. The legal analogy comes more into the foreground with the Advocate (1 John 2:1) and Judge (Acts 17:31, Romans 2:16, Revelation 19:11) titles which also belong under divine roles.
9. But before divinity, he is also in prison, sick, naked, ill - human roles by incarnation and creation. In this image, he takes into his body all humanity in all of its distress, allowing us to identify him easily outside of ourselves as well as comforting us in our situation, whatever it might be. Why then does he also have the overarching attribute of Rock of offence, or stumbling stone. This is contrasted with his role as cornerstone, head of the Church, his body (1 Peter).
10. In addition to these human roles, (does this sound like an introduction to an after dinner speech?), he is clearly given divine roles as well. As the obedient Adam, he does not forfeit them. First and in summary, he is Lord (There are so many references here, it is hard to know where to begin). This is a major issue, contrasting not only with Caesar as Lord (see e.g. Wright), but with YHWH as Lord, a serious conundrum for monotheism.
11. His divine roles also include Saviour (Luke 1:47 and Matthew 1:12, Acts 5:31 and others), Dayspring from on high (Luke in the Song of Zacharius), Baptizer (per John - he shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire), Judge, Advocate with the Father, Living Bread, Way, Truth and Life, Light, Door, Resurrection, Word (logos), our peace, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, Redeemer (Galatians 3:13, 4:5, Titus 2:14), Avenger, Son as used in John. (The writer of John's gospel appears to attribute the divine name 'I Am' to Jesus - especially 8:58.) And he is the  image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). (Colossians like Ephesians is considered deutero-Pauline, giving us perhaps a view from a generation later than Paul. The reminiscences of Aristotle in the family code suggest a Greek writer.) 
12. The role of baptizing with the Holy Spirit is one that bears special mention for it touches on the millennial schism between Orthodoxy and Rome. From whom proceeds the Spirit? The person of the Spirit is a difficult issue in the NT. It is like the Escher drawings in which inside and outside are both 'in' the drawing. 
13. One image occurred to me in responding to the failure of the peace in the Messianic age - the lion does not lie down with the lamb yet. Yet a lamb may lie with the lion of Judah. "And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof."
    

The hand drawing itself is a good example. In particular the image of Paraclete, used by Jesus as an implied image of himself (John 14:16) is one that appears at first sight to have no referent in TNK and no clear consensus among scholars. (See further below).

Images of God in TNK

This really is a large undertaking. The approach I will take is to show how the character of selected images used of Christ has a divine referent in TNK. While this is backwards thinking, I think it will move me forward eventually.

Some NT images of Christ are not used in TNK. The most striking is the Advocate usage (paracletos). I have analysed this below.

Some of the NT images for Christ are used exclusively of God in TNK. This is consistent with NT thinking but a serious concern for Jew and Muslim alike. One example: to whom every knee shall bow (Philippians 2:10, Isaiah 45:23). What symbolism is in the bowing of the knee? Is this a lesson in humility by enforcement or a lesson in adoration? Interesting to bear in mind that religious authority is another case of human interaction where we exercise power over one another. This is at the root of many interactions arising from our lives.

A second approach would be to examine the character of God in TNK and to see how consistent it is with the character of Christ Jesus. I am not considering a character based comparison at this time but the character of God as I have come to know it is contrary to the commonplace teaching that indicates that God's character is somehow inconsistent between the testaments. Peter Craigie is a worthwhile read on this. His statement that Deuteronomy is a book of love reads strangely among moderns but bears its truth when pressed. (The notion that the TNK is somehow reflecting an unworthy God is a variant of the Marcion heresy and it is cited by Christians in ignorance of the TNK. Ignorance is an inadequate basis for respect.)

Yet what effrontery! To think we might know the character of God. Why not, we are made in God's image. Have you been in the company of someone with whom you might even share genetic relationship but realize that you have less in common than you might have thought? In this case, you are in the company of one whose genetic inheritance is wholly other (as if such a thing could be!) and you find you have much more in common than you could have imagined. For God is Love - both in NT and TNK. Love is both just and merciful. The combination is antinomial toffee. (My use of antinomial is not to mean anarchic, or lawlessness, but the coincidence of opposites – two laws that contradict but must both be true. There are many such things worth a study in themselves.)

Shepherd

Shepherd has a mixed history in the ancient texts. In Genesis 46:34 we read "every shepherd [is] an abomination unto the Egyptians." But the title is also positively projected onto God, the stone of Israel (49:24). In a twist of fate, Moses, perceived as an Egyptian, saves the seven daughters of Jethro from some not so polite shepherds (Exodus 2:19). The image of Israel as sheep without a shepherd is common, (Numbers 27:17, 1 Kings 22:17, Ezekiel 34:5,8, Zechariah 10:2, Matthew 9:26, q Peter 2:25).

It is not a long step to the Lord as shepherd (Psalm 23:1, Ecclesiastes 12:11, Ezekiel 34:12) and many contrasts between good and bad shepherding for those whom God has appointed as leaders in Israel (Jeremiah 23:4, 25:34, 49:19, 50:6, Ezekiel 34:2, Zechariah 10:3, 11). The shepherd is the bridegroom in the Song of Solomon (1:7-8). The Messiah of the book of consolation (Isaiah 40:11), a passage made famous by the alto and soprano aria from Handel, is like a shepherd. Cyrus is the Lord's shepherd for Israel (Isaiah 44:28). The true shepherd actor behind the scattering and gathering is identified in Jeremiah 31:10: "He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd [doth] his flock." Ezekiel identifies one from the house of David who will be set up as a good shepherd (34:23, 24).

This alternation of the shepherd imagery from the Lord to the leaders, culminates in Zechariah 13:7. "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones." Who is 'My' shepherd that is smitten? To research: how Zechariah would have seen this.

The most striking passage about a shepherd occurs in the song of the wine press in Isaiah 63. This is an almost Trinitarian passage(!) involving one who comes up from Edom soaked in blood, herald of the day of vengeance, and year of redemption. The author's sudden switch to memory of the loving kindness of God brings us face to face with the contradictions of our lives from violence to love. It is a heartfelt plea for redemption. "We have become like those over whom thou hast never ruled, like those who are not called by the name."

It is this name that I am searching for. What name are we ruled by - violence or mercy? "Our Redeemer is your ancient name" (63:16).

GIOTTO di Bondone No. 2 Scenes from the Life of Joachim: 2. Joachim among the Shepherds 1304-06 Fresco, 200 x 185 cm Cappella Scrovegni (Arena Chapel), Padua A certain shrewdness can be seen in the eyes in this image of shepherds - so that one could have shepherds both good and not so good.

Redeemer

Redeemer has a large history in TNK. It was the responsibility of the next of kin to redeem land or property if his brother got into trouble (Leviticus 25:25). The Lord God was considered the redeemer (Psalm 19:15, 78:35, Proverbs 23:11, Isaiah 41:14, 43:14, 44:6, 44:24, 47:4, 63:16). Was this because he redeemed his people from their enemies?

Rock

Rock is used in a number of images in TNK. It is the rock that was struck in the desert, and water flowed from it. This rock got Moses into trouble, resulting in the lawgiver's being allowed to see but not to enter the promised land. Rock is the place of sacrifice. Rock is an image for the Lord (e.g. among many Psalm 18:2). The rock is a place of safety and stability, a fortress, strength. It is one of the most common images of the Lord in the Psalms. Moses is hidden in the cleft of the rock as the glory passes by. The beloved is in the cleft of the rock. (Song 2:14). The rock of offence or stumbling stone is used of God in Isaiah 8:14.

Saviour

Saviour is used of human deliverers (Nehemiah 9:27). And also of the Lord, again extensively in deutero Isaiah (43:3, 43:11, 45:15, 21 and so on). The degree of emphasis on Isaiah is clear in the NT. I wonder if the relative importance of Torah over Haftorah is an issue in dialogue between Jews and Christians.

Bridegroom

Isaiah 62:5 For [as] a young man marrieth a virgin, [so] shall thy sons marry thee: and [as] the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, [so] shall thy God rejoice over thee.

Holy One

Another image from Isaiah, but also in Psalms of Messiah (16). Isaiah 54:5 combines several of the prior titles: For thy Maker [is] thine husband; the LORD of hosts [is] his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

Judge

Used both of human judges and of the Lord: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? (Genesis 18:25).

VERMEER VAN DELFT, Jan, Woman Holding a Balance, 1662-63 National Gallery of Art, Washington

Other subjects to consider in TNK: Shield, an image not used in the NT, Warrior (El Shaddai), Most High, Provider (YHWH Jireh), Angel of the Lord, Captain of the Lord's Host. And other Theophanies.

References to Jesus in the Qur'an

As with Christianity, there is much on the internet about Islam that is of mixed value. The note that follows would show Islam as a form of Docetism. http://www.jaring.my/pas/harakah/semasa/1041b3e08.html

This one works to convert a Muslim to Christ. http://www.farsinet.com/jesusinislam/indexe.html

Some doctrines offend Islam also. e.g.  the Trinity, original sin. This area needs considerable study due to the success of Islam and the godly hospitality of its adherents. Somehow we must get beyond doctrine - I think this can only be done with better doctrine. 

http://al-islam1.org/inquiries/7.html is a little more informative. Some of the other chapters are quite amusing. (Knowledge does not grow on trees!). If literalism is one form of misunderstanding is figuratism a form of understanding?

http://fox.nstn.ca/~ihussain/JesusInIslam.html is remarkable, reasoning from a more theological point of view and perhaps expressing a modern view of the most ancient disagreements within Judaism itself in the first century about Jesus.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Gilchrist/Vol2/5a.html has the following interesting conclusion.

The end result in the Qur'an, however, is that its image of Jesus does not coincide with its dogma. It denies his deity and crucifixion clearly enough yet, in its acceptance of Jesus' unique birth, ascension and second coming and in some of the exclusive titles it attributes to him, it most certainly contradicts itself. These features and titles lose their meaning when Jesus is no longer acknowledged as the Lord and Saviour of the world. They seem to have no real significance and one finds Muslim writers more eager to explain them away than to truly understand their implications.

http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/legends.htm#V - many legends of Jesus - post crucifixion.

I have not followed these issues closely for the moment. The message of the messenger is, however, incomplete with respect to the NT images of Jesus. There is no reconciliation of historical error. If there is any truth, we must learn to discern what it is. Dialogue is not meant for conversion from one religion to another. But dialogue and learning may help each of us to complete our discipleship for God and turn to him as Malachi 3:7 so neatly summarizes.

"Return to me, and I will return to you," says the LORD.

The practical statistics in the following article are disturbing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37263-2001Dec28.html

A more fruitful approach in reading the prophet of Islam is to look at the character of God portrayed. There is some real irony in the message and a character of the human that indicates an awareness of limitations and a relationship to his God that may be worth exploring. For example: 

2:138 - 140 (Receive) the baptism of Allah, and who is better than Allah in baptising? and Him do we serve.

Say: Do you dispute with us about Allah, and He is our Lord and your Lord, and we shall have our deeds and you shall have your deeds, and we are sincere to Him.

Nay! do you say that Ibrahim and Ismail and Yaqoub and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Are you better knowing or Allah? And who is more unjust than he who conceals a testimony that he has from Allah? And Allah is not at all heedless of what you do.

Clearly from these verses, the Jews and Christians (and the Book) are defined to the prophet of Islam, and he has an argument with them and with his own people. He expresses the argument as if an external prophet to each of the peoples of the Book. Questions: what baptism is he speaking of? What testimony is he concerned about concealing? Is the comment about Allah not being heedless a threat or a commendation? As with many of the oracles, the context must be inferred before any meaning can be attributed to the text.

Equally, as with many of the oracles from TNK and NT, the meaning is not plain till the context is inferred. Nor is plain meaning necessarily correct whether in the modern or primitive mind. But the mind as created and nurtured must be dealt with - either grown or corrected or displaced. Some aspects of the task ahead are not attractive.

NT Statement

What is the offence in the name of Jesus? 

Why is the rock of Christ, the cornerstone of a new living temple, an offence?

There is a human element in offence. Jesus said: "Woe unto the world because of offences." How strange that the woe Jesus spoke fell on himself. (I look upon the woes whether of Matthew (or the many of Revelation) as primarily describing the sufferings of the Messiah. They are a proclamation of what is past not of a future. It is he who descended into Hell. True we bring woe upon ourselves also, but even that woe can work to good if we learn how that process works.)

Is the offence in Christ the statement of his pre-eminence? Pre-eminence is offensive to most of us. If anything, both NT and TNK teach us that we are not pre-eminent. And why? What child does not want to be the centre of attention? But we know in our maturity, that if we were a  prophet worth listening to, we would not claim our own pre-eminence, nor do we even have to insist on the pre-eminence of Jesus, who was himself content to take the lowest place (reminiscent of the teachings of Lao Tsu - but this is beyond our scope).

Is the offence in Christ his divinity perceived as claim? Does the NT put him forth as divine? Well, I believe it does for the citations earlier listed. So am I to have it both ways? Not insist on His pre-eminence even to the capitalization of pronouns and allow him, that is Jesus,  to be proclaimed as if he were God himself. This is I believe the truth in both cases - he is fully human, was born, lived, died like us, perhaps the child of a war rape. And he is fully divine, demonstrating the perfection of God's love in all respects (Colossians 1:19) - and this documented and proclaimed by humans as real as you and I are real, vulnerable, weak, and subject to all claims of self-interest in every aspect of their writings. Yet these same writings, now treasured by us earthen vessels were collected and stamped with the seal of council approval three hundred years after the events they describe, and provide an insight into a character which stands out among all characters in history as the heart of all that we would desire without pre-eminence were we always of sound mind and gentle spirit. And not only this attractiveness, but if we dare conform ourselves in obedience to his suffering and death, we find that reality responds in ways that recreate our time and redeem our past. We find an intimacy in the unknown that presents itself to us in tenderness beyond what we could ever have imagined. In this act of communion to us in the Spirit, God shows us the Glory of Christ and Christ shows us the Glory of God. Whom he addressed as Daddy, we address likewise. He who was proclaimed as bridegroom is our bridegroom. The Song of Solomon writes this as plainly as possible. The mystical nature of God's desire for us is intimated by Jew, Christian, and Sufi alike when they call him Beloved. Know you not, says James, reflecting the Song, how jealously he desires the spirit which he has caused to dwell in you. (James 4:5 - a disputed translation from that straw epistle as Luther called it).

This too is an offence. For I, male, have used male language and I have cast us in the role of female. There are female images of God in TNK and NT, mother eagle teaching her chicks to fly (Deuteronomy 32:11), mother hen gathering her chicks (Matthew 23:37) but they would not. I am told that the Spirit (ruah) of TNK is a female form of a noun. There can be no exclusion of the female, and no superiority of the male in salvation. Nevertheless the preponderance of Scriptural imagery of God is male as noted in prior sections, and no amount of special pleading will undo this fact of history and text.

In a word, the problem with pre-eminence is that we are not in charge.

The pre-eminent divine male

The strongest NT statements concerning Jesus in his divine roles are in John 1 and Hebrews 1. These alone, two great poems, establish Jesus as fulfilling 

1. the desire of the current generation. Philo, Egyptian Jewish contemporary to NT writers (died c 50), writes on the Logos, the subject of John 1 though John is also thoroughly rooted in the wisdom literature (e.g. Proverbs 8).
2. the expectations of prior generations as reflected through the psalms, Torah and former prophets quoted in Hebrews.

As I noted earlier: the NT  statement needs to deal with the later formulations of Trinitarian doctrine by the Christians.

Trinity 

Trinity is not a direct teaching of NT or TNK, but all images of God can support it from both testaments. Why is it a surprise that diversity and relationship can exist in the unity of God? Does not the Bible begin with a plurality in Elohim? Why should the 'us' in 'Let us make the human in our own image' be a 'royal' we? God is not an abstraction with no expressive capacity. The pagans did as well in theory. Now Trinity is theory with its persons, or hypostases, precessions, and single substance. And how dry it is compared with the poetry of John 14-16 that supports it. The person of the speaker: Jesus, the one whom the disciples loved, was to leave them - for their own good. But he would return - not the glorious second coming, but the tenderness of intimate communion with the recipient of his return in the person of the Advocate (paracletos 14:16), or Comforter (strengthener), who is Jesus himself (14:18), the Spirit, the Father and the Son together (14:23). The same Spirit proceeding from the Father (15:26), sent by the Father (14:25) and the Son (15:26, 16:7) has as his task to glorify Jesus (16:14).

ANDREA DEL CASTAGNO, The Holy Trinity, St Jerome and Two Saints, c. 1453 SS. Annunziata, Florence

CARAVAGGIO, St. Francis in Ecstasy, c. 1595, Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, Connecticut

All these verses predate the Trinitarian doctrine and are as superior to that doctrine as seeing a Caravaggio painting is to a description of it. Here too we see Jesus as the one who baptizes with the Spirit.

I was surprised the variations of usage of the image of Paraclete. One article pointed to Michael the Archangel, Daniel's help. http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com/Smith/main/births/archangel_michael.html Another pointed to Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam. How does this fit into the tradition of Israel? I am not willing to accept magical invocations of any kind. (Allah himself respects the arrow of time.) http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/scriptur/faq-bibl.htm

Quoting from this article underscores the problem of wordy communication:

"If one was to honestly look at the historical records of the Great Religious Teachers, and try to discover *He* "a male salvific figure"; that came after Jesus, taught "all things", spoke of Jesus and his teachings, he would but have to point his finger to the prophet of Islam. The Christian traditions have indeed "confused" this "male salvific figure" with "Spirit", in spite of the fact that the word "Spirit" (Greek, 'pneu'ma'), is of a neutral gender and is *always* referred to by the pronoun "it". Below is a direct quote from the world famous 'The Anchor Bible' published by Doubleday & Company, Inc, Garden City, N.Y. 1970.

'Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit, but scholars like Spitta, Delafosse, Windisch, Sasse, Bultmann, and Betz have doubted whether this identification is true to the original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit.' (page 1135).

"Al-Hamdulillah, what a mighty statement of truth."

I think this is not only out of context, but like all propaganda, it has a self-damaging side. The problem of circularity cannot of course be completely avoided by anyone. We all have to be aware of the bias of our own hermeneutical circle. But this sort of confusion will have to sort itself out to some extent. Eventually, tests of reality will show the error.

Whoever these scholars are that are cited above, and I confess I don't have time or patience to examine all questions, is Paraclete really new? First, it was not likely a word that Jesus used, since it is not likely that he spoke Greek. But even then, why would the author of the fourth Gospel use it? Is it in the Septuagint? (It's passive form is not. The active form is used to describe Job's comforters!) Traditionally it has been interpreted in its context. The full meaning of the Comforter - indeed the Comfort - in the Latin sense of Strength - which comes from God alone is best seen from John 16. 

John 16: 8-12 is the passage that reveals the role most clearly. Jesus said: when the Paraclete is come to you, he will show the world how wrong it was about sin, and about righteousness, and about judgment. About sin, proved because they refused to believe in me; about righteousness, because I go to my Father, and you see me no more; about judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

In a story I have written, the character Gaius writing to a formerly indentured servant whom he loved, about 50 years after the crucifixion says: 

"I am stumped as to how I can explain it to you. Such words must seem almost meaningless. Someone said to me once that my letters were good grammar but they could not get the meaning from it. Now here is what John wrote and what I remembered for you and I am stumped to explain or even to know why I have remembered it."

This is the first conundrum of this text. How do we explain what cannot be explained, but what must be pointed to. Indeed, can we even point to it if all of us a trapped in our own little circles. The problem with all talk about God of any sort is that appeal to experience that it seems cannot be shared. But if it could not be known, there would be no point - and we know this is not the case, for our hope is not pointless, even if it is only the strangeness of the direction of the arrow of time, or the purely anthropological sense of meaning which most humans share and which expresses itself in our most basic consideration for others in the laws of hospitality, which reach back into all cultures.

Now Gaius goes on to explain the problem:

"This is my trial: the world - and I include us - does not understand why Jesus was crucified. The world does not believe in him. The coming of the Spirit to one who believes proves these three things to have been true:

1. that God is love, but we could not accept him as our lover; this is showing us how wrong we were about sin. You can't really appreciate the former sin until after you believe and the Spirit informs you. What a difficulty! - You don't believe so you don't know. But how will you know since you have to believe to know!

2. that love is vindicated even when it is rejected; that Jesus has gone to his Father through his death. Why would we be happy that we see him no more. Because again the presence of the Spirit changes everything. We know in this case that there is a new thing in the world and we are changed by it. That's the third point:

3. that the principles by which we judge in the world are forever changed by this vindication.

If I were to explain the writer of John, whoever he is, and even if I were to say that this farewell discourse never took place as described, I would still have to try to understand why the author chose these metaphors to express his faith. Here are his direct attributions concerning the Paraclete:

• he is 'another' advocate or comforter - the implication is another 'like Jesus' not different from Jesus
• he is the Spirit of truth
• the world does not accept because it does not see him or know him
• we know him, with us and in us.

Immediately the author of John moves the focus back on Jesus who says 'I will not abandon you' - identifying himself with that other Paraclete by apposition. Then back to the Paraclete:

• he is the Holy Spirit
• sent by the Father
• teacher
• brings to memory all Jesus teaching.

Then the author again points to Jesus who concludes that even though the world cannot receive the Spirit, that he wants the world to know that he loves the Father. This is consistent with the thesis that God loves the world and that even though the disciples can receive the Spirit, they are like the world unable to in some respect. In my story, Gaius sees himself both as world and as chosen. Both as not seeing and as receiving and seeing. The universality of the gift is as it was for Moses as noted above. There is no room in religion for parochialism, even though our religion is also the protective cultural blanket we grow up in from our most fragile and vulnerable beginnings.

Then again (15:26, 16:8 ff) the Paraclete:

• is sent by Jesus from the Father
• testifies about Jesus
• proves the world wrong about sin, righteousness, and judgment
• guides into all truth
• speaks what he hears (not on his own authority - but by implication, he has authority)
• tells the disciples what is to come
• glorifies Jesus
• receives what belongs to Jesus and tells it to the disciples

Again in 16:16, the author brings focus to Jesus - a little while you will see me no longer; again a little while, you will see me.

And we come to the explanation - by analogy to the woman in travail - there cannot be any full explanation any more than Escher could draw his own hands completely. Yet we do have the hands! We have Christ as example, Christ as baptizer, and ourselves as the etched material allowing the hands to be seen, to be touched, and to touch.

Now given these roles, we can ask - is there a prior exercise of these roles within the tradition of TNK?

Many have pointed out the structure of the word, paracletos. In the Greek it is 'para' along side + 'cletos' called. The Latin Advocate (ad-vocare) has a similar structure. Both words are used in legal contexts. The functions above go beyond the legal and include those that strengthen the disciples. Within the Hebrew language, a word that plays a similar role is 'naham' meaning to comfort. Removing the modern notion of comfort and console as molly-coddling terms, both naham and paracletos can be seen as parts of a strong and growing description of a relationship. This is taken up for example in the statement about Simeon in Luke 2:25 that he was looking for the 'consolation' = 'paraklesin' of Israel. That reference resonates with the many verses in the prophets that pick up the consolation of God for his people. For example much of deutero Isaiah from its first verse (Isaiah 40:1). Comfort ye, Comfort ye my people. (Isaiah 49:13, 51:3, 12, 19, 52:9, 54:11,57:18, 61:2). Several passages in Ezekiel use this term referring to the consolation of the remnant for Israel (14:23) to Israel as a consoler of Sodom (16:54).

Isaiah 61:2 is the verse after the one that Jesus read in the synagogue as recorded by Luke (4:21). Jesus stops before reading this passage because the year of judgment was to fall on him first before the consolation was to come. This whole section is rich in imagery and very suggestive of the divine promises of consolation to be fulfilled with Christ.

It is not a large step to another analogy of comfort, the role that Nehemiah (Hebrew Jah is comfort) plays in the rebuilding of the second temple and as go between for the returning exiles and the administration in Babylon. It might be an interesting exercise in typology to see him as the anti-type of the Holy Spirit as described in John. This is not the sort of interpretive framework that I wish to follow. It is often a remarkable tapestry, but it tends towards a loss of the human history in the original story.

Nature of Time

To have met Christ Jesus in his flesh is not possible for us within our current space-time continuum constraints. To meet him as Judge is expected by Christian and Muslim if they know of this doctrine. But what is the content of this 'expectation'?  In understanding time, we are not as advanced as we might think. When does judgment happen? Past and Future being therefore out of scope, can one 'meet' Christ in the Spirit in the Present? One might expect if trained in Christian piety that to meet him, the servant of the circumcision, or the Spirit of the Qur'an, or the Advocate, would change the heart. However, this kind of piety does not see the offence and is not sensitive to the problem of Christian action in history, however much stated to the contrary. The very strength of the Christian doctrine must be tempered with a willingness to give up that strength. Does the NT demand that a Jew or Muslim become Christian? How could it when Christian is barely a term of the NT. But, the objection continues, to meet one who is in the heart of God, in the bosom of the Father, is to meet love. Whoever meets love must not reject it ultimately for do we not all want the law of God written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31)? This is exactly a part of the problem, but it will not be solved by special pleading. It is only solved by action. We do, then we understand as the Israelites said to Moses concerning Torah.

Can we then 'meet' Christ? We are supposed to meet him through those who believe. And sometimes we do in spite of their stumbling. Those who believe are meant to be read as "an epistle written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart" (2 Corinthians 3:3). Here Paul is claiming to have been the instrument that precipitated a change in heart in the Corinthians and that it was brought about by the Spirit of God. Paul is here speaking to Gentiles. While there were also Jews in the Corinthian congregation, their status as covenant people was not questioned. Do we then have a two-tier salvation structure? God forbid! But we are back to the problem as originally stated and its second question: how did the Jews - or at least some Jews - avoid the offence in the proclamation of Christ crucified? But first to the epistle from Paul to the world through the Corinthian heart.

Are we to be read as we have read Christ? Could we have read better? Or did we learn piety "from a book", as Manuel said in Faulty Towers. This is not to condemn the weakness of the book, but rather of the reader. Manuel's English improved, did it not?

Holy Spirit

Barth, (Church Dogmatics I.I 470) quoted in Frymer-Kenski et al defines Spirit as "the act of communion between the Father and the Son". Having not read Barth except for his commentary on Romans a long time ago (at least 30 years), I do not know his derivation of this attractive phrase. It appears to me that what is true theologically should also be expressible anthropologically. (At least I find this stretch to understand within me so as to be able to try to explain the truths that I have experienced to someone who does not share my studies.) The stories that have come to us in our traditions are meant to communicate with us - as Paul says in Romans 15 - to give us hope. In this sense they are a spiritual act of communion between our ancestors and ourselves - upon whom the end of the world has come.  You can see that by this play of language, I am inviting an understanding even wider than the faith of Abraham. It encompasses the Christian doctrine of the communion of Saints and the veneration of ancestors in Eastern traditions. It comes out of the first commandment with a promise, namely the one to honour our parents.

What then is said about Christ that writes itself on the tables of our hearts? This is the law of love, which reaches out in respect to all that it encounters and which is universal in all cultures. The difficulty is how shall we gain the power to do this law. In the Hebrew tradition, the power comes from the relationship with the God who 'brought them out of the land of Egypt'. In the NT, in a similar way, Paul's paraenesis or exhortation in each epistle follows from the statement of the gift of Christ to the congregation he is writing to. Exodus is one of the images used in the NT for the death of Christ (see Luke 9:31 on the transfiguration where the Greek is 'exodus' - only in Luke is the connection made).

I have not found it possible to express this transcendent power in anthropological terms. What comes close is the love that parents have for children and vice versa, in other words, the basis for all cultures. But the power of family, or culture, or nation, or ideology is insufficient for the good of all, though it is a limited good. The statement of death - whether in the Red sea and Jordan journey of Moses and Joshua (death by water, the stones on the bed of the Jordan river) or in the death of Jesus - has a power in it similar to the transference and catharsis of psychotherapy. If one has died, one can no longer act in the old way. Then God is free to act in us in a new way. While this has some explanatory power and is symbolized in baptism (whether of John or of the Christian tradition), the result depends still on faith in a transcendent power. (Islam has some of this power in its very name suggesting submission to Allah and peace.)

To return to the titles of Christ. He is given them because he fulfilled this law of love. His sacrifice is perfect - as the Eucharistic prayer states it - a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice and oblation for the sins of the whole world. As we do this, we will read better and be read more easily.

Messiah

Are there other potential sources of offence? What is the expectation of the Messiah as the NT sees it? This question runs the risk of hijacking the TNK to make it say what one thinks the NT wants it to say. A dangerous circularity. These are the kinds of arguments that are poignant but circular: Messiah suffered; this can be seen from the troubled history of Israel (Lamentations); from Psalms like Psalm 22; and from the servant songs of Isaiah. Messiah will triumph - all the cited items can be seen from this point of view. But is it a 'just you wait' triumph? The ultimate vindication - a projection of the worst of the human spirit onto the deity? Personally, I find this imputation of motive more offensive than most. Psalm 2 is triumphant - but does it only lead to counter-terrorism?

Peter calls Jesus the Christ, the son of the living God. In this he is picking up a Messianic theme of the Psalms:

The king in Psalm 2. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 

The Lord in Psalm 110. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

This of itself is also a very large issue. Does one expect a king to be other than powerful? If enemies are to be made his footstool, are his feet tender and beautiful? or is this position of humility only given in love?

This triumph we do not yet see, as the letter to the Hebrews so clearly points out, but we see Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. There are some who are offended at the issue of deliberate human sacrifice as attributed to God, especially a God you have come to trust. This is a delicate issue. Kung attempts to step around it by showing it as an explanation after the fact. I think the offence is wrongly stated. The issue as always is power. Our power over each other can be a contradiction of love. Those who deny the need of sacrifice or fail to impute the potential for terror to the Most High do not know the depth of their own power and how it may be expressed. We know we do not justify the sicarii, ancient or modern, for attempting to achieve their ends by any violent means. (The kingdom of heaven is taken by violence!) The use of the sacrificial motifs of TNK in the NT is profound and moving, but hardly a justification of divine child abuse. Did God know in advance? This also begs antinomial questions. To what extent does the omnipotent and omniscient God respect the arrow of time and the cloud of unknowing in which we find ourselves? But to return to the question of sacrifice, a related question: why are there those who want to resume animal sacrifice? And why are there those (Islam) who celebrate it every year when they sacrifice the lambs to remember the near sacrifice of Ishmael (for Islam it was Ishmael whom Abraham took to Mt Moriah, not Isaac)? What does this say about deity? According to TNK itself, it is foolish to attribute to God any need for such behaviour on our part! (E.g. Psalm 50 among others: 

If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.
Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?
Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High:

This sentiment is also seen in the prophets, e.g. Isaiah (1:12 ff).

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

And Amos 5:21 ff:

I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.
Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.
Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.
But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

In other words, God through the prophets has already made the point that the psychotherapeutics are criticizing. The people are, of course, slow to hear. But the Jews of the first century who believed in Jesus heard.

Another major offence to Jews is the abrogation of the law. That is at least in part the dispute over circumcision, well documented in the epistles and the Acts. The completeness of the sacrifice of Christ also fulfills all requirements for following the practice of circumcision rendering this external sign of death superfluous. This conclusion was a surprising result of my story writing. I have not subjected the result to any rigorous scholarly analysis apart from reading the texts of the epistles (e.g. Colossians 2:11) and noting that there is considerable dispute in the first century about the continuance of the practice. I surmise that this was the cause of some of the visibly public disputes such as the decree of Claudius banishing Jews from Rome c 49 CE or the dispute taken to Gallio in Corinth c 51. The compromise seems to have been that Jews would continue the practice of Torah observance in all aspects (Acts 21:20 ff) but that it was not necessary for gentile believers (Acts 15). There is a continuing dispute over this. Perhaps the first century Jewish believers were not looking sufficiently far forward into the future to see the implications of their compromise. That is worth a second look, for apart from emergency medical reasons, there is no need for circumcision to know the fullness of God's mercy and to be included in the assembly of the firstborn (a phrase from Hebrews that nicely evens the playing field). Jewish primacy is not threatened for salvation comes from the Jews, but the issue is very contentious.

There are additional images used in the NT that help explore some of the interpretation of Christ by NT writers. To what extent were these images properties of the expectation of the time? To what extent were they imposed, transformed, by Jesus and the community that succeeded him in the Spirit? Examples: 

CARAVAGGIO Madonna with the Serpent 1606 Oil on canvas, 292 x 211 cm Galleria Borghese, Rome Artists through the centuries have maintained graphic portrayals of the substance of offence in the person of Christ. Here the most vulnerable crushes the head of the serpent fulfilling the prophecy in Genesis 3:15.

1. Who is 'My' shepherd that is smitten? How would Zechariah have seen this? 
2. The Word, Images of Wisdom and the Logos; The expressive nature of God (see Kung + Proverbs 8). 
3. Bridegroom - who is married to whom?
4. Seed of Woman - cf rev 12:17 - not followed up, but an image of Messiah in the TNK (see Caravaggio above).
5. And much more could be said of the Servant in Isaiah

Avoiding offence?

How did the first century Jews who wrote the New Testament avoid offence? Why did they believe? As we have seen, the NT uses imagery from TNK to express the Jesus that they knew. Did they believe because they expected just such a Messiah after having corrected their false impressions of a King who would trounce the Romans? Or did they write and search the Scriptures for imagery because of an unexpected fulfillment of their heart's desire?

Looking at each of the major offences noted in this essay: 

• The offence of the ordinary - of the particular - Is this not the carpenter's son?
• The offence of the pre-eminence of the firstborn
• The offence of gender
• The offence of crucifixion - Cursed is the one who hangs on a tree
• The offence of doctrine - Trinity, Original Sin, Divinity
• The offence against tradition and the law

• The offence of violence attributed to the heart of God

The first century Jews knew a life in colonial submission with a foreign King or foreign governors, procurators and so on, where patronage was the only way to comfort and few achieved such privilege - and they also knew a life with internal disputes over doctrine in several main sectarian subdivisions. Doctrinal disputes also related to purity of ritual and governmental policy, since the temple was bank, church, and government all rolled into one. Perhaps they would be offended by things differently than we would, but I think there is still much that we share.

(The ordinary view) If God is to appear in history, would (hashem) not appear with violent fire and whirlwind, and not as a vulnerable human, naked and exposed to death? 
(The view from the Chosen) If we are chosen first, does our pride prevent us from seeing the pre-eminence of the chooser? 
(The view from the one who submits) If the life of God submits to us, should we not in our weakness know also the power that comes from submission?

These first three questions touch on the defining of God. In our human life, we cannot know some things. Logic fails. Proofs fail. Certain mathematical theorems are known to be not provable. Some problems in information theory are not computable. There is too much information. We humans have a marvelous inference engine and organizational capacity, but to say we have all knowledge (as Paul does in 1 Corinthians) is surely specific to one area or hyperbole. It is still hyperbole even today, thousands of years later in time. We attribute to God all knowledge - omniscience. This is a theoretical postulate. If God already knows everything, including my future, then why should I do anything? The question is the wrong one. Both TNK and NT ask a different question: since God has chosen to love, why should I not learn the same from this teacher? Their answer touches on all the things that humans seek first other than love. Each one is true in the sense of plumb, a straight line, in that they tell stories that teach us what we are really like - and that we need a power greater than our own to achieve success in these lessons. For Israel, the power comes from the story of the Exodus and the Promised Land. For the NT, the power comes from the death and resurrection of Christ through whom both gentile and Jew are justified by the obedience of faith. (Romans 3:30). 

The next three offences all touch on doctrine. What shall we teach ourselves about the love that we know? I have already touched on the interplay in John chapters 14 to 16 that underpins a doctrine of Trinity - but Trinity is a formula - not the experience of worship. Original sin likewise is a doctrine, and one that is misunderstood. It is the experience of fear and violence in our lives. We find ourselves in a situation where our vulnerability is not safe. Our response of violence is writ large in history whether personal or corporate. Is there any way to say that the stoning of prostitutes should come to an end? In this Judaism, Christendom, and Islam all have still to learn that violence is not the way that God has chosen for human growth. Smaller stones will not do as a solution. Though correction is required of us all, our incapacity to cope with some problems that we perceive in others requires a change in ourselves and our governing structures, as well perhaps in them. Whatever our doctrine about God, it will reveal our doctrine about ourselves as well if by nothing else bu the mechanism of projection. If our doctrine on humanity is insufficient to the complexities our our being, our communities, and human concepts such as justice and mercy, then the God worshipped will have proven too small for our use.

Is there violence in the heart of God? In Ezekiel 33, the people complain that God is not just because he lets the sinner repent.

Yet the sons of your people say, 'The conduct of the Lord is not just,' when it is their conduct that is not just. 

We complain against God that he is not just. The psychologist complains that God is a type of Moloch (Leviticus 18, 20). He practices child sacrifice himself. Just look at the near miss in the story of Abraham's sacrifice. The Hebrew root MLK, (King) describes a cult of the nations that practiced child sacrifice. The sacrificial rites of animals are a substitution for this death of the firstborn. We see the image alluded to in the feast of the Passover also. It is not that God is unjust, but that we are unjust. We can change our ways. 

The King of Love my Shepherd is
Whose goodness faileth never
I nothing lack if I am His
And He is mine for ever.

This poem, based on Psalm 23, combines in adoration some of the images we have seen above. How can anyone be a king of love? King implies authority and power. You cannot legislate love or establish it by force. Yet love projected onto God in defiance of the violence in which we find ourselves immersed allows us to see why the ancients were moved and not offended. Not only had they seen with their eyes and touched with their hands the incarnation of love, they knew that whatever else the TNK was telling them, its tradition and power had to be seen in submission (Islam) to this demonstration of Salvation (Jeshua in Hebrew).

Is there also a corresponding gospel message in each offence?

• of the ordinary - that the ordinary is charged with Glory
• of the pre-eminence - that there is a real order
• of gender - that love is stronger than death
• of crucifixion - that some tasks are completed
• of doctrine - that the mind can be fully engaged in the puzzle
• against tradition and the law - that grace exceeds the guilt of the law

• of violence - that God is Love

Is there an offence depending on the nature of the faith of the individual? I am struck by the number of differing approaches to the faith that happen in any tradition: the pious obedience, the simple need, the formal, the literal, the literary, the legal, the faithful. All these are manifestations of the use or abuse of human power. Each type of person can offend the other without being aware of it. The first and foremost issue is the faith of Abraham. If we walk in that faith, then we will not stumble. We have agreement in doctrine on this in all three traditions and scriptures. A study of the use of prayer to God in TNK and NT reveals a growth of a tradition of prayer from cultic, to intercessory (through Moses and Samuel) to individual (practice of the Pharisees for instance) to commanded (by Jesus, exhorted by the Apostolic tradition), to the intercessory roles of Christ and the Spirit (Paraclete). Notwithstanding all these religious practices, Abraham, who 'walked with God', represents the most striking model of maturity. His responsive dialogue is pre-cultic, pre-legal, requires no intercessor, and is not self-seeking. God has in Abraham given us a model of himself. In his image we all are made. Let us strive to perform the truth here. In his striving, we have a model of Jihad and a model of the willingness to conform himself even to death in the sacrifice of his son.

...

To be continued.

Influencing Works - see bibliography.

• http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/wright.htm Paul's Gospel and Caesar's empire, 2001 Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton
• My notes on Paraclete were aided by Marcus Tomalin, doctoral student in computer voice recognition at Cambridge
• The sermon below shows how imagery can be used - it is a comment on John 19:25-27. I am neither a Jew nor a Roman Catholic, but the exercise of imagery in praise of God is the essence of both Midrash and worship. Perhaps in our dialogues we will cease from literalism and rejoice in the gift of the Transcendent.

Home | Story | Timeline