Comparative Theology
04 Comparative Theology — Ephesians (Full Book) for Arabic
Purpose and Method
This document surveys how each of the nine curriculum doctrines is interpreted across Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Islamic (mainstream), Hindu, Buddhist, and secular perspectives, with a dedicated column for the destination culture’s dominant tradition — the specific Arabic-Islamic context (mainstream Sunni theology as popularly practiced, folk piety, Sufi resonances, and the lived experience of the Arab Christian minority) that shapes how an Arabic-speaking reader will actually hear each doctrine. This column goes beyond the generic “Islamic (Mainstream)” column to surface region-specific collision points, bridge concepts, and existing Arabic Christian vocabulary (Van Dyck/NAV tradition) that translators should leverage. Every doctrine below is cross-referenced to doctrine_risk_registry.json and 11_doctrine_analysis.md; risk tiers here are descriptive of comparative-theology sensitivity and are not a re-assignment of the registry’s translation risk tiers.
Doctrine 1: Salvation by Grace through Faith (Ephesians 2:1-10)
| Tradition | View |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Monergistic: salvation is entirely God’s gift (النعمة), received through faith (الإيمان) alone, apart from works (أعمال). Assurance is available now. |
| Catholic | Grace-initiated justification, but ongoing growth in righteousness involves human cooperation with grace through the sacraments and works of charity (per Trent); assurance of final salvation is held more provisionally. |
| Orthodox | Synergistic theosis: grace enables and empowers free human cooperation in a lifelong process of deification; less forensic, more participatory than Western frameworks. |
| Jewish | No NT concept of salvation apart from covenant faithfulness; right standing comes through Torah observance (mitzvot), repentance (teshuvah), and God’s covenant loyalty (chesed) — grace and obedience are paired, not opposed. |
| Islamic (Mainstream Sunni) | Deeds (a’māl) are weighed on the mīzān at Judgment; God’s favor (fadl/rahmah) is real but responsive to obedience/submission (islām). No assured salvation prior to death. |
| Arabic-Islamic Destination Context | Folk piety reinforces khawf wa rajā’ (fear-and-hope) as the correct posture toward one’s own fate; openly claiming assurance of salvation can be perceived as ghurūr (presumption). Some Sufi strands speak of divine love (maḥabba) and grace (fadl) in warmer, more relational terms — a partial linguistic bridge — but even these remain inside an obedience-responsive framework. Arab Christian communities (Coptic, Syriac, Maronite, Evangelical) already possess an indigenous, centuries-old vocabulary for grace (النعمة) through the Van Dyck tradition; translators should lean on this existing heritage rather than innovate. |
| Hindu | Liberation (moksha) pursued through jñāna (knowledge), bhakti (devotion), or karma (right action) yoga; some bhakti schools affirm divine grace (prasada) toward devotees, but within a cyclical (samsara) cosmology fundamentally unlike a one-time forensic verdict. |
| Buddhist | No creator God to grant grace; liberation from suffering (nirvana) is pursued through one’s own disciplined effort on the Noble Path. The concept of unmerited grace has no real parallel. |
| Secular | Reframes “grace” as unconditional self-acceptance or psychological affirmation, and “works” as self-actualization; the transcendent, forensic dimension is dropped entirely. |
Agreement/Divergence: Broad cross-tradition agreement that human beings need some form of rescue or transformation; sharp divergence on mechanism — gift versus achievement, one-time verdict versus ongoing weighing or process.
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: النعمة must never be allowed to soften into “God is generally merciful, so I am probably fine” (the fadl/rahmah default); عطية (“gift,” 2:8) must not read as a reward correlated with prior piety; أعمال صالحة (2:10) must never be heard as the ground rather than the fruit of salvation.
Sensitive terminology: النعمة, الإيمان, عطية, أعمال / أعمال صالحة, الخلاص (all per baseline/Ephesians glossary; see 08_core_glossary.md Doctrine 1).
Doctrine 2: Election and Predestination in Christ (Ephesians 1:4-5, 1:11)
| Tradition | View |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Internally diverse (Reformed unconditional election vs. Arminian conditional foreknowledge), but agreement that God’s choice “in Christ” is gracious and Christ-centered, not merit-based. |
| Catholic | Affirms predestination (Aquinas, Trent) while strongly resisting any reading that removes genuine human free cooperation; held as mystery in tension with free will. |
| Orthodox | Emphasizes divine foreknowledge operating synergistically with human freedom; resists rigid predestinarian determinism; prefers “foreknew” over “unconditionally decreed.” |
| Jewish | No individual-soteriological parallel; the closest concept is the corporate election of Israel as a covenant nation, not a personal choice unto eternal salvation. |
| Islamic (Mainstream Sunni) | Qadar — God’s comprehensive prior decree/writing of all things, including belief and unbelief, recorded on al-Lawḥ al-Maḥfūẕ (the Preserved Tablet); one of Islam’s six articles of faith, contested between Ash’ari (near-total determinism) and Mu’tazili/Maturidi (greater human agency) schools. |
| Arabic-Islamic Destination Context | Everyday speech is saturated with fatalistic idiom (“maktūb,” “it is written,” “qadar Allāh”), popularly detached from any specific redemptive purpose. This creates real risk that التعيين السابق (predestination) is heard as generic fate-talk rather than God’s Christ-centered gracious purpose. The Ash’ari/Maturidi scholastic debate over compulsion (jabr) versus human “acquisition” (kasb) can provide an entry point for careful theological conversation but must not be allowed to reframe Ephesians’ argument as a contribution to that internal Islamic jurisprudential dispute. |
| Hindu | Destiny is shaped by karma accumulated across rebirths, not a single sovereign choice by a personal God; some bhakti (especially Vaishnava śaraṇāgati, “taking refuge”) traditions affirm a kind of divine election of devotees — a partial, imperfect bridge concept. |
| Buddhist | No divine chooser; conditions arise through dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), shaping rebirth impersonally, not through personal election. |
| Secular | Reframed as the philosophical/scientific determinism-versus-free-will debate, with no redemptive purpose implied. |
Agreement/Divergence: Wide agreement that a transcendent power or impersonal law shapes human destiny; sharp divergence over whether that shaping is personal, gracious, and Christ-centered (Ephesians) versus impersonal, exhaustive, and outcome-neutral (folk qadar) or karmic (Hindu/Buddhist).
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: التعيين السابق must not collapse into impersonal qadar fatalism about all life outcomes indiscriminately; it must retain its specific redemptive, Christ-centered, gracious content.
Sensitive terminology: اختيار الله, التعيين السابق, الدعوة (see 08_core_glossary.md Doctrine 2).
Doctrine 3: The Church as the Body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23, 4:4-16, 5:23-32)
| Tradition | View |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Primarily the spiritual, invisible union of believers with Christ and one another; the visible/institutional church expresses this but does not exhaust it. |
| Catholic | A visible, hierarchical, sacramental Body with the Pope as visible head under Christ; formalized as the “Mystical Body of Christ” (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi). |
| Orthodox | The Body realized supremely in the Eucharistic, liturgical communion of the local bishop-centered church; strongly sacramental and synodal. |
| Jewish | Closest parallel is Israel/kahal (assembly) as covenant community; no christological “body” concept exists. |
| Islamic (Mainstream Sunni) | The ummah — the global community of all Muslims, bound by shared submission to Allah and to the sharī’a-based legal-religious system, not by baptismal or spiritual union with a divine mediator. |
| Arabic-Islamic Destination Context | Everyday usage of الكنيسة (church) in majority-Muslim Arabic-speaking societies often denotes the physical building of a legally-recognized minority religious community (historically a millet/dhimmi-era institutional category) rather than a living organism; translators must actively reinforce the organic, Spirit-animated, non-institutional sense. الأمة must never be borrowed for “church” — it is specifically the pan-Islamic community and would create a false structural equivalence between church and ummah as competing sociopolitical blocs. |
| Hindu | No single ecclesial body; disciples organize loosely around a guru and lineage (sampradāya) rather than an organic corporate union sharing one divine life. |
| Buddhist | The sangha (monastic and lay community) is the nearest analogy — a mutually supportive community pursuing the same path — but without the organic “one body sharing Christ’s life” claim. |
| Secular | ”Church” reduced to a voluntary religious association, social club, or registered nonprofit institution. |
Agreement/Divergence: All traditions recognize some communal structure organizing shared religious life; the specifically organic, Spirit-indwelt “body” metaphor with Christ as animating head is unique to Christian traditions and has no true equivalent elsewhere.
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: جسد المسيح must not be read as merely institutional, nor should الكنيسة be reduced to a building; the church must not be presented as structurally analogous to the ummah.
Sensitive terminology: الكنيسة, جسد المسيح, الرأس, الملء (see 08_core_glossary.md Doctrine 3).
Doctrine 4: Unity of Jews and Gentiles in One New Humanity (Ephesians 2:11-22, 3:6)
| Tradition | View |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Fulfillment theology: the church incorporates believing Jews and Gentiles as one people in Christ without erasing ethnic identity; views diverge (dispensational vs. covenantal) on ethnic Israel’s future role. |
| Catholic | Affirms one Body in Christ while, since Nostra Aetate (1965), officially affirming the continuing validity and mystery of God’s covenant with the Jewish people, softening earlier supersessionist tendencies. |
| Orthodox | Similar fulfillment emphasis, with strong liturgical typological continuity between Israel and the church. |
| Jewish | Generally rejects the claim that Gentile inclusion in Christ fulfills or supersedes Jewish covenantal particularity apart from Torah observance; does not accept Jesus as the one who accomplishes this unity. |
| Islamic (Mainstream Sunni) | The ummah is already explicitly trans-ethnic (Qur’an 49:13), but this unity is grounded in shared submission to Islam, not in a crucified and risen Messiah; superficial resonance with “one new humanity” must be actively disambiguated. |
| Arabic-Islamic Destination Context | Extremely politically loaded: “Isrā’īl” is overwhelmingly heard as the modern nation-state, not primarily the biblical people (per baseline “israel” glossary note). Ephesians 2’s redemptive-historical unity claim must be framed with deliberate pastoral care so it is never read as commentary on, or a position within, the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This doctrine also has real pastoral power for Arab Christians who live daily as a minority “other” alongside a majority Muslim Arab identity — the “no longer strangers and aliens” language (2:19) speaks directly and helpfully into that lived experience. |
| Hindu | Caste (varna/jāti) functions as a structurally comparable but theologically unrelated boundary-marker system; no framework exists for its transcendence through a singular savior figure. |
| Buddhist | The sangha in principle transcends caste and ethnicity through renunciation — a partial functional analogy, but without covenantal or messianic content. |
| Secular | Reframed as universal human-rights/equality discourse, stripped of christological grounding. |
Agreement/Divergence: Most traditions affirm some form of universal human dignity or trans-ethnic community in principle; Ephesians’ specific claim is that this unity is achieved exclusively and concretely through the cross, which no other tradition affirms.
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: Must not be flattened into a statement about the modern political conflict; must not be read as structurally equivalent to ummah unity through shared law-observance.
Sensitive terminology: إسرائيل, الأمم, الإنسان الواحد الجديد, الختان (see 08_core_glossary.md Doctrine 4).
Doctrine 5: The Mystery of Christ Revealed (Ephesians 1:9, 3:3-9, 5:32, 6:19)
| Tradition | View |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Mystery = a truth previously hidden but now fully and publicly disclosed in the gospel (Gentile inclusion, Christ-church union); no remaining esoteric layer for an elite. |
| Catholic | Affirms the disclosed mystery of the gospel but also uses “mystery” (mysterion/sacramentum) more broadly for the sacraments as ongoing sacramental participation in a divine reality not fully exhausted by cognitive disclosure. |
| Orthodox | Strong theological use of mysterion for the sacraments and for God’s ultimately apophatic, ineffable nature even amid revelation — real tension with Ephesians’ emphasis on full public disclosure that must be carefully handled. |
| Jewish | Closest category is razei Torah (“secrets of the Torah”) in Kabbalistic tradition — esoteric, progressively unveiled to select mystics, not publicly disclosed to all nations. |
| Islamic (Mainstream Sunni) | Al-ghayb — the unseen, knowledge reserved exclusively to Allah (Qur’an 27:65); this is the direct theological opposite of Paul’s disclosed mystery and the primary collision risk for this doctrine. |
| Arabic-Islamic Destination Context | Beyond al-ghayb, Sufi esotericism (‘ilm al-bāṭin, hidden inner knowledge reserved for spiritual initiates) offers a second, closer-sounding but still distinct resonance risk. السر must be translated and taught so that it clearly reads as good news publicly proclaimed to all nations — the maximal opposite of both ghayb and Sufi bāṭin — rather than an elite or initiatory secret. |
| Hindu | Certain schools (Tantra, some Vedānta lineages) reserve esoteric knowledge (guhya, rahasya) for initiated disciples under a guru — a partial structural parallel to “mystery-as-secret” that Ephesians explicitly inverts. |
| Buddhist | Some Vajrayāna transmissions involve secret teachings passed privately from master to disciple — again a “hidden knowledge” parallel that Ephesians’ public-disclosure sense reverses. |
| Secular | ”Mystery” reduced to an unresolved scientific or philosophical question, with no revelatory content. |
Agreement/Divergence: Several traditions have a category for hidden, elite, or progressively-unveiled sacred knowledge; Ephesians’ distinguishing claim is that its “mystery” has been fully and publicly disclosed to all people through the gospel — a structural inversion, not a variation, of those other categories.
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: السر must never be presented as unknowable, Allah-reserved, or initiate-only; it is the opposite category.
Sensitive terminology: السر, إعلان (see 08_core_glossary.md Doctrine 5).
Doctrine 6: Spiritual Warfare and the Armor of God (Ephesians 2:2, 3:10, 6:10-20)
| Tradition | View |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Affirms real personal spiritual forces (Satan, demons) opposed through prayer, Scripture, and moral vigilance, framed as already-defeated foes under Christ’s supremacy; range from cessationist caution to charismatic deliverance-ministry emphasis. |
| Catholic | Affirms real demonic forces alongside a developed exorcism ministry/rite, used together with ordinary sacramental and moral means of resistance. |
| Orthodox | Strong ascetical tradition of spiritual warfare (nēpsis, watchfulness) through prayer, fasting, and sacramental life; demonic reality taken very seriously in monastic literature. |
| Jewish | Belief in Satan/demonic figures present but far less doctrinally developed than in Christianity; much of modern Judaism de-emphasizes personal demonology. |
| Islamic (Mainstream Sunni) | Rich, widespread belief in jinn and Shayṭān/Iblīs as real, active supernatural agents; extensive folk and some orthodox practice of ruqya (Qur’anic recitation for protection or exorcism) as a ritual countermeasure. |
| Arabic-Islamic Destination Context | This is a genuine bridge concept — shared belief in an active, personal spirit world — but also the single highest collision-risk point in the whole book. Hearers may naturally assimilate “the armor of God” into a ruqya-style protective-formula framework, or into folk practices involving amulets (tamīmah, themselves religiously contested even within Islamic jurisprudence). The armor must be explicitly taught as an already-secured, Christ-defeated-the-powers moral and relational reality (built from truth, righteousness, faith, salvation, the gospel, and the Spirit’s word) — never a new set of protective incantations. |
| Hindu | The cosmic battle between devas and asuras offers a mythological parallel; personal “spiritual warfare” is more commonly framed as an inner battle against ego/māyā pursued through yogic discipline. |
| Buddhist | The struggle is against ignorance and craving (the three poisons) rather than personal evil spiritual beings, though the tempter-figure Māra offers a partial narrative parallel. |
| Secular | ”Spiritual warfare” reframed as a metaphor for psychological or moral struggle, or social/structural injustice, with no literal supernatural referent. |
Agreement/Divergence: Strong surface-level agreement between Christian and Islamic contexts on the reality of an active spirit world — genuinely useful common ground — but sharp divergence on the appropriate response (already-accomplished victory appropriated by faith and moral vigilance, vs. ritual countermeasure/recitation practice).
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: سلاح الله الكامل must not be marketed or taught as parallel to ruqya or protective amulets; military/jihad-adjacent vocabulary must be explicitly bounded as non-violent and spiritual only.
Sensitive terminology: سلاح الله الكامل, الرياسات والسلاطين, إبليس/الشيطان (see 08_core_glossary.md Doctrine 6).
Doctrine 7: Household Codes and Christ-Centered Relationships (Ephesians 5:21-6:9)
| Tradition | View |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Range from complementarian (differentiated but loving headship) to egalitarian (mutual submission as the controlling norm) readings; broad agreement the passage must be read through Christ’s self-giving pattern (5:25). |
| Catholic | A complementary, hierarchically-ordered but charitable family order, reinforced by natural-law reasoning and sacramental marriage theology. |
| Orthodox | The family as a sacramental “small church”; headship framed within eucharistic, self-sacrificial love, echoed in the Orthodox marriage rite’s own use of Ephesians 5. |
| Jewish | Distinct household and family structures shaped by halakha (marriage contracts/ketubah, family-purity laws); no christological grounding for the analogy. |
| Islamic (Mainstream Sunni) | Household roles explicitly codified in fiqh, notably Qur’an 4:34’s qiwāmah (male guardianship/authority) language and fixed inheritance/guardianship rules; superficially resonant with “headship” but grounded in legal guardianship, not a self-sacrificial christological model. |
| Arabic-Islamic Destination Context | Among the most pastorally sensitive doctrines for this destination culture. Existing patriarchal and tribal honor-based family norms create real risk that 5:22 (“wives submit”) is read in isolation, reinforcing existing power structures, while 5:21’s mutual submission and 5:25’s radically self-sacrificial “husbands, love your wives” command (historically countercultural in the Greco-Roman world and still countercultural in many contemporary Arab household contexts) must be given their full original rhetorical weight, never softened or quietly omitted. The bondservant/master material (6:5-9) requires explicit historical framing to avoid being heard as tacit endorsement of contemporary labor-exploitation patterns, including regional domestic-worker sponsorship (kafala-type) systems. |
| Hindu | Household duties defined by gṛhastha āśrama (householder stage of life) and dharmic codes (e.g., Manusmṛti-derived); a structurally parallel household-code genre but non-christological in grounding. |
| Buddhist | Lay ethical codes (e.g., the Sigālovāda Sutta) address reciprocal household duties, but without the marriage-as-Christ/church typology. |
| Secular | Household codes viewed critically through a modern egalitarian/human-rights lens; risk that the passage is dismissed wholesale as patriarchal without engaging its historically radical reciprocal-love content. |
Agreement/Divergence: Most traditions have some household-code genre assigning reciprocal duties; the distinguishing claim of Ephesians is that every role is re-grounded in Christ’s self-giving love, a norm no other tradition’s household code shares.
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: 5:22 must never be isolated from 5:21’s mutual-submission frame or 5:25’s self-sacrificial love command; 6:5-9 must not be read as endorsing contemporary exploitative labor structures.
Sensitive terminology: يخضع, الرأس, عبد/سيد (see 08_core_glossary.md Doctrine 7).
Doctrine 8: Gifts for Building Up the Church (Ephesians 4:7-16)
| Tradition | View |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Diverse views on the continuation of apostleship/prophecy today (continuationist vs. cessationist), but agreement that gifts serve the church’s mutual edification, not individual status. |
| Catholic | Charisms affirmed alongside, and operating within, the institutional hierarchy and sacramental offices. |
| Orthodox | Charisms recognized but subordinated to the liturgical, sacramental, and conciliar life of the church; less emphasis on individually itemized “gift lists.” |
| Jewish | No direct parallel category; closest analogues are rabbinic teaching roles, with the prophetic office widely understood as closed after the biblical prophets. |
| Islamic (Mainstream Sunni) | No charismatic-gift framework; religious authority is scholarly/juridical (the ‘ulamā’, muftī, imām), grounded in study and credentialing rather than Spirit-given enablement. |
| Arabic-Islamic Destination Context | ”Evangelist” (مبشّر) intersects directly with real, live apostasy-law and social-consequence concerns in many Arabic-speaking contexts (per baseline “evangelism” doctrine note) — this is a genuine safety consideration for speakers and hearers, not merely an abstract theological one. The office of “prophet” (نبي) must be handled with particular care given the khātam al-nabiyyīn (Seal of the Prophets) doctrine; hearers may reflexively read any NT use of “prophet” as implicitly competing with, or already superseded by, Muhammad’s finality claim. |
| Hindu | Spiritual authority and gifts (siddhi) are typically associated with a guru’s personal attainment, transmitted individually to disciples, not corporately distributed for a body’s mutual benefit. |
| Buddhist | Teaching authority rests on a monk’s or teacher’s attainment and lineage transmission, not on Spirit-given giftings distributed across a lay community. |
| Secular | ”Gifts” reframed as natural aptitude, talent, or professional specialization, stripped of supernatural enablement. |
Agreement/Divergence: Most traditions recognize differentiated religious authority/roles; the distinguishing claim here is that gifts are Spirit-given to ordinary members of the body for mutual up-building, not credentialed through scholarly study or attained through personal spiritual achievement.
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: المواهب must always retain الروحية; “prophet” must not be presented in a way inviting direct comparison/competition with Muhammad’s finality claim; evangelism vocabulary must be handled with explicit awareness of real safety stakes.
Sensitive terminology: المواهب الروحية, نبي, الرسول, مبشّر (see 08_core_glossary.md Doctrine 8).
Doctrine 9: Walking in Newness of Life (Ephesians 2:2, 2:10, 4:1, 4:17-24, 5:2, 5:8, 5:15)
| Tradition | View |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Sanctification as ongoing, Spirit-empowered transformation flowing from an already-completed justification; “walk” is progressive obedience rooted in a secured identity. |
| Catholic | Sanctifying grace cooperating with human will in an ongoing process of growth in holiness, integrally tied to sacramental life (confession, Eucharist). |
| Orthodox | Theosis — progressive, lifelong participation in the divine energies transforming the whole person; strongly resonant with the ascetical tradition’s own language of spiritual “progress” or “path.” |
| Jewish | Halakha itself literally means “walking” — a comprehensive way of life defined by Torah observance (mitzvot); a genuinely close linguistic-conceptual parallel, though grounded in Torah rather than in a Spirit-given new nature. |
| Islamic (Mainstream Sunni) | Tawbah (repentance/turning back) and improved practice within an unchanged, continuously pure fiṭrah-based self; moral renewal is behavioral course-correction, not an identity transformation via new birth. |
| Arabic-Islamic Destination Context | The Jewish halakha parallel above notably does not carry over into the dominant Islamic context in the same way; instead, tawbah’s behavior-reform framework is the operative cultural default and must be explicitly distinguished from Ephesians’ new-creation, new-identity claim (2:10, 4:22-24) — this is a change of nature, not merely of conduct. Note that the word سلوك itself is religiously neutral and safe in everyday Arabic (used broadly for “conduct/behavior” in secular and religious contexts alike), so the risk here is entirely doctrinal-background, not lexical. |
| Hindu | The dharmic “path” (mārga) of right conduct within one’s station in life (varṇāśrama dharma), typically tied to karma/rebirth outcomes rather than a decisive, one-time identity change. |
| Buddhist | The Noble Eightfold Path as the “walk” toward liberation — self-directed, gradual purification of mind and conduct, not a Spirit-given new nature. |
| Secular | ”Walking in newness of life” reframed as habit change, personal growth, or ethical self-improvement, with no transcendent reference. |
Agreement/Divergence: Many traditions share the “walk/path” metaphor for a way of life; the distinguishing claim of Ephesians is that this new walk flows from a completed, Spirit-given change of identity and nature (2:10, 4:24), not from sustained self-effort applied to an unchanged self.
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: السلوك must be rendered consistently across all seven occurrences to preserve the book’s before/after argument; must not be flattened into generic tawbah-style behavioral reform.
Sensitive terminology: يسلك/سلك, الإنسان العتيق/الإنسان الجديد, مخلوقون (see 08_core_glossary.md Doctrine 9).
Cross-Doctrine Summary: Terms Requiring the Greatest Interpretive Care in the Arabic-Islamic Context
| Term/Concept | Why It Is Uniquely Sensitive Here |
|---|---|
| السر (mystery) | Direct theological inversion of al-ghayb; also resonates with, and must be distinguished from, Sufi bāṭin esotericism. |
| سلاح الله الكامل (armor of God) | Highest bridge-and-collision doctrine in the book; risk of assimilation into ruqya/amulet practice. |
| الرأس (headship) | Must retain the self-sacrificial 5:25 pattern across all three occurrences (1:22, 4:15, 5:23), against the backdrop of Qur’an 4:34’s qiwāmah guardianship model. |
| التعيين السابق (predestination) | Risk of collapsing into folk qadar fatalism, detached from Christ-centered redemptive purpose. |
| مقتدون بالله (imitators of God) | Direct collision with tanzīh; God, not only Muhammad, is presented as an imitable model. |
| التبني / الميراث (adoption / inheritance) | Runs directly against Qur’an 33:4-5 (adopted sons denied full status) and the codified, gender-differentiated Islamic inheritance formulas (Qur’an 4:11-12). |
| إسرائيل (Israel) | Contemporary political weight requires deliberate pastoral framing separate from redemptive-historical argument. |
| كلمة الله (word of God, 6:17) | Identical to the Qur’an’s own title for Jesus (4:171); requires explicit disambiguation. |
This document extends the baseline Romans 04-equivalent comparative analysis and must be read alongside 08_core_glossary.md and 11_doctrine_analysis.md for full doctrinal and lexical detail. It does not alter any risk tier, term rendering, or review routing established in doctrine_risk_registry.json or translation_memory.json.