I disagree that the means of connection between non-Israelites and Jesus is purely through identifying with a narrative. In fact, such an identification cannot be made, because the narrative - according to the terms with which you describe it - belongs to no-one else but Israel.

The word ‘purely’ is your word not mine. I said ‘primarily’, which is very different. I think that the narrative approach is potentially very powerful, but I also outlined secondary ways beyond the narrative that we today connect with Jesus’ death. Since you apparently missed that paragraph, I’ll quote it here:

But there is still the sense that anyone who today responds to the call of God to be part of his people makes the transition from the old world to the new, from the macrocosm to the microcosm, on the basis of Jesus’ death. It still gets personal. We still put ourselves under the lordship of one who made himself a servant, humbled himself to the point of death, for the sake of the future of the people of God. We become part of a people that was redeemed from its sins, rescued from complete annihilation, through the death of Jesus. We can hardly be complacent about that

Nor, for the sake of clarification, did I talk about ‘identifying with a narrative’. What I said was that ‘we have a narrative link with Jesus’ death that we celebrate in the last supper in much the same way that Israel celebrated the Passover’. The point is not that we identify with the narrative, though that would not perhaps be inappropriate. It is that we are connected to Jesus’ death by the narrative - or better, we are members of a community that is defined by the narrative.

It is also not true that non-Israelites are necessarily excluded, according to the terms of my interpretation, from a narrative that focuses on Israel. Isaiah envisages the participation of foreigners, in various ways, in the salvation of Israel - that is part of the overall narrative. And Paul argues that Gentiles become descendants of Abraham on the basis of faith, thereby dealing with precisely the problem that you raise. The narrative about national Israel is situated in the narrative about Abraham. But these developments are not part of the Gospel narratives, which, as far as I can see, account for Jesus’ death only within the framework of the story of the judgment and restoration of Israel.

There is too much in the rest of your comment to address now and much of it we have argued over before. The issue is not whether YHWH was merely a local deity, or whether Israel’s mission was global, or whether Gentiles become part of God’s people on the basis of Jesus’ death. The issue is how the cross fits into the narrative.

As a summary of the New Testament I think your statement ‘We enter Israel’s story by direct, personal and corporate encounter through faith in the Jesus who died for the sins of the world’ is misleading; it is the product of later theological reflection rather than of exegesis. That doesn’t mean it is not true, just that it oversimplifies the New Testament argument.

It seems to me that we are much closer to the New Testament view of Jesus’ death if we regard it in the first place as a death for the sake of Israel’s sins, the sins that brought the nation under judgment, in need of forgiveness, and made it liable to destruction. That is how it is presented in the Gospels and Acts. It is also, I think Paul’s argument in Romans. He sets the case of Israel against the backdrop of human sin generally in order to explain why Israel was bound sooner or later to come under judgment. But it is nevertheless the promise of the one true God to Abraham that is ‘saved’ by Jesus’ faithfulness. Because Jesus died as an atonement for Israel’s sins, the descendants of Abraham will inherit the earth - that is where the universal themes come into play.

Redemption is not simply accomplished, as Andrew suggests, through the saints following the example of Jesus in patient endurance of suffering.

Again, this is not what I am saying. You have added the ‘simply’. I repeat: Jesus’ death is interpreted as an atonement for Israel. But much of what he says about his own suffering has the effect of drawing the disciples into his story, because they will face the same opposition - they will have to take up their cross. The New Testament does not, as far as I am aware, suggest that the suffering of the disciples has the same atoning significance, but it certainly sees it as an extension of Jesus’ story.