God Of Peace Research Articles

Prefigurative Peace in Philippians

Paul refers to peace twice in Phil. 4:7 and 4:9. This paper argues that the peace of God is a prefiguration of the eschatological peace to come in God’s world. It is be proposed that as Philippians is dealing with a social order (i.e., that of life in Christ) that is distinct from the dominant social order of the Roman empire or that of the colony of Philippi, political implications are at the very least a corollary of what Paul is writing to the Christ devotees in this city. The main points that will be argued are that peace is best understood as a key dimension for God’s upcoming new world that is already present “in Christ”. The Philippian community is called upon to stand firm in Christ (Phil. 4:1), which is, due to devotional and ethical practices, to result in the experience of God’s peace or the God of peace. This must be understood as both a present and a future reality. Accordingly, the Philippian community can be seen as prefiguring God’s future world by inhabiting this world now already in their communal life.

God of War, God of Peace: The Political Ambivalence of Christianity in American Foreign Policy

Over the past twenty years, the field of international relations has belatedly come to recognize the importance of religion in shaping international outcomes. Much of this work concerns the idea of the “ambivalence of the sacred”—the idea that religious actors hailing from the same religious tradition sometimes pursue radically different politics, and that religious individuals and communities of faith draw on their beliefs to make sense of the political world in profoundly different ways over time. So far, explanations for political outcomes have centered on two different levels of analysis: the individual level, known as the “first image” in international relations, and the state level, known as the “second image.” First image explanations point to the political theologies held by individuals who seek to steer foreign policy in a direction in line with their faith beliefs.1 Second image explanations show how relations between religious and political institutions—and in particular...

The Syntactic Flexibility of 1 Corinthians 14:33b

Abstract This article discusses the syntactical position and function of 1 Cor 14:33b (“as in all the churches of the saints”) in its immediate context. Internal evidence reveals that verse 33b does not have a smooth syntactic connection to either the preceding (“God is a God of peace”) or the following clause (“women should be silent”). The purpose of this study is to illuminate the syntactical function of verse 33b and its place in 1 Cor 14. Verse 33b has been counted by some scholars, for example, Jan Willem Straatman and Johannes Weiss, as the work of a Pauline editor (along with vv. 34–35). I aim to determine whether the hypothesis of Straatman and Weiss can be justified concerning verse 33b. In the first part of the article, I survey the way the critical edition NA28, SBLGNT, and the tools for the syntactic analysis of the Greek New Testament present 1 Cor 14:33b. Next I outline several proposals in the scholarly literature concerning the position of verse 33b, which result in seven different exegetical readings. Finally, I discuss the syntax of verse 33b and compare it with similar phrases found in 1 Corinthians.

Dialogue and the "culture of encounter" as the part to the peace in the modern world (in the light of Pope Francis course)

Dialogue and the "culture of encounter" as the part to the peace in the modern world (in the light of Pope Francis course)

‘De God van de vrede’ in het Nieuwe Testament

‘The God of peace’ in the New Testament. Why does the New Testament use the expression ‘the God of peace’ and what is the meaning of this phrase? In the Old Testament, the God of Israel is often connected with peace, but he is never called ‘the God of peace’. Not until the Hellenistic period is this expression sporadically found in Judaism (once in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and once in Philo). As for the biblical Umwelt, the gods of the ancient Near East were not very peace-loving, and in the perception of Greco-Roman culture the god of war, Arès/Mars, as one of the twelve Olympians was much more prominent than Eirènè/Pax. However, the expression ‘the God of peace’ is found several times in the Corpus Paulinum and once in the letter to the Hebrews. This article investigates all New Testament texts that have this formula, suggesting that the apostle Paul could be responsible for the wording. In conclusion, Paul states that the God of Israel desires to establish a definitive peace in his creation through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ and by finally defeating all powers of evil. This apostolic message further indicates that Christians are supposed to be bearers of peace, promoting a peaceful atmosphere in their environment and in the world.

Satan, the Serpent, and Witchcraft Accusations: Reading Romans 16:17–20a in Light of Allusions and Anthropology

Scholars debate whether the reference to Satan in Rom 16:20a should be identified with God's supernatural adversary or with Paul's opponents described in 16:17–19. The latter position is preferred for two reasons. First, while most scholars agree that that there is some sort of allusion to Gen 3:15 in 16:20a, the entire pericope—16:17–20a—contains language that reflects Gen 3. Paul utilizes language and motifs from the Eden narrative in order to compare the tactics of his opposition to those of the serpent. When Paul says that “the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly,” this reference to Satan presupposes the allusion to Gen 3 in Rom 16:17–19 and indicates that Satan should be identified with the opponents. Second, Mary Douglas's anthropological model, grid and group theory, is applied to explore the social tensions between Paul and his opposition. Paul uses what Douglas calls a “witchcraft accusation” by demonizing the opposition with satanic labels. The application of this social science model reinforces the conclusion that Satan should be understood as human opponents rather than a supernatural enemy.

Satan, the Serpent, and Witchcraft Accusations: Reading Romans 16:17–20a in Light of Allusions and Anthropology

Scholars debate whether the reference to Satan in Rom 16:20a should be identified with God's supernatural adversary or with Paul's opponents described in 16:17–19. The latter position is preferred for two reasons. First, while most scholars agree that that there is some sort of allusion to Gen 3:15 in 16:20a, the entire pericope—16:17–20a—contains language that reflects Gen 3. Paul utilizes language and motifs from the Eden narrative in order to compare the tactics of his opposition to those of the serpent. When Paul says that “the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly,” this reference to Satan presupposes the allusion to Gen 3 in Rom 16:17–19 and indicates that Satan should be identified with the opponents. Second, Mary Douglas's anthropological model, grid and group theory, is applied to explore the social tensions between Paul and his opposition. Paul uses what Douglas calls a “witchcraft accusation” by demonizing the opposition with satanic labels. The application of this social science model reinforces the conclusion that Satan should be understood as human opponents rather than a supernatural enemy.

"The God of Peace" in the New Testament

"The God of Peace" in the New Testament

The reign of peace.

This commentary on A New Chance of Human Peaceableness? affirms Elise Boulding as an eminent scholar, educator, advocate, practitioner, and believer in a God of peace. There are two parts to this commentary: (a) peace is in the heart, and (b) peace is at hand. The first part takes up the concepts of peace, harmony, and conflict from a feminist viewpoint. It cites how inner peace is achieved in the healing process of survivors of exploitation. It gives credit to Elise Boulding as a peace educator who draws from traditional practices and woman's culture. The second part focuses on the signs of hope that substantiate Kenneth Boulding's statement, What exists is possible. These are current happenings such as (a) taking a stand as citizens, (b) mobilizing grass-roots, advocacy and service-oriented nongovernmental organizations, (c) forging global partnerships to meet supranational challenges, (d) having wider support for a stronger United Nations; and (e) imaging among faith communities.

Book Review: The God of Peace: Toward a Theology of Nonviolence

Book Review: The God of Peace: Toward a Theology of Nonviolence

Commotion along the IJssel and by the Waal a.d. 1561 and the riddle of a pseudonym in the Family of Love

[The author re-examines what Dr Maria E. Kronenberg wrote in Het Boek, 28 (1944/6) on the booklet printed by Petrus Elsenius, 'tparadyss'. Appendix I states that a commission of clergy had concluded that the content offended against 'Clerical (read: Christian) dogma.' Its heretical nature was confirmed in their judgment that 'much had been added and taken away' - on which see Revelation 22:18f. In the reprint of her essay in Over mensen en boeken (1961) Dr Kronenberg wrote that Prof. H. de la Fontaine Verwey had afterwards suggested to her that the title of the booklet could perhaps have been 'Het Paradijs des Vredes' (p. 105 n. 2). In support he referred to Marnix's Ondersoekinge ende grondelijcke wederlegginge..., ed. Toorenenbergen, vol. II (1873), pp. IIf. There, between Hendrik Nicolaas and Hiel and therefore no doubt as belonging to the Family of Love, Marnix discusses an author who called himself Otheos Hymas. He rightly mocked this Greek, if his translation 'Our God,' in his opinion the spiritualist self-description of this man, is correct. The author proposes to make this Greek acceptable by perceiving in this name a reference to I Thess. 5:23 '... ho theos tes eirenes (!) hagiasai hymas', 'The very God of peace sanctify you', perhaps a blessing with which he used to begin and end his addresses to his listeners, transformed into a nickname., The author re-examines what Dr Maria E. Kronenberg wrote in Het Boek, 28 (1944/6) on the booklet printed by Petrus Elsenius, 'tparadyss'. Appendix I states that a commission of clergy had concluded that the content offended against 'Clerical (read: Christian) dogma.' Its heretical nature was confirmed in their judgment that 'much had been added and taken away' - on which see Revelation 22:18f. In the reprint of her essay in Over mensen en boeken (1961) Dr Kronenberg wrote that Prof. H. de la Fontaine Verwey had afterwards suggested to her that the title of the booklet could perhaps have been 'Het Paradijs des Vredes' (p. 105 n. 2). In support he referred to Marnix's Ondersoekinge ende grondelijcke wederlegginge..., ed. Toorenenbergen, vol. II (1873), pp. IIf. There, between Hendrik Nicolaas and Hiel and therefore no doubt as belonging to the Family of Love, Marnix discusses an author who called himself Otheos Hymas. He rightly mocked this Greek, if his translation 'Our God,' in his opinion the spiritualist self-description of this man, is correct. The author proposes to make this Greek acceptable by perceiving in this name a reference to I Thess. 5:23 '... ho theos tes eirenes (!) hagiasai hymas', 'The very God of peace sanctify you', perhaps a blessing with which he used to begin and end his addresses to his listeners, transformed into a nickname.]

Hebrews 13.20-21

These two verses, though formally (since God is not directly addressed but referred to in the third person) a wish or ‘prayer-wish’, are really tantamount to a prayer. The structure of the sentence may be indicated as follows: (i) God is named (‘the God of peace’); (ii) an adjectival clause follows (as very often in collects); (iii) the first part of verse 21 expresses the substance of the petition; (iv) the whole is concluded by a doxology. A most perceptive and stimulating commentary on these verses is afforded by Philip Doddridge's paraphrase, ‘Father of peace, and God of love’, to which we shall refer from time to time.