Comments on: Who is the Prince of Peace?

By: Q&A: Who is the Wonderful Counselor? « God Didn't Say That

Q&A: Who is the Wonderful Counselor? « God Didn't Say That — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:44:27 +0000

[...] with “Prince of Peace,” we assume that the title “wonderful, counselor” — whatever it means [...]

By: WoundedEgo

WoundedEgo — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:22:15 +0000

Non-Muslims are often hoodwinked by Muslim protestations that they are for “peace” (salaam) when their definition is intrinsically tied to the rule of Allah. For example, where Shariah is the law of the land, is “the land of peace.” Everywhere else is “the land of jihad” – even if there is a truce at the moment. Peace comes exclusively through conquest and control, rather than by co-existence.

If I’m not mistaken, that is largely the scriptural concept as well. Peace/Shalom is where God has put down all enemies and he rules unchallenged.

By: Gary Simmons

Gary Simmons — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:05:48 +0000

I've skimmed through a book on ANE warfare called By Arrow, Sword, and Spear. Somewhere in there I read that a ruler made an empire and then declared himself "prince of peace," much in the way of the pax Romana. At least in the context of Isaiah, I'm sure there is some political backdrop to the total phrase "prince of peace." Let me note, though, that the book was on sale at Barnes and Noble and is not scholarly (no references!). Thank you for the lexical work here. I found the sar half to be particularly educational. I'm aware that the Jewish understanding of peace is much more than the absence of war. Everything about the Messianic Kingdom in Isaiah can probably be related to shalom, including prosperity. And Paul's statement that God is not a god of chaos, but of eirene/shalom is particularly instructive to see its connotation of order. And then, of course, there is shalom as well-being in 2 Sam 11:7, which makes no sense in the LXX.

By: WoundedEgo

WoundedEgo — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:38:29 +0000

Two images came to mind as I read your musings…

UN Peacekeepers… but more significantly, the Preamble to the US Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

Domestic Tranquility
One of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to that under the Constitution was unable, by force or persuasion, to quell rebellion or quarrels amongst the states. The government watched in horror as Shay’s Rebellion transpired just before the Convention, and some states had very nearly gone to war with each other over territory (such as between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over Wilkes-Barre). One of the main goals of the Convention, then, was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states.
http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:37:47 +0000

The problem is that English “prince” has changed its meaning. It used to mean “leader”, but now it has come to mean “junior member of the royal family”.

Sounds like a better rendering would be “commander of the occupying forces”. More David Petraeus or Ray Odierno (but without the continued bombings) than Prince Charles.

Of course if the Jewish Study Bible’s “royal child” is correct, the rendering “prince” could be appropriate after all.