Saturday, October 22, 2016

Luke 10:6-"Friend of Peace"

I think it is interesting how different translations choose to render HUIOS EIRHNHS in Lk 10:6. Maybe there is not much doctrinal significance here, but I notice the following ways this passage is rendered:

"friend of peace" (NWT 1984)

"a friend of peace" (NWT 2013)

"a son of peace" (ASV)

"a son of peace" (Darby)

"a son of shalom" (HNV)

"a peaceful person" (ISV)

"the son of peace" (Rotherham)

"a lover of peace" (Weymouth)

"the son of peace" (YLT)

"enfant de paix" (FreLSG)

"a peace-loving person" (NET Bible)

Note from NET Bible: tn Grk “a son of peace,” a Hebrew idiom for a person of a certain class or kind, as specified by the following genitive construction (in this case, “of peace”). Such constructions are discussed further in L&N 9.4. Here the expression refers to someone who responds positively to the disciples’ message, like “wisdom’s child” in Luke 7:30.


Duncan said...


"man of peace" in the NIV is literally "son of peace." The common Hebrew idiom "son of ..." can mean two things: (1) a person who shares in a quality, or (2) a person who is worthy of a quality.[3] Thus our passage can mean either (1) a peaceful person, or (2) a person worthy of, destined for, peace. The two concepts blend into each other, but we can see the idea of "worthy of, destined for" in the phrase, "sons of the resurrection" (20:36), that is, those who are worthy of the resurrection, those destined for resurrection. The term "son of peace" in our passage probably means "a person worthy of peace, destined for peace."


Ben shalom - Son of Everything in Order.

Edgar Foster said...


I agree with much of what's stated above, but I'm a little skeptical about the "worthy" suggestion (number 2). Also, what about "sons of the prophets" which refers to a class/guild--not a quality? I also wonder about exactly which sources indicate expressions like "son of X" can mean "a person worthy of, destined for . . ."

Sons of the resurrection doesn't have to mean those counted worthy of the resurrection, but could just mean those who will be raised from the dead (i.e., the class of people raised from the dead or possibly, those destined for a resurrection). But "worthy of" and "destined for" mean two slightly different things to me. I could be wrong, but we often speak of people being "destined for success" or "destined for greatness," but we conversely say "S is worthy of this honor/award."

Duncan said...

Not sure about 2 but we do have Amos 7:14 so is Ben nabiy always to be understood as an idiom?

Edgar Foster said...

I don't know if the language is always understood to be an idiom, but there's probably enough cases to establish its usage. A number of commentators think the idiom appears in Amos 7:14. I also read Louw-Nida 9.4 and 12.15. Some interesting points on "son" and "son of God" there.

Duncan said...

The as an idiom it seems problematic. Act 3:24,25. Is this saying it was a line of tradition?

Edgar Foster said...

Both links that you submitted above indicate that Amos 7:14 is an example of guild language, in this case, for Amos (i.e., he was not formally part of any prophetic guild). I don't understand "sons of the prophets" to be saying anything about a tradition per se, but it's more like a printers' guild or scholarly guild. Yes, the words may describe a tradition, but what's being emphasized is the class or group itself and the training that the guild undergoes. It's seems clear from many uses of the terminology that we're not referencing literal sons of the prophets. See 2 Kings 5:22.

IMO, Acts 3:24-25 does not undo the idiomatic usage of "son." For example, while Christ, the angels, righteous Jews, and the 144,000 are all called "sons," we can distinguish senses for each of these referents. Likewise for "sons of the prophets" language. We have to examine how the phrase is used contextually.

Edgar Foster said...

See the KD comments for 1 Sam. 19:22:

Duncan said...

Isn't it Luke 7:35?

Duncan said...

Whats the implication for Luke 1:32?

Edgar Foster said...

Concerning Lk 7:35, you're correct. That's a good catch. In all seriousness, you might want to let the NET folks know about that typo. Luke 1:32 is not exactly like Amos 7:14 and related scriptures, but I understand the passage to be metaphorical, though many people disagree with me. I'm not denying that Jesus was begotten by holy spirit, but that just means God caused his human birth just as he caused the preexistent Christ to exist.

Duncan said...

I have reported to NET. Someone else had already spotted this one in the e-sword version.