There are three major characteristics of the Judeo-Christian model of peacemaking: (1) love, not justice, is the model’s first foundation, (2) reconciliation is the goal, and (3) mediation is the means.
Love, Not Justice, Is the First Foundation
The Judeo-Christian model of peacemaking differs from other models because the foundation of the entire process is not justice (as indispensable as justice is to peace), but love. This differs from what is commonly taught. For example, one scholar stated, “The only steady ground under peace is justice.”  The charter of the United Nations advances the same idea, not only by what it says but also by what it doesn’t say. That is, the words peace and justice together are used dozens of times. However, the concept of love is not found at all. Justice, however, is the second foundation of peace in the Judeo-Christian model. Undergirding justice is the orientation to love.
As evidenced below, God’s love and willingness to embrace hostile humanity is the foundation that makes peace with God possible. In the Old Testament, God’s love is vividly seen in his relationship to the people of Israel (cf. Deut. 4:37; 7:6-8). What is most striking about this is that God’s love was constant despite the nation’s history of rebellion and sin against him. It was a love that transcended the people’s immoral behavior, even over long periods of its history when the Israelites forsook the God of their fathers altogether (See, e.g., Deut. 9:6-8, 26-27; Jer. 31:35-37; Rom. 11). In the New Testament, the expression of God’s unconditional love reaches its highest pinnacle through the life and ministry of Israel’s Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. In the New Testament, we again see that God’s love is expressed to all, despite people’s rebellion against him.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy.  The question that may arise is: How can God’s love for sinners be so relentless? The answer is found in his very essence. In addition to being holy (see chapter 3), the Scriptures also reveal that God is all-loving. On two occasions we read, “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16). What God is, He is in whole, not in part.  “God is infinite in His essence, and love is the essence of God. Therefore, God is infinite love.”  God’s love “continually extends to the undeserving and unloving,”  without discrimination (cf. Luke 6:32-36; Matt. 5:43-48), in order to bring those with whom he is in conflict into a right relationship with him. 
Relevance for Peacemaking
What does God’s love mean for us when it comes to our making peace with each other? It means that even before the process of peacemaking begins, despite the hurt and pain, each offended party must have the will to find peace with the other side based on their ability to love. As with God, so with us. Civil rights leader Martin Luther King, no stranger to conflict, said in no uncertain terms that the reason you love your enemies, even if they are the worst persons you have ever encountered, is because that is what God does.  Christian theologian, Miroslav Volf, from war-torn Yugoslavia and well known for his writings on conflict resolution, stated, “The will to embrace precedes any ‘truth’ about others and any reading of their action with respect to justice…. It transcends the moral mapping of the social world into ‘good’ and ‘evil.’”  When it comes to making peace, the will to express love is foundational.
Such an orientation is not something that has to be artificially generated. Because we are made in the image of God, we are by nature predisposed to love. To demonstrate this assertion, see Appendix 1, entitled, “When Love Fails.” It examines how basic love is to our well-being. It drives home the indisputable point that the capacity to love and be loved is intrinsic to human beings in the same way that God’s love is an intrinsic part of his essence.
That said, I hasten to add that the capacity to love in no way mitigates the reality of injustice and its need to be addressed. Nevertheless, as Paul Lederach, a world-renowned peacemaker stated, constructive social changes in the midst of destructive conflict cannot occur without love.  Justice, though a condition for peace, is insufficient in and of itself to produce peace. Justice ensures that people are accountable for the wrongs they commit, but being held accountable does not build relations. “Some form of communion—some form of positive relationship—needs to be established if the victim and perpetrator are to be fully healed.”  It is toward this end that this book is dedicated. Its entire thrust is to unpack the concrete and practical stages of transforming enemies into friends.
The starting point for God in his plan to make peace with humanity began with his nature to love regardless of the sins people committed against him. Being made in the image of God, we have the capacity to do the same. Love, therefore, is the first foundation of the Judeo-Christian model of peacemaking. Only love has the power to reconcile.
Reconciliation Is the Goal
Reconciliation is viewed in the Scriptures as the apex of God’s desire for a world that has ignored, rebelled against, and turned away from him. Despite all this, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19 NASB). Jesus’s ultimate role as Israel’s Messiah was to bring God and human beings into harmony with each other.  Indeed, reconciliation has been considered “the central concept of Christianity.”  Given that the original meaning of the word in Greek was to “change” or “exchange,” when the New Testament states that people are reconciled to God, it means they exchanged a relationship of hostility for one of friendship. 
Relevance for Peacemaking
Though the concept of reconciliation is quite old, in the field of conflict resolution it is, surprisingly, relatively new. Talking about peace studies on college campuses in 2001, one practitioner observed, “On the far cutting edge of those programs courses are now offered in reconciliation…. The study, practice, and theory of reconciliation are barely in the stage of conception.” 
In the conflict resolution field, reconciliation often is not the goal.  Certainly, on a global level and with matters of war, reconciliation has rarely been the goal. Historically, peacemaking efforts have been directed toward stopping the fighting and establishing nonviolent coexistence. One scholar captured the state of affairs in 2004 this way: “If you ask most political scientists and international relations scholars what role reconciliation should have in peace, you are apt to receive a dazed look and perhaps an uneasy silence as well.”  What this means is that “although the concept of reconciliation has long been familiar to researchers and practitioners, only in the last decade has it emerged as a specific area of interest in peace studies.”  Various reconciliation models of peacemaking are just beginning to emerge.  The Judeo-Christian approach to peacemaking represents a distinct reconciliation model. In some respects, I feel like an explorer who has come upon pristine lands that have always been around but are being overlooked by the majority of travelers. I am of the opinion that the Judeo-Christian model of peacemaking is the gold standard. It is applicable in our homes, our congregations, our communities, and our world. I look forward to being your guide into the old, which has become new again.
Mediation Is the Means
Some years ago, there was a discussion between a university faculty member and a graduate student. The teacher, who had been raised in a Protestant home, indicated that of late she had been attending a Jewish synagogue. When it came to approaching and making peace with God, the professor’s attitude was, “none of this middleman stuff.” What makes this statement so startling is that the professor taught in the department of conflict resolution. Mediation (“middleman stuff”) is central to this area of work. Yet this professor failed to value this pattern of peacemaking when it came to establishing peace with God. 
The concept of a mediator between God and mankind begins in the Old Testament and continues into the New Testament, culminating in the person of Jesus Christ. The three Old Testament offices of king, prophet, and priest, all mediatorial in nature, were eventually fulfilled by Jesus.  Edwards summarized, “Our inquiry will have shown how central and prominent is the idea of mediation throughout the Scriptures. We might even say it supplies the key to the unity of the Bible. In the OT the principle is given ‘at many times and in many ways’  but in the NT it converges in the doctrine of the person and work of the One final Mediator, the Son of God.”  God established a mediatorial model to make peace with mankind. Consider the biblical data.
Central to the work of Jesus was that of peacemaking mediator between God and human beings. (What made him uniquely qualified to fulfill this role will be discussed in Stage 2.) Though there are many passages that speak to this, the text that most explicitly refers to Jesus’s mediatorial role is 1 Timothy 2:5. This verse, in context, reads,
1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all.
The word for “mediator” in 1 Timothy 2:5 is derived from a Greek word that means “middle” or “in the middle.”  This word is used in John 19:18, where we read in the New International Version, “Here they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.”
Studying the use of this word prior to the New Testament,  a mediator referred to a person who was situated between two parties.  This person did not take sides but remained neutral as one whom both sides could trust. The mediator helped others establish a relationship that would otherwise not be formed.  These meanings continued into the New Testament. A mediator was known as one “who mediates between two parties to remove a disagreement or reach a common goal.”  The primary goal was reconciliation.  As between God and man, the mediator “is the One who represents God to men and men to God, and brings them together.”  This is clearly the case in 1 Timothy 2:5, where Jesus is situated between God and humanity for the purpose of bringing peace.
In addition to 1 Timothy 2:5, other New Testament passages, while they do not explicitly contain the word mediator, make clear that there is no other way to make peace with God apart from the mediatorial structure and process. 
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
17 And he [Jesus] came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
1 John 4:9
In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.
It has been said that the apostle Paul “never preached a religion without mediation.” This can be said of the New Testament as a whole. “The gospel presents Christ as the mediator between God and men, who has been ordained by God to bring erring humanity back to Himself.” 
Old Testament Backdrop
The concept of a mediator between God and mankind has roots deeply embedded in the Old Testament. Moses assumed the role of mediator between God and the newly birthed nation of Israel. Notice what occurred just after Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt to Mount Sinai. Not only did God speak to the people through Moses, but the people also expressly desired that Moses should speak to God for them. God said to Moses, “These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel” (Exod. 19:6). Conversely, the people made a similar request. “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die” (Exod. 20:19). This was the first of many occasions when Moses served as a mediator between the people of Israel and the God of Israel. 
This mediatorial pattern continued throughout Israel’s history by way of its prophets, priests, and kings. The prophets stood in the place of God to reveal his word and will, not only to the Israelites (Deut. 18:15-22), but also to surrounding Gentile nations (Jon. 1:1-2; 3:1ff.). The priests stood between God and the Israelites in activities that dealt with cleansing from sin (e.g., Lev. 6:1-7; 16:1-34). The kings were charged with serving as God’s viceroys, administrating justice and righteousness according to the laws God gave to Moses (Deut. 17:18-20; 1 Sam. 12:13-15, 24-25; 2 Kings 23:2-3; cf. Judg. 8:22-23, Isa. 11:1-11; 1 Kings 11:9). These three offices, priest, prophet, and king, all mediatorial in nature, were established by God to maintain the nation’s unique relationship with him. One Old Testament scholar well summarized, “Though the word is not used, mediatorship is at the heart of OT religion.” 
Relevance for Peacemaking
The practice of mediation in the conflict resolution field ranges from “banging heads” in order to get results to exerting no influence upon the parties or the outcome. An example of the first approach comes from a Texas conference on mediation. A panel of attorneys spoke to the question, “What do lawyers want from mediators?” The unanimous answer was (paraphrased), “We want someone to bang heads, to knock some sense into our clients and get them to settle.” Similarly, a respected mediator in Australia asked, “What’s wrong with head-banging and pressure? The parties come to me because they want to be out of there with a settlement by 6 PM. I give it to them. And if it takes a little arm-twisting, so be it.” 
On the other end of the spectrum, a practitioner in an article entitled, “Confessions of a Public Dispute Mediator,” revealed, “I admit it: I have tried to nudge participants in mediation towards agreement.” He then sheepishly added, “I know we are supposed to be indifferent to whether or not agreement is reached.” This attitude represents the approach to mediation that says the mediator should do nothing to influence the outcome. “We must detach ourselves from the goal of settlement.”  Getting the parties to respectfully communicate to each other is goal enough regardless of the outcome. 
In the Scriptures, the mediator is described as one who neither bangs heads nor is indifferent. We need go no further than understanding the meaning of the word peacemaker to understand the role the mediator should play. As in English, so in the Greek, the word was created by joining two separate words, “to make” and “peace.” By itself, the word “to make” means, “to undertake or do something that brings about an event, state, or condition, do, cause, bring about, accomplish, prepare, etc.”  Hence, the peacemaker will “endeavor to reconcile persons who have disagreements, making peace.”  Free will, not coercion, underscores this approach.
Jesus was such a peacemaking mediator. His work is described in these terms on two occasions. The first is found in Ephesians 2:15, where Jesus is shown to “make peace”  both between God and mankind and between Jews and Gentiles. A similar picture of Jesus reconciling God and his creation is found in Colossians 1:20.  When the Bible talks about Jesus’s role as mediator in 1 Timothy 2:5, he is viewed as the causative agent of peace on the grandest of scales.
Peacemakers who follow the Judeo-Christian model will adopt Jesus’s approach. The idea that the mediator is to be indifferent with regard to the outcome of the peace process is foreign to this model. Once the parties have given their freewill consent to the process, the peacemaker has the freedom to address past issues in any ethical manner he or she deems best in order to help the parties find new ways to resolve outstanding issues in the present and to forge a path toward reconciliation for the future. The Scriptures hold this work in high regard. Indeed, peacemakers are called blessed (Matt. 5:9). One biblical commentator aptly summarized by saying that peacemakers are “the active heroic promoters of peace in a world full of alienation, party passion, and strife.” 
According to the Scriptures, God’s decision to make peace with mankind is rooted in his love. The goal of the peacemaking process God established is to reconcile us to himself. The means by which he has chosen to accomplish this is through mediation. These then become the three major characteristics of the Judeo-Christian model of peacemaking (“like father, like son”; see chapter 1). Part 3 of this book will describe the stages of peacemaking that emerge within this overall framework, but first let’s consider the conflict between God and mankind that requires a peacemaker.
1 Burtchaell, J. T. (1989). The Giving and Taking of Life. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, p. 229. More is said about this subject in Stage 3.
2 United Nations. (1945, June 26). Charter of the United Nations. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter.
3 Note: The phrase “peace-loving,” used one time, is about loving peace, not about loving others.
4 One scholar observed, “A study of the word ‘world’—especially in John, where it is used 78 times—shows that the world is God-hating, Christ-rejecting, and Satan dominated. Yet that is the world for which Christ died” (Elwell, W. A. (Ed.). (1984). Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, p. 99). Another scholar similarly remarked, “In John’s vocabulary, world is primarily the moral order in willful and culpable rebellion against God. In John 3:16 God’s love in sending the Lord Jesus is to be admired not because it is extended to so big a thing as the world, but to so bad a thing; not to so many people, as to such wicked people” (Carson, D. A. (2000a). The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, p. 17).
5 In light of the description given of the human condition in verse 3, the opening “But” of verse 4 is significant. “Precisely at the point where God has every right to express His judgment of us, He chooses instead to meet us with kindness and love” (Demarest, 1984, p. 335). Another scholar remarked that Jesus came to tell people “not of the justice which would pursue them forever until it caught up with them, but of the love which would never let them go” William Barclay Estate, The. (2003). The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon: The New Daily Study Bible. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Know Press. (Original work published 1975), p. 293.
6 The Scriptures also teach that, “God is light” (1 John 1:5). Metaphorically speaking, we are not to understand that God is partially light, but all-encompassing light. In its entirety, the verse reads, “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Similarly, when the Scriptures affirm that God is love, God is not partly love but entirely love.
7 Geisler, N. L. (2002-2005). Systematic Theology (4 volumes). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, vol. 2, p. 369.
8 Hoehner, H. W. (2001). Love. In W. A. Elwell (Ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, p. 711.
9 Chafer, L. S. (1947-1948). Systematic Theology. Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, vol. 1, p. 206.
10 Carson, C. (Ed.). (2000). The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Vol. 4. Symbol of the Movement (January 1957-December 1958) [“Loving Your Enemies” Sermon Delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Nov. 17, 1957]. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, pp. 319-20.
11 Volf, M. (2001). Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and Justice. In S. J. Helmick and R. L. Petersen (Eds.), Forgiveness and Reconciliation (pp. 27-49). Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, p. 42.
12 Lederach, J. P. (2005). The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 42.
13 Volf, 2001, p. 40.
14 “It could be said that the whole work of Christ has to do with reconciliation” (Guthrie, D. (1981). New Testament Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, p. 486).
15 White, R. E. O. (1984). Reconciliation. In W. A. Elwell (Ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (pp. 917-18). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, p. 917. See also Guthrie, D. (1981). New Testament Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, p. 486.
16 BDAG. Arndt, W., Gingrich, F. W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.) [BDAG] Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, p. 521 (katallasso, ?ata???ss?).
17 Lederach, J. P. (2001). Five Qualities of Practice in Support of Reconciliation Process. In S. J. Helmick and R. L. Petersen (Eds.), (pp. 183-193). Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, p. 193. Reconciliation, said another, is “an embryonic concept” (Hermann, 2004, in Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (Ed.), From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 41). Accordingly, it wasn’t until Wilmot and Hocker’s sixth edition of their text, Interpersonal Conflict, in 2001 that a discussion on reconciliation was first introduced (Wilmot, W. W., and Hocker, J. L., 2001. Interpersonal Conflict (6th ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., p. xii, chapter 10). Moore, in his highly acclaimed text, The Mediation Process, informed his readers in 2003 that considerations relating to reconciliation were “on the cutting edge of dispute resolution practice” (Moore, C. W., 2003. The Mediation Process (3rd ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, p. 345).
18 The transformative model of mediation, for example, explicitly states that “relationship enhancement” is not one of its aims (Senft, L. P. (2007, Winter). ACResolution, 6(2), p. 21).
19 Ross, M. H. (2004). Ritual and the Politics of Reconciliation. In Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (Ed.), From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation (pp. 197-223). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 197.
20 Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (2004). Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (Ed.), From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 41.
21 For example, see Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building Peace. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 23-35; Chapman, A. R. (2001). Truth Commissions as Instruments of Forgiveness and Reconciliation. In S. J. Helmick and R. L. Petersen (Eds.), Forgiveness and Reconciliation). Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, pp. 256-57; Botcharova, O. (2001). Implementation of Track Two Diplomacy. In S. J. Helmick and R. L. Peterson (Eds.), Forgiveness and Reconciliation. Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, pp. 287-92; Kriesberg, L. (2007). Constructive Conflicts (3rd ed.) Lantham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., pp. 320-22.
22 Brunner, E. (1934). The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, p. 40
23 Chafer, L. S. (1947-1948). Systematic Theology. Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, vol. 3, pp. 17-30; Shedd, W. G. T. (2003). A. W. Gomes (Ed.), Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.) Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing. (Original work published 1888-1894), pp. 681-82; Strong, A. H. (1907). Systematic Theology. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming, H. Revell Company, pp. 710-76, Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, pp. 624-29.
24 I substituted the ESV translation of Hebrews 1:1, which Edwards cited, in place of an older translation which he used that reads, “in divers portions and divers manners.’
25 Edwards, D. M. (1956). Mediation. In J. Orr (Ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 3). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 2025.
26 BDAG, 2000, p. 634. See also Robertson on I Timothy 2:5 (Robertson, A. T. (1997). Word Pictures in the New Testament. Oak Harbor, WA: Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems. (Original work published 1930-1933), and Becker, O. (1975). Covenant. In C. Brown (Ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Vol. 1). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, p. 372.
27 That is, in Classical Greek, approx. 700 to 300 BC (Palmer, M. (2002). Quick Overview of the History of the Greek Language. Retrieved March 11, 2009, from Greek Language and Linguistics: http://greek-language.com/historyofgreek, paragraphs 1-2).
28 Becker, O. (1975). Covenant. In C. Brown (Ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Vol. 1). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, pp. 372-73.
29 Oepke, A. (1967). G. Kittel and G. W. Bromiley (Eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. 4, G. W. Bromiley, Trans.). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 599.
30 Oepke, 1967, p. 601.
31 BDAG, 2000, p. 634.
32 Louw, J. P., and Nida, E. A. (1989). Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (2nd ed.) New York, NY: United Bible Societies, p. 502.
33 Oepke, 1967, p. 619.
34 See also Matt. 11:27; John 10:9; Acts 4:12; Rom. 5:1, 10-11; 2 Cor. 5:19-20; Heb. 2:14, 17-18; 4:14-16, 1 Pet. 3:18.
35 Oepke, 1967, p. 622.
36 Tenney, M. C. (1975). Gospel. In C. F. Pfeiffer, H. F. Vos, and J. Rea (Eds.), Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 1). Chicago, IL: Moody Press, pp. 712-13.
37 Oftentimes, Moses interceded for the people after they had sinned against God. Passages include: Exod. 32:1-35; 33:1-23; Num. 13:25–14:39; 21:4-9. See also Exod. 5:1 and 8:8, where Moses served as mediator between God and Pharaoh.
38 The establishment of the office of prophet looks back to the time when Moses stood as mediator between God and the people, as described in Deut. 18:15, 19.
39 Referencing Deut. 17:18-20, one Old Testament scholar remarked, “The primary activity of the king is to study Torah [the Mosaic law], to submit to the demands and conditions of the Mosaic covenant” (Brueggemann, W. (2005). Theology Of The Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, p. 607).
40Oepke, 1967, p. 614.
41 Bush, 1999, para. 15.
42 Bush, 1999, para. 17.
43 Susskind, 2000, p. 131.
44 Chasin quoted in Bush and Folger, 2005, p. 121.
45 See Rubin quoted in Bush and Folger, 1994, p. xii. See also Senft, 2007, p. 21 cited above.
46 BDAG, 2000, p. 839, p???? (poieo).
47 BDAG, 2000, p. 288, e?????p???? (eirenopoios).
48 The term peacemaking mediator is used in this work to distinguish the goal of this mediator from those whose goals are not to bring about reconciliation of the parties or even the resolution of the dispute (Senft, L. P. (2007, Winter). ACResolution, 6(2), p. 19; Bush, R. A., and Folger, J. P. (2005, 1994). The Promise of Mediation (Rev. ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Peacemakers and mediators in the Judeo-Christian model have the making of peace as their goal.
49 In this instance, the two components of the word peacemaker (“to make” and “peace”) are used separately. In the context of Ephesians 2:15, to make means to “bring about, etc., make, establish peace” (BDAG, 2000, p. 839, p???? [poieo]).
50 The compound verb form of the word peacemaker means, “to cause a right or harmonious relationship” (BDAG, 2000, p. 288, e?????p???? [eirenopoieo]).
51 Bruce, A. B. (n.d.). W. R. Nicoll (Ed.), The Expositor’s Greek Testament: Vol. 1. The Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 100.
It’s somewhat counterintuitive to think and say we actually laugh at our interpersonal disputes! But, in my work as a conflict management coach, I have heard some clients who end...By Cinnie Noble
From Larry Susskind's blog on the Consensus Building Approach There it is again. In the New York Times today, William Daley, President Obama's new Chief of Staff, is described on...By Larry Susskind
I often hear critics of mediation dismiss it as "touchy-feely". Yet as the results of one recent poll conclude, half of commercial disputes "get personal" as hearts win out over...By Diane J. Levin