In an age of intense over-specialization, one cannot but feel a sense of refreshment and appreciation for Te-Li Lau’s skillful, sympathetic, and illuminating comparison of three distinct politico-religious conceptions of peace. Lau, now an assistant professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, offers this comparative study of peace as a lightly revised dissertation completed under Luke Timothy Johnson at Emory University. In The Politics of Peace, Lau argues that the political elements embedded within Paul’s discussion of peace suggests “that Ephesians can be profitably read as a politico-religious letter on peace” (p. 5). This thesis can be best grasped by examining the political topics contained within Ephesians as well as comparing analogous texts—particularly orations of Dio Chrysostom and the Confucian Four Books.
In chapter 2, Lau demonstrates that while there is a striking correspondence between Ephesians and Colossians, the motifs of peace, unity, and reconciliation are stronger in Ephesians. Lau notes that both letters use the same words to speak to different issues. Whereas in Colossians Paul speaks of the alienation between humans and God (Col 1:21), in Ephesians he uses the same word to describe the alienation between Gentiles and Israel’s constitution (Eph 2:12). In Colossians “the mystery” is “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27); in Ephesians “the mystery” is that Gentiles are fellow heirs of the gospel (Eph 1:9–10; 3:1–13). Comparing the construal of “the body of Christ,” the in-Christ language, and the use of OT citations confirm that Ephesians is concerned with peace and the horizontal reconciliation between humans.
One of the gems of Lau’s book is his third chapter (“The Political in Ephesians”), where he takes five sections of Ephesians and situates them within Greco-Roman political discourse. In the ancient Mediterranean, the political dealt with matters related to economics, household management, citizenship, war, wealth, and concord. Many of these topics occur throughout Ephesians. Two examples will suffice. First, Eph 2:11–21 describes the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles into one unified new humanity. This concept of a harmoniously unified humanity is similar to the political vision of humankind’s unity and the idea of a world-state that was propagated through the conquests of Alexander the Great and the pax Romana. Thus, Eph 2 resonates with these Greco-Roman concepts of the unity of humanity, the vision of peace and harmony, and the erasure of group boundaries. A second example of Ephesians’ use of political motifs is the household code (Eph 5:21–6:9). As the Greek city was composed of households and as its success depended upon their well-ordering, so too the church is intimately bound to Christian households. In the ancient world, discussions regarding the management of households were for the purpose of advocating a conservative social mores for the promotion of the state’s peace. Similarly, Paul’s discussion of the relationships between master/slave, husband/wife, and father/child promote stability within the church—though they have been transformed in Christ (p. 140). These two examples demonstrate that Ephesians uses similar strategies for producing peace as other political texts. The major difference between Ephesians and these texts is that Ephesians indwells “the symbolic universe of the Christian community” and its “political frame of reference” is the church, not the Greek city (pp. 153–54).
In chapters 4 and 5, Lau sets forth the vision of peace and the strategies for its accomplishment as found in select orations by Dio Chrysostom and the Confucian Four Books. In the “Concord Orations Delivered in Bithynia,” Dio presents himself as an agent of Zeus who has been commissioned with the task of procuring peace for the Greek cities. Dio prays for, and through his speeches seeks, the welfare of these cities. Throughout his speeches, Dio praises concord as the greatest blessing. Concord is linked with peace, humanity, friendship, and reconciliation. It originates in Zeus who himself desires the unity of these dissenting cities. Dio appeals to the animal kingdom, the heavenly sphere, and the structure of the universe as examples of how harmony pervades the world. Humans must imitate this harmonious ordering of the world. In his “Kingship Orations,” Dio shows that the ideal king adopts virtues that will create peace and harmony throughout his empire. The king imitates the harmony and peace he sees built into the universe, and the civic leaders and citizens then imitate the example of the king.
Lau’s description of peace in Confucian thought focuses upon the two books of the Sishu that best embody the political, social, and ethical ideals of Confucian thought: the Daxue and the Zhongyong. The former text emphasizes peace between humans whereby peace between individuals produces balance that leads to peace in the broader world; the latter text focuses upon peace between humanity and Heaven. Within the Zhongyong the central element of peace is harmony. Peace and harmony originate in the Supreme Being. In order to be in harmony with this Ultimate Reality one must be aligned with the metaphysical principle of li, which one manifests through maintenance of the largely external “rites” that embody all that is right and just. Confucian thought gives precedence to the cultivation of peace within the individual and thereby emphasizes ethics as the root of political peace. There is a strong focus within these texts upon the moral cultivation of peace within the individual. Only those who have attained peace in their own selves are able to bring peace to households and kingdoms. There is, then, a movement from peace within the individual to the household to the kingdom to the world and finally to the cosmos. Finally, it should be emphasized that the household is the central social focus within the Confucian construction of peace. The state is the outgrowth of and depends upon the well-ordering of the household.
Lau’s final chapter compares these three visions of peace with the goal being an improved understanding of Ephesians as a political text. Whereas the moral cultivation required for the production of peace and participation in the divine is the result of difficult and strenuous moral effort in Dionic and Confucian thought, in Ephesians it is a result of God’s gracious gift. Paul’s vision of peace is more radical in the ethnic domain as it maintains that the two mutually antagonistic groups have been reconciled into one equal people group. The greatest agreement between the three texts is in their concern with concord in the household and call for conformity to social hierarchical structures. Perhaps the greatest difference, however, is the role that Paul gives to Christ in procuring cosmic peace. While Dio does refer to Zeus and the divine ordering of the universe as imitative examples of concord and while Confucian cosmic harmony is the result of cosmic processes following the Way of Heaven, nothing matches Paul’s claims that Christ has subjugated all authorities and powers (1:20–22), that he has made two groups into one (2:14–16), or that “he is our peace” (2:14). Whereas Confucian thought has a role for individual harmony, both Dio and Ephesians are concerned almost solely with interpersonal concord. This intentional community faces greater challenges as it seeks to educate members from different families, worldviews, and backgrounds into the ways of peace. This type of community also frequently experiences conflict from the majority culture, which may view it as deviant. Paul, therefore, seeks to promote a conservative social stance among the household and emphasizes that its battle is not against the majority culture but rather against evil spiritual entities (Eph 6:12). One of the greatest differences of Paul’s politics in Ephesians is that he argues that ethnic peace is already a present reality based on the work of Christ. It has been inaugurated decisively, and there is now a call to implement it in the Pauline communities. This perspective of the already/not yet is absent in both Dionic and Confucian thought.
The value of Lau’s work is at least threefold. First, by comparing Ephesians and Colossians, he demonstrates that the former is oriented around the horizontal production of peace within the church. Second, Lau’s situating of broad swaths of Ephesians within Greco-Roman political discourse confirms his thesis that Ephesians is a political letter with the rhetorical intent of persuading its readers to pursue peace. Finally, Lau’s comparison of Ephesians with Dionic and Confucian thought is masterful. It is no easy task to compare distinct politico-religious documents, but Lau does so in a manner that is fair, sympathetic, and sheds light on Ephesians. My only regret is that more attention could have been devoted to the extent to the manner in which Paul’s presentation of Christ, or the christological narrative he assumes, compares with Dio’s (or Pliny’s and Seneca’s) construction of the ideal king.
