An experimental exegesis outside my own social location: this was an exercise in my cross-cultural New Testament class.
New Illumination of Jesus through a Buddhist Text: A comparative look at Matthew 5:38-42 and the Dhammapada
My exegesis will take the social location of a teenage Vietnamese girl who was raised in a Catholic home in Hanoi. She has learned a lot about Buddhism from her classmates, and wants to explore how it is different from her Christianity. Comparing two texts like this can give a uniquely Asian perspective on the Bible. I have chosen to work with Matthew 5:38-42 and Dhammapada 1:3-5, both from the young Vietnamese girl’s perspective.
Matthew 5:38-42:
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
Dhammapada 1:3-5:
3 “He insulted me, he struck me, he cheated me, he robbed me”: those caught in resentful thoughts never find peace.
4 “He insulted me, he struck me, he cheated me, he robbed me”: those who give up resentful thoughts surely find peace.
5 For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love. This is an unalterable law.
I have read this passage in Matthew many times in catechism class. We are taught that it was an appeal to end the circles of violence and vengeance common in Palestine at the time and to respond to evil with good. According to the International Bible Commentary in my church’s rectory, more is going on than is usually assumed.[1] Firstly, v. 40 makes a distinction between a coat and a cloak, which according to Leske refers to an inner and outer garment. Since rabbinical law prohibited taking someone’s outer garment, the cloak, as payment, a creditor would get around the law by requesting the debtor’s inner garment, the coat. Jesus says to give them both. I can’t imagine wearing two coats since it is always warm here in Hanoi, so I’d gladly give mine up to anyone who wanted one! But if someone wanted my socks, and I had to give them my shoes too, I could see how that act of generosity would change their perspective and maybe be kinder to me in the future.
In v. 41, Leske refers to an odd Roman rule where a soldier could force a random passerby to make them carry their equipment, but for no further than one mile. Leske says Simon of Cyrene in the Passion story is a good example for this law in action. Jesus exhorts us to go further than one mile, which may be seen as an act of hostility against the Roman oppressors, and instead go two miles. Jesus is asking for a radical change from the way we commonly react to oppression. My mother often asks me to go to the market to get things for dinner. If she asked me to go two towns over just for vegetables I’d probably be mad. But they do have better food there. J
The Dhammapada is a grouping of the most efficient and succinct teachings of the Buddha dating back to roughly the 5th century C.E. Lefebure discusses the title of the book, saying: “Dhammapada is an ingenious and telling title for this collection. It is derived from two words: dhamma and pada. Dhamma…can mean many things. With regard to its use as a religious concept, it supports or upholds the tradition, and indeed perhaps the universe itself. Most typically, pada is translated as foot…it can also mean word, verse, stanza, or line.”[2] So I guess that means this book contains the words on which the Buddhist tradition rests. It could be also a grouping of verses that support the concepts of Buddhism. Or it could just be a pair of shoes. J It takes the form of series of statements that contrast the correct and incorrect way to act. I guess it sounds most like our Proverbs, but where the Proverbs suggest wisdom as a way to remain in good standing with God, the Dhammapada wisdom’s intent is to set one free from suffering. The two are kind of similar, but of course the differences in the thoughts behind them are strong.
Lefebre says the Buddhist theory of the mind differentiates between fed and unfed thoughts and emotions, like watered and un-watered pets. So if we water our angry and destructive emotions they will grow, while our peaceful and loving emotions are choked out. He states, “In this sense, we do not necessarily have to do anything about unskillful mental states. Simple being mindful of their arising, refusing to identify with them, and allowing them to dissolve frees us from them.”[3] By noticing when I get flushed cheeks, sweaty palms, or the queasy stomach, I can acknowledge that I’m getting angry and then refuse to feed it any of my time and energy. This is a similar reaction to what Jesus asked of us, but different in source.
The Dhammapada suggests getting rid of the “unskillful” emotions, while Jesus suggests transforming them into positive action. The Buddhist teaching comes from the internal struggle we face when someone does something wrong to us. In reaction to unfairness, we can either be angry at how we’re being treated or we can recognize our ability to rise above it through by calming down.
The Christian teaching comes from the good that can happen when we offer peace when presented with wrongdoing. In this reaction to injustice, we can either smack the person back in the face, or we can diffuse the situation by offering our other cheek, appealing to the peaceful side of human nature. The Buddhist response is more resigned to the people being unfair and seems to say there’s nothing to do about it, stating, “This is an unalterable law.” The Christian response looks for a solution to a difficult situation by breaking with what they had always done, which said the only way to achieve justice was through more violence. In this light, the dhamma seems to be very pessimistic, while Jesus sees the possibility of an optimistic outcome. I hadn’t thought of these verses from Matthew as being optimistic before. I assumed that turning the cheek was a way to diffuse the situation, to make a bully go away, but not as a way to seek a positive solution. For me this is a huge change from how we were taught this in catechism. Jesus is teaching us to be actively peaceful in the world!
[1] Adrian Leske, “Matthew,” in The International Bible Commentary, ed. William R. Farmer (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1998) 1275-1276.
[2] Leo Lefebure and Peter Feldmeier, The Path of Wisdom: A Christian Commentary on the Dhammapada (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011), 10-11.
[3] Lefebure, 35.
Embodied Theology 