Jesus on retaliation in Matthew 5:39

Today, I'm reposting a snippet from actor / singer / wife / mommy / writer / traveler / foodie and RH advocate Lea Salonga's blog, about Jesus' teaching on retaliation, including two of the comments made in reaction to her post. The two comments had opposing views on the meaning and interpretation of the rabbi's teaching. When you read them later on, take a pause, and ask yourself which view makes more sense to you.

But first, here's what Lea had to say:

In the New International Version (En) of Matthew's gospel, in the fifth chapter, Jesus is recorded as saying:

[38] You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." [39] But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

Something to think about...
Written by Lea Salonga
Last updated Monday 07 February 2011 | 23:28
Not too long ago I saw a documentary about Jesus, and one of the sections struck me... apparently, in Matthew 5:3-9 [corrected - 5:39], Jesus is quoted as saying that if we are struck on the right cheek, to turn the other one to him also. The explanation given on the documentary was one that showed Jesus not as a proponent and peace and love, but of not wanting to be treated like a slave or second-class citizen.
Think of it this way... let's just say most everyone was right-handed, which meant that if you were struck on the right cheek, you were struck by the back of the right hand. The gesture is demeaning and insulting, and is only administered by one intending to put another in his or her place. By a husband to a wife; master to slave. To turn your other cheek is to demand that you be struck as an equal, and not as a subordinate, and back in the day, that just wasn't done. In short, Jesus said, "Don't let anyone demean you."
In today's parlance, Jesus said, "Don't let anyone make you his bitch."
Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.
I like that although Jesus teaches us all about unconditional love, He wasn't always a nice guy. Awesome.

Lea's Twitter: @msleasalonga
Carl's Twitter: @mettanewsagency

Comment #6:

An attack on punitive Judaic justice - posted by Teki on 2011-02-26 | 02:15

The entirety of Matthew 5 was actually Jesus' way of going against traditional but harsh Judaic ordinances prescribing what is called "lex taliones" (the law of retaliation). 
In Judaic times, pecuniary fines were imposed depending on the level of injury: a) striking with hands shut warrants paying a "shekel"; b) smiting the face with a double fist or using the palm of one's hands to strike a cheek imposes 200 "zuzim"; c) but if one uses the back of a hand to strike a cheek, the fine is 400 "zuzim". (Back of the hand strikes on the right cheek was considered a greater reproach.) 
Matthew 5:39 and its preceding and subsequent passages is not about being meek. Jesus was giving people "tips" about seeking grievance against injuries with the intent to fully secure justice without the need for revenge.

Comment #3:

turning the other cheek - posted by dfftan 2011-02-14 | 01:00

Hi Leah, I'm a long time fan. Regarding this passage which is from Matt 5:39, the meaning is actually the reverse of what you understand it to be. Forget left handed or right handed. The key to understanding is reading the passage 5 verses before and after it. If you do, you will see that it really means accepting the suffering. Go further to verse 44 it says, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. This verse is about Love. If anyone has questions still, please email at info@defensoresfidei.com. God bless all...

What do you think? Was Jesus a prophet of social equality as much as he was a preacher of compassion and "unconditional" love?

Demanding Mind: Human Evolution

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fGsk6EmufxM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Demanding Mind by LPAC Basement Team, uploaded by laroucheyouth on 17 Sep 2011

In the video Demanding Mind, which takes up American geologist James Dwight Dana's elaboration of the concept of cephalization, the developments of the bodily structure and the (progressively becoming central) nervous system, producer and narrator Liona Fan Chiang poses a challenge to the viewers, asking us whether the reaching of a "maximum state, as expressed by humans," indicated the height of evolution. (11:51)


She threw the following questions: "Is this extreme centralization and control of our senses the ultimate purpose of this whole process, and is therefore evolution driving toward an end to evolution? Are we to be the ultimate sensual being? Or is this whole process yet a means to an end?" (12:00)


And here:
"This development leads us to a slightly disturbing implication. If the process of cephalization has reached a peak in the human form, does that mean that evolution into higher states has also reached its limit?" (5:33)


And here as well:
"While continuing in the same direction as demanded by mind, the emergence of mankind has marked the emergence of a species whose means of evolution has superseded change in physical form. Thought there's no doubt that, as we gain new senses, physical changes, especially in internal organization, will continue." (16:09)


I respond:
Contrary to the suggestion and preoccupation circling among those who think that human evolution may have halted, and similarly contrary to those who speculate with trepidation on the prospects of devolution, I posit that this evolutionary process is continuing. The next step has already been taken, albeit incipiently, in the form of cybernetics, robotics, and cyborgs. I suggest you check out the website of professor Kevin Warwick, if you haven't yet. Here he unveils the story of how he became the world's first cyborg in a ground breaking set of scientific experiments (and he's the guy who implanted a chip inside his arm). He presents very interesting questions, such as, "Can we use technology to upgrade humans?" http://www.kevinwarwick.com/index.asp


At this point, I believe that the Basement team and myself are in consonance on this matter of continuing human evolution, as Liona already mentioned in 16:09 (aha, play it again..) I suggest we look at the shift from a carbon-based organism to a silicon-based, or combined carbon-silicon based organism. (And of course, I would love to hear their thoughts on what I posted.)