The instruction given by Jesus, “But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,” is arguably one of the most radical and controversial ethical demands in history. Found within the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:39), it instantly sets a standard of non-retaliation that seems to defy basic human instinct for justice and self-preservation.
Yet, a contemporary ethical dilemma immediately arises: does this universal rule of non-resistance apply to individuals whose very nature is predatory—the Dark Triad personalities (narcissists, Machiavellians, and psychopaths), persistent bullies, and outright tyrants? If the victim is perpetually required to yield, does this not create a moral vacuum which antisocial power-seekers will inevitably exploit, guaranteeing their dominance and maximising the suffering of the vulnerable?
To answer this, we must move beyond a superficial reading and delve into the original context, the nature of the assault, and the specific language Jesus employed.
The Context: Resisting Roman Imperial Power
Jesus’s audience was not composed of comfortable, independent citizens. They were subjugated people living under the brutal occupation of the Roman Empire. The Sermon on the Mount was not simply a feel-good ethical lesson; it was a manual for revolutionary resistance based on transforming one’s inner and outer posture toward oppression.
The verses immediately preceding the “turn the other cheek” instruction deal with the ancient Jewish code of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” (lex talionis). Jesus was not advocating for the abolition of justice, but for the abolition of personal revenge.
When Jesus mentions being “slapped on the right cheek,” he is describing a specific, highly charged act. In the ancient world, only a backhand strike delivered by a superior officer, a master, or a Roman authority figure would land on the right cheek of a right-handed person. This was not the act of a brawl; it was a ritualised, deliberate act of humiliation and degradation—a symbolic assertion of status and power.
Crucially, this slap was designed to dehumanise the victim, reducing them to property or a servant.
The Power of Non-Retaliation (Aramaic Insight)
To understand the command, we must look at the specific Aramaic and Greek terms at play.
The Greek phrase commonly translated as “do not resist the one who is evil” (μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ, mē antistēnai tō ponērō) does not mean “do not stand up to the bully.” The verb antistēnai means to aggressively “resist,” “retaliate,” or “seek violent counter-revenge.” Jesus was forbidding the typical, cycle-perpetuating response of escalating violence.
When the victim, after being backhanded, turns the other cheek, they are doing something profoundly subversive. A superior could not slap the left cheek with a backhand; to strike the left cheek, they would have to use an open-hand forward strike.
The shift from a backhand (a blow to a slave) to a potential open-hand strike (a blow usually reserved for equals) instantly shatters the master/slave dynamic.
The victim, by presenting the other cheek, is essentially saying: “You have tried to degrade me, but I refuse to be degraded. If you wish to strike me again, you must strike me as you would an equal, thereby acknowledging my human dignity.”
This is not passive resignation; it is active, non-violent resistance—a calculated moral checkmate that exposes the aggressor’s brutality to all onlookers. It is an act of defiance aimed at reclaiming dignity without resorting to the power structures (violence) of the oppressor.
The Distinction: Humiliation vs. Predation
This clarification is vital when addressing Dark Triad individuals, bullies, and predators:
The Context of Dignity (The Slap)
Jesus’s teaching primarily addresses acts of systemic oppression and calculated humiliation. It is a refusal to adopt the oppressor’s methods, ensuring that the victim’s moral authority remains intact. This approach works against institutional bullying and status-based degradation.
The Context of Predation (The Threat to Life)
However, the Dark Triad, bullies, and predators often operate outside the realm of seeking mere status; they seek control, resources, and harm. They are driven by narcissistic supply or psychopathic disregard for safety.
Jesus’s entire ministry was predicated on protecting the vulnerable. It is a profound moral error to confuse the instruction against personal revenge with an absolute prohibition on self-defence or the protection of others.
If the intent of the aggressor is not symbolic humiliation but clear, imminent physical or sexual harm, the moral calculus changes completely. To allow a predator to dominate through non-resistance would contradict the overarching biblical mandate to protect the poor, the widow, and the orphan. The principle of radical love requires the defence of the defenceless.
The teaching on the cheek is therefore a tactic of resistance against oppressive structures; it is not a blanket authorisation for predators to inflict endless, systemic abuse. It draws a line: I will not become like you by seeking revenge, but I will not allow you to destroy me or others.
The Swords: Practicality and Limit
This distinction is reinforced by Jesus’s later instructions to his disciples just before his own arrest. In Luke 22:36–38, Jesus tells his disciples:
“But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
When the disciples reply that they have two swords, Jesus cryptically says, “That is enough.”
While theologians endlessly debate the meaning of carrying swords, the literal command suggests that absolute, radical pacifism was not the operating rule for every scenario. If self-preservation and preparation for unforeseen threats were completely forbidden, the instruction to arm oneself would be nonsensical.
The swords represent the recognition that there are times when defensive force is necessary. Jesus models the principle: Non-resistance (the cheek) is the ideal moral response to personal insult and systemic humiliation; defensive force (the sword) is the necessary response to imminent mortal danger or profound injustice that threatens human life and safety.
Conclusion: The Intent Clarified
Jesus’s command to “turn the other cheek” is not a naive prescription for perpetual victimhood. It is a brilliant, radical strategy for moral and psychological liberation used against institutional degradation and status-based bullying.
The intent behind the words is defiance without destruction. It forbids the cycle of competitive, ego-driven retaliation that leads to unending violence.
However, the teaching never intended to dismantle the ethical requirement to protect the vulnerable from true predation. When faced with Dark Triad individuals, bullies, and tyrants:
Against humiliation and status assertion: Employ the active non-resistance of turning the other cheek, forcing the aggressor to acknowledge your immutable human worth.
Against predation and imminent harm: Employ necessary, legal and proportional force for self-defence and the defence of the vulnerable.
The ultimate goal of Jesus’s ethic is not to ensure the comfort of the aggressor, but to ensure the moral integrity and ultimate freedom of the victim. If allowing a bully to take power causes misery, the failure is not in Jesus’s instruction against revenge, but in the moral obligation ignored to protect the innocent. Radical love, properly understood, is robust enough to include both boundless compassion and fierce defence.
Worldwide Temple of Aurora 