Posts
For the longest time Mark seemed like a shorter version of
Luke or Matthew with less back story, polish, and interest. Jesus enters with no
backstory, and Mark repeatedly uses the word immediately. His miracles often
produce fear, and he commands the recipients of those miracles to secrecy. The
apostles frequently misunderstand and then deny and abandon Him. The story ends
abruptly with no dramatic reveal of Christ’s resurrection but only a mysterious
promise.
But then I read a book, picked up for several dollars at a
gas station thrift library, called The Bible as Literature. It provided a new lens that turned what had seemed
incomplete and frustrating, suddenly became one of the most interesting Gospels.
The speed, secrecy, fear, misunderstanding, and abrupt ending all contribute to
the same portrait of Jesus as something almost too powerful and strange for the
people around him to comprehend.
For example, one thing I had never noticed, is that while
defending His authority to cast out demons, Jesus compares Himself to a robber
who enters a strong man's house, binds him, and plunders his possessions. Mark
3:22-27:
22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebul, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.
23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?
24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.
The salient part is the image itself. Jesus described
someone entering a house, overpowering its ruler, binding him, and taking his
goods. There may even be a wordplay here involving Beelzebul and the “house,”[2]
which makes the passage even more interesting.
Jesus is saying that he isn't casting out demons by the
devil's power. He is overpowering the devil with His own power. Like a robber,
he is invading the strong man's domain and taking back what belongs to him. The
“goods” are, figuratively, the people whom Jesus is liberating from demonic
power.
This makes it rather striking regarding the theology surrounding the use of force. Jesus doesn't describe his victory over Satan as a process of peace building dialogue. He described it as an invasion, the binding of an enemy, and the seizure of his possessions. But his invasion did not produce the political revolution or military victory associated with traditional concepts of the Jewish Messiah, nor did it fit the traditional definition of “gospel” as the good news of a military victory.
While Jesus rejected those traditional concepts, he did not reject the righteous use of personal force. If Jesus wanted that, He likely would have referenced a far more conciliatory option than home invasion, binding, and seizing. Moreover, the fact that Jesus compared himself to a robber rather than a soldier suggests something socially subversive about His assault on the devil’s kingdom. It it was simply about violence he could have described himself as a soldier. But perhaps there was a bit of Markan irony in describing his mission in subversive terms. And it could have described some of his subversive tactics like healing or dining with publicans and lebers. It was also a way for him to say that His mission was more important than societal rules and cleanliness rituals of the Law of Moses.
The use of robber is especially striking considering he called the temple a “den of
thieves”, or “robbers” in some translations (Mark 11:17). And the Book of
Mormon depicts Gadianton Robbers as founded by Satan (Helaman 6:26-27; Ether
8:15-16, 25). Jesus uses this parable to proclaim that He is beating the devil at his own game by adopting the role
of the outlaw instead of noble king or soldier, particularly during the cleansing of the temple when He is the socially disreputable figure who uses force and transgressive
means to accomplish his ends.
In Just War terms, this might initially seem to undermine
the concept of Just Authority. That authority is what distinguishes legitimate
force from banditry. Yet Jesus deliberately uses the imagery of a robber to
describe his assault on the devil’s kingdom, operating outside any earthly
state authority. The tension is resolved by the fact that Jesus Himself is the
divine authority that ultimately grounds legitimate human authority. His use of
force against Satan does not eliminate the requirement of Just Authority for
human beings or justify banditry. It instead demonstrates that divine authority
is not dependent upon earthly political institutions and norms.
The robber imagery may point to a deeper irony in Mark’s
portrayal of Jesus. He subverts expectations of a conventional conquering
Messiah, and adopts the role of an outlaw who infiltrates and overthrows his
enemy from within. Yet this unconventional Messiah was still subversive enough
for Rome to perceive him as a threat and crucify him.
The Parable of the Strong Man joins a long list of scriptures that suggest the pacifist reading is
rather limited and contested at best. When talking to soldiers neither John the
Baptist (Luke 3:10-18) nor Jesus commanded soldiers to lay down their arms
(Matthew 8:5-13). Jesus praised the centurion for his faith! Jesus described parables where the master
used force to compel servants to enter (Luke 14:23).
All four gospels describe Jesus using whips to cleanse the temple (Mark 11:15-19). By driving out the money changers, stopping people from using it as a shortcut, and shutting down business, Jesus is binding the strong men (the high priests and elites) who are running an exploitative system. He then "plunders" their authority by teaching the crowds right under their noses and liberates their goods, the exploited poor like the widow (Mark 12:41-44).
Emblematic of many pacifists, Mason and Pulsipher tried to explain this away as “only” violence against objects and animals. But similar violence in the Book of Mormon was enough for Ammon to maim and kill people.[3] Digging deeper, the key to understanding Jesus’ use of force is to realize that he disrupted temple sacrifices that were supposed to mediate sin and replaced them shortly thereafter with the great and lasting sacrifice of Jesus’ Atonement. So, force at the temple wasn’t an unfortunate and isolated incident to explain away. But one more action central to His mission because it pointed to the atonement of Jesus Christ. It was subversive like a robber, but Mark then used irony to point out how Jesus’ subversive behavior countered and would eventually atone for their subversive sins.
Moreover, the Markan account of the temple cleansing is
sandwiched by another use of force when Jesus smote a fig tree for only
appearing to be fruitful (Mark 11:12-14, 20-25). This wasn’t a capricious act
of violence by Jesus or random fragment of an ancient text, but His use of
force created a powerful teaching moment about the appearance of righteousness
among the people of Israel that masked their deep sins and wholly corrupt society that had a veneer of righteousness centered in the temple.[4]
Jesus said that he didn’t bring peace but brought the sword
(Matthew 10:34), and in another instance, fire and division (Luke 12:49). When
struck, Jesus didn’t turn the other cheek (John 18:22-23).
A broader look at the New Testament continues this pattern. Paul
says the rulers are appointed by God as “agents of his wrath to the wrong doer”
(Romans 13:4). And Jesus promises in revelation that he will kill so many
people that the blood will flow like a wine press for 200 miles (Rev 14:20).
We can comfortably add Jesus’ parable of the strong man in Mark
3:22-27 to this list. He could have described his victory over Satan as
reconciliation or persuasion. In this case Jesus didn’t use an example of
nonviolence or assertive love. Instead, he describes himself as a robber who
entered the strong man's house, overpowered him, bound him, and liberated his
captives.
The enigmatic use of a strong man brings me back to the comet
analogy. The comet and this parable might be confusing, mystifying, and even
upsetting, but they are significant, understandable, and even beautiful after
consideration. And that might be the true beauty of the Book of Mark as the
apparent incompleteness of Mark is part of the point. The readers, like the
disciples, are left trying to figure out exactly who this terrifying,
miraculous, misunderstood figure really is and we grow into better people and
disciples as we do so.
********
Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work, please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page or consider purchasing one of my books linked in the top left.
I also write fiction! Feel free to check out my cyber punk thriller.
[1]
Though Jesus commanded Peter, James, and John not to share the secrets of what
happened on the Mount of Transfiguration until after his resurrection (Mark 9:9-10).
Because readers have that knowledge, it would argue that Jesus was now
resurrected.
[2] Jesus’ wordplay on house might have invoked the word play of Elijah when the latter mocked the Master of the House, Beelzebul, as Lord of Flies, Beelzebub. If this was deliberate by Mark, he is showing how Jesus used word play to invoke the greatest prophet, Elijah (2 Kings 1:3-4).
This is also an example of how dense and subtle Mark
is. In a few lines Jesus responded to the Pharisees by sharing a parable with
subtle word play that mocked the demon and invoked Elijah. Mark started his
account by describing John the Baptist in such a way that invoked Elijah (Mark
1:6; 2 Kings 1:8), which also made the Strong Man parable a thematic touchstone
and callback!
[3]
[4] The money changers are the traditional targets of Jesus’ wrath, but it goes much deeper. The money they used often had the deified Roman Emperor on it, which made it idolatrous.
The money was likely gained through unethical practices, such as failure to pay taxes owed to a landlord. After committing their crimes, thieves would flee to a den for safety. Hence, they had fled to the temple, giving the appearance of righteousness while really making it a “den of thieves.” Jesus’ statement is likely a reference to Jeremiah 7:11, where the prophet condemned wicked Israelites who felt they could commit all sorts of evil acts but then flee to the temple for safety, as though it were a lucky charm that automatically covered all their sins. And that made the temple a "den of thieves."
Their unethical practices in this case were likely connected to the merchants and elites at the temple because Jesus uses the Parable of the Tenants immediately after his temple cleansing, sandwiched by the cursed fig tree (Mark 12:1-12). There he compared the elites to tenants that didn’t pay rent and beat the servants/prophets of the Landlord/God the Father, before the Landlord/Father sends his beloved son/Jesus, whom the wicked tenants kill.
Many people may have used the courtyard as a shortcut for secular business (Mark 11:16). The Gentiles were supposed to be allowed in the outer courtyard, but they had been displaced by the animal marketplace. This is likely the first reference in Jesus’ statement before calling them a den of thieves: Isaiah 56:7: “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”
Finally, in the story of the Widow’s Mite (Mark 12:41-44), the widow gives all her money, two mites or pennies, to support the temple when the temple funds should have been used to support widows like her.
Clearly, like the fig tree that Jesus cursed for only
having the appearance of fruit, Israel was rotten to its roots.
