The Outlaw Messiah: Jesus, Violence, and the Strong Man

 

Chatgpt 2026, "Parable of the Strongman" 

        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.[1]

        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] Patrick Q. Mason and J. David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Answer to an Age of Conflict (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship; Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2021), 161.

[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.

 

Moroni's Tactics and the Vandal War

Belisarius led armies from the Byzantine (or Eastern Roman) empire in the 6^th century AD. He fought the Persians on the eastern front of the empire and eventually fought a long war to reclaim Italy from Gothic tribesmen. The subject of interest here is the Vandal war in North Africa. The Emperor Justinian, taking advantage of a revolt against Vandal rule and a peace with the Persians, sent Belisarius with a small force of ten thousand men to attack the formerly held territories of the Roman Empire in North Africa.

One the invasion landed on the beach; Belisarius marched towards the Vandal’s capital at Carthage. He ordered his soldiers to pay for their supplies and forbade them from pillaging. As a result, they had the support of the people and moved “as if in their own land.”[1] Gelimer, the Vandal king, planned an ambush along their likely route. At Ad Decimum, Gelimer planned a three-pronged attack. His brother, Ammatas, would attack the advance of Belisarius from the front. Another force under Gibamundus would attack Belisarius from the left flank. And Gelimer would use his local knowledge of roads to take an interior route to attack Belisarius from the rear. 

The plan compensated for the division of forces by relying on the surprise of attacking simultaneously form multiple directions. Unfortunately, the plan collapsed quickly. The cavalry of Belisarius defeated the flank attack led by Gibamundus and the latter fell among the fighting. A short time later the frontal attack led by Ammatas smashed into the Byzantine force. He engaged the vanguard of Belisarius’ army, but the former hadn’t prepared to attack Belisarius so far north; as a result, Ammatas had his army spaced out along the road. The forward units were defeated piecemeal as they marched into the Byzantines, and then as those units retreated, they affected the next column and forced them to retreat and so on. His entire force ended up fleeing in a panic back towards Carthage. 

Finally, Gelimer arrived and attacked towards the north at what he thought was the rear, and already engaged, army of Belisarius. If the plan had worked, the two attacks by Gibamundus and Ammatus would mean that Gelimer attacked the rear for a coup de grace like Helamans “furious” attack upon the rear of the Lamanite army in Alma 56:52 with his Stripling Warriors. Gelimer routed the screening cavalry (the force that defeated Ammatas earlier), who then fled to the safety of the main camp of Belisarius. Gelimer regrouped his forces and stood poised to attack the bulk of the army of Belisarius. He hadn’t achieved his goal of attacking in the rear for the finishing blow, but still commanded motivated soldiers flushed with initial victory, while Belisarius, seemingly under attack from every direction, was trying to reorder his forces. Yet upon seeing the dead body of his brother Ammatus, Gelimer paused to assess the situation.[2] The pause by Gelimer allowed Belisarius to rally his fleeing cavalry, and counterattack with his entire force. Gelimer fled south, and Belisarius had an open road to Carthage. He took the city, defeated the resurgent Gelimer and reclaimed North Africa for the Byzantine Empire.

This story provides several insights into the Book of Mormon. The hook that invited the comparison was the use of hilly terrain to set up an ambush along an expected route. In Alma 43 Moroni anticipated the expected Lamanite attack. He hid an army on east side of the river Sidon behind a hill, and two on the other side. When the Lamanites crossed the river heading west, Lehi “encircled the Lamanites about on the east in their rear” (Alma 43:35). Lehi drove them where they met Moroni “on the other side of the river Sidon” (Alma 43:41). The Lamanites then fled towards Manti taking another route and “they were met again by the armies of Moroni” (Alma 43:41). [Insert Nibley Map}

Unlike the defeated Gelimer, the tactics of Moroni were resoundingly successful. Stuck in the trap the Lamanites responded with fury that had never been seen before which approached the power of dragons (Alma 43:44). But their tactical advantage couldn’t offset the superior positioning of Moroni’s forces. The Lamanites could not re-cross the river Sidon with Lehi on that side (though Alma the younger crossed the ford in the face of a hostile enemy- Alma 2:27), nor could they retreat towards Manti and then their own lands, and they could not hack their way through the Nephites to their goal of raiding Zarahemla to the north.

The comparison reminds the reader that an army is not such an easy thing to maneuver. The hapless General Lew Wallace discovered this on the American Civil War battlefield of Shiloh; Wallace had to march and re-march his soldiers through several different routes because of unclear orders that placed him on the wrong roads; and hence it took him an entire day to reinforce a front several miles away. Gelimer and Moroni had a plan that relied on surprise to compensate for numbers that were likely smaller than their enemies. This was compounded by the fact that their smaller armies were then placed into even smaller sub groups.

Gelimer had to move three separate forces towards the enemy, and have them attack at the same time. His force was largely horse based, so maneuvers like this were a bit more common and easier to pull off than infantry-based armies (and modern readers) might think.  Moroni, in contrast, kept his infantry-based armies stationary until the Lamanties passed his positions.  This is critical since the movement of multiples armies to catch a moving army increased the difficulty of Gelimer’s maneuver. Napoleon was a master and one of the greatest military geniuses of all time in moving his men in separate columns to engage the enemy on multiple fronts at the same time to achieve decisive victory.[3] Even he found it extremely difficult to keep abreast of locations for half a dozen corps under his command, the need to know their current marching orders and future locations, the need to modify those orders in relation to the often fragmentary and conflicting scouting reports concerning a dozen moving enemy divisions, and the need to move the forces under his command in a way that brought them into battle in favorable position.[4] The military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz claimed that Napoleon compared the mass of life or death decisions based on incomplete information  to “mathematical problems worthy of the gifts of Newton.”[5] It is no surprise, then, that Gelimer did not catch Belisarius in his snare. The group attacking from the front and the flank acted too quickly, and only engaged the leading elements of the army. One attacking group seemed surprised to see the army. That group entered the battle in fragments and turned what should have been a decisive surprise into an ineffectual piecemeal attack. 

Moroni made sure the entire Lamanite army passed the first ambush on the east side of the river, which eased the difficulty level of his maneuver. This also might imply that Moroni adopted a strategy that relatively untrained foot soldiers could perform. Complex battlefield maneuvers were the domain of groups like the professional Roman centurions,[6] intensely drilled Prussians, or elite Spartans. The Mongols and other cavalry-based armies were well trained due to hunting and extensive experience in encircling and attacking their enemies. But most militaries and most members of the military in premodern times were part time soldiers impressed into duty during a crisis.[7] Moroni likely adopted this strategy to compensate for inferior numbers, but also for an untrained force. Moroni placed his soldiers in a place to succeed through superior “stratagem” (Alma 43:30) which speaks highly of Moroni’s skills as a strategist….

Read more in From Sinners to Saints: Reassessing the Book of Mormon

**********

---

[1] Procopius, The Wars of Justinian 3.17.2

[2] Ian Hughs, Belisarius: The Last Roman General, (Yardley PA: Westholme Press, 2009) 94. This is different than the traditional interpretation taken from Procopius in 3.19.3, which laid the blame at Gilmer discovering his brother’s dead body. Hugh’s claims, and I agree, that Gilmer discovered the remnants of the battle, and based on its location, and the location of his dead brother, assumed that Belisarius had already moved north towards Carthage. Therefore, he paused to assess the situation and marshal his forces before making the next attack.

[3] See the Battle of Jena-Auerstadt for a vivid example.

[4] Kristopner A. Teters, “Dissecting the Mind of a Genius: An examination of the Tactics and Strategies of Napoleon Bonaparte” Journal of Phi Alpha Theta 9 (2003): 16 (9-21).

[5] Carl Von Clausewtiz, On War, Michael Howard and Peter Paret trans., (Princeton University Press, 1984), 112.

[6] Victor David Hanson, Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, (New York: Anchor Books, 2001) 118. He quoted Josephus in describing the professionalism and prowess of legions: “One would not be wrong in saying that their training maneuvers are battles without bloodshed, and their battles maneuvers with bloodshed.“ (Jewish War: 3:102-107)

[7] Morgan Deane, “Experiencing Battle in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, 23 (2017), 239 (237-252).