Binding the Strong Man Quotes

“To pray is to learn to believe in in a transformation of self and world, which seems, empirically, impossible.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“Mark appears to acknowledge the reality that “no one had the strength to subdue” the demon of Roman military occupation (5: 4)—including the Jewish rebels. Yet he makes his revolutionary stance clear by symbolically reenacting the exodus story through a “herd” of pigs. With the divine command, the imperial forces are drowned in the sea. It is no accident that in the aftermath of this action the crowd, like Pilate, responds with “wonder” (thaumazein; 5: 20). To invoke the great exodus liberation story was, as it has been subsequently throughout Western history, to fan the flames of revolutionary hope (Walzer, 1986). Yet Mark realized that the problem was much deeper than throwing off the yoke of yet another colonizer. After all, biblical history itself attested to the fact that Israel had always been squeezed, courted, or threatened by the great empires that surrounded it. And the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids had only resulted in recycling oppressive power into the hands of a native dynasty, one that in turn became an early victim of a newly ascendent imperial power, Rome. Thus the meaning of Jesus’ struggle against the strong man is not reducible solely to his desire for the liberation of Palestine from colonial rule, though it certainly includes that. It is a struggle against the root “spirit” and politics of domination—which, Mark acknowledges matter of factly, is most clearly represented by the “great men” of the Hellenistic imperial sphere (10: 42).”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“The images of “enough” are: 1. eschatological harvest, 4: 8 2. Jewish crowds satisfied in wilderness, 6: 44 3. all food declared clean, 7: 19 4. gentile crowds satisfied in wilderness, 8: 8 5. abundant leftovers, 8: 19f. 6. communal abundance, 10: 30. These images imply a new practice over against the temple-based system of economic redistribution, which has failed. This is the practice of cooperative sharing, a return to the original Israelite vision of a community of production and consumption.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“Mark, in other words, understands the nature of structural injustice, and for this reason refuses to consider strategies of reform. The disciples do not see this clearly, at least twice entertaining the idea that Jesus’ concern for the poor might be satisfied by their making better use of their purchasing power in the market (see 6: 37; 14: 5). Their blindness is a result of a failure to see that the system cannot be redirected toward the purposes of justice. Instead, Jesus calls for its complete collapse (13: 2), and in its place he advocates a genuine practice of equitable redistribution (above,”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“the fact remains that those on the peripheries will have “eyes to see” many things that those of us at the center do not. This, however, does not relieve us of the responsibility to read the Gospel and respond to it. Indeed, to listen to the perspective of the periphery (both that of Mark and those of today) is fundamental to our awakening to the call to discipleship in the locus imperium.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“I will here simply introduce two key themes that I believe should characterize our theological reflection and guide our practice in the locus imperium. The first is repentance, which for us implies not only a conversion of heart, but a concrete process of turning away from empire, its distractions and seductions, its hubris and iniquity. The second is resistance, which involves shaking off the powerful sedation of a society that rewards ignorance and trivializes everything political, in order to discern and take concrete stands in our historical moment, and to find meaningful ways to “impede imperial progress.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“What is the meaning of Resurrection? ...is it not the exorcism of crippling unbelief, which renders us dead in life (Mark 9:22) rather than alive in our dying (8:35)?”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“Philosophers seek to understand the world; the point, however, is to change it.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“The discipleship community, as has happened so often throughout history, has buckled under the boot of security forces, its dreams of a new order shattered by the brute reality of state power. Jesus, now alone, goes to stand in a kangaroo court with no hope of justice. There his final conflict with the powers will be played out.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“The first “young man” symbolizes “saving life and losing it,” the second “losing life to save it.” At this stage in the story, however, without knowing the end, the episode of the young man represents a mystery. All we know is that everything has gone sour.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“Political readings can no longer skirt the implications of the cornerstone of New Testament faith—Jesus crucified as the justice of God.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“The young man, who flees (ephugen) after the authorities try to seize him along with Jesus, is a symbol of the discipleship community as a whole, which has just itself fled (14: 50). He escapes naked (gumnos), indicative of shame, leaving behind a cloth that becomes the “burial garment” for Jesus. The end of the story will reintroduce the young man, but there he will be “sitting at the right” and fully clothed in a white robe—symbols of the martyrs who have overcome the world through death (cf. 9: 3). This “exchange” of clothes between the first and second appearances of the “young man” represents (as in the earlier transfiguration of Jesus’ garments) an implicit promise and challenge. The discipleship community can be rehabilitated, even after such a betrayal.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“But Mark is not concerned with advocating lower prices for the poor or fair economic practices. For Jesus has already repudiated the purity and debt systems themselves—and its specific marginalization of lepers (1: 41ff.) and women (5: 25ff.). Thus Jesus calls for an end to the entire cultic system—symbolized by his “overturning” (katestrepsen, which can also mean to “destroy”) of the stations used by these two groups. They represented the concrete mechanisms of oppression within a political economy that doubly exploited the poor and unclean. Not only were they considered second-class citizens, but the cult obligated them to make reparation, through sacrifices, for their inferior status—from which the marketers profited. Jesus’ action here is fully consistent with his first direct action campaign to discredit the socio-symbolic apparati that discriminated against the “weak” and the “sinners” (2: 17). The third and final action implies that the goal of these disruptive steps was a shutting down of temple operations altogether (10: 16).”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“Mark considered these money changers suitable symbols of the oppressive financial institutions he so fiercely opposed. “Those selling doves” refers to the staple temple commodity relied upon by the poor.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“Mark presses the bold claim that the temple is not necessary in order for Yahweh to dwell among the people. There is no sacred institutional site from which Yahweh must be addressed in prayer: that site is faith (11: 24). This point is made dramatically in the rending of the temple curtain at the moment of Jesus’ death. The messianic “sacrifice” of Jesus has reconciled the people to Yahweh and each other, thus rendering void the priestly apparatus. Yahweh is no longer a recluse in the Holy of Holies, but present among the community. Given the importance of table fellowship to Mark's social and economic experiment, it is not surprising that Jesus chooses this site as the new symbolic center of the community. In place of the temple is a simple meal, which represents participation in Jesus’ “body” (14: 22–25; above, 12, B, iii). Yet it is the meal, not the body, that is “holy,” for the latter is absent at the end of the story. We are left, then, not with a ritual but the social event of table fellowship. This meal, which itself was an expropriation of the great liberation symbols of Passover, is meant to bring to mind the entire messianic program of justice and the cost of fidelity to it. But it is a meal for a community in flight, or more accurately, a community that follows its true center, Jesus, who cannot be institutionalized because he is always ahead of us on the road”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“The community's practice of forgiveness becomes the replacement of the redemptive/ symbolic system of debt represented in the temple. The community becomes truly the “priesthood of all believers,” the place of prayer “for all peoples.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“Jesus’ attack upon the temple thus appropriately concludes with a new “site” for prayer now that the “house of prayer” has been abandoned.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“And, as in ancient Israel, modern purity codes function politically as well as socially. The very same myths of “chosenness” that shape patriotic ideologies in the U.S.A. also shape the dreams of neo-Nazi white supremacists and the social codes of Afrikaaner apartheid. And what about the socio-symbolic apparatus of our national security state, with its “priesthood” of the security-cleared and its “holy places” surrounded by barbed wire?”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“The subjects of this practice of inclusivity are first the poor and outcast. This is articulated both generally, in terms of Jesus’ ministry to the “crowd,” and specifically, in terms of episodes involving the disabled (2: 1ff.; 10: 45ff.), the ritually unclean (1: 45ff.; 5: 25ff.), the socially marginalized (2: 15ff.; 7: 24ff.); and women and children (10: 1ff.). This solidarity is perhaps best represented in the first episode of the passion narrative (above, 12, B, i), in which Jesus is pictured residing at the house of a leper, and there teaches that one woman's act of compassion outweighs all the pretensions to faithfulness of his own disciples (14: 3–9). Because it is often raised in political readings of the Gospel, the question must be addressed: Does Mark's story portray Jesus as the author of a “mass movement?” This might be suggested not only by his clear “preferential option” for the poor of Palestine, but the evident class bias in the narrative. There are those who would see some of Jesus’ “popular” actions, such as the wilderness feedings (above, 6, D, ii) or the procession on Jerusalem, as indicative of mass organizing. But we must keep in mind that Mark's discipleship narrative articulates a definite strategy of minority political vocation. That is, Jesus creates a community that is expected to embrace the messianic way regardless of how the masses respond to the “objective conditions for revolution.” In what sense, then, do we understand Jesus’ solidarity with the poor?”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“Throughout the Gospel there is a consistent narrative opposition between those representing the symbolic order on the one hand and the poor and marginal on the other: 1. priests (purity) vs. the leprous (1: 41ff.); 2. scribes (debt) vs. the physically disabled (2: 1ff.); 3. Pharisees (debt) vs. the dependent elderly (7: 6ff.); 4. scribes (debt) vs. disenfranchised widows (12: 40).”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“In sum, then, my socio-literary approach to Mark's healing and exorcism stories takes into account both the social and cultural dimension. It attends to the discursive function of the episode in the narrative strategy of the author: as symbolic action addressing a symbolic system that oppresses. This opens up and maintains access to the text for all. It also explains why Mark's Jesus is such a threat to the stewards of the status quo.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“what would “gospel” have connoted for Mark's first audience? A Hellenistic expression (literally “glad tidings”), it was, according to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, “a technical term for ‘news of victory,’” especially in military battles. In the Roman empire it was especially associated with political propaganda.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“Why does he choose to invent a literary form rather than use a culturally familiar one? This will be discussed at the outset under “ideology of genre” (below, 3, B).”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“A literary approach pays attention to both what Mark tells us and how he tells it.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“It is very much the contention of this commentary that Mark remains a manifesto for radical discipleship. Unfortunately, our movement has not been very successful in finding new reading strategies commensurate with the deepening politicization of our practice. Too much of our biblical study remains strictly devotionalistic and often frankly superficial.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“Mark's Gospel originally was written to help imperial subjects learn the hard truth about their world and themselves. He does not pretend to represent the word of God dispassionately or impartially, as if that word were innocuously universal in its appeal to rich and poor alike.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“There is an important thing about this reading site that the reader of this commentary must keep in mind. The “center-periphery” model is in many respects germane also to the world, and hence the site, of Mark himself. The ancient Mediterranean world was dominated by the rule of imperial Rome. However, whereas I read from the center, Mark wrote from the Palestinian periphery (see below, 2, A, i). His primary audience were those whose daily lives bore the exploitative weight of colonialism, whereas mine are those who are in a position to enjoy the privileges of the colonizer. In this sense, Third World liberation theologians, who today also write from the perspective of the colonized periphery have the advantage of a certain “affinity of site” in their reading of the Gospels.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“Mark's story of Jesus stands virtually alone among the literary achievements of antiquity for one reason: it is a narrative for and about the common people. The Gospel reflects the daily realities of disease, poverty, and disenfranchisement that characterized the social existence of first-century Palestine's “other 95%.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“His is a story by, about, and for those committed to God's work of justice, compassion, and liberation in the world. To modern theologians, like the Pharisees, Mark offers no “signs from heaven” (Mark 8: 11f.). To scholars who, like the chief priests, refuse to ideologically commit themselves, he offers no answer (Mk 11: 30–33). But to those willing to raise the wrath of the empire, Mark offers a way of discipleship (8: 34ff.).”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus

“White North American Christians, especially those of us from the privileged strata of society, must come to terms with the fact that our reading site for the Gospel of Mark is empire, locus imperium.”
― Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus