Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[DoubtingJames]

One argument I see used as proof the story's of Jesus are mostly legend is the so called Messianic Secret most prominent in Mark. People argue that Jesus telling his followers and people who he performed miracles on not to tell others about himself was an invention by the author of Matthew to explain why people hadn't heard of Jesus before if he had done all these great things. As farther proof, Jesus seemly never did this as often in the others gospels, the reason being Christianity had spread a fair amount by the time the others where written, so the story that Jesus wanted to remain anonymous was dropped. Do Christians have any arguments to the contrary?

[jimwalton]

This is a great question. Thanks for asking it. I would love to discuss it.

First, I don't know if you have a typo when you typed Matthew. Looking through the 4 Gospels, the "Messianic Secret" is really a thing in Mark (as you noted), barely in Matthew & Luke (mostly muzzling demons, which makes sense to me, and really isn't the "Messianic Secret" thing we see so prominently in Mark), and not at all in John, by my observations. But we can talk about that if you feel differently or if you meant to type Matthew.

Next step in this discussion: the dating of the Gospels. My study has led me to an early writing of the three Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Just briefly, I think there are powerful and convincing arguments supporting the case that Acts was written between AD 62-64. Just going with that, there is reason to believe, then, that Luke was written before that (possibly in around 60, give or take); and since it is believed that Luke got some of his material from Mark, that puts Mark in the late 50s, which conforms with what Clement of Alexandria, Papias, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, and Hippolytus indicate. We could discuss the dating of Matthew and Luke, but I put them fairly quickly on the heels of Mark and not a whole lot later, as your theory might imply or warrant. But we can talk about that, also, if you want.

So let's then talk about the messianic secret so prominent in Mark. One distinctive literary technique of Mark, in contrast to the other 3 Gospels, is his use of irony. His entire Gospel drips with it, showing up on just about every page. He uses the device to drive home his point that Jesus is legitimate even though He was not what people thought the messiah was going to be. That, by itself, would be contrary to the thought that the messianic secret is a proof that these stories are mostly legend. The whole point is: don't turn away from viewing the historical Jesus as messiah even though you thought messiah was going to be way different than He.

But we have to do better than that to understand Mark's purpose, and whether or not this stuff is historical. So saying, I think Mark drives home this incongruity on every page. The disciples (in Mark particularly) are dimwits who understand nothing the entire book (the only thing they EVER get right in Mark is Peter's declaration in Mk. 8.29, which is important to our point about the messianic secret); the religious leaders are loathsome harassers who can't resist enough (picture Nancy Pelosi vs. Donald Trump—the harassment never stops); the demons perpetually tell the truth about Jesus, but he surely doesn't want their endorsements ; and the people who witness His miracles most certainly misunderstand them and want to change the conversation to politics (our King who will free us from Rome )

This all serves Mark's point of covenant jeopardy: Will the plan of salvation God has designed ultimately fail? Everything seems to indicate yes. Opposition is relentless, the disciples are worthless witnesses, and the people are sheep who don't even know what they're looking for, let alone whom they're looking at. And Jesus on the surface seems to not be helping matters much, telling people to not tell anyone.

Except... Mark is simultaneously pushing a secondary plot line: This humble and self-effacing Jesus is a person of startling authority who has definitive power over Satan, astounding miracle capability, an unearthly wisdom, and an unparalleled compassion for people. These two plot lines (jeopardy vs. reality) do battle through the book just as Jesus and Satan, good and evil, are at war through the book. Is Jesus a humble servant who is misunderstood, or is He the Son of God (Mk. 1.1) who is sovereign over all things? It's a stroke of literary genius that makes Mark a fascinating read.

You'll notice that the Messianic Secret disappears when Jesus enters Jerusalem (Mk. 11.1), as if the gloves are finally off for the big battle. Mark smashes through Jesus's 3 years of ministry in 10 chapters, and then pulls way back to slo-mo for the final week, and devotes 6 chapters to 8 days. Jesus becomes bold about His identity:

• Triumphal Entry: He is the Messiah King who has come in the name of the Lord
• He clears the Temple, as the fulfillment of prophecy
• He rebukes Judaism as having gone apostate in the cursing of the fig tree
• He puts Himself in the position of Son, Heir, and the fulfillment of prophecy in the parable of the tenants.
• He establishes Himself as the legitimate Son of God (Mk. 12.35-40)
• He prophesies about His return in glory (Mk. 13.26-27).
• He is anointed at Bethany
• At the last supper, He puts Himself in the position as the New Covenant.
• In the Passion narrative (14.32-15,47) He drills home his authority, fulling Scripture, and being the powerful Messiah who will return, all the while being the victim of men's bitter cruelty.

It's just powerful to me as I read it.

I don't see it as "Mark was showing that Jesus was unknown because people hadn't heard of him, but by the time the other Gospels were written (presumably, in this view, a decade or two later), there were more followers, so the other Synoptic authors dropped that part since it didn't make sense anymore." Instead, I see it as making Mark's point in a powerful way, while Matthew and Luke had different points to make and so were emphasizing different aspects of Jesus's life and words.

But this is a fascinating discussion, and we've barely creased the surface. I'll be curious to read your reaction to what I've said and to keep discussing it if you want.

[DoubtingJames]

Thank you for such an in depth reply. And I'm quite embarrassed to admit I let that horrible typo slip through. I definitely meant Mark.

Your whole response was interesting and really helped me understand what Mark was going for much better. That being said I'm still a bit concerned about why Jesus would tell people this so often. I think it's fairly evident the author of Matthew was as well because he even makes the strange decision of including Jesus replying "Don't tell anyone your healed" even though he just stated Jesus was being followed by a crowd. (Matthew 8:1-4) Most likely because he was using Mark as a source. Which has me a bit worried about how thorough the Author of Matthew’s research was when writing his Gospel.

But I think you are correct in that the evidence is pretty clear this wasn’t some secret move to hide the reality Jesus wasn’t perceived as the messiah yet by Matthew.

But if you don’t mind me shifting the question, i'd like to ask about something else. Sorry it’s rather offtopic for the this particular forum category:
How should we interpret the Gospels overall in your opinion? I noticed in your reply you pointed out a lot of symbolism in Mark and how he tries to kinda tell a unified story. I’ve been listening to a podcast called New Testament Review Podcast. (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCR8SeI ... chw/videos) The hosts are both Chrisitans but they hold that the stories of the gospels are almost entirely symbolic and meant to convey all sorts of messages. But I’ve also seen people who hold a far more fundamentalist view. So how should we approach all these stories of Jesus’ life? Surely it matters and they must be at least mostly true?

[jimwalton]

Hey, thanks for the conversation. I really love this stuff and like to talk about it.

> That being said I'm still a bit concerned about why Jesus would tell people this so often.

It is never really explained to us, which is why there are so many theories, but I think if we understand Mark's approach (pointing out all the incongruities) and look at the individual incidents, it can help us. So (very briefly)...

• Mark 1.15. Jesus went through Galilee boldly proclaiming, "The time has come! The kingdom is near. Repent and believe!" No secret here.
• 1.25. Warfare text: Jesus is teaching, and a demon-possessed man interrupts. Right? Jesus is attacking Satan's kingdom with His teaching, and so Satan strikes back, and in the synagogue (as if it were God's turf, so to speak). Jesus silences the demon, refusing to let it speak. Jesus is exercising sovereign authority (vv. 25-27), not keeping a secret.
• 1.32-34. No secret here. Jesus is publicly impressive.
• 1.39: Warfare text: No secret here. Jesus is confronting demons and easily winning.
• 1.40-45. Why the "don't tell anyone"? We are given a small clue in v. 45: So many people clamoring for healing He can't do what He came to do. His popularity and the oppressive crowds were becoming a problem. We might ask, "Did Jesus not want to heal?" Sure He did, but He came for reasons other than that—to explain who He was and to teach about the kingdom of God. He doesn’t want to attract the crowds for what He does, but for who He is. The crowds always misunderstood, and were fickle. The crowds never came to him for the right reasons. Jesus doesn't trust a faith based on spectacle. The healing was becoming an interference, and probably not particularly working towards bringing people to the kingdom. We also are finding out that all this attention is raising up enemies (chapters 2-3), and Jesus has to temper this movement of popularity (which has no benefit to the kingdom of God) and the resulting problematic isolation and opposition.
• 2.1-12. No secret here. Jesus boldly puts Himself in a position that only God has, and right in the face of a large crowd and critical religious leaders.
• 3.7-12. He commands specifically the evil spirits from speaking about Him. No surprise. Who would want their endorsement? The demons always tell the truth, but He doesn't want them doing commercials for Him.
• 5.18-20. Jesus specifically commands the guy to share freely what Jesus had done for Him. No secret here.
• 6.32-44. The feeding of the 5000. No secret here.
• 6.55-56. No secret here.
• 7.31-36. Another "Don't tell anyone" (v. 36). Interesting, the IDENTICAL language here to 1.44 suggests the same potential problems. The healing would hinder His movement and interrupt His ability to teach. Lane writes, "It was apparently Jesus’s intention to remain in the region of the Decapolis for a period of time and he didn’t wish to be regarded as a Hellenistic wonder-worker." You can see that their amazement is that He can heal, not about His identity as the Son of God. This is a problem that needs to be squelched.
• 8.8-12. His miracles are increasing the opposition, and the more He does, the more people are against Him (ironically enough). In 8.12 He sighs with apparent frustration and says, "You know what, we're done with this." Even the disciples are not getting it (8.14-21).
• 8.26. He tells the healed man, "Don't go into the village." If I could say it this way, His frustration is building. He is becoming "famous" as a wonder-worker, but people aren't getting it that He's the Son of God. So he asks His disciples, "Who do people say that I am?" (8.27). What's the reputation? We find out it's ALL WRONG. "John the Baptist." "Elijah." "A prophet." Sigh. And then comes the only thing the disciples get right in the entire book. Peter says, "You're the Christ." So why would He tell them to keep THAT a secret? Because the disciples still don't understand and they're going to spread false information! Look at 8.33, immediately following. The Christ has come to suffer and die, but they don't get that, so they're going to spread the wrong message. Sigh.
• 9.2-10. The Transfiguration! They can tell about this, right? Nope (v. 9). WHY? Because they didn't understand what "rising from the dead" meant (v. 10). He simply cannot afford to have misinformation spread. Ironically, the demons are the only ones who seem to understand who He is and what He has come to do, but He doesn't want their backing.
• 9.14-19. The disciples still don't understand. The people don't understand. Jesus keeps teaching the truth, but people are blind to it (9.32). He doesn't want ANY of them being mouthpieces for Him...yet.
• 9.33-34. Sigh. The disciples are arguing about which of them is the greatest. Seriously????? Then in 10.37, they want special privileges. Smack my head (smh)
• As I mentioned previously, after Jesus's entrance into Jerusalem (Mk. 11.1ff.), the gloves are off. No more secret. It's an intense time of teaching and conflict.
• And...the book ends with the disciples not getting it. (smh) (16.8).

To me this all makes some sense out of the BIG secret thing. We can talk about it more if you want.

> Most likely because he [Matthew] was using Mark as a source. Which has me a bit worried ...

I know this is the "scholarly consensus," but I've been working on this A LOT lately, and I'm not seeing it. I don't want to bury you with another long list of stuff, so if you want to talk about this more, I'm glad to. But, as I said, I've been studying Matthew deeply and comparing it to Mark. I'm up to chapter 9 and have seen almost NO evidence of copying or using Mark as a source.

Now to the question shift.

> How should we interpret the Gospels overall in your opinion?

Mark does have a TON of symbolism in it, and he certainly has an agenda—a motive—for telling the story he does. I do not agree, however, that the stories of the Gospels are almost entirely symbolic. I view the Gospels as theological biographies in the common style of Greco-Roman biographies of the era. I take them as historical narrative, but also that everything Jesus did had deeper meaning (and hence the symbolism). For instance, He really did heal a really blind man, but then He uses that story to make a point about spiritual blindness. He really did heal the lame man, and He uses that story to make a point about His authority to forgive. So these things really did happen, but they have layers (like Shrek being like an onion ). Layers. Whenever Jesus opens His mouth, look for more meaning than is on the surface. He's fascinating that way. But I think these things were all truly historical and not merely symbolic.