T
thereseozi
Guest
Why did Jesus warn people not to tell anyone (Mark 1:40-44 and Matthew 16:20)?
Thank you. ~Therese
Thank you. ~Therese
- Status
K
kell0618
Guest
His time had not yet come.
L
LilyM
Guest
For one thing people would only have been receiving half the story, and errors are very likely when one only has half the facts.
That God became Man is a miraculous thing, but until the whole plan was fulfilled - that He also suffer, die and rise again - his followers would probably think (as some of them did anyway) that He came to merely establish an earthly kingdom and drive the Romans out.
That God became Man is a miraculous thing, but until the whole plan was fulfilled - that He also suffer, die and rise again - his followers would probably think (as some of them did anyway) that He came to merely establish an earthly kingdom and drive the Romans out.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
A popular view of the Messiah back then was a military leader who would lead them in battle to throw off Roman control or bondage. Jesus came as the suffering Messiah, and he wanted that role to fully play out so the disciples, apostles would have a full gospel of redemption to preach. I cor 15:3-4. Also, the gospels often said, “it is not time” or something like that.
Matthew 26:18
He replied, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’ "
Mark 13:23
So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
Matthew 16:21
Jesus Predicts His Death ] From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Luke 1:20
And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their proper time."
John 2:4
“Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied, “My time has not yet come.”
John 7:6
Therefore Jesus told them, "The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right.
John 7:8
You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come."
John 7:30
At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come.
John 8:20
“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.
John 13:1
Jesus Washes His Disciples’ Feet ] It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.
John 17:2
"Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.
Matthew 26:18
He replied, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’ "
Mark 13:23
So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
Matthew 16:21
Jesus Predicts His Death ] From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Luke 1:20
And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their proper time."
John 2:4
“Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied, “My time has not yet come.”
John 7:6
Therefore Jesus told them, "The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right.
John 7:8
You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come."
John 7:30
At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come.
John 8:20
“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.
John 13:1
Jesus Washes His Disciples’ Feet ] It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.
John 17:2
"Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.
T
thereseozi
Guest
Thank you so much! ~Therese
~Therese
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
This has very little to do with Jesus and is mostly about Mark and his view of Jesus. He saw Jesus as mostly not understood by his followers. It had to do with the his conclusion that Jesus true identity was not recognized by even his apostles. His readers of course guess early on, from his writing who Jesus really was. It was a literary device of Marks which was picked up in part by Matthew.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
The priority of Mark is not proved, and many assert that Matthew was indeed the first writer. Jesus’ words were written as they were remembered with the help of the Holy Spirtit, and were not a “literary device.”
Thanks for the official heterodox view though. 
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
My views are in no way heterodox as you suggest. Markan priority is in fact the prevailiing opinion of most biblical scholars and my statements in no way depend on it in the first place. The messianic secret is a well known part of Mark’s gospel. Your’re attempts to sway the conversation by miniority opinions which are essentially fundamentalist in nature change nothing. Mark was not an apostle. He is most likely a follower of Paul’s although there is limited evidence that he followed Peter. He wrote his gospel from written material and oral traditions.The priority of Mark is not proved, and many assert that Matthew was indeed the first writer. Jesus’ words were written as they were remembered with the help of the Holy Spirtit, and were not a “literary device.”
I have no clue why some of you get all bothered by priority. I could care less which in the end proves to be the better argument supported by the evidence. Why does it matter to you? Isn’t the truth the main issue rather than whether some ECF, without the tools and material we have today made a mistake about a fairly insignficant fact? I thought the real issue was what did Jesus in fact do and say. Anything that helps us discern that is the road we should be taking IMO. Of course, I recognize the fact that this forum is about apologetics and not necessarily truth, I would assume that some here at least are interested in actual fact.
S
Seagirt
Guest
I, for one, do not mind posters who cite higher criticism. Markan priority is a decent theory, and we think that Mark may have been a scribe of Peter. Some times the posters here are too conservative and think that anything published after the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia is heresy. Remember, Ratzinger and de Lubac were once considered very liberal. Now they are Conservative and Orthodox.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
A. You are apparently not aware that many modern, state of the art, Biblical exegete’s no longer subscribe to Markan priority.
B. Calling that opinion a ‘minority,’ and ‘fundamentalist in nature’ is nothing more than your own opinion, and in my opinion is incorrect.
C. Even if your opinion WAS correct, it would still have nothing to do with whether non-Markan priority is right or wrong. It is really just an attempt to impugn non-Markan priority with specious accusations.
That’s what I thought too. You were the one to dismiss the whole issue as merely a literary device, having nothing to do with Jesus. Your comment:
So you are nullifying the very words of Jesus in the Holy Scripture as just an example of Mark’s use of a literary technique. You are the one that has derailed the thread by attempting to redirect the question to one of Biblical exegesis, when the real question had to do with why Jesus had instructed people to not tell anyone. Your off base remark insinuated that Jesus was not even saying such things, which the Holy Scripture most positively say HE DID!
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
That is very very old news: besides, exegetes are not required to. Marcan priority is not a dogma, but a (widely-held) position. Despite criticisms like this, Higher Criticism is not a Church, with Catechisms, & “hounds of the Lord” to rout out “dissenters”; it’s not the same kind of thing as Catholicism; it has no “police” or “orthodoxy”.
Anyone can have opinions - that’s beside the point: maybe the OP is well-informed enough to be able to speak with authority; & may, perhaps, be able to speak with greater authority than some. Merely to have counter-opinions proves nothing - the questions to ask are what they are based on & whether they are well-founded. “I disagree with you” is not an argument, still less a disproof.
It counts for something if an opinion is associated with fundamentalists but with hardly anyone else. That an opinion or position is held by fundamentalists & by no one else does not in itself invalidate it - but one is entitled to ask why this happens, when it does. Fundamentalism is a fact (unfortunately) & no good is done by pretending it is not;, once one is satisfied that it is.
"nothing to do with Jesus" is your remark - not the OP’s 
So you are nullifying the very words of Jesus in the Holy Scripture as just an example of Mark’s use of a literary technique. You are the one that has derailed the thread by attempting to redirect the question to one of Biblical exegesis, when the real question had to do with why Jesus had instructed people to not tell anyone. Your off base remark insinuated that Jesus was not even saying such things, which the Holy Scripture most positively say HE DID!
At the risk of derailing the derailment - the OP’s point is a perfectly one, because the words could be those of Jesus or they could be a Markan construction of the tradition of Jesus’ self-understanding.
**Neither is out of bounds to Catholics: both are fully allowed. But, it is entirely wrong for Catholics to take it upon themselves to refuse to others a freedom the Teaching Authority does not refuse them. **As what the Holy Bible says Jesus did: there is a difference between:
- what Jesus did do - &
- what the tradition as represented in this or that NT text depicts Him as doing
**The two may coincide in a given pericope - or they may not. The distinction does not affect whether the Gospel is true: it is true. It does affect the manner in which the truth is to be understood as being presented. That Jesus is presented as doing or saying a thing, does not by itself mean He did, nor does a Catholic have to think it does. Sentences beginning “Jesus said/did…” are not necessarily assertions of fact nor intended to be such: not even if they appear in the Holy Bible. The Instruction on the Truth of the Gospels does not forbid this idea. **
**As to whether Jesus Himself is the source of the Messianic Secret of His Identity, IMHO Mark (whoever he was) is relying on an authentic tradition & not applying a theological motif or “literary technique” of his own (not that there would be anything wrong in his doing so). He was not writing for us, but for Christians of his time, so it is illegitimate to treat the gospel as though he designed it for us: he didn’t. As well might Aristotle or Caesar or the “author” of the “Gilgamesh Epic” be expected to have written for us: they didn’t, & to understand them we must read them with their cultures in mind & not ours. **
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
In much the same way, exegetes are likely to think that every question in the Bible pertains to them, when in fact it doesn’t. It’s not a matter of what exegetes say being wrong or unimportant, it’s just that they have the same take on Holy Scripture that the foreman of the sausage factory’s maintenance department has on sausage. Yes, we want the sausage factory to have a maintenance department, and yes, we want them to take pride in keeping the plant clean and fit for the production of food. But that doesn’t mean however, that they should be the ones explaining the flavors and nuances of a fine sausage. They are too focused on their own small domain to really see the whole picture undistorted.
Furthermore, exegesis is like any other branch of study, having a spectrum of opinions ranging from the more conservative all the way to the most radical. They are in flux. They are arguing over various matters and various schools of thought.
Ultimately the Magisterium of the Church may reject some of their opinions, while upholding others. Since it is not the charism of exegetes to be teaching the faithful at large, but rather the Church’s, it would certainly be prudent for them to defer from voicing their slant on things, unless specifically called upon for an exegetical opinion. It would not be the intention of a truly professional and conscientious exegete, I am sure, to lead people away from the Scriptures, the Church, and their Faith, but it is entirely possible that their scholarly and tentative opinions might do just that if incontinently broadcast to all and sundry by the less professional and conscientious ones.
Gottle of Geer:
First of all, you seem to have a very shallow understanding of literature of any kind. Any great writer, such as Dickens, Swift, Cervantes, Dante, Boethius, or any of the great classical writers, were not merely writing for their own immediate contemporary audience, but (they would have hoped) for audiences of all time. That is the hallmark of a great writer, and great writers aspire to this.
Second, if perhaps you dismiss the Gospel writers as being NOT great writers, or even barely educated, you would at least grant that they were writing about the greatest possible theme that could be undertaken, and that their trust in God would have overcome their fear of being inadequate to the task, so that they could effectively transmit their testimony (as that is what they were doing) to the great truths they witnessed, not JUST to their own local audience, but also to all those dear readers who would follow.
Third, as it is taught by the Magisterium of the Church that the Holy Scripture is the inspired Word of God, it is unreasonable to suppose that God used men who only would write effectively to their own local contemporary audience. (That is, of course, until the wonder of modern 21st Century exegesis made all clear again for the first time in nearly 2000 years.)
Fourth, as the Holy Scripture IS the inspired word of God, although it was written by ordinary men, using the best tools they had, to convey their testimony of the truths they had witnessed, it was meant to speak the truth to all Christians until the end of time. Therefore, if the Scripture says Jesus said such and such, even though we ALL know that he may not have used those exact words, being a translation and coming sometimes from memory etc., yet it was His saying for all intents and purposes (as the Scripture IS the word of God.) Jesus most assuredly DID say such and such, at least as far as it was God’s intention that it be recorded, as it was done.
If someone were to ask why a particular brand of sausage was so savory, and another one not, an epicure might reply that there are wonderful flavors originating from certain spices, and praise the quality of freshness that is found in the better one. On the other hand, the foreman of the maintenance department of the better sausage’s factory might say that the other brand has terribly filthy machinery and plants. He might go on to extol how his factory maintains far less dead insect parts and other vermin in their meat, as a point of pride. In other words, what he considers as of the very first importance to the product’s success would turn the stomach of the product’s consumer, and in short, would be the very last person the marketing people would allow to talk publicly about their sausages.
In much the same way, exegetes are likely to think that every question in the Bible pertains to them, when in fact it doesn’t. It’s not a matter of what exegetes say being wrong or unimportant, it’s just that they have the same take on Holy Scripture that the foreman of the sausage factory’s maintenance department has on sausage. Yes, we want the sausage factory to have a maintenance department, and yes, we want them to take pride in keeping the plant clean and fit for the production of food. But that doesn’t mean however, that they should be the ones explaining the flavors and nuances of a fine sausage. They are too focused on their own small domain to really see the whole picture undistorted.
Furthermore, exegesis is like any other branch of study, having a spectrum of opinions ranging from the more conservative all the way to the most radical. They are in flux. They are arguing over various matters and various schools of thought.
Ultimately the Magisterium of the Church may reject some of their opinions, while upholding others. Since it is not the charism of exegetes to be teaching the faithful at large, but rather the Church’s, it would certainly be prudent for them to defer from voicing their slant on things, unless specifically called upon for an exegetical opinion. It would not be the intention of a truly professional and conscientious exegete, I am sure, to lead people away from the Scriptures, the Church, and their Faith, but it is entirely possible that their scholarly and tentative opinions might do just that if incontinently broadcast to all and sundry by the less professional and conscientious ones.
Gottle of Geer:
This is wrong on so many levels, I hardly no where to begin.
First of all, you seem to have a very shallow understanding of literature of any kind. Any great writer, such as Dickens, Swift, Cervantes, Dante, Boethius, or any of the great classical writers, were not merely writing for their own immediate contemporary audience, but (they would have hoped) for audiences of all time. That is the hallmark of a great writer, and great writers aspire to this.
Second, if perhaps you dismiss the Gospel writers as being NOT great writers, or even barely educated, you would at least grant that they were writing about the greatest possible theme that could be undertaken, and that their trust in God would have overcome their fear of being inadequate to the task, so that they could effectively transmit their testimony (as that is what they were doing) to the great truths they witnessed, not JUST to their own local audience, but also to all those dear readers who would follow.
Third, as it is taught by the Magisterium of the Church that the Holy Scripture is the inspired Word of God, it is unreasonable to suppose that God used men who only would write effectively to their own local contemporary audience. (That is, of course, until the wonder of modern 21st Century exegesis made all clear again for the first time in nearly 2000 years.)
Fourth, as the Holy Scripture IS the inspired word of God, although it was written by ordinary men, using the best tools they had, to convey their testimony of the truths they had witnessed, it was meant to speak the truth to all Christians until the end of time. Therefore, if the Scripture says Jesus said such and such, even though we ALL know that he may not have used those exact words, being a translation and coming sometimes from memory etc., yet it was His saying for all intents and purposes (as the Scripture IS the word of God.) Jesus most assuredly DID say such and such, at least as far as it was God’s intention that it be recorded, as it was done.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Agreed. I am just asking for a fair rendition. To claim Matthew as prior is to state the minority opinion. It must be stated as such. You can of course argue that it is better reasoned, but if you are going to be intellectually honest, then state the truth. I agree that for a long time Mark was considered the disciple of Peter’s and there are ECF statements to that effect. However, there is a good deal of information that leads to the possibilty that he was the John Mark mentioned in Acts and one of the letters, I believe of Peter, but I’m not sure. It remains a fascinating quesition to scholars, although I agree it probably has little impact otherwise.
Those who feel uncomfortable and any suggestion of "mistake or error on the part of earlier Catholic writings seem to almost always base their conclusions on relatively older material instead of that which is current. Given the issues that have arisen over the centuries I find it odd to proclaim that there is total inerrency in every word that has been uttered, at least up to a certain point. That is what some seem to need to be true, otherwise the Holy Spirit has somehow failed to keep the Church from error. The certain point seems to be around the end of the 19th century. LOL.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I am well aware that there are a number of folks now pushing the Matthew priority. They are all over the web. It is the minority opinon. Many of them are at least honest enough ot admit that, though they are apologistic in nature.
See you make my point. I am impugning nothing. I simiply don’t care, since it doesnt’ matter to anyone but scholars. I simply insist that facts be stated correctly. Your determinition to call my statements as specious makes it very clear you do have a horse in the race. Why do you care which one it is?
If you read any modern text of Mark done by a bonafide scholar you will find this to be true. Anchor Books runs a series of some of the best exegetical work in the world. You misunderstand the bible completely if you think that statements in the bible attributed to Jesus are always direct statements of his. Many no doubt were, but it is well accepted that Mark’s Gospel is based on a secret that only the readers are to “:get”. He rails at the blindness of the apostles. You have to read in context, and understand that Mark did not do this maliciously, but it is how he believed Jesus actually was. He used the normal literary devices in order to persuade his audience. The Gospels were not mere renditions of recalled material but were meant to persuade and each writer was brilliant in his own right in contriving a document that was highly persuasive of his genuine belief as to who Jesus was. The fact that 3 of the 4 saw Jesus in similar light, though in some respects differently, and used much of the same material but in some cases vastly different ways, suggests that powerfully.So you are nullifying the very words of Jesus in the Holy Scripture as just an example of Mark’s use of a literary technique. You are the one that has derailed the thread by attempting to redirect the question to one of Biblical exegesis, when the real question had to do with why Jesus had instructed people to not tell anyone. Your off base remark insinuated that Jesus was not even saying such things, which the Holy Scripture most positively say HE DID!
Your anger at my not accepting the narratives “as given” suggests a fundamentalist approach which is not admired nor recommended by Catholic teaching.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
So then would you say that the gospels were not so much inspired by the Holy Spirit as they were contrived by the Holy Spirit?
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Hate to break it to you, but the idea that the Gospels were written to persuade was discounted as far back as the mid-19th century. The Gospels were written as proofs of the Church’s teachings.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
If the word bothers you insert formulated, created, authored, and they were done so by men who i believe were inspired to write down their vision of Jesus as they had come to know Him.So then would you say that the gospels were not so much inspired by the Holy Spirit as they were contrived by the Holy Spirit?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
You are breaking nothing to me Sir. The more fundamentalist an argument you make, the more difficulty you have in explaining why there are 4 Gospels only three of which use mostly the same information and a 4th which is wildly differerent. It is undisputed and has been for a very long time that each author wrote for specific audiences dealing with specific problems. There is no point in further discussion with one who has gone over to the fundamentalist literalist approach. It is not Catholic.
I continue to wonder why your signature line contains such a strange statement lauding independent thought. Clearly you don’t believe in critical thinking.
- Status