“Secrets,” or rather attempts at privacy or at least crowd control, pervade Mark’s (and to some extent probably independently John’s)50 story about Jesus. In a number of Gospel accounts about Jesus’ ministry, he urged his followers to silence, perhaps to reduce undue pressure from premature popularity. This popularity demanded other measures as well, such as speaking from a boat separate from the crowds (Mk 3:9), praying alone before sunrise (Mk 1:35), taking the disciples apart alone (Mk 6:31-32; 7:24; cf. 8:27), or evading further crowds in one town in order to fulfill his mission elsewhere (Mk 1:38). In this broader context, it would appear that the tradition that he admonished his disciples to silence about his messianic identity in particular (Mk 8:29-30) might guard against even greater dangers than popularity — such as premature exposure to the authorities as a political threat.
Scholars have, however, widely debated the reason for this “messianic secret.” In the early twentieth century William Wrede contended that Mark invented the Messianic Secret to explain why some traditions denied that Jesus claimed Messiahship.51 Most scholars today, however, judge Wrede’s thesis to be inadequate because it dismisses too much of the data.52 Wrede was correct to notice that Jesus did not proclaim himself messiah or even initially welcome the claim that he was messiah. Yet Wrede was not the first person to notice this reticence, nor is his its only explanation; it was noticed already, and certainly explained differently, in antiquity.53
Others suggest that Jesus rejects the title initially due to its military connotations; 54 no public acclamation of Jesus’ Messiahship could be understood accurately until after the crucifixion and resurrection (Mk 9:9; 15:26).55 Indeed, some scholars argue that Jesus could be viewed only as Messiah-designate till after the resurrection anyway.56 Wrede’s opinion of a nonmessianic tradition likely falters not only on literary critical grounds but also on the basis of comparative studies. Our limited information on first-century potential messianic claimants may suggest a reticence to declare their identity prematurely; they apparently felt they had to produce some evidence of their messiahship before publicly claiming kingship.57 (This may have been the case with the “sign-prophets” treated in ch. 17.) In the broader culture, self-testimony may have seemed inappropriate, especially in view of the sentiment against self-boasting in the first-century Mediterranean world.58 Further, some prominent biblical prophets often worked clandestinely, endeavoring to accomplish their mission without seeking their own honor (e.g., 1 Kgs 11:29; 13:8-9; 21:18; 2 Kgs 9:1-10), partly because they were investing their time especially in a small circle of disciples they were training (1 Sam 19:20; 2 Kgs 4:38; 6:1-3).59
Each of these proposals may be helpful, and we shall discuss Jesus’ messiahship further below. But because the “secret” of the kingdom extended far beyond Jesus’ messiahship (Mk 4:11), solutions addressing only a “messianic secret” may be too narrow.60 That Jesus offered private teaching to his disciples is no more unusual than that some other teachers of his day did so (as we noted in our discussion of parables in ch. 13).61
Since the disciples rather than crowds presumably supply the primary source of information about Jesus for the gospel tradition, these private teachings could have been transmitted as accurately as the public ones. Of course, later generations could easily claim to report “secret” teachings passed on privately for generations (e.g., second-century gnostics). But teachings could be genuinely passed on in schools, and these “private” teachings of Jesus to disciples were kept private only briefly during the course of his ministry. Depending on when some of these events occurred, that could mean that they were kept private only for a matter of months or weeks.62
But while this broader context is important, scholars who note the particularity of secrecy about Jesus’ messianic identity are also correct. In addition to some of the other arguments above, at least one important reason for allowing claims of his messiahship only toward the end of his ministry was a matter of practical strategy. Messianic acclamations could (and did) lead the authorities to wrongly classify Jesus as a revolutionary and seek his execution; thus Jesus presumably delays his martyrdom until the appropriate time and place (Passover in Jerusalem) by seeking to reduce his activity’s explicitly political associations. Undue publicity drew uncontrollable crowds (e.g., Mk 1:45; 2:2; 3:9-10, 20); the crowds and the rumors they might spread could invite further “incriminating charges” that Jesus sought to delay until the appropriate time.63 As we have also seen elsewhere, Jesus waited on God to establish the kingdom and install the Messiah. Thus he could expect to fill this role himself while rejecting any attempt to claim it for him before God established it.64
Such factors surrounding Jesus’ ministry explain the “secret” better than Wrede’s theory does. The Gospels portray Galilean crowds risking overwhelming Jesus and his disciples, as we noted above. Explicit public teachings about Jesus’ role in the kingdom would risk inciting those eager to follow a traditional messiah and hasten Jesus’ conflict with the authorities before he was ready. If Jesus knew anything at all about the political situation in Jerusalem, he would know that a public messianic claim would lead to his almost immediate execution; in Mark, it does.65 Even when traveling to Jerusalem, Jesus does not arm his followers or offer signs of resistance; the Gospel narratives are thus plausible as they stand, offering a plausible reason for Jesus’ silence.
