Mark 1:42-45; Mark 3:12; Mark 7:36; Matthew 9:30-31; Luke 8:56
In Mark 1:42-45 Jesus tells the man healed of his leprosy to not tell anyone that He has healed him, only to “shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.” It would seem logical that Jesus knew that the man had to be pronounced clean by the priest. This pronouncement would further the legitimacy of Jesus’ ministry.
On the other hand, it seems reasonable to assume that by talking to everyone about the miracle that Jesus performed, that this could hinder the work Jesus was focused on. This is exactly what happened, as we read that “he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter” (Mark 1:45).
In Mark chapter 7 we read, “he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it” (Mark 7:36).
I am reminded of the story in John 6, where many flock to Jesus not for His doctrine, but to have free food. He did come to feed us, but His work was primarily spiritual. We read that when the Jews wanted to make Him their king, that He left them to be alone (John 6:15). In essence, Jesus was trying to help the Jews (and us) realize where salvation lies. Salvation is in and through the blood of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:18). His miracles point our hearts to Him, but are not an end in themselves.
Perhaps in His request for these people to remain silent was a test of their allegiance and obedience. He gave those he healed a gift. Certainly they could return His gift with the gift of obedience to His request.
Are there times when teenagers need to obey the Savior for the sake of obeying – even if they don’t see all the angles? There are a multitude of circumstances where obedience is necessary, even when we do not have all the facts at our disposal. This could be an excellent springboard for a class discussion, provided the teacher is prepared with a few scenarios. Some might include:
1. Naaman is a classic example of this principle (2 Kings 5:1-14). Elisha didn’t explain why, he didn’t even communicate directly with Naaman, but rather sent a servant to tell Naaman to wash seven times in the Jordan River.
2. Nephi’s brothers thought the idea of going back to Jerusalem to get the plates from Laban was unreasonable. They just left the city, now they were expected to return?
3. Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son, Isaac (Genesis 22:2). The Lord offered no explanation for this. Not understanding why, he went to follow this command. We gain some insight into his thought processes when we read in Hebrews the following: “Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, that in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead” (Hebrews 11:17-19)
4. There are many examples in the lives of the saints when an individual followed a prompting from the Spirit when they did not know the reason (see for example, Go to the football field).
I appreciate the following commentary on this question given by Frederick Farrar:
There are some who have admired their disobedience, and have attributed it to the enthusiasm of gratitude and admiration. But was it not rather the enthusiasm of a blatant wonder, the vulgarity of a chattering boast? Did not the holy fire of devotion which a hallowed silence must have kept alive upon the altar of their hearts die away in the mere blaze of empty rumour? Did not He know best? Would not obedience have been better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams? Yes. It is possible to deceive ourselves; it is possible to offer to Christ a seeming service which disobeys His inmost precepts—to grieve Him, under the guise of honouring Him, by vain repetitions, and empty genuflexions, and bitter intolerance, and irreverent familiarity, and the hollow simulacrum of a dead devotion. Better, far better, to serve Him by doing the things He said than by a seeming zeal, often false in exact proportion to its obtrusiveness, for the glory of His name. These disobedient babblers, who talked so much of Him, did but offer Him the dishonouring service of a double heart; their violation of His commandment served only to hinder His usefulness, to trouble His spirit, and to precipitate His death. 1
We too should be willing to do anything God requires. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “I made this my rule: when the Lord commands, do it.” 2
Something More to Consider
Oftentimes in scholarship when the text of Mark is analyzed, the subject of the “Messianic Secret” comes up. This is the idea that Jesus was working to keep his identity as the Messiah a secret that he wanted to keep from getting out. Scholars over the decades have seriously approached this topic, trying to come up with theories as to why this is in the text of Mark’s gospel account.
The first prominent theory, advanced in the early twentieth century by William Wrede, was the messianic secret did not originate with Jesus but rather was constructed later in the tradition in order to explain why Jesus was not perceived to be the Messiah. While this theory was popular for much of the twentieth century, it became less so in the 1970s when the argument was made that the theory did not entirely account for all of the data. Today, scholars generally recognize the tendency in Mark’s Gospel for Jesus to put restrictions on the proclamation of his identity, but they no longer accept Wrede’s explanation for it; not all scholars accept the idea of a messianic secret in Mark, and those who do turn to other explanations for it. Some have held that secrecy was appropriate before Jesus’ death because it would have been premature to declare that Jesus was the Christ before that point. A variation on this theory is that it would have been misleading for people to follow Jesus solely because he was a miracle worker, and so Jesus did not want people drawn to him for that reason. 2 Support for this theory may be found in the idea that Jesus was actually quite open when prophesying about his suffering (8:31-33).
Perhaps there is another option. Perhaps this has something to do with the temple and the sacred. In 2 Peter 1.16 we read: “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
Daniel B. McKinlay offers up this possibility when confronted with the Messianic Secret in Mark:
The author of 2 Peter uses the verb ‘make known’ (gnoizein), a word that is almost technical in the New Testament for imparting a divine mystery. Although the word “eyewitness” (epoptes) can refer to an ordinary observer, it also designates one who has been initiated into a higher grade in the mystery religions. This terminology related to the mysteries gives some support to the view, dealt with earlier in this paper, that it was during the transfiguration that Peter received the keys of the kingdom (Moses and Elijah appeared to bestow them upon him), the event taking place just a week after Peter was informed that he would be entrusted with important religious prerogatives related to eternal reality in the cosmos. This was an extraordinary thing for Peter; it placed a very real burden on him. It was a sacred exchange, and that probably accounts for the paucity of detail and the charges to secrecy better than the theory that is often referred to as the “messianic secret,” whereby Mark (usually considered the first evangelist) claimed ignorance of Jesus’ full role in his lifetime, both by himself as well as his disciples, by causing Jesus to swear the disciples to secrecy concerning his identity until the resurrection. It was not a matter of the early Church finding a creative way to attribute to the historical Jesus what he did not attribute to himself; it was a matter of keeping sacred things sacred.
One final word should be given. In an essay in a truly exhilarating book, Hugh Nibley discusses the themes in the early apocryphal writings, whose setting was largely the forty-day ministry, and whose subject matter was secret. By drawing a composite picture, Nibley makes it clear that the descensus was real to the Saints in Peter’s day and that aspects relating to temples were prominent. If we grant that Peter genuinely was present at the Transfiguration and was privy to the instructions of the forty-day ministry, it is only natural that he would have a comprehensive understanding of Christocentric salvation as it is embedded and expressed in the temple, and that he would with caution allude to selected features here and there. It is our privilege to benefit from his informed direction. 3
Notes
1. Frederick Farrar, The Life of Christ. London: Cassel & Co., Ltd., 1874. Ch. 25, 278.
2. History of the Church, 2:170.
3. Daniel B. McKinlay, Temple Imagery in the Epistles of Peter, as found in chapter 18 of Temples of the Ancient World, Maxwell Institute Publications, 1994. You can read this book here, or you can just read the chapter (with my highlights) here.