I wanted to get your thoughts on this:

I have noted that there are many instances when Jesus makes a miracle, cures someone, or does something and then tells his disciples "you must not tell anyone".

For example: Matthew 16:13-20: "'...who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'you are the Christ...' Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ."

why is this?

My thought is that Jesus didn't want things to happen too prematurely. They had to happen according to God's will. And if word got out to quick, then his death might not have happened as it was supposed to.

What do all you think?

Thanks in advance.

In Christ

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 03, 2002

Answers

to the top

-- jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 03, 2002.

Jake~I did some reading for you from my Jerome Biblical Commentary and this is basically what I can tell you.

Jesus accepted Peter's confession only in a profession of his faith in Him, really. He did not like the title of Messiah, though, and tried to shun away from that. As seen in His meeting with the high priest and His confrontation with Pilate. He is very hesitant to come right out and call Himself the Messiah, or a king, because His kingdom was not of this world. In the verse you pointed out, if you read on, you will see that directly thereafter, He went on to tell them of how He would die. He reacted to this confession of Peter's by correcting the grandiose ideas that the title of Messiah might convey and by insisting that His real role was that of the suffering Son of Man. If Jesus accepted from His followers a profession of faith in His messiahship, He did so only with qualification. And there is good evidence (Mk 8:30; Lk 4:41; Jn 10:24) that He habitually avoided any publicizing of His messianic role during His ministry. The narratives of His temptations indicate that Jesus rejected the popular messianic ideals of prestidigator and warrior-messiah, current in contemporary Judaism. According to the Syn, on the occasion of His triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Jesus appears deliberately to have arranged the acknowledgment of His messianic mission by the crowds; but not so according to Jn 12:12. In any case, it seems to have been His purpose on this occasion to instruct His followers that He conceived His messiahship after the description of the humble king in Zech 9:9 (Mt 21:4-5). According to Mk 14:62, Jesus replied affirmatively to the inquiry by the high priest regarding His messianic claims but Mt 26:64 and Lk 22:67 seem independently to indicate that Jesus did NOT fully acquiesce in the priest's description of Him as the Messiah and preferred a reference to the Son of Man. Whatever hesitations Jesus may have had about the title "Messiah" and whether or not during His ministry He ever used it as a self designation, He was crucified as a would be Messiah-king.

The rest is kind of long but if you want me to go on, I'd be glad to. Does this pretty well explain it or do you want to read more on the interpretation? Just let me know and I'll be glad to type it out for you here.

God Bless~

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), June 03, 2002.

Hi Jackiea,

I just love your name! :)

What is the Jerome Biblical Commentary? Does that give interpretations of Scripture? I'd like to get one, if it does. There are so many questions regarding Scripture and what it means. I am no longer part of a Bible Study; it was very helpful going to a Bible Study with people well-versed in Scripture.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 03, 2002.

Hi Jake:

I always thought it was because the crowds were so ALL ENCOMPASSING all the time, he rarely could catch a few moments with His father, and to allow those healed by Him to 'broadcast' their healings would have caused tooo much commotion, and possible interference with His greater mission, i.e., salvation of souls from eternal damnation and reconciliation with the Father.

Even in our time when people hear of the supernatural and miraculous, they tend to get carried away and focus too much on the temporal instead of the eternal, and lose sight of what is really important.

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), June 03, 2002.

Thank you, MaryLu. I happen to like yours, too. Very Southern sounding. :)

The Jerome Biblical Commentary that I have is the original 1968 book. It's VERY thick and is an indepth study of the entire Scriptures. It comes in very handy. This that I have is a special book to me as it was a gift from the personal library of my former priest. A dear and lovely man that many (myself included) believe has the gift of reading souls.

I found a listing for the New Jerome Biblical Commentary on Amazon. Here is the link:

Amazon

God Bless~

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), June 03, 2002.

Maria Lucia,
If you can possibly find a used copy of the original Jerome Biblical Commentary (like Jackiea's), please purchase it rather than the new book.
I have read that the New JBC is considerably less reliable, with a heavy admixture of statements from dissenting theologians/commentators -- in other words, a lot of stuff that contradicts the biblical commentary made by the great saints and popes through the centuries.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 04, 2002.

Hi, John~I left a link to ebay's Half.com on Mateo's thread about this book. The original (used) can be bought there for those that want it.

God Bless~

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), June 04, 2002.

Jake~One other explanation I found was in another book my good priest gave me. Scripture Discussion Commentary by Sean Freyne and Henry Wansbrough through the ACTA Foundation (Adult Catechetical Teaching Aids).

The twelve may not reveal that Jesus is the messiah until they have fully understood in what sense he accepts this title, for without the preaching of the cross their message would be deformed.

God Bless~

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), June 04, 2002.

Jake,

Like Gail, I always assumed He wanted to keep His miracles secret for as long as possible in order to keep the crowds down. If word spread too quickly, then the crowds would have grown and the pharisees would have acted sooner. Then Jesus would not have had enough time to teach His message.

This is especially important in regards to the apostles. Without adequate instruction, they would not be prepared to lead the Church that Jesus created.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), June 04, 2002.

Wow! These posts have helped so much. Thank you! I am looking for a copy of that book now. There are so many little things (not to mention larger things) in scripture that just cannot be interpreted on your own. It is no wonder outside the Catholic Church there is so much confliction! Thank God for our Church, our Pope, and those who are filled with the Spirit to guide us!

In Christ

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 04, 2002.

John

You mentioned the JCb of the latest version is full of contradictions. Why and how can it possibly be accepted by the Church with the proper signatures of approval. I am referring to Nil Obstat and Imprimatur. I have seen some writings with these signatures being contested in the past. The WAY Bible is one such item. The one issued during the 70's is full of non-biblical language. It is a Bible used by the Neochatechuminate organization. I have it here and found it a terrible book to use as it is too informal.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 04, 2002.

Jmj

Well, Fred, I'm sure that you realize how terribly shocked many Catholics now are, after having learned that there have been a small percentage of very sinful priests in our midst -- and that there have even been some very unwise (even sinful) bishops.

With this in mind, it should no longer surprise anyone that some books have received an "imprimatur" and "nihil obstat" without really meriting them. Most bishops depend heavily on their "censores librorum" (censors of books), often priests who will read books and give them their seal of doctrinal approval. Unfortunately, there are too many priests (and at least a few bishops) who are neo-modernists, men who are willing to tolerate doctrinal dissent in print. There have been cases, since Vatican II, of the pope requiring bishops to remove their approval from publications until the doctrinal errors therein have been purged.

I cannot (at this moment) point out any specific error in the New Jerusalem Biblical Commentary. I only passed along the negative opinion of it as given by some people whom I trust. It could be that there are few, if any, outright, blatant, dissenting comments in the NJBC. It could be, instead, that there is a lot of innuendo, a lot of "language of doubt," expressing an unwillingness to believe in traditional understanding of biblical passages, a lack of faith in the supernatural (e.g., miracles), hints that the Bible contains errors, etc.. In other words, the NJBC may have gotten its imprimatur because the editors avoided stating as a fact (while nevertheless insinuating) some things that are contrary to the Church's constant teaching.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 06, 2002.

Thanks, John Gecik.

You've put your finger on our frustrations. Where is the truth? Don't we all want to KNOW what is true?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 06, 2002.

John

What you have stated is the primary reason that I have trouble with the Neocatechetical program. I have a bible here which was my late wife's daughter's bible which I did not give back to her after her mother died as I read earlier that it is written in language that is not totally scriptural, but in very readable american english. At the time it was highly felt that it should not have been endorsed as it was with the Imprimature and Nihil Obstat. At the time the Pope was issuing strong warnings to the American theologians for the publishing and teaching of the faith in a manner that was not acceptable to the Vatican. The bible I am referring to is THE WAY-The Living Bible by OSV and published by the Tyndale House Publishers. After scanning it I became aware of it's clearly non-biblical manner of writing present and have never liked it. It was the bible her catchumanate class used at the church.

So in closing, I wanted to only say that what you have stated about the infiltration of theological errors is absolutely true and is one of the major reasons we today are having so much trouble trying to keep the true facts in order. I keep praying each and every day that the "Mordernists" will cease in being and the truths will not be lost that the Apostles and Christ died for to give to all of us.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 06, 2002.