DID JESUS SAY ANYTHING SECRETLY?

This is the last of the “101 Contradictions in the Bible” that I will attempt to address since I believe I have dealt with all the others in one or another of my past posts. The “contradiction” comes in when one compares John's statement on the subject with comments found in the Synoptic Gospels. Here are the two conflicting answers to the above question as posed by the critic:

    (a) “No. 'I have said nothing secretly' (John 18:20b).”

    (b) “Yes. 'He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything' (Mark 4:34). The disciples asked him, 'Why do you speak to them in parables? He said, 'To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom, but to them it has not been given' (Matthew 13:10-11).'”

Perhaps the easiest way to resolve this issue is to look at the three underlined words in the Greek. Whereas the critic who penned this contradiction appears to treat all three as if they were synonymous, that is certainly not true in the original language. For one thing, if Mark had wished to convey the idea of something spoken secretly, covertly, or without others becoming aware, he would have utilized lathra rather than the phrase which does appear there – kat idian (see Vine).

Then there is the word translated “secrets” in Matthew 13:10-11. It is mysterion, rather than kryptos as found in John 18:20. For the meaning of kryptos, we need only look at the first part of John 18:20 (conveniently omitted by the critical author of the contradiction) to see Jesus' own definition of the word: “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues in the temple, where all the Jews come together.” By the way, Hahn defines the Greek word parrhesia (“openly”) as 'with confidence, boldness, frankness, and without hindrance'. Thus, it deals more with how Jesus spoke in public than it does with the content of his speech.

Interestingly, at the very beginning of Jesus' earthly ministry (John 7:4), we see the two identical key Greek words translated “secret” and “world” appearing on the lips of Jesus' doubting brothers, who urge Him (somewhat cynically) to let others in the world see His obvious greatness. Together with John 18:20 at the very end of His ministry, they both refer to the open and bold actions of Jesus to a wide audience, and serve as verbal caps to that ministry on earth.

But what does Jesus' negative statement in John 18:20b actually mean? It was in reply to the questioning of the chief priest, and it is well known that how one answers a question is highly dependent on knowing what the questioner actually has in mind. Borchert expresses the situation here by saying that Jesus' “closing words in v. 20 were clearly aimed at denying any secret plot against the ruling authorities. That statement does not mean that he never had any private conversations with people but that he was not double-tongued or two-faced in what he said.”

As just two examples of such private conversations, we could cite his talks with the Samaritan woman at the well and with Nicodemus, who came to him by night. This last example is particularly interesting since (a) it was the Pharisees, of which Nicodemus was one, who were in the forefront of the secret conspiracy to eliminate Jesus and (b) the secret meeting at night was probably at Nicodemus' own instigation.

In the same vein, Guthrie writes, “The reply of Jesus to this questioning suggests that the high priest was probing for some secret teaching which Jesus had given the disciples. 'I have spoken openly to the world' is in emphatic contrast to this suggestion.” And Blum concurs: “Jesus responded that he had no secret cult or organization. He had an inner circle of disciples but the character of His teaching was not private. He taught in the open and in public places.”

And in agreement with both Guthrie and Blum, Morris adds, “We should not misunderstand what Jesus says about teaching in secret. He does not mean that he had nothing to say to His followers when they were apart from the crowds. All four Gospels disprove this. What He means is that He did not have two kinds of teaching, a harmless one for the general public and a very different one for the secret revolutionaries.”

Echoing all these opinions is Kostenberger: “Jesus' point is not that he never spoke in private with his disciples, but rather that his message was the same in private as in public; John was not guilty of a sinister conspiracy.”

Finally, Raymond Brown asks, “Is Jesus claiming that his doctrine is not esoteric or that it is not subversive? Historically the latter may have been the problem if he was arrested as a revolutionary.”

But despite the large consensus above, there is no denying that both Mark 4:34 and Matthew 13:10-11 do indicate that there was a difference between Jesus' open teachings to the crowd and his teachings to his inner circle. Therefore this issue must also be addressed.

Ellison, for example, takes a rather narrow stance toward this second passage: “Once it is grasped that it refers to this collection of the Parables of the Kingdom, and to them alone, much of the difficulty vanishes.” But that doesn't explain away the problem entirely since it is obvious that Jesus imparted deeper teachings to the apostles on other occasions as well. Therefore I prefer the following ways of resolving the issue:

Brown: “...for John, in a certain sense Jesus did speak openly and plainly, but in another sense his words were obscure. Sometimes the obscurity arose from the unwillingness of the audience to believe; yet the evangelist also recognizes a depth in Jesus' words that only the Paraclete [i.e. Holy Spirit] can clarify (xvi 12-13).”

Grassmick: Jesus' teachings were “adapted to their levels of understanding.”

Thiselton: Commenting on Mark 13, he explains that “Jesus is not dispensing with indirect communication where it is needed. But whilst in the case of the crowd he was mainly concerned with initial response, in the case of the disciples Jesus was also concerned with instruction.”

Morris: “What He said to the disciples did but unfold the implications of His words to the men at large. The essence of His teaching was public property.”

There is one other intriguing aspect to this whole discussion. If you look at a chronological harmony of the Gospels, you will see that when Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane the Synoptics record him asking those who have come for him:

    “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me.” (Matthew 26:55)

    “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me.” (Mark 14:48a)

    “Have you come out with swords and clubs as if I were a bandit? When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me.” (Luke 22:52b-53)

Brown notes the similarity between these passages and John 18:20. Both point out the open nature of Jesus' teaching, and both address the suspicion on the part of Jesus' enemies that he is doing something illegal. And to strengthen this correspondence are two more pieces of information:

    1. France points out that “bandit” may mean a common thief “though this is the term Josephus would regularly use for the violent supporters of Jewish nationalism...If Matthew [as well as the other Synoptics] has the latter usage in view, its modern equivalent might be 'terrorist.'” Note above that many commentators feel that this was the very suspicion of political subversion in the mind of the high priest when Jesus was questioned in John 18:20.

    2. Consulting any standard harmony of the Gospels again, you will see that whereas John omits any such comment at his arrest, the next important chronological event in Jesus' life found all four accounts is his questioning by the high priest in John 18:19. But in this instance, John quotes Jesus as replying in words very similar to those he employed in the Synoptics at the arrest, while the Synoptics omit those words in this later setting. So either John, for theological reasons, displaced the event slightly in time and place, or perhaps there is a way to totally harmonize the four accounts. What opens up this possibility is the fact that Luke provides the additional fact not found in the other versions that the chief priests were actually present at the arrest itself (Luke 22:52a), and this could well have included the high priest himself.