For those who got here redirected from This question which is (some how) marked as duplicate of the question here but is really asking another question: Why Jesus did not share the meaning of the parables with all the people?

It seems that Jesus expected some initiative, from his listeners.

John 6:26,27: Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, it is not because you saw these signs that you are looking for Me, but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that perishes, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For God the Father has placed His seal of approval on Him.” (Berean Study Bible)

The best teachers are not necessarily those who explain everything immediately. Many concepts and ideas have different levels, one way of teaching is to start with the clearest and simplest in the first pass, and wait for questions to explain the details. Another way is to begin with the complicated stuff, and later make it simple. Jesus seemed to use both ways to stimulate deeper curiosity and initiative to understand more or at least think deeply from his listeners. Chapter 6 of John has more interesting parts in this regard:

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. ... 6:52-54: The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. ...6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? ...6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. (KJV)

Also all the context of the verses in between shines a light on this. The goal seems to distinguish common superficial curiosity and interest from deeper understanding and faith. Like this he could teach the deeper things to those who were ready for that. Remember that Jesus also told:

Mathew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (KJV)

1. One possible reason is indicated in Mark 1:43-45 "43 Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: 44 “See that you don’t tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.” 45 Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere."

   • Apparently Jesus didn't want to be too renown too quickly before entering cities in which he would teach, heal, save, etc.

   • Jesus had to tread a fine line:
     Jesus had a mission to fulfill/complete (i.e. to generate enough popular support to help (teach, heal, liberate (from demonic forces), save, etc) as many of the lost sheep of Israel as possible (them coming to him en mass was more efficient than Jesus trying to go to each of them individually), while creating an increasing fear, envy, & disdain in the Israeli misleadership so they would have sufficient time to fulfill God's plan for Jesus to be sacrificed at the hands of the Jewish misleadership & their Roman executioners. Jewish misleaders feared retribution from the Romans if they didn't quell Jesus' popularity & potential for being considered by the people as a spiritual "King" of the Jews (no one could be allowed to threaten the supremacy of the King or Caesar), and envied & despised Jesus because He was clearly blessed by God & because He made statements that were contrary to the misteachings of the sadducees and pharisees (which was a threat to their assumed authority & desire for glorification).

The Messianic Secret refers to a motif primarily in the Gospel of Mark in which Jesus is portrayed as commanding his followers to silence about his Messianic mission. The Messianic Secret belongs in Mark's Gospel, but elements of it have been copied into the later synoptic gospels (Matthew and Luke) but not into John, which takes a very contrary view of Jesus. If it were found significantly in material believed to be sourced independent from Mark (particularly 'Q'), then the words of the Messianic Secret were probably those of Jesus, but this is not so.

Most explanations fall into two main categories - that Mark's reports of Jesus' commands to silence are historically true, or that they were a literary creation by Mark's author, perhaps being intended to draw attention to Jesus' Messianic mission by the repeated commands to silence on the issue.

Brennan Reed Hamil discusses the Messianic Secret at some length in a student paper written at the Lubbock Christian University. Firstly, he says, there have been historical explanations. In line with this approach, the motive of concealment has been seen as a facet of historical Jesus’ own behaviour and teaching, a characteristic of his, in other words, which is correctly reported by Mark.

Secondly, there have been literary or theological explanations. The basic thrust of this approach is to view the secrecy motif as a literary or theological device (or perhaps better, a literary device with a theological import) whereby various traditions about the historical Jesus have been presented to the reader within the overall perspective of the Christology (and soteriology) adopted within the Markan community some time after Jesus’ death and the rise of the Easter-belief in his resurrection.

Hamil says there remain many legitimate questions to consider, none of which seem to have definitive answers. This device of the author of Mark perhaps shall never be fully understood. Regardless of — perhaps because of — the curious and mysterious nature of the secrecy motif, it persists in the minds of Markan scholars.

Oxbridge Notes (Is There A Messianic Secret In Mark Notes) looks at whether the Messianic Secret can be explained historically and puts forward the contention that Jesus wished to conceal his messiahship from men and women during his ministry for fear that it would have been misunderstood as a claim to political kingship, thus choosing the title ‘Son of Man’. The explanation is then criticised, in part because it leaves unresolved the problems of how the bystanders could ignore the confessions of Jesus’s identity made by the men and women who were possessed by these spirits.

I will not repeat explanations provided in his own answer by ThaddeusB, but signify my concurrence. Each of these explanations has been put forward by respected scholars although, as noted, Wrede's original hypothesis no longer has significant support. Wrede himself said that his hypothesis would be stronger if Mark's Gospel were not the first New Testament gospel, but nearly all scholars now say that it clearly was the first New Testament gospel.

The Messianic Secret article at Wikipedia, cited in the previous answer, has one further important explanation, proposed by Dennis R. MacDonald in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark:

The literary explanation theory has it that Mark made a conscious effort to identify Jesus with Odysseus, a Greek hero with whom Mark's gentile audience would certainly have been familiar. Odysseus, on his return home, has to disguise his identity to avoid his enemies, and in Mark the messianic secret could serve the same purpose for Jesus.

MacDonald's hypothesis would be easy to dismiss except that he has built a sound reputation among biblical scholars, and the reviews that I have read for The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark describe his hypothesis as sound, although sometimes overstated.

One of the reasons is plainly given in scripture in the context to an occurrence of keeping the messianic secret

Mar 1:43-45 (NIV) Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: “See that you don’t tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.” Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.

The final verse gives us the explanation as to why

As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.

We must remember that Jesus Christ had an in depth spiritual connection with His Father and was able to hear His promptings (John 5:30) and, better yet, he obeyed them (John 8:29)! Jesus most likely received revelation to tell the man to not say anything so that he would be able to continue to "enter towns openly" instead of having to remain in lonely places.

I believe this passage provides at least one clear proof that Jesus did instruct people not to tell about the miracles for specific reasons (contrary to Wrede's theory).

Note that this is covered in ThaddeusB's answer under "Avoid Hindrances" but he doesn't include the scripture reference.

The most commonsensical explanation of the Messianic Secret is simple self preservation - not necessarily self preservation in the literal sense, but in terms of the mission of Jesus. He couldn't do what he was trying to do if it became well known that he was the messiah.

In the time in which Jesus lived, Palestine was under Roman occupation. Jesus was born just before Rome formally annexed Judæa as a province of the Roman Empire. In the year 63 BCE, Rome conquered the Pontic Kingdom, and annexed Syria, which included Palestine, as a province of the Roman Empire. In the year 40 BCE, the Roman Senate declared Herod (later known as Herod the Great) as "King of the Jews", and installed him as the client King of Judæa, Galilee, and Peræa.

When Herod died in 4 BCE, Palestine was divided amongst his sons, each of whom ruled a much smaller territory. Herod Antipas ruled Galilee, where Jesus lived, and Judæa was allotted to Herod Archelaus. Archelaus was so incompetent that only ten years later, the Romans deposed him and formally annexed Judæa directly, after which it was a formal province of the Roman Empire. The title "King of the Jews" was never granted to anyone again. The province of Judæa was placed under the authority of a proconsul, or more technically, a prefect. This was the office famously held by Pontius Pilate at the time of the crucifixion.

Enter Jesus. According to Mark, Jesus reluctantly admitted that he was the messiah, but he showed extreme caution in who he allowed to know of his messianic status. The disciples were obviously let in on the secret, but the general public was largely kept in the dark. The clear explanation for this secrecy is related to the Jewish conception of what the word "messiah" means.

Most Christians today know that "messiah" is literally translated as "anointed one", but many of them don't understand what this really means to Jews. The title "anointed one" is a reference to the ceremonial act of anointing the head of the King of Israel with holy oil (incidentally, the messiah is not supposed to be the son of god). Thus, if one claims to be the messiah, one is claiming to be the rightful king of Israel, or in simpler terms, the King of the Jews.

The problem with this is that the Jews in the region, especially in Judæa and Galilee, were subjects of the Roman Emperor, and only he, and the Roman Senate, could crown someone as "King of the Jews". Anyone else who claimed this title was rebelling against the Roman Empire, and the Romans didn't like it when people rebelled. Therefore, claiming that you were the messiah was a crime against the state, and a capital offense - in other words, anyone who claimed to be the messiah, or even allowed others to call him the messiah, was subject to the death penalty.

The Romans executed Jesus on the charge of being "king of the Jews," according to Mk. 15:26. Pontius Pilate, however, was not the only Roman official in Palestine to deal with a popular Jewish leader who was viewed as king of the Jews. Both before and after Jesus of Nazareth (who is usually put in this category), there were several popular Jewish leaders, almost all of them from the peasantry, who, in the words of Josephus, "laid claim to the kingdom," "donned the dia­dem," or were "proclaimed king" by their followers. It thus appears that one of the concrete forms which social unrest took in the late second temple period was that of a group of followers gathered around a leader they had acclaimed as King.
- Richard Horsely, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs

The Romans didn't just control who became a King in Palestine, they also controlled the Temple Priesthood. Under Roman rule, the High Priest was appointed by the Roman prefect, and the appointment was made on the basis of bribery and political maneuvering. The priests enjoyed a very comfortable position, and they were very protective of their privileged status. Any self described messiahs were not only a threat to Roman rule, they were also a threat to the cushy position occupied by the priests. Thus, it was in the best interests of both the prefects and the priests to quickly quash any talk of messiahs.

The essence of Roman rule lay in delegation and, if a province remained calm, was seldom obtrusive. Among the governor of Judaea’s responsibilities was the appointment of the high priest from among the Jewish elders. The high priest would run the affairs of the province on a daily basis and this was why the job was difficult. His traditional role of upholding the rituals and customs of his people did not fit easily with his new role of meeting the needs of his imperial overlords. In practice high priests came and went as they fell out with the governors. Pilate’s predecessor, Valerius Gratus, had soon got rid of the high priest Annas on his arrival in AD 15 and then seems to have worked through another three before he appointed Annas’ son-in-law, Caiaphas, in AD 18.
- Charles Freeman, A New History of Early Christianity

And:

We have no information concerning the regular income of the high priest. Josephus reports, however, that during the unsettled years before the outbreak of the Jewish war in AD 66, 'such was the shamelessness and effrontery which possessed the high priests, that they were actually so brazen as to send their servants to the threshing floors to receive the tithes due to the priests' (Ant. 20.181, cf. 206), 'so it happened at that time that those of the priests who in olden days were maintained by the tithes now starved to death' (Ant. 20.207, cf. 181). This agrees with the Tannaitic report (b. Pes. 57a Bar.) that the priests originally stored the hides from the sacrificial victims, which were their perquisites, in the Parwah Chamber in the Temple; and each evening shared them out among the course of priests who had undertaken the Temple services that day (there were twenty- four such courses who each served for a week at a time). Later, these hides were plundered by the 'men of violence', 'the big men of the priesthood', i.e. the agents of members of the high-priestly families.
- Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus

He was on a self appointed mission, and he knew that he had to do a lot of work before the end, because being killed too soon would have meant failure. If the authorities heard that someone was going around calling himself the messiah, he would immediately be killed, and his mission would be incomplete. Therefore, he had to keep his messianic identity under wraps for as long as possible.

In the Gospel of Mark, the first time Jesus really allows people to call him the messiah is on his final entry into Jerusalem. At this point, he was well aware that he was going to die very soon. This was the ideal time to reveal himself to the authorities. In a very real sense, he now had to let it be known that he was the messiah. The crucifixion was his ultimate goal, and the means by which he would have his triumph over sin and death. In other words, the time had come to die.

With the backdrop now in place, we can turn to the scholars to say the rest.

The Gospels are unified in claiming that Jesus was executed for calling himself the King of the Jews. This is the charge leveled against Jesus in both Mark and John (independently of one another) and it is independently attested as the charge placed on the placard at his crucifixion. And there is a very good reason for thinking that later Christian story tellers did not come up with the idea that Jesus was crucified for calling himself the King of the Jews (i.e. a good reason for thinking they didn’t make it up). The title “King of the Jews” is not a title ever used by the early Christians for Jesus, so far as we know. They called him messiah, Lord, son of God, son of Man, and other things. But so far as we can tell, not by the specific title “king of the Jews.” If this is not a favored title for Christians, then it is unlikely that they made it up as the key title leading to his death. Conclusion? Since it is independently attested and passes the criterion of dissimilarity, Jesus probably really was executed for calling himself King of the Jews.

That explains why he was crucified for calling himself the King of the Jews. He really believed he was the (future, apocalyptic) King of the Jews. He obviously wasn’t the king yet, but when the kingdom came with the destruction brought by the Son of Man, Jesus would be made the ruler. And so when Pilate asked him if he really thought he was the king of the Jews, how could Jesus deny it? Pilate wasn’t interested in the niceties of Jesus’ apocalyptic theology. Jesus thought he was going to be king. Only the Romans could appoint a king. They certainly weren’t going to appoint him. This was a claim of political insurgency in Pilate’s eyes. And so he ordered him crucified.
- Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, What Judas Betrayed

There are many scholars who don't agree with the claim that Jesus was killed for calling himself the messiah, or "King of the Jews" - in fact, a large part of the academic community suggests that he was actually executed as a public nuisance. This isn't strictly germane to our purposes here, so we can take the position that he really was killed for claiming to be the messiah.

With this in mind, we can hear what one scholar said regarding the Messianic Secret:

It is not, as Wrede considered, a dogmatic conviction of the Church to turn the defeated life and ministry of Jesus, a preacher of righteousness, into a triumphant Messiah, as vindicated in His resurrection. It is rather that the letting out of the Messianic Secret will lead to the destruction of His programme prematurely by encountering the opposition of the Jews and the Roman Government. In conclusion we may say that surely there is· a Messianic. Secret in Mark's Gospel and Wrede needs to be credited for bringing this to light, though we need not accept the views he expressed in terms of his basic theory of the development of the Gospel tradition.
- O.M. Rao, The Messianic Secret and the Resurrection, 1964