Matthew 19:17
“Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good."
Mark 10:18
“Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."
Luke 18:19
“Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."
(All from the New American Standard Bible)
Thus we have a question followed by a clarification.
Can the question be understood as:
(1) A Repellent Question indicating an objection?
Jesus was no stranger to Repellent Questions, as he used one on his own mother in John 2:4, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” Meaning, “Don't tell me what to do, it's not time yet.” Thus, as applied to this question, Jesus said: "Don't call me good, for only God is good (and I'm not God)!"
(2) Or can the question be understood in the Trinitarian sense of Jesus making us "stop and think for a moment about who Jesus really was." (NET Bible footnote for Mark 10:18) As in, "Stop and think, if I'm good and God is good, then I must be God in the sense of God being an impersonal construct and me being the second person within it in hypostatic union with my human nature!"
But Jesus also declared that the Father is the "only true God," thus God is a singular person, the Father at John 17:1-5.
So, which option is more reasonable with scriptural precedent?
Update: If #1, Jesus is calling God good in the sense of recognizing his Father as the ultimate standard of what is good. (Not that everyone else is evil as someone suggested. Their post is now gone for some reason.)
@ XXX1, hi there. Philippians 2:6 can be translated differently and that chapter actually does not support Trinitarianism, but that's a separate subject. Seeing Jesus is seeing the Father in the sense that Jesus perfectly represents his Father, and actually works against the Trinity the way you're using it as Jesus is not his Father. John 17:5 confirms Jesus' prehuman existence in heaven. No support for the Trinity there either.
Update: @ XXX2: Please be advised that 1+1+1=3, not 1. I also note that your comment is mere spam for the Trinity and actually does nothing to address this question.
Update: @ XXX3: As I wrote above, Jesus is calling God good in the sense of recognizing his Father as the ultimate standard of what is good, not that Jesus and everyone else are evil--they are just excluded from being the ultimate standard of what is good.
Jesus Christ ALWAYS deflected attention away from himself and directed it towards his Father. (John 7:16-18; 12:28; 17:6)* Could the same be true with this question I'm asking?
* Look up Scriptures here: http://tinyurl.com/au2mfwx
And as you know, Jesus and his Father are one in purpose just like Christians and Jesus are one--John 17:21.
Best Answer Asker's Choice
Greetings,Some Trinitarians say that Christ wanted the man to realize that his calling Jesus "good" meant Jesus was God since only God is good.
Non-Trinitarians interpret this as an example of Jesus denying that he was equal to God: the man was using the title improperly in an absolute sense and Jesus corrected him showing that only God should be considered to be supremely good, and not Christ.
What is clear is that the Trinitarian interpretation must arbitrarily import ideas into the text. Nothing in the context leads to the conclusion that Jesus wanted the man to believe Christ was equal to God. This conclusion has to be forced into the text by a presupposed theological bias. Further, the grammar argues against it. This is noted even by many Trinitarian scholars:
Interpreter's Bible:
"Why do you call me good? ...later theologians interpreted it otherwise: 'If you call me good, you imply that I am God'--but this is wholly impossible, both in the original setting and for Mark." (7:801).
The Catholic NAB:
"Why do you call me good?: Jesus repudiates the term "good" for himself and directs it to God, the source of all goodness who alone can grant the gift of eternal life; cf. Mt 19:16-17"--(ftn. on Mk. 10:18).
John A.T. Robinson:
Footnote:"Indeed, by implication he DENIED being God: 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone'" (Mk 10:18)--(Honest To God, pp. 72-73).
The literal rendering of Luke 18:19 is: "There is none good, but the one God" (EI MH EIS hO QEOS). Use of the article (hO QEOS) here is significant. In Mark only the Father is hO QEOS, never Jesus (cf. 15:34). Christ's words then specifically identify God the Father as the only one who is good and explicitly excludes himself (and all others). Jesus could not have used this syntax to mean what Trinitarians claim. This fact is placed beyond debate when we notice the same exact Greek expression in other passages that have no theological baggage.
For instance: Mk. 2:7: "Why is this man talking in this manner? ...Who can forgive sins except one, God?"
This question and answer is almost an exact parallel, making it very clear that the grammatical structure is designed to exclude the subject from the identification in the response. The Pharisees certainly wanted to explicitly exclude Jesus from being God. Their argument was explicit: "This man is NOT God since ONLY God can forgive sins."
If Jesus meant to imply that he be considered "good" in the sense the man used why would Jesus use syntax which could only be understood as excluding himself?
The ultimate and final authority on what Jesus meant lies in how the man understood the correction. We get a definite answer when the man in his very next words dropped the "Good" and addressed Jesus simply as "Teacher." It was obviously very clear to the man that Jesus was excluding himself from being called good since he was not God. Jesus obviously thought the man got the correct point since he did not correct the man this time. Rather, Jesus "loved him" and invited him to be his follower! Would Jesus have done this if the man was so obtuse as to miss or reject Jesus' point?
In conclusion, it is first clear that the context and the grammar shows that Jesus gave no indication that the man must recognize he was Almighty God. To the contrary Jesus' response was a clear correction of what was said, rejecting the application of the term "good" to himself in this circumstance.
The fact that others are properly called "good" in the Scriptures proves that Christ was obviously applying "Good" in an absolute sense here. If he wasn't using it in an absolute sense, then his statement that "No one is good except God alone" would be a lie. This is because the word "good" (Grk. agathos) is properly used in Scripture of many things, even by Jesus Himself as a generic term for others. (Matt. 5:45; 12:35; 13:38; 22:10; 25:21,23).
Normally, calling Jesus "good" was appropriate. Yet, in this context the man was placing Jesus as ultimate/supreme judge of what is required for eternal life. The man seemed to be assuming Christ was so "good" that he could decide the requirements for salvation on his own.
Colin Brown Theological Dictionary:
"What stands out is what has been asserted in every period of Israel's history,... namely that God himself is the One who is really and exclusively good. In the language of the LXX, he is the highest good....However, this does not prevent a natural application of the predicate "good" to the moral differences between men, who do good as well as evil (Matt. 12:35; 25:21; and par. Lk. 6:45; 19:17)."
Yours,
BAR-ANERGES
Asker's rating & comment
5 out of 5Thank you, the Colin Brown Theological Dictionary quote was excellent! Why Trinitarians can't understand this is quite revealing...
LINK
