And going forth on His journey, one having run up and having knelt down to Him, was asking Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I might inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good, except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not defraud, you shall honor your father and mother.’” And he was saying to Him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, having looked upon him, loved him and said to him, “One thing to you is lacking: Go, sell as much as you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” And having been sad at the word, he went away grieving; for he was one having many possessions. And Jesus having looked around, says to His disciples, “How difficultly those having riches will enter into the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answering says to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Mark 10:17-26
This passage is of the rich young man who has kept the letter of the law, but lacked the Spirit of the law, because the Spirit of the world had hold of him through the love of his possessions in this life over the love of God and his reward in the next life. This is a passage about impulsivity, greed, comfort, the love of money, and our view of these things in relation to God. When Jesus told his apostles, “Come follow me,” they dropped all to come to him. When he told the rich man to leave behind his possessions and come follow, he did not do so. Do not turn back, as Lot’s wife did, to the things of this world. Do not turn back even to bury the dead. Put the kingdom first.
This passage is used by both Unitarians and Trinitarians to prove, respectively, that Jesus is not calling himself God or that he is calling himself God. The common Unitarian argument is:
“Jesus says he is not good, and therefore, not God. God is good, and yet Jesus is able to sin. Therefore, he is not God.”
The Trinitarian argument reads the passage differently:
“Jesus is affirming that he is God. When the man calls him ‘good,’ Jesus’ response is to say, in essence, ‘You call me good because you know that I am God and only God is good.'”
There is a common misunderstanding in both approaches. There is the underlying assumption that “goodness” here refers to some kind of moral or ethical goodness. If Jesus is saying that he is good because he is God, we run into a number of problems with this approach.
First, Jesus says that he does not testify of himself (John 5:31). If Jesus is saying that he is good, he is testifying to himself in regards to what he is.
Second, if only God is good and no one else is, then how can Jesus say that others are good who are not God? In Matthew 5:45, he says: “For He makes His sun rise on evil and good (ἀγαθοὺς), and He sends rain on righteous and unrighteous.” The “good” are those who are righteous and receive rain. Clearly, not God. If Jesus is saying that no one is good, save God alone. Why would he then say that there are men who are good upon the earth who are not God? Clearly, there is another sense in which Jesus means “good” in our passage in question.
Third, when we read Mark’s account, we note something very interesting about the man’s response.
And going forth on His journey, one having run up and having knelt down to Him, was asking Him, “Good (ἀγαθέ) Teacher, what shall I do that I might inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good (ἀγαθόν)? No one is good (ἀγαθοὺς), except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder…’” And he was saying to Him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.”
If Jesus was essentially telling the man, “yes, I am good,” then the man did not seem to understand him, because he no longer calls Jesus “good teacher,” but merely, “teacher.” If Jesus is good, and he is confirming to the man that he is in fact good, then Jesus must not be a very good teacher because the man did not continue calling him “good.” Note that even in the parallels in Matthew and Luke, the man’s reply never again includes the term “good.”
Many people are called “good” in the Bible. Jesus is not saying that no one is good in any sense but God alone. Nor could he be talking about moral goodness without contradicting himself. Also, Jesus speaks in parables, illustrations, and sometimes in double entendras, but he never answers someone in a riddle of this style if this reading is regarded to be correct. “No one would call me good unless you knew that I was.” Compare this to how Jesus asked Peter about who he was: “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?… Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven” (Matthew 16:15-17). Jesus’ question and affirmation were very clear. Also, note that Jesus does not say that Peter was revealed this because Jesus testified concerning himself. Jesus says that it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to Peter. Jesus is flesh and blood by his own admission (see John 6). It was his Father who revealed this to Peter. This is in stark contrast to how Jesus is portrayed as speaking to the rich man. Consider also Jesus’ comments made to the apostles on who they testified to who he is: “You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say rightly, for so I am” (John 13:13). Note that Jesus does not say good teacher. And note that he simply affirms what they already know with merely saying, “For so I am.” Is Jesus testifying concerning himself? No. The Father had already revealed this to his apostles. This is his last night, and they have followed him and believed. This is also to follow up with his point about teachers and students, slaves and masters. The riddle style that Trinitarians insist Jesus spoke in seems incongruous with the way in which Jesus normally speaks in the gospels concerning these matters, and there is little reason as to why we should accept this, other than a question begging theological motivation.
Note what the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says in its commentary on this passage: “The emphasis is on the ‘why.’ ‘Dost thou know what thou meanest, when thou givest Me this appellation?’ If we combine the question and rejoinder as given by St Matthew and St Luke, it would seem to have run, Why askest thou Me about the good? And why callest thou Me good? None is good save One, God. Our Lord does not decline the appellation ‘good.’ He repels it only in the superficial sense of the questioner, who regarded Him merely as a ‘good Rabbi.'” In this quotation, we see that they understand a key fact in helping us to understand this passage. The man was not just regarding Jesus himself as a good man. He said he was a “good teacher.” We are not referring to moral good and moral badness. The question is if Jesus is the “good teacher” or not. Jesus says he is not. Why? Because Jesus declares that his teachings are not his own. “Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me” (John 14:24, see also John 3:34, 7:16, 12:49, and 14:10). His teaching does not come from himself. His teachings come from God. “No one is good but God alone.” God is the source of the teachings, God alone is good. Jesus is correcting the man’s misunderstanding in this case. It is easy to understand why the rich man might have this misunderstanding. He says that he was familiar with the law and the commandments from his youth, and he has kept these things. He may very well have been familiar with the teachings of the Scribes and the Pharisees who took credit for their own teachings. Their teachings come from themselves, and they testify according to themselves (John 8:44). It seems to be that the man was mistaken in how he viewed the nature of Jesus’ teachings. He viewed him as if his teachings were primarily from himself, whereas Jesus always claims that his teachings are not his own, but God’s.
Jesus is telling the man that he himself is not good, and the man understands this by declining to call Jesus “good teacher” again. Jesus is pointing attention to his God and Father as the source of the teaching. The Father is the good teacher, not Jesus. Jesus speaks as he is commanded, speaks what he has heard, and speaks not his own words but the teachings of the Father. Many argue that Jesus should have said, “Do not call me good,” rather than question the man, “Why call me good?” This is an argument from absence. Jesus questioned the man most likely because it is not understandable as to what Jesus has said or done that makes it seem as if he’s been speaking from himself. I understand this very well because I see it almost daily in my interactions with Christians. Jesus says this very plainly that he “does nothing from himself” (John 5:19, 30), and yet many Christians believe that Jesus was in his ministry proving from himself that he possesses his own divine nature and that he is God. What ever did Jesus do to give this impression? Why say that he does everything from his own nature? Why call him “good teacher?” Say, “what impression have I given you that this teaching comes from myself? Am I God?” The implications of the question are very apparent. This is not a backdoor method by Jesus to assure the man that he truly is God, as if anyone in Marks gospel seemed to think the man before them was literally the God whose face shown before Moses, destroyed nations, and created the universe by the mere breath of his mouth. This man knew the law.
The topic here is the teaching of a teacher. This man is asking Jesus, as a teacher, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” The man was not coming to Jesus because Jesus was a just and moral man. Being morally good does not mean you possess the ability to teach someone what they lack. The man approached Jesus because Jesus was a teacher and able to teach him what he lacked. Jesus’ response was: “You know the commandments.” That is, the teachings of the law. You do not need me to teach you what you must do, you know the law, and this teaches you. The problem of the law is not that the law lacks anything by its very nature. The problem of the law is our inability to follow it in its principles. This is why many Christians wished to turn back to the old way of the law (see the letter to the Hebrews). The Spirit of the law is much harder to keep, and Jesus illustrates this in his sermon on the mount. Is there any law in the mosaic laws that forbids a man from being rich? No. But is there a spiritual sense in which the law condemns this act? Yes. Idolatry. When someone loves their possessions more than their creator. The man comes to Jesus as a teacher, asking to be taught. The man keeps the law in the letter, yet not in the Spirit.
“But what about Matthew’s account?” One might ask. While Mark and Luke’s accounts are almost identical in this passage, Matthew’s stands out as different, recording the man asking a slightly different question and Jesus giving a slightly different answer.
“Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I might have eternal life?”… “If you desire to be perfect, go, sell what you are possessing, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in the heavens; and come, follow Me” (Matthew 19:16-21).
The man quite literally asks, “What good must I do?” The word “thing” does not appear in the Greek text, but it is implied that the man is asking about what good he must do by works. Jesus’ response to him is, “If you desire to be complete/perfect.” This is not the same Greek word for “good.” The question is not directed at whether Jesus is the good teacher, but about what good this man must do, and Jesus tells him how to be complete. It is only my opinion, but I am of the belief that Matthew changes this question slightly from Mark because of his overall view and discussion with the Pharisees, and his literary style to compare the Jews and Gentiles, which Mark and Luke do not focus on as much. I think Matthew wishes to take this account of Jesus and emphasize a different point. The works of the law do not make you complete. This is the assumption of the Pharisees. This man was said to be loved by Jesus in Mark’s account. Matthew is making the point that the man was not loved for keeping the law but loved for his heart. This is the reason why the kingdom was taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles. “But, if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments… if you wish to be complete, something else must be done.”
Jesus’ response to the man begins in the same dismissive manner in Matthew as it does in the other synoptics. “Why ask me about what is good? Only one is good.” The dismissing of the attribution of “goodness” to something other than the Father. Yet, this still is not absolute goodness, given what was said previously concerning Matthew 5:45. “Good” in this context seems to be that which God does, not man. “What good must I do?” “Why call me good?” The good things, the good works that Jesus does are not his own works. The Father in him does the works (John 10:37-38, 14:11). Again, Jesus is saying that he is not the source of these works. He does nothing from of himself.
People will often ask, “Well, are you saying Jesus isn’t good? Isn’t Jesus a good person to you? If he’s saying no one is good but God, and you’re saying he isn’t God, then you’re saying he isn’t good.” This is just a silly argument to try and trap you into sounding incorrect, because we think that Jesus was the good and perfect sacrifice, he is the good shepherd, and he was God’s first good and faithful servant, appointed as a son over God’s house. Of course, Jesus is good. But in this context? No. With a little bit of understanding of this passage, we see that Jesus is humbly denying the source of his works and his teachings as coming from himself. Compare this to Moses, who did not give glory to God for the water that came from the rock but took the glory for himself. Jesus does not glorify himself (John 5:43-44). His glory comes from “the one and only God.” The question is not if we say Jesus is good or not. The question is, “Did Jesus say he was good in this passage?” The answer is no, and we see this clearly from the man’s response. Nicodemus said it best: “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher, for no one is able to do these signs that You do, unless God should be with him.” Jesus did not tell Nicodemus that he was wrong or incorrect. He proceeded to answer his question. Jesus is a teacher having come from God, and not working from himself, but God with him.
Jesus is denying himself that he is God by denying being the source of this teaching, and also, by denying being the source of the good works that he’s done. He humbly directs the attention back to God. The man understands this, and no more does he call him “good teacher,” but simply, “teacher.”