In Luke 18:18-29 (and the parallel account in Mark 10:17-31), we read the narrative of the rich young ruler coming to Jesus and asking, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus responds by saying "Why do you call me good? No one is good -- except God alone."Jesus continues, "You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honour your father and mother." The young man replies, “All these I have kept since I was a boy.” Jesus, however, knowing that he valued his wealth and riches more than God, instructs the man to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor, and then to come and follow Jesus. At this, the man walks away greatly saddened because he has no interest in giving up his wealth.
Many of those who seek to deny the deity of Christ (such as Muslims) will often appeal to this passage as an example of Jesus allegedly renouncing his deity. Is this the case, however? Was Jesus really denying that He is God in stating, "Why do you call me good? No one is good -- except God alone."The first important thing to notice is that Jesus Himself claims not only to be "good" but also to be perfect and completely without sin. Consider, for example, John 10:11 ("I am the good shepherd") or John 8:46 ("Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?"). We are also told by Paul that Jesus was without sin, for example in 2 Corinthians 5:21 ("God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God"). Thus, this situation with the rich young ruler is actually an affirmation of Jesus' deity. The argument may be summarised in syllogistic form as follows:
Premise 1: According to Jesus, God alone is good.
Premise 2: According to Jesus, Jesus is good.
Conclusion: Therefore, according to Jesus, Jesus is God.
So what is going on in this incident with the rich young ruler? Jesus, I believe, is teasing out the implications of the young man's statement. It is a rhetorical question designed to make the man think long and hard about Jesus' true identity.
Those who use this example as a proof text for justifying their denial of the deity of Jesus need to allow all of Scripture speak, and read the passages they quote in the context within which they appear. When one handles the text of Scripture honestly and responsibly in this regard, the true identity of Jesus becomes very clear: He is the eternal Son of God, and the second person of the Trinity.
In a closer study of the text, the identification of this quality of being "good" was in the capacity that the rich young man saw Jesus as "good teacher" (in Greek didaskale agathe, roughly RaBBiY HaTOB in Hebrew. Perhaps it was in this identification of Jesus as merely an honorable rabbi that Jesus wished this fellow to examine, see beyond, and learn to identify Jesus as Lord. The man's request in inquiring concerning eternal life was a deep question, and truly suitable for the rich young man to seek Jesus' advice on this point. But as a good rabbi? No. But as Lord who grants erernal life, not by obedience to the Law (here Jesus proves such a path fatally flawed), but by grace to those who realize they've come up massively short of God's mark, and God's grace is the sole resource left.
ReplyDeleteA fine post, brilliantly proposed.
But perhaps Jesus didn't mean he was literally Good to the degree you are implying. Being a Good Shepherd hardly means he's generally good. I'm good at my job but I've occasionally dabbled in vice. It's probable that Jesus slept with Mary Magdalene on occasion and possibly Paul too.
ReplyDeleteThe question "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin" reads a lot like a challenge to his follows. It can be interpreted as "We all know I've sinned but can anyone of you prove it?"
Peter isn't a very good character witness for Jesus, he denied knowing him on a number of occasions (Mark 14:66-68),(John 18:15-18), (Matthew 26:71-75). I don't think his opinion is very useful in this regard.
Additionally when the crowd were about to stone Mary Magdalene, Jesus said "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone."
This would have been an excellent opportunity for Jesus to show his own godliness by throwing a stone at Mary, but for some reason he doesn't. He must not be without Sin, he's certainly not above punishing the guilty as his invention of Hell clearly shows.
This Bible interpretation game is easy isn't it?
//The question "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin" reads a lot like a challenge to his follows. It can be interpreted as "We all know I've sinned but can anyone of you prove it?"//
DeleteSuch an interpretation would make no sense given the context. Go read it.
//Peter isn't a very good character witness for Jesus, he denied knowing him on a number of occasions (Mark 14:66-68),(John 18:15-18), (Matthew 26:71-75). I don't think his opinion is very useful in this regard.//
Where did I mention Peter in the above post?
//Additionally when the crowd were about to stone Mary Magdalene, Jesus said "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone."
This would have been an excellent opportunity for Jesus to show his own godliness by throwing a stone at Mary, but for some reason he doesn't. He must not be without Sin, he's certainly not above punishing the guilty as his invention of Hell clearly shows.//
Congratulations. You just misquoted the text in order to subtly change the meaning. Rather, Jesus said, "Let he from *among you* who is without sin cast the first stone."
@ TheBeatGoesOn writes "It's probable that Jesus slept with Mary Magdalene on occasion and possibly Paul too."
DeleteHow should someone respond to such nonsense? Should we say something like "it's probable that 'TheBeatGoesOn' looses control over his mind on occassion and possibly here too" in order to make him aware of his faulty thinking?
I think it is sufficient to quote Jay Richards here "A sneer is not an argument and insults do not constitute evidence”.