03.12. Why Callest Thou Me Good?
"Why Callest Thou Me Good?"
Dante, the great Italian Poet, tells how, walking with Virgil through the Inferno, he saw
"The shade of him Who made through cowardice the great refusal." |
In the first three Gospels we have the story of the rich young ruler, a man whose virtues elicited the love of Christ, one whose heart seemed set on heavenly things, and who yet when the testing time came was guilty of "the great refusal." The earnestness, zeal and humility of the young man are beautifully exhibited in the narrative. That he, a ruler of the people, should run to Jesus and kneel before him in the way, was an unusual and wonderful thing. Whatever may be wrong in his question, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" it at least betokened a good interest in heavenly things. His upright life is implied in his response to Christ’s words referring him to the law. "All these things have I observed from my youth" is a statement made with evident sincerity. That it was not the empty boast of a religious trifler is manifest from the record of Mark, who at this stage tells us that "Jesus looking upon him loved him."
Despite all his attractive qualities, however, the young ruler failed to pass the test of Christ. Because he had great possessions, he would not sell his goods and give to the poor, but instead went away sorrowful." Turning his back on Christ, he turned it upon the life which his opening words seemed to indicate he was willing to seek first of all. He was not so much prepared as he thought he was to do anything and everything to obtain life eternal. Whether or not he ever turned again and complied with our Lord’s conditions is not revealed. The Scripture record was given for our profit and admonition, not for the gratification of our curiosity.
"Good Master" and "good thing." For the purpose of our present study we are concerned not with the full story of the ruler, but only with his opening words and with our Lord’s reply to them. It will help to have before us the accounts given by Mark and Matthew. In each case we quote the Revised Version.
"There ran one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, even God" (Mark 10:17-18).
"One came to him and said, Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good’
One there is who is good" (Matthew 19:16-17). A difficulty which some devout readers have had with the various readings of the Gospels must be noted. Matthew represents the young man as asking about the "good thing" he should do, and so quotes Jesus as saying, "Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?" In Mark and Luke, however, the rich young ruler’s epithet of "good" is prefixed to "Master," and hence Jesus’ inquiry ran: "Why callest thou me good?" The accounts can easily be harmonised. The ruler doubtless said, "Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" Then Jesus in reply takes up each "good"--"Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, even God." The words in Matthew, "One there is who is good" imply the evangelist’s knowledge of the second question propounded by Jesus. Reference to the marginal readings will show that some ancient authorities give readings in Matthew identical with those in Mark; but taking our Revised Version as following the better attested text, the believing reader can easily harmonise the records. The assumptions of unbelievers.
There are many modern critics, however, who will have nothing to do with such reconciliation. They say that Mark, the author of the earliest Gospel, gives the accurate record, and shows that Jesus repudiated the epithet of "good" as applied to himself. It is further alleged that the author of the Gospel which we call Matthew’s, writing after the dogma of Christ’s sinlessness was being developed, and finding in the record of Mark, which be had before him, words which were inconsistent with that dogma, deliberately altered the narrative to avoid any appearance of conflict with the accepted doctrine of Jesus’ sinlessness.
We have no wish to examine in detail the unfounded series of assumptions in this alleged explanation of unbelievers; for our articles are written to help true believers to understand the Scriptures which they accept as the product of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. However, it may be remarked that there is no proof whatever that Matthew altered Mark’s record for the reason given or any other. It cannot be proven that Matthew is any less reliable than Mark. There is no proof that Christ could not or did not speak as both Mark and Matthew declare. There is not a shred of evidence to show that after Mark wrote and before Matthew penned his Gospel the dogma of the sinlessness of Christ had been developed. Our critical friends could not begin to prove that Mark did not believe in the sinlessness of Jesus. The interested reader will note that Mark’s Gospel opens with the words: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." it will require something more than the mere statement of an unbelieving critic to give semblance of cogency to the view that Mark could think of the Son of God as one who sinned!
Again, Mark gives in the Saviour’s words that he came "to give his life a ransom for many." Was the Ransomer too in need of a ransom for his own sin? The idea is unthinkable. But we need not be surprised at the strange expedients adopted by those who today make "the great refusal" of Christ and his word. To one other point in the objection we give somewhat more detailed treatment, because in support is adduced the question of Christ which brings the passage within the scope of our studies. Did Jesus repudiate the epithet "good"?
"Why callest thou me good? None is good save one, even God." This is a text in which some unbelievers exult and by which some Christians are puzzled.
There is no doubt either about the original reading of Mark’s account or concerning the translation of the text. We may take it that our versions report accurately what our Lord said. Even so, it is possible to read, "Why callest thou me good?" in different ways and with different meanings. It is a matter of emphasis. If a person wishes to read into the passage a repudiation by our Lord of his own sinlessness, he has only to emphasise the "me" strongly and read: "Why callest thou ME good? None is good save one, even God." But let such a one recognise the fact that that is his interpretation (or distortion) of the text. it is a wilful reading into the verse of something which makes it contradict the witness of Christ himself as well as the repeated witness of other writers of Scripture (John 6:69; John 11:46; John 14:30; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5, etc.). There is no warrant for so reading this passage in Mark as to make it contradict the claim of him who challenged his enemies to convict him of sin. The attempt on the strength of this one verse to impugn our Lord’s perfect sinlessness is as unfair as it is unwarranted.
If we emphasise the "why" of the question, there is excellent sense, the meaning is clear, and the passage harmonises with all the rest that is revealed by or concerning Jesus Christ. The ruler had come with a sincere desire to honor Jesus as a great teacher, and as one who would at all hazards possess eternal life. He came with a somewhat facile compliment upon his lips and also with a question regarding some good thing he could do. Jesus in his reply pulls him up, and bids him think of the word he is using and of its implications. Why is it, he asks, that you call me good? Do you realise what is involved in the use of that epithet?
Either the ruler should acknowledge Jesus as divine, and not simply regard him as a human rabbi, or else he should not use the title "Good Teacher."’ The words "none is good save one, even God" also cut away all just ground for that man’s, or any other man’s, conceit about his own goodness.
God--or not good.
Dr. Alexander Maclaren has an excellent comment on the passage: "Our Lord answers with a coldness which startles; but it was meant to arouse, like a dash of cold water flung in the face. ’Why callest thou me good?’ is more than a waving aside of a compliment, or a lesson in accuracy of speech. It rebukes the young man’s shallow conception of goodness as shown by the facility with which he bestowed the epithet. ’None is good save one, even God’ cuts up by the roots his notion of the possibility of self-achieved goodness, since it traces all human goodness to its source in God. . . . How then can any man ’inherit eternal life’ by good deeds, which he is only able to do because God has poured some of his own goodness into him? Jesus shatters the young man’s whole theory, as expressed in his question, at one stroke. But while his reply bears directly on the errors of the question, it has a wider significance. Either Jesus is here repudiating the notion of his own sinlessness and acknowledging, in contradiction to every other disclosure of his self-consciousness, that he was not through and through good, or else he is claiming to be filled with God, the source of all goodness, in a wholly unique manner. It is a tremendous alternative, but one which has to be faced. While one is thankful if men even imperfectly apprehend the character and nature of Jesus, one cannot but feel that the question may fairly be put to the many who extol the beauty of his life, and deny his divinity, ’Why callest thou me good?’ Either he is ’God manifest in the flesh,’ or he is not ’good."’ No man is entitled to rest half way, and to reject the Saviour’s divine authority while lauding his character in the facile way in which multitudes do so to-day. There are but the two forms of valid reasoning from the premises before us. Either--There is none good but God; Christ is good; therefore Christ is God. Or--There is none good but God; Christ is not God; therefore Christ is not good. Our faith is in the Son of God, who died for us, and set the perfect example of a sinless life; in the Lamb without blemish and without spot, by whose precious blood we are redeemed.