Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is,] God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
17. Why callest thou me good? ] Here, but not in the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, the leading MSS. read, “Why askest thou me about what is good? He who is good is one.” With either reading the drift of our Lord’s answer is to cause reflection. “In a single breath thou hast twice used the word good; think what good really means. Am I then the one good?” Jesus refuses the conventional title of “good master;” and leads the questioner to think of the only One who could be called “good” in a high and true sense.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 17. Why callest thou me good?] Or, Why dost thou question me concerning that good thing? . This important reading is found in BDL, three others, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic, latter Syriac, Vulgate, Saxon, all the Itala but one, Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, Dionysius Areop., Antiochus, Novatian, Jerome, Augustin, and Juvencus. Erasmus, Grotius, Mill, and Bengel approve of this reading. This authority appears so decisive to Griesbach that he has received this reading into the text of his second edition, which in the first he had interlined. And instead of, None is good but the one God, he goes on to read, on nearly the same respectable authorities, . There is one who is good. Let it be observed also that, in the 16th verse, instead of , good teacher, only is read by BDL, one other, one Evangelistarium, the Ethiopic, three of the Itala, Origen, and Hilary. The whole passage therefore may be read thus: O teacher! what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why dost thou question me concerning that good thing? There is one that is good. (Or he who is good is one.) But If thou art willing to enter into that life, keep the commandments. This passage, as it stood in the common editions, has been considered by some writers as an incontrovertible proof against the Divinity or Godhead of Christ. A very learned person, in his note on this place, thus concludes concerning it: “Therefore our Saviour cannot be GOD: and the notion of, I know not what, a trinity in unity, THREE Gods in ONE, is here proved beyond all controversy, by the unequivocal declaration of JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF, to be ERRONEOUS and IMPOSSIBLE.” Not so. One of the greatest critics in Europe, not at all partial to the Godhead of Christ, has admitted the above readings into his text, on evidence which he judged to be unexceptionable. If they be the true readings, they destroy the whole doctrine built on this text; and indeed the utmost that the enemies of the trinitarian doctrine can now expect from their formidable opponents, concerning this text, is to leave it neuter.
Keep the commandments.] From this we may learn that God’s great design, in giving his law to the Jews, was to lead them to the expectation and enjoyment of eternal life. But as all the law referred to Christ, and he became the end of the law for righteousness (justification) to all that believe, so he is to be received, in order to have the end accomplished which the law proposed.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark omits the latter clause, and only saith, Thou knowest the commandments; so saith Luke, Luk 18:19,20. Our Saviours design here was, not to show this young man by this answer the way by which it was possible that he or any other might come to heaven, but only to convince him of the errors of the Pharisaical doctrine. They would not own Christ to be God, nor to be come forth from God; they taught eternal life to be obtainable by the works of the law, and by a fulfilling of the law, according to that imperfect sense which they gave of it, of which we heard much, in Mat 5:1-48. Now, saith our Saviour, seeing you will not own me to be God, nor yet to have come from God,
why callest thou me good? There is none originally, essentially, and absolutely good, but God: there is none derivatively good, but he derives his goodness from God. How callest thou me good, whom thou wilt neither own to be God, nor to derive from God?
But if thou will enter into life, keep the commandments. This was the doctrine of the Pharisees, That men might keep the commandments. Saith our Saviour, The way to eternal life, according to your doctrine, is plain before thee. You say, men may perfectly keep the commandments of God. He that doth so shall be saved. Therefore
keep the commandments. Not that our Saviour thought he could do it, or that there did lie a passable road to heaven that way, but that he might convince him of his error, and the need he had of a Saviour.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And he said unto him,…. By way of reply, first taking notice of, and questioning him about, the epithet he gave him:
why callest thou me good? not that he denied that he was so; for he was good, both as God and man, in his divine and human natures; in all his offices, and the execution of them; he was goodness itself, and did good, and nothing else but good. But the reason of the question is, because this young man considered him only as a mere man, and gave him this character as such; and which, in comparison of God, the fountain of all goodness, agrees with no mere man: wherefore our Lord’s view is, by his own language; and from his own words, to instruct him in the knowledge of his proper deity. Some copies read, “why dost thou ask me concerning good”. And so the Vulgate Latin, and the Ethiopic versions, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel read; but the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions, read as we do, and this the answer of Christ requires.
There is none good but one, that is God; who is originally, essentially, independently, infinitely, and immutably good, and the author and source of all goodness; which cannot be said of any mere creature. This is to be understood of God considered essentially, and not personally; or it is to be understood, not of the person of the Father, to the exclusion of the Son, or Spirit: who are one God with the Father, and equally good in nature as he. Nor does this contradict and deny that there are good angels, who have continued in that goodness in which they were created; or that there are good men, made so by the grace of God; but that none are absolutely and perfectly good, but God. What Christ here says of God, the b Jews say of the law of Moses, whose praise they can never enough extol;
“there is nothing good but the law”. The law is good indeed; but the author of it must be allowed to be infinitely more so. Christ next directly answers to the question,
but if thou wilt enter into life: eternal life, which is in the question, and which being sometimes expressed by a house, a city, and kingdom, by mansions, and everlasting habitations, enjoyment of it is fitly signified by entering into it; which, if our Lord suggests, he had a desire of having a right to by doing any good thing himself, he must
keep the commandments; that is, perfectly: he must do not only one good thing, but all the good things the law requires; he must not be deficient in any single action, in anyone work of the law, either as to matter, or manner of performance; everything must be done, and that just as the Lord in his law has commanded it. Our Lord answers according to the tenor of the covenant of works, under which this man was; and according to the law of God, which requires perfect obedience to it, as a righteousness, and a title to life; and in case of the least failure, curses and condemns to everlasting death; see De 6:25. This Christ said, in order to show, that it is impossible to enter into, or obtain eternal life by the works of the law, since no man can perfectly keep it; and to unhinge this man from off the legal foundation on which he was, that he might drop all his dependencies on doing good things, and come to him for righteousness and life.
b T. Hieroa. Roshhashanah, fol. 59. 1. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 151. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Concerning that which is good ( ). He had asked Jesus in verse 16 “what good thing” he should do. He evidently had a light idea of the meaning of . “This was only a teacher’s way of leading on a pupil” (Bruce). So Jesus explains that “One there is who is good,” one alone who is really good in the absolute sense.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Why callest thou me good? [ ] . But the true reading is, ti me ejrwtav peri tou ajgaqou; Why askest thou me concerning the good?
There is none good but one, that is God [ ] . But the reading is, ei=v ejstin oJ ajgaqov, One there is who is good. The saying of Christ appears especially appropriate in the light of the Rabbinic apothegm, “There is nothing else that is good but the law.”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
17. Why callest thou me good? I do not understand this correction in so refined a sense as is given by a good part of interpreters, as if Christ intended to suggest his Divinity; for they imagine that these words mean, “If thou perceivest in me nothing more exalted than human nature, thou falsely appliest to me the epithet good, which belongs to God alone. ” I do acknowledge that, strictly speaking, men and even angels do not deserve so honorable a title; because they have not a drop of goodness in themselves, but borrowed from God; and because in the former, goodness is only begun, and is not perfect. But Christ had no other intention than to maintain the truth of his doctrine; as if he had said, “Thou falsely callest me a good Master, unless thou acknowledgest that I have come from God.” The essence of his Godhead, therefore, is not here maintained, but the young man is directed to admit the truth of the doctrine. He had already felt some disposition to obey; but Christ wishes him to rise higher, that he may hear God speaking. For — as it is customary with men to make angels of those who are devils — they indiscriminately give the appellation of good teachers to those in whom they perceive nothing divine; but those modes of speaking are only profanations of the gifts of God. We need not wonder, therefore, if Christ, in order to maintain the authority of his doctrine, directs the young man to God.
Keep the commandments. This passage was erroneously interpreted by some of the ancients, whom the Papists have followed, as if Christ taught that, by beeping the law, we may merit eternal life On the contrary, Christ did not take into consideration what men can do, but replied to the question, What is the righteousness of works? or, What does the Law require? And certainly we ought to believe that God comprehended in his law the way of living holily and righteously, in which righteousness is included; for not without reason did Moses make this statement,
He that does these things shall live in them, (Lev 18:5😉
and again,
I call heaven and earth to witness that l have this day showed you life, (Deu 30:19.)
We have no right, therefore, to deny that the keeping of the law is righteousness, by which any man who kept the law perfectly — if there were such a man — would obtain life for himself. But as we are all destitute of the glory of God, (Rom 3:23,) nothing but cursing will be found in the law; and nothing remains for us but to betake ourselves to the undeserved gift of righteousness. And therefore Paul lays down a twofold righteousness, the righteousness of the law, (Rom 10:5,) and the righteousness of faith, (Rom 10:6.) He makes the first to consist in works, and the second, in the free grace of Christ.
Hence we infer, that this reply of Christ is legal, because it was proper that the young man who inquired about the righteousness of works should first be taught that no man is accounted righteous before God unless he has fulfilled the law, (620) (which is impossible,) that, convinced of his weakness, he might betake himself to the assistance of faith. I acknowledge, therefore, that, as God has promised the reward of eternal life to those who keep his law, we ought to hold by this way, if the weakness of our flesh did not prevent; but Scripture teaches us, that it is through our own fault that it becomes necessary for us to receive as a gift what we cannot obtain by works. If it be objected, that it is in vain to hold out to us the righteousness which is in the law, (Rom 10:5,) which no man will ever be able to reach, I reply, since it is the first part of instruction, by which we are led to the righteousness which is obtained by prayer, it is far from being superfluous; and, therefore, when Paul says, that the doers of the law are justified, (Rom 2:13,) he excludes all from the righteousness of the law.
This passage sets aside all the inventions which the Papists have contrived in order to obtain salvation. For not only are they mistaken in wishing to lay God under obligation to them by their good works, to bestow salvation as a debt; but when they apply themselves to do what is right, they leave out of view the doctrine of the law, and attend chiefly to their pretended devotions, as they call them, not that they openly reject the law of God, but that they greatly prefer human traditions. (621) But what does Christ say? That the only worship of which God approves is that which he has prescribed; because obedience is better to him than all sacrifices, (622) (1Sa 15:22.) So then, while the Papists are employed in frivolous traditions, let every man who endeavors to regulate his life by obedience to Christ direct his whole attention to keep the commandments of the law.
(620) “ Sinon qu’il ait accompli toute la loy de poinct en poinct;” — “unless he has fulfilled all the law in every point.”
(621) “ D’autant qu’ils font bien plus grand cas de leurs traditions humaines, que des commandemens de Dieu;” — “because they set far higher value on their human traditions than on the commandments of God.”
(622) “ Pource qu’il estime plus obeissance que tous les sacrifices du monde;” — “because he esteems obedience more than all the sacrifices in the world.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(17) Why callest thou me good?Here again the older MSS. give a different form to our Lords answer: Why askest thou Me concerning that which is good? There is One that is the Good. The alteration was probably made, as before, for the sake of agreement with the other Gospels. In either case the answer has the same force. The questioner had lightly applied the word good to One whom he as yet regarded only as a human teacher, to an act which, it seemed to him, was in his own power to perform. What he needed, therefore, was to be taught to deepen and widen his thoughts of goodness until they rose to Him in whom alone it was absolute and infinite, through fellowship with whom only could any teacher rightly be called good, and from whom alone could come the power to do any good thing. The method by which our Lord leads him to that conclusion may, without irreverence, be permitted to call up the thought of the method in which Socrates is related to have dealt with like questioners, both in the grave, sad irony of the process, and in the self-knowledge in which it was designed to issue.
Keep the commandments.The questioner is answered as from his own point of view. If eternal life was to be won by doing, there was no need to come to a new Teacher for a new precept. It was enough to keep the commandments, the great moral laws of God, as distinct from ordinances and traditions (Mat. 15:3), with which every Israelite was familiar.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
17. Why callest thou me good? The young man had used the word good twice in his question; once to designate Jesus, and once to designate his own performance. Our Lord first proceeds to raise his own contemplations to a higher standard of goodness than he has in his mind. Perhaps he will then see that to talk of compensating God, by his good doings, for the infinite bliss of heaven, is folly.
Why callest thou me good? Had the young rich ruler really believed Jesus to be Lord of all, our Lord would not have said this; for never did he refuse any homage offered him, however high. This passage can then be by no means considered as in any degree denying the supreme divinity of the Saviour. On the contrary, it is saying to the young man, If you call me good you should admit me to be God.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And he said to him, “Why do you ask me concerning what is good? One there is who is good.” ’
Mark has here, ‘why do you call me good?’ But both are again conveying the same idea, the one writing mainly for Gentiles, the other for Jewish Christians. It has the same reasoning behind it as Matthew’s expression ‘the Kingly Rule of Heaven’ as compared with Mark’s ‘the Kingly Rule of God’. It is a way of saying the same thing while avoiding something which might be regarded as using the idea and name of God too lightly. But to ask someone of ‘what is good’ indicates the view that that person is ‘good’ without actually saying so. Only a supremely good person could know what was supremely good.
And that is clearly the implication that Jesus takes from it, for He says, “Why do you ask me concerning what is good? One there is who is good.” He is asking the young man why he applies to Him a concept that only applies to God. And He is suggesting that he think through the implication of what he has said. He has recognised a unique goodness in Jesus, that is why he has come to Him and not to the Scribes. Let him then consider the implications of that. Jesus is not denying that He is good. He is asking him to think what, if it is true, that then indicates.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
“But if you would enter into life, keep the commandments.”
Jesus then points out to him in what true goodness consists. It is found by wholly keeping, from the heart, all the commandments of God without exception (contrast Jas 2:10). Let a man but do that and he will enter into life (eternal), for it will indicate a full relationship with God. It will be to be God-like. The idea may specifically have in mind Amo 5:4; Amo 5:6; Amo 5:14 where life is to be found both by seeking God and by seeking His goodness. The two are thus seen as equated. The idea is that no man can seek true goodness without seeking God, and vice versa. And it is through truly seeking God that men find goodness. We can compare with this Jesus’ indication that those whom God blesses will seek righteousness (Mat 5:6), and as a result will be ‘filled’ with righteousness as He Who is the Righteousness of God, and His salvation, come in delivering power. Jesus is not, of course, telling him that he can earn eternal life by doing good works. He is saying that anyone who would enter into life must be truly good, a goodness which they cannot achieve in themselves, a goodness which they must find through Him. Paul says the same, ‘Do you not know that the unrighteous will not enter the Kingly Rule of God?’ (1Co 6:9). And then Paul lists the kind of people who cannot hope to do so, and goes on to explain that it is only be being washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God that it becomes possible (1Co 6:11). Jesus has in mind that if the young man would enter into life he must be willing to come with the humility and openness of a little child and receive from God through Him what pertains to goodness.
But He is very much aware that the young man’s mind must be disabused of all its wrong ideas. This young man before Him wants, as it were, to climb into Heaven on the stairs of some wonderful ‘goodness’. He wants to enter it proudly as the trumpets blare about his great achievements (Mat 6:2). He wants the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees (Mat 5:20). The last thing that he is thinking of is humbling himself as a little child. So Jesus knows that He must first bring his high opinion of himself crashing down. He knows His man. And He knows that unless he learns that his righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, he cannot enter under the Kingly Rule of God (Mat 5:20).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 19:17. There is none good but one, that is God This passage has been produced and strongly argued by the Arians in favour of their system. They found their argument upon the Greek, which runs thus, , , . There is none good, but one; and that (one) is , God. Whence it is argued, that the adjective being in the masculine gender, cannot be interpreted to signify one being, or nature (for then it should have been in the neuter), but one person; so that by confining the attribute of goodness to the single person of the Father, it must of course exclude the persons of the Son and Holy Ghost from the unity of the Godhead. This, it must be owned, is a plausible objection: for, supposing the word to signify one person (and in that lies the whole force of the argument) then, if one person only is good, and that person is God, it must also follow, that there is but one person who is God; the name of God being as much confined hereby to a single person, as the attribute of goodness. But this is utterly false; the names of God, Lord, Lord of hosts, the Almighty, Most High, Eternal, God of Israel, &c. being also ascribed to the second and third persons of the blessed Trinity. Take it in this way, therefore, and the objection, by provingtoomuch,confutesitself,andprovesnothing. The truth is, this criticism, upon the strength of which some have dared to undeify the Saviour, has no foundation in the original. The word is so far from requiring the substantive person to be understood with it, that it is put in the masculine gender to agree with its substantive , and is best construed by an adverb. If you follow the Greek by a literal translation, it will be thus, There is none good, , but the one God; that is, in common English, but God only. And it happens, that the same Greek, word for word, occurs in Mar 2:7. Who can forgive sins, , but God only? So it is rendered by our translators; and we have a plain matter of fact, that the word in this place cannot possibly admit the sense of one person, because Christ, who is another person, took upon him to forgive sins. In the parallel place of St. Luke’s Gospel (Luk 5:21.) the expression is varied, so as to make it still clearer, , not , but , another adjective, of the masculine gender, which,though it agree with its substantive , is rightly construed with an adverb,either the alone God, or God only: and the Greek itself uses one for the other indifferently, as , by bread only, Mat 4:4. , in word only, 1Th 1:5. The utmost that can be gathered therefore from these words, is no more than this, that there is one God, (in which we are all agreed) and that there is none good besides him, which nobody will dispute. Whether in this God there be one person or three, remains yet to be considered; and the Scripture is so express in other places as to settle it beyond all dispute. If it should here be asked, for what reason Christ put the question before us, Why callest thou me good? I answer, for the same reason that he asked the Pharisees, Why David in spirit called him LORD? Mat 22:43 and that was, to try if they were able to account for it. This young man, by addressing our Saviour under the name of good master, when the Psalmist had affirmed long before, that there is none that doeth GOOD, no NOT ONE, (Psa 14:3.) did in effect allow him to be God; no mere man since the fall of Adam having any claim to that character; and, when he was called upon to explain his meaning, forthat God only was good, he should have replied in the words of St. Thomas, My Lord, and my God! which would have been a noble instance of faith, and have cleared up the whole difficulty. See Jones’s “Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity,” p. 13.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 19:17 . Thy question concerning the good thing, which is necessary to be done in order to have eternal life in the Messianic kingdom, is quite superfluous ( , . . .); the answer is self-evident, for there is but one (namely, God, the absolute ideal of moral life) who is the good one, therefore the good thing to which thy question refers can be neither more nor less than obedience to His will, one good Being, one good thing, alterum non datur! But if thou ( , the continuative autem : to tell thee now more precisely what I wished to impress upon thee by this ) desirest to enter into life, keep the commandments (which are given by this One ). Neander explains incorrectly thus: “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One is the good one, and to Him , thou must address thyself; He has, in fact, revealed it to thee also; but since you have asked me, then let me inform you,” etc. This view is already precluded by the enclitic (as otherwise we should necessarily have had ).
For the explanation of the Received text, see note on Mar 10:18 ; the claim to originality must be decided in favour not of Matthew (in answer to Keim), but of Mark, on whom Luke has also drawn. The tradition followed by Matthew seems to have already omitted the circumstance of our Lord’s declining the epithet . The claims of Mark and Luke are likewise favoured by Weisse, Bleek, Weiss, Schenkel, Volkmar, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, the last of whom, however, gives the palm in the matter of originality to the narrative of the Gospel of the Hebrews ( N. T. extra can . IV. p. 16 f.).
For . . . ., comp. Plat. Rep . p. 379 A: .
On the dogmatic importance of the proposition that God alone is good, see Kster in the Stud. u. Krit . 1856, p. 420 ff.; and on the fundamental principle of the divine retribution: , which impels the sinner to repentance, to a renunciation of his own righteousness, and to faith; comp. notes on Rom 2:13 ; Gal 3:10 ff. Bengel well remarks: “Jesus securos ad legem remittit, contritos evangelice consolatur.” Comp. Apol. Conf. A ., p. 83.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is , God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Ver. 17. Why callest thou me good? ] And if I be not good, much less art thou, what good conceits soever thou hast of thyself. Here, then, our Saviour teaches this younker humility and self-annihilation. Phocion was surnamed Bonus Good, but what was his goodness more than a silver sin? Lacones neminem bonum fieri publicis literis columna incisis sanxerunt. Plut. in Quest. Graecis.
There is none good but one, that is God ] He both is good originally (others are good by participation only), and doth good abundantly, freely, constantly: “For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive,” saith David, Psa 86:5 ; Psa 119:68 ; “And let the power of my Lord be great,” saith Moses, “in pardoning this rebellious people.” In the original there is a letter greater than ordinary in the word jigdal (be great), to show, say the Hebrew doctors, that though the people should have tempted God, or murmured against him, ten times more than they did, yet their perverseness should not interrupt the course of his ever-flowing, over-flowing goodness, Num 14:17 . Hebrew Text Note Magnum iod quod valet decem, &c. Buxtorf. See Trapp on “ Num 14:17 “
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ] That is, saith Luther, Morere, die out of hand; for there is no man lives that sins not. It is said of Charles IV, King of France, that being one time affected with the sense of his many and great sins, he fetched a deep sigh, and said to his wife, Now, by the help of God, I will so carry myself all my life long, that I will never offend him more; which word he had no sooner uttered, but he presently fell down and died. It is not our Saviour’s intent here to teach that heaven may be had or earned by keeping the law; for Adam in his innocence, if he had so continued, could not have merited heaven, neither do the angels, nor could Christ himself, had he been no more than a man. None but a proud Luciferian would have said, as Vega, the Popish perfectionary, did, Coelum gratis non accipiam, I will not go to heaven for nought, or on free cost. But our Saviour here shapes this young Pharisee an answer according to his question. He would needs be saved by doing, Christ sets him that to do which no man living can do, and so shows him his error. He sets him to school to the law, that hard schoolmaster, that sets us such lessons as we are never able to learn (unless Christ our elder brother teach us, and do our exercise for us), yea, bring us forth to God, as that schoolmaster in Livy did all his scholars (the flower of the Roman nobility) to Hannibal; who, if he had not been more merciful than otherwise, they had all perished.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 19:17 . , etc.: it seems as if Jesus thought the question superfluous (so Weiss and Meyer), but this was only a teacher’s way of leading on a pupil = “of course there is only one answer to that: God is the one good being, and His revealed will shows us the good He would have us do”. A familiar old truth, yet new as Christ meant it. How opposed to current teaching we know from Mat 15:4-9 . , etc., but, to answer your question directly, if, etc. – (- ) . .: a vaguer direction then than it seems to us now. We now think only of the Ten Words. Then there were many commands of God besides these; and many more still of the scribes , hence most naturally the following question.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Why . . . ? Note the several questions. See the Structure above.
wilt enter = desirest (App-102.) to enter.
life. Greek. zoe. App-170.
commandments. All of them (Mat 5:19. Jam 2:10, Jam 2:11. Deu 27:26 (Septuagint) Gal 1:3, Gal 1:10).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mat 19:17. , …, why? etc.) He who [alone] is Good,[865] should be asked concerning that which is good.[866] For the rest, see Gnomon on Mar 10:18.- , (but if thou wishest) as thou declarest. The expression (if thou wishest) occurs again at Mat 19:21.- keep the commandments) Jesus refers those who feel secure to the law: He consoles the contrite with the Gospel.
[865] In the original, Qui Bonus est, de bono interrogandus est, where Bonus is used as a substantive (corresponding to the German der Gute employed by Bengel in rendering this verse), which has no equivalent in English: for though we speak of the Evil One, we cannot say the Good One. The passage might be paraphrased thus-He who is personally and absolutely good, should be asked concerning that which is abstractly and relatively good.-(I. B.)
[866] The reading is here meant, which the margin of both Editions prefers to the reading -, VIZ. ; . Comp. the margin of the Vers. Germ. and Michaelis Einleitung, etc., T. i., p. m. 224.-E. B.
BDLabc, Vulg. Memph. Orig. 3,664bc, read (D and Origen 3,664c omit ). is the reading of Rec. Text with Iren. 92, Hil. 703, 994ac (vocas for ). Origen 3,664cd, writes, , ; , ; . BDabc Vulg. Orig. Iren. 92 read (D omits . bc Vulg. Memph. add ; evidently, as I think, a gloss of the Harmonies from Mar 10:18 and Luk 18:19. Iren, adds pater in clis). Rec. Text, with Hil. 994, reads . This is still more palpably a reading copied from the parallels in Mark and Luke.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
there: 1Sa 2:2, Psa 52:1, Psa 145:7-9, Jam 1:17, 1Jo 4:8-10, 1Jo 4:16
but: Lev 18:5, Eze 20:11, Eze 20:12, Luk 10:26-28, Rom 10:5, Gal 3:11-13
Reciprocal: Psa 106:1 – for he Psa 107:1 – good Psa 119:68 – good Psa 135:3 – for the Lord Mal 2:9 – but Mat 18:9 – to enter Mar 10:18 – Why Mar 10:19 – knowest Luk 10:28 – this Luk 18:20 – knowest Act 11:24 – he was Rom 2:23 – that makest Gal 3:12 – The man 1Pe 3:10 – love
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9:17
None good but God. Jesus did not deny being a good person, for in Joh 10:11 he even affirmed that he was the good shepherd. Since he was a member of the Godhead, he wished this man to know that in calling him good it was equivalent to calling him God, since all goodness comes from Him. He then gave the young man an answer to his question which was doubtless different from what he expected. When he told him to keep the commandments he did not understand to what he could have reference since the regular commandments of the law had already been his rule of life.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 19:17. Why askest thou me of that which is good? One there is who is good. The common version follows a reading corrected to conform with the other two. The variety sheds light on the whole conversation. Either two questions and answers occurred, or Matthew gives this form to bring out the true sense. There is but one good Being and one good thing, namely, God Himself.What the young ruler needed was not to do some good work or to learn some speculative morality, but to acknowledge God as the Supreme Good and act accordingly. This strikes at his sin, the love of riches. It does not mean: ask God; read His commandments, do not ask me. The other accounts present this alternative: Christ either claims that He is Himself God, or denies His own perfect goodness. The answer rebukes the error of the question, that eternal life can be won by good works.
But if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. The possibility of doing this perfectly had just been denied. Our Lord therefore seeks to show the young man how much he falls short of such a keeping of the commandments. What follows shows that his obedience, however strict, did not recognize God as the supreme good.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The person thus addressing himself unto Christ, was either a Pharisee or a disciple of the Pharisees, who did not own Christ to be God, or to come from God; but taught, that eternal life was attainable, by fulfilling of the law in that imperfect sense which the Pharisees gave of it.
And accordingly, 1. Christ reproves him for calling him good; Why callest thou me good? When thou wilt neither own me to be God, nor to come from God; For there is none good, that is, essentially and originally good, but God only; nor any derivatively good, but he that receives his goodness from God also.
From this place the Socinians argue against the divinity of Christ; thus, “He to whom the title of good doth not belong, cannot be God most high. But by our Lord’s words this title belongs not to him, but only to God the Father; therefore God the Father must be God alone.”
Answer, Christ may be supposed to speak to this young man thus, “Thou givest me a title which was never given to the most renowned rabbis, and which agrees to God alone; now thou oughtest to believe that there is something in me more than human, if thou conceivest that this title of good doth belong to me.”
Observe, 2. That our Saviour might convince him of the error of the Pharisees, who believed that they might, without the knowledge of him, the true Messias, enter into life by keeping the law of God according to that lax and loose interpretation which they, the Pharisees, had given of it; he bids him, Keep the commandments.
Where, Note, Christ calls him off from outward ceremonies, which the Pharisees abounded in, to the practice of moral duties; yet withal lets him understand, that if he expected salvation by the moral law, he must keep it perfectly and exactly, without the least deficiency, which is an impossibility to man in his lapsed state.
Learn, 1. That such as seek justification and salvation by the works of the law only, must keep the whole law, or covenant of works, perfectly and exactly.
Learn, 2. That the best way to prepare men for Jesus Christ, is to let them see their own impotency to keep and fulfil the covenant of works.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 19:17-22. He said, Why callest thou me good? Whom thou regardest merely as a prophet sent from God, and therefore supposest to be only a man; there is none good Supremely, originally, essentially, but God. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments From a principle of loving faith. Believe, and thence love and obey. And this undoubtedly is the way to eternal life. Our Lord therefore does not answer ironically, which had been utterly beneath his character, but gives a plain, direct, serious answer to a serious question. The young man saith, All these have I kept from my childhood So he imagined, and perhaps he had, as to the letter, but not as to the spirit, which our Lord immediately shows. What lack I yet? Wherein am I deficient? What is further needful in order to my securing the glorious prize which I am pursuing? In answer to this inquiry, made by one evidently puffed up with a high opinion of his own righteousness, our Lord replies, If thou wilt be perfect That is, a real, thorough Christian, yet lackest thou one thing, (Luke,) namely, to be saved from the love of the world; from all undue esteem for, and inordinate affection to, earthly things. Therefore, go and sell that thou hast, (Luke, all that thou hast,) and give Distribute the money which arises from the sale thereof; to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven Infinitely more excellent and durable than that which thou renouncest on earth. And come, (take up the cross, Mark,) and follow me Unite thyself to me as my constant attendant, though it should be even at the expense of thy life. He who reads the heart, saw that this young mans bosom sin was the love of his worldly possessions; and that he could not be saved from it but by literally parting with them. To him, therefore, he gave this particular direction, which he never designed for a general rule to all his followers. For him this was necessary, not only, as some suppose, in order to his giving proof of exalted piety, but in order to his salvation. For him literally to sell all, was an absolute duty; for many to do this would be an absolute sin. And yet, though God does not in fact require every man to distribute all his goods to others, and so in effect to become one of the number of the poor relieved out of his own possessions, yet sincere piety and virtue require in all an habitual readiness not only to sacrifice their possessions, but their lives, at the command of God; and Providence has in fact, in all ages, called some out to trials as severe as this. And certainly an entire renunciation of the world, so far at least as to be willing to part with it whenever God should call them to it, was peculiarly necessary for all Christians in the first ages, when the profession of Christianity so generally exposed men to persecution and death. And when he heard this he went away sorrowful Not being willing to have salvation at so high a price; for he had great possessions Which he now plainly showed he valued more than eternal life: and it was with great wisdom that our Lord took this direct and convincing method of manifesting both to himself and others that secret insincerity and carnality of temper which prevailed under all these specious pretences and promising appearances.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 17
Why callest thou me good? It is difficult to understand the grounds of this reproof, unless we suppose that there was something in the circumstances of the case not fully described in the narrative. The words would seem to be a very respectful and proper mode of addressing even a human prophet and teacher, of such singular benevolence of heart and life.
Matthew 19:21,22. We here encounter another difficulty in understanding this conversation between Jesus and the young man. Instead of explaining to him the spiritual nature of the moral law, that he might see that he had not really kept it, the Savior seems to acquiesce in his answer, and tacitly to admit his pretensions; and then proceeds to require of him a course of action, in regard to his property, which the Scriptures do not enjoin, and which, if adopted as a general rule of action, would not have a favorable effect on the welfare of society. The usual comments on this passage do not really meet these difficulties; and it is better to leave such difficulties unsolved, than to attempt to satisfy our minds with explanations which are forced and unnatural. If we were fully acquainted with all the circumstances, we should undoubtedly see that the Savior’s directions were exactly adapted to the case. And though we cannot understand the exact moral bearing of the directions, in respect to the young man, the lesson which they convey to us, is perfectly clear; namely, that the service of God, and the salvation of the soul, must be the supreme end and aim of life, and that all other objects of interest or desire must yield to their claims.