19<\/strong>. Why callest thou me good?<\/em> ] According to St Matthew the question also ran, ‘Why askest thou me about the good?’ The emphasis is not on the me<\/em> (for the form used in the original is the enclitic not on good.<\/em> Why do you give me this strange title which from your <\/em> point of view is unwarrantable? Comp. Plato Phaed.<\/em> 27, “to be a good man is impossible…God alone could have this honour.”<\/p>\n none is good, save one, that is, God<\/em> ] 1Jn 3:5<\/span>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 19. Why,<\/B> c.Did our Lord meanthen to teach that God only ought to be called “good?”Impossible, for that had been to contradict all Scripture teaching,and His own, too (Psa 112:5<\/span>Mat 25:21<\/span>; Tit 1:8<\/span>).Unless therefore we are to ascribe captiousness to our Lord, He couldhave had but one objectto raise the youth’s ideas of Himself,<\/I>as not to be classed merely with other “good masters,” anddeclining to receive this title apart from<\/I> the “One”who is essentially and only “good.” This indeed is butdistantly hinted; but unless this is seen in the background<\/I> ofour Lord’s words, nothing worthy of Him can be made out of them.(Hence, Socinianism,<\/I> instead of having any support here, isonly baffled by it).<\/P><\/p>\n And Jesus said unto him<\/strong>,…. In answer to his question, beginning with the character he gave him:<\/p>\n why callest thou me good<\/strong>? it being unusual to address men, even their Rabbins, under such a title:<\/p>\n none is good, save one, [that is], God<\/strong>: or “but God alone”; as the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions render it; or, “but the one God”, as read the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions;<\/p>\n [See comments on Mt 19:17]<\/span>.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And Jesus said unto him,” <\/strong>(eipen de auto ho lesous) “Then Jesus replied to him,” Mat 19:17<\/span>; Mar 10:18<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Why callest thou me good?” <\/strong>(ti me legeis agathon) “Just why do you say that I am good?” Mat 19:17<\/span>; Mar 10:18<\/span>. He believed Jesus to be only a good human being who was a teacher.<\/p>\n 3) “None is good, save one, that is, God.” <\/strong>(oudeis agathos ei me eis ho theos) “No one is (exists as) good, except one, the living God,” This refers to supreme good, Mat 19:17<\/span>; Mar 10:18<\/span>. Either as the Christ, I am God, and good, or if I am only a teacher, none is good in the high, (Gk. agathos) elevated sense of good, Psa 86:5<\/span>; Psa 119:68<\/span>. Barnabas was called a “good man”, only because he was “filled with the Holy Spirit,” Act 11:24<\/span>.<\/p>\n (19) Why callest thou me good?<\/strong>The agreement with St. Mark is again closer than with St. Matthew.<\/p>\n ‘And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? None is good, save one, even God.” ’<\/p>\n Jesus challenges his use of ‘good’ in this way, asking him to consider what he means by it. He does not deny that it is true, but points out that its usual usage at that time was as something reserved to God. The question therefore is as to whether the man has used it carelessly, or whether he intends by it some deeper meaning. However else we interpret it, Jesus was clearly intending to make the young man think, not repudiating the idea out of hand. He in no way denies its application to Himself. Had He not acknowledged its justice He would have rejected it out of hand, openly and clearly, reacting in horror. But the question that He was asking was, does the man himself realise what he is saying? He will certainly need to recognise something special about Jesus in view of the challenge about to be brought to him. But Jesus will not make the claim for Himself. He is the very opposite of the Pharisee that we left behind earlier. He leaves others to make that decision. He will not boast about Himself. (Although elsewhere He can say, ‘which of you convicts Me of sin?’ (Joh 8:46<\/span>). Again as here He brings out the fact by a question, not by a claim. Pure goodness makes itself known in action and life not by claims).<\/p>\n Note on ‘Why Do You Call Me Good?’<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Various alternatives have been suggested for what Jesus meant by this question. They are of varying quality.<\/p>\n 1) Jesus meant, “You must not call me good unless you recognise me as God. If you can see my goodness, learn your lesson from it as to Who and What I am.’<\/p>\n 2) Jesus is indicating that His goodness is dependent on the Father’s goodness, (see Joh 5:19<\/span>) so that the title of absolute goodness belongs only to the Father.<\/p>\n 3) Jesus was not prepared to accept the title of good until His probation was past. Until His life was complete He would not have earned the honour.<\/p>\n 4) Jesus is taking the attitude of a man towards God, as He always did. He was here as a man among men pointing them to God. They were not to look to honour Him, however good He was, but to honour His Father.<\/p>\n 5) He is stating a recognised truth and rebuking the man for his casual attitude towards goodness, revealed by his using the term ‘good’ without thinking it through.<\/p>\n 6) He recognises that the man sees Him as uniquely good and is seeking to imitate Him in order to receive eternal life (compare in Matthew, ‘what good thing must I do’). He realises that the man is therefore aiming to be like Him, and really thinks that he can be. But He does not want him to try to imitate Him in this way. He wants him to look to God as his standard. So He is seeking to turn his thoughts away from Himself as the standard of goodness to God.<\/p>\n Certain conclusions must be drawn. Firstly that only God Himself can be seen as truly ‘good’. Secondly that Jesus does not vociferously deny the appellation, which He would have done had He seen it as totally unfitting, but wants the man to think through what he has said. When a Rabbi asked questions of his hearers it was in order to expand on the idea under discussion. Thirdly that He is unhappy about the way that the man is using the idea of goodness, and wants him to be more careful in his use of the term.<\/p>\n A further thing that must ever be borne in mind is that Jesus, while constantly drawing attention to the sin of others, never Himself shows any consciousness of sin. In someone of His moral sensitivity that is a clear indication that He saw Himself as without sin. Thus the solution we come to must take that into account.<\/p>\n End of note.<\/p>\n 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is<\/em> good, save one, that is<\/em> , God. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 19. See Mat 19:16-17<\/span> . <\/p>\n Why, &c. See note on Mat 19:17. <\/p>\n Luk 1:35, Luk 11:13, Job 14:4, Job 15:14-16, Job 25:4, 1Ti 3:16, Heb 7:26, Jam 1:17 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Psa 119:68 – good Mar 10:18 – Why Joh 7:12 – is a<\/p>\n THE YOUNG RULER<\/p>\n Why callest thou me good? none is good, save One, that is, God.<\/p>\n Luk 18:19<\/p>\n It was near the end of our Lords ministry, and the clouds were darkening down. To join or to confess Him would cost something, and this ruler hesitated until his opportunity was almost gone, until Christ was in the act of leaving the district, which was the tract beyond the Jordan, for the last time. But he could not let Him actually go; at the last moment he came running and kneeling to Him. For in his bosom a great desire was burning. He has not attained, too well he knows, the inward balance, the peace and self-control, the life that is life indeedeternal life.<\/p>\n I. He Who possessed the secret.And here (more and more he felt it as he watched), here was One Who possessed the secret. He could pity and help all men, because He was Himself above all pity. Poor? Yes, and persecuted; but dwelling in the light of God, Who was with Him. One, therefore, however His life might be vexed and thwarted, Whose spirit remained serene, calm, benignant. Ah, yes, and all through His life there were souls who recognised and did homage, and hearts that loved Him well. Such men, asked would they also go away, answered frankly that they could not do without Him: the farm and the fishing-boat could never again replace that most human, most Divine communion. Lord, to whom should we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. Why, these are the very words the ruler craves; and he has reached the point of discerning that Christ can speak them. But yet his notion of what he needs is pitiably, miserably unworthy. A little information is all he asks from Christ, Who is only a good Teacher; some one good deed, of which he feels himself capable, will suffice to float him, like a ship that crosses the bar from a wild ocean into inland seas, into smooth waters for the remaining voyage.<\/p>\n II. A man requires renewal, not instruction.But it was the doctrine of Jesus (and it was spoken first to one who resembled this ruler in confessing Him to be good, but only on the level of a teacher, a teacher sent from God) that man requires, not instruction, but renewalto be born againbecause what is born of the flesh is flesh, and therefore, as St. Paul discovered with agony, will fulfil the desires of the flesh. Perhaps one objects that Jesus elsewhere invites good works, and lavishes great rewards upon them. There is no man who has left houses or lands, or anything dear to him, for My sake and the Gospels, but shall receive a hundredfold more in this life, and in the world to come life everlasting. Now this is exactly what the ruler asksto inherit everlasting life. Yes; but this is also the explanation of his failure. Eternal life is not promised to those who make sacrifices, however great, for the sake of eternal life. From a vital and unselfish principle, for love, for My sake and the Gospel, comes the work that is rewarded. The prize does not purchase what it encourages and crowns. But his proposal is to work for himself, that he may inherit eternal life. What good thing could be done thus? Alas! none. Life is not to be had on such terms.<\/p>\n III. The true parallel.The true parallel for the question, Why callest thou Me good? None is good but one, God, and the true commentary also, is such a verse as this, The Son can do nothing of Himself, The living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father. He could not accept any confession, any praise, which implied the existence of a second and independent source of goodness in the universe. Therefore, when the ruler brings to Him the shallow profession, Thou, Teacher, art good, and I, with a little guidance, am about to become good, and to attain to the supreme inheritance also, the position is disavowed at once, and disavowed for both of them. Matthew is quite right as to the spirit and meaning, though in words he differs greatly from the other two: Wherefore dost thou question Me about the good? The good is one, God. But Jesus proceeds to convict him by a challenge, and the nature of this challenge could have been foretold by any one who remembers the functions of the law. By the law is the knowledge of sin. The law entered that sin might abound. To the law, therefore, is the appeal, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments. The path of duty for him was the lowly path of all menThe trivial round, the common task. But the challenge of the law, superficially restricted, is unfathomably deep and high, and he who sets himself to fulfil the law promptly discovers his need of grace. His claim of obedience is uttered in the same breath with the cry of his discontent, the exceeding bitter cry of a tortured spirit, always eluded by the righteousness which he thought to be all but grasped. All these things have I kept from my youth up; what lack I yet? It was then that Jesus, looking on his earnest face, reading his agitated spirit, loved him. All the more He would deal faithfully with him. Devotion, He practically answers, devotion to God and manthat is what he lacks. Will he follow Him? Will he give his riches to the poor? Then and there the unhappy man felt that it was so. He could not surrender all; he could not follow the Man of Sorrows. He went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. I think that he was thenceforward a haunted man; that his self-satisfaction was spoiled for ever; that his couch of silk could not make his sleep sweet to him; that the alms which he offered, as every conscientious Jew did, could but remind him of the larger demand he had repudiated.<\/p>\n IV. The ghost of dead ideals.There is no ghost at midnight, when desolate winds are wailing, so persistently haunting and so terrible as the ghost of ones dead ideals, the possibilities now become impossible, ones self as one might have been, but never again can be. Yet it may be that in this dejected solitude he discerned the meaning of this great word of Christdiscerned it all the more because the broken cistern of his own righteousness had so soon gone dry, that he said within himself, Yes; this indeed is what I lack; the disquiet within me is thirst for God, for the living God.<\/p>\n Bishop G. A. Chadwick.<\/p>\n Illustration<\/p>\n What must the ruler have understood by the reply of Christ? And what are we to understand by it? Can we wonder when the Socinian claims it as almost an explicit adoption of his position? When Christ says only God is good, as a reason for demanding Why callest thou Me good? does He not almost formally disavow for Himself that place in the Godhead to which the Church exalts Him? But if this were so, it would utterly differentiate the story from anything else in all the gospels. Elsewhere there is no form of homage offered to Him by any one which He refuses. In the act of teaching others to reject the name of Master and of Lord, He claims those titles as His own. If ten lepers are cleansed, and one returns to glorify God where Jesus is, while nine go to the Temple, whither He had sent them, all His praise is for the tenth. If the Socinian has found the real meaning of this passage, there is no reason on the strength of which any school rejects anything as an interpolation half as strong as the reason why we should reject this. But when we look at it again, we discern this verse does not refute His Deity, unless we suppose it refutes His goodness also. But it is only the most reckless unbelief which doubts for one moment that our Lord was filled with a quite unique consciousness of unsullied and snow-white innocence. It is a small thing that in this consciousness He confronted men: Which of you convicteth Me of sin? The prince of this world hath nothing in Me. It is a great thing that in this consciousness He confronted God in prayer. I have glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished (perfected) the work which Thou gavest Me to do. <\/p>\n And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is; God. <\/p>\n [Why callest thou me good?] I. For the better understanding our Saviour’s sense and meaning in these and the following words, I would affirm, (and who can argue it to the contrary?) that this man acknowledged Jesus for the true Messiah.<\/p>\n 1. This several others did also, who, as yet, were not his disciples; so those blind men, when they call him ‘the Son of David,’ Mat 20:30; not to mention others. And what reason can there be for the negative upon this man? Especially when he appears to be a person of more than ordinary parts and accomplishments, not only from what he tells us of himself, but from that kind and affectionate reception he met with from Christ.<\/p>\n 2. This was no vulgar or ordinary question he put here, “What shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life?” For it seems plain that he was not satisfied in the doctrine of their schools, about the merit of good works, and justification by the law: but he thinks there is something more requisite towards the obtaining salvation, because, after he had (as he tells us) performed this law from his youth up, he yet inquireth further, “What shall I do,” etc.; in which that he was in earnest, our Saviour’s behaviour towards him sufficiently testified; as also that he came to Jesus, as to no ordinary teacher, to be instructed in this affair.<\/p>\n 3. It was very unusual to salute the Rabbins of that nation with this title. For however they were wont to adorn (not to say load) either the dead or absent with very splendid epithets, yet if they spoke to them while present, they gave them no other title than either Rabbi; or Mar; or Mari. If you turn over both the Talmuds, I am deceived if you once find either Good Rabbi; or Good Mar.<\/p>\n II. So far, therefore, is our Lord in these words from denying his Godhead, that he rather doth, as it were, draw this person in to own and acknowledge it: “Thou seemest in thy very address to me, and the compellation thou gavest me, to own me for the Messias: and dost thou take me for God too as well as man, when thou callest me good; seeing there is none good but God only?” Certainly he saw something that was not ordinary in this man, when it is said of him that he loved him; Mar 10:21; i.e. he spoke kindly to him, and exhorted him, etc. See 2Ch 18:2; Psa 78:36; they flattered him with their mouth. Nor is it an ordinary affection this young man seemed to have for the blessed Jesus, in that he departs sorrowful from the counsel that had been given him; and that he had the person that had counselled him in very high esteem, appears in that he could not without infinite grief reject the counsel he gave him.<\/p>\n Our Saviour here reproves this person for calling him good, when he did not own him to be God; saying, There is none good, that is essentially and originally good, absolutely and immutably good, but God only; nor any derivatively good, but he that receives his goodness from God also. <\/p>\n Jesus’ question accomplished two things. It set the standard for goodness, namely, God (cf. Luk 18:11). It also confronted the man with the logical implication of his question (Luk 18:18), namely, that Jesus was God. That the man did not believe that Jesus was God seems clear from his response to Him (Luk 18:23).<\/p>\n And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none [is] good, save one, [that is,] God. 19. Why callest thou me good? ] According to St Matthew the question also ran, ‘Why askest thou me about the good?’ The emphasis is not on the me (for the form used in the original is … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 18:19”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25689","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25689","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25689"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25689\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25689"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25689"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25689"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"