Monthly Archives: October 2013

Why does Jesus say no one is good but God?

31 Thursday Oct 2013

Posted by in Exegesis and Interpretation

≈ Comments Off on Why does Jesus say no one is good but God?

Tags

, , ,

This text is a difficult one and it is frequent that Muslim apologists cite this text to demonstrate that Jesus denied divinity.  I am not sure this follows from the various accounts of this narrative in the different Gospels, especially not Matthews’ account.

Matt:19:17

τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός

“Why ask me about the Good? The Good is One (or One is the Good) (trans. mine).”

Mark 10:18

τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός.

“Why do you say me to be good? No one is good except One, the God.”

Or “No one is good except God alone.”

Luke 18:19

τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός. (same as Mark)

Translating the Greek word heis (bolded above) as “alone” is not very apt because Greek has a better word for this task, “monos,” from which we get “monotheism.”  Heis means “one” and is a noun, not an adjective.

Luke and Mark’s account are the same and Matthew’s differs a little but the point in all three is the same: all goodness comes from God so claims that persons are “good” ascribe the attribute of “goodness” inaccurately.  It is better to say that God is good and we all share in that goodness.  Some might think that saying only God is good implies that everyone else is evil but I think this is too strong based on God’s cosmological (i.e., at the beginning of the world) declaration, all creation is “very good.”

There are three ways to settle this matter: 1) rhetorically, 2) grammatically, and 3) theologically-philosophically.  Most commentators and theologians combat the Muslim claim that Jesus is denying divinity by saying that Jesus is asking the question to help the man realize the significance of calling someone good and to help him realize that he is calling Jesus good without properly understanding who Jesus is.  I have always found this unconvincing because it takes so much interpretation of the text, namely, adding a lot of rhetoric to the text, to make this point.  And so I do not find the rhetorical (1) argument very potent.

But there is a grammatical point that most assume or concede when speaking of this text: that “except” is the only way to translate the Greek ei mē  (εἰ μὴ).  Just as legitimate, grammatically, are the translations “if not” and “except that.”  Trying these two options results in the following:

No one is good if not One, the God.

No one is good except that One (is), God.

If this is correct–and certainly grammatically warranted and plausible–then Jesus is not saying that He is not good or that no one else is good but rather making everyone else’s goodness dependent upon and sustained by the “One,” the God.  Therefore, we need not concede this grammatical point to the Muslim detractor but can stand firm on this translation as a very real option and, actually, as my following points will show, align better with the Book of Genesis. So, (2) the grammatical point is worth holding out there in any conversation.

But (3), Jesus saying that “no one is good except God” faces the difficulty that God originally called everything “good” and that all things come from God, “the Good,” and so their very existence implies their goodness. Further, humans have the image of God, even after the fall and the Book of Genesis repeats that man was made after God’s image (9:6) as the reason for not shedding men’s blood.  But what makes fine order out of these points is Jesus saying “No one is good if not One, the God.”  This would indicate that both the image of God and everything else have their goodness derivatively from God’s creative activity.  And so it is not that nothing else is good but, rather, nothing would be good without the fountain of all goodness to supply it, namely, God.

Next time, I will deal with Jesus’ Trinitarian status in relation to this question of His goodness as it relates to God.

B. T. Scalise

Entitlement III

30 Wednesday Oct 2013

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Christ and the Politico-Economic

≈ Comments Off on Entitlement III

Tags

, ,

Seeing this connection to covetousness–namely, fighting for the wants (not needs) of those supposedly “oppressed” by means of redistribution, even if in the name of Christ–ought to send us reeling since St. Paul aptly states, “covetousness is idolatry” (Col 3:5).  To break the 10th commandment is to likewise break the 1st and 2nd of the 10 commandments, the two which prohibit idolatry.  But this needs balanced. The coveting which can occur from the one who has not (the poor) is prohibited: a negative entitlement, that is, you are not entitled to covet.  So too, then, those who fight for the “right” of the wants of the so-called oppressed have the negative right, yes even responsibility, not to covet so as to redistribute to make everyone “equal.” The rich are not entitled to oppress the poor: to do so is to despise your Maker (Prov. 14:31).  Paul was unwilling to command ‘giving’ even as an apostle: “. . . see that you excel in this act of grace also.  I say this not as a command . . .” (2 Cor. 8:7-8).  I have no doubt that giving must be part of the way of life of any Christian; how could it not be in view of the immeasurable gift God has given both in creating whatsoever but even more so by giving His Son, the divine Logos (Wisdom and reason) of God.  In Him, each level of rationality has its meaning, fulfills its function, and sustains the ordered universe.  The question is to whom to give and how much.  It is no small matter that Agur in Proverbs 30:8 – 9 asks to be given just as much as he needs so that he will not ultimately deny the Lord.  On this logic, giving too much to some might result in a spiritual crisis of denying Yahweh, His Spirit, and Christ.

Entitlement II

29 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Christ and the Politico-Economic

≈ Comments Off on Entitlement II

Tags

, , ,

Should not the rich provide for the poor? The typical logic to this is, “They have more and can spare more.” What is not said is, “They have more and I want more, I want what they have.” By saying this, I am not suggesting that the rich do not have a responsibility before God to aid the poor.  This is obvious because whoever “oppresses a poor man insults his Maker” (Prov. 14:31).  Notice also that to take care of the poor is a responsibility before God, not government.  And why does it matter that it is before God and not government? Because God has riches and power of His own He does not need to skim off the top or get “a cut.”  Not so with government precisely because they only have riches and power to the extent that they receive from other humans, usually through taxation.  This is why Yahweh, with our Lord Jesus demonstrating this par excellent, has always been distinguished from the pagan gods and Ancient Near Eastern gods: Yahweh is not a God in need of man’s service unlike the other gods who are, to some extent, dependent on man.  So what, then, is the problem with the poor wanting what the rich have?  In response to this, we might wonder if Christians have forgotten the 10th commandment: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.”  So then, the response, “but they have . . . and I want” immediately falls condemned as covetousness.  Even the Christian humanitarian who fights for the poors’ wants has to fear the 10th command.  The command says that you shall not covet anything of your neighbor.  It does not say, do not covet anything of your neighbors unless you are fighting for the wants of others or unless you are coveting it in order to give it to someone else.  To fight for the wants of someone else is still to be guilty of coveting someone else’s stuff, to want and take someone’s stuff in order to give it away.  What is often missed is that the humanitarian is indeed wanting something: what they want is something immaterial, however it is packaged: justice, prominence, power, glory, recognition, God’s glory, the promotion of the kingdom of heaven, Christ’s fame.  The last three are particularly ironic since obtaining these objectives breaks the 10th commandment: “I want God’s kingdom’s promoted by coveting the goods of one person, taking those goods away, and giving them to others” (the goods here are wants, not needs).   Of course, no one would say it this way.  It would rather come out like this: “We are pushing forward the kingdom of heaven by seeking equality and justice among all people.  I am not saying that people cannot fight for the rights of others or the essential needs of others or for the dignity of others; I am centering my attention on fighting for the wants of others.  We should, therefore, inquire, any time we have conversations of this manner, into the definitions of wants, rights, and needs.  How someone trying to act like Christ would respond in conversations about these will differ significantly based on both what is talked about (wants, rights, needs) and how these are defined.  I have no doubt more can be said about the role of government in its task of regulating trade and so forth and ensuring equity among people in a community but I will have to save this for later, with a lot more space.