Mark 10:18

10:18 Jesus’ reply has troubled interpreters for centuries. Jesus was probably objecting to the man’s loose application of the term good to any human being, since ultimate goodness and perfection belong to God alone. Without in any way denying his own goodness, Jesus wanted to focus the rich man’s attention on God. The rich man wanted to enter the Kingdom of God, and Jesus was contrasting God’s goodness with the man’s own human sinfulness.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mar 10:18. Εἶπεν, He said) The Lord replies, I. To the remarkable title which the young man had addressed to Him: II. To the question which he proposed.—τί Με λέγεις ἀγαθὸν; why callest thou Me good?) There were many things in Jesus, viewing Him merely externally, by reason of which the ignorant would not form the best opinion concerning Him: Joh 1:47; Mat 11:6; Mat 11:19; Isa 53:2, etc. Moreover also He did not rest on Himself, but ever referred Himself wholly to the Father. He acted the part of a traveller and a pilgrim in the world; and in that condition, in which the Psalms describe Him as wretched and needy, He was ever aiming towards the eternal good and the eternal joy, concerning which this youth was enquiring. Psa 16:2; Psa 16:5, etc.: My goodness [extendeth not to thee, Engl. V.] is not independent of thee. Comp. Joh 14:28; Joh 17:5; Heb 5:8-9; Heb 9:12. He did not “know Himself according to the flesh;” as Augustine preaches [distinctly states], l. i. de Doctr. Christ., c. 34. For good, ἀγαθὸς, properly applies to one blessed.[12] The young man was seeking with [by application to] Jesus happiness, in a too pure [unalloyed] sense. Jesus informs Him that ne will not find this with Him: Comp. Luk 9:57, etc. Nevertheless He does not say, I am not good; but, Why dost thou call Me good? Just as in Mat 22:43, He does not deny, that He, the Son of David, is at one and the same time also the Lord of David. God is good: there is no goodness without Godhead. The young man perceived in Jesus the presence of goodness in some degree otherwise he would not have applied to Him: but he did not perceive it in its full extent; otherwise he would not have gone back from Him. Much less did he perceive [recognise] His Godhead. Wherefore Jesus does not accept from Him the title of goodness without the title of Godhead (Comp. the “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord,” Luk 6:46): and thereby vindicates the honour of the Father, with whom He is one. See Joh 5:19. At the same time [He darts causes to enter] a ray of His omniscience into the heart of this young man, and shows that the young man has not as yet the knowledge concerning Himself, Jesus Christ, worthy of so exalted a title, which otherwise is altogether appropriate to Him. Wherefore He does not say, There is none good save one, that is, My Father; but, There is none good save one, that is, God. Often our Lord proportioned [qualified] His words to the capacity of those who questioned Him, Joh 4:22. So a warlike commander, of noble birth, might answer to a person, who Knew not his noble birth, though knowing the fact of his a being commander, Why do you call me, a gracious lord? Jesus manifested His goodness to the disciples, Luk 10:23; Rom 14:16.

[12] Beatum, a term appropriate in the full sense only to God.—ED, and TRANSL.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mar 10:18 . τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν : on the import of this question vide notes on Mt.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(18) Why callest thou me good?—Our Lord’s question is, in St. Mark’s report, in harmony with that of the seeker after life eternal. Its obvious drift was to force him back upon the conditions of absolute goodness, to make him ask himself how far, and under what conditions, that word might be used relatively of any child of man.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. Why callest thou me good?] The emphasis is on the “why.” “Dost thou know what thou meanest, when thou givest Me this appellation?” If we combine the question and rejoinder as given by St Matthew and St Luke it would seem to have run, Why askest thou Me about the good? and why callest thou Me good? None is good save One, God. Our Lord does not decline the appellation “good.” He repels it only in the superficial sense of the questioner, who regarded Him merely as a “good Rabbi.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Thou knowest the commandments,.... Which God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai; these the Jews taught their children; so that this young man might reasonably be thought to know what, and how many they were, though he was ignorant of the extent and spirituality of them;

do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, defraud not, honour thy father and mother. In which may be observed, that the strict order in which the commandments stood is not kept; the seventh commandment, "thou shalt not commit adultery", is set before the sixth, "thou shalt not kill"; though the Arabic version places them in their order; and the fifth command, "honour thy father and thy mother", is placed last of all: but a Jew has no reason to object to this, when it is a rule with them, that (c), there is no first nor last in the law; that is, order is not strictly attended to; but sometimes, that which is first is mentioned last, and the last first. There is one precept, "defraud not", wrong no man of his property, either by force or fraud, which none of the other evangelists have. Dr. Hammond, and others, think, that it is an explanation of the tenth command, "thou shalt not covet"; signifying, that a man should be so satisfied with his own condition, as not to desire another's goods, or, by any means, seek to lessen them to enlarge his own. A certain Jew (d) objects against our Lord Jesus, that he did not mention the other precepts in Exo 20:3, by which he seems to mean the precepts of the first table, which respect the unity of God, and his worship, which are of greater moment; to which may be replied, that our Lord does suggest the unity of the Divine Being, and his essential, infinite, and independent goodness, which are the ground and foundation of his fear and worship in the preceding verse; and besides, as Bishop Kidder observes (e), nothing is more common than to put some precepts for the whole; see Mic 6:8; yea, that Jesus may be justified from the Old Testament in this method, as from Psa 15:1, where a question, very like this of the young man, is put; and yet in answer to it we find nothing mentioned but obedience to the second table: to which reply of the learned prelate, may be added, that Christ instances in the commandments of the second table, as being more known, and better understood by this young man; "thou knowest the commandments"; that is, the following ones he mentions: and besides the argument runs strong from the lesser to the greater, which is implied, that if the commands of the second table, which respect the neighbour, are necessary to be observed, then much more those which concern God himself; and if men fail short in keeping the lesser commands, it can hardly be thought they should be perfect in the observance of greater ones; and so consequently, and which is our Lord's drift, eternal life is never to be obtained by the works of the law.

(c) T. Bab. Yesachim, fol. 6. 2. (d) R. Jacob Aben Amram, Porta Verit. num. 1026. Apud Kidder's Demonstr. of the Messiah, par. 3. p. 50. (e) Demonstrat. ib. p. 50, 51.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Ver. 18. {See Trapp on "Mat 19:17"}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

None is good. Of himself, entirely and essentially, but God alone: men may be good also, but only by a participation of God’s goodness. (Challoner)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

That is, originally good, and supremely good, or perfectly good. Herein our Saviour doth not deny himself to be God, but checked him who did not believe him such, yet called him God.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Why callest

Par., Believing Me to be but a human teacher, why callest thou Me "good," etc.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As if Christ had said, Why callest thou me good, when thou dost not believe or own me to be God? for there is none good, that is, essentially and originally good, absolutely and immutably good, but God only; nor any derivatively good but he that receiveth his goodness from God also: there is no mere man that is absolutely and perfectly good of himself, but by participation and derivation from God only. See the note on Mat 19:17.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; There can be no emphasis on the enclitic με, which is in all three, but Mt. has τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; This does not fit the original question, for the rich man had not asked about “the good.” Nor does it fit what follows, for εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός ought logically to be ἓν ἐστὶν τὸ ἀγαθόν. Mt. has evidently changed language which he thought would mislead into what seemed to him more likely to have been said. His unwillingness to record what might give a low view of the Messiah is apparent all through his Gospel, and he shrank from saying that Christ objected to being called good. “Good Master” was a very unusual form of address; no example has been found in the Talmud, and the rich man seems to have used it glibly. If it was not a mere compliment to win favour, it was said without consideration. There was some defect in his use of the epithet. The defect was not that he failed to see that Jesus was God, as if Christ’s reply meant, “God alone is really good, and you do not believe that I am God. Unless you do that, I cannot accept the title ‘good’ from you.” This is the explanation of Cyril, Basil, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Jerome, Bede, Maldonatus, and Wordsworth. It cannot be right, for the man could not have understood it, and Christ’s words must have had a meaning for him. What he might have seen and failed to see was that the good desires of which he was conscious in himself, and the good words and works which he recognized in Christ, all came from God. The man was too self-confident, too certain that of his own will and power he could do what would win eternal life. Christ, by attributing His own goodness entirely to God (Joh 5:9-30) cheeks this self-confidence. Magistrum absque Deo nullum bonum esse testatur.

οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός. So also in Lk., but there [2430][2431] omit ὁ. The saying is quoted in a variety of forms some closer to Mk and Lk., some closer to Mt.; e.g. Justin Apol. i. 16, Try. 101; Hippol. Philosoph. Mar 10:1; and four times in Clem. Hom. See W.H. App. pp. 14, 15.

[2430] Codex Sinaiticus. 4th cent. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Katharine on Mount Sinai. Now at St Petersburg. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1911.

[2431] Codex Vaticanus. 4th cent., but perhaps a little later than א. In the Vatican Library almost since its foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest treasures. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1889.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;—Why do you call me good? με is not emphatic, as is shown by the use of the enclitic form. The reason of this question, and of the denial of goodness to any one but God which follows it, is that God alone possesses the absolute good. He is what others become. Human goodness is a growth, even when there is no imperfection. It develops, like wisdom, from childhood to youth, and then to manhood. And it was this human goodness which was possessed by Jesus. See Luk 2:52, Heb 2:10, Heb 5:8. This has a bearing, too, on the question propounded by the young man, since it was not to the good teacher as such, but to the absolutely good God, that questions in regard to the real good that brings the promised reward should be addressed. And this is the form in which question and answer are put in Mat 19:17 as follows: “What good thing shall I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you ask me concerning the good thing? One is good, God.”

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Why callest thou, etc. Compare Mt 19:17. The renderings of the A. V. and Rev. here are correct. There is no change of reading as in Matthew, where the text was altered to conform it to Mark and Luke.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.