17He said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18He said to him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder.’ ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ‘You shall not steal.’ ‘You shall not offer false testimony.’
19‘Honor your father and your mother.’ And, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
17 He said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder.’ ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ‘You shall not steal.’ ‘You shall not offer false testimony.’
19 ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ And, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
TYNDALETyndale New Testament (1534)
17 He sayde vnto him: why callest thou me good? there is none good but one and that is God. But yf thou wylt entre in to lyfe kepe the commaundementes.
18 The other sayde to him Which? And Iesus sayde: breake no wedloke kill not steale not: beare not falce witnes:
19 honoure father and mother: and love thyne neighbour as thy sylfe.
Show all 3 translations
GNVGeneva Bible (1599)
17 And he said vnto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, eue God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keepe ye commandemets.
18 He sayd to him, Which? And Iesus sayde, These, Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not commit adulterie: Thou shalt not steale: Thou shalt not beare false witnesse.
19 Honour thy father and mother: and thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe.
Questions where the Bible appears to say two different things, with the passages on each side set together.
Is Salvation by faith alone?Paul stacks Romans 3:28, Romans 4:13, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:11-12, and Ephesians 2:8-9 to insist humans are justified by faith apart from works of the la…
Is Jesus good?John's Jesus calls himself the good shepherd twice in chapter 10 and applies the adjective *kalos* directly to himself.
Show all 5
To kill or not to killExodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 command 'thou shalt not kill,' and Jesus reaffirms it in Mark 10:19 and Luke 18:20.
Is it always wrong to steal?The Decalogue and its echoes across the Torah, Gospels, and Epistles absolutize the prohibition on stealing, yet Genesis 31:19 reports without condemnation tha…
Leviticus 18:5(v17)You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, which if a man does, he shall live in them. I am Yahweh.
Deuteronomy 5:16-21(v18)“Honor your father and your mother, as Yahweh your God commanded you; that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you in the…
Luke 10:26-28(v17)He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?” He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with…
Galatians 3:11-13(v17)Now that no man is justified by the law before God is evident, for, “The righteous will live by faith.” The law is not of faith, but, “The…
Exodus 20:12-17(v18)“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which Yahweh your God gives you. “You shall not murder. “You…
Show all 31 cross-references
Leviticus 19:18(v19)“ ‘You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people; but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I…
1 Samuel 2:2(v17)There is no one as holy as Yahweh, for there is no one besides you, nor is there any rock like our God.
Mark 10:19(v18)You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not give false testimony,’ ‘Do not defraud,’…
Luke 18:20(v18)You know the commandments: ‘Don’t commit adultery,’ ‘Don’t murder,’ ‘Don’t steal,’ ‘Don’t give false testimony,’ ‘Honor your father and…
Romans 10:5(v17)For Moses writes about the righteousness of the law, “The one who does them will live by them.”
James 2:10-11(v18)For whoever keeps the whole law, and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,”…
Exodus 20:12(v19)“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which Yahweh your God gives you.
Deuteronomy 5:16(v19)“Honor your father and your mother, as Yahweh your God commanded you; that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you in the…
Matthew 5:21-28(v18)“You have heard that it was said to the ancient ones, ‘You shall not murder;’ and ‘Whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But…
Matthew 22:39(v19)A second likewise is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
Romans 13:8-10(v18)Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not…
Galatians 3:10(v18)For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse. For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who doesn’t continue in all things…
1 John 4:16(v17)We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
Nehemiah 9:29(v17)and testified against them, that you might bring them again to your law. Yet they were arrogant, and didn’t listen to your commandments,…
Ezekiel 20:11-12(v17)I gave them my statutes, and showed them my ordinances, which if a man does, he will live in them. Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths,…
Ezekiel 20:21(v17)“ ‘ “But the children rebelled against me. They didn’t walk in my statutes, and didn’t keep my ordinances to do them, which if a man does,…
Matthew 15:4-6(v19)For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you…
Luke 10:27(v19)He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and…
Ephesians 6:1-2(v19)Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with a promise:
James 2:8(v19)However, if you fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well.
Leviticus 19:3(v19)“ ‘Each one of you shall respect his mother and his father. You shall keep my Sabbaths. I am Yahweh your God.
Psalms 145:7-9(v17)They will utter the memory of your great goodness, and will sing of your righteousness. Yahweh is gracious, merciful, slow to anger, and of…
Proverbs 30:17(v19)“The eye that mocks at his father, and scorns obedience to his mother: the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, the young eagles shall…
Galatians 5:14(v19)For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
James 1:17(v17)Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, nor turning…
1 John 4:8-10(v17)He who doesn’t love doesn’t know God, for God is love. By this God’s love was revealed in us, that God has sent his one and only Son into…
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this passage (16 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
John Trapp1656 · Public DomainOn vv17–1917 And he said unto him, Why callest thou…
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.
Read full note →
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. יגדל {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.
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.
Matthew Poole1685 · Public DomainOn vv17–18Mark omits the latter clause, and only saith, Thou…
Mark omits the latter clause, and only saith, Thou knowest the commandments; so saith Luke, Luk 18:19,20. Our Saviour’s 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?
Read full note →
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.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt1703 · Public DomainOn vv17–18The person thus addressing himself unto Christ, was either…
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.
Read full note →
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.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill1763 · Public DomainOn vv17–19And he said unto him,.... By way of reply,…
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.
Read full note →
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 Deu 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.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley1765 · Public DomainOn vv17, 19Why callest thou me good - Whom thou supposest…
Why callest thou me good - Whom thou 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.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke1810 · Public DomainOn vv17–19Verse 17. Why callest thou me good?] Or, Why…
Verse 17. Why callest thou me good?] Or, Why dost thou question me concerning that good thing? τι με ερωτας περι του αγαθου. 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, εις εϚιν ο αγαθος. There is one who is good. Let it be observed also that, in the 16th verse, instead of διδασκαλε αγαθε, good teacher, διδασκαλε 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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson1811 · Public DomainOn v17Mat 19:17-22. He said, Why callest thou me good?…
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 man’s 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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary1859 · Public DomainOn vv17, 19Why askest thou me concerning good?[4] In the ordinary…
Why askest thou me concerning good?[4] In the ordinary Greek copies, why dost thou call me good? (Witham) --- One is good, &c. God alone, by his own nature, is essentially, absolutely, and unchangeably good; at the same time, he is the source of all created goodness, as all goodness is a mere emanation from his. The person here addressing our Saviour, appears not to have believed that Christ was God: wherefore our Saviour, to rectify his misconception, tells him that God alone is good, insinuating thereby, that he should believe him to be God, or cease to address him by the title of good. (Tirinus) --- The sense is, that only God is good necessarily, and by his own nature. The Arians bring this place to shew, that Christ is not truly and properly God: but by this way of speaking, Christ does not deny that he is good, even by his nature, and consequently God; but seems to speak in this manner, to make the man know who he was. (Witham)
===============================
Read full note →
[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
Quid me interrogas de bono? Greek: erotas peri agathou. In the common Greek copies, ti me legeis agathon.
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).
Daniel D. Whedon1874 · Public DomainOn vv17–1817. Why callest thou me good? — The young…
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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges1878 · Public DomainOn vv17–1817. Why callest thou me good?] Here, but not…
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.
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.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers1878 · Public DomainOn vv17–18(17) Why callest thou me good?—Here again the older…
(17) Why callest thou me good?—Here again the older MSS. give a different form to our Lord’s 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.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary1880 · Public DomainOn vv17–19Why callest thou me good? Such is the reading…
Why callest thou me good? Such is the reading of the received text here, and without any variation in the parallel passages of Mark and Luke. Our Lord takes the ruler to task for applying this epithet to him. unless the youth believed in his Divinity. You think of me only as a learned Teacher: how, then, can you speak of me in a term which can really be predicated of no child of man? Christ answers the ruler"s address before he touches the subject of his interrogation, reproving him for using a form of words without realizing its full import. This is all plain enough; but many good manuscripts, including a B, D, etc., Vulgate, and other versions, read, Why askest thou me concerning the good? Most modern editors and the Revised Version have adopted this reading, which they hold to be genuine, and to have been altered subsequently in order to conform it to the other synoptists. If this is so, it is difficult to see whence Mark and Luke obtained their wording, unless which is improbable our Lord used both interrogations on the same occasion. The revised reading expresses Christ"s astonishment at having this question asked; and it may be taken, as Bengel suggests, "He who is good ought to be interrogated about the good;" or, "What is right to do, you ought to know; it can only be obedience to the Author of all goodness." There is none good but one, that is, God. Here again the reading varies. The other synoptists agree with the received text of Matthew, except that Luke has eiv Yeov instead of eiv Yeov . Late editors, following a, B, D, etc., have printed, eiv esti agayov : one there is who is good, or one is the good. God alone is the absolutely good; he alone can instruct you and put you certainly in the right way. Persons have been found to argue from this sentence that Christ renounces all claim to be God Almighty. But it is not so. He replies to what was in the young man"s mind. The ruler regarded Jesus as man only; Jesus intimates that, in comparison with God, no man is good. He does not deny the applicability of the epithet to himself, but turns the questioner"s thoughts to the Source of all good. He will not have himself regarded simply as a pre-eminently good man, but as Son of God, one with the Father. If thou wilt (yeleiv , willest to) enter into life; i.e. enjoy eternal life. Christ uses a term equivalent to that of the ruler in ver. 16. So Christ said on another occasion to a lawyer who tempted him. "This do, and thou shalt live". (Luk_10:28) There is no real life without obedience. Keep the commandments of him who is good. The Law was given to prepare men to receive Christianity, and in proportion as they carefully observed it, so were they made ready to inherit the life which Christ gives. No mere external compliance without faith is here approved, but it is laid down that, in order to win eternal life, there must be strict observance of God"s laws not some one extraordinary performance, but constant attention to known duties from the highest motive. Faith, indeed, is belief in action, and is dead and profitless if inoperative; so that true obedience is the outcome of true faith.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator1887 · Public DomainOn v19Honour thy father and thy mother.
Mat_19:19
Honour thy father and thy mother.
Read full note →
Honouring parents
Implies:
I. Obedience. Keep their commands (Col_3:20; Eph_6:1-3).
II. Respect, reverence.
III. Regard their opinions. Do not despise them or ridicule them.
IV. Respect their habits. May be different from ours, antiquated, etc.
V. Provide for them. Deny ourselves to promote their welfare. (A. Barnes, D. D.)
The duties of children
I. You are required to view and treat your parents with respect. Nothing is more unbecoming in you, nothing will render you more unpleasant in the eyes of others, than forward or contemptuous conduct towards your parents.
II. You should be grateful to your parents. Consider how much you owe them-every comfort, etc.
III. You must make it your study to obey your parents, to do what they command, and to do it cheerfully.
IV. Do all in your power to assist and oblige your parents. You can very soon make some return for the kindness you receive.
V. Place your unreserved confidence in them. Be honest, sincere, and open-hearted.
VI. Attend seriously to their instructions and admonitions, and improve the advantages they afford you for becoming wise, useful, good, and happy for ever. (W. E. Channing, D. D.)
And thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.-
Loving our neighbour
I. Who is our neighbour?
II. The duty of loving our neighbour.
1. This commandment evidently means-that we should not injure our neighbour in his person, property, or character; that we should seek to do him good; that in case of debt, difference, or debate, we should do what is right, regarding his interest as much as our own, that in order to benefit him we should practise self-denial, or do as we would wish him to do to us (Mat_7:12).
2. It does not mean-that the love of ourselves, according to what we are, or according to truth, is improper; that I am to neglect my own business to take care of my neighbours (1Ti_5:8; Tit_2:5). (A. Barnes, D. D.)
Love thy neighbour
I. The command.
1. Whom am I to love? Thy neighbour
(1) albeit that he be of a different religion;
(2) although he oppose thee in trade;
(3) though he offend thee with his sin.
2. What am I to do to my neighbour? It prohibits all rash temper. Then do not neglect him.
3. How we are to love our neighbour.
II. Reasons why we should obey this command.
1. God commands it.
2. Selfishness itself would bid you love your neighbour. It is the short way to make yourself happy.
3. Because that will be the way to do good in the world.
4. The quiet of us all. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Our neighbours
A gentleman once said to Dr. Skinner, who was asking aid for foreign missions, I dont believe in foreign missions. I wont give anything except for home missions. I want what I give to benefit my neighbours. Well, the doctor made reply, whom do you regard as your neighbours? Why, those around me. Do you mean those whose land joins yours? Yes. Well, said Dr. Skinner, how much land do you own? … About five hundred acres, was the reply. How far down do you own it? inquired Dr. Skinner. Why, I never thought of it before, but I suppose I am half way through? Exactly, said the doctor, I suppose you do, and I want this money for the Chinese-the men whose land joins yours at the bottom. Every Christian should say in a higher sense than the heathen poet, I am a man, and nothing human is foreign to me. To a believer in Christ all men are neighbours.
Selfness versus selfishness
1. Christ made change from selfishness to benevolence the very marrow of religion. Selfness is to become a mother and ministrant of true benevolence-as thy self. He did not put His hand upon slavery, but if this principle could be secured all these evils would die away.
2. Religion, both in the individual and in the sects, as well as in theology, is to be tested by its power to develop benevolence.
3. All great schemes of reformation will fail which do not begin with releasing men from animal selfishness. (H. W. Beecher.)
Social evils not removed by outward means
Go out in early June, and with your scythe cut the May-weed that grows dense and malodorous along the sides of the road: and then let it come up again, not destroying root nor seed, simply cutting it off. That is Nihilism. It proposes to cut to the surface of the ground everything that has been developed out of human life and experience, but not to touch the root out of which they have selfishly and wrongfully developed. It leaves men just as they were, to destroy simply these accretions of oppression and wrong. Some good will be done, doubtless, in destroying multitudes of manners and customs, even by revolutionary evolutions-some good came from the red-hot ploughshare of the French Revolution; but, after all, as a philosophical method of correcting the evils of mankind and of the world, a child could have conceived something better than that. To destroy the outward forms of human society and to leave the inward causes of them, is to attempt to dry up a river, and let alone the springs from which it is fed. Nihilism is contemptible, except as a piteous exposition of mens suffering, and of their ignorance of how to remedy that suffering. It is not the king, it is not the prince, it is not the inexorable law; it is the vital selfishness of the individual and the collective heart, that makes the trouble in this world. It is the fact men treat each other as animals treat each other, and only to a limited degree have transformed self-seeking into form of benevolence toward others. Just in the proportion in which it is transformed men grow happier and happier in society, and the average condition is better. (H. W. Beecher.)
Social suffering arising from selfishness
The same is true of all the schemes of Fourier and Comte, and of all the social reconstructionists that are writing and planning to-day. They vitiate the result that they seek, by leaving out of consideration the prime factor of the mischiefs that they would exterminate. If a man takes a book that is being printed, and attempts to erase in each proof-sheet a misprinted or a blotted word, but does not correct the wrong types in the form, the errors will reproduce themselves just as fast as they are erased. All the forms of suffering in human society have causes that lie in the animal selfishness of the human race; and if you will correct them-except for a moment, as it were, making a temporary correction, others developing in the same way-you must teach men, being born again, how to make themselves the instruments, not of selfishness, but simply of benevolence and selfness. All the efforts which are, in our day, being made to do this by law-as if machinery would ever correct human nature-are ineffectual. (H. W. Beecher.)
The effective operation of the law of love in social life
Faithful and uniform obedience to this royal law throughout the churches of Christ would be of itself an evangelistic power, an aggressive spiritual energy far transcending all the revival meetings ever held. Just as the regular action of the tides does more to purify the ocean than the occasional storms that sweep over its surface, so would the constant operation of this law of love do for humanity more than the occasional excitements that sweep over the surface of society. (D. Jackson.)
The ideal the true object of love
If my neighbour be an evil-living man, who is not subject to the law of Christ; or if he be a proud, overbearing man, caring only to further his own selfish interests, regardless how he may wound the feelings of others, and cause them to suffer wrong-if, I say, my neighbour be such a man, I cannot, and I ought not, it would be against the royal law, to love these things in him, just as it would be wrong to love them in myself. (D. Jackson.)
The law of self-love
It is very dangerous for a man to care for himself, and not for anybody else; and it is even more dangerous for a man to expend himself on other persons, and neglect or care nothing for himself. The danger is as great, and, if possible, greater, when the law of self is paralyzed, than when the law of benevolence itself is paralyzed. These two laws must work under mutual restraint. They are antithetical. They are counterparts. They are complements the one of the other. To care for yourself is an indispensable pre-requisite of caring for anybody else. If this be so, then, first, to rear up children to be cared for, and not to learn to care for themselves, is to make them self-indulgent, soft, worthless. Secondly. Any method of charity which weakens or destroys self-reliance is not charitable, but is cruel. Thirdly. It is therefore dangerous to interfere with the law of suffering. Suffering is as beneficent as enjoying. Indeed suffering is better than enjoying under certain circumstances. If a man have a diseased brain, and the whole world to him sparkles with fantastic visions of pleasure, and if, in order to restore him to a healthful and normal condition, it is necessary to put a blister on the nape of his neck, then in his case surgery, with all its attendant suffering, is better than the pleasing sights and sounds that he sees and hears. Charity should be so directed as that it shall inspire men to avoid the reasons of suffering, and as that it shall make suffering, when it cannot be avoided, educate men to bear it till they can get out of it. An easy relief of suffering not only is unwise as it relates to humanity, but it is contrary to the fundamental principles on which the globe has been organized. This leads me to say, fourthly, that the social tendencies and theories which are beginning to be preached are demoralizing and dangerous, and to no other part of the community so much as to those who are seeking to better their condition by promulgating them. (H. W. Beecher.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson1891 · Public DomainOn vv17–1817. Why callest thou me good? none good but…
17. Why callest thou me good? none good but one, God. The Revision, following the Siniatic, Vatican, and some other manuscripts, leaves off “good” before Master in verse 16, and changes this to, “Why asketh thou me concerning good?” Still, Mark and Luke give the question in the form of the Common Version as here; hence we are justified in adhering to the text as above. Some have seen in these words of Christ an affirmation that he was not divine. To these, Stier replies: “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.” There is no answer to these syllogisms but to deny the sinlessness of Christ. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. The Lord had evidently asked his first question to prepare the way for this direction. He has, in saying that no man is absolutely good, said that no man can keep the commandments perfectly.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
unfoldingWord translationNotes2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0On v18love your neighbor
love your neighbor
The Jewish people believed that their neighbors were only other Jews. Jesus is extending that definition to include all people.
Tyndale Open Study Notes2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0On v1719:17 Why ask me? The man, as a Jew,…
19:17 Why ask me? The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • only One . . . is good: The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly good and thus the source of all goodness. • keep the commandments: Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking him to do the impossible, or more probably, restating that good works are a telling gauge of the truthfulness of a person’s faith (see 7:13-27).
GEBible — Godless Engineer's Bible App
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv17–19 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou…
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.
Read full note →
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. יגדל {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.
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.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv17–18 Mark omits the latter clause, and only saith, Thou…
Mark omits the latter clause, and only saith, Thou knowest the commandments; so saith Luke, Luk 18:19,20. Our Saviour’s 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?
Read full note →
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.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv17–18 The person thus addressing himself unto Christ, was either…
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.
Read full note →
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.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv17–19 And he said unto him,.... By way of reply,…
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.
Read full note →
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 Deu 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.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv17, 19 Why callest thou me good - Whom thou supposest…
Why callest thou me good - Whom thou 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.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv17–19 Verse 17. Why callest thou me good?] Or, Why…
Verse 17. Why callest thou me good?] Or, Why dost thou question me concerning that good thing? τι με ερωτας περι του αγαθου. 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, εις εϚιν ο αγαθος. There is one who is good. Let it be observed also that, in the 16th verse, instead of διδασκαλε αγαθε, good teacher, διδασκαλε 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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On v17 Mat 19:17-22. He said, Why callest thou me good?…
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 man’s 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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv17, 19 Why askest thou me concerning good?[4] In the ordinary…
Why askest thou me concerning good?[4] In the ordinary Greek copies, why dost thou call me good? (Witham) --- One is good, &c. God alone, by his own nature, is essentially, absolutely, and unchangeably good; at the same time, he is the source of all created goodness, as all goodness is a mere emanation from his. The person here addressing our Saviour, appears not to have believed that Christ was God: wherefore our Saviour, to rectify his misconception, tells him that God alone is good, insinuating thereby, that he should believe him to be God, or cease to address him by the title of good. (Tirinus) --- The sense is, that only God is good necessarily, and by his own nature. The Arians bring this place to shew, that Christ is not truly and properly God: but by this way of speaking, Christ does not deny that he is good, even by his nature, and consequently God; but seems to speak in this manner, to make the man know who he was. (Witham)
===============================
Read full note →
[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
Quid me interrogas de bono? Greek: erotas peri agathou. In the common Greek copies, ti me legeis agathon.
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).
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv17–18 17. Why callest thou me good? — The young…
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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv17–18 17. Why callest thou me good?] Here, but not…
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.
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.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv17–18 (17) Why callest thou me good?—Here again the older…
(17) Why callest thou me good?—Here again the older MSS. give a different form to our Lord’s 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.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv17–19 Why callest thou me good? Such is the reading…
Why callest thou me good? Such is the reading of the received text here, and without any variation in the parallel passages of Mark and Luke. Our Lord takes the ruler to task for applying this epithet to him. unless the youth believed in his Divinity. You think of me only as a learned Teacher: how, then, can you speak of me in a term which can really be predicated of no child of man? Christ answers the ruler"s address before he touches the subject of his interrogation, reproving him for using a form of words without realizing its full import. This is all plain enough; but many good manuscripts, including a B, D, etc., Vulgate, and other versions, read, Why askest thou me concerning the good? Most modern editors and the Revised Version have adopted this reading, which they hold to be genuine, and to have been altered subsequently in order to conform it to the other synoptists. If this is so, it is difficult to see whence Mark and Luke obtained their wording, unless which is improbable our Lord used both interrogations on the same occasion. The revised reading expresses Christ"s astonishment at having this question asked; and it may be taken, as Bengel suggests, "He who is good ought to be interrogated about the good;" or, "What is right to do, you ought to know; it can only be obedience to the Author of all goodness." There is none good but one, that is, God. Here again the reading varies. The other synoptists agree with the received text of Matthew, except that Luke has eiv Yeov instead of eiv Yeov . Late editors, following a, B, D, etc., have printed, eiv esti agayov : one there is who is good, or one is the good. God alone is the absolutely good; he alone can instruct you and put you certainly in the right way. Persons have been found to argue from this sentence that Christ renounces all claim to be God Almighty. But it is not so. He replies to what was in the young man"s mind. The ruler regarded Jesus as man only; Jesus intimates that, in comparison with God, no man is good. He does not deny the applicability of the epithet to himself, but turns the questioner"s thoughts to the Source of all good. He will not have himself regarded simply as a pre-eminently good man, but as Son of God, one with the Father. If thou wilt (yeleiv , willest to) enter into life; i.e. enjoy eternal life. Christ uses a term equivalent to that of the ruler in ver. 16. So Christ said on another occasion to a lawyer who tempted him. "This do, and thou shalt live". (Luk_10:28) There is no real life without obedience. Keep the commandments of him who is good. The Law was given to prepare men to receive Christianity, and in proportion as they carefully observed it, so were they made ready to inherit the life which Christ gives. No mere external compliance without faith is here approved, but it is laid down that, in order to win eternal life, there must be strict observance of God"s laws not some one extraordinary performance, but constant attention to known duties from the highest motive. Faith, indeed, is belief in action, and is dead and profitless if inoperative; so that true obedience is the outcome of true faith.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v19 Honour thy father and thy mother.
Mat_19:19
Honour thy father and thy mother.
Read full note →
Honouring parents
Implies:
I. Obedience. Keep their commands (Col_3:20; Eph_6:1-3).
II. Respect, reverence.
III. Regard their opinions. Do not despise them or ridicule them.
IV. Respect their habits. May be different from ours, antiquated, etc.
V. Provide for them. Deny ourselves to promote their welfare. (A. Barnes, D. D.)
The duties of children
I. You are required to view and treat your parents with respect. Nothing is more unbecoming in you, nothing will render you more unpleasant in the eyes of others, than forward or contemptuous conduct towards your parents.
II. You should be grateful to your parents. Consider how much you owe them-every comfort, etc.
III. You must make it your study to obey your parents, to do what they command, and to do it cheerfully.
IV. Do all in your power to assist and oblige your parents. You can very soon make some return for the kindness you receive.
V. Place your unreserved confidence in them. Be honest, sincere, and open-hearted.
VI. Attend seriously to their instructions and admonitions, and improve the advantages they afford you for becoming wise, useful, good, and happy for ever. (W. E. Channing, D. D.)
And thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.-
Loving our neighbour
I. Who is our neighbour?
II. The duty of loving our neighbour.
1. This commandment evidently means-that we should not injure our neighbour in his person, property, or character; that we should seek to do him good; that in case of debt, difference, or debate, we should do what is right, regarding his interest as much as our own, that in order to benefit him we should practise self-denial, or do as we would wish him to do to us (Mat_7:12).
2. It does not mean-that the love of ourselves, according to what we are, or according to truth, is improper; that I am to neglect my own business to take care of my neighbours (1Ti_5:8; Tit_2:5). (A. Barnes, D. D.)
Love thy neighbour
I. The command.
1. Whom am I to love? Thy neighbour
(1) albeit that he be of a different religion;
(2) although he oppose thee in trade;
(3) though he offend thee with his sin.
2. What am I to do to my neighbour? It prohibits all rash temper. Then do not neglect him.
3. How we are to love our neighbour.
II. Reasons why we should obey this command.
1. God commands it.
2. Selfishness itself would bid you love your neighbour. It is the short way to make yourself happy.
3. Because that will be the way to do good in the world.
4. The quiet of us all. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Our neighbours
A gentleman once said to Dr. Skinner, who was asking aid for foreign missions, I dont believe in foreign missions. I wont give anything except for home missions. I want what I give to benefit my neighbours. Well, the doctor made reply, whom do you regard as your neighbours? Why, those around me. Do you mean those whose land joins yours? Yes. Well, said Dr. Skinner, how much land do you own? … About five hundred acres, was the reply. How far down do you own it? inquired Dr. Skinner. Why, I never thought of it before, but I suppose I am half way through? Exactly, said the doctor, I suppose you do, and I want this money for the Chinese-the men whose land joins yours at the bottom. Every Christian should say in a higher sense than the heathen poet, I am a man, and nothing human is foreign to me. To a believer in Christ all men are neighbours.
Selfness versus selfishness
1. Christ made change from selfishness to benevolence the very marrow of religion. Selfness is to become a mother and ministrant of true benevolence-as thy self. He did not put His hand upon slavery, but if this principle could be secured all these evils would die away.
2. Religion, both in the individual and in the sects, as well as in theology, is to be tested by its power to develop benevolence.
3. All great schemes of reformation will fail which do not begin with releasing men from animal selfishness. (H. W. Beecher.)
Social evils not removed by outward means
Go out in early June, and with your scythe cut the May-weed that grows dense and malodorous along the sides of the road: and then let it come up again, not destroying root nor seed, simply cutting it off. That is Nihilism. It proposes to cut to the surface of the ground everything that has been developed out of human life and experience, but not to touch the root out of which they have selfishly and wrongfully developed. It leaves men just as they were, to destroy simply these accretions of oppression and wrong. Some good will be done, doubtless, in destroying multitudes of manners and customs, even by revolutionary evolutions-some good came from the red-hot ploughshare of the French Revolution; but, after all, as a philosophical method of correcting the evils of mankind and of the world, a child could have conceived something better than that. To destroy the outward forms of human society and to leave the inward causes of them, is to attempt to dry up a river, and let alone the springs from which it is fed. Nihilism is contemptible, except as a piteous exposition of mens suffering, and of their ignorance of how to remedy that suffering. It is not the king, it is not the prince, it is not the inexorable law; it is the vital selfishness of the individual and the collective heart, that makes the trouble in this world. It is the fact men treat each other as animals treat each other, and only to a limited degree have transformed self-seeking into form of benevolence toward others. Just in the proportion in which it is transformed men grow happier and happier in society, and the average condition is better. (H. W. Beecher.)
Social suffering arising from selfishness
The same is true of all the schemes of Fourier and Comte, and of all the social reconstructionists that are writing and planning to-day. They vitiate the result that they seek, by leaving out of consideration the prime factor of the mischiefs that they would exterminate. If a man takes a book that is being printed, and attempts to erase in each proof-sheet a misprinted or a blotted word, but does not correct the wrong types in the form, the errors will reproduce themselves just as fast as they are erased. All the forms of suffering in human society have causes that lie in the animal selfishness of the human race; and if you will correct them-except for a moment, as it were, making a temporary correction, others developing in the same way-you must teach men, being born again, how to make themselves the instruments, not of selfishness, but simply of benevolence and selfness. All the efforts which are, in our day, being made to do this by law-as if machinery would ever correct human nature-are ineffectual. (H. W. Beecher.)
The effective operation of the law of love in social life
Faithful and uniform obedience to this royal law throughout the churches of Christ would be of itself an evangelistic power, an aggressive spiritual energy far transcending all the revival meetings ever held. Just as the regular action of the tides does more to purify the ocean than the occasional storms that sweep over its surface, so would the constant operation of this law of love do for humanity more than the occasional excitements that sweep over the surface of society. (D. Jackson.)
The ideal the true object of love
If my neighbour be an evil-living man, who is not subject to the law of Christ; or if he be a proud, overbearing man, caring only to further his own selfish interests, regardless how he may wound the feelings of others, and cause them to suffer wrong-if, I say, my neighbour be such a man, I cannot, and I ought not, it would be against the royal law, to love these things in him, just as it would be wrong to love them in myself. (D. Jackson.)
The law of self-love
It is very dangerous for a man to care for himself, and not for anybody else; and it is even more dangerous for a man to expend himself on other persons, and neglect or care nothing for himself. The danger is as great, and, if possible, greater, when the law of self is paralyzed, than when the law of benevolence itself is paralyzed. These two laws must work under mutual restraint. They are antithetical. They are counterparts. They are complements the one of the other. To care for yourself is an indispensable pre-requisite of caring for anybody else. If this be so, then, first, to rear up children to be cared for, and not to learn to care for themselves, is to make them self-indulgent, soft, worthless. Secondly. Any method of charity which weakens or destroys self-reliance is not charitable, but is cruel. Thirdly. It is therefore dangerous to interfere with the law of suffering. Suffering is as beneficent as enjoying. Indeed suffering is better than enjoying under certain circumstances. If a man have a diseased brain, and the whole world to him sparkles with fantastic visions of pleasure, and if, in order to restore him to a healthful and normal condition, it is necessary to put a blister on the nape of his neck, then in his case surgery, with all its attendant suffering, is better than the pleasing sights and sounds that he sees and hears. Charity should be so directed as that it shall inspire men to avoid the reasons of suffering, and as that it shall make suffering, when it cannot be avoided, educate men to bear it till they can get out of it. An easy relief of suffering not only is unwise as it relates to humanity, but it is contrary to the fundamental principles on which the globe has been organized. This leads me to say, fourthly, that the social tendencies and theories which are beginning to be preached are demoralizing and dangerous, and to no other part of the community so much as to those who are seeking to better their condition by promulgating them. (H. W. Beecher.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv17–18 17. Why callest thou me good? none good but…
17. Why callest thou me good? none good but one, God. The Revision, following the Siniatic, Vatican, and some other manuscripts, leaves off “good” before Master in verse 16, and changes this to, “Why asketh thou me concerning good?” Still, Mark and Luke give the question in the form of the Common Version as here; hence we are justified in adhering to the text as above. Some have seen in these words of Christ an affirmation that he was not divine. To these, Stier replies: “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.” There is no answer to these syllogisms but to deny the sinlessness of Christ. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. The Lord had evidently asked his first question to prepare the way for this direction. He has, in saying that no man is absolutely good, said that no man can keep the commandments perfectly.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v18 love your neighbor
love your neighbor
The Jewish people believed that their neighbors were only other Jews. Jesus is extending that definition to include all people.
Read full note →
translationWords
command
Jesus
adultery
corrupt witness
honor
love
neighbor
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v17 19:17 Why ask me? The man, as a Jew,…
19:17 Why ask me? The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • only One . . . is good: The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly good and thus the source of all goodness. • keep the commandments: Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking him to do the impossible, or more probably, restating that good works are a telling gauge of the truthfulness of a person’s faith (see 7:13-27).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.