Daily Archives: May 21, 2026

Why do you call me good?

Posted on by
1

The New Testament is a collection of texts written by various authors over decades, and it naturally contains diverse portrayals of Jesus. Several passages show Jesus expressing human limitations, ignorance, or subservience to God, prompting questions about his precise identity and nature.  For example, “Jesus answered him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (Mark 10:18) When a young man addresses him as “Good Teacher,” Jesus appears to distance himself from the title, suggesting an absolute separation between himself and the pure, unmatched goodness of God.

The verse from Gospel of Mark 10:18 has long attracted attention because, at first glance, Jesus Christ seems to reject being called “good”.  Some have wondered whether Jesus is denying his divinity or distancing himself from the goodness that belongs uniquely to God. But the Early Church Fathers overwhelmingly understood the passage differently. Rather than denying his divinity, they saw Jesus drawing the young man deeper into recognizing who Jesus truly is.

The verse from Gospel of Mark 10:18 has long attracted attention because, at first glance, Jesus Christ seems to reject being called “good”. Some readers have wondered whether Jesus is denying his divinity or distancing himself from the goodness that belongs uniquely to God. But the Early Church Fathers overwhelmingly understood the passage differently. Rather than denying his divinity, they saw Jesus drawing the young man deeper into recognizing who Jesus truly is. Their interpretations generally moved along several connected lines.

An Instruction on Recognition of Divinity. 

Many of the Early Church Fathers contended that Jesus was not issuing a disclaimer regarding his goodness, but was instead posing a transformative question: “If you call me good, do you understand what that means?” The challenge lies not in the terminology, but in whether the young man grasped the profound reality that calling Jesus “good” necessitated a recognition of his divine nature.

St. Augustine posited that Christ was examining the depth of the man’s perception: If absolute goodness is the exclusive domain of God, and if Jesus is indeed truly good, it follows that the man must acknowledge Jesus as more than a mere human instructor. In this view, Christ does not relinquish his claim to goodness; rather, he redirects the man from a superficial courtesy toward a substantive confession of faith. For Augustine, the verse functions as an invitation to see the divine excellence present in the person of Christ.

Distinguishing Flattery from Truth. Other Patristic authors suggested that Jesus was correcting a casual or shallow use of language. John Chrysostom noted that the young ruler approached Jesus as a respected rabbi rather than the Son of God. Consequently, Jesus questions his use of language: Why use divine language without understanding its depth? Rather than denying his own goodness, Jesus exposes the superficiality of the young man’s faith, critiquing praise that is divorced from true discipleship. 

Absolute Goodness vs. Participating in Goodness. The Fathers frequently employed a distinction regarding the nature of goodness: God exists as goodness itself in its absolute form, while all created beings possess goodness only by participation. Origen clarified that only God is good in an uncreated sense. While humans share in this goodness, the statement “No one is good but God alone” identifies the ultimate source. Because the Fathers held Christ to be divine, they did not see this as an exclusion. Instead, as the eternal Son, Christ shares fully in the Father’s essential goodness.

The Defense of Christological Doctrine

Passages that critics used to question Christ’s status were often reclaimed by the Fathers as evidence of his divinity. During the fourth-century Arian controversies, Athanasius of Alexandria argued that if Christ were merely a creature, he could not possess the fullness of divine goodness. Since the New Testament portrays Christ as sinless and holy, the Fathers interpreted Mark 10:18 as a pedagogical tool meant to elicit theological insight rather than a denial of his nature.

The Role of Humility

Another strand of interpretation emphasized the humility inherent in Christ’s human manifestation. Gregory the Great observed that Jesus often spoke in a manner appropriate to his humanity, modeling humility by directing ultimate glory toward the Father while refusing superficial honors.

Conclusion: A Socratic Challenge

The Fathers viewed this verse through the lens of the entire Gospel narrative rather than in isolation. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus performs acts reserved for God: forgiving sins, accepting worship, and claiming unity with the Father. The Fathers thus concluded that Jesus was not disavowing his goodness, but asking a nearly Socratic question: “Do you understand what you are saying when you call me good?”

This passage remains vital as it challenges believers to move beyond a purely sentimental or moralistic admiration of Jesus. While it is simple to regard him as a moral instructor, an inspiring figure, or a “good person,” the Gospels continually press the deeper question of his identity. For the Church Fathers, Mark 10:18 is not a withdrawal from divinity, but a gentle leading of the hearer toward it.

As the Father has sent me, so I send you

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is Pentecost with the gospel reading taken from the Gospel of John. The Fourth Gospel speaks often of Jesus being sent into the world by the Father: to do his will (6:38–39; 8:29), to speak his words (3:34; 8:28; 12:49; 14:24; 17:8), to perform his works (4:34; 5:36; 9:4) and win salvation for all who believe (3:16–17). That the disciples were sent to continue the words and works of Jesus is foreshadowed at various places in the Gospel.

Jesus urged them to lift up their eyes and see fields ripe for harvest, and told them he had sent them to reap where others had labored (4:35–38), he said those who believed in him would do the works he had done and greater works than these because he was returning to the Father (14:12); he told them, “I … chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you” (15:16), saying that when the Paraclete comes “he will testify to me. And you also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning” (15:26–27), and when he prayed for his disciples he said to the Father, “As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world” (17:18). This last text, which parallels 20:21, confirms that the sending of the disciples was ‘into the world’, i.e. with a mission to the world. The other texts reveal the essential content of their mission was to ‘harvest’ men and women for the kingdom by their witness to Jesus by word and deed, alongside the ongoing witness of the Spirit.

We are sent just as Jesus was sent – How and in what manner was Jesus, the Word of God, sent into the world? A great deal of our understanding of the Jewish theological interpretation of the Old Testament comes from original writings of the Hebrew scholars.  The Old Testament was originally recorded in Hebrew and then translated (with interpretative embellishment) in Aramaic – known as the Targumin.  For example:

  • Isaiah 52:13 (Hebrew) “See, my servant shall prosper..”
  • Isaiah 52:13 (Targumin) “See, my servant the Messiah shall prosper..”

In fact many of the OT citations in John are taken from the Targumins.

In Jewish understanding, the memra – Aramaic for the Word (dabar in Hebrew) -had several characteristics.  It means more than “spoken word”; it also means “thing”, “affair”, “event”, and “action”.  Because it covers both word and deed, in Hebrew thought, dabar had a certain dynamic energy and power of its own.  When connected to Yahweh it took on the divine.  Its energy and power were from God.  The Targuminic reflections on memra (Targum Onkelos) offers some insight into the meaning of the Word in Jewish thinking:

The memra was highly personified (e.g., Isaiah 9:8, 45:23, 55:10; Psalm 147:15)

When the word of God came to a particular prophet (Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1) it challenged the prophet to accept the word; when he accepted it it impelled him to go forth and give it to others and it became the word that judged men.

The memra was a means of making a covenant (e.g., Genesis 15:1; Exodus 34:10).

The word was is described in the OT as a light for men (Ps 154:105, 103)

The memra was life-giving (e.g., Dt 32:46-47)

   For the Psalmist the memra has the power to heal people (e.g., Ps 107:20)

Salvation was by means of the memra (e.g., Wis 16:26)

The revelation of God to his people came through the memra as His agent (e.g., Genesis 15:1; Ezekiel 1:3)

The memra was an agent of creation (e.g, Psalm 33:6; Is 55:10-11; Ws 9:1).  In Is 40:11 God says, “So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty.  Rather it shall accomplish what I want and prosper in the things for which I sent it.”

The memra was bearer of the judgment of God (Wis 18:15; Hab 3:5)

The memra was the agent of the theophany, or visible manifestations of God’s presence (Gen 3:2).   John uses this thought (Jn 1:14) in the use of the term “dwelling”, which loses something in the translation.  The Greek  literally reads “pitched his tent/tabernacle”, describing the place of God’s presence among His chosen people.  The Greek word for dwelling uses the same/near equivalent consonance sounds as the Aramaic work, Shekinah, meaning theophany.

From the opening Prologue of John we see the portrait of Jesus as the fulfillment of all of these Targuminic themes.  Jesus is personified (vv. 1-2), the agent of God and creation (v.3), the life-giver (v.4), the source of life and knowledge (vv.4-5), the maker of covenants (v.12), the means of salvation (v.16), the same as God and different (God and human natures), and the visible presence of God on earth.

The short answer to the question “How was Jesus sent in order that we be sent?” Is to be “memra” for others in your life.

Image credit: Fr. Ted Bobash, pravolavie.ru, CC BY-SA