Interesting Concept #1: Did Jesus’ Flesh Cause Him to Not Be Essentially Good?
And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone…”
Luke 18:18-19
What an interesting concept. So the question is, did Jesus’ 100% flesh imply a nature of sin? Not of the action of sin, but of a nature. This scripture passage seems to imply that. Obviously Christ was perfect, but his perfection was only due to his being fully God. His own words seem to imply that his existence did not merit the ‘Good’ status of the Father. ‘Good’ here could be used to describe authority, which the Father obviously did have over the Son. But the question’s intent in the word ‘good’ and Jesus’ response’s use of the word ‘good’ ostensibly imply something different.
Thoughts? Interesting, interesting idea.
-Riley
| Print article | This entry was posted by Riley on September 28, 2009 at 7:41 pm, and is filed under Faith, Theology. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 11 months ago
Could a man without a sinful nature be truly tempted? Doesn’t seem like it to me.
about 11 months ago
Well, our sinful nature does not equal the CAPACITY to sin, but rather the NATURAL TENDENCY to sin that is so evident in all of the human race. As long as Jesus had the capacity to sin, it matters not whether he was generally tended toward it or not: he could still have been tempted to sin. By capacity, however, I’m not totally sure what I mean. It’s an abstract term that really cannot be applied concretely in any way, because Jesus DIDN’T sin, and any hypothetical situation where He does commit a sin so completely destroys everything that we believe in that it’s not even worth considering.
All I know is Mat.4/Lk 4 and Hebrews 4:15, and so I’ll keep contending that He was tempted, legitimately. I think that since to consider his temptation requires so much absurd hypothetical speculation, it’s one of those things we’ll never fully understand.
about 11 months ago
I’m with Trey, basically.
Also, I wonder if the verse you quoted wasn’t just Jesus hinting at his own divinity? It struck me as a rhetorical question, rather than a statement of, “Hey, I’m not Good.”
about 11 months ago
As to the original question:
The way I’ve heard that passage interpreted, which makes more sense to me, is that Jesus was asking the guy is he was calling Him God. That’s the way I’ve always read it. Any objections?
about 11 months ago
In other words, what Andrew said.
about 11 months ago
For some reason I don’t see that interpretation.
If he was hinting at his own divinity by saying he was ‘greater than good,’ wouldn’t he be demeaning the Father by transferring that title to him?
The only way it makes sense to me is a transfer of a greater title, not a lesser one to the Father.
about 11 months ago
Also, my main point was that Jesus denied the fact that he was good, and instead ‘transferred the title’ to the Father. The discussion about Jesus’ capacity to sin vs inability to sin vs perfection vs not-good-ity is a good discussion, but I’m mainly curious as to why he would deny being good.
Not trying to throw a wrench in the discussion, though
about 11 months ago
Well, unfortunately my only reply is that I think your exegesis is mistaken.
Sorry, but you can’t say that Jesus “denied that he was good”. That VERY much reading in between the lines (in my humble opinion, of course, since as we all know truth is perc…no I can’t bring myself to say it.).
My personal theory of exegesis, is that if there are two valid options, and one of them is confusing, and the other one makes perfect sense with the rest of the Bible, take the one that makes sense.
about 11 months ago
Okay, then let’s not read any into it.
Not reading any into it, Jesus just denied someone calling him good.
But I know what you’re saying. I just don’t understand why Jesus doesn’t receive the comment ‘good’, instead directing it towards the Father. How does that reflect on Jesus more greatly? It seems to reflect on the Father more greatly.
I guess I just don’t get what you guys are getting at.
about 11 months ago
Rather, I do know what you’re saying but I don’t get why it works. If Jesus is hinting at the fact that he’s God, is he just ragging on the person that called him ‘Teacher’? The most face value, logical explanation in context is that Jesus said that only the Father was good, and rejected the comment from the person.
about 11 months ago
Now, mind you, I’m not saying that that’s the right explanation, but if you’re wanting to go not too deeply into this, that’s pretty much what you have. A denying from Jesus of the comment about him being good. Face value.
about 11 months ago
Update: I think I see what you guys are saying. I think that scripture puzzled me greatly. Jewish teaching styles are really misleading…
about 11 months ago
That being said, I want to hear your thoughts on how you came to each of your consensuses.
about 11 months ago
My thought process: I probably heard someone preach on it. Most of what I say is thoroughly plagiarism, albeit unintentional.
Here’s the way I read it: “Why do you call me good?” should be interpreted as Jesus saying “What do you mean by calling me good?”. And “No one is good except God alone” should be interpreted as Jesus saying “Since we all know that only God is actually good, are you calling me God? Or were you just using the word ‘good’ lightly?”
Anyhoo, feel free to disregard my scholarship on Jewish teaching styles. I’ve only done a negative amount of research on it.
about 11 months ago
I’m with Trey and Andrew. That’s how I read it.
about 11 months ago
I asked that question to my daddy this summer. What Trey/Andrew said is basically how he explained it to me.