10:17 Now as Jesus was starting out on his way, someone ran up to him, fell on his knees, and said, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 10:18 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”

See also Luke 18:19

At first sight, this appears to be a denial of ‘goodness’ on Jesus’ part, to undermine the doctrine of his sinlessness, and therefore to call into question his divinity.

Matthew seems to recognise the difficulty, and corrects or clarifies Jesus’ words:

Mt 19:17 “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.”

What then should we make of Jesus’ words, as recorded by Mark and Luke?

1. Some think that Jesus is denying his sinlessness or his divine status

The ‘Amateur Exegete’ offers the following reasons for this interpretation:

1. Christology is not the main point of the passage: love of riches is.
2. As if he had learned his lesson, the man drops the adjective ‘good’ in his second reference to Jesus as ‘teacher’.
3. Jesus words appear to echo Deut 6:4, suggesting that he is turning attention away from himself, and towards the one true God.
4. When Jesus underwent John’s baptism (Mk 1) he identified himself with (and counted himself part of) sinful humanity.
5. Mark generally presents a negative evaluation of human goodness, and Jesus’ denial goodness is consistent with that evaluation.

Vincent Taylor offered a nuanced version of this.  He thought that Jesus was drawing

‘a tacit contrast between the absolute goodness of God and his own goodness as subject to growth and trial in the circumstances of the incarnation.’

Hebrews 4:15; 5:8 might be cited in support of Taylor’s view.

However:

‘Mark nowhere else hints at any limitation or lack of goodness in Jesus, and it is unnecessary so to understand this passage. Mark’s readers would have understood the Son of God to be like God, and this would include full moral goodness.’ (Broadman Bible Commentary)

2. Others think that Jesus was being provocative – neither affirming nor denying his sinlessness

Jesus appears to be pouring cold water on the enquirer’s eager question. Here, as is so often the case, Jesus’ response is intended to prompt deep reflection, rather than simply provide information:

‘The Lord, as usual, tries to draw from the man the full implications of his own words.’ (Cole)

Matthew Poole:

‘Herein our Saviour doth not deny himself to be God, but checked him who did not believe him such, yet called him God.’

C.H. Turner, in A New Commentary on Holy Scripture:

‘The adjective ‘good’ is not common in the LXX with a personal reference, but in the later Psalms, e.g. Ps 118 (117), it is used of God; and our Lord, as so often, answers question by question, cross-examining him, so to say, on his use of terms: what did he mean by addressing Jesus with an epithet that was used of God?’

Schnabel observes that:

‘The context shows that Jesus is not intent on making a statement about himself, somehow implying that he himself is not good in the sense in which only God is good. As the man will shortly assert that he has been keeping God’s commandments, Jesus challenges him to examine his idea of ‘goodness’ and his qualifications for obtaining eternal life.’

Hurtado roundly states:

‘Jesus’ words have no relevance to the Christian doctrinal view about the divinity of Christ, and perhaps the form of the saying in Matthew clarifies this.’

Strauss:

‘Jesus’ answer has caused great consternation in the history of the church. Is he claiming that he is not good (and so denying his own sinlessness)? Is he claiming he is not God (and so denying his deity)? Matthew apparently modified the saying because of these concerns, so that Jesus says, “Why do you ask me about what is good?” (Matt 19:17). Yet neither Mark nor Luke saw any reason to change it.

The reason, it would seem, is that it was not intended to be a christological statement, but rather a rhetorical one, setting the stage for Jesus’ teaching that follows. The man is about to claim that he has fully kept God’s commandments, presumably qualifying him to inherit eternal life (v. 20). Jesus preemptively challenges this notion of goodness. In comparison to God’s perfection, no one is good and worthy of eternal life. Jesus is not denying his own deity, but is rather adopting the man’s perspective, that Jesus is a good teacher. Jesus responds, “How can you address any human teacher as ‘good’? Only God is truly good (= perfect).” Jesus nullifies the man’s assertion about his own goodness before he has made it and sets up the conclusion that no one can merit God’s salvation (v. 27). As in the case of the Syrophoenician woman, Jesus’ apparently naïve answer (7:27) is intended to provoke deeper thought and response.’

The man was using the word ‘good’ carelessly, thoughtlessly:

‘A word that in its proper sense belonged to God alone should not be used lightly as a mere expression of courtesy, and Jesus suspected that it was simply as a polite form of address that the man used it. He himself did not refuse to describe people as good when he really meant “good.” If it be asked how such language squares with his assertion here that “No one is good but God alone,” the answer is plain: no one is altogether good, as God is, but men and women are good insofar as they reflect the goodness of God.’ (HSB)

France:

‘If, on the other hand, Jesus does accept his sincerity, the response asks him to re-examine his idea of ‘goodness’ (and therefore perhaps of the sort of ‘doing’ that might make him eligible for eternal life) in the light of God’s absolute goodness, beside which that of any human being is merely relative. That Jesus does so by seizing on the man’s address to him as ἀγαθέ, and thus implicates himself in the relative goodness of humanity, is a problem only in the context of a formal dogmatic assertion of the sinlessness and divinity of Jesus. At the time of Jesus’ ministry this could hardly have been an issue, and the fact that Mark and Luke record the exchange in this form suggests that they, too, did not see it as a problem. Matthew’s rephrasing of both question and answer is apparently designed to deflect the possible inference that Jesus is asserting that he is not (in the absolute sense) good and therefore is not God, but it may be questioned whether any original reader of Mark would naturally have seen any such implication here–still less that by drawing attention to the use of ἀγαθός for himself Jesus is in fact inviting the questioner to confess him as divine. That would be a monumental non sequitur.’

Noting that ‘Jesus’ statement has caused concern for many in the church’, EBC (Rev ed.) asks:

‘Is he claiming not to be good? Is he claiming not to be God? But these questions miss Jesus’ point. The man addresses Jesus’ as good because he believes Jesus is a faithful teacher who has earned this title. Jesus responds that no human being can be called “good” because of what he or she has done. Salvation is not something that is earned by merit. Only God is truly good. In other words, Jesus’ statement is not self-referential or christological; rather, it concerns the nature of fallen humanity. It prepares the audience for his subsequent teaching concerning the impossibility of earning salvation apart from complete dependence on God (vv. 20, 27). Jesus is saying, “Before you address me as ‘good,’ you had better think soberly about what the implications are, and especially what they are for you.”’

3. Still others think that Jesus was intent on pointing away from himself, and towards the Father

Hooker:

‘Jesus makes no claims to independent authority—he calls on men and women to respond to the claims of God. It is appropriate, then, that he should point away from himself to the character and demands of God. ‘

Edwards notes that we should not be too puzzled by Jesus’ response, given his servant posture and his tendency to veil his messianic identity.

Edwards quotes George MacDonald:

‘The Father was all in all to the Son, and the Son no more thought of His own goodness than an honest man thinks of his honesty. When the good man sees goodness, he thinks of his own evil: Jesus had no evil to think of, but neither does He think of His goodness; He delights in his Father’s.’

Brooks:

‘The statement does not reflect a consciousness of sinfulness on the part of Jesus. It is not a disclaimer of goodness or deity. Such ideas are totally irrelevant. It simply points to God as the supreme example of goodness and the source of all good things, including the commandments in v. 19 and the commands in v. 21. Throughout his life Jesus was concerned to exalt and glorify God. Luke 18:19 lets Mark’s statement stand, but Matt 19:17 restates it so as to minimize the possibility of misunderstanding or offense.’

Evans:

‘Jesus reacts to the unusual epithet “good teacher” because of his radical view of God’s unique goodness. God is the source of all goodness. He fills the hungry with “good” things (Luke 1:53). He gives “good gifts” to his children (Matt. 7:11 = Luke 11:13). “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (James 1:17). Jesus has come to announce the arrival of the kingdom of the God of Israel (Mark 1:14–15), the God who is the giver of all good things. Jesus’ purpose is not to draw attention to himself, though his person and ministry are of such an extraordinary nature that that very thing happens; his purpose is draw attention to the God who saves and heals, forgives and restores, and gives eternal life. Jesus is not implying that he is somehow imperfect or less than good, only that the focus must be on God.’

William Barclay notes that the saying (in its Markan form) cannot have thought to be impossibly difficult by the early compilers and readers of the Gospels:

‘It appears, indeed, that the form in which Mark (followed by Luke) preserves these words of Jesus was felt to present a difficulty at quite an early stage in the formation of the Gospels. In the parallel passage in Mt 19:16-17 the weight of the textual evidence favors the recasting of the man’s question as “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” – to which Jesus replies, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good” (RSV). This recasting of the question and answer, however, was not perpetuated. Whereas normally, in the process of transmitting the Gospel text, the tendency is for the wording of the other Evangelists to be conformed to that of Matthew, here the Matthean wording has been conformed to that of Mark and Luke in the majority of later manuscripts, followed by the KJV: “‘Good Master, what shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’ ‘Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.'” If the saying had been felt to be insuperably hard, the Matthean form would have prevailed throughout the Synoptic record of the incident.’ (HSB)