Side Note: It is June 30th. I know I warned earlier that I'd be going offline when Blogger switched to their new operating system, and they're still promising "sometime in late June," but it's as late in June as it can be and it still hasn't happened. So, I'm still here.
____________________
When the rich young man asked Jesus, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus had a response that seemed a bit off topic. "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." (Luke 18:18-19) Now as Jesus went on to answer his question directly, I want to hang back a minute and consider His initial response.
Jesus affirmed something here that is thoroughly denied among skeptics, nominal believers, and thorough believers alike. David and Paul both argued, "No one does good, not even one." (Psa 14:1-3; Rom 3:12) Jesus agreed. "No one is good except God alone." For those that disagree, there is little room to stand except outside of God's Word.
But what was His intent in this? Some see this as a denial of His deity. "Why do you call Me good? I'm not God. Only God is good." If that was the case, unfortunately, that also serves as the end of the Christian faith. We would not have an "unblemished lamb" -- a sinless sacrifice. And all the rest of Scripture that ascribes deity to Christ would be wrong. No reliable word of God; no sacrifice for sin; no Christianity.
So if that was not His intent, what was His intent? Well, there is obviously implied in the question an alternate question. "Why do you call me God if only God is good? Are you recognizing Me as God?" A faith question, so to speak. Like the one He gave His disciples: "Who do you say I am?" I suspect this alternate question is part of His intent.
I think there is another. Jesus always knew what people were thinking. He knew where this young man was going with this question. Jesus wasn't surprised that he assured Him that he had kept all those commandments. Jesus knew where this was going. I suspect that a second intent in His question then was preemptive. "You are about to tell Me that you are good. You do realize that can't be, right?"
These are, in fact, two of our own most common errors. Our first is to fail to recognize Christ as God. Why should we? We are God. Our views, our values, our aims and purposes, our comfort ... these are the good and valid things. Not God's. Our second is to fail to recognize our true condition. "Well, sure, those people may not be good, but surely I am." Not too many of us see ourselves as damnable -- literally. We're ... mostly good. In direct contradiction to Jesus.
12 comments:
Stan,
Didn't get past the first 5-6 words before I pushed the flush button, but I thought you should know that you are wrong.
Thanks.
I knew you'd appreciate knowing that you are wrong.
No doubt you're aware that a battle raged over this verse not long ago. Who would have thought that such a simple statement of fact could be so controversial.
Thanks again, Craig. What I deeply appreciated was your coherent and convincing arguments on how I was wrong and what, instead, was true. Well done.
Art, I know that people have disputed it for as long as I've been alive. That's why I pointed out that the other popular take -- "Jesus was denying He was God" -- ends up in the total collapse of Christianity. I wasn't aware there has been a recent flare up.
Stan,
I'm always happy to pass along the devastatingly precise, convincing, and coherent arguments that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong.
Well, I would if those arguments existed. Instead I just pass on the conclusion that you're wrong and move on.
Yes, and thank you. Unfortunately the people who do that seriously didn't get your humor. Too bad.
I suspect it's either that some humor doesn't translate to this medium, or that some people have their sense of humor surgically removed due to their political leanings.
Humor doesn't grow well where hate lives.
No, it doesn't.
Craig:
It's called "leaving the Field" a form of false argumentation.
first one makes a positional statement (you are wrong) then leaves the field before being challenged. thus avoiding the risk of being corrected. well played..
this form of argument is both malicious and cowardly. the only noteworthy aspect of your argument, is the skillfulness of your retreat..
Man up...
True, Bob, but Craig was playing the part to make the point.
Post a Comment