Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"

Mat 19:17 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.

HP: This verse has been raised on many occasions. I am no GK expert by any stretch, yet I cannot help but wonder at this text. When looking at the Nestle-Aland Greek English NT text, and then looking in SEC of the Bible, I fail to find the word "God" in the text itself, at least in the manner the SEC of the Bible shows the word "God" to consist of in the GK.

I have read that the text in the Critical text, Alexandrian, Nestle-Asland simply says "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is one (thing) that is good, and if you would enter into life, keep the commandments."

I have to wonder myself if this is not a correct conclusion from the GK text itself.


If Jesus was saying that none were Good but God, why would He seemingly exclude Himself, by saying that none were Good 'but God?' Would that not have been taken by those around Him to indicate that He was not God and that He was not Good? If He was using this text to say that He was God, where was the outcry of 'blasphemy' so clearly noted when they understood Him to be indicating Himself equal with God??

We all believe in the Deity of Christ, so don't even think about drawing that into question or that somehow I am denying His Deity. I am not. I just see a discrepancy between the GK and the manner so many interpret this verse.

Thoughts?

 

ktn4eg, indeed this is an interesting passage. Before this is over we might see who it is that understands the GK or who it is that uses the GK for their advantage. I hope we will not only be looking at the way some interpret the GK in this verse, but how well they are consistent in their applications to the same words used in other passages as well. One such as yourself might desire to do a word search on the word "one" as used in this passage and see what you can gain as to the import (IF what Biblicist stated is correct and "eis ho" is masculine and singular) and if the GK word used cannot be used in any other manner than one masculine and singular manner Biblicist seems to imply the text is limited to. The word Biblicist says is in the text, the GK term "agathos", is or is not strictly "masculine" in nature, and the meaning as well must of necessity be restricted to "persons and not things."

I would ask Biblicist in the meantime to show us his expertise in the GK and how he is so certain of his interpretation.

In common parlance can we use English words which might be masculine and singular for something that in reality is not necessarily masculine or even singular? Can we use terms that might be masculine, or feminine for that matter, to depict things that are in reality neither masculine nor feminine? Think carefully.

If we find in common parlance such strict rules of interpretation do not always apply in the English language, no matter what the rules of strict grammar imply, who is to say that such cannot be the same in the GK or any other language as well? Do we not understand that language is not bound by strict rules such as one might find in a science, but rather first and foremost is a means to communicate ideas and concepts and as such bend the strict rules of grammar on a daily basis when in the business of communicating with others? Scriptural interpretation is not a science governed by the laws of strict and unchangeable grammatical application, but rather is first and foremost a spiritual book that must be spiritually discerned regardless of what language it is written or understood in.

 

Pleased to make your acquaintance TreverL. :thumbs:

Whatever the likeness of our flesh is, in that He indeed did come, and as you say, tempted in every manner as we are, yet without sin.

Australia! Heard a lot about it and have a son there as we speak. A beautiful place I hear!

 

Mat 19:17 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.


I posted previously about the verse in Mat 19:17, something that I still have not received any help concerning from Biblicist or any other claiming to be knowledgeable in the GK. I have carefully went through that verse in a GK lexicon, trying to establish the meaning of each GK word in that verse, and I still am unable to find any reference to God in that verse in the GK.

I have not concluded at this time that there is no reference to God in the GK text, but I simply cannot find any such reference to God in the online GK Bible. Who will be the first knowledgeable of the GK to point out to me the GK word or reference to "God" in this text, in the GK of course?

 

In the same vein of thoughts, where does the young man ever call Him "Good Master" in the GK? In the GK I can only find the word for 'teacher,' as used in the sense one who teaches the truths of God. What am I missing?

 

Biblicist, what matters how many years you spent in a sectarian school? This is a debate not show and tell.:wavey:

Every denomination has their GK scholars, and they often disagree, so why cannot I disagree if I feel we are being hoodwinked by one tooting his own horn? Either the notion of "Good" before "Master" is in there, and the word "God" is in the last half of the verse, or they are not. There well may be discrepancies in different GK manuscripts as well.

 

Great response. Your expertise is showing:applause:

 

Mat 19:17: ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός. εἰ δὲ θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν, τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς.

 

HP; The title of this thread was addressing Matt. only. My comments have been limited to the verse of the OP.

HP: For what it is worth, the GK Lexicon I have looked at says the gender in the GK for 'agathos' in Matt. is N, not M.
I will not argue the point with you.

 

HP: Trevor, the inspiration for Heavenly Pilgrim indeed came from Heb. We are indeed on a short journey through this life.
I do not look for heaven on this earth, because God said that everything that is seen is temporal and will be destroyed.
What is interesting to me is the clear discrepancies between GK manuscripts and the manner in which it is translated. I suppose I will have to just put a question mark by that verse in Matt. and wait for answers to my questions.

Although I clearly believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, it might appear to me that some translators might have been trying a little too hard to make that point in these passages when the thrust was on that which was 'good' in relationship to the question asked, i.e., the law been 'good', and not on God being 'Good' although we know that God is indeed Good.

That is simply a possibility in my mind, and I am not stating anything concrete.