Early Church Fathers on “Why do you call me Good?” Mark 10:18

This topic of Mark 10:18 became a hot topic to use against Christians when it was brought up during a Q&A session during a “Debate: Is Jesus The Most High God | GodLogic Vs. The Orthodox Muslim.” Mark 10:18 was a question to God Logic, Logic answered correctly and Lybiano answered after him, lying on several sources like the church Fathers and the proper interpretation of Mark 10:18 in its full context. Lybiano made a clip of that moment that went viral, where Logic wasn’t allowed to respond back making it seem like Lybiano had a point. Later, Logic’s friend made a response and other Christians made clear responses to these heinous distortions Lybiano made, (Life’s Response). Lybiano later responded with Deen Responds towards this video, in this video. This video will be addressed and the assertions made.

The topic of Mark 10:18 gained traction as a common objection against Christians after it was raised during a Q&A session in the debate titled “Is Jesus the Most High God? | GodLogic vs. The Orthodox Muslim.” The verse was posed as a challenge to GodLogic, who gave a sound response. However, Lybiano followed up with a misleading interpretation, misrepresenting both the Church Fathers and the full context of Mark 10:18. He later clipped the exchange excluding GodLogic’s rebuttal causing the video to go viral and giving the false impression that Lybiano had made a valid point. In response, GodLogic’s friend released a video (titled Life’s Response), along with other Christian apologists who addressed and refuted Lybiano’s distortions. Lybiano then responded with another video titled Deen Responds, which this current video will thoroughly address, along with the claims it presents.

Always pay attention to the dishonest tactics some Muslims employ when presenting evidence. One common method is not only to cite evidence but also to weave in a narrative that goes beyond what the evidence actually proves. In many cases, they cannot demonstrate that their claims are true; they only present them as if they were.

For example, early in the video Deen asserts that Matthew or the scribes changed a verse because of a supposed theological problem. That’s not a fact; it’s an assumption framed as if it were true. Even if, for argument’s sake, later scribes thought they saw a theological issue, that doesn’t mean one actually existed. It could just as easily reflect a misunderstanding or misinterpretation on their part, not an inherent problem in the text itself.

Claim: “The Church Fathers record the variant reading of this verse. The earliest reading mentions ‘father,’ and the earliest witness is the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies.”

Response: The first assertion is nothing more than an assumption. When these quotations are examined in their proper context, more reasonable explanations for the wording emerge. The second assertion is equally flawed; this is not an “early reading” of the text but a baseless claim without evidence. The Pseudo-Clementine Homilies is a heretical work and could easily have altered the passage by inserting the word father for theological gain. Despite no manuscript evidence supporting such a reading.

Even if this hypothetical variant were genuine, it would not contradict Christian theology. Identifying the Father as “good” does not diminish the Son. Since Christ, in His incarnate humanity united by the one person, the Son, was localized on earth, He could rightly attribute goodness to the Father’s eternal nature. Within Trinitarian doctrine, the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father, being eternally begotten, and therefore He too is good.

Muslim polemicists often hyper-focus on such verses in order to downplay Christ’s divinity. In doing so, they misrepresent the evidence, ignore context, and cling to superficial narratives. This particular objection has no grounding in genuine textual criticism; it is simply a contrived claim advanced to obscure the consistent witness of Scripture to the divinity of Christ.

“This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to revive an argument that has long been refuted. Just as the word Pseudo means ‘false,’ this objection itself is false.” – AC

Claim: Christians argue that Jesus’ question to the rich young ruler was rhetorical, meant to challenge the man’s reasoning for calling Him “good,” rather than a denial of His own goodness. However, if you keep reading, the ruler stops addressing Jesus as “good” (Mk. 10:20), which supposedly shows he understood the question as a correction, not rhetoric. This proves Jesus was genuinely distancing Himself from being called good.

Response: The problem with this claim is that it assumes the ruler stopped calling Jesus “good” because of the question. In reality, this is a weak inference. It is perfectly natural in conversation for someone to drop an adjective after initially using it, without any shift in belief. It is just as likely that the ruler was reflecting on Jesus’ words, not retracting his earlier address.

And here is the irony: the Muslim objection says, “Keep reading” but if you truly keep reading, down to verse 31, the context proves the opposite of their claim. The ruler’s failure was not in how he addressed Jesus, but in his unwillingness to obey Him. If he truly believed the confession he made at the beginning, he would have followed Christ by giving up his possessions, just as Jesus required (cf. Lk. 9:23). His departure shows not that he doubted Jesus’ goodness, but that he valued earthly wealth over eternal life.

Claim: Later Post -Nicea Church Fathers try to clean up the mess of Ante-Nicea writers. Saint Basil adds to the text and says “first good.” He is clearly distorting the text to push dogma.

Response: This argument actually backfires against the claim that the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies preserve a variant reading while Basil “adds” to the text. Why not conclude that the Ante-NiceneChurch Fathers add to the text? (this question deals with other arguments below) In reality, both are engaging in a well-known practice of the ancient world: drawing from the established text in order to insert theological interpretation. This was not an attempt to corrupt Scripture, but a method of teaching using the written word as a framework to press theological points. It was a common approach in that period, employed by both Christians and Jews alike. The question is whose interpretation represents the Bible the best?

Claim: The Early Ante- Nicean Fathers quoted and interpreted the passage as exclusive to the Father. They never deny the “Father” reading or reinterpret it to include the son.

Response: Of course, they never denied the Father reading, nor was there any need to reinterpret it, since a clear answer already exists. Let us now address the claim directly, examining each quotation in turn.

Tertullian (155–160 AD to after 220 AD)

““But,” say they, “God is ‘good,’ and ‘most good,’⁷¹⁵ and ‘pitiful-hearted,’ and ‘a pitier,’ and ‘abundant in pitiful-heartedness,’⁷¹⁶ which He holds ‘dearer than all sacrifice,’⁷¹⁷ ‘not thinking the sinner’s death of so much worth as his repentance’,⁷¹⁸ ‘a Saviour of all men, most of all of believers.’⁷¹⁹ And so it will be becoming for ‘the sons of God’⁷²⁰ too to be ‘pitiful-hearted’⁷²¹ and ‘peacemakers;’⁷²² ‘giving in their turn just as 76Christ withal hath given to us;” On Modesty, Chapter 2

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.viii.ii.html

Tertullian only applies this passage to the Character of God and how we are to be as merciful as God is. The Son’s goodness is not addressed by him.

It is, of course, another matter if He does not wish to be prayed to, because He is the supremely and spontaneously good God! But who is this good God? There is, He says, none but one. Luke 18:19 It is not as if He had shown us that one of two gods was the supremely good; but He expressly asserts that there is one only good God, who is the only good, because He is the only God. Now, undoubtedly, He is the good God who sends rain on the just and on the unjust, and makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good; Matthew 5:45 – Against Marcion Book 4, chapter 36

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm

https://ccel.org/ccel/tertullian/against_marcion/anf03.v.iv.v.xxxvi.html

Tertullian does not explicitly identify the Father here in the same way as in other texts where the Father is mentioned by name. The objector may appeal to the context of the passages, which indeed address the Father. That is true. However, it is equally true that these passages also address the divinity of both the Father and the Son by default in Trinitarian doctrine. Highlighting one person of the Trinity is not a negation of the others that would be a fallacy of dichotomy.
In Trinitarian doctrine, references to “God” can be personal as well as essential. Scripture may use the name “God” to emphasize one divine person, because each person is materially identical with the one divine essence. Thus, when Tertullian highlights “God” in this section, it can be understood theologically as a reference to God’s nature itself, which belongs equally to Father, Son, and Spirit. This does not exclude the Son or Spirit, but places the focus on the divine nature.
Appeals to singular pronouns do not prove exclusivity. Some argue that singular pronouns in these texts show that only the Father is in view. This objection, however, overlooks biblical usage. Scripture frequently applies singular pronouns to collective realities such as entire nations (Ezk. 16:1-14; Hos. 2:2-23; Is. 47:1-15; Jer. 3:6-10; Mic. 4:11-13; Lam. 1:1-6; Josh. 11:23; Jdg. 1:8; Jdg. 1:35; Jdg. 20:12-13), without implying that those nations are reducible to one individual person. In the same way, the use of singular pronouns for God does not exclude the other persons of the Trinity.

To not include these points would deliberately ignore Tertullian’s full view without cherry picking. Herer are some of his statements

Against Praxeas 2 – “Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead…As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…”
Against Praxeas 4 – “But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father…”
Against Praxeas 5 – For before all things God was alone — being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call λόγος…Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness even you are regarded as being, inasmuch as He has reason within Himself even while He is silent, and involved in that Reason His Word! I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.
Against Praxeas 7 – Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself IS DESIGNATED GOD? The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Against Praxeas 12 – But all the rest of the created things did He in like manner make, who made the former ones — I mean the Word of God, through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. John 1:3 Now if He too is God…In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance — in the way of distinction, not of division. But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons)
Against Praxeas 13 – I shall be able to call Him God, as the same apostle says: Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever. Romans 9:5 For I should give the name of sun even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms OF ONE UNDIVIDED SUBSTANCE, AS GOD AND HIS WORD, AS THE FATHER AND THE SON.
Against Praxeas 15 – “For although the Word was God, yet was He with God, because He is God of God; and being joined to the Father, is with the Father. And we have seen His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father; John 1:14 that is, of course, (the glory) of the Son, even Him who was visible, and was glorified by the invisible Father. And therefore, inasmuch as he had said that the Word of God was God…”
Against Praxeas 25 – Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One, John 10:30 in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.’

There is more that could be said, but the point is already clear. Some may raise red herrings against Tertullian calling him a subordinationist, a social trinitarian, or nitpicking his early and unrefined articulation drawn from Scripture. Yet none of this changes the fact that he believed in the Trinity. Like many of the Ante-Nicene writers, his formulation was rough, but it was still a sincere attempt to express biblical truth. We cannot impose the verbatim fallacy or the presentism fallacy, demanding later precision from those writing at the dawn of theological reflection.

The point here is that in these two quotations from Tertullian along with his other writings it is unmistakable that he taught the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to share the same divine substance of the one God. Ironically, even in the very passages Muslims cite (“that there is one only good God”), Tertullian elsewhere affirms that the Father and the Son are of “one undivided substance.”

So, does Tertullian ever articulate the exact quotation Muslims are looking for? No. Let’s go to the next one.

Tertullian and the Doctrine of the Trinity

Tertullian: Trinity is the Faith of the Ancient Church

TRINITY IN IRENAEUS & TERTULLIAN

DID TERTULLIAN DENY THE ETERNAL NATURE OF CHRIST?

Tertullian and the Doctrine of the Trinity

Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1: A Misapplication or Fulfillment?

Does the New Testament Lie About Prophecy?

Does paul Accurately Quote Psalm 68:18

THE TRINITY IN TARGUM NEOFITI

The Trinity in Neofiti Revisited

THE TRINITY IN THE ARAMAIC TARGUMS

GOD’S SON IN TARGUM NEOFITI REVISITED

Irenaeus (130 to 202 AD)

“. Some passages, also, which occur in the Gospels, receive from them a coloring of the same kind, such as the answer which He gave His mother when He was twelve years of age: Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business? Luke 2:49 Thus, they say, He announced to them the Father of whom they were ignorant. On this account, also, He sent forth the disciples to the twelve tribes, that they might proclaim to them the unknown God. And to the person who said to Him, Good Master, Mark 10:17 He confessed that God who is truly good, saying, Why do you call Me good: there is One who is good, the Father in the heavens; Luke 18:18 and they assert that in this passage the Æons receive the name of heavens.”

Against Heresies Book 1 Chapter 20

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103120.htm

When dealing with Irenaeus, it is crucial to recognize that he is not offering his own interpretation of Mark 10:18 but reporting the claims of the Valentinian Gnostics. In Against Heresies (1.20.2), he records their assertion that when Jesus said, “Why callest thou Me good? There is One who is good, the Father in the heavens,” the phrase “in the heavens” referred to the Aeons of their speculative system. Irenaeus cites this not to endorse it but to expose it as a distortion of Scripture, part of the heretics’ strategy of importing alien cosmological categories into the biblical text. He treats such interpretations as unfounded assertions rather than legitimate exegesis, and his own theology is clear elsewhere, where he explicitly calls Christ “God, who became man” (Adv. Haer. 3.19.3). Far from denying the Son’s divinity or goodness, Irenaeus shows that heretics were already twisting this verse in the second century, and that the Church rejected such misuse. Thus, the mere presence of the word “Father” does not prove an early variant reading, since Irenaeus is simply quoting what the heretics claimed about this verse.

Irenaeus elsewhere says..

Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 6) – For the Son, being present with HIS OWN HANDIWORK from the beginning, reveals the Father to all; to whom He wills, and when He wills, and as the Father wills. Wherefore, then, in all things, and through all things, there is one God, the Father, and one Word, and one Son, and one Spirit

4. Therefore have the Jews departed from God, in not receiving His Word, but imagining that they could know the Father [apart] by Himself, without the Word, that is, without the Son; they being ignorant of that God who spoke in human shape to Abraham, Genesis 18:1 and again to Moses, saying, I have surely seen the affliction of My people in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them. Exodus 3:7-8 For the Son, who is the Word of God, arranged these things beforehand from the beginning, the Father being in no want of angels, in order that He might call the creation into being, and form man, for whom also the creation was made; nor, again, standing in need of any instrumentality for the framing of crea t ed things, or for the ordering of those things which had reference to man; while, [at the same time,] He has a vast and unspeakable number of servants. For His offspring and His similitude do minister to Him in every respect; that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom; whom all the angels serve, and to whom they are subject. Vain, therefore, are those who, because of that declaration, No man knows the Father, but the Son, Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22 do introduce another unknown Father. (Ibid., Chapter 7)

IRENAEUS AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST

TRINITY IN IRENAEUS & TERTULLIAN

Justin Martyr (100 to 165 AD)

“And with regard to our not swearing at all, and always speaking the truth, He enjoined as follows: “Swear not at all; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” And that we ought to worship God alone, He thus persuaded us: “The greatest commandment is, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve, with all thy heart, and with all thy strength, the Lord God that made thee.” And when a certain man came to Him and said, “Good Master,” He answered and said, “There is none good but God only, who made all things.”

First Apology Chapter 16

https://www.logoslibrary.org/justin/apology1/16.html

Justin cites this verse to affirm monotheism and to defend Christians as worshipers of the one true God and as faithful citizens. This directly undermines the Muslim argument, since Justin’s use of the passage reflects the very reading we find in Scripture, demonstrating continuity between the biblical text and its reception in the Ante-Nicene era.

Justin: Then what follows of the Psalm is this, in which He says: ‘Our fathers trusted in You; they trusted, and You delivered them. They cried unto You, and were not confounded. But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people;’ which show that He admits them to be His fathers, who trusted in God and were saved by Him, who also were the fathers of the Virgin, by whom He was born and became man; and He foretells that He shall be saved by the same God, but boasts not in accomplishing anything through His own will or might. For when on earth He acted in the very same manner, and answered to one who addressed Him as ‘Good Master:’ ‘Why do you call me good? One is good, my Father who is in heaven.’ But when He says, ‘I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people,’ He prophesied the things which do exist, and which happen to Him. For we who believe in Him are everywhere a reproach, ‘despised of the people;’ for, rejected and dishonoured by your nation, He suffered those indignities which you planned against Him. And the following: ‘All they that see me laughed me to scorn; they spoke with the lips, they shook the head: He trusted in the Lord; let Him deliver him, since he desires Him;’ this likewise He foretold should happen to Him. For they that saw Him crucified shook their heads each one of them, and distorted their lips, and twisting their noses to each other, they spoke in mockery the words which are recorded in the memoirs of His apostles: ‘He said he was the Son of God: let him come down; let God save him.’ – Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 101

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01287.htm

Jesus does not deny His own goodness in this passage; rather, He poses a rhetorical question while identifying the Father as good. Muslims often interpret this as if highlighting the Father’s goodness somehow excludes the Son and the Spirit, but that is both a non sequitur and a strawman. Emphasizing one divine person does not negate the others, since in Trinitarian theology the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are materially identical with the one divine essence they share. Nor does this verse necessarily represent a textual variant such a claim lacks evidence. One can not make such a statement unless they have an actual manuscript, and even if it were the only place the wording appeared, it would not establish a genuine alternative reading. It must also be remembered that in the ancient world, both Christians and Jews sometimes adapted phrasing for theological instruction; this was not seen as corrupting Scripture, since the underlying text remained unchanged. As scholars such as John McClintock and James Strong have noted, the key issue lies in interpretation, not textual corruption. Moreover, Justin Martyr elsewhere explicitly affirms…

Justin just like Hippolytus could have combined verses together. Mark 10:18 and Matthew 5:45.

Justin: If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called Angel, because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes [messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation. – Dialoge with Trypho, Chapter 56

Justin is calling Jesus YHWH that appeared to Abraham (Gn. 18:1-2) and that the other two men that were with YHWH are called angels (Gn. 19:1). Recounting Genesis 18-19. The Father is YHWH and Justin Martyr is clearly calling Jesus YHWH, God and creator of the World. This cherry picked argument falls apart. Justin says that Christ is BEFORE ALL creatures in his dialoge with Trypho, Chapter 61-62

Justin identifies Jesus as YHWH who appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18:1-2, while the two other men accompanying Him are described as angels in Genesis 19:1. In recounting Genesis 18-19, Justin distinguishes the Father as YHWH yet also clearly affirms that Jesus Himself is YHWH, God, and the Creator of the world. This shows why attempts to cherry-pick the “Good Teacher” passage collapse under scrutiny. In Dialogue with Trypho 61-62, Justin explicitly declares that Christ existed before all creatures, affirming His eternal divinity rather than denying it.

Here is where YHWH is called good ἀγαθός (agathos, “good”) like in Mark 10:18, therefore making Jesus good by nature.

Psalm 73:1 (LXX)

“Surely God is good to Israel, To those who are pure in heart!” – Psalm 73:1

“1 Give thanks to Yahweh, for He is good; For His lovingkindness endures forever. 2 Oh let Israel say, ‘His lovingkindness endures forever.’ 3 Oh let the house of Aaron say, ‘His lovingkindness endures forever.’ 4 Oh let those who fear Yahweh say, ‘His lovingkindness endures forever.’ 29 Give thanks to Yahweh, for He is good; For His lovingkindness endures forever.” – Psalm 118:1-4, 29 (LSB)

Mentioned 5 times in Psalm 118 that YHWH is ἀγαθός. This quote from

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm

JUSTIN MARTYR’S CHRISTOLOGY REVISITED

Augustine (354–430 AD)

“The praise of God could not be expressed in fewer words than these, “For He is good.” I see not what can be more solemn than this brevity, since goodness is so peculiarly the quality of God, that the Son of God Himself when addressed by some one as “Good Master,” by one, namely, who beholding His flesh, and comprehending not the fulness of His divine nature, considered Him as man only, replied, “Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.”⁵¹⁰¹ And what is this but to say, If thou wishest to call Me good, recognise Me as God?” Commentary on Psalm 118, 1

The word Father is not mentioned here.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.CXVIII.html

“They likewise, says he, quote what the Saviour says: ‘Why do you call me good? There is none good save one, that is, God.’ Luke 18:19 This statement, however, he makes no attempt whatever to explain; all he does is to oppose to it sundry other passages which seem to contradict it, which he adduces to show that man, too, is good.” – On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness, Chapter 14

Pelagius quotes Jesus’ words, “Why do you call Me good?” but fails to interpret them properly. Instead of explaining how Christ’s statement affirms the unique and absolute goodness of God, Pelagius attempts to neutralize the verse by citing other passages where humans are called “good.” Augustine criticizes this as poor exegesis, noting that Pelagius merely places seemingly contradictory verses side by side rather than harmonizing them in light of sound theological understanding.

Again, the word Father is not mentioned here.

St. Augustine, the Trinity & the Filioque
St. Augustine, the Trinity & the Filioque pt. 2

Basil the Great (330 to January 1, 379 AD)

“Now “no man” seems to be a general expression, so that not even one person is excepted by it, but this is not its use in Scripture, as I have observed in the passage “there is none good but one, that is, God.”²⁹⁷⁷ For even in this passage the Son does not so speak to the exclusion of Himself from the good nature. But, since the Father is the first good, we believe the words “no man” to have been uttered with the understood addition of “first.”²⁹⁷⁸ So with the passage “No man knoweth the Son but the Father;”²⁹⁷⁹ even here there is no charge of ignorance against the Spirit, but only a testimony that knowledge of His own nature naturally belongs to the Father first. Thus also we understand “No man knoweth,”²⁹⁸⁰ to refer to the Father the first knowledge of things, both present and to be, and generally to exhibit to men the first cause. Otherwise how can this passage fall in with the rest of the evidence of Scripture, or agree with the common notions of us who believe that the Only-Begotten is the image of the invisible God, and image not of the bodily figure, but of the very Godhead and of the mighty qualities attributed to the essence of God, image of power, image of wisdom, as Christ is called “the power of God and the wisdom of God”?”

Letter 236

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.ccxxxvii.html

St. Basil constantly called Jesus God the Word and the radiance of God, because he is the glory of God.

ST. BASIL: JESUS AS GOD’S ANGEL & BEGOTTEN WISDOM

Hilary of Poitiers (315 to 368 A.D)

“The heretics consider it necessary to deny that our Lord Jesus Christ by virtue of His nature was divine, because He said, Why callest thou Me good? None is good save one, God⁹⁸⁴. Now a satisfactory answer must stand in direct relation to the matter of enquiry, for only in that case will it furnish a reply to the question put. At the outset, then, I would ask these misinterpreters, “Do you think that the Lord resented being called good?” Would He rather have been called bad, as seems to be signified by the words, Why callest thou Me good? I do not think any one is so unreasonable as to ascribe to Him a confession of wickedness, when it was He Who said, Come unto Me, all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me: for I am meek and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light⁹⁸⁵. He says He is meek and lowly: can we believe that He was angry because He was called good? The two propositions are inconsistent. He Who witnesses to His own goodness would not repudiate the name of Good. Plainly, then, He was not angry because He was called good: and if we cannot believe that He resented being called good, we must ask what was said of Him which He did resent.

16. Let us see, then, how the questioner styled Him, beside calling Him good. He said, Good Master, what good thing shall I do⁹⁸⁶? adding to the title of “good” that of master. If Christ then did not chide because He was called good, it must have been because He was called “good Master.” Further the manner of His reproof shews that it was the disbelief of the questioner, rather than the name of master, or of good, which He resented. A youth, who provides himself upon the observance of the law, but did not know the end of the law⁹⁸⁷, which is Christ, who thought himself justified by works, without perceiving that Christ came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel⁹⁸⁸, and to those who believe that the law cannot save through the faith of justification⁹⁸⁹, questioned the Lord of the law, the Only-begotten God, as though He were a teacher of the common precepts and the writings of the law. But the Lord, abhorring this declaration of irreverent unbelief, which addresses Him as a teacher of the law, answered, Why callest thou Me good? and to shew how we may know, and call Him good, He added, None is good, save one, God, not repudiating the name of good, if it be given to Him as God.

17. Then, as a proof that He resents the name “good master,” on the ground of the unbelief, which addresses Him as a man, He replies to the vain-glorious youth, and his boast that he had fulfilled the law, One thing thou lackest; go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me. There is no shrinking from the title of “good” in the promise of heavenly treasures, no reluctance to be regarded as “master” in the offer to lead the way to perfect blessedness. But there is reproof of the unbelief which draws an earthly opinion of Him from the teaching, that goodness belongs to God alone. To signify that He is both good and God, He exercises the functions of goodness, opening the heavenly treasures, and offering Himself as guide to them. All the homage offered to Him as man He repudiates, but he does not disown that which He paid to God; for at the moment when He confesses that the one God is good, His words and actions are those of the power and the goodness and the nature of the one God.”

On the Trinity, Book 9 Chapters 15-18

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.ix.html

Tatian’s Diatessaron (120-180)

Student of Justin Martyr

“[42] And while Jesus was going in the way, there came near to him a young man of the rulers, and fell on his knees, and asked him, and said, Good Teacher, what is [43] it that I must do that I may have eternal life?[Mark 10:18] Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou [44] me good, while there is none good but the one, even God? Thou knowest the commandments. [45] If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. The young [Arabic, p. 110] man said unto him, Which of the commandments? Jesus said unto him, [46] Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not”

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.iii.xxviii.html

Origen (185 to 254 A.D.)

“There still remains to them, however, that saying of the Lord in the Gospel, which they think is given them in a special manner as a shield, viz., There is none good but one, God the Father. This word they declare is peculiar to the Father of Christ, who, however, is different from the God who is Creator of all things, to which Creator he gave no appellation of goodness.”

On First Principles Book 2, chapter 5 section 4

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04122.htm

Here, Like Irenaeus, He points out that the heretics misuse this verse to assert that The Father is not the creator of the heavens and the earth.

But what does He say about the goodness of the Son and the Spirit?

“For there is no other second goodness existing in the Son, save that which is in the Father. And therefore also the Saviour Himself rightly says in the Gospel, There is none good save one only, God the Father, that by such an expression it may be understood that the Son is not of a different goodness, but of that only which exists in the Father, of whom He is rightly termed the image, because He proceeds from no other source but from that primal goodness, lest there might appear to be in the Son a different goodness from that which is in the Father. Nor is there any dissimilarity or difference of goodness in the Son. And therefore it is not to be imagined that there is a kind of blasphemy, as it were, in the words, There is none good save one only, God the Father, as if thereby it may be supposed to be denied that either Christ or the Holy Spirit was good. But, as we have already said, the primal goodness is to be understood as residing in God the Father, from whom both the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds, retaining within them, without any doubt, the nature of that goodness which is in the source whence they are derived.”

On First Principles Book 1 Chapter 2 Section 13

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04121.htm

Origen plainly quotes the expression but notes that it is not a denial of the Son’s Divinity nor goodness, but extolling the monarchy of the Father, like a good Trinitarian.

Hippolytus (170 – 235 A.D.)

“He says that this (one) alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour³⁵⁵ is declared concerning this (one): “Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens, who causeth His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sendeth rain upon saints and sinners.”³⁵⁶ But who the saintly ones are on whom He sends the rain, and the sinners on whom the same sends the rain, this likewise we shall afterwards declare with the rest. And this is the great and secret and unknown mystery of the universe, concealed and revealed among the Egyptians.”

Refutation Against all Heresies book 5 chapter 2

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iii.iii.iii.html

Once again, like the other Greek apologists, Hippolytus is pointing out that the heretics misuse this passage to speak of heretical things about the Father. The Son’s Goodness nor deity is still not addressed here.

He mixes Mark 10:18 with Matthew 5:45. Which was a common practice in ancient times. Doesn’t mean he is denying the Son’s goodness neither is it a negation of the Trinitarian doctrine.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iii.iii.iii.html#fnf_iii.iii.iii.iii-p37.1

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.)

“And going forth into the way, one approached and kneeled, saying, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life? And Jesus saith, Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.” On the Salvation of the Rich man Ch4.

Again, here Clement quotes it in the proper rendering, and affirms that Jesus has the same goodness as the Father, having His goodness from Him.

“For our Lord and Saviour was asked pleasantly a question most appropriate for Him,—the Life respecting life, the Saviour respecting salvation, the Teacher respecting the chief doctrines taught, the Truth respecting the true immortality, the Word respecting the word of the Father, the Perfect respecting the perfect rest, the Immortal respecting the sure immortality. He was asked respecting those things on account of which He descended, which He inculcates, which He teaches, which He offers, in order to show the essence of the Gospel, that it is the gift of eternal life. For He foresaw as God, both what He would be asked, and what each one would answer Him. For who should do this more than the Prophet of prophets, and the Lord of every prophetic spirit? And having been called “good,” and taking the starting note from this first expression, He commences His teaching with this, turning the pupil to God, the good, and first and only dispenser of eternal life, which the Son, who received it of Him, gives to us. – Salvation of the Rich Man, Chapter 6 (VI)

https://ccel.org/ccel/clement_alex/salvation/anf02.vi.v.html

Ephrem the Syrian (306-373 A.D.)

The rich man called Jesus “good,” as if he were offering him a favor, just as some favor others with honorary titles. [The Lord] fled from that by which people favored him, so that he might show that he had received this goodness from the Father through nature and generation, and not [merely] in name. “Only one is good,” [he said], and did not remain silent, but added, “the Father,” so that he might show that the Son is good in just the way that the Father is good. Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron.

https://catenabible.com/com/5838fee5205c248f42e52e04

https://www.earlychristiancommentary.com/FathersScripIndex/texts.php?id=41010017

https://www.earlychristiancommentary.com/FathersScripIndex/texts.php?id=41010018