Response to Anba Takla website: (Why do you call me good?)

 

Question: Christ said: "Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, that is, God" (Matthew 19:17). Isn't this an affirmation that he is a human being and not God?! Pastor's answer: Many critics of the Bible take this verse as conclusive evidence that Christ is not God and say that Christ, by refusing to be called good and by admitting that goodness belongs to God alone, is not God because here he makes a complete separation between his person and God, and this is evidence of his own negation of his divinity. In response to such nonsense , we say by the grace of the Lord: The Lord Christ did not mean by his words that he is not good because he is not God! He, may his name be sanctified, did not say to the young man, "Do not call me good," but rather said, "Why do you call me good?" There is a huge difference between the negative (la) and the interrogative (la). The Lord meant by his saying to the young man, "Why do you call me good?" Two things: The first thing: He wanted to reveal the truth about Himself to that young man. So the Lord Christ’s saying to the young man: Why do you call me good? does not deny Him the attribute of goodness and divinity, but He meant to say to him: By what standard (why) do you call me good? Is it by the standard of human goodness as you call each other and your teachers? Or by the standard of divine goodness because you have seen my works and miracles that humans cannot do? If you mean that I am good by the standard of divine goodness, then this means that I am God. If you acknowledge my goodness by the divine standard, then you must acknowledge that I am God and believe in Me. It is as if the Lord God is saying to him: If you believe that I am God, then accept Me as such, otherwise there is no benefit to be expected from you. He did not say to him, “Do not call Me good,” but rather He refused to call Him as such as a mere title, unless he truly believed that He alone is good. Yes, Christ alone is good and completely good, and His goodness is absolute goodness, for He is the one who truly said about Himself, “I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11). For truly the incarnate God, “Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16). He alone is free from error, so much so that His enemies and haters could not find a single fault in Him. When He once asked them, “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” (John 8:46), none of them could name a single sin He had committed. His pure disciples bore witness to Him, and Peter said of Him, “Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth” (1 Peter 2:22). And Paul bore witness to Him, saying of Him, “Holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens” (Hebrews 7:26). (You will find the full text of the Holy Bible here on St-Takla.org ) Moreover, the Father bore witness to Him from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17). There is no greater testimony than the testimony of the Father. This article is taken from the website of St-Takla.org Church. Comment: The priest says: (He wanted to reveal the truth about Himself to that young man), well, how did He reveal the truth about Himself to the young man (that He is God?) Christ did not say anything that would suggest this, and this was never understood from His words. Then the priest assumes that Christ meant to say to the young man:












(Is it by the human standard of righteousness, as you call each other and your teachers? Or by the divine standard of righteousness, because you have seen my works and miracles that humans cannot do?), Where did the priest make this assumption? What is the evidence from which he concluded this? Is seeing miracles that humans cannot do evidence of the divinity of their doer?
This means that all the prophets of the Old Testament, who performed miracles, must be gods.
Then the priest jumped to the conclusion he wanted, in all strangeness, and said: (If you mean that I am righteous by the divine standard of righteousness, this means that I am God.)
It is as if the priest imagined Christ asking the young man about the standard of righteousness he was asking about, is it divine or human? If you meant the divine standard of righteousness in seeing my miracles,
this means that I am God!! Just like that!! Excuse me, priest, matters of belief must be clear and explicit, and this method is of no use in them.
What they also attributed to him,
then the priest says that Christ is good (and we do not disagree with him in that, but by human standards according to his expression) because he is without sin according to his claim, but there are some actions that they attributed to Jesus that are undoubtedly sins. Take this example :
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:2: Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.
John 2:3: When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."
John 2:4: Jesus said to her, " Woman, what do you and I have to do with you? My hour has not yet come .
" Jesus says to his holy mother, "Woman, what do you and I have to do with you?"?!! Is this a way to talk to a mother? By God, the common people are above this, and if the Gospel of Matthew claimed
this about Christ, God forbid that it would say such a thing, but look at what the Holy Qur’an says about Christ:
“ And dutiful to my mother, and made me not a wretched tyrant (32).”
By God, what is more appropriate for Christ? To be dutiful to his mother or to say to her, “ What have I to do with you, woman ?”
This is supported by what they attributed to Christ of his position of denying his mother and brothers:
Matthew 12:46: And while he was still speaking to the crowds, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, seeking to speak to him.
Matthew 12:47: And one said to him, “Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to you.”
Matthew 12:48: And he answered and said to him who said to him, “ Who is my mother, and who are my brothers ?”
Matthew 12:49: And he stretched out his hand toward his disciples and said, “Behold my mother and my brothers!
Matthew 12:50: For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and my mother.”
How do they attribute to Christ his denial of his mother and brothers while the commandments of the Old Testament command honoring the mother? Is this honoring the mother?
And if the argument attributed to him is that the one who does the will of the Father is his brother and sister, then was his holy mother not doing the will of the Father?
Isn’t denying the mother a major sin, O priest?
But to demolish everything the priest said, we compare several Arabic translations of the Bible, and we find that the phrase that the priest is talking about (Why do you call me good), is not found in most of these translations:


The common translation - Matthew
17-19 Why do you ask me what is good?? There is only one good person. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.
Catholic translation - Matthew
17-19 And he said to him, " Why do you ask me what is good? There is only one good person. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments."
Pauline translation - Matthew
17-19 He said to him, "Why do you ask me what is good ? There is only one good person. But if you want to enter life, keep the commandments."
Translation of the Book of Life - Matthew
17-19 And he answered him, " Why do you ask me who is good ? There is only one who is good. But if you want to enter life, keep the commandments."
Translation of Van Dyke - Matthew
17-19 And he said to him, " Why do you call me good ? There is no one good except God alone. But if you want to enter life, keep the commandments."
As we can see, only Van Dyck's translation contains "Why do you call me good?" So where is the talk about the human measure of goodness and the divine measure and so on and so forth? It would have been better for the priest to say that this phrase does not exist in most translations and the problem would be over instead of trying to prove the divinity of Christ as he claims. Naturally, we find that foreign interpretations do not mention anything at all about what the priest said, even those that relied on Van Dyck's text did not say that Christ wanted the young questioner to understand that he is God.

Matthew Henry’s Commentary
http://www.christnotes.org/commentar...=mhc&b=40&c=19
Commentary on Matthew 19:16-22
(Read Matthew 19:16-22)
Christ knew that covetousness was the sin which most easily beset this young man; though he had got honestly what he possessed, yet he could not cheerfully part with it, and by this his want of sincerity was shown. Christ's promises make his precepts easy, and his yoke pleasant and very comfortable; yet this promise was as much a trial of the young man's faith, as the precept was of his charity and contempt of the world. It is required of us in following Christ, that we duly attend his ordinances, strictly follow his pattern, and cheerfully submit to his disposals; and this from love to him, and in dependence on him. To sell all, and give to the poor, will not serve, but we are to follow Christ. The gospel is the only remedy for lost sinners. Many abstain from gross vices who do not attend to their obligations to God. Thousands of instances of disobedience in thought, word, and deed, are marked against them in the book of God. Thus numbers forsake Christ, loving this present world: they feel convictions and desires, but they depart sorrowful, perhaps trembling. It behoves us to try ourselves in these matters, for the Lord will try us.
The IVP New Testament Commentary Series
Grant R. Osborne Series Editor
http://www.biblegateway.com/resource...t-Discipleship
The Cost of Discipleship
If the kingdom belongs to children (19:13-15)-those who receive the kingdom as humble dependents (18:1-6)-then someone accustomed to being powerful and supporting dependents might find it difficult to enter the kingdom (compare 5:20; 7:14; 18:8; 25:46). This is the illustration with which 19:16-24 confronts us: wealth and status make perfect surrender to God's will more difficult, because we think we have more to lose.
Many examples of faith in the Bible are acts of desperation; few are the acts of self-satisfied individuals. Ultimately one who would receive the kingdom must not only obey like a trusting child but also relinquish worldly possessions and cares, acknowledging the absolute authority of our King.
Those Who Want Eternal Life Must Obey God's Commands (19:16-20)
The good thing the man must do is show his fidelity toward God's covenant by obeying his laws. These laws were part of first-century Jewish culture, and the young man is convinced that he has kept them, as many of us have avoided breaking the laws of our society (compare Odeberg 1964:60). But if he is really ready to submit to the yoke of God's kingdom, he must also become a follower of Jesus and submit to Jesus' demands. That he is unwilling to spare all his goods to help the poor will soon bring into question whether he really loves his neighbor as himself (vv. 19-22
It was not usual among the Jews to accost their teachers with the title of good; and therefore this bespeaks the uncommon respect he had for Christ. Note, Jesus Christ is a good Master, the best of teachers; none teaches like him; he is distinguished for his goodness, for he can have compassion on the ignorant; he is meek and lowly in heart. (2.) He comes to him upon an errand of importance (none could be more so), and he came not to tempt him, but sincerely desiring to be taught by him. His question is, What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life

Thus, it becomes clear to the reader that what the priest claimed was nonsense and mocked is the very truth .