The rich young man calls Jesus “Good Master” and asks what good thing he must do to have eternal life. The Textus Receptus answers, “Why callest thou me good?” The critical text reads, “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One is the good.”
“Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” — Matthew 19:17
This is not a spelling change. It reshapes the opening exchange, though both forms lead to the commandments and expose the man’s heart.
The critical form
The critical wording stands in important early witnesses and differs from Mark and Luke, which read “Why callest thou me good?” Editors take that difference as a sign of originality. On their account, copyists harmonized Matthew to the other Gospels.
The received answer has far broader later use and agrees with the spoken scene. The man has called Jesus good. Jesus takes up that address and presses it toward God. The reply is pointed, personal, and memorable.
Agreement with Mark and Luke need not be scribal. All three report the same encounter. Matthew may abbreviate other parts while preserving the same first reply. Once a different form entered an early line, its distance from the parallels could make it look more original simply because it was more difficult.
Jesus does not deny his goodness
Christ does not say, “I am not good.” He asks the ruler to reckon with his words. If only God is good in the absolute sense, what does it mean to call Jesus good? The question opens toward Christ’s deity even as it breaks the man’s shallow measure of goodness.
The ruler thinks eternal life can be secured by one more deed. Jesus names God’s commandments, then commands him to sell, give, and follow. The man’s sorrow shows that his possessions hold the place of God. His claim to have kept the law collapses at the first commandment.
The critical reading also guards divine goodness, but it turns attention from the address “Good Master” to the subject “good thing.” That is possible sense; it is not the best account of the conversation as received across the three Synoptics.
The Textus Receptus should stand. Its question is not an embarrassment later scribes borrowed to make the Gospels match. It is the Lord’s probe. The ruler used a great word lightly, and Jesus made him face the God whose goodness he claimed to seek.
The answer also resists a common misuse by opponents of Christ’s deity. Jesus does not contrast himself with God as a sinner contrasts with holiness. He makes the ruler account for the title he has spoken. If the man means ordinary courtesy, his word is too large; if he means absolute goodness, he must reckon with who stands before him.
The command to sell all was fitted to the ruler’s exposed idol. Jesus does not impose identical liquidation upon every disciple, but he imposes the first commandment upon all. Whatever cannot be surrendered at his word functions as a rival god.
The critical form still reaches that moral issue through “the good.” It does not deny Christ’s goodness. Textual defense is strongest when it refuses caricature and then asks which wording best accounts for the Synoptic event, the received transmission, and the direct reply to “Good Master.”
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 19:16–30; Mark 10:17–31; Luke 18:18–30.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 19:17.
- William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, on using the whole canonical context.