Table of Contents
- Mark 10:18
- Two Interpretations
- An Analogy
- Objection – Jesus only leads to God?
- The God-Man Alone Ransoms
- Another Important Angle – The Early Fathers
“Why Do You Call Me Good?” — A Closer Look at Mark 10:18 and the Deity of Christ
Mark 10:18 (NASB):
“And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.’”
This verse has long been the subject of scrutiny, particularly from critics and skeptics who argue that Jesus here denies His own divinity.
But is Jesus truly denying His own goodness—or is He doing something deeper?
2 Interpretations: What Did Jesus Mean?
When reading Mark 10:18, there are two primary ways to understand what Jesus is saying:
1. Surface-Level Reading: A Denial of Goodness
If this were the only verse we had from Jesus, it might seem like He is saying, “I am not good—only God is.” Taken out of context, it sounds as if He is denying His own goodness.
But is this conclusion warranted?
2. Contextual Reading: A Challenge to the Rich Man
A deeper look at the passage shows that Jesus is not denying His goodness, but rather testing the rich man’s understanding.
Essentially, Jesus says:
“You’re calling Me ‘good’—do you truly understand what that means? Only God is good. So if I am good, what does that imply about Me?I must be God. But will you treat Me as such?”
This is not a denial, but a subtle assertion. Jesus challenges the man—and us—to grapple with the implications of calling Him “good.”
The Broader Context: Is Jesus Really Claiming Deity?
Let’s examine what follows in the passage:
Jesus Lists Only the Last 6 Commandments
“You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder… Honor your father and mother.’”
(Mark 10:19)
These are the commands that deal with human relationships—loving your neighbor. But Jesus does not quote the first four commandments, which focus on loving God.
Why not?
Because He is about to expose the man’s failure to keep the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods before Me.”
“One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor… and come, follow Me.” (Mark 10:21)
Here lies the heart of the matter.
Jesus Becomes the Ultimate Test of Worship
The solution that Jesus gives to repent from idolatry is to give up everything and live for Jesus. Jesus doesn’t say “follow God.”
He says, “Follow Me.”
This is a divine claim. If wealth has become the man’s idol, Jesus offers a solution: Give it up—for Me. Not for an abstract religious ideal, but for a person.
If Jesus is not God, this is spiritual blasphemy. But if He is God, then this is the perfect invitation to true worship and repentance.
An analogy: Recognizing the King
To illustrate what’s happening here, here is an analogy:
There was once a law in the land:
“Bow only to the King. To bow is to worship.”
And there was a man named Killer, whose singular mission—given by dark powers—was to kill the King. He could not harm anyone else. Only the King.
But the King had taken off his robes and crown. He now wandered the streets in rags, like a common peasant.
One day, Peter met this peasant. Something in this peasants eyes radiated authority, goodness, and majesty. Without thinking, Killer fell to his knees and bowed before him.
The Peasant looked at him, calm and clear-eyed.
“Why do you bow before me?” he asked.
“Don’t you know the law? You are to bow only to the King.”
Peter froze.
The Peasant continued, quietly but firmly:
“Then if you have bowed before me, leave everything, pick up that sword and slay me.”
But Killer hesitated, grappling with his thoughts, and eventually, He backed away.
He could not do it.
Killer’s body said that John was King.
But Killer’s mind said that the Peasant was just a unique man.
The Comparison:
In this analogy, the king dressed as a peasant is symbolic of God the Son becoming Incarnate, their true identity was hidden by an exterior aspect.
Like Killer, the Rich young ruler, without thinking about the implications of his statement, called Jesus “good”. And, like the Peasant, Jesus corrects the Rich young ruler by asserting that only God is “good”. Like the Peasant who tested Killer to see if he would abide by what his actions implied, Jesus tested the Rich young ruler to see if he would abide by what his words implied, that if Jesus is indeed good, fix your idolatry by leaving everything and follow Him. Both Killer and the Rich young ruler were found to be hypocrites.
St. Augustine of Hippo said,
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.”51015101 Mark x. 17, 18. And what is this but to say, If thou wishest to call Me good, recognise Me as God? But since it is addressed, in revelation of things to come, to a people freed from all toil and wandering in pilgrimage, and from all admixture with the wicked, which freedom was given it through the grace of God, who not only doth not evil for evil, but even returneth good for evil; it is most appropriately added, “Because His mercy endureth for ever.”
Objection: “Jesus Only Leads to God—He’s Not God Himself
Some argue that when Jesus says “follow Me,” He means that He is simply a prophet pointing the way to God.
But again, let’s see what the passage says:
“Then who can be saved?” the disciples ask.
“With man it is impossible, but not with God.” (Mark 10:26–27)
Jesus just said salvation is impossible for humans—but possible for God. Then, just a few verses later:
“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)
This is stunning. Jesus says He will do what only God can do—save.
The God-Man: The Only Possible Ransom
Let’s return to Psalm 49:
“No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them… But God will redeem me from the realm of the dead.” (Psalm 49:7–9, 15)
Only God can redeem souls.
But only a man can die in place of other humans.
Therefore, salvation requires a God-Man—Jesus Christ.
If Jesus were merely a sinless man, His death could only ransom one life. But Jesus claims to give His life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45)
This is only possible if Jesus is both fully God and fully man.
Another Important Angel
It is important to note the perspective of the Monarchia of the Father. I find this significant to mention because many heretics appeal to some Early Church Fathers who mention that the “God” who alone is good is the Father. Here are some Church Fathers who quote this text:
Irenaeus book 1 ch.20 – 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;
Justin Martyr Trypho chapter 101 – 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.’
Tertullian Against Marcion book 4 ch.36 – I trow, none. For the prayer which He has taught us suits, as we have proved, none but the Creator. 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
Hippolytus Refutation of all heresies book 5 chapter 2 – He says that this (one) alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour is declared concerning this (one): “Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens, who causes His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sends rain upon saints and sinners Matthew 5:45
If we grant the heretics their misinterpretion of the Fathers and of Scripture, that the the person of the Father alone is good, all they’re proving is that Jesus claimed to be the Father, hence Modalism. To reiterate more clearly, the Rich young ruler called Jesus “good” but only the Father is good, therefore if the Rich young ruler abode by his words, he would give up everything to follow the One who is good, the Father incarnate, Jesus Christ. This still proves that Jesus is God contrary to the assertion of the heretics.
But of course, this is not what the Scripture, nor the Church Fathers, believe. So, how do we reconcile this? I will show that the very same Church Fathers (quoted above) believed in the Monarchia of the Father as well as the full essential deity of Christ. I have already procedures several articles here on my page Metaphysics of the Trinity. Essentially, it teaches that the Father is the source of everything Christ has. The Father eternally communicates to the Son the divine essence, and so whatever the Father is by His essence, He continuously gives that to the Son. The Father’s essence is all-powerfull, and the Father gives His essence to the Son, which means the Son is all powerfully to by His very nature. All this proves is that when we speak of the Father as the one God, it is never apart from the Son. The Father is intrinsic with His Word, who is His Son. Therefore, we speak of the Father, we also speak of everything intrinsic to Him.
Now in Mark 10:18, Jesus is the saying that God, who is the Father, is the source of all goodness, which is true. But what these heretics fail to mention is the distinction between properties of the “hypostasis” (persons) and those of the “ousia” (essence). “Goodness” is a property of the essence of God, not a hypostatic one. Therefore, the same principle/interpretation I mentioned above applies here. The Rich young ruler calls Jesus “good.” And Jesus says that only God, who is the Father, is good. If “goodness” belongs to the essence of the Father alone and if the Father alone is good, and the Father communicates this exact same goodness to the Son, this would make the Son good too and thereby just as much “God” as the Father in essence.
Here are the same Church Fathers who prove that the Father is One God with Christ, His Word. Here they are, read holistically:
Irenaeus – “Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.” – Against Heresies, Book 4, chapter 5. “So then the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord,177 and the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God.178 And so in the substance and power of His being there is shown forth one God; but there is also according to the economy of our redemption both Son and Father.” – Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 47.
Notice the same Irenaeus who taught the Father alone is good, clearly teaches that this is not apart from the Son. Since the Father communicates to the Son His divine essence by virtue of begetting, the Father is the One God with His Word, the Son Christ Jesus.
Justin Martyr – “AND HE IS THE LORD WHO RECEIVED COMMISSION FROM THE LORD WHO [remains] IN THE HEAVENS, i.e., the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrha the [judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms: ‘The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrha sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.’” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch.56. ”
“Justin: As you wish, Trypho, I shall come to these proofs which you seek in the fitting place; but now you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove THAT CHRIST IS CALLED BOTH GOD AND LORD OF HOSTS…The Psalm of David is this:…‘The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory.’ (Psalm 24:10)” – Ibid. Ch.36.
“Justin: Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm [46 in the LXX but 47 in Hebrew], REFERENCE IS THUS MADE TO CHRIST: ‘GOD WENT UP WITH A SHOUT, THE LORD WITH THE SOUND OF A TRUMPET. Sing to OUR GOD…And in the ninety-eighth Psalm (98 in the LXX but 99 in Hebrew), the Holy Spirit reproaches you, AND PREDICTS HIM WHOM YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE KING TO BE KING AND LORD…” – Ibid. Ch.37.
“Justin: I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot BEFORE ALL CREATURES a Beginning [Greek text has αρχη meaning a cause or beginner], [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] FROM HIMSELF…” – Ibid. Ch.61
Wow. The same Justin who said that the Father is the only God who is good says that the LORD in Genesis 19, Psalms 24, 47 and 99, which by the way is Jehovah Almight God, is actually Jesus Christ the Son of God. Who then will deny that Jehovah of the Old Testament is not fully “good”?
Tertullian – “But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source BUT FROM THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER…” – Against Praxeus Ch.4. ”
“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 [Logos – Word].” – Ibid. Ch.5.
“I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; Genesis 1:26 whereas He ought to have said, Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness, as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, Behold the man has become as one of us, Genesis 3:22 He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, Let us make; and, in our image; and, become as one of us. For with whom did He make man? And to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and the Spirit on the other, who was to sanctify man. With these did He then speak, in the Unity of the Trinity…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).” – Ibid. Ch.12
An even bigger WOW. The same Tertullian who said that the God who alone is good is the Father is the same Tertullian who says that the Father intrinsically possesses His Word and therefore the 1 God the Father includes the Son and the Spirit who are eternally generated by the Father. I don’t about you but that sounds very Trinitarian to me.
Hippolytus – “Christ’s body lay in the tomb, not emptied of divinity. Rather, while in Hades, He was in essential being with His Father. Yet, He was also in the body and in Hades. For the Son of God IS NOT CONTAINED IN SPACE, JUST AS THE FATHER IS NOT. And he comprehends ALL THINGS IN HIMSELF. – THE EXTANT WORKS AND FRAGMENTS OF HIPPOLYTUS. Commentary on Luke XXIII.
“He who is over all, God blessed, (Rom 9:5) has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, “Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:8) And well has he named Christ the Almighty. For in this he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. – Against Noetus 4
“God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world… Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, YET EXISTED IN PLURALITY. And as the Author, and fellow-Counsellor, and Framer of the things that are in formation, He begat the Word; and as He bears this Word in Himself, and that, too, as (yet) invisible to the world which is created, He makes Him visible; (and) uttering the voice first, and begetting Him as Light of Light. – Ibid. 10
Thus there appeared another One beside Himself. But when I say “another,” I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one Power which is from the All. And the Father is the All, from whom comes this Power, the Word…Thus, then, these too, though they wish it not, fall in with the truth, and admit that one God made all things. – Ibid. 11
The same Hippolytus who says the God, the Father, alone is good is the same one who says that Jesus is omnipresent, not located to space, and that the God who exists is plural because the Father begets His Word to whom He gives His very essence by virtue of Begetting but these 2 are not two Gods but One because the Father is the source and the Monarchia of the Godhead. I think that’s very Muslim of him to say (joking of course).
As we have clearly seen, the heretics such as the Muslims and Unitarians who appeal to Mark 10:18 to disprove the deity of Christ are ignorant of Truth and/or deceptive.