Skip to content

Web Research Findings

Study Question

When Jesus says "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18) and "I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (John 20:17), is he denying his own deity?

Sources Found

Jordan Hampton — "Did Jesus Deny His Divinity?" (The Analytic Christian)

URL: theanalyticchristian.com Key claims: - The phrase "except God alone" (ei me heis ho theos) appears only twice in Mark's Gospel: Mark 10:18 and Mark 2:7. Both instances begin with tis ("why"), creating an intentional verbal connection between the two passages. - This lexical parallel links the "good teacher" episode back to Mark 2:7, where scribes ask "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" — in that context, Jesus proceeds to demonstrate he possesses that divine prerogative by forgiving sins. - Cites Robert Gundry: "Jesus proceeds to answer the present question for proof of his divine possession of goodness" and borrowed the scribes' phraseology from Mark 2. - Cites Simon Gathercole: If God alone determines requirements for eternal life, and Jesus gives his own command ("sell all...follow me"), then Jesus possesses this divine prerogative. The transition from v.18 to v.19 demonstrates Jesus acting with God-like authority. - Jesus cites only commandments 5-10 (neighbor obligations), omitting commandments 1-4 (God obligations), then replaces the first tablet with his command to "follow me" — implying Jesus takes God's position in the man's priorities. Greek/Hebrew analysis: Notes the lexical link between ei me heis ho theos in Mark 2:7 and 10:18 as a deliberate Markan literary device. Relevance: Provides a strong scholarly case that Mark 10:18 is an implicit deity claim, not a denial, based on intra-Gospel literary parallels and the logic of divine prerogatives. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture — check Mark 2:7 exact Greek, verify the commandment selection pattern in Mark 10:19.

Rev. Garrick Sinclair Beckett — "No One is Good but God Alone: The Humility & Divinity of Christ in Mark 10:18" (The Lutheran Column, May 31, 2025)

URL: thelutherancolumn.com Key claims: - Jesus' statement functions as Christological instruction rather than denial of divinity. The man's flattery ("Good Teacher") contains theological truth he does not comprehend. - By questioning the term "good," Jesus redirects from works-righteousness to divine identity: "If you truly believe I am good, then recognize what that means — that I am God." - Employs Lutheran confessional theology (vere Deus et vere homo) and references the Formula of Concord (FC Ep VIII, 5-9) regarding the two natures of Christ. - Jesus' goodness derives from divine nature, not moral achievement. Verse references cited: Mark 10:17-22, Romans 3:10-12, Psalm 14:3, Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Philippians 2:5-11, Hebrews 1:3, John 10:11-18. Relevance: Confessional Lutheran analysis supporting the "implicit deity claim" reading. Notes the connection to Romans 3:10-12 / Psalm 14:3 where none being good is a universal human condition. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture — check Romans 3:10-12 and Psalm 14:3 for the "none good" theme and its OT roots.

Eric Lyons — "Did Jesus Deny Deity and Moral Perfection in Mark 10:18?" (Apologetics Press, Reason & Revelation 34.5, May 2014)

URL: apologeticspress.org Key claims: - Distinguishes two senses of agathos: humans can be called "good" (Acts 11:24 describes Barnabas as agathos), but God's goodness is absolute and supreme. Jesus uses the word in the supreme sense. - Cites Geisler and Howe's logical formulation: "Jesus was saying to him, 'Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?'... Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man." - Supporting deity passages: John 1:1, John 10:30, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 2:9. - Supporting sinlessness passages: Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5. - Direct quote: "Jesus never said what skeptics, Muslims, and others allege He said — that He was not good, or that He was not God." Greek/Hebrew analysis: Distinguishes relative vs. absolute usage of agathos. Relevance: Provides the standard logical framework for the "either deity or not good" interpretation. The two-senses-of-agathos distinction is important for the research agent to verify. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture — check Acts 11:24 for human use of agathos; verify the logical structure against the synoptic texts.

Bratcher & Nida — A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark (UBS Handbook Series, 1961)

URL: tips.translation.bible Key claims: - As the word agathos is used by Jesus it refers to moral attributes, and "here, with reference to God, is the equivalent of 'perfect.'" - The phrase heis ho theos ("one, [that is] God") is noted as potentially "the One God" with a cross-reference to Mark 2:7. - Translation note: "If, in a given language, the translation implies that God is thereby classified as a human being, the error may be avoided by translating 'no man is good: only God is good.'" - "Said" should be rendered as "asked" given the interrogative form that follows. Greek/Hebrew analysis: agathos in this context = moral perfection / "perfect" when applied to God. Notes the heis ho theos formula and its Mark 2:7 parallel. Relevance: Authoritative UBS translation handbook confirms the Mark 2:7 lexical link and the "perfection" nuance of agathos applied to God. Standard reference work for Bible translation. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture — confirm Mark 2:7 parallel phrasing in Greek text.

Christ's Words Project — Greek Analysis of Mark 10:18

URL: christswords.com Key claims: - agathos carries multiple meanings: "when applied to people, 'well-born', 'gentle', 'brave,' and 'capable.' When applied to things, it means 'serviceable', 'morally good,' and 'beneficial.'" - Proposes "capable" as a better rendering: "Why call me capable? No one is capable except one — the Divine." - Identifies translation issues in the KJV: two inserted words ("there is" and "that is") lack Greek source equivalents. The definite article before "God" is untranslated. - Claims "Jesus doesn't even say 'God is good' here, at least, not directly. There is no verb connecting 'God' with 'good.'" - Notes Matthew 19:17 difference: "In the similar verse in Matthew 19:17, God is not mentioned" — suggesting Matthew presents a different theological emphasis. Greek/Hebrew analysis: Detailed lexical analysis of agathos; notes the verbless construction in Greek; highlights synoptic divergence with Matthew. Relevance: The alternative translation "capable" is an interesting lead but needs verification. The observation about the verbless Greek construction and the Matthew divergence are both important for downstream agents. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture — parse the Greek of Mark 10:18 and Matthew 19:17 to confirm the verbless construction and synoptic differences.

John Calvin — Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke (Volume 2)

URL: ccel.org Key claims: - Calvin explicitly rejects the "implicit deity claim" reading: "I do not understand this correction in so refined a sense as is given by a good part of interpreters, as if Christ intended to suggest his Divinity." - Calvin argues Jesus' point concerns doctrinal authority, not divine identity: Christ says "Thou falsely callest me a good Master, unless thou acknowledgest that I have come from God." - The correction aims to direct the young man toward God as the source of true doctrine, maintaining "the authority of his doctrine" rather than "the essence of his Godhead." Relevance: A major Reformation commentator who dissents from the majority interpretation. Calvin sees the statement as about doctrinal authority (Jesus teaches from God) rather than an implicit deity claim. This is significant because it shows disagreement among Trinitarian scholars themselves about what the verse proves — even those who affirm Jesus' deity may not use this verse to prove it. Status: Lead — Calvin's minority position among Trinitarian commentators should be noted. The research agent should examine whether the text better supports the "doctrinal authority" reading or the "implicit deity claim" reading.

Multiple Commentators on Mark 10:18 (BibleHub Commentaries)

URL: biblehub.com Key claims (by commentator): - Matthew Poole: "not as denying that he was good... but checked him who did not believe him such, yet called him God" — the phrase proves Christ's divinity rather than denying it. - John Gill: "nor do these words at all militate against the deity of Christ... he is good in the same sense in which God is good" — Christ tacitly suggests his godhood by claiming the same goodness as God. - Bengel's Gnomon: "God is good: there is no goodness without Godhead... Why dost thou call Me good?" — Jesus refuses the title of "goodness" without recognition of his godhood, vindicating the Father. - Cambridge Bible: "Our Lord does not decline the appellation 'good.' He repels it only in the superficial sense" — the question challenges shallow understanding rather than rejecting the designation. - Pulpit Commentary: "If you call me good, believe that I am God; for no one is good" — forces recognition of Christ's divine nature to validate using "good." Relevance: Shows broad commentarial consensus (Poole, Gill, Bengel, Cambridge, Pulpit) that Jesus does not deny deity in Mark 10:18 but rather challenges the ruler to think through the implications. Status: Lead — consensus among major commentators supports the "implicit deity claim" reading, with only Calvin dissenting.

Wikipedia — John 20:28 (Scholarly References)

URL: en.wikipedia.org Key claims: - Murray J. Harris: Thomas's expression drew from liturgical forms in the LXX (Septuagint). - Augustine of Hippo: Thomas "saw and touched the man, and confessed the God whom he neither saw nor touched." - Andreas J. Kostenberger: Connects the verse to counter-imperial rhetoric against Roman emperor worship; "may on a secondary level be designed to counter Roman emperor worship," referencing Domitian's desire for address as dominus et deus noster. - Greek text: kai apekrithe ho Thomas, kai eipen auto, Ho Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou. - Grammatical debate: Both Kyrios and Theos appear in the nominative case rather than vocative. Harris contends the explicit phrase "said to Him" (eipen auto) indicates direct address, and cites Psalm 35:23 LXX as precedent for nominative-as-vocative in liturgical language. - Alternative interpretation: The nominative rather than vocative case leads some to argue Thomas was making an exclamation to God rather than addressing Jesus directly. Greek/Hebrew analysis: Nominative vs. vocative debate for ho Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou; Harris's appeal to LXX precedent (Psalm 35:23) for nominative functioning as vocative in direct address. Relevance: Critical for the John 20:17 vs. 20:28 juxtaposition. If Thomas addresses Jesus as "my God" just 11 verses after Jesus says "my God and your God," the tension must be resolved. The grammatical debate about nominative vs. vocative is a lead for the research agent. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture — parse the Greek of John 20:28, check whether eipen auto constitutes direct address, examine Psalm 35:23 LXX parallel.

Ashley Van Der Walt — "Defending the Deity of Jesus in John 20:17" (The Social Apologist)

URL: thesocialapologist.com Key claims: - Jesus' reference to "my God and your God" reflects his human nature relating to the Father while maintaining his divine nature: "does not negate His divine nature but rather showcases the fullness of His incarnation." - The "ambassador" analogy: "an ambassador refers to the king as 'my king'" without undermining the ambassador's own authority. - Supporting passages: John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3, John 10:30. Relevance: Provides the incarnational/two-natures framework for John 20:17. The ambassador analogy is a lead to evaluate. Status: Lead to verify — the two-natures framework needs to be tested against the actual biblical data, especially whether the NT itself provides this interpretive grid.

BillionBibles — "Hebrews 1:8 and John 20:17: God Called God"

URL: billionbibles.com Key claims: - Reconciles Jesus calling God "my God" (John 20:17) with God the Father calling Jesus "God" (Hebrews 1:8) through mutual recognition: the Father calls the Son "God," while the Son acknowledges the Father as "God." - Hebrews 1:10-12 echoes Psalm 102:25-27, which addresses Jehovah directly. The Father's description of Jesus in Hebrews 1:10-12 matches Yahweh's description in the Old Testament. - The reciprocal "God" language: both Persons call each other "God," reflecting distinct but complementary divine roles. Relevance: Directly addresses the Hebrews 1:8-9 / Psalm 45:6-7 two-elohim pattern and its connection to John 20:17. The Psalm 102:25-27 / Hebrews 1:10-12 connection is an additional lead. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture — check Psalm 45:6-7 Hebrew, Hebrews 1:8-12 Greek, and the Psalm 102:25-27 application to Jesus.

Multiple Sources — The Shaliach (Agency) Concept

URL: thehumanjesus.org (and related) Key claims: - In Jewish law, the agent (sheluach/sheliach) principle states: "the one sent by a man is as the man himself" (Mishnah Berakhot 5:5). - Jesus is depicted as God's authorized envoy against the background of Jewish notions of agency. As the shaliach endowed with full authority of the sender, Jesus functions as the unique emissary with all things placed in his hands. - John's gospel is defined by Father-Son language denoting subordination of the Son, yet also by the principle of agency. The Son acts in dependence upon the one who sent him. - Anti-deity interpretation: Some argue John's primary purpose is proving Yeshua to be the "sent one," the agent of God, but not God himself — agency language explains divine prerogatives without requiring ontological deity. - Pro-deity response: The shaliach concept actually supports deity because Jesus' authority exceeds any mere agent — he receives worship (John 20:28), forgives sins (Mark 2), and claims pre-existence (John 8:58). Relevance: The shaliach/agency concept is critical background for John 20:17. If "my God" language reflects the agent-sender relationship, it does not necessarily exclude deity. But this must be tested against what kind of agent Jesus claims to be — does he fit within normal agency bounds or exceed them? Status: Lead to verify against Scripture — examine John's "sent" language, check whether Jesus' claims exceed the shaliach framework.

Simon Gathercole — The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Eerdmans, 2006)

URL: amazon.com Key claims (from search summaries and secondary sources): - Challenges the commonly held view that only John's Gospel shows evidence for Jesus' heavenly identity and preexistence. - Argues Matthew, Mark, and Luke also present Jesus as having existed with the Father prior to his earthly ministry. - Supports his argument through the "I have come" sayings of Jesus and similar angelic sayings in Second Temple and Rabbinic literature. - Specifically on Mark 10:17-22: If God alone determines requirements for eternal life, and Jesus gives his own command, then Jesus possesses this divine prerogative. Relevance: Major academic monograph supporting Synoptic Christology. Gathercole's argument about divine prerogatives in Mark 10 is a key scholarly lead. Full text was not accessible. Status: Lead (paywalled) — the divine prerogatives argument should be tested against the Mark 10:17-22 text directly.

DavarLogos — "The Use of Psalm 22 (21 [LXX]) in Mark's Gospel: Intertextuality, the Scripturization of History, and Christology" (DavarLogos 20.2, 2021, pp. 1-28)

URL: academia.edu (paywalled) Key claims (from abstract/summary): - Psalm 22 enables Mark to present Jesus as both divine and human. "Jesus' despair, divine and human abandonment, and defeat are proper of human experience." - A divine-human Christology emerges from the use of Psalm 22 in Mark. - Psalm 22:1 ("my God, my God, why have you forsaken me") is the paradigmatic "my God" text on Jesus' lips. Relevance: Academic journal article connecting Psalm 22's "my God" language with Christology in Mark. The dual nature reading (divine yet crying "my God") parallels the John 20:17 question. Status: Lead (paywalled) — verify Psalm 22:1, 10 content and its "my God" language; check how Psalm 22 combines deity claims with "my God" cries.

BibleHub Study Bible — John 20:28 Commentary Collection

URL: biblehub.com Key claims: - Thomas's declaration is read as the climactic confession of John's Gospel, fulfilling the purpose stated in John 20:31 ("that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God"). - The confession echoes John's prologue (John 1:1: "the Word was God") creating an inclusio. - Jesus accepts the confession without correction — contrast with Peter in Acts 10:25-26 and the angel in Revelation 22:8-9, who both refuse worship. Relevance: The contrast between Jesus accepting Thomas's "my God" confession and angels/apostles refusing worship is a key argument. If Jesus were not God, accepting this title would be blasphemous. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture — check Acts 10:25-26, Revelation 22:8-9 for worship-refusal parallels.

Summary of Scholarly Landscape

The scholarly consensus on Mark 10:18 overwhelmingly reads the passage as an implicit Christological claim rather than a denial of deity. The dominant interpretation, supported by commentators from Poole and Gill through Bengel, the Pulpit Commentary, and modern scholars like Gundry and Gathercole, argues that Jesus' question functions as a Socratic challenge: "If only God is good, and you call me good, what are you saying about me?" The lexical parallel with Mark 2:7 (where the same "except God alone" formula appears in the context of Jesus forgiving sins) strengthens this reading. The notable dissent comes from Calvin, who reads the statement as about doctrinal authority rather than divine identity, though Calvin himself affirmed Jesus' deity on other grounds.

On John 20:17, the scholarly conversation centers on the incarnational framework. The "my God and your God" language is interpreted through the lens of Jesus' human nature relating to the Father — even the glorified Christ continues to use this language (Revelation 3:12), suggesting it reflects the permanent reality of the incarnation rather than ontological inferiority. The critical contextual counterweight is John 20:28, just eleven verses later, where Thomas declares "my Lord and my God" and Jesus accepts it. The grammatical debate about nominative vs. vocative case in John 20:28 is largely resolved by the eipen auto ("said to him") indicating direct address, supported by Murray Harris's appeal to LXX precedent. The Hebrews 1:8-9 / Psalm 45:6-7 passage provides the strongest structural parallel: the Father addresses the Son as "God" (elohim/theos) while simultaneously referring to "God, your God" — demonstrating that "my God" language is compatible with deity within the biblical framework itself.

The shaliach (agency) concept from Jewish legal tradition provides important background. Some scholars use it to explain away deity claims (Jesus acts as God's agent, not as God himself), while others argue Jesus' authority exceeds any normal agent — he receives worship, forgives sins, claims pre-existence, and accepts the title "my God." The question is not whether Jesus was sent (he was), but whether the "sent one" framework accounts for everything the texts attribute to him.

Research Directives for Downstream Agents

  1. Hampton/Gundry claim — Mark 2:7 lexical parallel: Verify that the Greek phrase ei me heis ho theos appears in both Mark 2:7 and Mark 10:18. Parse both verses to confirm the verbal link. If confirmed, this is a significant intra-Gospel literary device.

  2. Gathercole claim — commandment selection pattern in Mark 10:19: Verify that Jesus cites only commandments 5-10 (second tablet / neighbor obligations) and omits commandments 1-4 (first tablet / God obligations). Check whether "follow me" functionally replaces the first tablet.

  3. Synoptic divergence — Matthew 19:16-17 vs. Mark 10:17-18: Parse the Greek of both passages. Matthew's version reportedly reads "why askest thou me concerning that which is good?" rather than "why callest thou me good?" — verify this and assess the Christological implications of the difference. Is Matthew softening a hard saying, or preserving a different tradition?

  4. John 20:17 vs. 20:28 tension: Parse the Greek of both passages. Verify that eipen auto in John 20:28 constitutes direct address. Check whether the nominative ho Theos mou can function as vocative (Harris's claim re: Psalm 35:23 LXX). Assess whether Jesus' acceptance of Thomas's confession contrasts with worship-refusal in Acts 10:25-26 and Revelation 22:8-9.

  5. Hebrews 1:8-9 / Psalm 45:6-7 two-elohim pattern: Parse the Hebrew of Psalm 45:6-7 to verify that elohim is used for both the one addressed and the one anointing. Parse the Greek of Hebrews 1:8-9 to confirm the author applies this to the Father-Son relationship. Check whether the vocative reading of elohim in Psalm 45:6 is grammatically supported.

  6. Hebrews 1:10-12 / Psalm 102:25-27 connection: Verify that the author of Hebrews applies Psalm 102:25-27 (addressed to Yahweh in the OT) to the Son. This would demonstrate that the NT applies Yahweh texts to Jesus.

  7. Revelation 3:12 — glorified Christ's "my God" language: Verify the text and assess whether the risen, glorified Christ using "my God" four times in one verse indicates something about the permanent nature of the incarnation vs. ontological subordination.

  8. Psalm 22:1, 10 — "my God" in a Messianic psalm: Verify the content of Psalm 22 and its combination of "my God" language with divine attributes. Check whether the psalm contains deity claims alongside the "my God" cry.

  9. Romans 3:10-12 / Psalm 14:1-3 — "none good" OT background: Verify the OT background for the claim that "none is good." If this is a universal human condition, does Jesus' question in Mark 10:18 imply he stands outside this universal category (on God's side of the divide)?

  10. agathos usage scope: Verify whether agathos is used of humans elsewhere in the NT (e.g., Acts 11:24, Matthew 12:35) and whether Jesus' usage in Mark 10:18 specifies a unique, absolute sense applicable only to God.

  11. Shaliach/agency concept limits: Examine whether Jesus' claims exceed the shaliach framework. Check John 8:58 (pre-existence claim), John 5:23 (equal honor), John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") — do these fit within normal agent-sender bounds or transcend them?

  12. Calvin's "doctrinal authority" reading: Test Calvin's interpretation that Jesus means "you falsely call me a good Master unless you acknowledge I have come from God" — does the subsequent exchange about commandments and "follow me" support this reading, or does it better support the deity-claim reading?