There is only one who is good
A robust interpretation of biblical texts requires not just a close reading of individual verses, but a nuanced understanding of their context within the broader biblical narrative. Among the verses often scrutinized for their theological implications is Matthew 19:17, which has been subjected to divergent interpretations by Unitarian and Trinitarian scholars. In this article, we aim to present a compelling argument that supports a Unitarian interpretation of this crucial verse, underlining its consistency with the wider biblical context and highlighting the logical challenges it presents to the Trinitarian perspective.
Contextual Examination of Matthew 19:17
Before delving into our central argument, it is essential to understand the immediate context of Matthew 19:17. The verse is part of a dialogue between Jesus and a young man who seeks advice on gaining eternal life. Jesus responds, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” This exchange sets the stage for our subsequent examination.
Detailed Analysis of Matthew 19:17
In His response, Jesus makes a clear distinction between Himself and God, saying, “There is only one who is good,” and implying that it is God. This distinction undercuts the notion that Jesus is claiming divinity for Himself and instead reinforces the idea that God alone possesses ultimate goodness. This is a critical point, one that is often glossed over in Trinitarian interpretations.
Examination of Wider Biblical Context Supporting the Unitarian Interpretation
Jesus’s demarcation between Himself and God in Matthew 19:17 aligns with broader biblical themes of monotheism. The Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4—”Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one”—emphasizes the singularity of God, a theme that persists throughout the Old and New Testaments. In the New Testament, Jesus repeatedly refers to the Father as “my God” (e.g., John 20:17), further reinforcing this concept.
Logical Analysis of the Unitarian Interpretation
The Unitarian interpretation of Matthew 19:17 offers a logical and coherent understanding of the verse within the wider biblical narrative. Jesus’s distinction between Himself and God, the ultimate good, supports the Unitarian belief in the singularity of God. This interpretation aligns seamlessly with the consistent theme of monotheism throughout the Bible.
The Trinitarian Interpretation and Its Paradoxes
The Trinitarian interpretation of Matthew 19:17 presents its own set of challenges. In attempting to ascribe divinity to Jesus, Trinitarians grapple with the apparent paradox of Jesus’s own words, in which He draws a distinction between Himself and God. This inconsistency presents a significant hurdle for the Trinitarian viewpoint.
When Jesus states, “There is only one who is good,” He makes a clear distinction between Himself and God. If we take Trinitarianism’s fundamental tenet that God consists of three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and that each person is fully God, then it would follow that Jesus, as the Son, is fully God.
However, in this passage, Jesus attributes ultimate goodness exclusively to God, implying that He and God are not identical. This seems to contradict the idea of Jesus being fully God and yet somehow distinct from the one He acknowledges as the only one who is good. This results in a logical inconsistency or paradox: if Jesus is fully God (as per Trinitarian belief), why would He distinguish Himself from the ultimate good, which is a divine attribute?
This is not merely a question of semantics. It calls into question the fundamental assumptions of Trinitarian doctrine and demonstrates why Matthew 19:17 is a difficult verse for Trinitarians to reconcile with their beliefs.
Comparison of Unitarian and Trinitarian Interpretations
In contrast to the Trinitarian interpretation’s difficulties, the Unitarian interpretation of Matthew 19:17 provides a more consistent and coherent understanding of the verse within its broader biblical context. This consistency lends credibility to the Unitarian viewpoint and underscores the challenges faced by the Trinitarian interpretation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our exploration of Matthew 19:17 affirms a Unitarian interpretation that aligns with the wider biblical narrative and the persistent theme of monotheism. This interpretation, grounded in both local and broader contexts, offers a coherent and logically consistent understanding of Jesus’s dialogue with the young man. It is our hope that this analysis deepens your understanding of this pivotal verse and stimulates further theological reflection.