![\"Chinese](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/307\/2017\/09\/ChineseJesus-1.jpg\")
<\/a>I have always been fascinated with the story of the rich young ruler (recorded in Mark 10, Matthew 19 and Luke 18) as it bears on divine goodness, Jesus, and us. Among other things, I have been struck by Jesus\u2019 response at the beginning and close of his interaction with the man. Here are the opening and closing statements in context: \u201cAnd as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and\u00a0knelt before him and asked him, \u2018Good Teacher, what must I do to\u00a0inherit eternal life?\u2019\u00a0<\/sup><\/strong>And Jesus said to him,\u00a0\u2018Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone\u2019\u201d\u00a0(Mark 10:17-18; ESV). After Jesus notes the importance of following the commandments and the man replies that he has obeyed them from his youth (Mark 10:19-20), the story continues: \u201cAnd Jesus,\u00a0looking at him,\u00a0loved him, and said to him,\u00a0\u2018You lack one thing: go,\u00a0sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have\u00a0treasure in heaven; and come, follow me\u2019\u201d (Mark 10:21; ESV). The account ends with the man walking away disheartened because he had great wealth (Mark 10:22).<\/p>\n Jesus\u2019 instruction is startling. Jesus goes beyond the explicit commands of Scripture and tells the man he still lacks something. He needs to go sell all his possessions, give the proceeds to the poor to obtain treasures in heaven, and then follow him. Only God can rightfully make such demands. I believe that is why Jesus asks the question of the man, \u201cWhy do you call me good?\u201d<\/p>\n Only God is good. Either Jesus is telling the man not to call him good because God alone is good, or Jesus is claiming that just as God alone is good, he is truly good and therefore God, thereby inviting the man to look to him as Lord.[1]<\/a> Now if Jesus is truly good, then he is God. And then, the person had better expect a divine demand on his life. It is not something he can take or leave as mere opinion. Nor will Jesus permit the man to treat him as a good moral teacher who simply gives important ethical instructions.[2]<\/a> C. S. Lewis puts the latter point this way in Mere Christianity<\/em>:<\/p>\n I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: \u201cI\u2019m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don\u2019t accept his claim to be God.\u201d That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic\u2014on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg\u2014or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.[3]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, if Jesus is God, as Lewis maintains in view of Jesus\u2019 claims recorded in Scripture, then what does that mean for how we view goodness and God? For starters, it does not mean that we have to separate the God of the Old Testament from the New, limiting the gospel of gracious goodness to the New, as if we were following in Marcion\u2019s footsteps. After all, Jesus claims that he comes not to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). Or, as John\u2019s Gospel puts it, Jesus is the glory of God in the flesh and the fullness of grace and truth (John 1:14).[4]<\/a> Grace in fullness in Jesus replaces the grace that foreshadows it in Moses (John 1:16-17).[5]<\/a> Remember that\u00a0God discloses to Moses that his glory is his goodness, highlighting first and foremost his mercy and grace, steadfast love and faithfulness, without discounting in any way his holy judgment on sin (See Exodus 33:18-20; 34:6-7).<\/p>\n While accounting for Jesus\u2019 deity in our understanding of divine goodness and conception of God does not involve separating the Old and New Testaments, or discounting the former, it does entail that we highlight Jesus\u2019 significance for disclosing the fullness of God\u2019s glorious goodness in all its facets. After all, according to John 1:18, he alone has been in the presence of God, seeing God face to face, and revealing God to us. He is the supreme exegesis of the Godhead.\u00a0Although Jesus does not exhaust the Godhead (Christo-monism), he\u00a0is not one-third God (Partialism), a second of three Gods (Tritheism), a second mode of God (Modalism), or a lesser God (Subordinationism) either. He is fully God with the Father in the Spirit who is also God.<\/p>\n I will save further consideration of the topic of the Trinity and the Spirit for another time, as I wish to focus consideration on Jesus\u2019 significance for our understanding of divine glory and goodness, as well as our own. Jesus is the fullness of God\u2019s mercy and grace and steadfast love and faithfulness in the flesh. He\u00a0reveals these qualities beyond all measure as he takes\u00a0God\u2019s judgment on our sin upon himself in his holy life at the cross. As John the Baptist declared, he is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29; cf. 53:5-6).<\/p>\n What do we learn about God\u2019s glorious goodness by gazing upon Jesus? And how does this discussion bear upon our goodness and salvation? There is no depth to which God won\u2019t go\u2014no suffering or shame he won\u2019t endure\u2014to destroy sin and shame\u2019s hold on us and draw us to himself? We cannot make ourselves\u00a0good and save ourselves. We cannot\u00a0pay our way to heaven\u00a0by riches or religious merit, wisdom or power. We\u00a0have to surrender all of it and throw ourselves upon God\u2019s mercy and follow Jesus, just like Jesus\u2019 disciples (Mark 10:23-31). Salvation is only possible with God, as Jesus tells his disciples following his exchange with the rich young ruler (Mark 10:27).<\/p>\n In a Moralistic Therapeutic Deistic Age<\/a>, people often assume that if they are good, God will bless them with happiness and give them eternal life. We would do well to ponder what Timothy Keller asserted<\/a> in\u00a0his assessment of the rich young ruler. It applies in an MTD age as well: \u201cJesus smashed two of the rich young ruler\u2019s assumptions: Christianity is something you can ADD and something you can DO.\u201d\u00a0As I see it, Christianity is Jesus who summons us to a new way of being in the world as we follow him.<\/p>\n We cannot add Jesus to our lives and attain salvation on our own. Jesus must become our life.\u00a0Salvation, goodness and the truly good life is only possible with God who makes it actual by doing the unimaginable in Jesus. Jesus died in our place, hanging between two thieves and\u00a0being buried in a rich man\u2019s grave, though he had done no wrong: \u201cAnd they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth\u201d (Isaiah 53:9; ESV). Jesus\u2019 merciful and gracious goodness\u00a0is radical, self-sacrificial and severe, as God grants spiritual criminals and paupers the riches of his\u00a0eternal goodness and life. Salvation is only possible through him.<\/p>\n _______________<\/p>\n [1]<\/a>Here I differ with William T. Lane who writes that \u201cJesus\u2019 intention is not to pose the question of his own sinlessness or oneness with the Father, but to set in correct perspective the honor of God.\u201d William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark<\/em>, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 2nd<\/sup> revised edition (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1974), page 366. In my estimation, it is not an either\/or. I believe Jesus poses both his own deity in an indirect, inviting manner, and<\/u> sets in correct perspective the honor of God. For various commentaries engaging this text, refer here<\/a>.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a>Immanuel Kant provides us with an interesting example of one who proves ambiguous on Jesus\u2019 identity as a moral archetype. Wayne P. Pomerleau\u2019s article at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philisophy<\/em> on Kant\u2019s philosophy of religion provides the following statement<\/a>: \u201cIn the second book [in Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone<\/em>], Jesus of Nazareth is presented as an archetype symbolizing our ability to resist our propensity to evil and to approach the virtuous ideal of moral perfection.\u00a0What Kant does not say is whether or not, in addition to being a moral model whose example we should try to follow, Jesus is also of divine origin in some unique manner attested to by miracles.\u00a0Just as he neither denies nor affirms the divinity of Christ, so Kant avoids committing himself regarding belief in miracles, which can lead us into superstition (Religion<\/em>, pp. 51, 54, 57, 74, 77, and 79-82; for more on the mystery of the Incarnation, see\u00a0Theology<\/em>, pp. 264-265).\u201d<\/p>\n [3]<\/a>C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity<\/em> (New York: HarperCollins, 1952), page 52.<\/p>\n