|
LESSON 86.
“CAN NOT” FOR “DO NOT.”
699. The Greek noun, chora, means literally, “the
space or room which a thing occupies.” The word is variously
translated in the N. T.
as “country,” “land,” “field,” “coast,” and “region.” The
verb corresponding to it is choreo, and it means
literally, “to make room or space.” It is used in two
senses in the N. T. One makes room for a thing or person, by
retreating, or withdrawing; hence it comes to mean “to pass
on.” Again, one makes room beside or within oneself to
receive the thing; hence, it comes to mean, “to receive, to
contain.”
700. The word is used in Matt. 15:17, “Whatsoever
entereth in at the mouth passeth on,”¾see
R.V.The word is used likewise in this sense, Dean Alford
(rightly) holds, in 2 Peter 3:9, “Not wishing any to
perish, but all to pass on to repentance.” The
verbs are infinitives here, and we translate them
accordingly. Paul used the verb in another sense, 2 Cor.
7:2, “Receive us; we have wronged no man.” The verb
occurs in Mark 2:2: “There was no longer room
for them” (R. V.). John 2:6 tells us of water-jars
“containing two or three firkins apiece;” John 8:37,
reads, “Ye seek to kill me, because my word hath
no place in you,” (i.e. they have not given room
to it). John 21:25 again uses this same word in its
infinitive form, and we translate literally, “I suppose
even the world not to contain the books that should
be written.” In each case the word, or words, not
italicised represent choreo in the text.
701. This word choreo occurs ten times in the N.
T. We have quoted seven instances, and the remaining three
are all found in the 19th chapter of Matthew. At the 11th
verse we read, “All men can not receive
this saying [logos, “word, teaching”] save
they to whom it is given,” both in the A. V. and R.V.But
the form of the verb here is the simple indicative case,
third person, plural of the present active, and there is no
such word as “can” in the sentence. It should therefore have
been translated (as the International Commentary renders),
“All men do not receive this saying,” or
“teaching,”¾i.e.,
many reject it. The meaning is the same as expressed in John
8:37, “Ye seek to kill me because My word [logos]
hath no place in you.” The form of the
verb is precisely the same in the two passages, excepting in
the latter it is in the singular number. In John it is
declared that the logos has no place in them; in
Matthew, that men give no place to the logos. . . .
The result is, in the first case, murder; in the second,
adultery at heart.
702. Yet upon this misconstruction of Christ’s language¾by
the adroit insertion of “can”¾is
built up fallacious teaching, about “a gift of continence”
being necessary to enable a single man to lead a pure life,¾a
teaching which places the standard of purity for man as much
below the actual standard for man and woman both, set forth
in Scripture, as immorality is below morality.
703. But what is this teaching as to a “gift” for men?
Says the commentary of Patrick, Lowth, etc.: “They only
can lead a pure single life, who by a special gift of God
are enabled so to do.” Calvin’s Commentary says: “The
gift of continence is a special gift.” Burkitt: “All
men, without sinning against God, cannot abstain from
marriage, but those only to whom God has given the gift of
continence and grace of chastity.” Bishop Wordsworth (in
a book published in 1901) declares; “Continence is as
much a special charisma [gift of grace, spiritual gift]
as the gift of tongues, or prophecy, or working miracles of
any kind” This covert apology for the sin of uncleanness
among men, in spite of God’s stern commandments to the
contrary, can be found in almost every commentary of the
Protestant Church.
704. The passage is falsely applied as though referring
only to the adult male. These very commentators would
have been scandalized by the teaching that their wives,
sisters, or daughters could not keep moral except by a
special “gift.” Christ is not remarking here on the
difficulty of men living chastely, as we shall show:
He has used the same sort of expression repeatedly
elsewhere, as to its being “given” to some to receive His
teaching, to others, not. Matthew 13:11, 12 is an instance.
His own teaching, not the disciples’ remarks, is the
logos which the men do not receive. The Lord even
plainly declares the precise contrary to the view that men
“can not receive” by saying that some are born
with a natural self-control over sensual tendencies;
others have not been
trusted to be self-controlled, but have been mutilated;
others again practice continence “for the kingdom of
heaven’s sake.” We could have no clearer demonstration that
“All men DO NOT RECEIVE” this teaching of the Lord,
than in the fact that theologians deny His plain statements
here, by building upon them a teaching that men
cannot
practice self-control apart from a special, miraculous
“gift” of grace.
705. The argument on which this vicious teaching of a
need of a special “gift” rests is, that the Greek word
choreo signifies “capacity.” So it does; but not
limited capacity. Whether the capacity be limited,
expansive, or abundant depends entirely upon conditions
external to the scope of meaning of the word. To illustrate:
In John 21:25, it is, practically speaking, immaterial to
the sense conveyed, whether we say, with the A. V., “the
world could not contain the books,” or, more correctly,
with the R.V.“the world would not contain the books.”
And why? Because the world is inanimate, and its size
arbitrarily fixed. Not because this verb means
equally “could contain” or “would contain”; the latter is
the proper sense here, on the evidence of the R.V. So as to
the water-pots, at the Marriage Feast in Cana: Being of the
limits they are, they both “contained” and “could contain”
only so much; they had limited capacity. But this is
proved by the nature of the vessel, not by the use of
the word choreo. But moral capacity is not
limited after this fashion. No man, no matter how
excellently born, is bound to live within the moral limits
of his natural birth. These very theologians have no object
in preaching the Gospel if they do not include the teaching
that the atonement and redemption of Jesus Christ is the
precise remedy for the enlargement of moral capacity,¾or,
at the very least, that humanity is capable of such
development, since otherwise there is no need for preaching
righteousness.
706. But does it not say in verse 12, “He that is
ABLE to receive it, let him receive it?” Yes, and here,
in the verb “receive” we have the remaining two uses of the
verb choreo. But what of it? Is that any more than to
say as Jesus did, a dozen times, “He that hath ears to
hear, let him hear?” Does the latter signify
incapacity of a natural sort, or indifference of a
moral sort? Jesus said, John 6:65, “No one CAN
[using the word translated “able” in our Lesson] come
unto Me, excepting it were given unto him of my Father.”
Does that shut all out excepting those who receive a special
and miraculous “gift of coming?” We know very well that all
may come that “will come,” and we know, too, that all
who stand about waiting until a special “gift of coming” is
bestowed will be left outside. And so, as to this fabricated
“gift of continence;” no such special “gift” has been
bestowed, or ever will be bestowed, excepting in the
ordinary way that all morality comes; all morality is a
“gift” from God. Jesus Christ exclaims in another place,
John 8:43, “Why do ye not understand My speech? even
because ye CANNOT hear My word.” Does this excuse those
who do not hear? Not at all, for He says again, John 12:48,
“He that . . . receiveth not My words hath one that
judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall
judge him in the last day.” More to the same import will
be found in Mark 4:11,12, 23-25; Luke 8:10; John 3:27;
12:37-40.
707. A precisely similar manipulation of Scripture,
excusing that sin which
Jesus Christ condemned as heart adultery, in Matthew 5:28,¾and
concerning which He plainly taught there, man must rid
himself, if even at the cost of a right hand or right eye,
or else go into hell fire,¾is
to be found in 1 Corinthians 7:9, which reads, “If they
can not contain,” whereas the original says “do not.”
The meaning is perfectly obvious when the Apostle is so
read,¾“If
they do not behave themselves with self-control, they would
better marry,”¾is
the thought expressed. |