The Bible Doesn't Moralise

8/3/2019 The Bible Doesn't Moralise

1/19

APPARENTLY MORALISING COMPARATIVES

Don't; Not; Rather

This is an excerpt from The Smith&Smith Scripture Commentaries,

available without any cost, for download, at...

http://sites.google.com/site/freecommentary

The Bible is not full of moralising,but you need some help to see past the 'Don't sin' verses which give

the wrong impression.

It is saying, positively, 'Do Love God';It is saying 'There is something better than best-on-earth';

It is telling us, without sermonising, about the Spirit of God;It is prophesying the promised future

-- but it is not moralising against joy or sex or riches or feasting or

drunkenness or singing, or even sin, except on a basis of comparisonsbetween good (or feel-good) things.

1. Emphatic Comparisons: 'Better; Rather'

Here are two 'ordinary' comparatives, grabbing your attention by

proposing unthinkable things. Firstly:

Heb 11:24-26 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused tobe called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

25 choosing rather to share ill treatment with the people of God,than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;26 accounting the reproach of Christ greater riches than the

treasures of Egypt: for he looked unto the recompense of reward.

Can you see that the moralising about 'sin' is added for effect, but that

the main comparison is that "pleasure is enjoyable and treasures arevaluable, but there is something much greater". It only 'works' if you

wantto pursue for yourself the greatest riches possible, and want thelongest-lasting enjoyments, and are willing to calculate the optimum

gain ('recompense of reward'), on the basis of good vs better.

To let it sink in, until you can say 'sin is good'!, here is the dissection:

ill-treatment is bad

choosing God pleases Godenjoyment is enjoyable

choosing sin does not please God


2/19

sin feels good, but only for a short whilereproach is bad

treasures are goodEgypt offers treasures but does not choose God

choosing Christ leads to a good recompense and reward

choose God rather than sinchoose Christ rather than Egypt

Choose ill-treatment and reproach rather than to reject God andChrist

Reject sin, enjoyment and treasures since there is more, better and

longer-lasting gain in Christ

Here is another ordinary comparative with a moralising tone:

Psa 37:16 Better is a little that the righteous hath Than the

abundance of many wicked.

The implicit reference is primarily about food andwealth: Better thaneating rich fare with the wicked in their prosperity, is to eat little and

poor food with those you trust:

Pro 15:16-17 Better is little, with the fear of Jehovah, Than great

treasure and trouble therewith.17 Better is a dinner of herbs, where love is, Than a stalled ox and

hatred therewith.

Pro 17:1 Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith, Than ahouse full of feasting with strife.

But the message is not aboutfood and drink! Nor about gluttony, orthe goodness of fasting!

It contrasts righteousness and wickedness, using the choice of

righteousness over food, as a vehicle only.There may come a time when the righteous have to go hungry, yes,

while the wicked feast, certainly, but the point is to tell us of therelative spiritual value of spiritual things.

To say 'better to starve than to give in to sin' is the attention-getter,but the sin is real wickedness, not eating!

If food were evil, the comparison is arbitrary moralising (Do as I say),but if food is 'good' (as it surely is, everywhere in the Bible) then the

shock-value is there, and the lesson is just, not arbitrary -- It forcesyou to think through what it means to eat the flesh of Christ, and to

drink his blood. By that time you have forgotten about ritualfasting or


3/19

feasting, and are thinking about... hypocrisy vs listening to the wordsof the true prophets sent from God.

The thrust of these sayings is not a moral condemnation of food or

riches, but is a prophetic condemnation of religious hypocrites feasting

while martyring the prophets, such as John the Baptist in the dungeonwhile Herod celebrated with dance.

The use of 'food' in the saying is to supply a normally good thing --abundant rich food -- for comparison with a spiritually good thing --

righteousness and 'delight in the abundance of peace' (Psa 37:11 But

the meek shall inherit the land, And shall delight themselves in theabundance of peace.)

Then it adds the shocking thought, that there is something far better

in the end, worth sacrificing the previous 'best'.

It would not work, with any common sense, if its intention was simplyto say, moralistically:

'Anything is better than that evil filthy food and money, even being

holy!'

The anatomy of the verse is:

Righteous is good, and wicked is badAbundance is good, and little is bad

Righteous is better than abundanceLittle is less bad than wickedness

'Better' is used in two different ways:

1. In English, 'better' is often 'better than bad' ('better than a slapin the belly with a wet fish')

or 'an improvement on a bad situation' (e.g. sickness getting

better).

We need to clarify the ambiguity with creative sayings such as 'lessbad' ' lesser of two evils' 'the good is enemy of the best'.

2. In the Bible, 'better' is 'better than something already good'.Thus...

wisdom is sweeter than honeywords of truth are better than food

righteousness is more valuable than moneyeternal life is longer lasting than gold

the pearl of greatest price is worth more than all the others put


4/19

together

The Biblical usage is stronger, more finely discriminating, and moreaccurate to the basic meaning 'good, better, best'.

When we hear that 'being filled with the spirit is better thandrunkenness', we read it in the Bible, and it needs translation into

English, as 'Drunk is best, until you taste the true Spirit!'

These spiritual-physical comparisons are not 'moral' figures of speech,

but are pointing us to deeper things first and foremost. As propheciesthey may also come true in this realm (fat rich Pharisees vs oppressed

and afflicted disciples), but that is not moralising either.

2. NOT... but... = not simply, but also

The loss of the negative force is seen even in English 'not only... butalso...'. The 'not' has no practical negative force on what is listed, but

only negative force on the 'only' (and the 'but' has no adversativeforce either), so that it means 'both this and also that'.

Joh 12:44 And Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me,believeth not [simply] on me, but [also] on him that sent me.

[Joh 12:46 "I am come a light into the world, that whosoeverbelieveth on me may not abide in the darkness."

says that they do 'believe on me']

1Co 4:19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will; and I will

know, not [merely] the word of them that are puffed up, but thepower.

1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word [alone], but inpower.

2Co 4:18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but

[rather] at the things which are not seen: for the things which areseen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

2Co 7:12 So although I wrote unto you, I wrote not [simply] forhis cause that did the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered the

wrong, but [also] that your earnest care for us might be mademanifest unto you in the sight of God.


5/19

This construction acts as a comparative, more than as an adversative-- two similarthings rather than two 'opposite' ideas.

This is an obvious 'not... but...' comparative:

Zec 4:6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is theword of Jehovah unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by

power, but by my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts.

It forces you to make fine but relevant distinctions between various

methods.

There are several interpretations of...

1Pe 3:21 which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even

baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but theinterrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the

resurrection of Jesus Christ;

..but all point to the more important 'appeal', and don't necessarilyinvalidate water baptism.

Here is an implicit Not... (but...):

1Th 4:4-5 that each one of you know how to possess himself of hisown vessel [but] in sanctification and honor, 5 not in the passion

of lust, even as the Gentiles who know not God;

It is not denying passion and lust in love-making! There is no 'sin' in

being sexually aroused with your own wife! It is saying thatsanctification and honour are uppermost and primary and are

overriding considerations (not in opposition).

'They didn't sin' is another negative, not to be taken literally:

Joh 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents:

but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

..You could insert '(The point) is not (so much) sin, (as) an opportunity

to manifest forgiveness of sin'.

To further help you grasp what I'm saying (I am saying that 'not' does

not always mean 'not'), think of how there are alternative meaningsfor 'plural'.


6/19

E.g. Gods (Eloh-im) and Beasts (Behem-oth) are more like singular

'intensives', The One God, The Beast.Or 'dative' ('given to') in case-ending can mean 'locative' ('located

at'), although the spelling is the same.

'Perfect tense' can mean 'present drama' in Greek.

Well, likewise, 'not' has other meanings in other languages, thansimply 'negation'.

In English in-flammable means 'positively flammable', for example.

The spelling and sound or morphology (form) of the grammar (e.g. alabel 'negative; plural; dative; perfect') is quite different to... the

function (e.g. 'intensifier; locative; present drama') which properly

belongs to 'semantics' (who does what to whom; how, when, whereand why); But further than that, the interpretation, is the goalof

considering forms, syntax, semantics and functions -- it is what ourbrains learn to do with language. We recognise sick jokes, irony,

disguised threats, and... when 'not' should not mean 'not'.

Other Examples...

Jer 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in

the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning

burnt-offerings or sacrifices:

Jer 7:23 but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken untomy voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; andwalk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with

you.

Our initial reaction to this verse is 'But He did. He gave Israel books of

instructions about sacrifices when they left Egypt.

Moses emphasised this point repeatedly, even while saying 'keep

these statutes', that Yahweh was desiring a compliant heart (not a

legalistic obedience).

It is true that the Ten Commandments don't explicitly mention ritual

sacrificial regulations, but are summed up as 'Love Yahweh; Love your

neighbour', but Moses also emphasises to keep allthe laws.

(It is also possible that Yahweh is saying: 'I didn't command you tooffer children as innocent sacrifices Jer 7:31 And they have built the


7/19

high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, toburn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded

not, neither came it into my mind.)

In this example, 'You won't be speaking' shows how the 'negative'

does not mean what it literally says:

Mat 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father

that speaketh in you.

..The men certainly wouldbe speaking, but the focus is on the HolySpirit.

Joh 10:18 No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down ofmyself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it

again. This commandment received I from my Father.

..Act 3:14-15 "But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked

for a murderer to be granted unto you, 15 and killed the Prince oflife; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.", and

others say very clearly that they did kill him. The focus however is hiswilling self-sacrifice.

Php 2:4 not looking each of you to his own things, but each of youalso to the things of others.

..The word 'also' tells us that 'looking after your own things' is notexcluded.

In fact the combination 'Not... but...' seems to be an idiom which loses

any negative force. The 'Not' becomes a comparative ofslight

inferiority.

It is as if to say:

'The next bestthing to being filled with the spirit is to be drunk'.

Eph 5:18 And be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but befilled with the Spirit;

or 'The closest thing I can compare 'Wisdom' to is many costly

jewels, much fine gold and very pure silver':

Pro 3:13-15 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, And the manthat getteth understanding. 14 For the gaining of it is better than

the gaining of silver, And the profit thereof than fine gold. 15 She


8/19

is more precious than rubies: And none of the things thou canstdesire are to be compared unto her.

'Honey is second best, second only to understanding'.

Pro 24:13-14 My son, eat thou honey, for it is good; And the

droppings of the honeycomb, which are sweet to thy taste: 14 Soshalt thou know wisdom to be unto thy soul; If thou hast found it,

then shall there be a reward, And thy hope shall not be cut off.

Compare the idiomatic combination of 'On the one hand, but on the

other hand' (e.g. Heb 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; butthere one, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.) -- the 'but' forces a

contrast, but also draws all (positive) focus onto its half of the contrast

NOT... = not so much... but actually...

Mat 10:20 For it is not ye [alone] that speak, but [really] the Spirit ofyour Father that speaketh in you.

1Co 4:14 I write not these things to shame you, but to admonish youas my beloved children.

Here a fine distinction is made between near-synonyms in Hebrew...

Joh 3:17 For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the

world; but that the world should be saved through him.Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I

judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save theworld.

We hear them as opposites, but for God to rescue the oppressed is thesame as judging the oppressor.

Joh 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. [after the flesh]

..is followed by...

Joh 8:16 Yea and if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am notalone, but I and the Father that sent me.

Jesus does go on to judge...

Joh 5:22 For neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hathgiven all judgment unto the Son;

Joh 8:26 I have many things to speak and to judge concerning


9/19

you: howbeit he that sent me is true; and the things which I heardfrom him, these speak I unto the world.

Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment came I into this world, thatthey that see not may see; and that they that see may become

blind.

The 'not... but...' idiom is implicit here:

Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy,

and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

The 'comparative' thought behind it is clearer in an earlier statement...

1Sa 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath Jehovah as great delight in

burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Jehovah?

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fatof rams.

Eph 6:12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against

the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of

this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in theheavenlyplaces.

..This well-misunderstood scripture is not trying to inform us of

spiritual entities beyond our knowledge, but of the Devil's spiritual

seed -- men. It is saying that the battle is against higher authorities,

such as the Jewish religious order who were always trying to kill offthe message of good news. These higher enemies were flesh andblood, but not common enemy combatants. To fight them required

different weapons than that of an army! After all, the ruling authorities

had the bigger and nastier army, and Christians are not called toarmed insurrection -- they would instead rely on God, and the next

age. Similar is...

Eph 2:2 wherein ye once walked according to the course of this

world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit

that now worketh in the sons of disobedience;

NOT... = not really... but actually...

Rom 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is

that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of


10/19

the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not[necessarily] of men, but [certainly] of God.

3. DON'T... BUT... = Rather instead do this

This is the same principle as 'Not... but...' but is more likely to be

wrongly taken legalistically or over-literally.

'Don't' is not to be interpreted as 'Don't do such-and-such', but as 'but

instead do this'. The emphasis is on the '..but instead'. It is a 'catch-and-release' figure of speech, which hooks your attention with

something like 'Don't breathe air!', then resolves the paradox with'Instead receive the Spirit!'.

Jesus healed one man and they all rightlymarvelled...

Joh 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all thingsthat himself doeth: and greater works than these will he show him,

that ye may marvel.

..then said...Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that

are in the tombs shall hear his voice,

Jesus is not contradicting himself, but saying, 'even greater marvels'

are in store.

E.g. The Sermon on the Mount The point is not that the old

teaching is to be ignored, but that the new teaching comes overwith even greater emphasis than before.

The first two examples have only the 'but'. The unexpressed 'Don't' is

to be understood as 'Don't be complacent or frightened by the old

commandment; rather be even more challenged by what I say itmeans...

Mat 5:21-22 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time,Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the

judgment: 22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angrywith his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever

shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; andwhosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.

Mat 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit


11/19

adultery: 28 but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on awoman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in

his heart.

Does that mean you may murder and adulterate? No! It means: Listen

to the stronger and better way.

Here is the 'Don't... But...' combination:

Mat 5:34 but I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by the

heaven, for it is the throne of God;Mat 5:37 But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and

whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.

The proper interpretation should go 'It is better to swear not at all, and

merely say Yes, or No, without an oath, than to swear falsely'.

The same thought had been earlier expressed as a simplecomparative:

Ecc 5:5 Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou

shouldest vow and not pay.

Without that viewpoint, we get confused as to why Jesus swears an

oath in Revelation, or why Paul partakes in vows, or why courts askwitnesses to swear on the Bible.

Here is another example from the Sermon...

Mat 6:31 Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or,What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32 For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your

heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these

things shall be added unto you.

The passage acknowledges that these necessities of life are indeednecessary, and will be supplied. It suggests a higher way with a higherreward, but does not despise the need for food or clothing. If the

kingdom despised the necessities of life, the advice would have nofoundation, but would be two separate unjustified sayings:

Gentiles are silly to want to stay alive;

You are wise to expect that the way to get these things is to not


12/19

want them.

Next, we hear two initially apparent opposites, either 'destroy' or'fulfil', but the sense is to distinguish between close synonyms, "not so

much to 'abrogate', but to 'bring to its natural end'.". The sense is of

two equivalentresults...

Mat 5:17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets:I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

The translation has not been helpful.Notice that he was introducing the Sermon on the Mount with the first

of many 'Don't ... but...' comparisons, and was going to use otherarresting figures of speech ('Blessed are the cursed').

So when you come across something not so clear...

Mat 6:19-20 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth,where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through

and steal: 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, whereneither moth nor rust doth consume, and where thieves do not

break through nor steal: 21 for where thy treasure is, there will thy

heart be also.

..This is not teaching 'Don't ever store up anything, like foodstuffs forthe winter, or money for a journey', but have your heart right before

God, and store up with Him what is necessary for that time ahead,exactly as you already know how to, with things of this earth.

General Principle: The intended contrast is easily misreadas 'normalway vs new instructions, about earthlygoods'. That is an over-literal

and legalistic reading. Reread it to see it shouting 'earthly vs

heavenly'. When you let that sink in, the focus shifts away from 'Howto run your life on earth differently' (a false slant) to 'How to run your

new spiritual life, taking lessons from common sense, and applyingthem to unseen valuables'.

Eventually you begin to hear 'Be greedy, acquisitive and avaricious forspiritual wealth'.

If you don't yet want to go that far in separating physical fromspiritual, try a compromise interpretation: Since we are selfish, it may

be a lost cause to say 'Don't be selfish' so it is more like a lateralapproach to making us selfless: 'Turn your selfishness thatway

instead (and normal life will change appropriately)' -- e.g. you might


13/19

become more generous with your stores, and value them more for thatreason and purpose). Once again, the focus is not on the stores, but

on the heart approach to treasures on earth or treasures of spirit.

Here is the same 'Don't... But...' separated by several verses, and

without the 'Don't...But...' ofMat_6:19-20

Luk 12:20-21 But God said unto him, Thou foolish one, this night isthy soul required of thee; and the things which thou hast prepared,

whose shall they be? 21 So is he that layeth up treasure for

himself, and is not rich toward God.

Luk 12:33 Sell that which ye have, and give alms; make foryourselves purses which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that

faileth not, where no thief draweth near, neither moth destroyeth.

It uses something we all know how to do (like enjoy honey or desire

money or get drunk or dress up to impress) and then shows you howto use those desires to please God. It does not condemn the desire,

rather it presumes it, and then directs it more appropriately.

So it is not the love of good things which is evil in itself, but the

excluding of God from your desires, in order to please only yourself.Jesus himself urges us to store up a treasure of heavenly money for

ourselves!

The same idea was earlier expressed in the following comparative:

Psa 119:14 I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, As much

as in all riches.

Here is the same 'Don't... But...' in disguise.

1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which

some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and havepierced themselves through with many sorrows.

It is not money which is evil, nor even the love of it! Rather it is theabuse of the worth of money and the lack of love for the heavenly

currency. Money in itself is the quintessential 'good' of this life, and itsworth is clearly shown in supplying food and clothing to the poor. Its

abuse is clearly shown in sumptuous living and luxurious clothing. Theproper love of treasure is to gain God's favour by being wise with the

mammon of this world.


14/19

Here is a 'Don't... but...' translated as a 'not... and...':

Joe 2:13 and rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn

unto Jehovah your God [and not to idols -- is the usual emphasis];

for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abundant inlovingkindness, and repenteth him of the evil.

It doesn't mean 'Don't fast and pray' but means 'Do get upset; don't

just put on the show of it' 'turn from false religion to true religion'.

Probable...

Luk 23:28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of

Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your

children.

Possible...

Joh 5:45 Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there isone that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your

hope.

'NOT' is not always 'NEGATIVE', but is merely 'EMPHATIC

POSITIVE'

The point of any figure of speech is to gain attention or traction. Herethe technique is 'Emphatic Contrast' -- The point is not negativity,

but emphasis.

We mis-read Biblical 'negatives' as injunctions -- 'Do notdo this' --

rather than as 'emphatic positives' -- 'No, not that way, this way'. Theinjunction focuses negativity upon itself; The contra-positives throws

extra and positive focus awayfrom itself, onto the contrasting

alternative.

Joe 2:13 and rend your heart, and not your garments, and turnunto Jehovah your God; for he is gracious and merciful, slow to

anger, and abundant in lovingkindness, and repenteth him of the

evil.

Similarly with 'Rejoice not!':


15/19

Luk 10:20 Nevertheless in this rejoice not, that the spirits aresubject unto you; but rejoice that your names are written in

heaven.

..The meaning (Notice the 'but' lurking alongside a contra-positive) is

'Be even gladder that your names are written in heaven' (The meaningis not to stifle your natural joy). The next verse has Jesus (and his

Father) rejoicing...

Luk 10:21 In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and

said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thoudidst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst

reveal them unto babes: yea, Father; for so it was well-pleasing inthy sight.

Jesus gave them a more accurate perspective; not a rebuke, but acommendation. 'You think that's good? What's waiting for you is even

better!'

'Work not!'

It is senseless to interpret the following:

Joh 6:27 Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the foodwhich abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give

unto you: for him the Father, even God, hath sealed.

..to mean 'Don't work for a living'. What it means is 'Work even harderfor the more enduring food'.

Similarly Isaiah, which Christ is expounding, was telling us to listen:

Isa 55:2-3 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not

bread? and your labor for that which satisfieth not? hearkendiligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul

delight itself in fatness. 3 Incline your ear, and come unto me;

hear, and your soul shall live: and I will make an everlasting

covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

..I.e. Feast upon My counsel with more zeal than an ordinary feast.

'You are used to spending money on what you like -- honey, wine, oil,

fruit -- Well come to Me and you will be satisfied with the best of thebest!' The question is 'Why miss out!' He is not talking about the

spending of money, because the heavenly bread is offered freely, butis contrasting Adam's curse (labour, bread, constant need, thorns and


16/19

thistles(13) (Gen 3:19 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust

thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.) with Christ's covenant (1Co11:24-25 "and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This

is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 In

like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the newcovenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance

of me." -- boundless forgiveness(7), eternity, Life, Son of David).

As such, the moneyis not in focus, and it is misdirected to think it is.

The 'not' is simply an attention getter. The 'but' re-directs your

attention.

General Principle: Thepunchline outweighs what is first mentioned.

Pay attention to it, not to the lead-in.

In English we tend to put the main clause first, with subordinatethoughts to follow. But 'Don't... but...' puts the main thought second,

and English speakers get tripped up.

'Don't get drunk!'

Eph 5:18-19 And be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be

filled with the Spirit; 19 speaking one to another in psalms andhymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your

heart to the Lord;

..The punchline (pardon the pun) is 'Be filled with the spirit'. There isa comparison being made showing that being filled with the spirit isa similar, but even better, experience to being drunk.

We tend to hear the first clause as moralising to us, and then, see the

'but' as subordinate, and easily conveniently overlook the eternalpromise, offreedom from moralising, at the heart of Christianity!!

It should be understood as:

'When you have no real God in life, the very best thing some of you

can think of doing is getting drunk; Now you have the Spirit to gethigh on, the better spirit to get drunk on, the real meaning in life toembrace. Enjoy it to the full'

The comparison (It is not a contrast) simply does not work when youread it legalistically as 'Don't do evil, do good' -- because it is saying

'Do good in the same manneras you are used to doing earthly things'.This is despite the remark about drunkenness being 'dissipation in an


17/19

excess of riot'. Paul would rather have us spend our life in a riotousexcess of profitable holy spirituality!

When Jesus the judge says 'I Judge no-one' we are puzzled (andeveryone else expected him to become King, Judge, Leader). We

don't know what to do with it. But at the time they were puzzled,and did know what to do with it.

The apparentnegative, is as a paradox requiring resolution. Youexpect its meaning to be overturned, and listen carefully to what

follows.

You look for possible contrasting thoughts, and find: 'I judge no-0ne in

the flesh, but I do judge properly, in the spirit, and when I do that, myjudgment is true'.

Joh 8:15-16 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. 16 Yea and

if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and theFather that sent me.

A similar thought is 'I do not judge anyone yet-- but in the finaljudgment it will be seen that they have already been judged by the

words that I speak even now, which they have rejected'.

Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I

judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the

world.Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings,hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall

judge him in the last day.

It's a clever way of saying 'I will judge everyone; I will judge you. I AM

the Judge'.

'Don't make yourself attractive!' ?

1Pe 3:3-4 Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning ofbraiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on

apparel; 4 but [rather] let it be the hidden man of the heart, inthe incorruptible apparelof a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the

sight of God of great price.

1Ti 2:9-10 In like manner, that women adorn themselves inmodest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided


18/19

hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; 10 but (which becomethwomen professing godliness) through good works. 11 Let a woman

learn in quietness with all subjection.

..Thepointis 'have a quiet spirit', not 'be dowdy' (quite the opposite --

be greatly attractive to God and to the godly).You need courage to tell yourself that 'Don't dress up' ('Be spiritual

instead') actually means 'Do dress up, both physically and spiritually',but it seems to be the better interpretation.

'Don't drink water!'

1Ti 5:23 Be no longer a drinker of water, but use a little wine for

thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

..The point is not, give up drinking water, but to take up wine.

The book of Proverbs gives the impression 'Don't search for the

wealth of this life, but for the wisdom from God', but that is thesame misreading. It actually recommends to apply gold-feverto

wisdom-seeking. It takes an example from ordinary life, and thenshows you how to apply it to the new life.

I like to think of it as 'You know from ordinary life how to impress theGovernor,

Mal 1:8 And when ye offer the blind for sacrifice, it is no evil! andwhen ye offer the lame and sick, it is no evil! Present it now unto

thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? or will he accept thyperson? saith Jehovah of hosts.

..or to dress up for a wedding. You know that honey is sweet and that

money is valuable, that wine makes you merry', and so on

Well, when you apply commonsense to the kingdom of heaven you

will not wholeheartedly waste your time on worldly things but rather

pour your heart and energy into impressing God, and being suitablydressed when he arrives. You will love the taste of wisdom, and value

the spirit, so much that you wish you were drunk in the spirit. Forinstance if you despise the value of money, then you can hardly

'search for wisdom even more', but if you already have gold fever,then, with God-fever, you will hunt down God's spirit with increased

vengeance.


19/19

Don't forget that the scripture is addressed to Jesus, who did it for us,since we cannot of ourselves achieve what is best. But if you receive

the same spirit, you will taste what the buzz is all about.

There are other topics in the Smith&Smith Bible Commentary casting a

far wider net over apparent moralising passages. One is theQuestionable Doctrine Topic (which disagrees with the prevailing

opinion:) "Morality... The Bible teaches us Morality' -- It explores Jesus

as the Prodigal Son, and similar topics. Another disagrees with: "TheParables are Explanations (on how to live out life morally)". Another

explores whether God does evil, lies, deceives, destroys. Othersquestion "Do the Right Thing", "Drinking is Forbidden in the Bible",

"Church is Good and Right", "Sex... God avoids talking about it",

"Women should be submissive".With such a range of misunderstanding possible about our

fundamental source of morals, you might like to download the wholecommentary, from...

(copy and paste this into the address bar of the browser)

http://sites.google.com/site/freecommentary

Documents

The Bible Doesn't Moralise