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 comparisons between 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 to be 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 are valuable, but there is something much greater". It only 'works' if you want to pursue for yourself the greatest riches possible, and want the longest-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 God enjoyment is enjoyable choosing sin does not please God

sin feels good, but only for a short while reproach is bad treasures are good Egypt offers treasures but does not choose God choosing Christ leads to a good recompense and reward choose God rather than sin choose Christ rather than Egypt Choose ill-treatment and reproach rather than to reject God and Christ 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 and wealth: Better than eating 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 a house full of feasting with strife. But the message is not about food and drink! Nor about gluttony, or the 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 the relative 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 forces you to think through what it means to eat the flesh of Christ, and to drink his blood. By that time you have forgotten about ritual fasting or

feasting, and are thinking about... hypocrisy vs listening to the words of 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 dungeon while 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 the abundance 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 simply to 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 bad Abundance is good, and little is bad Righteous is better than abundance Little is less bad than wickedness 'Better' is used in two different ways: 1. In English, 'better' is often 'better than bad' ('better than a slap in 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 'less bad' ' 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 honey words of truth are better than food righteousness is more valuable than money eternal life is longer lasting than gold the pearl of greatest price is worth more than all the others put

together The Biblical usage is stronger, more finely discriminating, and more accurate to the basic meaning 'good, better, best'. When we hear that 'being filled with the spirit is better than drunkenness', 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 prophecies they 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... but also...'. The 'not' has no practical negative force on what is listed, but only negative force on the 'only' (and the 'but' has no adversative force 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 whosoever believeth 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 the power. 1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word [alone], but in power. 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 are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2Co 7:12 So although I wrote unto you, I wrote not [simply] for his cause that did the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered the wrong, but [also] that your earnest care for us might be made manifest unto you in the sight of God.

This construction acts as a comparative, more than as an adversative -- two similar things 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 the word 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 the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; ..but all point to the more important 'appeal', and don't necessarily invalidate water baptism. Here is an implicit Not... (but...): 1Th 4:4-5 that each one of you know how to possess himself of his own 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 that sanctification 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 meanings for 'plural'.

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, than simply 'negation'. In English in-flammable means 'positively flammable', for example. The spelling and sound or morphology (form) of the grammar (e.g. a label '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, where and why); But further than that, the interpretation, is the goal of considering forms, syntax, semantics and functions -- it is what our brains 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 unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk 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 all the laws. (It is also possible that Yahweh is saying: 'I didn't command you to offer children as innocent sacrifices Jer 7:31 And they have built the

high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn 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 would be speaking, but the focus is on the Holy Spirit. Joh 10:18 No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. 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 of life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.", and others say very clearly that they did kill him. The focus however is his willing self-sacrifice. Php 2:4 not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others. ..The word 'also' tells us that 'looking after your own things' is not excluded. In fact the combination 'Not... but...' seems to be an idiom which loses any negative force. The 'Not' becomes a comparative of slight inferiority. It is as if to say: 'The next best thing to being filled with the spirit is to be drunk'. Eph 5:18 And be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled 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 man that getteth understanding. 14 For the gaining of it is better than the gaining of silver, And the profit thereof than fine gold. 15 She

is more precious than rubies: And none of the things thou canst desire 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 So shalt 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; but there 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 of your Father that speaketh in you. 1Co 4:14 I write not these things to shame you, but to admonish you as 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 the world. We hear them as opposites, but for God to rescue the oppressed is the same 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 not alone, 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 hath given all judgment unto the Son; Joh 8:26 I have many things to speak and to judge concerning

you: howbeit he that sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these speak I unto the world. Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment came I into this world, that they 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 fat of 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 the heavenly places. ..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 off the message of good news. These higher enemies were flesh and blood, 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 to armed 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

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 'catchand-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 rightly marvelled... Joh 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that 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 over with 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 it means... 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 angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever 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

adultery: 28 but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman 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 simple comparative: 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 ask witnesses 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. 33 But 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 indeed necessary, and will be supplied. It suggests a higher way with a higher reward, but does not despise the need for food or clothing. If the kingdom despised the necessities of life, the advice would have no foundation, 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

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 equivalent results... 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 other arresting 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, where neither 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 for the 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 misread as 'normal way vs new instructions, about earthly goods'. 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 'How to run your life on earth differently' (a false slant) to 'How to run your new spiritual life, taking lessons from common sense, and applying them to unseen valuables'. Eventually you begin to hear 'Be greedy, acquisitive and avaricious for spiritual wealth'. If you don't yet want to go that far in separating physical from spiritual, 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 lateral approach to making us selfless: 'Turn your selfishness that way instead (and normal life will change appropriately)' -- e.g. you might

become more generous with your stores, and value them more for that reason 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...' of Mat_6:19-20 Luk 12:20-21 But God said unto him, Thou foolish one, this night is thy 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 for yourselves 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 how to 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 have pierced themselves through with many sorrows. It is not money which is evil, nor even the love of it! Rather it is the abuse 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 its worth is clearly shown in supplying food and clothing to the poor. Its abuse is clearly shown in sumptuous living and luxurious clothing. The proper love of treasure is to gain God's favour by being wise with the mammon of this world.

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 in lovingkindness, 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 is one 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. Here the technique is 'Emphatic Contrast' -- The point is not negativity, but emphasis. We mis-read Biblical 'negatives' as injunctions -- 'Do not do this' -rather than as 'emphatic positives' -- 'No, not that way, this way'. The injunction focuses negativity upon itself; The contra-positives throws extra and positive focus away from itself, onto the contrasting alternative. Joe 2:13 and rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto 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!':

Luk 10:20 Nevertheless in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject 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 meaning is 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 thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes: yea, Father; for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight. Jesus gave them a more accurate perspective; not a rebuke, but a commendation. '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 food which 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 harder for 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? hearken diligently 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 the best!' The question is 'Why miss out!' He is not talking about the spending of money, because the heavenly bread is offered freely, but is contrasting Adam's curse (labour, bread, constant need, thorns and

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 (1Co 11:24-25 "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 new covenant 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 money is 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: The punchline 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 subordinate thoughts 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 and hymns 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 is a comparison being made showing that being filled with the spirit is a 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 eternal promise, of freedom 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 get high on, the better spirit to get drunk on, the real meaning in life to embrace. Enjoy it to the full' The comparison (It is not a contrast) simply does not work when you read it legalistically as 'Don't do evil, do good' -- because it is saying 'Do good in the same manner as you are used to doing earthly things'. This is despite the remark about drunkenness being 'dissipation in an

excess of riot'. Paul would rather have us spend our life in a riotous excess of profitable holy spirituality! When Jesus the judge says 'I Judge no-one' we are puzzled (and everyone 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 apparent negative, is as a paradox requiring resolution. You expect 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, my judgment 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 the Father that sent me. A similar thought is 'I do not judge anyone yet -- but in the final judgment 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 of braiding 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, in the incorruptible apparel of 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 in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided

hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; 10 but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. 11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. ..The point is '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 the same misreading. It actually recommends to apply gold-fever to wisdom-seeking. It takes an example from ordinary life, and then shows you how to apply it to the new life. I like to think of it as 'You know from ordinary life how to impress the Governor, Mal 1:8 And when ye offer the blind for sacrifice, it is no evil! and when 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 thy person? 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 suitably dressed 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. For instance 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.

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 the Questionable 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: "The Parables are Explanations (on how to live out life morally)". Another explores whether God does evil, lies, deceives, destroys. Others question "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 whole commentary, from... (copy and paste this into the address bar of the browser) http://sites.google.com/site/freecommentary