# 1Th 5:22 and the appearance of evil



## chbrooking (Aug 27, 2009)

This verse is often quoted to indicate that we are to avoid actions that might be perceived as evil. That's not how I understand it. I know that it has sometimes been translated in a way that would indicate this. But as I read it, it seems to prohibit every form or type of evil. Do you disagree? Why?


----------



## busdriver72 (Aug 27, 2009)

Hi Clark
V.22 is the completion of the verse before it..
v.21 "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;V.22 abstain from every form (appearance) of evil.

I think you're correct in that the "form" of evil is what is stressed, not just the "appearance." But there may not be that much of a divison between the form and the appearance. To us who have examined it carefully (Biblically...and if it is not specifically addressed in Scripture...does it edify?), then it will "appear" to us as evil...we will see it for what it is.
A married homosexual couple, as far as the world is concerned, may not "appear" as an act of evil, but to those who have examined everything carefully, it will appear for what it is....a form of evil.
Just a suggestion.

Take care
Ralph


----------



## kevin.carroll (Aug 27, 2009)

The word "appearance" _eidous_ means what appears or is seen, referring to outward manifestation, what visibly appears. It can also mean "form" in the sense of "kind," a word used for classifying things. I think we can apply it both ways. We should avoid not only things that are evil, we should avoid the things that even look evil.

Given the other thread recently about two Christians of the opposite sex, living with each other but "not having sex," I don't believe that passes the smell test of this verse.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 27, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> This verse is often quoted to indicate that we are to avoid actions that might be perceived as evil. That's not how I understand it. I know that it has sometimes been translated in a way that would indicate this. But as I read it, it seems to prohibit every form or type of evil. Do you disagree? Why?



I firmly agree that the term means "kind" not "looks like." For one thing, such a command is impossible. Sometimes righteousness itself appears evil, especially to evil people. Secondly, our Lord did several things - eating with prostitutes, not observing traditions, allowing his disciples to pick grain, drinking alcohol - that certainly appeared evil to unsympathetic observers, yet he remained blameless. 

But even more importantly, this verse isn't talking about actions at all. It's talking about judging prophecy: 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22 20 Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil. 

Also, according to Vincent's Word Studies (which I'm not sure I agree with 100% but I'll put it out there), ειδος "never has the sense of _semblance_."


----------



## kevin.carroll (Aug 27, 2009)

BAGD lists three meanings for _eidos._

1. The shape and structure of something as it appears to someone, form, outward appearance.

2. A variety of something, kind.

3. The act of looking/seeing, seeing, sight.

I think, then, it could go both ways.

At any rate, I can assure you that our Session would be having a long talk with such a couple, especially based on the third membership vow:

"Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?"

Such an arrangement does not become a follower of Christ because everyone assumes what goes on behind closed doors.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 27, 2009)

> Whatever has but the very show of evil, abstain from it.


- Geneva Bible



> But to discover the appearance of evil which is in the ceremonies, let us consider with Zanchius,' that the appearance of evil from which the Apostle exhorteth to abstain may be expounded two ways. First, It may be referred to the preceding words, and so meant of prophecy and trying the doctrine of prophets or preachers, or we should beware in this matter of all which hath any appearance of evil, that is, from all thinors, quce ab hcereticis in suam sententiam, malamque consequentiam trahi possunt. For example, saith Zanchius, Nestorius said, that we are saved by the blood, not of the Son of God, but of the Son of man. Now if any, suppressing that negative, should say, we are saved by the blood of the Son of man, though this might receive a right explication, yet it hath an appearance of evil, because from it Nestorius might confirm his heresy. Appearance of evil thus expounded will be found in the ceremonies in question. If a phrase or form of speaking from which heretics may draw bad consequences, and confirm their errora, though not truly, yet in show, be an appearance of evil, then much more are visible ceremonies and received customs, from which heretics get occasion to confirm their heretical errors, and damnable superstitions, very plain and undeniable appearances of much evil.


George Gillespie
Against the Expediency of the Ceremonies
English Popish Ceremonies 2.4, pp. 108-109. 



> To make this verse have its connection with the former, some expositors understand it of doctrines and opinions only; to take heed of opinions that seem erroneous, and not rashly to receive them without due examination. Though this sense is not to be excluded, yet the verse need not be confined to it, but to extend to practice also; as in worship to abstain from the show of idolatry; as to eat meat in an idol’s temple was not always gross idolatry, but had some appearance of it, and therefore the apostle forbids it, 1Co 10:14. And so in civil conversation, not only to abstain from vice, but the appearance of it; as of pride, covetousness, drunkenness, whoredom, &c.; and that both with respect to ourselves, lest by venturing upon that which hath some show of evil, we step into the evil itself; and with respect to others, that we may not occasion the taking offence though not justly given, or do that which may any way encourage a real evil in them by that appearance of it which they see in ourselves; yet we ought not upon this account to forbear the discharge of any necessary duty. Some read the words: Abstain from all kind of evil, ’ Apo pantov iedouv ponhrou, and the Greek word is so used by logicians: but here to insist on particulars is infinite. And thus the apostle concludes all these positive duties with a general precept which he leaves with them at the close of his Epistle; having dehorted them from many evils, now he exhorts them to abstain from the appearance of them.


- Matthew Poole


----------



## chbrooking (Aug 27, 2009)

Rev. Carroll,
In the other thread, I wasn't speaking either way to that issue. I just noticed that 1Th 5.22 had been used to support avoiding situations that might look to some as though they were evil. I don't believe the verse teaches that. Whether or not their situation was an advisable one was not the point of my post. Realizing that to pursue the matter further there would derail the thread, I decided to start this one, where the matter could be discussed exegetically -- abstracted from that situation, where passions might cloud our exegetical judgment.

As you know, we do not do exegesis merely from the dictionary. That the word COULD have that meaning (which is not something I'm willing to grant), would not mean that it means that in this context. I don't believe the interpretation necessary for the common use of this verse as a prooftext for avoiding giving people the impression that you are doing something wrong will stand up to exegetical scrutiny.

As Charlie noted, sometimes doing what is right will appear to be wrong. And contra pastor Ralph's point, that could include those who are trained by obedience to the faith to discern right from wrong. If you saw me refuse to assist a person in need, you might consider that selfish and evil -- it could at least have that appearance. Yet I may know of some struggle the person faces that would make my assistance inappropriate. It would be inappropriate for me to offer the help, and it would be inappropriate for me to tell you why. Therefore, it could have the appearance of evil without being so. I know it's a silly or trite illustration, but it should be sufficient -- especially when coupled with Charlie's illustrations -- to demonstrate that this verse out not to be thrown about as proof that we should avoid giving others the impression that we are doing something wrong. That cannot always be helped. 

That is not to say that we should not concern ourselves with the way things look. We don't want to put a stumbling block in the path of unbelievers. We want to model the transforming grace of the gospel. I'm not suggesting that we give no thought to appearances. I'm only arguing that this verse is not the place to go to support that point.

-----Added 8/27/2009 at 01:18:50 EST-----



Jeff_Bartel said:


> Though this sense is not to be excluded, yet the verse need not be confined to it, but to extend to practice also; as in worship to abstain from the show of idolatry; as to eat meat in an idol’s temple was not always gross idolatry, but had some appearance of it, and therefore the apostle forbids it, 1Co 10:14.



With all due respect to Poole, 1 Co. 10:27 runs counter to his point.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Aug 27, 2009)

Rev. Brooking, my response was to Charlie J who said the word never had the meaning "semblance." That is incorrect. I should have added a quote, to clarify.

I also realized I was blending two different threads. Sorry!


----------



## chbrooking (Aug 27, 2009)

Gotcha, thanks. I'm still trying to find where it actually means semblance, in the sense that is under discussion. Can you give me a shortcut and point to such a use?


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 27, 2009)

kevin.carroll said:


> Rev. Brooking, my response was to Charlie J who said the word never had the meaning "semblance." That is incorrect. I should have added a quote, to clarify.
> 
> I also realized I was blending two different threads. Sorry!



I said I'm not 100% sure about it, but I haven't seen it contradicted yet. Vincent is using "semblance" to mean "a misleading outward appearance." In other words, all freely acknowledge that the word often refers to the actual, visual appearance of something. Vincent does not believe, however, that the word is used to indicate "something that looks like X but really isn't," which is how some interpreters have taken it in this verse. I'm not sure if you can draw that line linguistically at the level of the individual word, but it's worth taking into consideration.


----------



## tlharvey7 (Aug 27, 2009)

*appearence of evil*

for years i use to think that this scripture taught "don't do anything that people can look at and percieve as sinful"
then i had an event in my life that caused me to study this further.

i had finally contacted my 19 year old daughter after years of searching (i guess myspace does have some redeeming qualities!) i had not seen my daughter since she was 4.
we decided to meet in the mall food court.
then the dreaded thought came to me... what if someone sees me with this attractive young lady! could this be appearence of evil?!?! the answer is... of course not! the problem some people have is with the perception of evil.
this scripture is used and abused by sin sniffers who do not take the time to properly unpack and study that wonderful passage.
and to think that i was almost robbed of this wonderful experience.
btw.... her name is Melissa and she needs your prayers!


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 27, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> > Though this sense is not to be excluded, yet the verse need not be confined to it, but to extend to practice also; as in worship to abstain from the show of idolatry; as to eat meat in an idol’s temple was not always gross idolatry, but had some appearance of it, and therefore the apostle forbids it, 1Co 10:14.
> ...


 
I disagree. At least according to Gillespie (and those whom he cites), vs 14-23 speak of one type of things offered to idols (what he calls idolothites), and vs 24 to the end, another type.



> "For our better understanding of this matter, we must distinguish two sorts of idolothites, both which we find [in] 1Co 10 . Of the one, the Apostle speaks from the 14th verse of that chapter to the 23rd; of the other, from the 23rd verse to the end. This is Beza’s distinction in his Annotations on that chapter. Of the first sort, he delivers the Apostle’s mind thus: That as Christians have their holy banquets, which are badges of their communion both with Christ and among themselves; and as the Israelites, by their sacrifices, did seal their copulation [union] in the same religion, so also idolaters, join with their idols, or rather demons, in their religious banquets.9 So that this sort of idolothites were eaten in temples, and public solemn banquets, which were dedicated to the honor of idols ( 1Co 8:10 ).
> Cartwright shows that the Apostle is comparing the table of the Lord with the table of idolaters;10 whereupon it follows, that as we use the Lord’s table religiously, so that table of idolaters of which the Apostle speaks, had state in the idolatrous worship like that feast ( Nu 25:3 ); which was celebrated in honor of God, says Calvin.11 This first sort of idolothites Pæreus calls the sacrifices of idols;12 and from such, he says, the Apostle dissuades [exhorts] by this argument, to take part in the banquets of idols is idolatry."​


George Gillespie 
Against the Lawfulness of the Ceremonies. 
English Popish Ceremonies 3.2, pp. 156-157. 



> "Of the second sort of idolothites, the Apostle begins to speak in verse 23. The Corinthians moved a question, `Whether they might lawfully eat things sacrificed to idols? at private dinners, says Pæreus.13 The Apostle resolves them that in a private banquet at home, they might eat them, except it were in the case of scandal; thus Beza.14 The first sort of idolothites are meant of [in] Rev 2 [ Rev 2:20 ], as Beza there notes; and of this sort must we understand Augustine to mean whilst he says, that it were better to die of hunger, than to eat food sacrificed to idols.15 These sorts are simply and in themselves unlawful. And if meats sacrificed to idols be so unlawful, then much more such things and rites as have not only been sacrificed and destinated to the honor of idols (for this is but one kind of idolatrous abuse), but also of a long time publicly and solemnly employed in the worshipping of idols, and deeply defiled with idolatry; much more, I say, are they unlawful to be applied to God’s most pure and holy worship, and therein used by us publicly and solemnly, so that the world may see us conforming and joining ourselves unto idolaters."​


George Gillespie 
Against the Lawfulness of the Ceremonies. 
English Popish Ceremonies 3.2, pp. 156-157.


----------



## chbrooking (Aug 27, 2009)

This requires me to understand v. 27 as radically limiting the scope of v. 25. That is, "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, ... so long as you don't buy it. So long as somebody else bought it, and then invited you to eat it . .. then feel free."

Again, I am afraid I will have to disagree with their exegesis. These were brilliant men, but not infallible.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 27, 2009)

As I researched this, it became clear one focus of the ninth commandment is protecting the good name and reputation of your neighbor. In the situation of ordinary marriage aged men and women living together before marriage, but professing they are "not having sex", both the man and the woman have an obligation to do that. The man, as a professed soon-to-be husband has all the more responsibility to protect his future wife's reputation (in addition to protecting his own).

That's part of what I Thessalonians 5:22 is getting at. It's not the full import of the meaning, but part of it- protecting one's good name and that of others from evident assumption of evil (whether or not the underlying sin occurs).



> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 27, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> This requires me to understand v. 27 as radically limiting the scope of v. 25. That is, "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, ... so long as you don't buy it. So long as somebody else bought it, and then invited you to eat it . .. then feel free."


 
I am afraid that you must be misunderstanding their point if this is what you are taking away from it.

Verses 14-23 is stating that it is unlawful to eat meats sacrificed to idols in the ceremonies of the heathen.

Verses 23 ff. is stating that it is lawful to eat meats sacrificed to idols as long as it is being used in it's "common use" (intention AND circumstances), for food, not religious purposes.

Poole's point (at least partially) is that Paul in vs 14-23 states that it is inappropriate to eat meats sacrificed to idols in their temples (at least in the ceremonies) because it bears the appearance of evil. 

1Co 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 


On verse 27, Poole states that:


> The apostle puts another case, in which they might lawfully enough eat of meat offered to an idol; that was in case any of their neighbours, that were heathens, invited them to dinner or supper in a private house (some add, or in the idol’s temple, if it were a feast of friendship, not a feast upon a sacrifice; but I doubt that, and also whether in the idol-temples there were any feasts but upon sacrifices): he determineth it lawful for them to go and eat whatsoever was set before them; but in this case he would also have them
> ask no questions for conscience sake.


- Matthew Poole



chbrooking said:


> Again, I am afraid I will have to disagree with their exegesis. These were brilliant men, but not infallible.


 
Nobody is saying these men are infallible, but I do think that you are misreading them.


----------



## chbrooking (Aug 28, 2009)

Perhaps.
Be that as it may, I do not see the rather dramatic shift that they point to in v. 24.

Further, the point at issue is whether "appearances" are the primary concern of 1 Th. 5:22. Granting that 1 Cor. 10 might be taken as illuminating commentary on the former passage, I am still not convinced (by Poole or Gillespie or anyone else, yet), that "appearance" is the issue in that text. The only notion of appearances comes in when the sacrificial origin of the meat is made explicit. But that's not so much appearances as allegiances. A line has now been drawn in the sand -- choose which side you'll stand on. That would apply before the pagan, by way of testimony, and it would apply before the weaker brother, to protect his conscience. But it seems to me that this passage goes out of the way to distance itself from the notion that our behavior must be modified (generally and broadly) because of what it might look like. Specific situational developments might require restriction of freedom to protect a brother or to bear witness, but that's it. And as has been pointed out, if we take the contrary to its logical conclusion, wouldn't we have to give up drinking, or even designer clothes? We wouldn't want to participate in the world's idolatries. Such things would not be sinful in themselves, but we would have to (with Poole) conclude that "the apostle forbids them."


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 28, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> Specific situational developments might require restriction of freedom to protect a brother or to bear witness, but that's it.


 
I guess I don't see avoiding "appearances of evil" so differently than this statement, particularly the later (to bear witness).



chbrooking said:


> And as has been pointed out, if we take the contrary to its logical conclusion, wouldn't we have to give up drinking, or even designer clothes? We wouldn't want to participate in the world's idolatries. Such things would not be sinful in themselves, but we would have to (with Poole) conclude that "the apostle forbids them."


 
I think that we should give up drinking if it would cause offense or scandal. I think one would be hard pressed to make out wearing designer clothes to bring a biblical offense to anyone. Remember, biblical offense is not merely making people angry, but as I am sure you know, it is laying a stumbling block before them. In this case, we should be willing to give up anything for the sake of our brothers.

However, while these things are certainly a part of charity toward others, I see appearances of evil as slightly different. Take for example the statement that "we are saved by the blood of the Son of man" in the company of Nestorians would be an appearance of evil because it is not the whole truth. By making that statement, we would be confirming that person in his heresy.

Another example would be praying with a group of Muslim friends. Theoretically, one can be praying to the true God in your heart, while your friends pray to their idol. Yet if you do so silently, you make an appearance of evil, for from all outward perspectives, you appear to be praying to the same God.

I will not attempt to exeget the passage as I am not ordained to do so, but this is what I have gathered in my limited studies. Take it for what it's worth!


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2009)

Leave it to modern exegetes to make men an offender for a word. Reformed ethicisists have always maintained, "That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto" (Larger Catechism, 99:6). Even if 1 Thess 5:22 is surrendered, "hating even the garment spotted by the flesh," Jude 23, teaches the same truth. But I am not inclined to give up 1 Thess. 5:22 for the simple reason that the "form" still includes its "appearance" even when it is made to refer to all types. To arrive at a "type" of evil, one still has to include its appearance.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 28, 2009)

I wonder if all parties could agree to the paraphrase "Avoid every _manifestation_ of evil."

I don't think anyone can doubt that we are to strive to live above reproach: I don't think anyone can doubt that we will be reproached anyway.
There have been some who try to measure their conduct by how it appears to others, regardless of who those others are; there does not seem to be a very thick line between that and doing what you do to be seen of men, or making public opinion the _de facto_ rule of righteousness. So if you take 1 Thessalonians 5:22 to say merely, "Don't do anything that looks bad" you have obviously eviscerated it. But if you take it as meaning that we are to avoid every manifestation (no matter how small or slight) of evil, it seems you are not far off the mark.


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2009)

py3ak said:


> But if you take it as meaning that we are to avoid every manifestation (no matter how small or slight) of evil, it seems you are not far off the mark.



That seems to me to narrow the scope of the dehortation even further and creates an imbalanced contrast with "that which is good."

I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping away from what looks bad. This accords with Matt. 5:16 and 1 Pet. 2:12.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 28, 2009)

Perhaps my statement was not very clear. If we would hold fast that which is good (even small goods, if it's proper to speak in such a way) and we avoid evil (even small evils) then the contrast seems rather exact? Letting your light so shine is associated with good works; there are times when engaging in good works raises eyebrows through its unconventionality (as in John 4). But again, striving to live above reproach would certainly include not giving occasion for malicious thoughts or words.


----------



## chbrooking (Aug 28, 2009)

I wouldn't have a problem with that paraphrase, Ruben. In fact, I kind of like it. And I do most certainly believe that we are to take care that our actions bear appropriate witness, and that they do not put a stumbling block in the way of a brother. I just don't think 1 Th 5:22 serves the purpose to which it is so often put. You see, the problem is, this verse is often thrown about as though it held out a call for blanket restriction on our liberty. No doubt we are called to set aside that liberty when the occasion calls for it. But this verse is often offered as a proof-text for not engaging in an activity because of how it MIGHT be perceived. If someone says, "that's sacrificial meat", then the matter is EXPLICIT, and I give up my steak. But nothing could be more clear than that Paul was comfortable eating meat. He wasn't worried about how things MIGHT look. But he was the first to abstain if it became clear that partaking would be a stumbling block. 

Evil takes many forms and we are to avoid all of them. That's the teaching of 1Th 5.22, In my humble opinion.


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2009)

py3ak said:


> Perhaps my statement was not very clear. If we would hold fast that which is good (even small goods, if it's proper to speak in such a way) and we avoid evil (even small evils) then the contrast seems rather exact? Letting your light so shine is associated with good works; there are times when engaging in good works raises eyebrows through its unconventionality (as in John 4). But again, striving to live above reproach would certainly include not giving occasion for malicious thoughts or words.



That works for me.

I suppose any word is open to abuse. I like "appearance" for its visible connotation, but it obviously can be mistaken for semblance; "form" can be mistaken for a dualism; "type" might be misconstrued in terms of broadening evil to categories and thereby narrowing the dehortation; "manifestation" seems to do away with what is evil in itself. I still prefer the first option, but it goes to show that any word needs to be carefully defined so as to avoid all appearance (!) of error.


----------



## chbrooking (Aug 28, 2009)

Looks like we all (or most) agree, then. 




armourbearer said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps my statement was not very clear. If we would hold fast that which is good (even small goods, if it's proper to speak in such a way) and we avoid evil (even small evils) then the contrast seems rather exact? Letting your light so shine is associated with good works; there are times when engaging in good works raises eyebrows through its unconventionality (as in John 4). But again, striving to live above reproach would certainly include not giving occasion for malicious thoughts or words.
> ...


----------



## py3ak (Aug 28, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> I still prefer the first option, but it goes to show that any word needs to be carefully defined so as to avoid all appearance (!) of error.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 28, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> Rev. Carroll,
> In the other thread, I wasn't speaking either way to that issue. I just noticed that 1Th 5.22 had been used to support avoiding situations that might look to some as though they were evil. I don't believe the verse teaches that. Whether or not their situation was an advisable one was not the point of my post. Realizing that to pursue the matter further there would derail the thread, I decided to start this one, where the matter could be discussed exegetically -- abstracted from that situation, where passions might cloud our exegetical judgment.
> 
> As you know, we do not do exegesis merely from the dictionary. That the word COULD have that meaning (which is not something I'm willing to grant), would not mean that it means that in this context. I don't believe the interpretation necessary for the common use of this verse as a prooftext for avoiding giving people the impression that you are doing something wrong will stand up to exegetical scrutiny.
> ...



Thanks for the question ... and your diligence in starting a new thread to discuss this separately (which I think was very wise).

The word itself, ειδος, only occurs five times in the NT. Luke 3.22, Luke 9.29, John 5.37, 2 Cor. 5.7 and 1 Thes. 5.22 (thank God for computers and good software ... it is wonderful that we have such means at our disposal). Which makes things a little more difficult. While each of these cases would lend themselves to the idea of the shape/appearance, it would seem that the more salient argument from an English thought of "appearances" is the one Charlie mentioned.

Thanks again for posting extremely wise questions (and thank you Charlie for what can only be described as a truly wise answer).


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 28, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> As I researched this, it became clear one focus of the ninth commandment is protecting the good name and reputation of your neighbor. In the situation of ordinary marriage aged men and women living together before marriage, but professing they are "not having sex", both the man and the woman have an obligation to do that. The man, as a professed soon-to-be husband has all the more responsibility to protect his future wife's reputation (in addition to protecting his own).
> 
> That's part of what I Thessalonians 5:22 is getting at. It's not the full import of the meaning, but part of it- protecting one's good name and that of others from evident assumption of evil (whether or not the underlying sin occurs).



Protecting a good name is certainly within the teaching of scripture, but is it what this particular verse teaches? It would seem that 21 and 22 "fit" more if this was not just appearance, but actual evil. It also seems to my slow mind that the uses of this particular word to not fit a reading "for appearance sake". (I'm not addressing the situation you described, but just this text.)


----------



## chbrooking (Aug 29, 2009)

Perhaps the limited number of occurrences in the NT is a blessing. 

There are about 25000 occurrences in the TLG. There's no way I have time to go through them all -- in even a cursory fashion. That's why I was asking for a short-cut -- to be pointed to a particular occurrence that had the meaning 'semblance'. 

Anyone know of one?


----------

