1 Thess. 5:22 in the KJV says “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” This is a perfectly acceptable translation. But from the Greek, we know that “appearance of evil” does not mean “any thing that appears to be evil”, but “any appearance that evil makes”. This is why the ESV has “Abstain from every form of evil.” Whatever manifestation evil takes on, this is to be abstained from.
Matt Fitzsimmons pointed out a great post dealing with vs. 22 in its larger context. This opened up to me a greater understanding of this text. Vs. 19 thru 22 are all one sentence in Greek. The issue addressed is quenching the work of the Spirit. Demeaning prophesying (preaching would be a good equivalent today) was one way the Thessalonians were doing that. Rather than despising prophyesying, Paul instructed them to welcome it, yet not indiscriminately. They were to prove each prophesying and reject those that did not pass the test, while clinging to the ones that did. Thus they were to abstain from every manifestation evil would make–even evil in the form of a public prophecy. Such a contextual treatment of vs. 22 makes it emphatically clear that it is not addressing the avoidance of conduct which might appear to be evil.
However most independent fundamental Baptists claim that this verse teaches that we should abstain from any conduct which might be looked upon as evil. It is a favorite proof text against attendance at movie theaters. (See my previous post on that topic.) Yet its applications (in this sense) are numerous. This contributes to an emphasis on external conduct and appearances within the fundamentalist movement, in my opinion (see my comment in this regard here at Matt Fitzsimmons’ blog).
Scripture has much to say about avoiding actually evil behaviors. Romans 7 deals patently with the saved person’s struggle to avoid personal, actual evil. But does any Scripture (besides the above explained 1 Thess. 5:22) demand we avoid behaviors which might only seem evil?
Well, someone might point to Scripture’s teaching that we should not purposely offend a brother or let our behavior become a stumbling block to a weak believer. However, the context of these commands seems to clearly revolve around scenarios in which we are aware that the brother or weak believer is present, and thus liable to being offended with us personally. 1 Cor. 8 and 10 deals with putting meat down for that potentially-offended brother to eat (in our presence, obviously), which he knows to be meat that was offered to idols. Rom. 14-15 again deals with meat and drink and assumes that the brother could be offended by our partaking in their presence, or our interaction with them concerning our beliefs and theirs. Clearly from Rom. 14 Paul does not say we should defer to potential misunderstanding and refuse to partake of meat or drink. He says instead we should have an obliging and loving attitude to everyone who may differ with our firm belief that our practice is God-glorifying and legal. Further, Rom. 14 also deals with days. Some still observed Jewish feasts and kept the Sabbath in a Jewish way, apparently. But this was inherently the weak position. Thus, there was no call to celebrate the sabbath in a Jewish sense, for fear of someone happening to see you passing by with a burden on your shoulder, or something. What is in view is our welcoming one another, and getting along despite differing views on such non-moral issues. (See my earlier post linking to some fantastic sermons on this passage by John Piper.) To stretch the “stumbling block” prohibition into a prohibition of any behavior which might potentially offend a believer who might potentially find out about that behavior in some indirect manner is patently wrong.
The Bible does teach that we should have a war-time mentality, which would lead us to avoid practices which might entagle us in earthly pursuits (2 Tim. 2:4), and to cast off things which might weigh us down in our heavenly race (Heb. 12:1). So I am not saying that Christians should just go out and do every permissible thing they can. And clearly there are some Biblical principles to keep in mind when planning our conduct. But the force of Scripture is behind a concern for personal morality, not a concern as to what others might think about your behaviors. We are judged by God, and must be concerned most with his opinion. And he looks both on our external conduct and on our heart.
UPDATE: The article this post refers to is no longer available online. I have written my own article with a similar title as this post. You can read that here.
Hola brother!!, recibe saludos desde Santiago de Chile. Que Dios te siga bendiciendo y usando.
Por favor. No hablo espanol.
If you can read english, I welcome you to my blog. I can read enough spanish to see that it looks like you are all about adoring and glorifying God.
So am I.
Praise His name.
So there are only “some” Biblical principles that direct our conduct? I was under the impression that the Bible was written to direct our lives. How do we who is watching us? True, God judges us but man through our human nature judges us too. How do we want to be seen as one of them or one of God? Our actions speak our testimony.
Bob says, “Most independent fundamental Baptists claim that this verse teaches that we should abstain from any conduct which might be looked upon as evil.” Ironic. I despise not prophesying (check your posts to see if the noun form “prophecy” and the verb form “prophesy” are used correctly), that is, I despise not that v. 22 means “abstain from every form of evil,” but I prove all things and know that Bob does not know what “most fundamental Baptists” believe on v. 22, so he is arguing against a straw man. Bob quotes no scientific poll or study to verify his view. He smears the exegesis of many good men by lumping them into his speculation. Representing mere speculation as the truth; could this not be said to be a form of evil that Bob should abstain from?
He doesn’t know what most IFBaptists believe, because they are independent. They don’t get together ever, but Bob speaks as though he really knows what most of them believe, when he is a very young man who hasn’t interviewed most independent fundamental Baptists. This flaw doesn’t belong to a group of people as if “fundamentalists” own it. This flaw belongs to certain people who have not been careful with their exegesis, even as Bob has not been careful with his usage of “prophesy” among many other things. What would you call this kind of broad brushing of a group of people? I can safely say that most reformers approved of murdering anabaptists. They were the independents during the time of the Reformation. Bob traces his heritage back to these murderers. Perhaps we should group Bob with murder, to copy his standard of flippantly associating a whole group with a bad practice. And then, what does Bob hope to accomplish by helping to get professing Christians more interested in attending a movie theater?
Dear Anonymous,
Whether or not Bob has assumed too much by suggesting that “most” of Independent Baptist Fundamentalism expresses this understanding of the verse, when in fact he only knows of a rather large contingent that may or may not, strictly-speaking, be the majority, — whether or not, that is, he is guilty of the broad-brushing indiscretion of which you accuse him, it is nonetheless clear that he is writing for the sake of edifying the body of Christ and lifting up the Name of Christ. Please, for the love of our Savior and the unity by which we hope to express to the world that we are his, let’s all be as Bob, and let true Christian love adorn everything we say. I thank God that he has been loving enough to labor for my further growth in the knowledge of Christ. I think we could all learn much from this example, and perhaps something as well from his exegesis of I Thessalonians 5:22.
Let’s love as Christ loves while we seek to learn more of him.
Pitchford,
You tell me if I’m wrong, but Bob was attacking (“edifying”) IFBaptists (which I am not) as a group, and that is love and unity, but when I correct Bob, that is hatred and heresy. Tell me if I’m wrong, but Bob was not merely writing an exposition of the text, but going after a group of people. Is it wrong to hold him to a standard of accuracy. Should not iron sharpen iron. Since God predestined us to conform, are you in the way of Bob conforming. Are not the spirits of the prophets subject to the prophets? Have you mistaken unity for mere toleration, certainly a lack of discernment. Should you not be thanking me for correcting Bob? I said I despise not prophesyings, to utilize his chosen passage, but I proved what Bob said, and found impurities in his metal of application, so I applied the fire of analysis to remove his dross, and you defend that?
Is not the NT “body life” characterized by confrontation, exhortation, admonishing, warning, provoking, rebuking, reproving, and correcting. I don’t see blanket approval in there, and it is interesting that Bob makes a blanket statement about IFBaptists of which you defend and then I make an individual critique of Bob, and you attack. Please teach me more about unity, Pitchford.
Oh, I’ve noticed Bob pumping your website. You both point at each other in your little barrel of acceptance and say “You’re right,” and that means it is so, that is, unless your reformed gurus tell you differently? You’ve dumbed love and unity down to something less than Scriptural.
Anonymous — In your initial post you speak in the third person ABOUT Bob, but not in the second person TO Bob.
In doing so, you are not “holding him to a standard of accuracy,” but proclaiming his inaccuracy. You are not “sharpening iron,” but declaring a dull blade.
I’m new to this blog stuff, so maybe this just isn’t how it works. But it seems that if the goal is to correct the writer for his edification, it should be directed to him. If others are drawn into discussion, the language can/should shift to the third person. The nature of the comment portrays it as an attention-getting attack, not purposeful correction.
Interesting post, Matt, and I think you have a point about how people talk to one another and depending on what forum is used. I’m guessing that if I used the second person, I would be portrayed as even more unloving to him. I take it into consideration. Bob castigates IFBaptists in a public forum and then gets it in kind. I talk about what Bob (he) said, what he wrote. That’s about all I could do in this context. I can see, however, that my style has become more important to the commentators than both the style and substance of what Bob wrote. At this point, my evaluation has gone unanswered. Should I assume that you approve of what he said? Let’s assume that you believe that the body of Christ is all believers and that IFBaptists are included in that body, how is unity encouraged with profiling an entire segment of the family of God, just broad-brushing them into Bob’s stereotypes. Why would Bob do that? If he wants to rejoice in the truth of Christ, just exposit the passage and leave the group alone, but, to stay with the blade theme, Bob has an axe to grind, and in order to justify his move to the left, he must drag down this whole group.
https://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/ Pages/HEDONISM.HTML
MY SILENCE
Some may wonder why I have not responded to “Anonymous” yet. Let me explain a few things. 1) I typically do much of my blogging in between calls at work. 2) I have been extremely busy with various things this week. 3) My wife is pregnant and due any day, so I am devoting extra attention to her and the coming child. 4) My inlaws came over today to celebrate my 2nd daughter’s (Megan) first birthday. 5) I have been working on several projects at work, of late, and my free time there has been limited.
Add to these reasons the severity and sharpness of the comments by an anonymous person, and the accompanying desire to answer the attacks (as the comments seem to be) gracefully and pointedly, you should (hopefully) understand why I have been slow in bringing forth responses.
THIRD PERSON
My friend Matt C brought up a good point about the use of third person. I do not necessarily want to make a rule about not using third person in a response. Sometimes someone may just want to make a general affirmation or comment or question about a post, which is not directed against the author of the post, per se. But the use of 2nd person appears (from my experience of blogging) to be normal and predominant. “Thanks for the post”, “Good post”, “Bob, what about this?”, or “Commenter, good point, but have you considered this?” These are all examples of typical blogging responses. “Anonymous” has chosen third person to characterize his/her posts in this thread (and most, in which he/she has commented) and so I will use it here as well.
BROADBRUSHING
First, it should be recognized that “Anonymous” agrees with my exegesis of 1 Thess. 5:22. He/she said that he/she did not despise my contention that 1 Thess. 5:22 deals with abstaining from every form of evil. He/she also identifies the wrong exegesis of this verse a “flaw”.
Second, it should be obvious from the nature of my blog that my personal experience lies almost exclusively within the group called Independent Fundamental Baptists (although some now are shunning the term fundamentalist–“Anonymous” perhaps??). The purpose and plan for my blog is clearly laid out here. Yet I do not want my blog to dwell primarily on a negative “bashing” of another group (IFBs), as I have clearly set forth in my vision for the blog explained here. So if I single out IFBs when dealing with an exegetical flaw, it should not be too surprising. Let me emphasize, though, that I sincerely try to avoid a harsh, angry, derrogatory, or demeaning tone in discussing my differences with IFBs. I also have made it clear that I am not against people merely because they are IFBs, rather I am against certain ideologies, practices, and emphases within the IFB movement (which could rightly be described as characterizing the movement to one extent or another). See my post here about this issue.
Third, I do not believe the charge of “broadbrushing” is correct. Yes, I am young (however “Anonymous” does not inform us as to his/her age) and I have not “interviewed most independent fundamental Baptists”. But I would wager “Anonymous” has not either. Also, “Anonymous” has not offered any proof that my assertion is wholly misleading. It is clear from my comments that I am expressing “my opinion”. Obviously I am subject to correction, being finite and fallible. From my experience most IFBs do practice this misexegesis (or imprecise/faulty exegesis). Further, aside from very conservative Calvinists, Assembly of God, or Church of Christ groups, I cannot think of many other groups who would be motivated to misapply this verse to find Biblical support for their prohibition of attendance at movie theaters. [I do contend that this motivation is a primary reason for the exegetical flaw surrounding this verse.]
Fourth, let me confess that I am a little surprised by this contention. “Anonymous” agrees with my exegesis, but is really upset that I claim most IFBs have this exegetical flaw. That is somewhat odd. For instance, if someone were to make a comment asserting that most evangelicals condone a watered down gospel, I cannot see MacArthur or Piper taking him to task because he cannot prove his assertion. Rather I see them nodding in agreement and being saddened at another reminder of such widespread errors. If “Anonymous” really agrees with my exegesis, why is he not more upset with widespread faulty exegesis, than he is with someone stating an unproven opinion? Any IFB reading my article who also does not hold to the misexegesis considered, could rightly agree that such misapplication/misinterpretation exists, and join me in frustration over that. He would also be able to realize that since the IFB movement is not an official entity as such, my criticism may not have been directed precisely at him or his branch of the movement. But he would nevertheless sympathize with my general point.
MY USE OF PROPHECY OR PROPHESY
I confess I do not get what “Anonymous” is driving at here. I did have a misspelled word (since corrected), where I had prophesy rather than prophecy. I am not sure if this was what “Anonymous” was referring to or not. Probably not. I do go back and forth from the verb use and the noun use, since it is clear that when one despises prophecies, he despises prophesying. The KJV has prophesyings but the ESV has prophecies. However the Greek is the same (the noun for prophecy–not a participle or anything). The post I linked to explains it from the verb perspective, but again I do not think the use of a noun over against a verb is done for any special point or anything.
MY POINT ABOUT MOVIES
“Anonymous” implies that I am actively trying to get Christians to go to movie theaters. This is just plain wrong. Go back and read the last paragraph of this post, and the last paragraph of my post about movies, and you will see that I am not encouraging Christians to be at the movie theater every Friday and Saturday night, or anything. I am asserting that prohibiting attendance to movie theaters is not supported by Scripture. When people claim to get this prohibition from Scripture, they are treating Scripture and their followers wrongly.
STEREOTYPING
This is similar to the broadbrushing argument. But in a reply to Matt C, “Anonymous” contends that I am stereotyping IFBs and falesly maligning them. This is debatable. Yet no debate about this has been given. “Anonymous” does not cite reasons why IFBs are not characterized by a misinterpretation and misapplication of 1 Thess. 5:22, instead he points out that I cannot prove my assertion. IFBs are not one clear-cut organization, yet they have many similar traits and beliefs. I make many assertions about them and their beliefs in my blog, and I try to do so in a spirit of love (Eph. 4:15). I actually and really do believe this to be true about the majority of them. I clarify what I mean and what I see wrong with the group. I do not desire to blackball them, but rather to point out some errors. They may claim that only some IFBs have these errors. They may contend that these are not errors. But let them contend. To merely imply that since I have not surveyed each IFB I therefore cannot critique the movement as a whole is ludicrous and absurd. I understand that every contention I have with the movement is not applicable to every part of the movement, but I also say that these contentions are legitimate and they do exist in many churches within the IFB umbrella. (Check out some of the discussions on Sharper Iron, and you will see that many IFBs see the widespread errors of many other IFBs.)
PIPER
Concerning the latest comment by “Anonymous”–this is really totally off topic to this post, and should be deleted per my commenting policy. But regardless, let me address the linked article briefly. Basically, the article does not look beyond Piper’s book Desiring God very much. Piper’s other works like Future Grace, Don’t Waste your Life, and When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight for Joy show he is concerned with the totality of the Christian walk. The article also distorts or does not understand Piper’s emphasis on joy. Piper’s contention is that holiness is not an end in itself, but rather a means of pleasing God. Obedience stems from faith (the “obedience of faith”) and reveals love for God and is furthered by our faith and hope in His promises. Striving for holiness is a striving to please God. This striving is motivated by our love and pleasure in God. Lust or pride, for example, reveal that God is not very desirous to us. Forsaking sin is an embracing of God as a superior treasure–which Matt. 13:44 teaches is really the essence of the gospel. When we prize God above the allurements of this world, we are also striving for holiness, in the footsteps of Moses (Heb. 11:24-26).
To those who are interested in reading this article I say go ahead. But also research firsthand Piper’s beliefs and teachings available at DesiringGod.org
“He that doth protest too much,” to quote Shakespeare. Total defense; zero admission. What happened to the “one another” ministry, Bob? It sounds more like “me alone” and then whoever agrees with me (you). “If someone can’t prove I wasn’t stereotyping, then I am free to do so.” Then Bob, you assume in the metropolitan article that he hasn’t read anything but one book of Piper’s. If you say that you say things out of love enough, people might believe you. I don’t think you are risking any of your new friends. You broadbrush out of love, but we are severe and sharp? Take a step back Bob to get some perspective. IFBs are not a homogenous group and you know it. That’s why they are independent, so you misrepresent the group to the unknowing. Many IFBs wouldn’t be much different than Piper, just a little less pragmatic. A lot you say is wrong Bob, but you also don’t listen to people who disagree with you. Instead, you marginalize them as part of a group, or attack them as with name-calling, like “papist.” If they disagree with you, they have the wrong view of authority.
Is mixed swimming actually mixed nudity? Is mixed nudity sin? Does Piper separate over unrepentant sinning? Do you?
You didn’t accede to anything again, including the dress–full-out defense mode, and didn’t answer the question. The article passed out at your church says:
“A note on swimwear: It’s not easy but you can still strive to be
modest at the pool or beach. Look for one-piece bathing suits that
aren’t cut high on the leg and don’t have low necklines.” Modesty equals showing the entire thight except for the part next to the hip bone, and not showing the belly button. What a compromise. No Scripture was used. Perhaps nudity isn’t such a big deal, relegated to an external that only legalists and papists practice, and only to show off their authority. I mean, what she said is better than the world, but it isn’t based on the Bible.
You mention “jump the gun” separation—sounds like what you did Bob. It hasn’t been something I have noticed though among independent Baptists. If anything people wait and wait too long to deal with sin. They need a great “one another” ministry that deals with sin like we see in the New Testament. Maybe it is your particular view of sanctification? People have to be expected to continue sinning until they reach a higher plane of spiritual existence? They can’t be expected to give up nudity right away, or we tell them in a vague way because we are using a humanistic means to sanctify them—coaxing them into something close to the right practice, afraid that the flesh is still in dominion or that they will move to an even looser church.
My church passed out these modesty check lists by Carolyn Mahaney (of Sovereign Grace Ministries) this past summer.
I personally do not condone mixed swimming, yet I believe there is a way in which it can be done which has a mind towards modesty and decency. This is an issue where we must apply Biblical principles and use discernment. Some may have grown up in an environment where it is not even considered that mixed swimming could be frowned upon. Personal discipleship and instruction of such individuals is needed in love, not a jump-the-gun separation mentality that sets up our own application of Biblical principles on equal level with clear Biblical teaching.
Another helpful article on modesty is available here. For an insight into John Piper’s thoughts on this click here
Please note this post in regards to the recent discussion. This post summarizes the discussion and declares it is now over. Any further comments by “Anonymous” will be deleted. Again check out this post for the reasoning behind this decision.
Thank you.
I say avoid the appearance of evil simply means to avoid those things that appear to you to be evil, and does not refer to your appearance. I am not saying you shouldn’t be concerned with how you appear, merely that this is not what this verse is talking about.
When the greek word for “form” or “appearance” is eidos, which pertains most directly to how something appears visually. This is why I prefer “appearance” over “form.” “Form” also obscures what I believe to be the true meaning of the verse as I said above.
The “David” translation might read: “Avoid [things that] appear evil.”
David,
I think that in context it is clear that you are to avoid any manifestation or semblance of evil. In the context, public prophesyings are in view. Paul is holding out the possibility that even these churchly exhortations could be just a form of evil. We are to prove them all and hold fast to what is good.
Clearly, any manifestation of evil would be something that should look evil to us. But I think the stress is on the fact that it may not look like evil. We need to discern how evil manifests itself.
The verse should be definitely applied to all areas of life and hence we should avoid all manifestations of evil. We should discern carefully every area of behavior and avoid the evil where it lies. This as you rightly point out, is an action we do with regard to ourselves. We need to judge things as evil or not. But it is not primarily concerned merely with appearances. We are not worried about what others think, necessarily. We should not try to offend them, but we are to be concerned with our own actions.
Many fundamentalists use this verse to place undue pressure on people to conform to their idea of what evil looks like. They don’t want you to do anything which might look evil to others. I don’t see that taught in this text. I think such an application of this text tends to downplay individual discernment and over emphasize loyalty to the leaders of one’s movement. See this post for recommended reading on this tendency.
Thanks for posting. And I do agree with your comment in part.
God bless you in Christ Jesus.
Bob Hayton
Good site!!!