Anyone with roots in conservative evangelicalism, and particularly fundamentalism, will have heard 1 Thess. 5:22 used as justification for all sorts of personal standards. Going to see a movie, drinking from a dark bottle, using playing cards, wearing facial hair (for men) or wearing pants (for women) — all of these activities and more are condemned with the words: “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess 5:22, KJV).
These words are used as a bully club to keep people in line with the group’s expectations, or more usually, that of the leader. What appears as evil to one is not necessarily going to appear as evil to another; and so, taken to an extreme, the careful Christian could hardly do anything for fear of it somehow being misconstrued as evil.
This basic interpretation of the verse has surprisingly wide attestation. A wide variety of commentators uphold this understanding: Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Harry Ironside, J. Vernon McGee and Albert Barnes. It certainly is not good to rush into things which appear to be evil. But the nuance I see as unwarranted is more adequately found in these thoughts by Ironside: “All of us should remember that others are watching us and taking note of how we behave. We ought to abstain from all that looks like evil…” Or as McGee puts it: “This… is the answer for questionable pastimes and amusements. If there is any question in your mind whether something is right or wrong, then it is wrong for you. Abstain from all appearance of evil.”
Scripture does teach that we should watch out for weaker brethren and not put stumbling blocks in their way. But this particular verse is taken to teach a testimony should be maintained and things avoided which might at a far glance from a passing stranger appear to be sinful, even if upon closer examination they are not. Consider some of these modern applications of this verse in a fundamentalist context.
Fundamentalist Applications of 1 Thess. 5:22
The verse is used in a list of “67 tests that can be used by a believer to decide upon a course of action“. It is the “Appearance Test”. “Would what I do assume any appearance of evil? Would my actions be misinterpreted or seen in a negative light?”
It is used in a church statement of faith in relation to the dress styles church members should have. “We believe that Christian people should look and act like Christian people and not like those who love the things of this world…. Appearance shall be neat and clean, with short hair for men and longer for women. If any statement is to be made by means of dress, it should be a positive statement for Jesus Christ.”
It is used in a church constitution as follows: “The life of the pastor and his family should be an example of godliness and spirituality. They should not indulge in worldly or sinful practices which would tend to weaken the testimony of the church (1 Thess. 5:22 ).”
In a statement copywrighted by BJU Press, a group called the International Testimony to an Infallible Bible, lists 1 Thess. 5:22 as one of 5 reasons why “Christians… separate from the world and from worldliness…” The reason is “To make clear to Christians and non-Christians alike by their actions that they belong to God, not to the world (I Thessalonians 5:22).”
Cooper Abrams of bible-truth.org applies this to ecclesiastical separation: “This verse too is dealing with biblical separation from evil and sin in any form. It is the broadest of all the verses and plainly states to “abstain” from all appearance of evil. To “abstain” means to “hold one’s self off from” or to “refrain from.” Is not false doctrine evil? God clearly throughout His word over and over again condemns sin and false and idolatrous teachers. Is standing beside them, and working with those in doctrinal error “refraining” evil? The answer is obviously no. It is in fact standing with them.”
A popular King James Bible Only site, lists the NKJV’s rendering of the verse as “every form of evil” instead of “every appearance of evil” as one of 337 changes removed from the AV 1611.
David Cloud, an influential fundamentalist leader, applies the verse to everything from alcohol and TV to a new evangelical approach to ministry.
A Closer Look at 1 Thess. 5:22
Key to understanding 1 Thess. 5:22 is appreciating it in its context. Determining the meaning of the Greek word ειδος (eidos) translated “appearance” by the KJV but “form” or “kind” in most modern Bible versions is also important.
Leon Morris in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on 1-2 Thessalonians covers both of these points quite well. I’ll let him explain:
The positive injunction is followed by the negative. The form employed is a strong one with the preposition apo (as in iv. 3) used to emphasize the complete separation of the believer from evil. There is some doubt as to the meaning of the word eidous rendered appearance… as in AV [another abbreviation for KJV]…. The word eidos means the outward appearance of form (Lk. iii. 22, ‘shape’), without any notion of unreality. It is also used in the sense ‘sort, species, kind’. AV takes it in a third sense, ‘semblance’ as opposed to reality, but this does not seem to be attested elsewhere, and it is unlikely that the apostle would be concerned only with outward appearance (there is no word ‘even’ here to give the meaning, ‘even from the appearance of evil’). Our choice seems to be between ‘every visible form of evil’ (with no notion of unreality), and ‘every kind of evil’. The use of the word elsewhere in the New Testament favours the former; but there are enough examples of the term meaning ‘kind’ in the papyri to make the second quite possible. And in view of the context I am inclined to accept it. Paul is urging his friends to eschew evil of every kind.
The change from that which is good (lit. ‘the good’) in the previous verse to ‘every kind of evil’ in this is significant. The good is one, but evil is manifold, and is to be avoided in all its forms. — pg. 106, Eerdmans 1958 (1982 reprinted edition) [italics original, bolded emphasis mine]
I would add that The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology edited by Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1975) also explains that the modern concept of “semblance” is foreign to the Greek mind.
The distinction is commonly drawn between outward form and essential substance. Whilst this distinction is also found in Gk., the Gk. idea of form does not imply that every kind of form is a mere outward appearance…. [Speaking now specifically of the classical usage of ειδος]: the modern distinction between the external and the internal, the visible and the invisible, the husk and the kernel, and between the outward form and essential content is inappropriate and foreign to this aspect of Gk. thought…. The LXX uses eidos to translate mar’eh (sight, appearance, vision) and to’ar (form). Here too the outward appearance of the whole being is meant (cf. Gen. 29:17; Isa. 53:2 f.), and not merely the outer shell behind which something quite different might be supposed. — pg. 703-704 (vol. 1)
The closest that the Greek comes to the idea of “semblance” is with the word σκημα. Moulton and Milligan in their Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, present many papyrii examples contemporary to the NT of the meaning “kind”. They also explain that the Greek word (ε)δικóς meaning “one’s own” comes from our word ειδος.
The meaning of 1 Thess. 5:22
Given the above closer look, I want to draw out what I believe is an appropriate interpretation and application from this text. I’ll be drawing from the immediate context of the verse beginning with vs. 19 – 23.
Don’t quench the Spirit by despising the role of prophecies in the local assembly. Instead of despising prophecies, you are to test everything (including prophecies). That test should result in your holding fast to “the good” and abstaining from every manifestation of evil. Some prophecies are evil, but the attitude of despising prophecies are also evil. As we test everything, we must approve the good and reject the various forms of evil. In fact we need God Himself to “sanctify (us) completely” so that we are “kept blameless at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Abstaining from “every form of evil” certainly fits in with that.
Now don’t be put off by the mention of prophecies. It is right there in the Bible. Whether or not prophecy applies to times beyond the NT is beside the point in our argument here. One thing is for sure, this teaching can be applied to the preaching and teaching of the Word. We shouldn’t despise teaching which we don’t like, but we should test it.
If it is legitimate to find a distinction between the appearance and the true nature of something in this passage, it would most appropriately apply to the prophecies which appear good but actually are forms of evil. I’m not convinced the Greek would allow this. The passage clearly addresses prophecies we don’t like but that are true. I don’t believe the opposite variety of prophecies (seem true but are bad) is referred to in this passage.
Other Articles
I refer you to the following articles for more on the real meaning of 1 Thess. 5:22.
- 1 Thessalonians 5:22\”” The Sin Sniffer\’s Catch-All Verse by Dan Wallace
- Abstain from all Appearance of Evil (1 Thess. 5:22) \”“ A Misunderstood Verse \”“ A Freedom Robber! by Jeffrey Bowman
- The \”Appearance\” of Evil Mistranslation in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 by Hans Deventer and Dennis R. Bratcher
- Abstain from All Appearance of Evil? Revisiting First Thessalonians 5:22 by Rick Walston
Sharper Iron posted your article as a filing here
Thanks Jim. I’d been working on this one for a while, it’s nice to finally have it posted…
[...] For a better understanding of what the verse really means, read The Real Meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22. [...]
Fundamentalism of any stripe (deservedly or not) is given a black-eye with the broad brush; the so-called conservative evangelicals are given a pass. This would naturally appeal to the SI camp. Predictable.
LM
Lou Martuneac is a promoter of antinomianism, and has written an anti-lordship book against John MacArthur to that effect.
LOL! A fundy talking about “camps”! Typical of the fundy “camp”!
Fundys take an antinomian approach to salvation and a legalistic approach to sanctification. True Biblical grace is lost in all of this.
The misuse of this verse reminds me of the use of the “general welfare” clause of the Preamble of the Constitution: it justifies anything the user wants. In the case of Thessalonians, this use of the verse gives the speaker -especially a pastor- to lord it over the hearer. he doesn’t actually have to prove from Scripture his criticism of someone else, he can claim this verse to justify his personal prejudices and inclinations. In fact, it leads to popery, since it makes it impossible ever to have assurance of conscience, leading the believer to be constantly seeking absolution from his spiritual authority.
Good thoughts, Chris. You may be interested in checking out my post following this one (link is below).
[...] post yesterday, on “The Real Meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22” seemed to touch a nerve. Sharper Iron excerpted this line from my post: “1 Thess. [...]
I can appreciate your reaction to the unbiblical applications of this verse in legalistic fundamentalist contexts, something that I have basically only read about, with the exception to some first hand knowledge of Oneness Pentecostals and similar groups, which of course are far different than IFBx in many respects.
However, this post also repudiates historic Reformed teaching on this verse, although the perceptions of various groups will be different. With all due respect, the wide attestation you note should not be surprising at all, although I suppose it may be if you were not exposed to non-fundy views until recently. It seems that your position here is neither fundy nor Reformed, and you basically admit as much with your reference to Matthew Henry above.
___
WLC 99 What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the Ten Commandments?
A. 6 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.
1 Thess 5:22 is a proof text in the Westminster Larger Catechism for Answer 6 to Q.99 that I have posted above.
___
See also J.C. Ryle’s “Holiness” as well as other works wherein he writes on this theme. I believe it was given out at T4G this year, but from what I’ve encountered recently with some of the YRR who embrace TULIP but who know little about older writers like the Puritans, the Reformers, Spurgeon, etc. (or are dismissive of them to some extent as relics of a bygone age who are not of much use in our context) some may well deride portions of “Holiness” as nothing more than Victorian moralism, if not outright legalism.
You appear to be setting forth a kind of quietism when it comes to sanctification, but I’m happy to be corrected if that is not the case.
Good point, Chris. I want to stress that being careful about how what you are doing looks to others is important. I mentioned that when I referenced not placing stumbling blocks before other believers.
I don’t believe in the sinless perfection of the WCF, however. They could be wrong on that point, too. Of course I could as well. The goal for me has always been to follow the Scripture, and at times I depart from historic Reformed teaching, as you’ve pointed out. I do hope I’m growing and reforming always, though.
Thanks for bringing in this relevant quote.
In Christ,
Bob
Bob,
I hope I am growing as well! I have several doctrinal issues I need to work through also and by most measures have been on a trajectory toward being less Reformed over the past year or two.
As for the Westminster Standards, they definitely don’t teach the carnal Christian doctrine or anything similar, but they likewise do not teach sinless perfectionism. To really simplify it, they basically teach that the Christian should not live a life characterized by besetting sins in order to have full assurance.
Typically their services will include a corporate confession of sin in which it is confessed that “We sin daily in thought, ,word and deed,” an idea that I think would be anathema to a lot of Baptists, especially many less Reformed ones. (I know some Baptists who are Calvinistic who disagree with that idea as well and see it as defeatist and unbecoming of a mature Christian.) In general assuming my recollection of the book is accurate, I think it’s fair to say that John Piper’s “Future Grace” is closer to teaching sinless perfectionism than are the Westminster Standards, although neither of them teach it.
Thanks Chris. I wouldn’t hold to sinless perfection, and I see nothing wrong with corporate confession admitting such sin. I do think assurance is tied in part to our walk, but also to the objective work on the cross of Christ on our behalf.
“I do think assurance is tied in part to our walk, but also to the objective work on the cross of Christ on our behalf.”
Excellent statement! While we are not saved through our code of conduct, it is difficult to receive peace in our hearts and assurance of our salvation from the Holy Spirit when we take license to excess and our hearts condemn us. Not only do we cause others to trip…through compromise… we lose our JOY (big joy)…*: )
Amen, sister. May God give us grace to persevere so our hearts don’t condemn us and we don’t lose out on the Joy He has for us.
The way that I read this is: if you believe that the medium of television is wrong for you and your family, if you feel led of the Spirit not to partake of it because of violence, sexuality, etc., that’s one thing, and I don’t judge for that. But to apply a “we keep it off, you keep it off” philosophy (in other words, not only is it wrong for you, but for everyone else as well– no one is allowed to look at it), that’s something else entirely. They’re judging us for looking at television, even though we didn’t judge them for not looking at it. Now, I’m not one to sit and veg 24/7 on the medium; I do other things as well (mowing grass, reading books or newspapers, that sort of thing). But to these fundamentalists, any viewing is to be avoided, even if it’s non-commercial and on DVD. Some have gone so far as to call it “hellevision” (which would seem to imply that if you so much as watch a minute of the medium, you’re going to hell). The way these people talk, anyone who has a DVD collection of television series should throw it out, as it was a waste of money (in their view) to purchase the DVD releases that comprise it. Jerry Mander wrote a book in 1978 listing, in his view, four arguments for the medium’s elimination (and, in fact, such was the title of the book: “Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television”). Marie Winn wrote a similar book called “The Plug-In Drug.” Now, I don’t think we’d have had problems with these people if they kept their opinions to themselves (i.e. if they believed it was wrong for them and they abstained out of a matter of Spiritual/personal belief and conviction), but to them, it wasn’t enough for the medium to be wrong for them– it had to be wrong for us as well; in other words, we were willing to leave them alone and not get up in their faces saying “Why don’t you look at television? You’re free to do so,” but they were not willing to leave us alone and have continued to get up in our faces about how the medium is evil and we’re not supposed to be looking at it and all this “Avoid the appearance of evil” bullsmoke, that sort of thing.
Now of course, there are people who agree with them and have convictions/beliefs to that end; that’s not where the problem is, so long as they keep it to themselves. It’s with the fundamentalists who act like any viewing (one hour occasionally or 24-at-a-shot) is vegging; in fact, even the quickest check of the news headlines on your local station is a grievous sin to them.
Thanks Ben. That is one of the real-world scenarios that stands behind this post. I’ve been in fundamentalist circles where you could not be a deacon or staff-member if you had a TV in your home. That kind of position where you are the conscience for other people, is extreme and unhealthy.
I’m glad that you agree. This is part of the reason why I do not believe “fundamentalist.”
man if i had a nickel for every time i heard that verse taught like this lol. Even scarrier, every time i taught it that way. You are correct my brother. The evil itself is the issue. “appearance” has been used by so many preachers as a bullying tactic. It’s all about control.
Thanks Adam for all the comments. Glad for your input. I don’t have time to reply to all of them on each post where you’r leaving them, so I’ll reply here. Feel free to click “Contact” at the top of my site if you have any questions you wish to interact directly with me on.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
One important thing to remember is to be cautious about villifying the term fundamentalist. Yes it has morphed into something different, but originally it meant simply one who adheres to the five fundamentals of the faith. I do adhere to those. They are biblical. I am not like this new breed of fundmentalism. As a group they don’t really know what they believe. If the IFB movement ever collapses it will not be from an outside cause it will be from within. They can’t get along. They are too worried about who is in whos camp. Since Jesus is outside the camp i think I will stay out there with Him. LOL