Appearance of evil

Yet what about my comment about this Verse being used as an "elastic clause?"

 

All too often I see some legalists use this Verse used as some sort of "elastic clause." </font>[/QUOTE]True, and I've had similar thoughts myself. But I also believe that most Christians do not want to give up questionable things mainly because they are too attached to this world and their love for the brethren has waxed cold.

God help me, but that describes me pretty well!

Also consider that they may be right in their application. God put this verse, and others equally broad, in His Bible on purpose. We can presume He knows what He is doing.

 

Would you have lunch with your nieces or nephews?

How about cousins, aunts and uncles, grandkids, or grandparents

The appearance of evil can exist with even this

Because guess where the appearance comes from?

Not me, or my female relative with her kid that I had lunch with, because I was helping her with her computer, and so I got me a 10 year old "mule" to carry groceries

But from YOU the observer - YOU are imposing evil - YOU are the source of evil in this case

You are the gossiping old women in my church - who if they ever saw me talking to a girl - started discussing the possibilities of marriage

I had REALLY good ears when I was young - I mean Superman had nothing on me, with my sense of my smell, I could hunt down anyone within a mall

 

1 Thess 5:22
Abstain from all appearance of evil.
KJV

The KJ translation of this is not the best translation. The context affirms this, as the context teaches that Paul was speaking of false doctrine. Paul was not speaking of what legalist would assume is a bad lifestyle or lunch partner.

1 Thess 5:22
Abstain from every form of evil.
NKJV

1 Thess 5:22
abstain from every form of evil.
NASB

1 Thess 5:22
Avoid every kind of evil.
NIV

1 Thes. 5:22
Abstain from every form of evil.
ESV

1 Thess 5:22
stay away from every form of evil.
NET

This is an excellent article for further understanding of Paul:

Click here to read Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.

 

Chet, that is an excellent article, and thank you for linking it. It is short and I hope the people here read it and aren't too lazy to click onto it!

He did not mention something I found after reading your post. I looked up the words used in the Greek in my interelinear, and in two Concordances -- Strongs (KJV) and the NIV Concordance.

Eidos is the word translated by the KJV as 'appearance'. And yet it is the ONLY time they translate it that way, and yet it is used five times in the New Testament. I'll quote those five times in a moment.

But first of all, the Strongs lists this word as entry 1491 under the Greek section. First they list the word it comes from (1402), douloo,, which means 'to enslave'. That word, in turn, comes from 1401, doulos,, which is the noun form, meaning 'a slave', or someone who is in bondage. THAT word, in turn, comes from the primary root verb (1210), deo, meaning 'to bind, be in bonds, knit, tie, wind.'

The word used, however, 'eidos', has to do with the form something takes (as related to the condition it is in). But to translate it as 'appearance' in the way we use that word today is to miss the meaning of the passage altogether. Again, the article linked did an excellent job with this verse in context.

We are not to be enslaved by evil or in bondage to it. This would be the most radical translation. Avoiding every form of evil -- the way the modern translations choose to translate it -- is solidly conservative, but the underlying meaning may be even more than that. It may be -- because of the choice of the word used -- a warning that evil will enslave and entrap and therefore is to be avoided completely. In any event, it had nothing to do with 'appearance'!

I did like the way Dr. Wallace, in the article you linked, refers to this verse as translated in the KJV as "The Sin Sniffer’s Catch-All Verse". That's a very accurate phrase! And, as he mentioned, Jesus certainly did not avoid all APPEARANCE of evil, the way He hung around with the prostitutes and other sinners. He even got a reputation for being a glutton and a drunk! I hardly think He was either!

As I mentioned above, 'eidos' is used only five times in the New Testament: here they are.

Luke 3:22

KJV -- And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

NIV -- ...and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

John 5:37

KJV -- And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape

NIV -- And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form...

Luke 9:29

KJV -- And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistening.

NIV -- As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning.

1 Thessalonians 5:22

KJV -- Abstain from all appearance of evil.

NIV -- Avoid every kind of evil.

2 Corinthians 5:7

KJV -- (For we walk by faith, not by sight).

NIV -- We live by faith, not by sight.


That's it. All the times it is used. The time when the NIV translates it 'appearance' makes it clear that what it looked like was completely changed, and has nothing to do with what people think they see, which is the way the 'sin sniffers' use the Thessalonian verse for.

And, in fact, since we do live by faith and not by 'eidos' or sight, let us not judge one another by sight!

 

I'm going to try posting this again.

The margins are a mess.

 

I think that the reason, Dr. Bob, is that any given set of translators knows it is speaking to its contemporary audience.

There is a tremendous book out, "In the Beginning", and part of one of the reviews helps answer your question, I think:

Many of those who are familiar with its origins, and who heap praise on it as a peerless literary gem, are not aware that the original bible was written in the everyday language of the common working man, and that the elegance of the prose in the KJV was essentially a fortuitous accident rather than the intent of its translators. The translation was carried out at a crucial turning point in the English language, and the committees established by James I struggled continuously with which words they should use: those of the current day, even though they knew those words would soon be passé and possibly unintelligible to future generations, or the newer usages, which they couldnt be sure would last? As an example, the early 17th century word for the neuter possessive we know as "its" was "his." This has led not only to a number of puzzling passages but also to many that are tortured attempts to get around the problem: Rather than "Its height was twenty cubits," we get "The height was twenty cubits thereof," which we may think is elegant but not when that awkward construction appears three times in a single sentence describing the proper construction of an ark.

IN THE BEGINNING, a splendidly readable account of how the KJV came to be, is filled with such fascinating tidbits, as well as more substantive and disturbing ones. Church authorities were bound and determined that bibles only be available in Latin, feeling (correctly) that their power arose at least to some extent from the inability of their congregations to understand the Book without assistance from clergy. But the Reformation that was sweeping Europe at the time was based in part on the belief that the bible should be available to all the people, in their own language (hence the term "vernacular bible"), just as the original was. (The Old Testament was in the Hebrew and Aramaic of farmers and laborers; same for the Greek of the New Testament.) This was no scholarly debate, either; William Tyndale was publicly strangled for writing an English version of the bible.

In the Beginning

There is another thought in my mind about the choice for this word as well: I believe the culture at that time was so rife with infidelity and 'interesting' problems of various sorts, that simply avoiding the appearance of evil might have been a big step forward! But that is purely me and not a scholarly response...

Barry and I had a chance to address a very private meeting of a number of today's translators of different versions two years ago. During the discussion session afterwards, some of the material brought out concerned the use of current knowledge to try to get a correct meaning into the translation.

I am sure that every generation of translators has had to cope with this problem, and, likewise, that every generation has made mistakes because of it. I thank God that the basic information in the Bible and its strong message cannot really be hidden except, perhaps, by cults who intentionally change meanings or leave out words (thinking in particular of the JW New World Bible right now).

At any rate, that book sounds very good and I plan on buying it.

 

According to Strong's, eidos (1491) is from eido (1492), and is used 625 times in the new testament, being translated most often as some variation of "to see". So "appearance" is a reasonable, and IMO the best translation in this case.

I think this verse is controversial not because of translational issues but primarly because of the age we live in. People today want to be free to exercise their liberties, appearances and weak brothers be damned.

 

Helen,

Right now I am reading 'In the Beginning' and enjoying it very much.

 

Helen said:
I did like the way Dr. Wallace, in the article you linked, refers to this verse as translated in the KJV as "The Sin Sniffer’s Catch-All Verse". That's a very accurate phrase! And, as he mentioned, Jesus certainly did not avoid all APPEARANCE of evil, the way He hung around with the prostitutes and other sinners. He even got a reputation for being a glutton and a drunk! I hardly think He was either!

The difference being, He was on His father's business. In general I don't believe people oppose this bit of the KJV translation mainly because it hinders their personal evangelism. I also don't think avoiding the appearance of evil is ironclad, but it is something that should always be taken into consideration, especially before exercising our liberties.

Not on topic, but I guess this would be a good example of a doctrinal difference between the KJV and the MV's, none of which supposedly exist

 

Christ commands us not to judge by the outward appearance (John 7:24), obviously speaking of judging the actions of individuals. However, we are still to keep the weaker brethren in mind when we engage in activities that look wrong though they are not. When we sin so against a brother we sin against Christ.

But when dealing with teaching, whether we are weak or strong, we are to take extra caution and avoid a teaching if it even looks false until it has been proven true.

 

Aaron said:

Agree! My testimony to new Christian's and the unsaved is certainly worth my avoiding ugly movies, not 'cooking with wine' or anything else that might put me in a situation so that my testimony might be harmed.

Diane

 

According to Thayer's, eidoz, is used in the LXX to translate mar’eh (Strong's 04758). There is no indication that this is a "misuse." Apparently the Vulgate uses the term "specie" which means appearance, in that verse too.

 

Aaron, that is exactly the point.

Many doctrines do not "appear" to be wrong. In fact, many false doctrines appear to be right. For example, look at the way Open Theism has deceived people. Obviously though, O.T. proponents don't have a clue.

The guiding principle for any activity is: whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

 

Somehow this thread got changed from what a Christian appeared to be to what a doctrine appears to be.

Getting back to the subject, first of all, I have noticed that there is, often, a radical difference between what God leads a person to do which will bring Him glory -- even when the person him or herself does not understand it, and what others, or the person him or herself thinks will bring God glory.

His ways are not ours.

So Jesus not only drank wine, He provided it for a wedding feast.

So Jesus not only did not kiss up to the religious leaders and 'rules' of the day, He publicly disavowed them.

So Jesus did not watch carefully who He hung around with. He even chose a hated tax collector to be one of the chosen Twelve!

He didn't stay clean. Walking miles was dirty.

He didn't stay modest. He hung naked, or nearly so, for the world to see when He was crucified. Do people think He could not have ordered history differently?

I am not against cleanliness and modesty -- don't get me wrong. I simply want to point out that there are times when obedience to God and putting on a nice show for men might be at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I am NOT arguing for immorality. And it is not good to tell me that Jesus was God and therefore different. The fact is that we are being transformed into His image, and therefore He is our goal.

In short, and going by His example as well as the example of many Christians through the ages, it is very possible that following Christ and not giving the appearance of evil might be incompatible.

Let me give you an example. The following is from one of Paul Harvey's book, "The Rest of the Story"

Perhaps it was the young minister's total selflessness that first captured the respect of the miners in that tiny Borinage community. In a mine disaster, scores of the villagers were injured and no one fought harder to save them than he.

Day and night, Willem nursed the wounded, fed the hungry, clothed the poor. He even scraped the slag heaps to give his people fuel.

After the rubble was cleared and the dead were buried and the sick were made well, the townspeople turned to the Dutchman who had healed their physical hurts...and adopted him as their spiritual leader.

Every Sunday they overflowed Willem's services to hear this unassuming man preach the literal Word of God. And then lightning struck.

A visiting church official discovered Willem living in a simple hut, dressed in an old soldier's coat and trousers made of sacking. When he asked Willem what he had done with his salary, Willem answered simply that he'd given it to the miners.

The church official told Willem than he looked more miserable than the people he taught. Why had he given everything away? Willem asked, wasn't this what Christ had intended for his disciples?

"There's such a thing as too literally interpreting the Scriptures," the church official argued. He went on to say that the conventions Willem had destroyed would take years to rebuild.

Willem was dismissed from the service of the church that day. He was devastated. The career that had meant everything was suddenly nothing. There followed weeks of despair.

Then, one afternoon, Willem noticed an old miner. He was bending beneath the enormous weight of a full sack of coal. In that instant, Willem again felt the desperation of these people...and recognized that it would always be his own.

Fumbling through his pockets, the Dutchman pulled out a tattered envelope...and then a pencil...and began to sketch the weary figure that had moved him so. That first drawing was a crude one, but he tried over and over again.

Beginning that day, Willem was to capture for the world the torment, triumph, and dignity of the people he loved.

If Willem had failed as a minister, there was now a new passion ... a new purpose.

And the people he was not allowed to teach, he was able to reach through art. In this process he immortalized them ... and they him.

For the end of Willem's career as a clergyman motivated a ministry more monumental than he had ever dreamed.

Because the preacher who wasn't to be, became the artist the world would know....

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
as Vincent Willem van Gogh.


It is imperative not to be involved with evil. Let the appearances, however, fall where they may.

 

According to Thayer's, eidoz, is used in the LXX to translate mar’eh (Strong's 04758). There is no indication that this is a "misuse." Apparently the Vulgate uses the term "specie" which means appearance, in that verse too. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm curious, Aaron -- WHICH LXX?

 

I run into people I know from church and other places all the time. But it is not so much knowing the people who are watching you.

We as Christians are ALWAYS being watched! By people we know and people we don't.

Let me ask you Pete, do you only witness to people you know?
I don't, I witness to "whoever". So thoes whoever people could be watching. " Hey, there is that lady I was talking to at the grocery store last week and she was telling me all about Jesus and about Salvation, wow, I didn't know she drank!"

"Oh hey, see that guy over there, one night on the train from work we got to talking, and he was telling me all about his church and about God and what it is to be a christian. He even showed me a picture of his nice family. But I can tell you this, that is not his wife that is there with him now."

You never know who will be watching you. We have to always maintain ourselves.
So I don't really think it is a matter of knowing the people you run into.
As far as a married man having lunch with another woman. If it is in a private setting, IE: public place but just the two of them, I do think it is wrong. If it is business? I don't know what to think about that, maybe get a co-worker to go along. I have showed my husband my dissatisfaction even about him giving a ride to one of the ladies at his work to the train station. Don't put yourselves in a position that could potentially go bad.

I don't! If I get a ride home from a male member at the church, I would have someone else ride with us. I always try to get a ride from a female.

THEY ARE WATCHING!

 

So, you never have anyone watching you. You never run into anyone you know. You’re not so concerned about “appearances” of evil, because the weaker brethren are not going to see you (you think). Then I wonder what kind of lives you live.

I have been asked so many questions by different individuals who observe my life. These are mostly people that I don’t know personally, but that are observing me.
I have been asked by an attendant at a dry-cleaners, “Why does your life seem so much more peaceful than others that come here.”
I was asked once about the way that I dressed: “Do you live in a suit!” Or, “How come I never see you in jeans?” The answer is that I am an ambassador of Christ, a servant of the Most High God, the King of Kings. To represent Him I believe that I must be dressed appropriately at all times.
Someone else asked me why he never heard me use any kind of vulgar language, not even language that was off color in any way?
At the end of four years of Bible College a grandmother came and told me this: “You don’t know this, by my grand-daughter has been watching your life very closely. You have lived a very consistent Christian life. She is not saved. I believe now she will trust Christ because of what she has seen in your life. I praise God for what I have seen.”
Travel agents wonder why I often purchase tickets going abroad to some third world country where no one else wants to go.
Others wonder the same thing.
I have many opportunities to witness just by the way I live: by the places that I avoid and don’t avoid, the kind of speech that I use and don’t use, the way I dress and the way I won’t dress, etc.

You may be the only sermon some may ever hear (see).

I have four children. We were eating in a restaurant talking of places we had been and were going to go on deputation. Someone came over to us and said something to the effect that they had never seen this many children behave so well in a restaurant before. He had overheard us talking of missions, and gave us a gift towards our goal to getting to the field. God is good. We are ambassadors for Him in the lifestyles that we live. We testify of His name by the very way that we live our lives. We give opportunity to witness to others by the way that we live.
If you live for the world, or a worldly life, that opportunity will never come. The Bible says, that the friend of the world is the enemy of God.
Be a witness for the Lord, and avoid all appearances of evil.
DHK

 

Obviously the edition Thayer regarded as authoritative. Thayer is a universally recognized authority and would not be so highly esteemed were he in the habit of relying on obscure and dubious sources for his information.

Is there some disparity in the various editions of the LXX in regard to 1 Thess. 5:22?