Eisegesis is one of those big theological words that isn't common in most Christians vocabularies. Problem is, the idea behind it is far too common.
Eisegesis is the idea of reading or projecting our own ideas, feelings, or interpretations into the biblical text and then declaring the result to be what God meant. This is opposed sharply with Exegesis which is the careful and studied process of mining the truths of the Bible, from the Bible, as they are presented by the Bible, to accomplish the purpose of the Bible.
Today, I'd like to take a few words to point out the harm done by one particular reading of a biblical text that is commonly misinterpreted, and therefore, commonly abused.
In our classic and beautiful King James Bible, I Thessalonians 5:22 reads like so:
"Abstain from all appearance of evil."
or, in the Greek,
"απο παντος ειδους πονηρου απεχεσθε"
The Greek behind this verse reads identically in the Textus Receptus,(1) and the Nestle-Aland texts,(2) making any differences in the final result a consequence of the translation/interpretation, and not of an underlying error in the text. (An important distinction.) The problem posed by the wording in this verses is not a problem of text, nor even a problem of translation, it is mostly a problem of understanding.
The traditional, conservative reading that I heard growing up of this verse is one that views Paul warning against committing otherwise innocent acts that appear to be evil. The classic illustration I've heard is that Christians should not go to the movie theater, as outside watchers wouldn't know if you're going to a "good" movie or a "bad" one. Thus, it's a sin to appear to be doing evil, even if the action itself isn't.
In other words, if what you are doing looks like sin, you shouldn't do it, and since you shouldn't do it, it must be a sin. God wouldn't want his children appearing to sin, now would he? This is supported by one strong connotation of the English word. Should you Google the definition of "Appearance" you'll find that the first definition is "the way that someone or something looks."(3) Now, that clearly leaves room open for something appearing to be bad, even it is innocent, or even good.
This reading of the text, however, presents a few problems.
This faulty reading can lead to relying on perception more than reality.
First, this definition of appearance is subjective, rather than objective. For example, it might look bad if you saw a couple men with flashlights slip into a storefront around midnight and not turn any lights on while they prowled the store. However, after calling the police, the officers may find out that the men are the owners who came by to fix an electrical problem. While your view (subjective) deemed them evil, the truth (objective) revealed that they were innocent, and in fact, helpful. This view of "appearance" however, rips moral judgement from the hand of God, and even the Bible, and places it in the hands of whoever decides to weld it.
Taking this to the extreme, I have heard of some Baptists that don't think ladies should wear red because that was the color harlots wore at some point somewhere to get attention. (These kinds of accusations also tend to be generic.) Thus, no decent Christian lady should ever wear red. (Never mind that the wise woman of Proverbs 31 clothed her family in scarlet.) This has also been used to condemn men from growing beards, as people are said to associate beards with hippies, rebels, hipsters, Hitler, various rock stars, or anybody else that a good Christian would not want to appear like. (Never mind that Jesus himself had a beard.) What proponents of this view fail to realize is that there is then no consistent line by which to apply this. Anything can be seen as appearing to be evil through some stretch of logic.
Some say red is an evil color, some say men shouldn't have beards, women shouldn't wear T-shirts, others that you shouldn't eat or shop anywhere that serves alcohol, (I wonder where those folks get their gasoline...) Some I've met think any sort of Christmas celebration is evil because it looks like we are worshiping Christians Trees, and the list goes on. Needless to say, this breeds the self-centered attitude of "anything more strict than me is stupid and lacks common sense, but anything more loose is compromising with the Devil." All of which is based, not on actual moral examination, but on impressions and, in a word, appearances.
This reminds me of a story. One day, a wonderful man encountered a lonely, hurting lady. They were alone, far out on the edge of town. She was a known sinner, but instead of rejecting or ignoring her, this man broke all cultural norms, smashed societal perceptions, and dared to do the evil of speaking with her. That story is recorded in John 4.
Another time, that same man did the unspeakable evil of "working" on God's Holy Day by healing a man's hand. More, another time, that man appeared to blaspheme by forgiving sins, which only God could do. (Keep in mind, that this "appearance" definition has nothing to do with objective morality, only a subjective perception of evil) Of course, the near-instant defense would be that Jesus was the Son of God, and his healing was lawful, and his meeting was for evangelism, but wait, if we brush off all of those perceptions of evil as false based on the objective reality of God's Word, wouldn't that then overrule any of our modern-day perceptions and justify good works that might appear evil since they do his?
If not, why not?
Yanking the moral judgement of good and evil from the objective rulings of the Bible and placing them in the hands of flawed, petty, and bias humans seems a mistake of magnificent scale. What happens if one thinks something seems evil, but others disagree? If somebody in a different church thinks it is evil, should I still avoid it? Are there any limits to this, besides my own human judgement of what sounds silly? Is something only truly allowable if every person on the planet sees it as good? What happens if something God commands us to do is perceived as evil? Which command wins?
Eventually, after talking to enough Baptists, you won't even be able to breathe heavily. (After all, heavy breathing is associated with Darth Vader, and you wouldn't want to imitate him because then you'd be supporting the idea of "The Force" that is born of Eastern spirituality, which is a wrong worldview. You wouldn't want to give the appearance of supporting that, now would you? So don't even appear to breathe like Darth Vader, even if you have a cold. Never mind the truth, it's all about how I perceive what you do!)
In short, applying this passage to mean we should avoid what somebody, anybody, could perceive as evil is not only impractical, it is inconsistent. There is no standard by which to judge when to ignore the perception of others, and thus, no limit on the limits others may place on you. Applying this to the extreme results in nearly every action being seen as bad, making life, even the Christian life, unlivable. But that's not the only reason to reject this view.
This faulty reading isn't supported by the language.
The second major reason this interpretation falls apart is that it isn't even supported by the text. "Appearance" as defined by the Independent Baptist-loved Webster's 1828 dictionary, reveals only the 4th of 10 possible definitions has anything to do with the outward perception being different from the inward reality.(4) In fact, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology claims that
"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."(5)
This is supported by the interpretation by Polycarp in the early 2nd Century, one who would be fully aware of the meaning of the word and the cultural context around it. When he quotes the passage, he warns against specific, noted, obvious sins such as covetous and deceit, not things that only appear sinful.(6)
In the Greek word's appearances in the TR, none use this word alone to denote only an outward perception that is at odds with reality. Luke 3:22 uses it as "shape" but surrounding context makes it explicit that the Holy Spirit was coming in the shape/form of a Dove. Luke 9:29, translating it as "fashion" is used explicitly in the context of Jesus revealing his true God nature through his equally true human body. John 5:37's "shape" is the true, visible form/shape of God. That leaves 2 Corinthians 5:7 which translates it as "sight" to contrast walking by faith with walking by sight.
While these at first may seem unclear, we must remember a few things. First, let us not make the mistake of ripping a word out of the context in which we find it. Second, let's take a deeper look at the meaning of the word. Again, as I said before, the various textual traditions all record this verse identically. Any differences in English translations are just that, translation differences.
"εἶδος" the word rendered "appearance" in the KJV is translated "form" in the ESV, NASB, NET, MLV, and the NKJV to name a few. The NIV renders it "kind," along with the NLT.
Thayer's lists other definitions beyond appearance as "form, figure, shape, kind,"(7) but then specifically notes that this verse is properly understood as the latter defintion, rather than strictly appearance. Spurgeon himself understood the text this way, commenting
"By which is not meant as some read it, “from everything that somebody likes to say looks like evil.” This would be to mar the Christian liberty. But wherever evil puts in an appearance, when it appears to be good, when it has been dressed out — for the word may refer to a Roman spectacle, or grand procession. Avoid evil even when dressed out in its best, when it comes on in all its gallant show to attract you. Avoid every species and kind of evil — that might almost be the translation — abstain from it altogether." (8)
Now, naturally one may become suspicious. After all, I love and value the KJV above all other English translations, and for good reasons too. Before, then, I am crucified for daring to "correct" that prestigious work, I'd like to point out that they do translate the word correctly.
Michael Holmes, rightly lays the blame for the often misunderstood meaning of "Avoid even the appearance of evil." on the readers, not the translation nor the translators.(9)
The idea Paul was trying to convey was that, no matter how evil appears, no matter the form it takes or the shape it hides in, abstain from it! This many forms of evil contrasted with a single form of good is reminiscent of his contrasting the works of the flesh against the (singular) fruit of the Spirit. The word appearance doesn't require a fake facade. I appear to be a male, and am one. My wife has the appearance of a beautiful female, and is one. The only reason many modern translations shy from that word is that the Greek word is specific an appearance that also reflects the inner evil, regardless of what particular kind of evil that is. While appearance is certainly a correct translation, what used to be a minor definition (a fake facade) has over the last 400 years shifted to become a more dominate definition. Because of that, modern translators turn to other, equally correct words, that more accurately capture the specifics of the Greek without the additional baggage of a possible misinterpretaion that now comes with the KJV's word.
The MEV continues the KJV tradition, but instead modifies the verse to read "Abstain from all appearances of evil" in an effort to draw readers to the idea of how evil appears, rather than what appears to be evil. However, that shifts the singular Greek into a plural English word, and even then would hardly discourage those intent on misapplying the text.
This faulty reading isn't supported by the general context.
Any Bible verse can be manipulated to mean just about anything when one ignores the verses around it and the role it plays in the paragraph. Second, before placing all of our eggs in the basket of a single word's definition, we should take a look at what Paul was doing with what he was saying. As such, let us look at this passage as a whole.
Expanding our study even to the verse right before ours helps immensely.
21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
22 "Abstain from all appearance of evil."
First, let us assume that "appearance" really does mean a perception that may not reflect the true nature of an action/behavior. If so, verse 21 clearly informs Christians to "prove" (examine or test) "all things." Thus, even if an activity looks bad, Christians should examine it for the truth, and then, finding it to not truly be bad, should in fact "hold fast" to it! That is the very opposite of what they often claim!
Rather than the fault being at the feet of those who should avoid even looking bad, the true, biblically founded fault is on those that refuse to get beneath the surface and actually "prove" what they are rashly condemning. Even that is assuming this verse is even referring to "appearance" being something that isn't reflective of the true nature, which is not itself a proven conclusion thus far.
So then, the good/evil of that thing is, again, not determined by the mere outward appearance, but by what is underneath, what is proven, what is actually true. But, how would one "prove all things?" That would require an objective standard, an authoritative set of qualifications that sets apart good from evil. What is needed, then, is not the subjective feelings of people, but a standard that is passionately declared and explained and applied equally to all.
What standard is that? How can that standard be learned?
Let's back up one more verse.
20 "Despise not prophesyings."
The teaching and preaching of the truths of God's Word serve as the foundation upon which we may build our lives. Interestingly, this begins to reveal an interesting fact about this passage.
This faulty reading may even miss the specific context.
Growing up, my first personal encounter with these verses was in the middle of a memorization contest at church camp. I Thessalonians 5:16-22 is the perfect passage, with quick memorable verses that are easy to know and quote. Back then, I figured these were simply a collection of quick, random, and unrelated commands. As I've studied my way through the Bible over the years, I've begun to pick up on how often seemingly disconnected verses do in fact have a running theme and united purpose. This passage could be no exception.
Many Bible students and scholars alike have seen a connection here, running just below the surface, that threatens to put to rest the claims of the overeager legalists. After a lengthy and detailed look at Paul's grammar and syntax elsewhere in his writings, Gordon Fee noted "Paul almost certainly intended that they “avoid” or “keep distant from” every expression of “prophecy” that is not “good,” but rather is an “evil kind.”"(9)
Gary Shogren more recently penned these words about the context:
"It is best to group 5:19–22 together. All five imperatives here have to do with the prophetic gift, which should not be which should not be quenched or despised. “He then speaks (v. 21a) of putting all things to the test. Paul is not thinking of “all things” generically, but all things that have to do with the Spirit’s working. Verse 21 is connected syntactically with what goes before with “and” (δέ, or better, “but”). It is thus meant to explore further the meaning of v. 20. From there it is a logical step to attach the rest of the section (vv. 21b–22) to the testing of prophetic messages (v. 21)—what is good must be honored and retained; what is not good should be rejected (v. 22)."(10)
While these great men sound convincing, there arises a slight problem. "δέ" is missing in the Textus Receptus, and thus, no trace of it is found in the KJV. That connective tissue, though not essential, would be key in establishing the link between these verses. As it is, commentators such as B. H. Carroll (11) still saw the connection in these verses. Like-minded scholars frequently point to Paul's heavy promotion of preaching/prophecy as a spiritual gift in I Corinthians, noting that the connection holds true here. Those readers were not to quench, or shut up preachers, or hide themselves from using their own gifts, either way thinking little of preaching. However, Paul's instructions go beyond the act of opening their mouths, as the Thessalonians were to hold to good preaching and reject the bad, a way of testing the preaching and making sure it truly is Spirit-driven, much as the Berean's did with Paul.
It's obvious that these verses apply to preaching, both interpretations of the text would include that. However, the bigger question is, does it apply only to preaching?
Well, as much as I'd like to be confident in that, not only to smash the misconceptions about verse 22 into oblivion, but also to satisfy my own desires for the content in this pericope to line up nice and neatly, I don't think there's quite the evidence for that. Many modern commentators rely too heavily on the δέ that simply doesn't appear in the TR. Without that, I see only proximity to link it to prophecy, and this idea of proving/abstaining can apply to others things without ruining the focus of the first two verses on prophecy.
I think it's a solid possibility, and certainly lean that direction myself, but am simply not confident enough to fully commit to preaching it that way. I may focus my application on preaching, but cannot in good conscience explicitly proclaim it to be so.
Conclusion:
Congratulations for making it this far! Wix tells me this is a 13 minute read, and I thank you for your investment in time. Needless to say, we've covered a lot of ground.
After our brief study, it follows that the word definitions, Greek understanding, general context, specific context, moral ramifications, and even logical outworkings all point towards an understanding rooted in the "kinds/shape/forms" of evil that may appear, rather than something that simply appears to be evil.
As Christians, it's important for us to mine what is truly in the text, rather than read into it what we want. It's also important to make sure we truly do understand the text. Sometimes translated words are accurate, yet the passage of time and evolution of English has slightly muddled the waters. The results of misunderstanding can be devastating, crippling the activities of Christians and weighing them down with the burden of pleasing others, who are bias, petty, fallible and jealous, rather than solely our trice holy God.
I pray this has been a help.
Citations:
(1) As quoted from Scrivener's 1894 edition here.
(2) You can read the 28th edition text here.
(3) Click Here for Google's definition. (As of 3:17pm, 11-2-2019)
(4) Webster's 1828 is available online here.
(5) You can read that excerpt, quoted in another article on the subject, here.
(6) Epistle of Polycarp, Chapter 11
(10) That entry in Thayer's can be read online here.
(7) SPURGEON, CHARLES HADDON. C.H. SPURGEON'S EXPOSITIONS VOLUME 3. LULU COM, 2011.
(8) Holmes, Michael W. The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Zondervan Publishing House, 1998.
(9) Fee, Gordon D. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2009.
(10) Fee, Gordon D. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2009.
(11) You can read that portion of Carroll's commentary here.
Comments