Can Anything a Human Does Be Morally Neutral? A Look at 1 Corinthians 8:8 (Part 1)
Image
In a recent exchange here at SharperIron, I was asked what I thought 1 Corinthians 8:8 meant. I had just asserted that a being bearing the image of God could not possibly do anything that is morally neutral — neither right nor wrong, because such a being must either express that imago dei, or in some way insult it (or both at once, in different ways).
1 Corinthians 8:8 seems to say otherwise.
After offering a brief explanation of how Paul’s meaning there could be understood as consistent with the view that human actions are always moral, the question continued to nag me. My answer felt inadequate. And, since any answer to the question could have a lot of implications, it seems important to be confident.
Hence, this brief study.
The Passage
First, a bit of context. The apostle Paul is helping the Corinthian congregation work through how to behave in the matter of consumption of meat that had been offered to idols. He has just asserted that idols are not really real (1 Cor. 8:4), in the sense of representing or connecting to some deity (but cf. 1 Cor. 10:21, another study for another day). He then points out that not everybody understands this (1 Cor. 8:7), and 8:8 comes as further explanation of the true nature of eating this idol-associated food.
Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. (ESV, 1 Cor. 8:8)
Three variables require a closer look here, though the second and third tend to collapse into one for all practical purposes:
- Commending (παρίστημι, paristemi) to God
- Being worse off (ὑστερέω, hustereo)
- Being better off (περισσεύω, perisseuo)
The key words are all verbs. “Will (not) commend” is a straightforward future active indicative. “Being worse off” and “being better off” are both present participles (something like “we are (not) worse-off ones” and “we are (not) better off ones”), though “being worse off” here is passive (or middle) and “being better off” is active.
A Few Views
1. It’s about the idol
Richard Pratt takes the view that commending here refers to “the god,” as in, the idol.
[I]t is also possible (and more literal) to translate, “Food does not bring us near to the god” (i.e., the idol to which the food in question was offered). In light of the preceding context, this seems to be the better option.1
He continues:
The phrase we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do probably expands the meaning of bring us near. It probably refers to the lack of prosperity an idol worshiper might anticipate if he failed to eat of the sacrifice, and to the abundance he would expect to receive if he did eat.
(In all of these excerpts, bold type is original and usually represents quotation from an English translation of the text.)
In this view, believers defending their freedom to eat this food defended their conduct with the claim that eating didn’t give them some kind of connection to a god. Paul either extends his reference to their defense in the rest of the verse or agrees with it and adds his own observation that eating also has no result one way or the other from a prosperity standpoint.
I haven’t yet found anyone else who takes this view of the passage.
2. It’s about God’s judgment
Focusing on the first verb, Anthony Thiselton takes exception to how most English translations handle this part of the verse.
The AV/KJV, RV, and RSV, followed by Barrett, translate: Food will not commend us to God. This is too restrictively positive for the verb; Senft, Maly, and Schrage note that had the word meant commend we should expect συνίστημι rather than παρίστημι, for these two verbs are not usually synonymous.2
After a very compressed (and helpful) survey of many views on the meaning of paristemi, Thiselton settles on a judgment focus, agreeing with Murphy-O’Connor and others:
Murphy-O’Connor and Jeremias take up the emphasis reflected in our proposed translation “Food will not bring us to God’s judgment,” viewed as both a negative or pejorative allusion to being judged and as a slogan or catchphrase of “the strong.” This allusion to judgment already finds expression in Weiss, Robertson and Plummer, and BAGD. In 2 Cor 4:14 the verb presupposes an allusion to God’s judgment, and some stress the eschatological reference which is implied in v. 8a. Similarly, Heinrici has little doubt that the issue concerns divine judgement.3
Thiselton seems less confident about the rest of verse 8, but prefers to see it as a response to a quoted slogan of the “strong” in the broader context, who were using it to justify themselves. However, he does see Paul’s response as a statement of principle for everyone in Corinth. In that context, he translates the verse as follows:
“Food will not bring us to God’s judgment”; neither if we abstain from food do we lose any advantage, nor if we eat do we gain any advantage. 4
3. It’s about indifference
Some interpreters summarize the verse as an expression of spiritual indifference, though it’s unclear what their concept of “spiritual indifference” is, exactly. Harold Mare observes,
First, as in 8:1, we should know that there is nothing inherently wrong with sacrificial meat and that in itself food neither enhances nor minimizes our standing before God. Second, since the eating of meat is of no spiritual importance and so is a matter of indifference, the Corinthians should realize that to eat sacrificial meat is not a practice to be insisted on for maintaining Christian liberty.5
As far as the question of whether any action can be morally neutral, John MacArthur is similarly vague.
[E]ating or not eating food has no spiritual significance in itself. Neither act will commend us to God. Commend (paristēmi) means “to place near, bring beside, present to.” Neither eating or not eating food will bring us closer to God or make us approved by Him. The general point is that doing things not forbidden by God has no significance in our relationship to Him. They are spiritually neutral. Food is an excellent illustration of that fact.6
It’s hard to see how a moral act can have “no spiritual significance,” but since this is not the question either Mare or MacArthur are trying to answer here, it probably wouldn’t be fair to say they see Paul as teaching the possibility of morally neutral action.
In their defense, John Calvin’s view is quite similar.
Meat recommendeth us not to God. This was, or may have been, another pretext made use of by the Corinthians — that the worship of God does not consist in meats, as Paul himself teaches in his Epistle to the Romans…. In this he tacitly acknowledges, that in the sight of God it matters not what kinds of food we partake of, because he allows us the free use of them, so far as conscience is concerned; but that this liberty, as to the external use of it, is made subject to love.7
On the “not better” and “not worse” language of latter part of the verse, Calvin says,
[H]e means, that we have neither more nor less of righteousness from eating or from abstaining. Besides, he does not speak of every kind of abstinence, or of every kind of eating. For excess and luxury are in themselves displeasing to God, while sobriety and moderation are well-pleasing to him. But let it be understood by us, that the kingdom of God, which is spiritual, does not consist in these outward observances, and therefore, that things indifferent are in themselves of no importance in the sight of God.8
Where We Are So Far
In this brief, somewhat random survey of views, we have two that are easily consistent with the idea that everything humans do is, in the final analysis, morally good or morally bad to some degree. We have one view that at least seems incompatible with that. Does the indifference view suggest, or require, that there is a category of human action that is genuinely amoral?
What I hope to do next is dig a bit into the positive case for “everything we do is moral,” and see how that affects the light in the room, so to speak, when we’re looking at 1 Corinthians 8:8.
Notes
1 Pratt, Richard L., Jr. I & II Corinthians. Vol. 7. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000. Print. Holman New Testament Commentary.
2 Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000. Print. New International Greek Testament Commentary.
3 Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000. Print. New International Greek Testament Commentary.
4 Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000. Print. New International Greek Testament Commentary.
5 Mare, W. Harold. “1 Corinthians.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976. 240. Print.
6 MacArthur, John F., Jr. 1 Corinthians. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984. Print. MacArthur New Testament Commentary.
7 The Calvin Commentaries, courtesy of The Bible Hub: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_corinthians/8.htm
8 Ibid.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 158 views
Aaron, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Seems like you’re saying that some decisions have equivalent choices, morally speaking.
Seems like: What color pants should I wear? Absent any pertinent commands from God or God-ordained authorities (does my school have a tan pants rule?) and absent any principles that I can or should apply (has my wife recently told me that she is getting tired of tan pants and wouldn’t I wear some other color?), the color of my pants lacks moral significance. To whatever extent they’re agatha, they are equally so.
[Jay]God created foodstuffs for human consumption and says that it is morally good to eat them. For various reasons in certain settings, it may yet be morally good to refrain from eating certain things.
I’m not sure that I agree the bolded section is true. God specifically identifies foods that the Israelites were not to eat in the OT (making it a sin to eat those foods) although that prohibition is largely lifted now.
Furthermore, how are you defining “foodstuffs”? Is a Twinkie or Krispy Kreme a God- created foodstuff?
Apart from preservatives—I recently saw a movie where the heroine praises the “food of the ancients” while eating a centuries-old Twinkie—it’s worth noting that both Twinkies and Krispy Kremes are mostly composed of flour, sugar, and fat—vegetable oil for Krispy Kremes, tallow for Twinkies if I remember right. All of these ingredients (again save preservatives) are created by God and are therefore good.
Now I, having just taken a Metformin pill, am well advised to take it easy on these, especially the sugar, but they’re still good (**) foods that can be eaten in moderation. I’m reminded of something C.S. Lewis noted in The Screwtape Letters: that the Devil has never yet managed to create a single pleasure. Every sinful excess is a perversion of something good God created. As Don notes, context is huge here.
(** I confess that although I’ve just called Twinkies a “good” food, I can’t stand them and never liked them even as a kid. And Krispy Kremes are “meh”. So sue me. )
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Dan] the color of my pants lacks moral significance. To whatever extent they’re agatha, they are equally so.
Well, I’m convinced nothing a human does is without moral signicance, and I think “spiritually neutral” and “amoral” are just not terms that can accurately describe anything a human does. But I do think there are lots of situations where our options are all either equally good or not distinguishable on the goodness scale with any confidence.
The difference matters, because we’re talking about human nature, right and wrong, and God’s nature as well.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Yeah, I guess I understand, but also there’s a need to be practical. This morning, for me, pants color wasn’t something I even considered from a moral standpoint. One might object that I should have at least considered the decision from that standpoint and decided that indeed, it’s arbitrary. We simply don’t (can’t) apply ratiocination to every decision.
I think that’s why God created us the way He did - with a conscience that is both trainable and an autonomously acting self judge.
The NT is very clear that everything that God has created is good:
1 Timothy 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
I am well aware of I Timothy 4:3-4, Rajesh. My point is that “God created meats to be received with thanksgiving” is not the same thing as what you said earlier, “that it is morally good to eat [foodstuffs] ” .
I also wanted to know how you define foodstuff because God has barred people from eating certain foods at certain times, as in the OT Levitical law. Thankfully, those laws have been done away with now but they were in force (and still are for Jews).
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Dietary restrictions are only “in force” in the mistaken thinking of Jews who have rejected their Messiah. In the mind of God, they are no longer in force.
G. N. Barkman
[Jay]Of course, God’s saying in 1 Tim. 4:3-4 that everything that He created is good and has “created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth” is the same thing as saying they are morally good to eat. “To be received with thanksgiving” means that it is right, good, and moral to eat those things.I am well aware of I Timothy 4:3-4, Rajesh. My point is that “God created meats to be received with thanksgiving” is not the same thing as what you said earlier, “that it is morally good to eat [foodstuffs] ” .
I also wanted to know how you define foodstuff because God has barred people from eating certain foods at certain times, as in the OT Levitical law. Thankfully, those laws have been done away with now but they were in force (and still are for Jews).
Long before God gave certain dietary prohibitions to the Jews, He gave everything that He had created for food to all mankind when He made the Noahic Covenant (Gen. 9:3).
You are mistaken about any dietary restrictions being still in force for the Jews. All of that was done away with the completion of the work of Christ.
For what it’s worth…
- Pretty sure everyone agrees that things that God made cannot possibly fail to be good.
- It should be obvious that actions taken with those things are something else. And these have to be evaluated, regardless of whether the things involved are human creations or divine creations.
- My view on actions: everything humans do is moral. We either know our actions are wrong, know they are not wrong, or are unsure.
- There can be multiple options for action, all of which are wrong, or all of which are equally not-wrong as far as we can tell.
- Because there are many things God has not commanded or prohibited (directly or indirectly), and we know what many of these are, we don’t have to analyze every choice we make for rightness or wrongness. (The act is still either wrong or not wrong.)
- We still don’t get to look at anything in life and declare that it doesn’t matter what we do. (Even the really small stuff matters: we just don’t benefit from moral analysis because we don’t have any expectation of being able to answer that question.)
But even the tiniest things can become important under the right conditions. Suppose, for example, someone who matters a great deal to me and who is very sensitive at the moment (for any reason you want to invent) gives me a gift of some blue socks. Now, my decision of whether to where them or the black ones is… not so “spiritually neutral.” It really never was neutral and couldn’t possibly be. But now, since I know it could have an impact on someone I don’t want to offend, it obviously isn’t neutral. Without those conditions, I don’t really have any reason to think about it. With those conditions, I do. But there was never any chance of it being an amoral act, because a human being would be doing it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]…My view on actions: everything humans do is moral. We either know our actions are wrong, know they are not wrong, or are unsure…
I agree with your socks story, a situation like that places a moral layer on an otherwise “tiniest thing,” as you put it. But I think “tiniest things” are indeed a-moral. This layer of morality, which can make a “tiniest thing” moral, is not inextricably tied to the “tiniest thing.” That means that the “tiniest thing” can exist without such a layer and avoid your attachment of morality.
[Dan Miller]Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.Aaron Blumer wrote:
…My view on actions: everything humans do is moral. We either know our actions are wrong, know they are not wrong, or are unsure…I agree with your socks story, a situation like that places a moral layer on an otherwise “tiniest thing,” as you put it. But I think “tiniest things” are indeed a-moral. This layer of morality, which can make a “tiniest thing” moral, is not inextricably tied to the “tiniest thing.” That means that the “tiniest thing” can exist without such a layer and avoid your attachment of morality.
This verse says that God is going to judge everything we do; it does not say that there are numerous “tiniest things” that we do that are exceptions that will not be divinely assessed.
Rajesh, you seem to believe that every choice (every work) must be either good or evil. And you said this in the context of a discussion about sock selection.
This morning, after deciding on black socks, I had a choice between some thinner ones and some thicker ones. No pattern, both purchased by dear wife, both washed by dear wife.
Your post would seem to suggest that since I had a choice, necessarily one option was good and one was evil (unless I was supposed to wear the blue ones!).
Even the OT Law is filled with statements like, “eat any bird you want.” And pay your tithe and then
Deuteronomy 14:26 and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.
I think the idea that every single tiny decision point necessarily has a sinful option to be avoided would render us so anxious and self-judging that we would make David Brainerd look carefree.
[RajeshG]The NT is very clear that everything that God has created is good:
1 Timothy 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
Is the context of 1 Tim 4:2 referring to everything - everything God ever created and ever will create, or is it only referring to “creatures” - in the context of animals and the fact that we can eat them?
Some examples I’m thinking about:
- Humans who were not chosen by the Father as his own
- Hell
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[Dan Miller]I never claimed nor do I believe that “every single tiny decision point necessarily has a sinful option to be avoided.”Rajesh, you seem to believe that every choice (every work) must be either good or evil. And you said this in the context of a discussion about sock selection.
This morning, after deciding on black socks, I had a choice between some thinner ones and some thicker ones. No pattern, both purchased by dear wife, both washed by dear wife.
Your post would seem to suggest that since I had a choice, necessarily one option was good and one was evil (unless I was supposed to wear the blue ones!).
Even the OT Law is filled with statements like, “eat any bird you want.” And pay your tithe and then
Deuteronomy 14:26 and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.
I think the idea that every single tiny decision point necessarily has a sinful option to be avoided would render us so anxious and self-judging that we would make David Brainerd look carefree.
Deuteronomy 14:26 is not a statement that there were no limitations on what could be chosen and consumed. Anything that God had forbidden earlier in the chapter (14:7-8; 10; 12-19; 21) was off limits. As I see it, any choice made within the choices that were acceptable to God and consumed in a manner acceptable to Him was a moral choice (as opposed to an immoral choice).
I do not believe that Deuteronomy 14:26 or other statements like it support the notion that any of the choices that they would have made would have been amoral.
In my thinking, there are no actions that a human does that are amoral. Choosing among numerous acceptable choices does not mean that whatever choice you make is an amoral choice; it is a moral choice.
Prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve could have eaten from any tree of the garden save one. As long as they ate from any of the trees except from the one that was forbidden them, they made moral (as opposed to immoral) choices—not amoral choices.
The apple.
Discussion