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
[JNoël]My statement, “The NT is very clear that everything that God has created is good,” was made in the context of a discussion about foods, and 1 Timothy 4:4 appears to be a statement limited to what He made for consumption as food.RajeshG wrote:
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
To assert, however, that there is anything that God has created that is not good is a position that has no biblical basis.
[Dan Miller]Obviously, to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree was an immoral choice, and what I wrote earlier clearly implies that. As long as they ate from any of the other trees, they made moral (as opposed to amoral or immoral) choices.The apple.
Rajesh, would you please define these terms?
- moral
- amoral
[Dan Miller]No thanks, Dan. You can look them up in a dictionary, if you need definitions of them. I’m going to defer to Aaron Blumer for any further discussion with you along these lines—it’s his thread.Rajesh, would you please define these terms?
- moral
- amoral
I agree with his earlier statement:
[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.
The problem in this discussion is that there is more than one definition of “good.” And there are more meanings to the use of “good” in the Bible than one single meaning. Some of the confusion in the discussion stems from:
- The insistence on the same meaning in every place, or
- Differing posters using the same term with different meanings.
I disagree with the proposition that everything humans do is moral. I think that statement goes beyond the Scripture, as so aptly illustrated by Dan in his latest “sock test” post.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Dan Miller]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 would be true if a layer of the sort I described was the only way to make an act moral. But I believe I’m probably going to be able to make a strong case that there are many kinds of layers and the most basic is the nature of the being performing the action, and that being’s connection to its Creator.
It will be a while before I get back to writing on the topic, though. It’s one of those things I remember thinking through some years ago,and moving into my internal “settled things” column. It’s still sitting there in that column with a high level of confidence attached to it, but unfortunately I no longer remember the why’s and wherefore’s.
Either way, it has pulled me into some very interesting reading, so I’m sure I’ll write something up eventually.
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.
I think there are some category errors going on with the question of God making only good things. I can’t speak for anyone else, but when I speak of a “thing” being “good,” I mean that everything God makes perfectly suits His purposes, and all His purposes are righteous.
I suppose some might argue that “good” is not the right word for that, but surely we all agree that everything God makes perfectly suits His purposes, and all His purposes are righteous.
We would also all affirm, wouldn’t we, that even rebellious natural man is made in the image of God. So if we’re using “good” in the sense of “posessing good qualities” we all are good as well as bad. In that sense, goodness is not binary. “Things” are more or less good, in that sense, in a fallen world.
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.
This would be true if a layer of the sort I described was the only way to make an act moral.
No, that’s not so. It’s true whenever no layers apply.
[Don Johnson]Are there specific passages in Scripture that you believe teach that there are things that humans do that are not moral? If so, what are those passages?I disagree with the proposition that everything humans do is moral. I think that statement goes beyond the Scripture, as so aptly illustrated by Dan in his latest “sock test” post.
We all keep repeating, “I believe humans have amoral decisions,” or, “I don’t believe anything humans do is amoral.” But we have not said what “amoral” means.
I’ll try:
“amoral” is descriptive of a human choice that lacks significance in the sphere of right and wrong. A decision (doing A, doing B, or doing neither), about which none of the choices has been revealed by God to be more God-pleasing than the others, is an amoral decision.
I’m pretty sure I’ll be using a different definition of “moral.”
So far, I’m reading Feinberg and Feinberg for a refresher on ethics introduction. Also have some Van Til and some Aquinas that is very much on topic… but both VT and TA will require some work to make sure I understand them. Interesting so far: the Feinberg text is surprisingly friendly toward Kant. Van Til is, unsurprisingly, critical of both Kant and the Aristotle/Aquinas approach (and many others, all for the same reason).
Arist./Aquinas seem to see moral good as whatever conforms to right reason. And so they conclude that any behavior arising from the use of reason has to be either morally good or morally bad. They do allow for a category of “indifferent” choices, but in their view, these would have to be restricted to things we do unthinkingly, like absent mindedly scratching your nose. Pretty sure that selecting color of socks would be moral in their analysis.
Van Til… I have yet to read up on what he means by “analogical knowledge,” but he seems, in the bit I’m reading, to make the case that nothing a human does can be morally neutral—for completely different reasons than those of Aristotle/Aquinas.
The Feinbergs like Kant’s view that it’s duty that makes conduct moral—acting in simple self-interest is not a moral act because it has no relation to duty. (I’m more sympathetic w/Van Til so far on this point. He doesn’t put in these terms, but to me, the believer must view everything he does through the lens of stewardship, and so even acting in self-preservation is a moral act: because we are caring for property that belongs to our Lord. So there is not really anything we do with intention that has no relationship to duty. I might end up agreeing w/Aquinas that what we do unthinkingly isn’t exactly “moral,” though I think I would say it could still be objectively right or wrong.)
There are intriguing references to Augustine in Aquinas and I’m curious to see if I can find anything helpful there.
(Really what to get Grudem’s ethics book, but it’s due out in Logos in a couple of weeks, so… seems wise to wait for that format for my purposes.)
…just rambling, really, but I’m finding the topic very interesting.
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.
Whether you follow Aristotle and define right and wrong by “reason” or the others and define it by duty, it’s all the same thing.
When one says that we have a duty or something that we “ought to do,” he means that a power outside ourselves has a right to make demands on our behavior.
———
And whatever terms they dress it in, I’m betting they all have categories of insignificance in relation to [duty, reason, morals, “ought”]. Yes they will reason on principles of duty to encourage us to reconsider acts that we thought of as [amoral, unthinking, non-duty] , explaining how when you [ratiocinate, consider, take heed] there’s a layer of morality on a great many things.
(I believe that is what Paul is doing to the “strong” in 1cor 10:12 “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”)
[Aaron Blumer]Having given a fair bit of additional thought to these comments, I’d like to see what you think Paul is saying in 1 Tim. 4:4 when he uses the word “good” to characterize every food that God has created. Based on what you say here, do you hold that Paul was saying that every food that God has created is good because it “perfectly suits His purposes” for that food and that this is why believers are to reject the demonic teaching to abstain from certain foods?I think there are some category errors going on with the question of God making only good things. I can’t speak for anyone else, but when I speak of a “thing” being “good,” I mean that everything God makes perfectly suits His purposes, and all His purposes are righteous.
I suppose some might argue that “good” is not the right word for that, but surely we all agree that everything God makes perfectly suits His purposes, and all His purposes are righteous.
We would also all affirm, wouldn’t we, that even rebellious natural man is made in the image of God. So if we’re using “good” in the sense of “posessing good qualities” we all are good as well as bad. In that sense, goodness is not binary. “Things” are more or less good, in that sense, in a fallen world.
Aaron,
Two thoughts:
1. When things are said to be “good” or “evil” in Scripture, that should be taken mean, “Good with it’s expected use.” (and “evil”) That means that the Apple was “good.” But it was evil to eat. And after the Law, a pig was good, but evil to eat.
2. Your head-slapping idea was that two activities can be equally good, but that doesn’t mean neutral. Rather it means that they are both good, but not more or less than one another. HOWEVER, what about a case where there is equal “goodness” of choice A, choice B, and doing neither?
Discussion