The Excellent Way-1 Cor 13

With its sheer beauty and power 1 Cor 13 is a greatly loved NT passage and one of Paul’s finest moments. Unfortunately, the love for this love chapter has been regularly read [at weddings!] out of context. This doesn’t make love less true, but it misses the context in Corinth where speaking in tongues is elavated by the “spiritual” [pneumotikoi (1 Cor 3:1)] as the most spiritual gift (1 Cor 13:1). Then when reading in context love is set over against “the gifts of the Spirit,” which it isn’t because love is in a different category altogether. For Paul it’s not “love is the greatest gift.” Rather, love is a “way” (1 Cor 12:31b). It should be the primary motivation behind everything they do–including Spirit manifestations [=”gifts”] in the gathered church. An eager desire for expressions of the Spirit that will build up the church is HOW LOVE ACTS in this context (1 Cor 14:5, 12, 26). Love is the essential “ingredient” that seems to be missing in the church.

Correctives regarding Spirit manifestations. Paul puts their zeal for tongues-speaking within an ethical context that disallows uninterpreted tongues in church. The context is love for others over self-interest. In ch. 14 such love will be specified in terms of “building up” the church (1 Cor 14:5, 12, 26).

Picking at the differences between him and them–the opposing views of what it means to be people of the Spirit. They speak in tongues, which Paul doesn’t question as a legitimate activity of the Spirit. But they at least tolerate, if not endorse illicit sexuality, greed, and idolatry (1 Cor 5:9-10, 1-5; 6:1-11, 12-20; 8:1-10:22). They spout “wisdom” [sophia] (1 Cor 1:19) and knowledge [gnosis] (1 Cor 8:1), but in the former they stand boldly against Paul and his gospel of a crucified Messiah (1:18-31), and in the latter they “build up” weaker brothers or sisters by destroying them (1 Cor 8:10-11). In short, they have a “spirituality” that appear religious [asceticism, knowledge, tongues-speaking] but have abandoned truly Christian ethics, with its supremacy of love–which manifests itself in terms of concern for others (1 Cor 10:32-33) that they be “built up” in Christ.

To love is to act. We miss Paul‘s concern because of the lyrical nature and we think of love as an abstract quality, or worse yet, as a “feeling” toward someone. Love is primary because it’s clearly displayed in the coming of Jesus to die for the sins of the world (Rom 5:6-8; 8:32; Eph 5:1-2). Love is NOT an idea, NOT even a “motivating factor” for behavior. LOVE is BEHAVIOR. It is to act. Anything short of action is not love at all.

The eschatological dimension–that our present existence, for all its blessings, is but a foretaste of the future. This present partial existence [“not yet“] will one day give way to that which is final and complete.

The preeminence of love (12:31b—13:13). Ch. 13 portrays love as the sine qua non of the Christian life and insists that love must govern the exercise of all the gifts of the Spirit. Paul’s lyrical prose has caused many to take it out of context as a lovely meditation on the nature of love. But the many verbal and conceptual links between 1 Cor 13 and the rest of the letter show that this is NOT an independently composed oration on love. Within 1 Cor its clear purpose is to reform their understanding and practice of spiritual manifestations in worship.After an introductory sentence (12:31b) that announces the beginning of an epideictic interlude (in ancient rhetoric, epideictic referred to a type of demonstrative speech in praise or blame of some person, thing, or quality), the unit breaks into 3 parts:

• 13:1–3  —   The NECESSITY of love. The futility of all religious/spiritual practices without love. It doesn’t benefit the person doing them. Paul uses himself as a hypothetical negative example, urging the absolute necessity of love.
• 13:4–7  —   The CHARACTER of love. Encomium [praise] to love, describing the character of love, especially adapted to the Corinthian situation and their differences with Paul.
• 13:8–13  — The PERMANENCE of love. Contrast love with 3 selected charismata, including tongues [middle item]: Juxtaposing the eternal abiding nature of the one [love] and the relative, temporal, provisional nature of the other [spiritual gifts], placed within the context of both his and their “already/but not yet” eschatological existence. This doesn’t make charismata less valuable for the present life as one awaits the consummation, but it is against their “over–realized spirituality” that these things have a relative life span [for the “already” only], while love is both now and forever. Paul urges that they eagerly desire “gifts of the Spirit” (1 Cor 14:1) for the sake of the common good (1 Cor 12:7).

Love is the love of God shown in the death of Jesus (Rom 5:8; Gal 2:20b; 1 Cor 13:13), yet there’s no reference to Jesus in ch. 13. Agape is presented here as a quality or character attribute that is to be shown in the actions of church members, as in “Let all that you do be done in love” (1 Cor 16:14). Ch. 13 is ethical. By describing the qualities of love, Paul promotes the character formation of the church. John Calvin says, “I have no doubt that Paul intended it [1 Cor 13] to reprimand the Corinthians in an indirect way, by confronting them with a situation quite the reverse of their own, so that they might recognize their own faults by contrast with what they saw.” The description of love (1 Cor 13:4–7) is not only a reprimand but also a positive model. It’s Paul’s overall appeal for the healing of divisions in the church. Love is the antidote to factionalism in the church: “Love is the principle of Christian social unity which Paul urges on the Corinthians” (Margaret Mitchell). This concern decisively shapes ch. 13, both negative and positive, of love. The argument for unity builds throughout the letter and reaches a climax in ch. 13.2 common misunderstandings of the chapter must be set aside.

1. Love should govern the use of gifts in the church is Paul’s point, not to debunk tongues or that love should supersede spiritual gifts—ch. 14. Love is NOT a [higher and better] gift, but a “way” (1 Cor 12:31b), a manner of life within which all the gifts are to find their proper place.
2. Love is the name for specific actions of patient and costly service to others, not merely a feeling or an attitude. Attending closely to what Paul says, all sweetly sentimental notions of love will be dispelled and replaced by a rigorous vision of love that rejoices in the truth and bears all suffering in the name of Jesus Christ.

Spiritual actions without love are meaningless (13:1–3). 3 religious practices are declared futile if love is not present:

• speaking in tongues (1 Cor 13:1),
• prophesying, receiving revealed knowledge, working miracles by faith (1 Cor 13:2), and
• ascetic self-deprivation (1 Cor 13:3) are all worthless if not accompanied by love.

Tongues, knowledge–gifts they’re fond of (1 Cor 13:1-2) and prophecy, which Paul prizes highly (1 Cor 14:1, 3-5). Paul isn’t polemicizing against tongues and revelatory gifts of the Spirit, but properly evaluating them. By themselves they’re of no account, including even morally praiseworthy acts such as giving away one’s possessions to the poor (1 Cor 13:3). 2 ways to understand Paul, with both making good sense.

1. condemning “doing the right thing for the wrong reason” and calling for love as the proper motivation.
2. condemning moral inconsistency (doing some of the right things but lacking love in other areas of one’s life) and calling for love to be lived out in all aspects of existence.

“…speak with the tongues of men and of angels” (1 Cor 13:1) doesn’t simply mean speaking well with great eloquence, but by the special inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the language spoken by heavenly beings. A most illuminating ancient parallel is in the Testament of Job, an Egyptian Jewish text [1st century B.C.E. or C.E.]. It contains the legend of 3 daughters of Job, each of whom is given a multicolored cord as an inheritance; the cord confers upon them the power of angelic speech and song. “Thus, when the one called Hemera arose, she wrapped around her own string just as her father said. And she took on another heart—no longer minded toward earthly things—but she spoke ecstatically in the angelic dialect, sending up a hymn to God in accord with the hymnic style of the angels” (T. Job 48:l-3a). Such was the “speaking in tongues” as understood by them and by Paul also: “those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God; for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit” (1 Cor 14:2). Tongue-speaking, then, was revered as a mode of communication with the superior heavenly world. But even something as glorious as speaking with the tongues of angels is of no value without love.Speaking in this way but lacking love is “an echoing bronze or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor 13:1). Corinth was famous for its bronze vessels. Chalkos (“bronze”) is never used elsewhere to refer to a musical instrument. So some scholars propose that it refers to bronze acoustic vases used in the theater to echo and amplify the voices of the actors. The “clanging cymbal” was associated with the wild ecstatic worship practices of the cult of Cybele. To paraphrase Paul: “Even if you can speak with the heavenly language of angels, but have no love, your high-toned speech has become like the empty echo of an actor’s speech or the noise of frenzied pagan worship.” This is forceful imagery. Paul is pulling no punches.Prophecy (1 Cor 13:2;12:10; ch. 14) means speaking a word from God to the gathered congregation. Paul understood this gift from the OT prophets. Understanding “all mysteries and all knowledge [gnosis]” means having access to inside information about God’s plans. To Paul “mystery” (1 Cor 15:51) is revealed knowledge about the final resurrection of the dead. Such language is from Jewish apocalyptic thought, where the heavenly mysteries from God are revealed. The prototype of the apocalyptic seer is Daniel, to whom “the mystery was revealed” of how to interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dream concerning “what will happen at the end of days” (Dan 2:19, 28), and who therefore praises God, saying, “Blessed be the name of God from age to age, for wisdom and power are his… . He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding. He reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what is in the darkness, and light dwells with him” (Dan 2:20–22). With Paul’s apocalyptic emphasis on wisdom and knowledge, they fused it with Greek philosophical traditions. [“knowledge” (1 Cor 1:5; 8:1; 8:7–13; 12:8; 14:6).] But whether one gains mysterious truths through revelation or philosophical reflection, such knowledge counts for nothing without love. Paul holds himself as an eg.–describing himself as speaking “God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory” (1 Cor 2:7), but without love he’d be “nothing” (1 Cor 13:2).Performing mountain-moving miracles by faith is nothing without love. [“Faith” is one of the manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:9.)] This may be from Jesus (Mk 11:22–24; Mt 17:20; also Isa 40:4). Paul’s point is closer to Mt 7:21–23: those excluded from the kingdom may have prophesied and done mighty works, but they count for nothing if they have not done the will of the Father in heaven—which, in Matthew, is linked with love and mercy. So, without love they have any significance at all.2 different forms of self-denial: giving away one’s possessions (Lk 14:33) and giving up one’s own body (1 Cor 13:3). The meaning of the second example is complicated by a notoriously difficult textual problem: some ancient Greek manuscripts read hina kauthsomai (“to be burned”), while others read hina kauchsmai (“so that I may boast”). One of the usual objections against “be burned” is that Christian martyrdom by fire was not yet known in Paul’s time; however, this objection carries little weight, for traditions of martyrdom by fire were thoroughly familiar in Judaism, as demonstrated by the narratives of the deaths of the Maccabean martyrs (e.g., 2 Mace. 7:1–6; 4 Macc. 6:24–30). Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine why later scribes would have changed “be burned” to the rather perplexing “boast,” whereas the reverse change is entirely understandable. Thus, on balance, the reading kauchsmai (“so that I may boast”) is to be preferred.What does “in order that I may boast” mean? Paul uses “boast” a few times, not always in a pejorative sense. 1 Cor 9:15–16 is pertinent–Paul declares that his boast is that he surrenders his legitimate rights for the sake of the gospel. His boasting seems linked with eschatological reward for apostolic labors (Rom 5:3; 2 Cor 1:14). If this eschatological boasting is in 1 Cor 13:3, the meaning would be, “if I hand over my body so that I might boast/glory in the eschatological reward for my self-sacrifice.”A possible further sense for “giving up the body” is provided by 1 Clement, a late-1st-century text that refers explicitly to Paul’s correspondence with Corinth. Offering examples of what it means to be “filled with love” (54:1), 1 Clement says, “We know that many among ourselves have given themselves to bondage that they might ransom others. Many have delivered themselves to slavery, and provided food for others with the price they received for themselves” (55:2). This passage is particularly interesting because the two verbs translated as “delivered” and “provided food” are the same 2 verbs in 1 Cor 13:3, there rendered by the NRSV as “hand over” and “give away.” It seems likely that 1 Clement is explicitly echoing 1 Cor 13:3 and interpreting the giving over of the body as a reference to voluntary slavery rather than martyrdom by fire (Fee).There’s nothing to be gained by self-sacrifice where love is absent. With this declaration, his impressive opening paragraph comes to an end, having asserted forcefully that all religious action is meaningless unless encompassed by agape.Love as the antithesis of their behavior (13:4–7). Paul praises love by detailing what love (now poetically personified) does and does not do. The 1st 2 positive items–“Love is patient; love is kind”–attribute to love qualities that Paul ascribes to God (Rom 2:4). However, the weight falls upon the 8 negative items in the list, which correspond to their behavior as described elsewhere in the letter.

1. “…love is not envious [zlos]” is the first negative description–the same word Paul had applied to their contentious behavior: “For as long as there is jealousy [zlos] and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh?” (1 Cor 3:3) Paul immediately states that love is the opposite of the divisive rivalry that he deplores.
2. “…boastful” the 2nd item echoes Paul’s repeated reprimands of their boasting (1 Cor 1:29–31; 3:21; 4:7; 5:6), though using a different Gk word, he’d just used “boast” positively (1 Cor 13:3).
3. Love “is not puffed up [physioutai]–the 3rd item where even the dullest among them would recognize that he’s explicitly contrasting agape to their own behavior. [Most English translations opt for a less colorful synonym–“arrogant” or “proud.”] This is precisely the word that Paul uses to castigate them (1 Cor 4:6, 18–19; 5:2). Paul also deflates their pretensions of knowledge by declaring that “Knowledge puffs up [physioi], but love builds up” (1 Cor 8:1). Thus, these items in Paul’s catalogue of what love does not do functions as a cross-reference back to these earlier passages, especially 1 Cor 8:1.
4. “…rude”–the 4th item [weakly translated by NRSV, NIV, NEB, JB] —is a stronger term referring to shameful behavior. A related noun in Rom 1:27 characterizes the “shameful act” of male homosexual intercourse. In 1 Cor, it referenced an unmarried man who is “behaving shamefully” in relation to his betrothed virgin (1 Cor 7:36). Here it may be the sexual misconduct he condemned (1 Cor 5:1–2 — link with “puffed up” in 1 Cor 5:2; 6:12–20), and the “shameful” behavior of women prophesying with heads uncovered (11:2–16) and the humiliation of the poor at the Lord’s Supper (11:20–22). All these offenses constitutes “acting shamefully” that Paul sees as contrary to love.
5. Love “is not self–seeking”–the 5th item repeats the precise language in his response to the idol-meat controversy: “Do not seek your own advantage but that of the other” (1 Cor 10:24). 1 Cor 13:5 is identical to Paul’s self-description: “not seeking my own advantage but that of many” (1 Cor 10:33). Paul links his own self-renunciation for the sake of others as the example of Christ (1 Cor 11:1; Phil 2:4).

6-7. They surely got the picture: Paul implies that everything about their behavior contradicts the character of love. The next 2 negative items are harder to relate to specific passages in the letter, but they can be in contrast to the rivalry and dissensions in the church: love “is not easily angered” and “keeps no record of wrongs” (NIV; these forceful formulations are much closer to the Greek than the NRSV‘s pallid adjectives, “not irritable or resentful”).8. Paul closes the list of negative attributes with a positive contrast: Love “does not rejoice in wrongdoing [adikia], but rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor 13:6). Adikia may better be translated as “injustice”—prominent in 6:1–11–Paul deplores their taking one another to court unjustly. Juxtaposing “wrongdoing” with “truth” has a moral sense, as in John (Jn 3:21; 1 Jn 3:18). To rejoice in the truth means, among other things, to embrace God’s way of righteous living—a sharp contrast to their present conduct.Paul uses “love” in counterpoint to their divisive and self–centered behavior. 1 Clement understood this: “Love beareth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing base, nothing haughty in love; love admits no schism, love makes no sedition, love does all things in concord” (1 Clement 49:5 with explicit references to 1 Cor in 1 Clement 47). This early interpretation recognizes that Paul’s poetic depiction of love is aimed at calling the members of the church out of schism and into unity with each other.After saying what love isn’t, Paul ends with 4 strong verbs that characterize agape positively. “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor 13:7). Paul has used the first verb to characterize his own conduct as an apostle: he will “bear anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor 9:12). So if they embody the antithesis of agape, Paul models authentic agape in his long-suffering apostolic role. Paul shows them “a more excellent way” (1 Cor 12:31b) not only through his word-picture of love but also through his eg., which he wants them to imitate (1 Cor 11:1).The 2 verbs “believes” and “hopes” foreshadow the conclusion of the ch., in which faith and hope join love as the abiding marks of Christian character. The final verb (“endures”) creates an inclusio with the 1st item: “Love is patient” (1 Cor 13:4). This places love eschatologically in the present: love persists in a hostile world, awaiting the coming of the Lord. The hyperbole of the repeated “all things” (1 Cor 13:7) is not to think that love is infinitely credulous and utterly indiscriminate in its believing and hoping. Love doesn’t make its adherents into foolish Pollyannas. Paul’s point is accurately conveyed by the NEB: “there is no limit to its faith, its hope, and its endurance.”Spiritual gifts and love (13:8–13)–the final section contrasts the permanence of love to the transitory character of the spiritual gifts. This clearly deals with the specific problem of the evaluation of spiritual gifts in the church. Love is mentioned only in the beginning and end of the unit (1 Cor 13:8a, 13); in between (13:8b-12) highlights the temporary status of spiritual gifts, especially tongues, prophecy, and knowledge (1 Cor 13:8b-9). In a “hymn to love,” Paul wouldn’t emphasize this contrast.”Love never fails” (1 Cor 13:8a) is the opening affirmation in the treatment of the gifts to establish the point of contrast. (“Love never ends” [NRSV] is an interpretative paraphrase.) But prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will all be brought to nothing eschatologically. The verb Paul uses of prophecy and knowledge [katargein] (1 Cor 13:8) is a favorite word; it refers to God’s nullification and abolition of everything that is ephemeral or—in some cases—opposed to him. For eg., God has chosen lowly and despised nonentities “to reduce to nothing [katargs] things that are” (1 Cor 1:28; 2:6; 6:13; 15:24–26; Rom 6:6). The gifts listed (1 Cor 13:8) are not hostile to God, but they’ll be abolished because they’ll no longer be necessary when Jesus returns and the fullness of his kingdom is present. These gifts are suited to the time between the times, when the church must walk by faith. Prophecy and gnosis are “partial” (1 Cor 13:9), giving Christians a real but imperfect glimpse of God’s future truth. When the complete comes, the partial knowledge will no longer have any purpose, and so they’ll be discarded by God (1 Cor 13:10).{In dispensationalist Christian groups, it’s sometimes claimed that “the complete” [to teleion] (1 Cor 13:10) refers to the completion and closure of the NT canon. Thus the charismatic gifts were only for the apostolic age and have now ceased to function in the church. This is nonsense. There’s nothing about “the NT” or a future revocation of revelatory gifts in the church. Paul had no inkling that Israel’s Scripture would be supplemented by additional canonical writings. 1 Cor 13:10 is simply a general maxim stating that the perfect supplants the partial. The abolition of the gifts (1 Cor 13:8) are to be understood in light of the patently eschatological language of 1 Cor 13:12: the contrast between “now” and “then” is the contrast between the present age and the age to come.}Within the eschatologically determined symbolic world of his gospel the logic is impeccable. They lost the future temporal orientation of Paul’s preaching. They think only in spatial categories of “above” and “below.” They believe that their spiritual gifts give them immediate access to the divine world, and have no thought of the future event of God’s judgment and transformation of the world (15:20–28). Therefore, revelatory spiritual gifts assumed ultimate significance by providing the open, “hot line” to heavenly reality. Paul relativizes these gifts within the unfolding epic narrative of God’s redemption of the world: they play a role now, but the time of their usefulness will pass.The analogy of 1 Cor 13:11 reinforces this point; just as the perceptions and communicative strategies of childhood are put aside when one arrives at maturity, so also the church’s present spiritual gifts will be put aside in the eschaton. This ruffles those who consider themselves far advanced in their spirituality and who think of the gift of tongues as the pinnacle of spiritual maturity. Just as when Paul addressed them as little children not able yet to eat solid food (3:1-4), so here too he chides them.One last analogy drives home Paul’s point. The knowledge provided by the spiritual gifts is like the picture of the world reflected indirectly in a mirror (1 Cor 13:12), not false but indistinct. (Paul uses a metaphor well suited to his audience, for a noted industry of Corinth was manufacturing mirrors.) The time will come, Paul affirms audaciously, when God will speak to us face to face—as he did to Moses: “When there are prophets among you, I the LORD make myself known to them in visions; I speak to them in dreams, Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak face to face—clearly, not in riddles [LXX: di’ ainigmatn; cf. 1 Cor. 13:12]; and he beholds the form of the LORD” (Num 12:6–8). This direct encounter with God, Paul insists, belongs to the eschatological “not yet” of salvation. The contrast between “now” and “then” is critical to understanding 1 Cor 13:12. Only “then,” in the consummation of God’s kingdom, will we know fully—as God knows us already in the present. This last turn of phrase deftly sets those who claim “knowledge” in their proper place. God alone is the one who really “knows” (Gal 4:9). “Faith, hope, and love remain” (1 Cor 13:13a) now in the time between the times, even with our partial knowledge. In light of the eschatological imagery (1 Cor 13:8–12), the “now” of verse 13 must surely be read as a temporal adverb, not merely a logical connective. Paul is NOT saying, contrary to the opinion of some exegetes, that faith, hope, and love will all abide eternally. (This would be nonsensical in relation to hope; after “the complete” has come [1 Cor 13:10], after we have seen God face to face [1 Cor 13:12], what will remain to hope for [Rom 8:22–25]?) No, faith, hope, and love are the enduring character marks of the Christian life in the present time in this anomalous interval between the cross and the parousia.

• Faith is the trust in the God of Israel, who has kept faith with his covenant promises by putting forward Jesus for our sake and raising him to new life;
• hope focuses our fervent desire to see a broken world restored by God to its rightful wholeness (Rom 8:18–39); and
• love is the foretaste of our ultimate union with God, graciously given to us now and shared with our brothers and sisters.

Triad of terms grouped in various ways portrays Christian life (Rom 5:1–5; Gal 5:5–6; Col 1:4–5; 1 Th 1:3; 5:8; Eph 4:2–5; Tit 2:2; Heb 6:10–12; 10:22–24; 1 Pet 1:3–8). Love is the greatest of the three because—unlike the revelatory gifts and even unlike faith and hope—it will endure eternally when the love of God is all in all (1 Cor 15:28). It’s also the greatest because, even in the present time, it undergirds everything else and gives meaning to an otherwise unintelligible world (1 Cor 13:1–3). Only when love presides over the church will the spiritual gifts find their rightful place and achieve the purposes for which God gives them to us.REFLECTIONS. The first task is to rescue the text from the mushy romantic sentimentality in its common use in weddings, that link it with flowers, kisses, romance and wedding dresses. This is not at all Paul’s concern. He didn’t write about agape to rhapsodize about romance and marriage. He was writing about the need for mutual concern and consideration within the church, with special reference to the use of spiritual gifts in worship. It may be legitimate to appropriate his words in another context to speak of the love that binds man and woman in marriage, but only if we’re clear about the hermeneutical transfer being performed when doing so. Our thoughts about love should be challenged and sharpened when we reflect in a sustained way about 1 Cor 13 in its original historical context. The passage is originally an impassioned plea for the “more excellent way” in which members of the church should treat one another, and not just in the context of romantic love and marriage.How does Paul’s word to them on this matter speak also to us [once we understand the context]? How do our own actions and relationships in the church express—or fail to express—love for one another? This applies not only to the use of charismatic gifts in worship but also to all our actions and interactions in the life of the church. Love is the criterion by which we should assess all that we do. So, does love mean uncritical acceptance? This answer is obvious in Paul’s vigorous and sustained confrontation and sarcasm on numerous issues! The love that “rejoices in the truth” often requires us to speak hard truth to those we love.

Theological implications of 1 Cor 13 from each subsection of the passage.

1. Love is the ground of meaning (1–3). Even the most apparently spiritual and meritorious activities become, without love, literally meaningless. 1 Cor 13 encourages us to step back from our most cherished projects and ask, “Why am I doing this?” If we can’t honestly say, “I am doing this for love and in love,” then its legitimacy comes under serious doubt. This applies to everything we do: business, academics, politics. Laudable causes by people who lost this become loveless zealots, likely like those Corinthians who were single mindedly focused on spirituality but had divided the community and despised their brothers and sisters. We are all susceptible to self–deception that we need others around us who can keep us honest and remind us, as Paul does, that love is what really counts ultimately.
2. Love requires the formation of character (4-7). Love is not just a matter of feelings; feelings come and go, while love abides. Paul’s description of the attributes of love (4–7) is a picture of habitual actions and dispositions. One cannot just decide in a day’s time to start doing this. They are learned patterns of behavior that must be cultivated over time in the context of a community that models and supports such behavior. We must learn patience, how NOT to keep score of wrongs. The church should be a school for the cultivation of these habits and practices. Sadly, churches tend to adopt the political habits and strategies of secular democracies, rather than character-formation. We must be deliberate about fully devoting our energies to learning how to love. Only this context of 1 Cor helps marriages—and of celibacy and friendship.
3. All our knowledge is partial (8-13). The eschatological reservation looms heavily over all that we say and do: We know only in part and act constantly on the basis of incomplete information. We have no choice about that in this time between the times. The force of 13:8–13 encourages us to have a sense of humility and a sense of humor about even our strongest convictions and activities. When the perfect comes, when God judges the secrets of human hearts (Rom 2:16), when we see this life from the other side of the resurrection, we’ll discover that even the things that have seemed most glorious and exalted to us (tongues, technology, humanitarian causes) have been like child’s play. Paul teaches us to sit loose in the cares and conflicts of present existence and particularly to what we think we know. Only love will not be obsolete in the end.

Less says more–a final word. This passage shows the power of vivid language. Why is this passage so memorable? Its power comes from its metaphorical richness:

• sounding bronze and clanging cymbal,
• mountains moving,
• memories of childhood play and speech,
• dim reflections in the mirror.

The images carry the message with a minimum of didactic commentary. Learn from Paul the concision and power of metaphorical speech. Also, the diction is clear and simple, with short phrases, repeated syntactical patterns, and forceful verbs. Love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” Long before Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style, Paul knew that less could say more.

Reference:

1. Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. 1997.
2. Gordon D. Fee. First Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the NT. 1987, 2014.
3. Kenneth E. Bailey. Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes. Cultural studies in 1 Corinthians. 2011.
4. Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. A Contemporary Introduction to N.T. Ethics. 1996.