Study

a Bible passage

Click a verse to see commentary

Select a resource above

The Gift of Love

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. ²And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. ³If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

⁴ Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant ⁵or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; ⁶it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. ⁷It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

⁸ Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. ⁹For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; ¹⁰but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. ¹¹When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. ¹²For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. ¹³And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The division of the Chapter being so absurd, I could not refrain from changing it, especially as I could not conveniently interpret it otherwise. For what purpose did it serve to connect with what goes before a detached sentence, which agrees so well with what comes after — nay more, is thereby rendered complete? It is likely, that it happened through a mistake on the part of the transcribers. However it may be as to this, after having commanded that regard should be had chiefly to edification, he now declares that he will show them something of greater importance — that everything be regulated according to the rule of love. This, then, is the most excellent way, when love is the regulating principle of all our actions. And, in the outset, he proceeds upon this — that all excellencies ⁷⁷⁴⁷⁷⁴ "Quelles qu’elles soyent;” — “Whatever they are.” are of no value without love; for nothing is so excellent or estimable as not to be vitiated in the sight of God, if love ⁷⁷⁵⁷⁷⁵ Penn, in his Annotations, gives the following account of the term charity, as made use of in our English translation — “If the Latin version had not rendered αγαπη, in this place, by ‘charitas,’ instead of ‘amor — love,’ we should not have found the word ‘charity’ in our English version. But Wiclif, who only knew the Latin Scripture, adopted from it that word, and rendered, ‘and I have not charite.’ When the knowledge of the Greek was acquired by our learned Reformers, the first revisers of Wiclif were sensible of the unsuitableness of this translation, and rendered this clause — ‘and yet had no love,’ as it is printed in the ‘Newe Testament in Englishe and Latin, of 1548;’ and they rendered αγαπη — ‘love,’ throughout this chapter. Our last revisers abandoned this sound correction of their immediate predecessors, and brought back the Latinising ‘charity’ of Wiclif, who was only excusable for employing that word, because he translated from a Latin text, in ignorance of its Greek original.” — Ed is wanting. Nor does he teach anything here but what he does elsewhere, when he declares, that it is the end of the law, and the bond of perfection, (1 Timothy 1:5,) and also when he makes the holiness of the godly consist entirely in this, (Colossians 3:14,) — for what else does God require from us in the second Table of the Law? It is not then to be wondered, if all our deeds are estimated by this test — their appearing to proceed from love. It is also not to be wondered, if gifts, otherwise excellent, come to have their true value only when they are made subservient to love.

1. If should speak with the tongues of men. He begins with eloquence, which is, it is true, an admirable gift, considered in itself, but, when apart from love, does not recommend a man in the estimation of God. When he speaks of the tongue of angels, he uses a hyperbolical expression to denote what is singular, or distinguished. At the same time, I explain it rather as referring to the diversity of languages, which the Corinthians held in much esteem, measuring everything by ambition — not by fruit. ⁷⁷⁶⁷⁷⁶ “Par le fruit qui s’en pouuoit ensuyure;” — “By the fruit that might result from it.” “Make yourself master,” says he, “of all the languages, not of men merely, but even of Angels. You have, in that case, no reason to think, that you are of higher estimation in the sight of God than a mere cymbal, if you have not love.”

2. And if I should have the gift of prophecy. He brings down to nothing the dignity of even this endowment, ⁷⁷⁷⁷⁷⁷ “La dignite mesme de la prophetie;” — “The dignity even of prophecy.” which, nevertheless, he had preferred to all others. To know all mysteries, might seem to be added to the term prophecy, by way of explanation, but as the term knowledge is immediately added, of which he had previously made mention by itself, (1 Corinthians 12:8,) it will deserve your consideration, whether the knowledge of mysteries may not be used here to mean wisdom. As for myself, while I would not venture to affirm that it is so, I am much inclined to that opinion.

That faith, of which he speaks, is special, as is evident from the clause that is immediately added — so that I remove mountains Hence the Sophists accomplish nothing, when they pervert this passage for the purpose of detracting from the excellence of faith. As, therefore, the term faith is (πολύσημον) used in a variety of senses, it is the part of the prudent reader to observe in what signification it is taken. Paul, however, as I have already stated, is his own interpreter, by restricting faith, here, to miracles. It is what Chrysostom calls the “faith of miracles,” and what we term a “special faith,” because it does not apprehend a whole Christ, but simply his power in working miracles; and hence it may sometimes exist in a man without the Spirit of sanctification, as it did in Judas. ⁷⁷⁸⁷⁷⁸ The reader will observe, that this is, in substance, what has been stated by Calvin previously, when commenting on 1 Corinthians 12:10. — Ed.

3. And if I should expend all my possessions. ⁷⁷⁹⁷⁷⁹ "Et si ie distribue tous mes biens;” — “And if I should distribute all my goods.” This, it is true, is worthy of the highest praise, if considered in itself; but as liberality in many cases proceeds from ambition — not from true generosity, or even the man that is liberal is destitute of the other departments of love, (for even liberality, that is inwardly felt, is only one department of love,) it may happen that a work, otherwise so commendable, has, indeed, a fair show in the sight of men, and is applauded by them, and yet is regarded as nothing in the sight of God.

And if I should give up my body. He speaks, undoubtedly, of martyrdom, which is an act that is the most lovely and excellent of all; for what is more admirable than that invincible fortitude of mind, which makes a man not hesitate to pour out his life for the testimony of the gospel? Yet even this, too, God regards as nothing, if the mind is destitute of love. The kind of punishment that he makes mention of was not then so common among Christians; for we read that tyrants, at that time, set themselves to destroy the Church, rather by swords than by flames, ⁷⁸⁰⁷⁸⁰ “Les tyrans faisoyent plustot traneher la teste aux Chrestiens et vsoyent plustot du glaiue que du feu pour destruire l’Egiise;” — “Tyrants practiced rather the beheading of Christians, and made use of the sword, rather than of fire, for the destruction of the Church.” except that Nero, in his rage, had recourse, also, to burning. The Spirit appears, however, to have predicted here, by Paul’s mouth, the persecutions that were coming. But this is a digression. The main truth in the passage is this — that as love is the only rule of our actions, and the only means of regulating the right use of the gifts of God, nothing, in the absence of it, is approved of by God, however magnificent it may be in the estimation of men. For where it is wanting, the beauty of all virtues is mere tinsel — is empty sound — is not worth a straw — nay more, is offensive and disgusting. As for the inference which Papists draw from this — that love is therefore of more avail for our justification than faith, we shall refute it afterwards. At present, we must proceed to notice what follows,

4. Love is patient. He now commends love from its effects or fruits, though at the same time these eulogiums are not intended merely for its commendation, but to make the Corinthians understand what are its offices, and what is its nature. The object, however, mainly in view, is to show how necessary it is for preserving the unity of the Church. I have also no doubt that he designed indirectly to reprove the Corinthians, by setting before them a contrast, in which they might recognize, by way of contraries, their own vices.

The first commendation of love is this — that, by patient endurance of many things, it promotes peace and harmony in the Church. Near akin to this is the second excellence — gentleness and lenity, for such is the meaning of the verb χρηστεύεσθαι ⁷⁸¹⁷⁸¹ The distinction between the. first and second of the commendations here bestowed upon love is stated by Bloomfield as follows: Μακροθυμεῖ, “denotes lenity, as opposed to passion and revenge: and χρηστεύεται, gentleness, as opposed to severity and misanthropy.” — Ed A third excellence is — that it counteracts emulation, the seed of all contentions. Under emulation he comprehends envy, which is a vice near akin to it, or rather, he means that emulation, which is connected with envy, and frequently springs from it. Hence where envy reigns — where every one is desirous to be the first, or appear so, love there has no place.

What I have rendered — does not act insolently — is in the Greek χρηστεύεσθαι Erasmus has rendered it, is not froward. ⁷⁸²⁷⁸² This rendering is followed in two of the old English translations, viz. Tyndale (1534) and Cranmer (1539.) “Love doth not frowardly.” — Ed. It is certain that the word has different significations; but, as it is sometimes taken to mean — being fierce, or insolent, through presumption, this meaning seemed to be more suitable to the passage before us. ⁷⁸³⁷⁸³ Interpreters are by no means agreed as to the precise import of the original term περπερεύεται. Most ancient and many modern commentators explain it as meaning — “to act precipitately and rashly” — and in accordance with this, is the rendering given by our Translators in the Margin — is not rash No single expression, however, appears to bring out more satisfactorily the import of the original word than that which our Translators have inserted in the text — vaunteth not itself. Beausobre makes use of two epithets. “N’est point vaine et insolerite;” — “Is not vain and insolent.” — Ed Paul, therefore, ascribes to love moderation, and declares that it is a bridle to restrain men, that they may not break forth into ferocity, but may live together in a peaceable and orderly manner. He adds, farther, that it has nothing of the nature of pride. ⁷⁸⁴⁷⁸⁴ “I1 dit consequemment que charite ne s’enfle point;” — “He says consequently, that love is not puffed up.” That man, then, who is governed by love, is not puffed up with pride, so as to despise others and feel satisfied with himself. ⁷⁸⁵⁷⁸⁵ Bloomfield considers the distinction between this clause and the preceding one to be this, that the former “refers to pride as shown in words, and the latter to “the carriage and bearing, to denote pride and haughtiness on account of certain external advantages. A similar view is taken by Barnes, who considers the former clause as referring to “the expression of the feelings of pride, vanity,” etc.; and the latter, to “the feeling itself.” — Ed.

5. Doth not behave itself unseemly Erasmus renders it “Is not disdainful;” but as he quotes no author in support of this interpretation, I have preferred to retain its proper and usual signification. I explain it, however, in this way — that love does not exult in a foolish ostentation, or does not bluster, but observes moderation and propriety. And in this manner, he again reproves the Corinthians indirectly, because they shamefully set at naught all propriety by an unseemly haughtiness. ⁷⁸⁶⁷⁸⁶ The proper meaning of the verb ασχήμονειν, is to offend against decorum See Eurip. Hec 407. — Ed

Seeketh not its own. From this we may infer, how very far we are from having love implanted in us by nature; for we are naturally prone to have love and care for ourselves, and aim at our own advantage. Nay, to speak more correctly, we rush headlong into it. ⁷⁸⁷⁷⁸⁷ “Nons sommes transportez-la, et nous-nous y iettons sans moderation aucune;” — “We are hurried into it, and rush into it without any restraint. For so perverse an inclination the remedy ⁷⁸⁸⁷⁸⁸ “Le remede unique,” — “The only remedy.” is love, which leads us to leave off caring for ourselves, and feel concerned for our neighbors, so as to love them and be concerned for their welfare. Farther, to seek one’s own things, ⁷⁸⁹⁷⁸⁹ “Car il y a ainsi a le traduire mot a mot;” — “For that is the literal meaning.” is to be devoted to self, and to be wholly taken up with concern for one’s own advantage. This definition solves the question, whether it is lawful for a Christian to be concerned for his own advantage? for Paul does not here reprove every kind of care or concern for ourselves, but the excess of it, which proceeds from an immoderate and blind attachment to ourselves. Now the excess lies in this — if we think of ourselves so as to neglect others, or if the desire of our own advantage calls us off from that concern, which God commands us to have as to our neighbors. ⁷⁹⁰⁷⁹⁰ Granville Penn translates the clause as follows: “Seeketh not what is not its own,” — in accordance with the reading of the Vat. MS. Οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ μὴ εαυτὢς (Seeketh not the things that are not its own.) He supposes the μὢ (not) to have “lapsed, or been erroneously rejected from all the later copies.” — Ed He adds, that love is also a bridle to repress quarrels, and this follows from the first two statements. For where there is gentleness and forbearance, persons in that case do not, on a sudden, become angry, and are not easily stirred up to disputes and contests. ⁷⁹¹⁷⁹¹ The last clause of the verse, which is in our translation, thinketh no evil, is rendered by Bishop Pearce, “meditateth no mischief” — a sense in which the expression (p.424) λογιζεσθαι κακον occurs in the Septuagint, in Psalm 35:4, and 41:7. It is beautifully rendered by Bloomfield, “does not enter it into a note-book, for future revenge. — Ed

⁷⁷⁴ "Quelles qu’elles soyent;” — “Whatever they are.”

⁷⁷⁵ Penn, in his Annotations, gives the following account of the term charity, as made use of in our English translation — “If the Latin version had not rendered αγαπη, in this place, by ‘charitas,’ instead of ‘amor — love,’ we should not have found the word ‘charity’ in our English version. But Wiclif, who only knew the Latin Scripture, adopted from it that word, and rendered, ‘and I have not charite.’ When the knowledge of the Greek was acquired by our learned Reformers, the first revisers of Wiclif were sensible of the unsuitableness of this translation, and rendered this clause — ‘and yet had no love,’ as it is printed in the ‘Newe Testament in Englishe and Latin, of 1548;’ and they rendered αγαπη — ‘love,’ throughout this chapter. Our last revisers abandoned this sound correction of their immediate predecessors, and brought back the Latinising ‘charity’ of Wiclif, who was only excusable for employing that word, because he translated from a Latin text, in ignorance of its Greek original.” — Ed

⁷⁷⁶ “Par le fruit qui s’en pouuoit ensuyure;” — “By the fruit that might result from it.”

⁷⁷⁷ “La dignite mesme de la prophetie;” — “The dignity even of prophecy.”

⁷⁷⁸ The reader will observe, that this is, in substance, what has been stated by Calvin previously, when commenting on 1 Corinthians 12:10. — Ed.

⁷⁷⁹ "Et si ie distribue tous mes biens;” — “And if I should distribute all my goods.”

⁷⁸⁰ “Les tyrans faisoyent plustot traneher la teste aux Chrestiens et vsoyent plustot du glaiue que du feu pour destruire l’Egiise;” — “Tyrants practiced rather the beheading of Christians, and made use of the sword, rather than of fire, for the destruction of the Church.”

⁷⁸¹ The distinction between the. first and second of the commendations here bestowed upon love is stated by Bloomfield as follows: Μακροθυμεῖ, “denotes lenity, as opposed to passion and revenge: and χρηστεύεται, gentleness, as opposed to severity and misanthropy.” — Ed

⁷⁸² This rendering is followed in two of the old English translations, viz. Tyndale (1534) and Cranmer (1539.) “Love doth not frowardly.” — Ed.

⁷⁸³ Interpreters are by no means agreed as to the precise import of the original term περπερεύεται. Most ancient and many modern commentators explain it as meaning — “to act precipitately and rashly” — and in accordance with this, is the rendering given by our Translators in the Margin — is not rash No single expression, however, appears to bring out more satisfactorily the import of the original word than that which our Translators have inserted in the text — vaunteth not itself. Beausobre makes use of two epithets. “N’est point vaine et insolerite;” — “Is not vain and insolent.” — Ed

⁷⁸⁴ “I1 dit consequemment que charite ne s’enfle point;” — “He says consequently, that love is not puffed up.”

⁷⁸⁵ Bloomfield considers the distinction between this clause and the preceding one to be this, that the former “refers to pride as shown in words, and the latter to “the carriage and bearing, to denote pride and haughtiness on account of certain external advantages. A similar view is taken by Barnes, who considers the former clause as referring to “the expression of the feelings of pride, vanity,” etc.; and the latter, to “the feeling itself.” — Ed.

⁷⁸⁶ The proper meaning of the verb ασχήμονειν, is to offend against decorum See Eurip. Hec 407. — Ed

⁷⁸⁷ “Nons sommes transportez-la, et nous-nous y iettons sans moderation aucune;” — “We are hurried into it, and rush into it without any restraint.

⁷⁸⁸ “Le remede unique,” — “The only remedy.”

⁷⁸⁹ “Car il y a ainsi a le traduire mot a mot;” — “For that is the literal meaning.”

⁷⁹⁰ Granville Penn translates the clause as follows: “Seeketh not what is not its own,” — in accordance with the reading of the Vat. MS. Οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ μὴ εαυτὢς (Seeketh not the things that are not its own.) He supposes the μὢ (not) to have “lapsed, or been erroneously rejected from all the later copies.” — Ed

⁷⁹¹ The last clause of the verse, which is in our translation, thinketh no evil, is rendered by Bishop Pearce, “meditateth no mischief” — a sense in which the expression (p.424) λογιζεσθαι κακον occurs in the Septuagint, in Psalm 35:4, and 41:7. It is beautifully rendered by Bloomfield, “does not enter it into a note-book, for future revenge. — Ed