From: A Torah
Commentary on First
Corinthians 13-16 Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2011
Chapter 13—Part 2:
Problem Texts
13:1:
Did they really speak in the tongues of angels? Some see here an evidence of a
multiplicity of languages in heaven. On
this premise, modern tongue speakers base one of the explanations for why the
phenomena today so often sounds to us like gibberish—they simply aren’t human
languages to begin with. But language is
what communicates comprehensible sense; gibberish does not.[1] Even heavenly language would have to do so to
serve as a means of communication.
Yet others have taken the
approach that Paul is utilizing hyperbole—exaggeration to make a point.[2] Since the apostle is going to return to
talking about heavenly gifts, it was natural to appeal to the example of the
residents of heaven, angels. Hence he
makes this “even if” argument: Even if I
speak with their tongues, what does it benefit without love as well?
Does any one really
believe that the “moving mountains” of verse 2 is literally intended? If one doesn’t, one implicitly concedes the
use of hyperbole by Paul in this section to make his point on the urgency and
superiority of love. Making quite
reasonable the thesis that heavenly tongues are in this category as well.
Notably Paul does not
claim that he had spoken in such languages.
We certainly know that he had not been burned to death (13:3) and we
have no evidence that he had either given all his goods to feed the poor or had
used faith to move mountains (both in [Page 19] 13:3 as well). Hence Paul is speaking hypothetically in the
extremeness of his examples rather than reflecting actual personal experience.[3] If he had not done any of these, is it wise
analysis to assume that any of the Corinthians had?
Hence it isn’t intended as
a direct affirmation that they have a variety of languages—note that it is the
plural “tongues” and not the singular—but whatever language(s) they may
have. And if I actually spoke in them,
then does my spiritual superiority follow?[4] To which the answer, of course, was “no.”
In
the book of Revelation we have no hint that heavenly beings are speaking
anything but the same language throughout—one language, rather than
many. Furthermore, we assume that
it is spoken rather than heard within their minds. Would heavenly beings even need verbal
communication via their lips rather than communicating “out loud” via mental
communications with each other? We don’t
know. Surely it would be considered
“speech” either way.
(Aside: To us this sounds somewhat like science
fiction, but it’s no great secret that the genre attempts to project what could
be under the right set of circumstances rather than what is inherently
impossible. Furthermore, as far back as
the late 17th century, the commentator Matthew Poole spoke of how
there must be “some way amongst them to communicate their minds and wills to
each other” without a verbal expression of it. Even, to me, more interestingly, he notes that
in the Middle Ages the nature of this non-verbal—but
very real—method of communication was a subject of theological discussion.[5])
Furthermore,
for ease of communication one would anticipate it all being done in the same
language rather than a variety.
Variation creates inherent problems of potential mis-communication. Consider how translation of the New
Testament, even with the best possible motives and the utmost accuracy possible
by the translators, can easily leave a “tinge” of ideas being only adequately
rendered rather than with 100% fidelity to the original. The latter can be done in some cases, but
depending upon the nature of the text, translation can easily leave out an
undertone or implication the speaker of the original language would immediately
grasp. (Consider the Amplified Bible
and what it goes through in an effort to more fully bring out all these
auxiliary implications!)
Finally,
whenever we “hear” angels speak in the two testaments, it is never in a
language the listener can’t understand but in his or her own. Hence if there are a
multiplicity of languages in heaven it is far more likely that they are
ones “borrowed from earth” (so to speak) rather than reflecting strictly heavenly
originated ones.[6]
13:1:
The “sounding brass” and “clanging cymbal(s):” What were they? Although the underlying point of
worthlessness is crystal clear, exactly what Paul had in mind by the
instruments has been the subject of discussion.
The “sounding brass” of the NKJV
tells us what it was made of but not what
it was. The ambiguity is perpetuated by
those maintaining that exact rendering (BBE, Darby) while
More
assume that it was a “gong” with various appellations being selected to modify
the word: “noisy” (ATP, NASB, CEV, RSV),
“loud” (GW), “reverberating” (ISV), and “sounding” (Holman).
[Page 20] It
could be either a rounded or flat piece of bronze that was hit with a stick or
mallet.[7] (For those who have seen 1930s movies “live”
or on television, think of the classic Gunga
Din.) They were not uncommon in
polytheistic worship.[8]
Anthony
C. Thiselton notes that the Greek term describes
something that conveys sound, “usually through resonating. Coupled with the Greek alalazon,
it denotes endlessly reverberating noise that produces no melody.”[10]
Craig
Blomberg believes the gong is “perhaps better taken
to refer to a large ‘acoustic vase’ used for amplification in the Greek
theaters.”[11] William Harris provides more detail,
insisting that these are “Echoing Bronzes,” cast in urn form and arranged at
the back of a Greek theater to magnify the voices of the actors.[12] He notes that when the Romans leveled
Poorer towns substituted
ceramic urns, reducing the sound quality.[14] Taking this approach, he believes Paul’s
meaning to be, that without love one merely “bounces/repeats” the words that
have been spoken rather than providing one’s own input.[15] You are “reflecting” the right exterior
(speaking in tongues) but it has not shaped your interior, the inner person
that regulates how you behave and act (i.e., in love).
The
problem with the “sound system” interpretation—for that would be the closest
modern analogy—is that it is a positive one. “Echoing Bronzes” used by the theater were
intended to make the voices more “hearable” and by more people. Paul’s contrast in 13:1, though, is between
that which is useful (love) and that which is of minimal, little, or no use
(“sounding brass or a clanging cymbal”).
The sound reflectors of the Greeks, in profound contrast, were
useful in the very context Paul speaks—communicating the spoken message (“the
tongues of men and of angels”).
Hence, though Harris’
creative approach could fit, it seems unlikely. For interpretive consistency, it would be far
better for both references (“sounding brass or a clanging cymbal”) to represent
something of minimal or no usefulness rather than to fit only the second item
and not the first. (Harris, oddly,
provides no discussion of how the cymbal reference would fit into Paul’s
discussion beyond noting that the amplifiers represented an example from Greek
culture and the cymbal from Jewish.)
The “clanging cymbal” reading
has been perpetuated by the bulk of translations (Darby, Holman,
The
“bell” has been suggested as the alternative by a few with the adjective
becoming either “clanging” (CEV) or “loud-tongued” (BBE).
The
cymbal of today is round and relatively flat.
In the ancient world though it “often consisted of two
half-globes banged together.”[16] They were thicker than those used today and
were hit directly on each other rather than with a sideways motion
across each other.[17]
William
Harris (see above) claims that this reference comes from Jewish synagogue
practice but provides no illustrating details as he does in regard to the
sounding brass.[18] Most commentators who touch on the social
source of the allusion, consider it a reference to polytheistic worship, that
of Cybele in particular.
[Page 21]
Shared characteristics of the
instruments. Assuming a
negative reference being intended in regard to both instruments, then what they
have in common is the element of making either meaningless noise (or close to
it) or disturbing noise or distracting
noise. The shared element is “noise” in
contrast with pleasing sound.
This carries with it being
loud and even painful to the ear drums.
They are things that don’t communicate in human language at all. They may communicate non-verbal instructions
at the best (as in battlefield trumpets) or be attention getters (cymbals in
public religious processions), but they fall far short of sharing insights and
words.
If revelation is God
sharing information and teaching with His people, then when tongues have been
reduced to this level, they have been stripped of their ability to fulfill
their intended purpose. A “sound” is
still there (so to speak) but it has been gutted of its intended role. Instead of being “the icing on the cake of
love” tongue speaking has been reduced to “idle noise” in God’s eyes.
13:1-3:
Paul as the personal exemplar of the miraculous gifts he describes. Note the repeated “I” throughout these
verses—Paul interjects himself firmly into the middle of the discussion. He tells them, in effect, not even an apostle
such as myself can be benefited without love.
Carl
Holladay notes that these three verses refer to powers Paul had expressly
claimed to exercise,[19]
For
example, Paul speaks in tongues (14:6, 18).
Called by God, he has prophetic status (Galatians 1:15); he reveals
heavenly mysteries (1 Corinthians 2:9-13; 4:1; 15:51); he has knowledge
(2:6-16; 2 Corinthians 11:6); he has faith powerful enough to perform miracles
(2 Corinthians 12:12; Romans 15:19); he has voluntarily made himself poor for
the sake of the gospel (1 Corinthians 4:11; 2 Corinthians 6:10; 11:7-11); and
having given himself up to death for Jesus’ sake (2 Corinthians 4:11), he can
boast.
In effect,
Paul presents himself to the Corinthians as an example to be imitated. Endowed with spiritual gifts, he is the
spiritual person par excellence.
Nevertheless, he understands that all gifts and activity are subject to
love. The Corinthians should do the
same.
Although
Paul had sacrificed, even he had not done so to the degree the text
cites—for example, giving everything to the poor and martyrdom. Even so, we can see that same mind-frame in
his behavior—after all, he had manifested the
willingness to be poor and to risk martyrdom.
Hence the basic point of the analysis remains true: he is asking nothing of others that they can
not see in his own practice.
There is no evidence that
the Corinthians claimed apostolic status for their local clique leaders (even
if such “outside” names were invoked and hidden behind by the locals). That being the case, the implicit argument is
that since none of the Corinthians can claim even apostolic status, how then
could they possibly expect to be accepted by [Page 22] God without this pivotal, core virtue when
even apostles couldn’t?[20]
It
is fascinating that when Paul provides his description of the nature of love,
that it is he who exemplified its positive characteristics and they
who manifested the characteristics antithetical to true love,[21]
. . . Paul
says that love is patient and kind and he later refers to his own behavior in
the same way (2 Corinthians 6:6).
Likewise, he writes that love bears all things and endures all things, a
frequent description of his own way of life (9:12b; 2 Corinthians 6:6;
Such an
attitude, however, describes the Corinthians’ conduct. There is jealously and quarreling among them
(3:3); they have become puffed up and arrogant in their wisdom and knowledge
(4:6, 18, 19; 5:2; 8:1); and by taking others to court they appear to rejoice
in what is wrong (6:7-8). While Paul
made himself a slave to all (
13:3: The limits of extreme self-sacrifice and spirituality as a means to please God. It would be hard to imagine any self-sacrifice greater than giving all one’s possessions to help the poor--what greater humanitarianism could there possibly be? Nor can one easily imagine a spiritual self-sacrifice greater than to be martyred for one’s religious convictions.
Yet
is even that really enough? When you
can’t do more, what is even greater?
Paul answers that question: daily
love in action. Martyrdom and giving
away everything are one time acts and, once completed, it is over with. In contrast, love involves on-going
relationships--sometimes hard and tumultuous ones. Hence in a very real sense, love can be more
difficult because it requires a continuing mind-frame rather than a
once-for-all act.
Paul
is certainly not berating either charity or martyrdom. Rather he insists that they be kept in
perspective. Without an underlying
character of love neither will benefit us.
Some
have had problems with the reference to giving one’s body to be burnt within a
Roman context since this was simply not a normal Roman punishment. But Paul is thinking in absolutes, the
most that one could sacrifice.
This did not hinge upon cultural norms.
It also seems a very inappropriate objection when one considers that
Nero chose this method to maximally humiliate and disgrace the Christian
community in
Those
alive in that time period were aware of examples of voluntary death by fire in
the distant and near past and interpreted at least some of them as indications
of bravery and/or loyalty to principle.
Empedocles of Agrigentum died when plunging
into Mt. [Page 23] Etna’s volcano. Two Hindu philosophers burned themselves to
death: Calanos
and Zarmanochegas (see below). Even in the legendary history of
The cynic philosopher Peregrinus
had it done to himself—at an Olympic festival
nonetheless. The setting makes one
suspicious. The ancient Lucian wrote of
it as a highly fitting death for a man who was so self-absorbed and a seeker of
personal fame.[24] So even the ancients weren’t unacquainted
with how it might not always be as great a “sacrifice” as it might appear but could
be done out of baser motives.
Nor
was this the only possible example that would come to mind. In 20 A.D. Zarmanochegas,
a Hindu somehow resident in
Others
fit in giving the body to be burnt with the “bestow[ing]
all my goods to feed the poor.” In this
approach, a person has been branded, by fire, as a slave to denote ownership.
The individual has voluntarily chosen slavery to raise money for the destitute.
On the other hand, it was
not ordinary practice to brand slaves;[26]
it was normally a penalty only inflicted upon recaptured runaway ones or upon
those guilty of the most serious offenses.[27] Furthermore one would expect a clear cut tie
in between “giving” and “burning” to show that they are intended to be linked
in a cause-effect relationship.
Hence, to this
commentator, the passage makes better sense as two separate issues, not merely the
goal (aiding the poor) and the means of accomplishing the goal (selling oneself
to help the poor): As two separate and
distinct types of behavior, Paul stresses that there is nothing more we can
give (1) to others nor (2) more that we can give of ourselves for
our faith. As one issue, it makes
Paul think in terms of charity being the supreme virtue and removes the
element of self-sacrifice directly in God’s service. The modern mind may find this congenial; it
is hard to believe that ancient Judaism or even polytheism would have done
so.
A
related approach is to remove the marking by fire entirely but retain the
reference to selling oneself as a slave.
This is done by the adoption of a different Greek reading. Instead of “I give my body
to be burned” contemporary Greek texts now typically substitute wording such
as, “so that I may boast” (NAB, NRSV main text; GW, NKJV, RSV margin). They consider this to be better documented by
the standards of current evaluation.[28]
That
leaves us with the problem of what the person is doing with his body: “I give my body”--to what purpose? Burning provides an explicit purpose. Only the potential reason is provided
by “so I may boast.” So we are left
uncertain what is done to the body that is so great that it is counted
as grounds for bragging. Although a
rebuke of pride and boasting certainly fits well with the tenor of the entire
epistle and Paul’s immediate stress on the importance of love,[29]
it would still be very odd for Paul to emphasize a self-sacrifice
and its motive (boasting) without explicitly stating the nature of that
self-sacrifice as well.
One
can deal with this by contending that the giving of all things to the poor is
what the individual has given his body for--so he can boast about it. Although such [Page 24] reasoning has strongly impressed some,[30]
it still appears to this commentator a surprising and oddly indirect way of
making the point. One might “boast” that
one had given everything to the poor, but to create the three way linkage
between giving the “body,” the “boasting,” and the giving to the poor,
stretches the linkage very thin.
Indeed,
in light of the degree of intra-congregational tension in
Another
incident—successful, from the standpoint of the persecutor--occurred as the
punishment for orthodox Jews during the age of the Maccabees. In this case, six brothers were all tortured
and burned by fire (2 Maccabees 7).
13:4-7: The mind-frame of love: What love means in behavior rather than abstract theory. Paul does not attempt to provide a one sentence summary of love; rather he attempts to show what it requires and prohibits. What it really involves. He does so by fifteen short assertions: some are immediately grasped; a few require additional explanation. All cry out for sermonic-style exposition and have been so treated through the ages. Keeping in mind our need to be concise, let us briefly examine each of these. Significant differences with our main study text will be noted in parentheses.
It
is immediately obvious that Paul defines love in both its positive and
negative characteristics. Although the
latter was obviously of importance in a congregation like
1.
“Love suffers long” (13:4; “patient,” ATP, GW, NAB, NRSV, RSV): It does
not expect today what will take till tomorrow.
It does not expect full maturity (spiritual, physical or any other type)
until adequate time has gone by that it can be accomplished. In regard to those who annoy and treat us
ill, it means we reel in our impatience rather than immediately striking back
in retribution.[33] After all, God reins in His anger rather than
striking immediately or every time He is challenged. Can we do less?[34]
Note that this trait is
presented as one we have within our control—it is our choice not to act
impetuously. Hence we wait it out not
because we are weak, but because we [Page 25]
have the strength and will not to act.[35] Indeed, the easiest thing is to simply “lose
it” and strike out in verbal anger at the one we are annoyed with. Self-control requires overt effort to move us
in the opposite direction.
The
Greek word utilized here is not one usually invoked when describing restrained
reaction to “impersonal” events that hurt us but do not target us in
particular—say losing a job or taking a loss on your investments. Rather it is generally used of how we react
to people and their treatment specifically targeting us.[36]
For
example, there are some who set out to provoke us; they want us to react
vehemently so they can even inflame the situation further. The best revenge we’ll probably ever get on
people like that is not to give them what they are after.
Others
are thoughtless, careless, or plain blind so far as the impact they are having
on others. It isn’t that they are
necessarily trying to cause a problem for us; they are simply oblivious to it
because of lack of maturity or lack of thinking about how others might react. An extreme reaction might make us feel better
but it won’t do a bit to discourage them from repetition. A quiet, “Do you realize how people react to
remarks like that” is likely to do more positive good than any strident
protest.
Twisting the meaning of love beyond its true intent. “One must be careful, however, to distinguish
patience from indifference. Patience
bears with an offense, but indifference ignores it altogether.”[37] There are things over which we (and often
others as well) have no control and our alternatives are, basically, only
patience or rage. In contrast, there are
things over which we do have at least some degree of control.
Paul repeatedly rebukes them for their variety of
misjudgments and injustices in this epistle.
The fact he does so shows that though love endures unfairness and
even evil, it never embraces it or regards it as a morally acceptable option.[38] Yet Paul still displayed patience by not
demanding correction now. (The
closest he comes to that is the case of incest, where a defense was virtually
impossible and they full well knew it.)
He knew things took time. But he did expect a beginning to be
made. For example, callousness toward
the poorer members was not going to end in the blinking of an eye. It would take the repeated positive behavior
to go on for months before the exception became the new norm. The same is often true of any major change in
behavior.
2.
Love “is kind” (13:4): “Kindness”
has been so minimized in its modern usage “that it often suggests mere external
gentility.”[39] Even of going along with virtually anything,
in at least a passive sort of way. In
Greek it was a far more energetic word, expressing not a blaséness
but concerned activity intended to be beneficial.[40]
Hence in Paul’s use,
“kindness” clearly intends far more than contemporary usage: the apostle is speaking of kindness in
action. Think also in terms of the
modern adage: “words are cheap”—if all
Paul intended was verbal sympathy, one could claim to wish the person the best
while doing absolutely nothing to help them.
Remember the stern rebuke of James about the encouraging words toward
the hungry that are not accompanied by actions to help them (James
Hence true kindness is
both mental and external. Constructive. Beneficial.[41] It gives the kind word when needed; the
helpful act when required.[42] Often, both combined. Patience is more of a frame of mind; kindness
a mode of behavior.[43] And [Page 26] when we consider the many faults that Paul
describes in the Corinthian congregation, it is clearly a virtue that was
widely lacked among them.[44]
Kindness
doesn’t even mean you have to necessarily like the person; you can help
someone regardless of your personal sentiments.[45] On the other hand, attitude and behavior are
interlinked: isn’t it hard to harbor ill
will—at least passionately—when you are helping that person?
That person may be a
general troublemaker. On the other hand
he may be striking out due to crippling problems you are unaware of. In the first case, your positive response is
to rebuke him by doing the right thing.
Remember it is the same apostle who enjoins kindness who also
wrote, “Therefore if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty give him
a drink; for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head” (Romans
In the second case,
unknown pressures and difficulties may be pushing him into needless
hostility. In such a case, the positive
things you do may encourage that person to hope for the best instead of giving
over to despair.
You may even have saved a soul from physical death (where else do
suicides typically come from but from the despairing?). If you are able to save their soul from the
plague of sin as well—that is icing on the cake. More important—from the standpoint of your
relationship to God—is that you took advantage of the opportunity to help when
it was most needed.
Hence
“kindness” carries overtones of mercifulness (“The merciful man does good for his own soul,” Proverbs
Twisting the meaning of love beyond its true intent. Kindness does not mean pretending that wrong
is right or that bad judgment is brilliant insight. Indeed, sometimes kindness requires a bit of harshness: your child wants to touch a burning
grill. What parent doesn’t growl out an
emphatic, “No!
You’ll get burned!” Sometimes
behavior is so inappropriate or potentially dangerous that anything else would
be clear-cut unloving behavior.
Likewise,
it’s not an act of unkindness to point out to an enquirer that they’ve
seriously misunderstood the scriptures.
Nor to be exasperated when a person has missed what seems to be its
obvious point. Jesus did it (Matthew
A
good teacher does it all the time—walking a thin balance between encouragement (lest a student’s potential be needlessly
destroyed) and total candor (if they’ve done a piece of lousy home work
pretending otherwise is never going to fix the problem).[48] The minister does it in trying to remedy
congregational problems. And the average
member has to do it in regard to their own family, fellow church members, and
outsiders. Hence the
appropriateness of a prayer for good judgment as well.
3.
“Love does not envy” (13:4; “is not envious,” ATP; “is not jealous,” GW,
NAB, RSV): It is content with
our own abilities and possessions. This
does not rule out [Page 27] the desire
to improve our earthly condition. It
simply rules out begrudging others who already have such things when we
don’t. Envy eats at our soul while doing
nothing to better us or remove the root of the discontent. Jealousy “separates, accentuates differences,
and refuses to accept any inequality.”[49] Even when there is no
practical way to remove the differences.
We
can be blind to our own attitude for “envy” and “jealousy” are
not mind frames that even the world orientated soul feels comfortable
admitting. Hence the
admonition in James
In other words, don’t
pretend its not there. Others will see
it and recognize it even if we do not.
Furthermore, James warns that the presence of “envy and self-seeking”
results in “confusion and every evil thing” (verse 16). It is an ethical corrosive that confounds our
moral judgment. It utilizes anything and
everything to gain our goal of obtaining whatever they have (or are) that has
spurred our envy. Obviously the
Corinthian congregation already had far too much of this!
Envy
and jealousy typically carry additional freight. For some it is a sense of undue inferiority:[50] “they have it and we deserve it.” For others it grows out of egotistical superiority
and conceit:[51] “we deserve it but they are the ones who have
it.” We are obviously not so blind to
the perceptions of others that we will admit we feel this way. Instead we grasp their weaknesses and
errors—ideally, real ones, but exaggerated ones will do quite nicely in a
pinch. Having grabbed them like a
lobster’s claw we then try to pierce the life out of their reputation. All in the interest of serving truth and
candor of course!
4.
“Love does not parade itself” (13:4; “boastful,” ATP, NRSV, RSV; “sing its own praises,” GW; “is not pompous,” NAB): If you have envy and jealously, you are going
to inevitably violate this prohibition.
You are either going to be pompous in your dealings with others (to
imply that those you are envious of aren’t “really” that important or
significant) or you are going to be boastful to make sure they are fully aware
of how important you already are in comparison to them.
The various renderings of
this negative characteristic suggest the conspicuous showoff: “Look how great I am!” Paul’s earlier admonition in the epistle
would have an obvious application in this context as well, “As
it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the Lord’ ” (
I recall one coworker who
knew how to do anything and everything and would even interrupt the supervisor
to “help” them teach the employees. He
had also “done” everything imaginable--at least in his imagination. The sad part was he did have great
abilities but he “paraded” his accomplishments so much
you could never tell where the real ones ended and the imaginary ones began. Not to mention antagonizing every one of his
coworkers in the process. The
overreaching bragging was destructive of the very respect and recognition he
sought.
The
problem with exactly defining the Greek word that is utilized,
lies in the fact that it is only used once in the scriptures—here--and only
utilized in one secular text as well. Ceslaus Spicq suggests that what
is common to the various forms of the term in Greek seems to be “that of a
certain foolishness of spirit and lack of proportion which [Page 28] becomes evident in arrogant behavior (cf.
4:6) and thoughtless words, ranging from idle frivolity to downright
insolence.”[52]
In a
congregation where a variety of miraculous gifts were being utilized, human
pride could easily encourage one to exercise whatever gift they themselves
possessed and not care that others had important ones as well. Anyone else who lacked their’s was, obviously, in some sense quite inferior.[53] Then there was their pride in clique
loyalties (chapter 1) and their strange “glorying” (5:6) in the case of the
incestuous church member.[54] Boastfulness and conceit had gutted their
spirituality in more than one area!
The
same can occur today. Some churches brag
of their “tolerance” and “broad-mindedness” of life-styles that would have been
vigorously denounced by Paul. Short of
brazen incest, is there anything such religious bodies won’t “lovingly” (ah,
what a misuse of the term!) embrace, endorse, and actively recruit the practitioners
of?
But
those of sounder minds aren’t above collective pride either. “Look at the size of our congregation! Look at our many ministries!”[55] Or at the other fringe of the same mind-frame,
“We stand so firmly for the truth that it’s cost us half of our members!” Perhaps it has or perhaps they have misdefined what the “truth” really is. Or lacked the virtues of love to accompany
the genuine truth they hold dear.
(I recall the lady who told me, “I wouldn’t have left the X church if it
had been like this congregation.” Both
believed the same, but in one you had the affectionate concern for each other
that Paul wished to accompany the truth and in her original location, well
there wasn’t all that much of it, truth be told.)
5.
Love “is not puffed up” (13:5; “arrogant,” GW, NRSV, RSV;
“conceited,” ATP, “is not inflated,” NAB): The previous characteristic concerned the
outward manifestation; this one concerns the inward frame of mind that
accompanies it. Or, possibly more
accurately, motivates it.[56] Outwardly he or she is full of bravado and
self-praise; inwardly, the person is puffed up with an exaggerated self-opinion
of abilities, merits, and character far above anything that can be
justified.
“It does not exhibit an
inflated ego,” is the way one commentator rightly describes it.[57] Reading the description of the Corinthian
excesses, we are left with the impression that this was exactly the way
Corinthians, at least privately, felt about themselves.[58]
A physical
illustration: Imagine a balloon before
and after it is inflated. The latter is
the mental image held by the person; the former is what is actually
justified. The latter is “puffed up”
(literally); the other is the essence of what is really there. Far less impressive, far less significant,
and yet still having great potential.
Twisting
the meaning of love beyond its true intent. Paul is not telling them to put down their
own accomplishments and achievements, either temporally or spiritually. Rather he wishes us to keep them within the
limits of a just evaluation. I once had
a boss who was trying to give me a compliment without it going to my head, “You are the
smartest man I know. But there are also
a lot of other smart men in this town.”
I remember that to this day, perhaps because of its combination of
praise and realism—the attitude Paul wished the Corinthians to have toward
their accomplishments.
The apostle was annoyed by their contempt for others,
but it is no less wrong when we aim it at ourselves. Our accomplishments are worthy of the same
respect that we would automatically give others for the same thing. “While pride is the opposite of love,
self-loathing is contrary to the will of God as well.”[59]
[Page 29]
6.
Love “does not behave rudely (ATP:
act ill-mannered)” (13:5): Rudeness
involves abruptness, pointed remarks or behavior designed to show at least
annoyance and often outright disrespect.
There is an element of contempt and acting in a manner we know is beyond
the boundaries of what we, in a better frame of mind, would regard as
appropriate. We intend to degrade the
other person but in doing so make ourselves look bad. Johannes P. Louw
and Eugene A. Nida suggest such elements of excess are
present when they define, in their Lexicon, the Greek term used here as
meaning “in defiance of social and moral standards, with resulting disgrace and
shame.”[60]
Such
behavior implies that the other person’s feelings and convictions don’t count,
only the aggrandizement of one’s own ego.
They are beneath concern; only my own interests and self-satisfaction
matter. The “I” is virtually worshipped
and other people no longer matter.[61] It may be a personality defect in which we
have made ourselves the center of the universe and other people satellites that
are supposed to revolve around us. Or it
may be that we have an agenda that is so clearly “right” that any obstacle to
it must be rolled over and pushed out of the way.[62]
In a
class format, it would be illustrated by the individual who insists on doing
all the talking or who arbitrarily cuts others off and treats what every one
else has to say as unworthy of being considered.[63] Personal example: few things can be more annoying in a Bible
class than to suggest an interpretation, have it dismissed, and to find the
same folk, a decade later, drooling over a “name” preacher when he suggests
it. (Alright, the “drooling” is an
exaggeration.)
In a
business context this moral lack can involve treating one’s “underlings” as
mere human tools rather than worthy of respect in their own right. After all, “you are the boss.” That is all that counts. Whether your changes are actually going to
produce greater profits is almost an irrelevancy. If it doesn’t it must be the subordinates’
fault!
The Corinthians (judging
from what Paul says in various chapters of this epistle) had been guilty of
this sin in regard to partaking of the Lord’s Supper (i.e., not waiting for
each other).[64] Also in not being willing
to wait for the others to finish before exercising their own spiritual gifts. Quite probably in other contexts as well (could
their factionalism have possibly avoided causing such?). In the case of not waiting for each other,
one could argue that they were going far beyond “mere” rudeness into
showing contempt—even if others were
already there, there was no concern whether they had food to eat or not (1
Corinthians 11:21).
The
self-centered person who is the spawn of the “me generation” or the one who is
blessed with far greater financial blessings than most—worse, when the two
categories overlap and merge into one—such individuals easily fall into a
nonchalance, even a contempt, for what others think. If there’s a problem with what they have done
or said, well it’s other person’s problem not
theirs.[65] Many learn this from the actions of their
parents and assume it is normal and appropriate behavior.
But one doesn’t have to be
prosperous to act this way; now it’s the characteristic of the arrogant poor
and those barely making it as well.
Think “road rage” and its varied equivalents. Yet when someone rams their car into us for
cutting them off or making an obscene gesture at them, we are still harmed--at
the best; dead at the worst. What has
all out insulting behavior accomplished?
The fact that Paul
includes this as part of his general picture of love, one aimed at [Page
30] all the church members,
argues that widespread behavior of a parallel type—regardless of social or
economic strata—was quite common in his day and in Corinth in particular, as it
is in ours.
Courtesy is like oil on
engine parts: it enables the engine of
society (and a church) to function with minimal turmoil and
self-destructiveness.
Twisting the meaning of love beyond its true intent. As we study this epistle, we find Paul
bluntly critiquing a variety of local moral and spiritual failures. That wasn’t rudeness—it was candor and the
hopeful desire to help them straighten out a huge mess. Yet today many in our society would regard
the censure of the same evils that Paul rebuked as somehow inappropriate
public behavior. Rudeness
if not outright bigotry.[66] Even the idea that God has a plan whereby to
be saved and standards to live by to be saved and that we can’t “choose our own
way to get to heaven” are often viewed as manifestations of a horrible
narrow-mindedness.
Yet much of the message
Paul taught to both members and outsiders was out-of-step with the temper of
his times as well. But it didn’t stop
him from saying what needed to be said.
Anything less would have been a lack of love on his part. And ours.
On
the other hand, that doesn’t give us carte blanche to be hectoring, annoying,
pestering, and a genuine nuisance.[67] Some will always be annoyed and even outraged
at the truth being shared. But there is
no legitimate reason for our behavior--rather than our convictions--to be the root
of the problem. Perhaps the best test
is: How would we react if someone
approached us in exactly the same way we approach others?
7. Love “does not seek its own” (13:5; “does not seek its own interests,” NAB; “does not demand its own way,” ATP; “does not insist on its own way,” NRSV, RSV; “doesn’t think about itself,” GW):
Michael J. Gorman notes that the
Greek underlying the translation “contains the verb ‘to seek’ and an
abbreviated idiomatic phrase ‘seeking one’s own X’ (Greek zetein
ta heautou). . . . The precise missing element in the idiomatic
phrase ‘one’s own X’ must be supplied from the context, though the Greek idiom
normally refers to one’s own (proper or improper) interests or welfare.”[68] He notes that in light of the two other
places where similar phraseology is used in the epistle (
In a sense we have
to “seek out own:” we
must have an income, we must have clothes on our back, we must have a roof over
our heads. But we don’t have to seek our
own interests at the expense of others.
Yet many regard life as a zero sum game:
I can gain only if you lose. This
was a bed-rock assumption in Greco-Roman society. Politicians, the socially prominent, and
philosophers all strove after honor and respect—and were convinced that your
loss had to be their gain. The more you
drove out the “competition,” the more room there was for them.[70]
In contrast, Paul sees
life as one in which there is room for the good and
self-advancement of everyone. Indeed,
the words carry the implication that there may be situations in which it is
right and proper for you to give up your own legitimate claims in order to be
of assistance to someone who stands in even greater need.[71]
[Page 31] Paul
has certainly described the kind of behavior he is condemning. “Seek[ing] its own”
was unavoidably manifested in the lawsuits they had against each other. Eating meat sacrificed to idols regardless of
its impact was putting personal preferences ahead of the moral obligation to
avoid harming their brothers and sisters in Christ.[72] Especially when it was done to impress others
and advance one’s social standing among them.
In
the spiritual context there was, like the temporal, a natural desire, need, and
even obligation to advance their own knowledge and
usefulness in the service of the Lord.
But here, too, the line is crossed when we do it to the harm and abuse
of others and their spiritual growth.
The Corinthians were clearly vulnerable on the grounds of seeking their
own spiritual interests and running over others to do it, as manifested in
Paul’s need to put strict limits on how many tongue speakers and prophets could
address the group in one service (chapter 14). It would not seem unjust to infer—in light of
their divisiveness—that their clique religious politics utilized these
opportunities, resulting in the abuse of members of other groups and the poorer
folks in general.
8. Love “is not provoked”
(13:5; “irritable,” GW, NRSV, RSV; “quick-tempered,” ATP, NAB): Even Jesus got angry upon occasion (Mark 3:5)
as did Paul in Athens (Acts 17:16, using the same Greek word found here),[73]
but there is a kind of personality that is constantly getting provoked
or angered. Nothing you can do will
please them. Nothing you can say will
gain their praise. It is a mind-frame
constantly looking for a fight. And it
is the exact opposing of anything that can be called “love.” In politics, think of a campaign manager
looking for issues to exploit and denigrate the opponent.
It
is hard to read the description of the internal Corinthian divisions without
picturing individuals who allowed real or perceived annoyances to feed upon
themselves.[74] Thereby they created a mind-frame constantly
expecting to be unjustly criticized and feeling the need to keep others on the
defensive by criticizing them first. It
gave them a false sense of being in control but only resulted in making
everybody feel miserable beneath their temporary “victories.”
When
we ourselves suffer from this temptation, love is crudely comparable to a leash
on a dog who is rambunctious and troublesome, perhaps
even borderline dangerous. We use the
leash to keep the dog in line and under control. In a similar manner, love works to keep us
under control. It curbs our temptation
to act on a vindictive impulse or to verbally dump upon them a (lengthy) list
of all their faults and failures.[75] Or perhaps have upon numerous previous
occasions.
Furthermore doesn’t irritability
tend to multiple the verbal indignation and minimize
the effort to find solutions?[76] It makes us “feel better”—temporarily—but it
has done nothing to keep the problem from arising again. Indeed, it may further inflame an endless
cycle of irritation, a response of irritation in the other person (now or
later), causing us to act that way yet again—fueling further cycles of
retaliatory language and actions.
It
is easy to defend yielding to such a temptation if it’s only a few words that
are ill spoken rather than the kind of detailed lashing out we just
described. After all it didn’t
last. And it won’t the next time. But, as has been observed, the explosion of a
bomb doesn’t last long either—its just cleaning up all
the pieces of wreckage that can take forever.[77]
[Page 32]
9. Love “thinks no evil”
(13:5; “does not keep a record of wrongs suffered,” ATP; “doesn’t keep track of
wrongs,” GW; “is not . . . resentful,” NRSV, RSV; “does not brood over injury,”
NAB): John the Baptist rebuked
the moral faults of his generation (Luke 3:7-8) so it is hardly likely that
Paul was calling for naiveté in regard to either society or particular
individuals--when it is justified by the evidence. Unfortunately there is a mind-frame that
interprets everything evilly. If
there are two interpretations possible, the worst one is automatically
assumed. Such is incompatible with true
love. That requires putting the more
generous interpretation on what is said or done until the evidence forces a
different conclusion.[78]
“Think
no evil” could refer, however, to “think” in the sense of planning
evil. Don’t plan retribution. Don’t plan “getting even.” Don’t plan doing harm to others. In this sense two texts serve as useful
commentaries.[79] Zechariah
A
translation, sometimes suggested, would be “keep a record of wrongs.”[80] (We have adopted something similar in the
ATP.) This translation or intent fits
well with its use as a Greek bookkeeping term.[81] When married couples (or unmarried, for that
matter) start “feuding and fighting” one—or both—are likely to unload an
extraordinarily long list of every affront they’ve ever received.[82] People who can’t recall the date of a
birthday can suddenly recall in infinite detail an extraordinarily detailed
list of offenses.
Some
church members seem to have that same attitude toward each other. Concerning annoyances and disagreements they
seem to have a photographic memory.[83] Indeed, in the worst cases, they have a
better memory—it seems—for your perceived faults than for finding where the
Bible teaches its various principles and demands. They find it just as impossible to forget the
faults as they do to remember the scriptures.
Paul’s words move beyond
suppressing such bitterness and even beyond forgiveness. He is suggesting that one strives to so
remove it from mind that it will have no impact upon our attitudes and actions
in the future.[84] Those will be created by the new situations
that arise rather than being the legacy of past grievances.
Hence the admonition directly has in mind the mentality that once an injustice is done, one never forgets it. Some cling to memories of their “mistreatment” (both real and imagined) as if they were some sacred medieval relic; this type of person cherishes injustices, grievances, and hatreds just as fervently as if doing them to him or her was doing it to God Himself.
There is said to be a
tribe in
[Page 33]
10. Love “does not rejoice in
iniquity” (13:6; “does not rejoice at wrong,” RSV; “does not rejoice in
wrongdoing,” NRSV; “does not rejoice over wrongdoing,” NAB; “does not find
happiness in evil behavior,” ATP; “isn’t happy when injustice is done,” GW): Some people flat enjoy treating people
dirty. Some individuals, when they speak
of what they’ve done, are obsessed with the con they’ve pulled or how they got
the “best” of someone else. Some people
can only define their success in life as how many times they came in drunk to
their job or how many people they’ve bedded.
And they are going to repeat ad nauseum their
“successes” to you whenever they have the opportunity. This is the mind-frame of “rejoic[ing] in iniquity.”
It
also describes the attitude of those who take pleasure in seeing others do the
wrong thing.[86] (Thiselton insists
that Paul is “clearly” referring to this in particular.)[87] The Corinthians had certainly manifested such
pleasure in their acceptance of the case of incest in their congregation. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. cites 1 Corinthians
5:1, 2, 6 as proof and then adds, “Here Paul revealed
that such enjoyment demonstrated a lack of love for the man and woman living in
sin. Sin destroys people’s lives, so to rejoice in their sin is to rejoice in
their destruction.”[88] The Corinthians certainly weren’t doing that consciously,
but it was the end result of their attitude.
The result can also be
morally corrosive to our own standards, however. As Paul described it in
Romans 1:32 they not only know that some things are so flat out wrong they even
deserve death, yet “not only do the same but also approve of those who practice
them.” This condoning justifies
the person in imitating the same behavior.
If one can cite several cases, then one can boast “every one is doing
it.” Which, of course,
is never the actual case.
On the other hand, an
unquiet pleasure in the evils of others can spring out of the fact that it
makes us feel superior to them.[89] Or because it “vindicates” our low opinion of
them: “How else would you expect such
people to act?” Or simply because we
don’t like them and this proves we were “right” in our hostility.
Of
course there is another way one can rejoice in regard to sin: we can be taking quiet pleasure in the
iniquities, the unjust actions, that have been done to
them.[90] Our hands are innocent, but oh how
pleasant it can be to see them have their comeuppance! Think of it as “non-responsible revenge:” we had absolutely
nothing to do with the havoc that has hit their life but it’s about time isn’t
it?
11. Love “rejoices in the
truth” (13:6; “rejoices with the truth,” NAB; “is happy with the truth,” GW;
“is jubilant with the truth,” ATP; “rejoices at the right,” RSV): The modern media (especially television) has
no room for good news; it only has room for tragedy. A person may save ten lives by quick and bold
action and it will receive a few minutes of local coverage--and, one is almost
guaranteed, bare seconds of national mention, if any. But if that same person goes out and kills
ten people it will be the major story throughout the nation for the next week
and subject to analysis by learned individuals on dozens of talk shows. Now, those words were written years ago, before
the bursting out of 24 hour a day cable news, yet on
non-“all news” networks, the phenomena remains little changed. And a clear disproportion seems present even
on the former.
On a
personal level the attitude means we are happy when the right thing is being
said or done--even if the doer must be counted as a personal enemy. This was the mind-frame Paul tried to live
by. In Philippians
12.
Love “bears all things” (13:7; “never stops being patient,” GW; “is
supportive,” ATP): The Greek
here can mean either “to bear,” “to cover with silence,” or “to suppress.” [91] The latter two can be read as referring to
the same mind-frame: we are silent when
we could strike out; we suppress the anger that could hurt ourselves or
others. These are different ways of
producing the same result, “bear[ing] all
things.” It is not that we are unaware
of what is doing on;[92]
rather we are unwilling to allow it to poison our minds with rage and hate.
Anyone
who has lived a few decades who has not been through one or more brazen
injustices has accomplished a nearly impossible feat. Evil is and every so often it rolls
over anyone in the way--dismissing their concerns, their objections, even
attempting to silence their reservations and objections. Some of these actions are so obviously wrong
that no one outside the practitioner and his/her cronies would even attempt to
justify what has happened.
Other
cases may involve some behavior that used to be nearly always condemned as evil
but which has now gained its political and social champions. Perhaps the fall out is censuring us in the
company’s official record for daring to refuse to call sin a moral good,
perhaps even denying us promotions, and even outright firing us. Evil is and it does
triumph—temporarily. But God gives us
either strength or deliverance or both.
But either way we endure simply because the bottom line is that it is
the right thing to do.[93]
Life inevitably has its
difficulties, its impediments, its hindrances in our relationships with
others--and even in a more abstract sense as well. One either learns to endure them or one is
crushed by them. Paul argues that it is
love that gives us that capacity to survive.
The emphasis in this and the last three characteristics is not how we act
but how we react.
All
three possible renderings could also be read with an emphasis on the other
person, rather than with an emphasis upon ourselves. We “bear” with our
concerns, “silence,” them and “suppress” them as long as we honorably can.[94] In this case all three would involve
different methods of avoiding reading guilt into other people’s behavior before
we can be certain there is any. In the
case of the person trying to change for the better, it means we do not give up
hope in the constant rollercoaster of “ups” and “downs” that usually accompany
any effort at successful reform.[95]
13.
Love “believes all things” (13:7; “never stops believing,” GW; “always
accepts the other’s good intentions,” ATP): It puts the best possible interpretation on
things until the evidence requires the opposite.[96] This involves not only what is done
but why it is done as well.[97] Some people have acted against us or our
interest because they “have it in for us;” others because of circumstances
beyond their control. Which was
it—really?
Love is not required to give
the “benefit of the doubt” when there is no longer doubt![98] (The person who is determined to make life
miserable is usually going to make it pretty plain, often explicitly to us or
other individuals.) In such cases, being
naïve or gullible would be to become a facilitator of their sin of injustice
(cf. the admonition of 1 Timothy
Describing this as an
admonition that must be targeting exclusively either only those who are
believers or only those who are unbelievers[99]
seems ill advised: real and merely
apparent causes of grievance will come from both groups. (Think of some of the things the Corinthians
had been doing!)
It is a positive form of
the “think[ing] no evil” mentioned in verse 5. It is prejudice in favor of rather
than against the person.[100] It is a lack of suspiciousness.[101] Some folk assume the worst of their fellow
man and make no effort to determine whether the reality is quite what it
initially appears to be. (Even when the
judgment is based on second hand information, that has
not been confirmed.) Perhaps Martin
Luther said it best, “Excuse him, speak well of him, and put the best
construction on everything.”[102]
An
unidentified poet once provided a useful commentary on the need to put the best
interpretation on the behavior of others (a trait which obviously ties in with
the following one as well):[103]
‘Judge
not the working of his brain
And
of his heart thou canst not see.
What
looks to thy dim eyes a stain,
In
God’s pure light may only be
A
scar brought from some well-won-field,
Where
thou only wouldst faint and yield.
The
fall thou darest to despise,
May
be the angel’s slackened hand
Has
suffered it, that he may rise,
And
take a firmer, surer stand;
Or,
trusting less to earthly things,
May henceforth learn to use his wings.
And
judge none lost but wait and see
With
hopeful pity, not disdain;
The
depth of the abyss may be
The
measure of the height of pain
And
love and glory, that may raise
This soul to God in after days.
14.
Love “hopes all things” (13:7; “never stops hoping,” GW; “has no limits
to its hope,” ATP): If Paul is
discussing our own attitude toward things in which we are personally involved,
then he is stressing the need to be optimistic, hopeful for the future,
confident of the future. We are to avoid
pessimism like a plague that can destroy us.
(Easier said than done!) Good will ultimately win out
regardless of whether we can calculate how, when, or why.[104] In the long term, if not
the short.
[Page 36] Hence “hope” can carry us where objective
grounds for faith or confidence do not yet exist.[105] It is not to deny that things are
bad—that would be to lie to ourselves—but to know that, with God’s help, they
don’t have to stay that way.
If
Paul has under consideration our mind-frame toward others (and that is far more
likely) then he is stressing that we are to have this attitude not toward our own
well-being and destiny, but toward that of others.[106] We may despair of them but yet we never fully
give up the hope, the desire, the aspiration, that change may yet, one day, be
possible for them.[107]
Twisting the meaning of love beyond its true intent. Paul isn’t urging gullibility, however: A person who claims they have changed may
have or may not. What President Ronald
Reagan said of international relations applies well on the individual basis as
well, “Trust—but verify.” And if that
involves another who can potentially compromise the safety or welfare of those
in our charge—family and children in particular—that is even more so. Those are divinely given obligations as
well.
You don’t, for example,
trust a man convicted of embezzlement with your family’s money before they
establish a long record of good behavior.
You may “believe” he’s changed, you certainly “hope” he’s changed—but it
would be anything but good judgment to put them in a position where they might
yield to the harmful temptation they have in the past.[108] Especially when there
aren’t safeguards in place to minimize any danger.
You don’t prematurely
judge the person innocent or guilty, but you know you hope for the
former. But it is on the basis of
established behavior that you make your decision. You don’t “juggle with the evidence” in
either direction;[109]
you accept reality as it is.
15.
Love “endures all things” (13:7; “never gives up,” GW; “never gives up
no matter what happens,” ATP):
Paul is not a blind optimist: he
knows from personal experience that bad times can and have come to him (2
Corinthians
It rides out the
discouragements. Even if “hope” has
dimmed to near vanishing, “enduring” keeps us aimed in
the same direction. And by that very act
of endurance--when situations shift--“hope” can be reborn.
Conclusion: Paul
is not dealing with abstract theory in this fifteen point description of
love: the principles serve a very
important role in the Corinthian context.
They have been besieged by internal bickering and divisiveness. Real love--love in practice rather than mere
rhetoric--provides a tool to heal the wounds these divisions have left behind
and to take the steam out of future disagreements. Love is a beautiful abstraction; but love in
practice will be the solution to the heartaches they have caused each other.[110]
[Page 37]
13:8-10: When miraculous gifts will pass away. The
word “perfect” here is telios and meant,
according to the Abott-Smith Manual Lexicon of the
New Testament, “having reached
its end, finished, mature, complete, perfect.”[111] In regard to human beings, it carried the
usual connotation of full development into complete or perfect maturity. Alternatively, as, in effect, a synonym for
being completely “good” in a moral sense--with the point being that one had
that virtue without the overtone of how they had obtained it. In regard to things rather than people, it
conveys the image of completeness or perfection in the sense of it lacking
nothing; they ascribe 1 Corinthians 13:10 to that meaning.[112]
The dominant
interpretation of the text is that Paul has in mind the coming of the “perfect”
person, Jesus, at His yet future Parousia.[113] Alternate variants of the same basic idea are
that it refers to the coming of the “perfect” world (heaven)[114]
or the gaining of the “perfect” life (eternal).[115] In other words, “the
consummation of God’s purposes at the end of history.”[116]
We
have here, however, a very fundamental conceptual difficulty. Everything pictured from the return of
Jesus on is pictured in terms that have to be described as inherently
“miraculous” if they are to occur at all:
the resurrection of the dead (of the entire human species!), the
destruction of the cosmos, judgment day, eternal life, eternal
condemnation. If these have any
objective, concrete reality they will be a perpetual miracle. Hence, wrapped up in the very fabric of the
New Testament presentation of the final destiny of the human race is the reinauguration of the miraculous. The only way out of this difficulty would
appear to be to say that Paul was wrong in asserting that there would be any
period without miracles.
Hence we need to seek out a rather different time frame for what Paul has in mind.
The completion of the New Testament
canon scenario. The key
to understanding what Paul has in mind is found in the three miraculous gifts
he specifically mentions in 13:8:
“prophecies,” “tongues,” and “knowledge.” What they all have in common is that they
were means believed to reveal the Divine will.
Hence “we know in part and we prophesy in part” (13:9); revelation came
in bits and pieces. But when the
totality of what was to be revealed had come--when the revelation was made
“perfect,” lacking nothing—“then that which is in part will be done away” (
Some
deny this fundamental premise that miraculous gifts are all that is
under discussion. Drew Worthen notes that worldly knowledge continues to be gained
and then adds, “God’s word is complete, neither to be added to, or taken away;
but how many Christians in the world can say with confidence that they’ve
learned everything about God from His word?
Knowledge continues.”[117]
However,
Paul is describing Divine revelation in this verse: “prophecies, tongues, knowledge.”[118] The first two are questionably such, the
third one offers no hint of being anything else. Paul is discussing the knowledge embedded in
that revelation; not our digging knowledge out of that revelation.
W. E. Vine is convinced
that the knowledge, though religious in nature, could just as easily be
“acquired from apostolic instruction” as from personal inspiration.[119] Note how he embodies the shift in the meaning
of “knowledge” we just referred to. This
requires a definition being put on “knowledge” different than that found in the
first two of the three phenomena. Not
impossible, of course, but improbable.
[Page 38] Vine
defends this shift by referring to 1 Corinthians 14:6, “But now, brethren, if I
come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to
you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?” Here, Vine notes, knowledge “is distinguished
from revelation.”[120] We run into some semantic problems at this
point: yes, “revelation” is
distinguished from knowledge but so is prophesying, yet was not
prophesying Divine revelation as well?
The same point can responsibly be made from the inclusion of
“teaching”—was he not inspired while he did it?
So, whatever distinction Paul is intending, it is not one to
disown the Divine origin/inspiration of the teaching and knowledge and we are
back to the kind of teaching being discussed in 13:8.
Furthermore, if the
“knowledge” under discussion is that which we obtain by our own
intellectual “sweat and blood” it is hardly likely that will ever end while
Paul has in mind a type of knowledge that will cease. Having ruled out it being “knowledge” gained
by our own work, then we are returned to the kind of “knowledge” that fits best
with the first two items in Paul’s list—Divinely given revelation that
ultimately resulted in the books of what we (retroactively) have called the New
Testament.
Hence
it is far more likely that Paul is looking toward a day when all that needed to
be revealed would have been received.[121] At that point, the need for revelation would
be completed and those gifts of the Spirit making it possible and confirming
its validity could pass away without harm.
The New Testament itself speaks in terms of being/becoming a completed
system (Jude 3, for example).
Whether one embraces this
particular approach or not, there can be no question that the apostle is
looking to the day when the miraculous manifestations will cease. The only real question is at what
chronological point it was to occur in his thinking. And that is incompatible with any
interpretation referring it to the return of Jesus and the related events since
that will, in his and other New Testament thinking, represent the “reinaguration” of an age of miracles.
(Those
who dismiss the reliability of Paul’s teaching will regard such a future as
improbable if not impossible. On the
other hand, when we are engaged in the exegesis of Pauline and other New
Testament teaching it is vital to understand the type of interpretation such
writers would have placed upon their teaching, whether or not we accept their
premises and conclusions.)
A
number of other objections have been made to the type of interpretation we have
suggested. One objection comes from the
mistake of equating the cessation of miraculous revelation as coming
immediately with the closing of the canon.[122] If we assume that some writings of apostolic
and prophetic origin have not been preserved, then we should have no difficulty
in also granting the temporary continuation of such gifts after the
canon was completed. In neither scenario
would what Divine providence considered necessary for the canon be
affected. Truth need be said only once
to be “complete” on a given matter; repetition should be counted as a blessed
luxury.
The
argument can also be challenged from the opposite standpoint: Repeatedly the New Testament acts and speaks
as if the sum and total of Divine truth were already in their possession
(Jude 3, for example)--at dates before the canon was completed. This should not be all that surprising
either. “Revelation,” as described in
the New Testament, was both situation driven and working toward the end of a
comprehensive system. Until all the
desired contingencies were covered in writings available to the faith
community, it [Page 39] would still be
needful even though the basic outline—even the bulk of the details--was already
available. Not necessarily yet written
down, but available.
Another
significant objection to the “canon interpretation” lies in the vagueness of
Paul’s time frame: he is very indefinite
as to when that “perfect” would arrive.[123] Assuming Paul wrote in the mid-50s, even
accepting the traditional attributions of the New Testament, there would be at
least a decade or two more before the last volume was written. The Apocalypse is usually dated in the 90s
(though I prefer a much earlier date) and that would be four decades
afterwards. Assuming any of the
New Testament books are of that late an origin, then the vagueness would be even
more appropriate. (Much of modern
religious scholarship attributes segments to a date even later than this,
though one can’t help but suspect that this is as much their theology creating
the conclusion as any evidence that is introduced.)
The related objection that Paul exhibits no indication that he regards himself as writing near the end of the canon compositional period,[124] seems a rather strange one to this analyst. Assuming the last book was written c. 68 A.D. then you have c. 15 years before the end and if you date it c. 93 you are speaking of c. 40 years. He wasn’t near the end of the compositional period in the latter case and the terminology is a bit “iffy” even in the shorter time frame.
Furthermore, why would
Paul give an indication, at all, of where he stood in the revelationary
chain? Remember that it is just a
passing remark to reinforce his teaching on the enduring importance of love and
not the central thrust of his argument!
Historically, he wasn’t nudging its end and from the standpoint of his
argument he never claims that he was. An
argument based on what Paul does not claim in the first place seems an
odd one indeed.
The
same commentator makes a better argument from the fact that when the “perfect”
arrived, then Christians would no longer “see in a mirror, dimly, but then face
to face” and would no longer “know (only) in part, but then I shall know just
as I also am known” (13:12). He takes
this and argues, “After the Bible was completed, Christians
did not see God ‘face to face’ (only ‘face to book’!) or
know Him to the degree that He knew them.”[125]
But they did
have—if one believes the New Testament claim that there would be a complete
revelation of the Divine will (John 16:13-15)—the full disclosure of everything
God ever intended to tell humans about Himself. (At least in the current
world!) If one wishes to read
into
The church scenario: the coming to “adulthood,” the coming to
maturity and completion of the development of the church. As to chronological timing, one would expect
little difference between the ending of the New Testament canon and the church
reaching its full spiritual development.[127] What came after was either the constructive
evolution of the church’s full development or an apostasy (or apostasies) [Page
40] away from it--according to one’s
evaluation of the genuineness of “Christian spirituality” as of a few centuries
later and of today, for that matter.
Answered either way, the initial moral/spiritual completing
surely had to have been when the full revelation of God’s will was available
that made such maturity possible. Indeed
if the church wasn’t spiritually mature / “complete” by that time, why
would we ever expect it to occur?
Some, however, attempt to postpone the church coming into this state until a much later time frame. Michael J. Gorman, for example, insists it will occur at the “parousia and resurrection. . . . This will be when the church . . . reaches its maturity.”[128] This might, perhaps, be described as the time of the end of the church, as it blends into the redeemed who were part of God’s people before there was either Christianity or the church. But to describe it as the point of “maturity” seems out of place. If the church had not reached that stage centuries earlier—at least—had it not been a colossal failure? And if it had not reached that stage earlier why in the world would one anticipate that it would ever do so? The physical appearing of Jesus is, somehow, going to change the essence and nature of the church?
Gorman may have in mind,
however, the church reaching its final goal—of having “completed the
race” to heaven. Having
“run all the way.” Ideas that can play off the meaning of “perfect” in our text. But this requires a redirection of the
passage from its subject (revelation) to the recipients of the
revelation (the church) and their being brought to “completion” in a
chronological rather than spiritual sense.
So even this approach requires a double shift in the
meaning of the terminology to make it fully work.
Donald
G. McDougall argues that the desire of Paul that is being expressed is that the
church “reach the maturity of unity.” What wonderful idealism! Having reached an awful lot of years in age,
though, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Having seen so much of the disunity today and finding absolutely nothing
in the past precedent of church history to suggest that the situation will be
any different at the return of Christ—at least above the strictly
congregational level and often not even then—I find it hard to believe that the
world knowledgeable Paul would ever seriously suggest such a thing. Unless it was a way to say that the gifts
would never end, since they would always be needed. Which would undermine the
very argument of
Having examined the
arguments for the “church maturity” approach and seen their weaknesses, let us
pass to arguments concretely against it.
For example, Robert Hommel lodges two major
objections to the church maturity approach.
The first is that, “While teleion can mean ‘a state of maturity’ when speaking
of a person, there are no other New Testament examples of it carrying this
meaning when used of a collective group or abstract noun (which must be
inferred as ‘church’ in this interpretation).”[129]
He
also finds it conceptually difficult to make this approach fit verse 12’s claim
that only “ ‘at that time’ (i.e., when ‘the perfect’
comes), he will ‘know fully.’ It does not seem reasonable to understand
Paul to be saying that he expected to live to see the maturity of the church
and then to ‘know fully,’ ” apparently quoting the
[Page 41]
The personal scenario: the individual completion of spiritual development. In this approach, Paul does not have in mind the ending of miracles, but the end of their importance in the spiritual development of each believer. To have the supernatural gifts is fine and Paul discusses their manifestations in both the previous and the following chapters; even more useful is to have love.
“Perfect” can equally properly be translated as “mature, complete, whole.” Whatever gifts one did possess (and it appears that it was rarely more than one gift per person), no one individual ever had the full array of miraculous powers: he or she never had the “whole” or the “complete” collection. But they could have love in all its manifestations; in that they could be “mature, complete, whole.”[131]
When the Corinthians had that fully developed love, they would no longer need miracle working manifestations of the Spirit in any form.[132] They would recognize that love was all they needed and, therefore, was superior to such gifts.[133] Hence the miraculous gifts would not vanish, but be put in their proper perspective.
Yet it is odd that if this is Paul’s point, that he singles out only those gifts of the Spirit that were means of revealing the Divine will. Unless--unlikely as it seems to this particular commentator--that Paul is suggesting that when we possess a fully developed love further revelation of God’s will is unneeded. When that kind of love is present we have imbedded in our living essence the core of its purpose. And when we have that central message down pat, all else is but “commentary” upon it. Admittedly, excellent sermonic material but I question it as exegesis of Paul’s intent.
Placing them in their proper perception was certainly one of Paul’s goals. But he speaks in terms of the gifts “ceasing,” “vanishing,” and “failing” (13:8). That goes far beyond merely putting them in their proper perspective. It is the gifts that cease, that vanish, that are specified as being lost, not the Corinthians’ false emphasis on them in place of love.
In other words, they have
no control over this—it is going to happen. So, yes, they had better start looking at the
gifts from a balanced perspective. Not
merely because love is so important, but because the day is coming when the
gifts won’t be around at all to fall back upon.
The argument, however, could equally well be constructed to mean that when the Corinthians in general (as representative of Christians in general) put love first, then the gifts would vanish. (To speak “universally” is so rarely true of any group of Christians that that is not a reasonable, real world scenario.)
That, however, would put revelation under the control of humankind and not God. Instead of having a terminal point in mind, He would be morally obligated to continue so long as many (most?) of His people had not embraced love.
Furthermore, having spoken
so highly of both the prophetic gift and speaking in tongues, would it not be regarded as
rather odd if the “reward” for full love was to be denied them? If a person has to choose between “direct contact with the supernatural” (so to speak) and full love, would
a person choose love? Should a
person chose love, which substitutes a “second hand” connection with the
supernatural to the “direct exposure” found in the miraculous gifts of chapter
12?
Even ignoring this, there is a further difficulty in this approach The realist can hardly avoid wondering whether any human being can ever master more than some of the aspects of love, strive as we may. Do we not but “touch the hem of the garment,” even when we give it our best effort? If so, would the “gifts” ever pass away as predicted?
[Page 42]
Were tongues to vanish before supernatural revelation via prophecy
and knowledge? Another subject
of controversy in regard to these verses is whether Paul is speaking of all
three miraculous gifts ending at the same time. That is how it is normally interpreted by
both friends and foes of the modern charismatic movement, but it has been
strongly argued that the text distinguishes between the time when
tongues vanish and when the other phenomena disappear.
Prophecies
“will fail” and knowledge “will vanish away.”
Both render the same Greek word, katargeo. In contrast tongues are to “cease,” pauo.
Robert Hommel is one of those who sees great significance in this,[134]
Katargeo
is in the passive voice, indicating that the coming of the "perfect"
is the cause of the "partial" passing away. Tongues, however,
will cease of themselves. Pauo is in the Greek middle voice, which is defined
as "an action taken by the subject upon him, her, or itself" (Friberg).
Thus, tongues will "cease" of themselves--not as a direct result of
"the perfect" coming. If this is the case, Paul is not speaking
definitively about when tongues will cease--only that when "the
perfect" comes, tongues will no longer be operative in the church.
"The perfect" will do away with prophecy and knowledge; but tongues
will have ceased at some point prior to that event.
In other words, even if we
successfully establish that “the perfect” is an actual reference to the return
of Christ (or something conceptually identical in meaning and chronology), tongues would still have disappeared at some
earlier point. Only the supernatural
gifts of prophecies and knowledge would remain to be permanently removed.
Hommel concedes that one could object that Paul’s use of
“done away” (“fail” and “vanish away” in the NKJV) being in the passive voice
while the tongues being said to “cease” (middle voice) might be
stylistic differences of the apostle and unintended to have an impact on the
verse’s interpretation. On the other
hand, he insists, Paul’s care in his choice of language and how he uses it both
here and elsewhere, argues strongly that the distinction is intended to make a
differing point and not be a variant way of saying the same thing.[135]
Some go
so far as to dismiss an alleged distinction between “fail/vanish away” and the
fate of tongues to “cease” as assuming a terminological significance when there
need be done. Donald G. McDougall, who
makes plain he doesn’t really want to get involved in a controversy on this
point, responds that dismissing the argument in this manner seems clearly
inappropriate “since Paul has no compunction about using katargeo four times
in verses 8-11 while only using pauo only once.”[136] In other words, when one word is dominant,
the substitution of a different one requires the change to have significance.
Perhaps, but
earlier in this chapter I originally used the same phrase four or perhaps five
times in a matter of two paragraphs—within roughly a six sentence space. I had to rework the text several times
in order to introduce verbal variety into the
[Page 43]
wording—though the substitutions were intended to make exactly the same
point. Why? One of the few “writing rules” I remember
from my youth is to avoid over usage of the same word or expression. So, at least to a person like me, it does not
seem all that unnatural if Paul wished to vary his language as a trait of good
authorship. Perhaps others will judge
the matter differently.
True
as the distinction in Paul’s language clearly is (though its significance is
definitely debatable), there remains a not inconsiderable problem: how in the world would tongue speaking “cause
itself” to come to an end? One can
imagine situations in which it could be discredited whether it had come
to an end or not—by its widespread use by heretical groups, for example. However, this would more likely produce only
greater caution and the demand for the clearest cut evidence that the phenomena
was real, rather than its blanket rejection.
And this would still not be it ceasing on its own, as the argument
insists would occur. It would be a
(partial) ceasing because of their misuse.
Furthermore
the language of “cause itself” carries the clear overtone of self-control,
volition. But tongues are not in control
of themselves; they are a gift of the Holy Spirit. Would not the giver of the
tongues (the Spirit) be the one to eliminate the tongues just as the Spirit
would eliminate the supernaturally given prophecy and knowledge?[137] And if the Spirit does it, why and on what
basis, while maintaining the existence of other miraculous gifts? These difficulties, however, brings us back
to the real likelihood of both Greek words being used here, effectively, as
synonyms and referents to the same point in time.
Before departing our digression on the possible distinction of prophecies and knowledge as versus the fate of speaking in tongues, it should be noted that the first two are linked with the word katargeo describing what will be done to remove them (“will fail/vanish away,” NKJV). It has been argued that this emphatically understresses the significance of katargeo. Its basic meaning is “to render inoperative or invalid, to abrogate, abolish” and others go so far as say “destroy.”[138]
“The second point is that, since all three uses of this verb in
verses 8 and 10 are passive, they denote that the action upon the respective
nouns—prophecies and knowledge—is achieved by something outside themselves.”[139] Hence to render “will pass away” seriously understates
what is going on. “They will be made
to go away” or “they will be removed from humans” more precisely
captures the thought.
The NKJV’s rendering touches on the edge of the idea but most
others do not seem to bring out this element much better. In regard to prophecy, however, there are the
emphatic “done away” (Darby,
He sees three
possibilities: (1) that Paul is talking about how these three
continue in the current age regardless of whether we personally possess any of
the miraculous gifts; (2) that Paul is adopting a kind of verbal “formula”
rather than expressing a literal truth; (3) that in some sense faith and
hope survive the Parousia.[141]
In potential favor of the
“verbal formula” scenario is the fact that Paul joins the three together in
various other texts as well. Craig Blomberg, though leaning to the eternal survival of all
three, lists 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 5:8; Colossians 1:4-5; Ephesians 1:15-18.[142]
“Now abide faith,
hope, love” (1 Corinthians
It has been argued that
since love never fails (13:8) that love must carry over into the next life and
since everything else must, by implication, “fail,” then so do faith and
hope, ending when this world does.[144] But there is the assumption
that even love carries over into the next life;
Furthermore, we have a profound
problem with the language that is utilized to prove the stopping of faith and
hope in the next world: Faith becomes
sight and hope becomes present “real life” in the next world, but the term
“fails” hardly seems to fit either change.
“Fulfillment,” perhaps; “fail,” no.
Hence the language doesn’t fit with their ending along with the current
physical cosmos.
In
behalf of faith and hope continuing into eternity is how we define
those terms. True, “we walk by
faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7) but isn’t there a difference between
that and faith in someone, in this case Christ and God?[145] Are faith in that sense is going to
vanish? Would Paul have expected it
to?
In behalf of faith and
hope abiding only in the current cosmos are two basic arguments.
The
first is that “abide” is in the present tense:
“Thus, Paul meant that ‘faith’ and ‘hope’ existed at the time he wrote,
not that they would always continue to exist.”[146] The problem is that Paul writes, “Now abide
(present tense) faith, hope, love.” If the present tense
requires the first two to be only for this world, why not the love as well? Of we could flip the argument over and argue,
as W. E. Vine does, that abide “is purposely in the singular number, as faith,
hope, love are one group, a triplet, indissociable
in their permanency.”[147] In other words, as a triad unit, all survive
the same length of time. Forever. Literally.
One could rebut this by noting that “love never fails” (13:8) but is he talking about in this life or into all eternity? Yet if one argues (rightly) that this means eternity, when we come to “now abide faith, hope, love” why would Paul intermingle two
[Page 45] temporary abilities with one eternal? Wouldn’t we expect them all to be one or the
other?
A
more powerful argument against faith and hope enduring is found in Romans
8:24: “hope that is seen is not hope;
for why does one still hope for what he sees?” When what has been hoped for has been
obtained, there is no need for further “hope;” it is now a reality.[148]
On
the other hand will there be nothing to be hoped for in heaven? True the object(s) would be different
than those we currently have, but would the mind-frame no longer be
present? As we discover the intricacies
of our new world, will there not be things that would be pleasant to have or
enjoy or see but which we do not currently?
To remove that response, would require not merely a transformation of
our bodies (promised in chapter 15) but a fundamental reordering of our brain
processes as well.
Will God put our minds, so
to speak, in a vise to keep the desire for something different from
evolving? Remember, the things Paul
regarded as right to hope for were honorable and moral. Within those boundaries, there are a
multitude of options on earth. There
won’t be in heaven? Different hopes,
yes; but hopes nonetheless. Most likely. “Most likely” simply because it’s the type of thing not really
provable one way or another until we get there.
Will there be no room for
faith either? What we had faith would
occur will have been accomplished, of course.
But will there be no new commitments by God that are not performed
immediately and which we must wait for for one good
reason or another? Barring a purely
static (which means stagnant) society, it is hard to see how it would be
otherwise.
Notes
[1]
Constable, 145, appears to be moving in this direction without making it
explicit.
[2] Worthen, 1 Corinthians.
[3] Richard L. Pratt, Jr., and Ra
McLaughlin. “The Most Excellent
Way,” 3-4.
[4] W. Graham Scroggie, The Love Life:
A Study of 1 Corinthians 13 (London:
Pickering & Inglis, Ltd., 1935), 24.
[5] As quoted by Guzik, Commentaries: 1 Corinthians 13.
[6] Worthen, 1 Corinthians.
[7] Richard J. Krejcir, “1
Corinthians 13:1-3,” part of the Into Thy Word website. At:
http://www.intothyword.org/apps/articles/default.asp?articleid=58342&
columnid=3803
[March 2011].
[8] Ibid.
[9] Vine, Corinthians, 179.
[11] Blomberg, 259.
[12] William
Harris, “
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Vine, Corinthians, 179.
[17] Thiselton, Corinthians: Shorter Commentary, 218.
[18] William
Harris, “
[19] As summed up by Frank J. Matera,
New Testament Ethics:
The Legacies of Jesus and Paul (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 152.
[21]
[22] Thrall, 93.
[23] Spicq, 148.
[24] Tizard, 42-43.
[25] As
quoted by Raymond Bryan Brown, 333.
[26]
Barrett, Corinthians, 302.
[27] W. B.
Harris, 172.
[28]
Accepted as the best reading by, among others Orr and Walther, 291, and Price, 805. For an analysis of the textual evidence in
behalf of the two possibilities and a discussion of how the difference may have
arisen, see Bridges, 92-94.
[Page 50]
[29] Orr and Walther, 291.
[30] Parry, 143.
[31] Parry,
143, rejects the linkage to this event as hardly likely to have been in Paul’s
mind. On the other hand, the apostle
certainly had a profound knowledge of the Old Testament and had himself suffered much.
With that literary and personal background, it is reasonable to believe
that such a linkage might have existed.
That they had suffered--and triumphed, as he had so far--would have been
of immense comfort to the apostle.
[32] Hughes, 274; MacGorman, 140.
[33] Nelson, 149.
[34] Spicq, 150.
[35] Lewis B. Smedes, Love
Within Limits: A Realist’s View of 1
Corinthians 13 (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978),
3.
[36] Worthen, 1 Corinthians.
[37] Richard L. Pratt, Jr., and Ra McLaughlin.,
“The Most Excellent Way,” 6.
[38] Smedes, 7.
[39] Montague, 166.
[40] Thiselton, Corinthians: Shorter Commentary, 221.
[41] Greg Laurie, The
Upside Down Churh ([N.p.]: Tyndale, 1999), p.
169.
[42] Spicq, 151.
[43] Cf. Richard L. Pratt, Jr., and Ra McLaughlin, “The
Most Excellent Way,” 7.
[44] For a description of specific examples, see Deffinbaugh, “What Is This Thing Called Love?”
[45] Laurie, 171.
[46] Cf. Worthen, 1
Corinthians.
[47] Richard L. Pratt, Jr., and Ra
McLaughlin. “The
Most Excellent Way,” 7.
[Page 51]
[48] Smedes, 17.
[49] Ibid., 152.
[50] Stephen Lewis, “Love As a Way of Life: 1 Corinthians 13:1-13” (2007), 2. At:
http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Book_of_1st_Corinthians/22_1Cor_13_1-13/1Cor_13_1-13_Notes.pdf
[February 2011].
[51] J. B. Fernandes, Becoming
Christ (Bandra, Mumbai, India: St. Paul’s Press, 1986; 12th
printing, 2004), 66.
[52]Ibid., 153.
[53] Worthen, 1 Corinthians, speaking of a goodly number
in modern churches who claim to possess such gifts.
[54] Richard L. Pratt, Jr., and Ra McLaughlin, “The Most
Excellent Way,” 8.
[55] Cf. Deffinbaugh, “What Is
This Thing Called Love?”
[56] Stephen Lewis, 2.
[57] Gordon Lyons, 161.
[58] Ibid., 154.
[59] Richard L. Pratt, Jr., and Ra McLaughlin, “The Most
Excellent Way,” 9.
[60] Quoted by Blomberg,
259.
[61] Ted Scroder, “1 Corinthians 13 Series,”
at the People of Faith.com website.
At:
http://www.peopleoffaith.com/1-corinthians-13.htm [February 2011].
[62] Cf.
Ibid.
[63] Cf. Hargreaves, 173.
[64] Worthen, 1 Corinthians.
[65] Laurie, 174.
[66] Richard L. Pratt, Jr., and Ra
McLaughlin. “The Most Excellent
Way,” 9-10.
[67] Deffinbaugh, “What Is This
Thing Called Love?”
[Page 52]
[68] Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross
(
[69] Ibid., 158-159.
[70] Witherington, Conflict,
270.
[71] Montague, 167.
[72] Worthen, 1 Corinthians.
[73] Richard L. Pratt, Jr., and Ra McLaughlin, “The Most
Excellent Way,” 10-11
[74] Spicq, 156.
[75] Fernandes, 70.
[76] Shepherd, 71.
[77] Cf. Steven J. Cole, “What Love Looks Like” (February
1995), 5. At:
http://www.fcfonline.org/content/1/sermons/020595M.pdf [February 2011].
[78] Nelson M. Smith, 37.
[79] Ibid., 156-157.
[80] Ellingworth and
Hatton, 296. Cf. Lenski, 558.
[81] Stephen Lewis, 2.
[82] Cole, 6.
[83] Deffinbaugh, “What Is This
Thing Called Love?”
[84]
Montague, 167-168.
[85] Guzik, Commentaries: 1 Corinthians 13.
[86] Gordon Lyons, 161.
[87] Thiselton, Corinthians: Shorter Commentary, 224.
[88] Richard L. Pratt, Jr., and Ra McLaughlin, “The Most
Excellent Way,” 11.
[Page 53] [89] A. A.
Van Ruler, The Greatest of These Is Love (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1959), 60.
[90] Fernandes, 67.
[91] Grosheide, 307. How to best render this into English has led
to much discussion and considerably varying translations. For a discussion of these and their
weaknesses see Ralph P. Martin, Spirit, 51.
[92] Montague, 169.
[93] Gordon Lyons, 162.
[94] Cf. Spicq, 159.
[95] Cf.
Montague, 169.
[96] Bruce, Corinthians, 127, and Gordon Lyons, 162.
[97] Chafin, 165.
[98] Richard L. Pratt, Jr., and Ra McLaughlin, “The Most
Excellent Way,” 12.
[99] Gordon Lyons, 162.
[100] Spicq, 159.
[101] Scroggie, 46, and Stephen J. Ord, Not I but
Christ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway
Books, 1995), 116.
[102] As
quoted by Lenski, 560-561.
[103] Fernandes, 68.
[104] Spicq, 159.
[105] Scroggie, 48.
[106] Lenski, 561.
[107] Constable, 147.
[108] Making this general point but not in this manner is
Richard L. Pratt, Jr., “The
[110] On the
importance of this teaching on love to a church divided such as
[111] Page 442, as quoted in Donald G. McDougall, “Cessationism in 1 Corinthians 13:8-12,” in The Master’s
Seminary Journal (volume 14, number 2 [Fall 2003]), 201. At:
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj14g.pdf [January 2011, February 2011].
[112] As summarized from the same source by McDougall,
201-202.
[113] For
examples of this approach, see, for example, Mare, 269; Ralph P. Martin, Spirit,
53; Parry, 145; McFadyen, 184; and Susan K. Hedahl and Richard P. Carlson, “An Exegetical Analysis of 1
Corinthians 13,” in Preaching 1 Corinthians 13, edited by Susan K. Hedahl and Richard P. Carlson ([N.p.]: Chalice Press, 2001), 24.
[114] Raymond Bryan Brown, 374; Bruce, Corinthians, 128; Ewert, 154; Price, 808; E. H. Robertson, 83.
[115] Blomberg, 260; Conzelmann, 226.
Frederick C. Grant, 99, refers to it as “the realm of final reality.”
[116] Baird,
Urban Culture, 55.
[117] Worthen, 1 Corinthians.
[118] McDougall, 195, in what appears to have been one of
those textual inconsistencies we authors can easily fall into inadvertently,
first argues at the beginning of one paragraph that “tongues appears here
between two other arguably revelatory gifts.” However, at the start of the next paragraph
he describes them all as “three revelatory gifts.”
[119] Vine, Corinthians, 183.
[120] Vine, Corinthians, 183.
[121] Among
those who equate the “perfect” with the New Testament are Gromacki,
Called, 163; Blaiklock, Excellence,
33-34; Boyer, 125-126; and Lipscomb and Shepherd, 172.
[122]MacGorman, 141; Mare, 268-269.
[123]Mare, 269.
[124] Blomberg, 260.
[125] Blomberg, 260.
[Page 55]
[126] Blomberg, 260.
[127] Robert Hommel, “The
Apologist’s Bible Commentary: 1
Corinthians 13.” At: http://www.forananswer.org/1Cor/1Cor13_8.htm
[January, February 2011].
[128]
Gorman, Apostle, 274-275.
[129] Hommel, “1
Corinthians 13.”
[130] Ibid.
[131]
Bratcher, Guide, 128, who argues that it is the “love” that is complete
that is under consideration.
[132] MaccGuiggan,
176. For a more lengthy
presentation of his intriguing scenario as well as a critique of the “completed
revelation” approach see 253-262.
[133] Ellis, 99.
[134] Hommel, “1 Corinthians 13.”
Constable, 148, makes the same argument, but explicitly with the return
of Christ being the point that prophecy and knowledge is brought to an end.
[135] Hommel, “1
Corinthians 13.”
[136] McDougall, 196.
[137] Ibid., 198-199 makes the
same basic point at length but with God mentioned in place of the Holy Spirit.
[138] As quoted by Ibid., 197.
[139] Ibid.
[140] W. B.
Harris, 175.
[141] Ibid., 175-176.
[142] Blomberg, 260.
[143] Scroggie, 82.
[144] Witherington, Conflict,
272.
[Page 56] [145] “If
by faith we mean trust in God, confidence in God, dependence upon God, surely
this will never cease; the clearer vision will issue in more perfect trust, in
a confidence which no shadow of doubt shall ever cross.” So writes Erdman, 56.
[146] Richard L. Pratt, Jr., and Ra McLaughlin, “The Most
Excellent Way,”17.
[147] Vine, Corinthians, 186.
[148] Richard L. Pratt, Jr., and Ra McLaughlin, “The Most
Excellent Way,” 17.