1 Corinthians 13:1-3

One of the problems within the Corinthian church had to do with spiritual gifts and their role in the work and, particularly, the worship of the church. Paul never clearly defines the problem, but based on what we do know, it seems that some within the Corinthian church who possessed unusual gifts were in danger of being conceited by their gifts and looking down on others who had less interesting gifts. In chapter 12, Paul's focus was on unity. All these gifts were given by God to build up the church. The church is like a body where each organ plays its part for the good of the whole. Paul admitted that some gifts were better than others, and it would be best to possess the best gifts. And yet, as good as spiritual gifts can be, they aren't everything. They are good, not best. 1 Corinthians 13 is the best.

1 Corinthians 13 is one of the most famous chapters of the New Testament, and the closest thing we have to a book of poetry in the NT. It is known particularly for being about one theme.

Agape is a Greek word used 9 times in the short scope of this chapter. Agape is not a very common word in ancient Greek and is rarely, if ever, used outside of the Septuagint and the NT. In the Septuagint, it translates the Hebrew word for love and is used for love in a variety of different senses. 

So, we can roughly say that agape means love. But in the NT, agape is usually used in a more specific sense to refer to a certain kind or degree of love. To know what that kind of love is, you can't merely look at a lexicon—it is defined by its usage. 1 Corinthians 13 itself shows us what this kind of love is like.

The KJV translates agape as charity throughout this passage. (The vast majority of times in the NT, agape is translated love.) Charity is an old word for love, coming from Latin. However, in modern English, charity generally refers to philanthropy, to practical acts of helping people in need. It is easy to see the connection between that and love, but they are not interchangeable ideas, as we will see.

So the theme of 1 Corinthians 13 is love. And the first thing we learn about love from these verses is its importance.

Remember that we are talking about this in the context of the problem of spiritual gifts. In these verses, Paul lists many things a man might have, many gifts that might be present in the church.

There is ELEQUENCE, the ability to speak well with the tongues of men. This might also include knowledge of different languages. Paul also mentions speaking with the tongues of angels. This might refer to the highest possible degree of eloquence since we would assume angels would speak (and do everything else) better than man can. But this also might refer to some kind of SUPERNATURAL SPEECH. Barnes points out that Paul, in 2 Corinthians, describes having some sort of supernatural experience where he experienced a glimpse of heaven and “heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” Perhaps speaking with the tongues of angels is something like that. It might also connect to the whole question of speaking in tongues, which will become important later.

We also have PROPHECY. Given the context, this is probably talking about something supernatural, whether predictive or prescriptive. Along with this, we have SPIRITUAL INSIGHT. Paul speaks of understanding all mysteries. In Paul's writing, a mystery refers to some spiritual truth that was once hidden. To be able to understand all mysteries would be to see all the truths hidden in God's word--to see inside God's secret files. And along with that, we have KNOWLEDGE, which covers any other kind of knowledge that spiritual insight and prophecy don't.

Having knowledge is good, but it isn't enough. But Paul also pictures more practical gifts. He mentions FAITH, and particularly the kind of faith that removes mountains (a reference to the words of Jesus.) Removing a mountain can refer to any sort of great or difficult deed, but given the overall context, this may refer specifically to working MIRACLES.

Knowledge and faith may be isolated and individual, even selfish. But Paul mentions other gifts which are interpersonal. Verse 3 is where the translation of the KJV becomes ironic, because he mentions feeding the poor, which is what we today would call CHARITY. But this charity is not a light or casual thing. It includes SELF-SACRIFICE; a man being willing to give up all his possessions to help others. But the self-sacrifice goes beyond that. He speaks of a man giving his body to be burned. Commentators are divided as to whether this means branding—which was common for criminals or slaves—or the entire body being burned, as almost happened to Shadrack and Co. and would happen to many Christians later under Nero. Either way, it implies a complete and utter degree of self-sacrifice.

So, we have all these things—all these gifts and achievements a man might have. Nothing here is sinful. Many of these we would say are things the church must have, at least in some degree. You could use this as an outline for a sermon on things to strive for. They are all important.

And yet, they are not enough. Even if a man had all of these things—all of these gifts and qualities in their highest degree—he would still not have everything he needs. There is one thing needful. 

And that brings us back to the word agape or love. What does love mean in this context? What is the kind of love that Paul is talking about here? It is a love without which all else is insufficient. It is a love that is essential.

There is nothing very strange about saying love is a good thing. As Peter Kreeft points out, you find very few serious thinkers calling out praises to hate. Most people would agree that love is good. And to many people, love is like salt. In that, if you don't salt food, it doesn't taste quite as good; there is a lack of flavor; you might not even be able to detect what's missing, but you know that the food is flat and uninteresting. And many would say that life without love—without giving love to others or receiving it from others—is like that, bland, flat, lacking in interest.

But in Paul's thinking, love is like salt in another way--in that, if your body does not get a certain amount of salt, it will have serious physical consequences. An article from Harvard states that the human body needs about 500 mg of salt daily to “conduct nerve impulses, contract and relax muscles, and maintain the proper balance of water and minerals.” Biologically, salt is essential because you cannot live, at least healthily, without it. And love is like salt in that one cannot live as a Christian without it. It is not merely a seasoning but an essential ingredient.

Without love, the highest eloquence would be nothing more than the sound of musical instruments—beautiful, perhaps, but with no greater meaning. Without love, a man gifted with all knowledge and power would be nothing. Without love, all charity and self-sacrifice would profit nothing. Nothing in this list can be considered complete or sufficient if love is not included.

Now, we have to ask the question: what does love mean? In this passage, Paul treats love as an abstraction, an idea. He is dealing with love, as such. But when we speak of love as being essential, what are the parties of that love? Because love, intrinsically, does require at least two parties. Love must have both a subject and a direct object.

Realistically, there are three possibilities. Paul could be referring to God's love for us, our love for God, or our love for another.

I don't think Paul primarily means God's love for us. I don't know that you would express by speaking of “having” love. And Paul tends to treat God's love as a constant. But his words do work in that context. Everything we can do for God, all the works of religion, even down to martyrdom—none of that could have ever brought salvation if God had not first loved us. Without God's love, we would be nothing. “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) God's love is the primary fact without which nothing else in our Christian life could have ever begun. None of these gifts would be meaningful if God hadn't loved us, but then again, none of these gifts would be possible without God's love.

If we read it as meaning our love for God, it makes perfect sense. This is what Jesus said when asked which commandment was greatest: “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.” (Mark 12:30) This is the first or the greatest commandment. Look at Jesus' words to the church at Ephesus. It was a good church; it had many excellent qualities that Jesus Himself praised. And yet see Revelation 2:4-5: “Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.” All of the good things they had would profit for nothing without love.

But, while all that is true, given the context, I think Paul is mainly referring to our love for one another. We just referenced the greatest commandment. But you remember the second greatest commandment: “And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:31)

And remember the greater context in all this. Paul is talking about spiritual gifts that seemingly had threatened to bring disunity to the church. And Paul reminds them that all these gifts—everything he mentions here—all of them are insufficient without love.

We actually have a hint of this idea earlier in 1 Corinthians. Remember 1 Corinthians 8:1: “Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” Charity there is agape, as here. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. A man who had all knowledge but did not have love would be nothing.

And that makes sense if we consider the rest of chapters 8-10 and the issue of food offered to idols. Many of the Corinthians had the spiritual insight and knowledge to understand that idols were unreal and that food offered to idols was morally neutral. That knowledge was good. But because some had knowledge, they were putting a stumbling block before other Christians. Knowledge, in this particular instance, was tearing the church down instead of building it up. If that knowledge had been paired with greater love, this wouldn't have been a problem.

And yes, you could argue that the problem in this situation was that people were content with one particular piece of knowledge instead of having a full picture of the issue, as Paul tried to outline in chapters 8-10. Of course, Paul is not criticizing having knowledge (or any of these other gifts). And there is no reason to say that desiring love and knowledge are incompatible. In fact, they are linked—and that is the point. If you love your fellow Christians, that should naturally lead to the desire for knowledge and other gifts in order to help them. Love leads to knowledge. But I'm not sure that knowledge has the same tendency to lead to love.

There is another point, and I could be wrong about this. But to me, it seems that love, intrinsically, desires to increase. If you love someone, it entails wanting to love them more. Whereas, having knowledge or a skill does not necessarily lead to desiring more of it. Certainly, that seems to have been the case for some of the Corinthians—they were content with a few theological facts and did not try to press forward to have a complete understanding of the issue, something they would have done if they had truly loved each other.

A church that had all gifts but no love would not be enough. Perhaps a church that had love but nothing else would also not be enough—but the difference is that love would lead them to seek out the gifts, while the gifts are by no means certain to make them seek out love.

Saying that, we need to go back to something I said earlier. Earlier, I compared love to salt, in that you must eat a certain amount to survive. However, the other side of that reality is that too much salt can also be very unhealthy. Too much salt can hurt you just as much as too little. However, so far as I can tell from the Bible, there is no such thing as too much love.

Remember the verse we read a few minutes ago. We are told to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. With a statement like that, I think we can safely say it is impossible to love God too much. There might be an imbalance in how we express or live out that love, but there can never be too much of the love itself. And as long as we act in the context of our love for God, I'm not sure we can ever have too much love for one another. "It is probably impossible to love any human being simply 'too much.' We may love him too much in proportion to our love for God; but it is the smallness of our love for God, not the greatness of our love for the man, that constitutes the inordinacy." (Lewis, The Four Loves, 170)

But, at any rate, that brings us to the end of this section. The main point is that love is something essential. And all we can have, as humans, as Christians, and specifically as the church—none of it is enough without love.