John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 13

The chapter division being so absurd, I could not help but change it, especially since I could not conveniently interpret it otherwise. For what purpose did it serve to connect with what goes before a detached sentence, which agrees so well with what comes after—nay more, is thereby rendered complete?

It is likely that it happened through a mistake by the transcribers.

However that may be, after commanding that primary attention should be given to edification, he now declares that he will show them something of greater importance—that everything be regulated according to the rule of love. This, then, is the most excellent way, when love is the regulating principle of all our actions.

And, at the outset, he starts with this premise: that all excellencies are of no value without love; for nothing is so excellent or estimable that it is not corrupted in the sight of God, if love is lacking.

Nor does he teach anything here but what he teaches elsewhere, when he declares that it is the end of the law and the bond of perfection (1 Timothy 1:5), and also when he makes the holiness of the godly consist entirely in this (Colossians 3:14)—for what else does God require from us in the second Table of the Law?

It is not surprising then, if all our deeds are evaluated by this test—their appearing to proceed from love. It is also not surprising if gifts, otherwise excellent, derive their true value only when they are made subservient to love.

1. If I should speak with the tongues of men. He begins with eloquence, which is, admittedly, an admirable gift in itself; but when separated from love, it does not commend a man in God's estimation.

   When he speaks of the tongue of angels, he uses a hyperbolical expression to denote something singular or distinguished. At the same time, I explain it rather as referring to the diversity of languages, which the Corinthians highly esteemed, measuring everything by ambition and not by its fruitfulness.

   “Master all languages,” he says, “not merely of men, but even of Angels. In that case, you have no reason to think that you are more highly esteemed in God's sight than a mere cymbal, if you do not have love.”

2. And if I should have the gift of prophecy. He reduces to nothing the dignity of even this endowment, which, nevertheless, he had preferred to all others.

   To know all mysteries might seem to be added to the term prophecy by way of explanation, but since the term knowledge is immediately added (of which he had previously made mention by itself in 1 Corinthians 12:8), it is worth considering whether the knowledge of mysteries may not be used here to mean wisdom. As for myself, while I would not venture to affirm that it is so, I am much inclined to that opinion.

3. The faith of which he speaks is special, as is evident from the clause that is immediately added—so that I remove mountains. Therefore, the Sophists accomplish nothing when they misuse this passage to detract from the excellence of faith.

   Since, therefore, the term faith is (πολύσημον) used in a variety of senses, the prudent reader should observe in what sense it is taken here. Paul, however, as I have already stated, is his own interpreter by restricting faith here to miracles.

   It is what Chrysostom calls the “faith of miracles,” and what we term a “special faith,” because it does not grasp Christ fully, but simply His power in working miracles; and therefore it may sometimes exist in a person without the Spirit of sanctification, as it did in Judas.

And if I should expend all my possessions. This, it is true, is worthy of the highest praise, if considered in itself. But since liberality in many cases proceeds from ambition—not from true generosity—or because even the man who is liberal lacks the other aspects of love (for even liberality that is inwardly felt is only one aspect of love), it may happen that a work, otherwise so commendable, indeed has a fair appearance in the sight of men and is applauded by them, yet is regarded as nothing in the sight of God.

And if I should give up my body. He speaks, undoubtedly, of martyrdom, which is an act that is the most commendable and excellent of all. For what is more admirable than that invincible fortitude of mind, which makes a man not hesitate to pour out his life for the testimony of the gospel?

Yet even this, too, God regards as nothing if the mind lacks love. The kind of punishment that he mentions was not then so common among Christians. For we read that tyrants at that time set themselves to destroy the Church, rather by swords than by flames, except that Nero, in his rage, also resorted to burning.

The Spirit appears, however, to have predicted here, by Paul’s mouth, the persecutions that were coming. But this is a digression.

The main truth in the passage is this: since love is the only rule of our actions and the only means of regulating the right use of the gifts of God, nothing, in its absence, is approved by God, however magnificent it may be in the estimation of men.

For where it is lacking, the beauty of all virtues is mere tinsel—is empty sound—is not worth a straw—indeed, is offensive and disgusting.

As for the inference which Papists draw from this—that love is therefore of more avail for our justification than faith—we will refute it later. At present, we must proceed to notice what follows.

Love is patient. He now commends love based on its effects or fruits, although at the same time these praises are not intended merely for its commendation, but to make the Corinthians understand what its functions are, and what its nature is. The main goal, however, is to show how necessary it is for preserving the unity of the Church. I also have no doubt that he designed indirectly to reprove the Corinthians, by setting before them a contrast, in which they might recognize, through their opposites, their own vices.

The first commendation of love is this — that, by patient endurance of many things, it promotes peace and harmony in the Church. Closely related to this is the second excellence — gentleness and mildness, for such is the meaning of the verb χρηστεύεσθαι. A third excellence is that it counteracts emulation, the seed of all contentions. Under emulation he includes envy, a vice closely related to it. Or rather, he means that emulation which is connected with envy and frequently springs from it. Therefore, where envy reigns — where everyone desires to be first, or appear so — love there has no place.

What I have translated as does not act insolently is, in the Greek, χρηστεύεσθαι. Erasmus has translated it, is not froward. It is certain that the word has different meanings; but, as it is sometimes understood to mean — being fierce, or insolent, through presumption, this meaning seemed more suitable for this passage. Paul, therefore, attributes moderation to love. He declares that it is a bridle to restrain people, so that they do not erupt into ferocity but may live together in a peaceable and orderly manner. He adds, further, that it has nothing of the nature of pride. Therefore, the person who is governed by love, is not puffed up with pride, so as to despise others and feel satisfied with himself.

Doth not behave itself unseemly; Erasmus renders it “Is not disdainful;” but as he quotes no author in support of this interpretation, I have preferred to retain its proper and usual meaning. I explain it, however, in this way—that love does not engage in foolish display, nor does it bluster, but instead observes moderation and propriety. And in this manner, he again indirectly rebukes the Corinthians, because they shamefully disregarded all propriety with their improper arrogance.

Seeketh not its own. From this we may infer how very far we are from having love implanted in us by nature, for we are naturally prone to love and care for ourselves and to aim at our own advantage. Indeed, to speak more accurately, we rush headlong into it.

The remedy for such a perverse inclination is love, which leads us to stop being preoccupied with ourselves and to become concerned for our neighbors, loving them and caring for their welfare. Furthermore, to seek one’s own things is to be devoted to self and to be wholly taken up with concern for one’s own advantage.

This definition resolves the question of whether it is lawful for a Christian to be concerned for their own advantage. For Paul does not here rebuke every kind of care or concern for ourselves, but rather its excess, which stems from an immoderate and blind attachment to ourselves.

Now, the excess lies in this—if we think of ourselves so much that we neglect others, or if the desire for our own advantage diverts us from the concern that God commands us to have for our neighbors.

He adds that love is also a bridle to restrain quarrels, and this follows from the first two statements. For where there is gentleness and forbearance, people in that case do not suddenly become angry and are not easily provoked to disputes and conflicts.

Beareth all things, etc. By all these statements he intimates that love is neither impatient nor spiteful. For to bear and endure all things is the part of forbearance; to believe and hope all things is the part of candor and kindness.

As we are naturally too much devoted to self, this vice renders us morose and peevish. The effect is that everyone wishes that others should carry him on their shoulders, but refuses for his part to assist others. The remedy for this disease is love, which makes us subject to our brethren and teaches us to apply our shoulders to their burdens (Galatians 6:2).

Furthermore, as we are naturally spiteful, we are consequently suspicious too, and take almost everything amiss. Love, on the other hand, calls us back to kindness, so that we think favorably and candidly of our neighbors.

When he says all things, you must understand him as referring to the things that ought to be endured, and in a fitting manner. For we are not to bear with vices, to sanction them by flattery, or, by winking at them, encourage them through our inaction. Furthermore, this endurance does not exclude corrections and just punishments. The case is the same regarding kindness in judging things.

Love believeth all things — not that the Christian knowingly and willingly allows himself to be imposed upon, not that he divests himself of prudence and judgment so that he may be more easily taken advantage of, not that he unlearns the way of distinguishing black from white. What then? He requires here, as I have already said, simplicity and kindness in judging things; and he declares that these are the invariable accompaniments of love. The consequence will be that a Christian man will consider it better to be imposed upon by his own kindness and gentle disposition than to wrong his brother by an unfriendly suspicion.