The Greatest of These  pt.1	    1 Co.13:1-3	tape 145b	8-18-2002
(greatest-virtue-01-2002 – Part 1 – Gifts Without Love are Worthless)

The Purpose of Ch.13
And now I will show you the most excellent way. 

The gifts are all to be held in high regard.  And the ministries that bring us the Word of God are greater still.  But now he’s going to show us that which is greatest of all.

The point isn’t that love is the greatest of the gifts.  It’s not described as a spiritual gift.  Rather, it a way.  It’s an approach to worship that is an entirely different way than the mystical approach of that culture.

There is a lot of discussion about how this chapter fits into the context.  The first point we need to make is that it’s primary purpose is in this context.  You have heard this chapter preached on, quoted, used in weddings, memorized, etc.  But how often do you hear any discussion of this chapter in connection with spiritual gifts?

But that’s exactly the context.  It’s not a chapter about marriage, or about how to get along with people.  It’s about spiritual gifts.

Having said that, I should also say that while the primary point is to speak to the issue of spiritual gifts, the ideas in this chapter are so lofty and exalted and so central to the heat of Christianity, that once we examine the message in this context, we can’t help but to give this chapter attention beyond just the application for the operation of spiritual gifts. 

Throughout the Church age the Church has rejoiced with a special gratitude to God for this special jewel in Scripture.  Few people would dispute that this is Paul’s finest hour.

Most scholars believe it was a pre-existing work – either that someone else wrote, or that Paul had written on an earlier occasion, that Paul fits in here.

It’s makes zero difference if that’s the case or is not the case, because what is God’s inspired Word is what we have, period.  How it came to be the way it is is of no consequence.

The primary argument for this being a separate work is that chapter 12 goes very naturally into ch.14, and 13 is an interruption.  

But that argument is not persuasive to me at all.  

It’s true the thought goes right from the end of 12 into the beginning of 14, and that 13 is an excursus, but that can be a very powerful method of communication.

As a preacher, I do that all the time.  Sometimes I’ll interrupt my train of thought and go off on a tangent, and you can tell that I planned to do that all along, because it’s that way in the manuscript. 

There is a purpose behind that.

I feel like I know exactly what happened to Paul when he got to the end of ch.12.

Right at the end of that chapter, he introduced a new concept – the idea of seeking after the greater gifts (the church should pursue the ministry of the Word of God above everything else).

So in 12:31 Paul makes that point, and then he’s just about to go on and explain why – that’s ch.14.  The reason he gives in ch.14 is that we should pursue the ministry of the Word above all because that’s what builds people up the most.

It’s the most loving thing to do.

But just before starting in on that, Paul is overcome with the urgency and importance of driving home to them the importance of love.

And he doesn’t want to just put in a parenthesis (“and, by the way, love is very important”).  That would make his point, but it would drill it into their minds with the force that he wants.

So he takes a little time, and composes the most beautiful, masterful composition on love ever written.  He wants to place before their eyes the most beautiful, striking portrait of love possible, so they will not only know that love is supreme, but be motivated to act accordingly.

BTW, one argument that is used by the critics to say Paul did not write this chapter is that there is no mention of Christ.  

What a compliment!  It’s not often the critics compliment Paul, but perhaps without realizing they do so with that argument.  

I would like someone, someday to listen to a sermon I preach and say, “Darrell must have plagiarized that sermon from someone else – he couldn’t have written it because there is not enough focus on Christ for it to be one of his.”

Gifts without Love are Worthless 
If in the tongues of men I speak and of the angels, but love I do not have, I became a noisy brass or clanging cymbal
2 and if I have prophecy and I have come to know all the mysteries and all the knowledge,
and if I have all the faith so as to remove mountians, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 even if I give all my possessions and if I hand over my body that I may boast, but love I do not have, I achieve nothing.

It’s vital to the Holy Spirit’s purposes in this section on gifts to emphasize the supremacy of love.  Imagine a body without love.

Imagine what it would be like if your body parts, at this moment, suddenly all became selfish.  Your body would immediately cease to function, and die.

What if your heart said, “I need some time off to find myself” or your lungs decided to just inhale enough air for themselves, or your mouth enjoyed food be refused to give it up and let it pass down your throat…

The functioning of the parts of the body is not enhanced by love.  It is 100% dependant upon love.

Whenever Paul lists the gifts in this section, tongues (the Corinthians’ favorite gift) appears last.  But here, now that Paul is listing things that are potentially worthless, it appears first.

In fact, not only is it first in the list, it’s placed first in the sentence: Lit If in the tongues of men I speak and of the angels, but love I do not have, I have become a noisy brass or clanging cymbal

He doesn’t do that with the rest of the list.  In the others he uses the normal word order with the verb first.  For example, in v.2 he doesn’t say, “If prophecy I have” but if I have prophecy…

So all that makes it very emphatic.  

Some Charismatics have seen this and have developed the doctrine of tongues around this verse, so that the gift of tongues ends up being an angelic language.

Not only is that conclusion unwarranted, but I don’t even think we can say from this passage that there is such a thing as angel language.

If we just look a little farther in the list it becomes obvious that Paul is not speaking of real categories.  

If I…know all the mysteries and all the knowledge and if I have all the faith so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

How many people do you know who know all the mysteries, all the knowledge and have all the faith?

Paul is going out of his way to make it obvious that these are extreme, exaggerated, hyperbolic ideas that are infinitely beyond any giftedness that any person has or could have. 

If in the tongues of men I speak…and of the angels
What does that mean?  What are the tongues of men? (Paul focuses attention on that by placing the verb in between the two nouns.  This is the only place in the NT where that happens – Carson 58)

Given the context, I don’t see what that could be other than the gift of tongues Paul has been talking about all along.  

It can’t just be talking about the normal use of Greek or Aramaic by someone who has learned that language – that wouldn’t be a spiritual gift.

So even though people have used this verse to suggest that the gift of tongues is a heavenly language, I think this verse is strong evidence that the gift of tongues is an ability to speak normal, human languages.

If the gift of tongues is the language angels use, then why would that gift cease?

Paul’s purpose here is not to reveal some new fact about angels.  He is simply trying to push the idea of the gift of tongues to the farthest possible extreme.

Paul is saying, “Suppose I spoke in tongues, and not only did I speak in regular, human tongues, but I could talk angel talk!  Not only did I have the gift of tongues, but I could speak in super-tongues.”

It’s not uncommon for Paul to use angels that way:
1 Cor.4:9  We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men. 

Gal 1:8  But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

Gal 4:14  Even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God

So to these people who revear the gift of tongues and consider it a measure of spirituality, and use it to judge whether or not the Holy Spirit is active, Paul say, “Even if I have the gift of tongues, that is supertongues, heavenly tongues, angel tongues, megatongues…but love I do not have, I have become a noisy brass or clanging cymbal

a noisy brass
Several recent scholars are convinced this refers to the brass acoustic bowls that were placed throughout an auditorium in strategic places to amplify the sound.  The idea is of being hollow, producing nothing yourself, and serving only to amplify noise.

For the contemporary idea you could translate it, but love I do not have, I have become a microphone turned up way too high or clanging cymbal

Given the context, I think it’s more likely some kind of gong, even though we know of no such instrument.  Given the prevalence of brass in Corinth, it would certainly be no surprise if they had some kind of noise making device made of brass.

The word have become is a perfect tense, which refers to completed action.  The idea is of an accomplishment.

“If I have the most supercharged gift of tongues possible, but not love, I have achieved an accomplishment.  My great accomplishment is I have completed the process of becoming a noisy, annoying gong and a clanging, irritating cymbal.  

Suppose your kid decides to be a percussionist, and he spends two hours a day practicing his cymbals in your living room.  That’s the idea.

The greatest conceivable spiritual gift, without love, is nothing but the greatest conceivable annoyance.  It is absolutely worthless.

And Paul even pushes the idea farther than that.  If I speak in tongues without love, it’s not that I render my gift worthless.  He says, “I become worthless.”  

When I operate my gift without love, it’s not just that I render my gift to be without value, but I render myself a worthless individual.

A person with the greatest gift of tongues, without love, is a windbag.

2 If I have prophecy…
This is parallel to v.1.  In v.1 he said, “If I have tongues…” then went on to define it as super-tongues.

Here he does the same thing with prophecy

2 If I have prophecy…(But not just regular prophecy, but super-prophecy) and I have come to know all the mysteries and all the knowledge 

Mysteries, in this context, are spiritual realities that are too high for human discovery – realities only knowable by God.

Knowledge, here, is a similar idea.  It’s not talking about understanding calculus, or knowing your favorite baseball player’s batting average.  It’s talking about spiritual knowledge of heavenly realities. 

The term knowledge was an important catch-word for the Corinthians.  The idea was similar to the modern New-Age concept of enlightenment that is the goal of several religions.  

Those religions teach that the highest goal of religion is for you to become enlightened – to cross over from the mundane existence of this world into a whole new spiritual dimension.

So Paul is talking about a scenario where he would be a prophet who has all the knowledge and knows all the mysteries.

That would make him quite a prophet.  He would be a greater prophet even than Jesus, who, in His earthly life did not know all the mysteries and all the knowledge.

This is the part of this that should really capture our attention, because at Creekside we so strongly emphasize knowledge.  

It’s good that we do that, because we live in a time and place when the Church’s knowledge of God has sunk to an abysmal low.  

Nevertheless, as important as it is to know God, we must always remember that knowledge, in and of itself, is not sufficient.  And if we knew everything there is to know about God, but didn’t have love, we would be worthless.

 and if I have all the faith so as to remove mountians

From the context I think it’s clear Paul is speaking literally here.  “If I had the gift of faith – but not just the regular gift of faith.  Super faith!  All the faith there is!  A gift that would enable me to literally shuffle mountains around.”

but have not love, I am nothing.

3 Even if I give all I possess to the poor

The phrase to the poor is not in the Greek.  It’s implied, but the emphasis is not on the gift but on the giver.  The term literally means, “If I divide up all my possessions and hand them out.” 

The word for if here is a new word that escalates the rhetoric (Thiselton 1044).  Paul’s whole statement is building.

This would be the gift of giving, but once again Paul pushes it to the extreme: and surrender my body 

He gives up not only his money and possessions, but even his own body.  Writing a big check is one thing, but if you start putting arms and legs in the offering box, that’s super-giving.

The word surrender is the same word used of Jesus’ giving up Himself for us (Eph.5:2,25).  It literally means “to hand over to persecutors.”  

Probably the way this would be interpreted would be in the case of a person who gave away everything he had, and wanted to give more, so he sold himself into slavery so he could get some more money to give away.

in order to boast,

Your Bible probably says “to be burned.”  All the major translations say that.  

The reading in order to boast has far better textual support, and there is no doubt in my mind it was what Paul originally wrote.  

But the UBS Greek NT rates that reading as a “C,” which means there is considerable degree of doubt that that is the correct reading.

The vast majority of the copies of 1 Cor. that exist today say “to be burned,” but they have discovered some much earlier, very reliable MSS that have a different reading.  

In fact, they even found a papyrus that has the different reading.

It’s called p46 which is dated at about 200 – less than 150 years after 1 Cor. was written.  

In that MSS, instead of 
   kauqh,swmai (to be burned)
it’s kauch,swmai (in to be able to boast) – one letter difference 

So the earliest reading we have is if I hand over my body that I may boast, not “if I hand over my body that it may be burned.”  

Also, the three most reliable MSS we have are the Codex Sinaiticus (a) from the 4th C, Codex Alexandrinus (A) from the 5th C, and Codex Vaticanus (B) from the 4th C.

 All three of those agree on the reading that I may boast.  

The reading “that it may be burned appears for the first time not until the 6th C.  From that point on it catches on and is found in a lot of MSS.  

And it’s not surprising that in that later time, when Christians had been burned to death, and people did talk about giving up their bodies for kauqh,swmai, that he would see kaukh,swmai and think kauqh,swmai.

So the MSS evidence is heavily in favor of the older reading, and so is the historical context.  Death by burning was not practiced in Paul’s time against Christians (Nero was still at least 10 years off), so it’s hard to know what Paul would have had in mind.

Other than a possible reference to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace, or an event in the Maccabean period, this would seem to be an anachronism. 

Also, there is a letter that Clement of Rome wrote to the Church at Corinth written in 96 that refers to this passage and seems to go by the older reading (Fee 634)

The main argument in favor of the “to be burned” reading is it seems to make better sense (which, in textual criticism, is actually an argument against a reading, because a scribe would most likely feel the same way).

The only reason why the “to be burned” reading persists is because people feel it wouldn’t make sense with the older reading.

Paul is describing wonderful giftedness – the super gifted Christian.  So it would be odd for him to add a negative thing like “so that I may boast.”  That would undercut his description of super-giftedness.

Boasting
But that’s simply to misunderstand Paul’s use of the word translated “boast.”  The word boast is not the idea of bragging.

It is a strange word – impossible to translate.  We don’t have a word that is anywhere near the same range of meaning.

It’s nothing like bragging.  Bragging is a verbal thing, this is an attitude. It has more to do with the orientation of your life than with what you say.

Bragging is always prideful and sinful, this is neutral.  It is a sin or a virtue depending upon what you boast in.

So boast is a very misleading translation.  Let’s translated it “glory.”

That which you glory in is that which you consider valuable, noteworthy, of uppermost importance.  That which you think of as being most of the greatest value, the most reliable, that which you depend upon, etc – that’s the thing you glory in.

And so it’s a virtue to glory in good things, and a sin to glory in bad things.

Ro.5:1-2  Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we also boast in our sufferings….11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God 

Heb.3:6  And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast. 

You can tell a man’s character by what he considers a badge of honor.  
If you think it’s a badge of honor to be able to beat everyone up, that reveals something about your character.  

If you consider it a badge of honor to be known as a servant, as humble and selfless, then that’s an indication of good character.

The Corinthian church considered their tolerance of sin a badge of honor.
1Co 5:1-6  It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, …A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! 
6  Your glorying is not good. 

You should not regard that as a badge of honor.  The fact that you consider that a mark of distinction is a character flaw.

But if you regard something that God honors as a badge of honor, that’s good:
Ro.15:17  Therefore I boast in Christ Jesus in my service to God.
“The greatest badge of honor anyone could pin on my chest would be one that says, “God’s errand boy.”

The primary idea of the good kind of glorying or boasting was to have something to be happy about on judgment day.

1 Th.2:19-20  For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes? Is it not you? 20 Indeed, you are our glory and joy. 

2 Co.1:13-14 we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus. 

That future idea is what Paul is talking about in 1 Co.12:3.  “If I have the gift of giving to such an extreme that I deliver over my very body so that I may have something to be happy about on judgment day.”

There’s no reason to take that in the negative sense.  
-----------------------------------
So Paul starts out with extreme hyperbole, and progresses to greater and greater extremes until he arrives at what has to be the ultimate example of religious activity: martyrdom.  

“Surely a Christian who dies for his faith will be richly rewarded.”

Not necessarily.  You could suffer and be tortured and die for the Gospel, and still your life could be judged to by God to be worthless if you lacked love.

but have not love, I gain nothing.

No spiritual gift, no matter how lofty, no matter how developed, no matter how miraculous – no gift is evidence of spirituality or godliness.

Some Pentecostals insist that speaking in tongues is evidence of a second work of grace.  But you could speak in every tongue in the world and in heaven, and if you don’t have love it’s not even evidence of a first work of grace.

Vv.1-3 are a massive rebuke of the Corinthians, who had to be about the most gifted and most unloving church in the ancient world.

1 Cor.1:4-7  I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5 For in him you have been enriched in every way-in all your speaking and in all your knowledge- 6 because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. 7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.

They were extraordinarily gifted.  

In chapter one we find out they were fighting with each other over who followed the greatest teacher.

In ch.3 they were willing to destroy the church.

In ch.4 they are proud and puffed up and looking down on each other.  

In ch.5 they care nothing for the spiritual restoration of the man living in sin.  They take no steps to restore him.

In ch.6 they are suing each other!

In ch.7 they are imposing unbiblical restrictions on each other about marriage.

In ch.8 they were willing to destroy a weaker brother so they could eat and drink what they wanted.

In ch.10 they are leading each other into sin.

In ch.11 they are rebelling against each other’s authority, and they are elbowing each other out of the way so they can get more to eat at the Love Feast.

And in ch.12-14 they are looking down on those with the low-profile gifts, and they are using their gifts to edify themselves instead of the church.

So imagine how shattered they would be to read Paul’s words in ch.13.  The only thing going for them was their giftedness.  They thought that giftedness made them the greatest church around, and now they find out they, as a church, are utterly worthless.

The only purpose of gifts is to enable you to express love to the church.  So what good are they if there is no love in your heart?

If Tracy’s father buys her a gold necklace and gives it to me to give to her, and I just hang on to it and never give it to her because I have no love for her, do I have anything to boast about?

This is a good message for us, because we tend to emphasize talent above almost everything.

We should ask ourselves, “Are our kids picking up on this?  Is it obvious from the way we raise them that even if they are at the top of their class, best in their sport, etc., that without love it’s absolutely worthless?”

What is Love?
Corinth was a center of pagan worship, and the believers in the Corinthian church were still very influenced by that.

The fundamental basis underlying that system of worship was eros, which is another Greek word for love. The pagan Greek writers chose that term to describe it, because it’s a word that highlights the sensual. 

It carries emotive, erotic, sensual, and ecstatic nuances (Thiselton 1034). 

Everything that happened in their pagan worship was dominated by the senses.  It was all driven by what they felt.  The more intense the feelings, the more profound the worship. 

That’s why for them the highest level of worship involved drunkenness and orgies.  

That kind of an approach to worship is wrong not only because of all the sinful activity, but because of the underlying attitude of selfishness.  

The whole system focused the worshipper’s attention on himself.  The question was always, “What am I feeling? What am I experiencing?”

That’s no surprise, because that’s always the tendency of the sinful human heart.  We fight the same temptation.

We come to worship God, and we find that in the middle of the worship service, instead of focusing on God, we are sitting there thinking, “How much do I like this song?  How much do I like this music, tempo, volume, arraignment, etc.?”

So Paul says, “Yes, the fundamental basis for worship is love – but not eros.  It’s agape. 

The meaning of agape is not so much in the Greek word as in the NT teaching.  There was nothing special about the word agape until the NT writers came along and used that word to describe the love of God.

(In 2 Sam.13:15 the word agape is used in the LXX to describe the “love” Ammon had for his sister when he raped her).