The Most Excellent Way

Listen or read the following transcript as D. A. Carson speaks on the topic of spiritual gifts from 1 Corinthians 13.

As a youth I was frequently advised a text without a context makes a pretext for a proof text. That is not always true. An aphorism can often be wielded with great and hermeneutically proper effect even when no attention is paid to its original context. Certainly, many fine studies and expositions of 1 Corinthians 13 have devoted little or no attention to chapters 12 and 14.

Advertise on TGC

In one sense, that is both understandable and commendable for its theme is so exalted and so central to Christian living that it crops up in many contexts and can be theologically related to the very heart of the gospel itself. The chapter is a masterpiece even when cut loose from its literary context.

Nevertheless, the first readers of this epistle read the chapter in the context of what comes before and after, and similarly for the purposes of this series I shall devote most attention to the contribution this chapter makes to the flow of the argument through these chapters. Before turning to the three sections of the chapter in turn, therefore, I shall begin by commenting on the literary and thematic connections that bind this chapter to its context.

The setting then of chapter 13 … A considerable proportion of scholarly interest has been focused on the form and structure of this Love Chapter, with the majority classifying it as a hymn and the minority preferring to think of it as Christian paraklesis, Christian exhortation, encouragement, and the like.

The parallels that are often adduced are of mixed quality, and the best offers praise not to love but to truth. That’s in Ezra. I shall simply avoid such discussions here along with technical treatments of the structure of the chapter except, of course, for the major divisions. Many scholars are quite certain Paul has inserted this hymn (if I may call it that) into this context from some other source, whether composed by him or not.

In addition to linguistic arguments put forward in favor of this view, the two most important reasons are, first, the chapter, it is argued, does not fit well into the context, for the logic from the end of chapter 12 to the beginning of chapter 14 if you omit chapter 13 develops criteria for ranking spiritual gifts, whereas the emphasis within chapter 13 depreciates spiritual gifts in favor of love. Secondly, the sudden introduction of faith and hope in chapter 13, verse 13, introduces themes irrelevant to the flow of the argument in chapters 12 and 14.

Neither of these reasons is very persuasive. It is true chapter 13 does not make the same argument as chapter 14. The former deals with a prospective that transcends the spiritual gifts and, therefore, puts them into perspective while the latter sets out principles by which to rank spiritual gifts according to their potential for building up the church.

These two arguments, however, are not antithetical but complimentary, and in the historical context so far as we can discern it, both were necessary. Moreover, although it is true the faith and hope of 13:13 seem out of place amongst the concerns dominant in chapters 12 and 14, a first reading also suggests they are out of place even in chapter 13. Why introduce faith and hope at the last minute? Therefore, they can scarcely be used to justify the secondary character of chapter 13.

Of course, there is nothing principally objectionable about the suggestion that Paul pieced this chapter into the argument by drawing it from some other source, whether his own or someone else’s. Source-critical questions are inevitable (in Chronicles, for instance, the Synoptic Gospels, and elsewhere), but chapter 13, as we shall see, is an integral part of Paul’s argument, and if he did not have the piece ready to hand he would have had to compose something very much like it.

The chapter not only draws comparisons between love and such gifts as prophecy and tongues (obviously a concern to chapter 14), but it appears even in the central section of the hymn (verses 4 to 7) the description of what love is and is not like seems to be cast in categories designed to combat specific problems in the Corinthian church.

The one question regarding the setting we cannot avoid discussing in detail, however, is the meaning of 12:31. The proposed interpretations cluster in two groups: those who take zeloute, the verb in 12:31, as an indicative (“you eagerly desire”) description. This interpretation has many forms. Iber and Bittlinger have put this interpretation on a solid footing.

In the wake of 12:11 and 18, where the Spirit or where God distributes the gifts sovereignly, how, these scholars ask, could Paul have been commanding his readers to desire greater gifts? As far as Paul could see it was their childish immaturity that had made them want the greatest gifts. In this light, 12:31a must be a rebuke and the connecting but is strongly adversative.

In other words, the flow runs like this: “After the series of questions anticipating negative answers, do all speak in tongues? No. Do all interpret? No.” Paul goes on in a somewhat exasperated or sardonic tone, “But you eagerly desire the spiritual gifts.” In this view, greater gifts refer to every spiritual gift the Corinthians highly prized.

By contrast (“but”), what he will then show them is the most excellent way (12:31b). Further, Bittlinger appeals to 14:12 as an important parallel. In 14:12, Paul refers to the Corinthians’ zeal for spiritual gifts as a simple statement of fact. However, it is in a cognate form that allows no possibility of an imperatival interpretation.

The immediate weakness with this interpretation several have noted is the apparently imperatival use in 14:1 (a chapter on) of exactly the same verbal form as in 12:31a. Zeloute, in 14:1, bears imperatival force and means eagerly desires spiritual gifts, and it appears to be presumptive of the thought in 12:31a.

Iber tries to dampen the force of this criticism by pointing out at least in 14:1 the direct object is different. In 12:31 it is the greater gifts (“you eagerly desire the greater gifts”). In 14:1 it is simply spiritual gifts (“eagerly desire spiritual gifts”). The force of this rebuttal dissipates completely however when we remember in 14:12 in the cognate construction that simply affirms the Corinthians desire spiritual gifts, the direct object is the same as in 14:1 not 12:31. In other words, it’s lined up the wrong way for his argument.

Equally damaging to their case is their need to take the opening conjunction of 12:31b. It’s the conjunction kai for those of you who are reading Greek as a strong adversative. His argument requires it be a strong but. NIV renders it “And now …” Consistent with their interpretation of the first part of the verse, they must envision the flow something like this: “So you eagerly desire the greater gifts …” This part sardonically. “… but I will show you the most excellent way.”

The trouble is, although this Greek conjunction is used 9,000 or so times in the New Testament, only very rarely (two or three instances) does it take on any adversative force and then, usually, for stylistic reasons. Why did not Paul use some clear adversative if that were his point? Other scholars have expanded on this interpretation in order to alleviate one or two of the perceived difficulties.

Baker, drawing on Chevaulet, integrates the thesis we looked on in the first lecture that draws a distinction between charismata, from which we get our phrase charismatic movement and pneumatika, spiritual gifts, if you like. Then he takes the following two steps. First, he suggests in 12:31 Paul is actually quoting a Corinthian slogan. Secondly, he further suggests this Corinthian slogan used the word pneumatika but Paul purposefully changes that in 12:31a to charismata.

Ralph Martin adopts the same approach in his book, The Spirit and the Congregation, and also turns 12:31a into a question. In other words, he understands 12:31a like this: “You are seeking, then, the greatest spiritual gifts, are you? Well, I will show you a still better way.” Then to remove the objection that the verb in 14:1 is in the imperative mood, he further suggests even there it can be taken as an indicative provided we detect yet another quotation from the Corinthian letter.

He renders 14:1 as follows: “Make love your goal. Yet …” Quoting now from the letter from the Corinthians. “… you are striving for spiritual gifts, are you? But I say …” He has to put the “I say” in there because it’s not in the text. “But I say rather that you should all prophesy.” He adopts a similar tactic in 14:39, the only other place where the same verbal form appears in these chapters.

He thus renders verses 39 and 40 of chapter 14 as follows: “So then, my brothers …” Then he quotes their letter. “… you are striving to prophecy and you are not forbidding speaking in tongues. Good.” Although there is no good in there. “Good. Let everything you do be done in a themely manner and in good order.” Now we must frankly recognize to avoid its built-in difficulties this theory appears to be adding implausibility to speculation.

In both 14:1 and 14:39 and 40, Martin must add words to the text to make his interpretation work out. Greek, of course, often omits words English requires so that so-called additions are often nothing more than recognizing the receptor language requires words whose semantic contribution is presupposed in Greek, but that does not constitute a license to add words in support of interpretation that is already based on a fair bit of speculation. (In this instance, the speculation that Paul was quoting the Corinthian letter.)

During the last decade one notable trend in Corinthian studies has been to postulate that Paul is quoting the Corinthians in more and more places. That he does so occasionally no one disputes. For example, in 6:12, “All things are permissible but not all things are beneficial.” Chapter 7:1b, 8:1b, and many other places.

The instances that are almost universally recognized have certain characteristics. First, they are short. Secondly, they are usually followed by sustained qualifications. Thirdly, the Pauline response is unambiguous and does not require the addition of words or phrases to make sense of the text.

Only the first criterion is met in Martin’s two reconstructions, and even so, his interpretation remains dependent on an extremely and probable rendering of the conjunction at the beginning of 12:31b (our 9,000-occurrence kai). In short, the imperatival interpretation of the verb in 12:31a, though the indicative rather is growing in popularity, simply has not received adequate justification.

Another cluster of interpretations is possible: those who take zeloute, this same verb in 12:31a, as an imperative, “eagerly desire.” One interpretation in this cluster that has to be admitted is not very attractive. It harks back to the preceding verses and says Paul is commanding his readers to look over the lists already given that we studied in the first lecture and mark those gifts (the apostle judges) most important.

These they should pursue, not the gift of tongues which Paul places last. This probably places too much weight on the order of the lists of gifts as I indicated in the first lecture, but another form of this cluster stands up to close scrutiny. The opening adversative of 12:31a is rather mild. “Not all prophesy, speak in tongues, and so on, but you must earnestly desire the greater gifts.”

Which these are cannot be easily deduced from what Paul has said so far, although he has hinted at points he will make in chapter 14 by a passage like 12:7 where he has indicated, for example, the gifts are for the common good, but that is precisely why he is about to write chapter 14.

Before taking up the point, however, this point that will somehow qualify or rank certain of the gifts, he recognizes, given the Corinthian triumphalism and over-realized eschatology, he must do more than simply urge the believers to seek the greater gifts; he must point out the supreme fruit of the Spirit (love) might somehow get shunted aside even when believers start scrambling for the best gifts.

So after commanding them to pursue the greater charismata, he adds, “And I will show you a yet more excellent way.” The conjunction and is now treated normally. The textual variant and translation difficulties in the rest of the clause do not too greatly affect the flow. Paul’s point is the love he is about to discuss cannot be classed with charismata. It is not one charisma of many but it is an entire way of life, an overarching, all-embracing style of life that utterly transcends in importance the claims of this or that charisma.

That does not mean, of course, Paul is saying the charismata are not important. It means, rather, if too much attention is paid to them believers may overlook the absolutely crucial importance of the entire way of life that ought to characterize every believer, every person who has been baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Then, after the chapter on love, which is integral to Paul’s overall strategy but not to the question of the ranking of spiritual gifts, the latter subject is resumed in 14:1 and following. Thus, the verb zeloute appears in imperatival force there as well. Love then is not a charisma but an entire way of life without which, as we shall see, all charismata must be judged utterly worthless.

It is this way of life that gives meaning and depth to any spiritual gift God grants, but it can always be distinguished from them as in 14:1: “Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts.” In Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, love heads the list of virtues he calls the fruit of the Spirit, that harmony of nine graces which make up a mature Christian character and provide conclusive evidence of the Spirit’s indwelling presence.

Three objections are commonly raised against this interpretation of 12:31 and 14:1 in the place of the Love Chapter between the two texts. First, it would be inconsistent, it is said, for Paul to exhort the Corinthians to desire spiritual gifts (imperatival force) after his firm insistence that spiritual gifts are distributed according to the Spirit’s sovereign determination (12:11), according to God’s own arrangement (12:18), but I argued in the first lecture these two verses cannot be pressed so far. The objection is without foundation.

Secondly, it is pointed out in 14:12 the Corinthians are actually said to be eager to have spiritual gifts using the cognate construction I mentioned earlier, and therefore, there is presumptive evidence the ambiguous cognate verb in 12:31 and 14:1 should be taken the same way, as mere description not imperative, but this essentially linguistic argument cannot be separated from the situation the interpreter understands Paul is addressing.

All must agree Paul appreciates the fact the Corinthian church is well endowed with spiritual gifts. He says so in his opening chapter (chapter 1, verse 7), so the restatement of that fact in 14:12 comes as no surprise. The question, then, is whether he encourages this spiritual wealth while simultaneously pointing out the inherent limitations of the spiritual gifts and the transcendent importance of love as an entire way of life, which alone can validate any particular gift. If so, there can be no objection to reading the three instances of zeloute imperativally (“earnestly desire”).

Thirdly, it is sometimes argued the verb is more frequently used in a bad sense in the New Testament. It is the verb from which we also get the notion in English of being jealous of or the like or to desire in some wicked way, even occasionally to lust after. This negative sense should have the benefit of the doubt and better fits the view that makes Paul out to be describing what he finds in the Corinthians’ attitude toward spiritual gifts.

The ratio of good uses to bad uses, however, can have little force when there are only 11 occurrences in the entire New Testament of this verb with positive examples other than these three under dispute. For instance, 2 Corinthians 11:2. In any case, this argument then serves to work against Martin’s theory that in 14:1 and 39 Paul is quoting the Corinthians, for they would certainly not be describing their own desire for spiritual gifts as something wicked.

In short, this objection can cut both ways and, in any case, is rather unsubstantial, so we turn to chapter 13 whose three divisions may be summarized under the next three points.

1. The indispensability of love (13:1–3)

Partly out of pastoral empathy, partly because Paul himself speaks in tongues, Paul casts this section in the first person. The construction of the first clause probably signals intensity toward the end. “If I speak in the tongues of men and even of angels …” It is not entirely clear whether either Paul or his readers actually thought their gifts of tongues were the dialects of angels.

There are a few interesting Jewish parallels that make this possible, but Paul may be writing hyperbolically to draw as sharp a contrast as possible with love. I suppose a pedant might argue they can’t be the tongues of angels because in that case it would be silly for tongues to cease when perfection comes since that is precisely when we are more likely to run into an angel, but I shall leave the question as to what language or languages we shall speak in the new heaven and on the new earth to those who are more gifted in speculation than I.

“No matter how exalted my gift of tongues,” Paul says, “without love I am nothing more than a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” This value judgment is meant to be shocking. Part of its power lies in the fact Paul does not merely say, “Under this condition (that is, under the condition of speaking in tongues without love), it is not the gift of tongues that is only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal, but I myself.”

Even the perfect that is used (ginomai) might be significant. Not simply, “I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal,” but literally, “I have become only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal,” as if my action of speaking in tongues without love has left a permanent effect on me that has diminished my value and transformed me into something I should not be.

Exactly what the resounding gong and clanging cymbal refer to is not clear. Parallels are so numerous that it is not easy to be certain what Paul has in mind. The least he is saying is, “Under these conditions I become empty, meaningless noise. There is no spiritual significance to my gift of tongues.”

Because he may be referring to instruments used in pagan worship, some have suggested he is saying the one who speaks in tongues without distinctively Christian love is indistinguishable from a pagan. That interpretation is possible, but only if Paul is mixing his metaphors a little. He is, after all, talking about himself not his gift of tongues becoming like a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

If he had wanted to make the connection with paganism unambiguous it might have been better either to say the gift of tongues degenerates to pagan instruments or to say the participant degenerates to the level of the worshiper at a pagan cult. Certainly verse 2 finds Paul playing with hypothetical superlatives, for he himself does not think any prophet can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge since he goes on to say in verse 9, “We know in part and we prophesy in part.”

If there is a difference between mysteries and knowledge in this context, the former refers to the eschatological situation (mysteries) and the latter to the entire redemptive purpose of God, but Paul may not be making nice distinctions. The point is even the gift of prophecy, no matter how much reliable information comes from it, is intrinsically valueless if it operates without love.

So also the gift of faith. As in 12:9, this refers not to saving faith but to something more specialized such as the faith that can move mountains. It has no intrinsic value. Again, Paul’s conclusion is even more shattering. Not only are the spiritual gifts exercised without love of no value, “But,” says Paul, “I am nothing.” As one commentator says, spiritually a cipher.

But Paul is not content to draw examples only from the more spectacular or miraculous of the charismata. In verse 3 he goes on to incredibly self-sacrificing philanthropy and even personal martyrdom by fiery ordeal, if that reading is adopted as correct. Like the martyrdom of Maccabean Jews or the three heroes in Daniel 3, the result is the same.

Without love I gain nothing. My deeds of philanthropy and my resolute determination to remain loyal to the truth, even in the face of martyrdom, cannot in themselves attest my high spiritual position or the superiority of my experiences with the Holy Spirit. In all of this, if there is no love, I gain nothing. In this divine mathematics, five minus one equals zero. In the context of the three chapters, the thrust of Paul’s argument in these verses is clear.

He says in effect, “You who think because you speak in tongues you are so spiritual and you who prove your large endowment from the Holy Spirit by exercising the gift of prophecy, you must understand you have overlooked what is most important. By themselves, your spiritual gifts attest nothing spiritual about you. By themselves, your spiritual gifts in fact can be duplicated.

You who prefer to attest your rich privilege in the Holy Spirit by works of philanthropy, you must learn philanthropy apart from Christian love says nothing whatsoever about your experience with God. You remain spiritually bankrupt, a spiritual nothing, if love does not characterize your exercise of whatever grace gift God has assigned you.”

If Paul were addressing the modern church, perhaps he would extrapolate further. “You Christians who prove your spirituality by the amount of theological information you can cram into your heads, I tell you that such knowledge by itself proves nothing, and you who affirm the Spirit’s presence in your meetings because there was a certain style of worship, whether formal and stately or exuberant and spontaneous, if your worship patterns are not expressions of love you are spiritually bankrupt.

You who insist that speaking in tongues attests a second work of the Spirit (a baptism of the Spirit), I tell you if love does not characterize your life there is not even an evidence of the first work of the Spirit.” In none of these instances does Paul depreciate spiritual gifts, but he refuses to recognize any positive assessment of any of them unless the gift is discharged in love. Principally, therefore, any particular gift is dispensable so far as spiritual profit or attestation of the Spirit’s presence is concerned, but love is indispensable.

2. Characteristics of love (13:4–7)

In these verses love is not so much defined as described, and even this description is not so much theoretical as practical. Not one element in this pithy list is sentimental. Everything is behavioral. Paul shifts back and forth between saying what love is and what it isn’t.

The first pair of characteristics is positive. Then come four pairs of negative characteristics, the last of which is restated positively, followed by two more pairs of positive characteristics. Throughout, love is personified. It is love itself that is kind or does not boast or the like rather than the person who displays love, so powerfully does love take over in Paul’s thought in this chapter.

When love is absent, what happens? Lovelessness breeds thousands of variations on inferiority complexes and superiority complexes. It almost seems as if verses 4 and 5 respond directly to such traits. “Love is patient.” The word usually suggests not merely willingness to wait a long time or endurance of suffering without giving way, but endurance of injuries without retaliation.

“Love is kind.” Not merely patient or longsuffering in the face of injury, but quick to pay back with kindness what it received in hurt.”

New International Version