1 Corinthians 13.4-7
| 13.4Η ἀγάπη μακροθυμεῖ, | Love has patience. |
|---|---|
| χρηστεύεται ἡ ἀγάπη, | Love behaves kindly: |
| οὐ ζηλοῖ, | It won’t act with strong emotion,α |
| [ἡ ἀγάπη] οὐ περπερεύεται, | go on and on about itself,β |
| οὐ φυσιοῦται, | exaggerate itself,γ |
| 13.5οὐκ ἀσχημονεῖ, | be rude, |
| οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ ἑαυτῆς, | look out for itself, |
| οὐ παροξύνεται, | easily turn to hate,δ |
| οὐ λογίζεται τὸ κακόν, | plot evil |
| 13.6οὐ χαίρει ἐπὶ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ, | or delight in wickedness; |
| συγχαίρει δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ· | it rejoices with the truth. |
| 13.7πάντα στέγει, | Love puts up with everything, |
| πάντα πιστεύει, | puts trust in everything, |
| πάντα ἐλπίζει, | puts hope in everything, |
| πάντα ὑπομένει. | and always stands firm. |
In most cases where this passage is translated, it’s rendered, “Love is patient, love is kind, love isn’t strongly emotional” (or “isn’t envious”) “or boastful or arrogant...” and so forth. That’s not a bad translation, but it misses something that can make people interpret it inaccurately. Paul isn’t describing love with adjectives, and listing things love is; he’s describing love with verbs, and listing things love does. English doesn’t have a verb for “is patient,” but a good translator should come up with a more obvious verb-form, like “has patience,” so that the English reader gets the sense that love is doing something in this passage, instead of just being something. Love is active, not passive.
That said, look at how Paul describes love. A lot of the descriptions are negative: Love won’t do a lot of things. Paul is correcting the Corinthians’ idea about what love consists of. Remember, Corinth was dedicated to the “love god” Aphrodite (who, considering how she was worshipped, was more lust god than love god) and considering the Corinthians’ familiarity with Aphrodite, they were pretty sure they knew what love consisted of. Paul has a lot to correct. Their wrong-headed idea of love was getting in the way of how they understood God, who is love. (1Jn 4.8) Because God is love, we can also look at this passage and recognize that Paul isn’t just describing love; he’s describing God.
So look at what Paul is listing as love’s actions, and recognize that the Corinthians actually understood love to be the opposite of most of these things. Sadly, many in our culture still think of love—and even God—this way.
Love has patience. Whereas our culture says, “Baby, I can’t wait. I have to have you now.”
Love behaves kindly. “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” And the sort of things you have to apologize for are usually unkind behavior.
It won’t act with strong emotion. Ever hear of “crimes of passion”? They’re justified by saying they were the results of love. Thanks to “love,” people have murdered one another, murdered others, and done other horrible things to one another in the name of “love.” Lust is probably the word you’re really searching for, and literally means strong emotion. Love isn’t lust. Never confuse the two. People do all the time.
It won’t go on and on about itself. Pop songs go on and on about “love” ad nauseam, as people tell the object of their affections how much they’d do and how far they’d go for them. Something about climbing big mountains, swimming deep seas, doing anything for them... when actual love won’t even draw attention to itself. I don’t have to tell someone I love them (although it is nice for them to hear); but I do have to show them, otherwise the words don’t mean anything.
It won’t exaggerate itself. Again with the mountain-climbing and sea-swimming. How many people would literally climb a mountain for someone else? Darned few. Not like it’ll ever come up, which is probably why it’s promised so often. Since love is honest, one shouldn’t promise the unlikely, but the inevitable: “I love you so much I will get along with your parents.” Forget the mountain-climbing... unless you like to do that together.
It won’t be rude. I have seen a lot of rudeness justified with “love.” The objects of such affection tend to call it “stalking.” When people call it “tough love” they really just mean “truth presented unkindly,” which likewise forgets that love is meant to be kind. Love isn’t blunt, harsh, interrupting, improper, uncouth, or mean. That’s not love; that’s abuse.
It won’t look out for itself. Love is self-sacrificial. (Jn 15.13) What people call love is ultimately selfish: “I must have you” disregards the feelings of the other person, and reduces them to a possession rather than a partner.
It won’t easily turn to hate. Ever met an ex-couple that absolutely hate one another? Was there ever any love in their relationship to begin with? Obviously not. That saying, “There’s a thin line between love and hate” obviously doesn’t understand love. How do you go from wanting the best for another person to wanting the worst? Only if you never wanted the best for them to begin with; you just wanted them. (1Sa 13.15)
It won’t plot evil or delight in wickedness. Again with the “crimes of passion.” There are lots of folks who think it romantic when a person is willing to destroy other people’s lives and happiness for the sake of “love.” Adultery is justified, carnality is glorified, and every sort of evil is shrugged off when “the heart wants what it wants.” As if that ever makes it all right.
It rejoices with the truth. Whereas sometimes what the world thinks is love doesn’t want to know the truth. “Love is blind,” is the way it’s usually described. Except true love is not blind. God knows all our flaws, and loves us in spite of them, but whereas “blind love” will excuse our flaws, God still wants to remove them. “Blind love” justifies bad behavior, and that’s hardly being truthful.
It puts up with everything. The divorce rate in our country just goes to show that a lot of people didn’t really get married for love. I can understand people separating because of abuse, neglect, or evil on one person’s part; but there should be no such thing as “irreconcilable differences” when love reconciles everything.
It puts trust in everything. “If you love me, you’ll trust me” is one of the few things that our culture gets right—but if that trust is ever broken, the world concludes that the person should never be loved or trusted again. The world is a lot less forgiving than God is, or than we should be. Love means you trust them even after they’ve broken trust. Love means you forgive.
It puts hope in everything. Love also means you don’t give up on one another. Divorce means you’ve given up; there’s no hope for reconciliation. Bridges have been burned. But hope means they haven’t; there’s always the possibility for renewal, and when people believe in possibilities they sometimes actually do them.
It always stands firm. The world believes we can “fall out of love” with one another because it regularly confuses love with an emotion, and emotions fade. Love is not an emotion. Love, following Paul’s description, is not a noun at all. Love is a verb. (We use it as a noun only to describe it.) We love. We love God, we love one another, and we love our enemies. We want their best, and do our best for them. When we perform acts of love, those acts fit Paul’s description. When we actually perform love, the results are permanent and eternal. Lust, affection, and camaraderie—the things we regularly confuse with love—are always temporary and finite. Love isn’t.
α. Lit. “Not behaving zealously.”
β. Or, “Love won’t boast.” I am dropping the “won’t” in each clause in order to make it one large sentence of things love won’t do.
γ. Or, “Won’t be arrogant.”
δ. Or, “Won’t be easily provoked.”
