Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 13:3
And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor,] and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
3. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor] It will be observed that the words ‘the poor’ are not in the original. Coleridge (see Dean Stanley’s note) says, “the true and most significant sense is ‘ though I dole away in mouthfuls all my property or estates.’ ” So Olshausen, Meyer, to feed any one by putting morsels into his mouth. Cf. St Mat 6:1-2. The word here used is akin to , a morsel; see St Joh 13:26. Were we to take the word charity in its ordinary English sense of liberality to the poor, the passage would contradict itself. It is quite possible to have charity without love.
and though I give my body to be burned ] There is such a thing even as martyrdom in a hard, defiant spirit; not prompted by love of Christ, but by love of oneself; not springing from the impossibility of denying Him to Whom we owe all (compare Polycarp’s noble words, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and what has He done that I should deny Him?”), but from the resolution not to allow that we have been in the wrong. Such a martyrdom would profit neither him who suffered it, nor any one else.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And though I bestow – The Greek word used here psomiso, from psao, to break off) meant properly to break off, and distribute in small portions; to feed by morsels; and may be applicable here to distributing ones property in small portions. Charity or alms to the poor, was usually distributed at ones gate Luk 16:20, or in some public place. Of course, if property was distributed in this manner, many more would be benefitted than if all were given to one person. There would be many more to be thankful, and to celebrate ones praises. This was regarded as a great virtue; and was often performed in a most ostentatious manner. It was a gratification to wealthy men who desired the praise of being benevolent, that many of the poor flocked daily to their houses to be fed; and against this desire of distinction, the Saviour directed some of his severest reproofs; see Mat 6:1-4. To make the case as strong as possible, Paul says that if all that a man had were dealt out in this way, in small portions, so as to benefit as many as possible, and yet were not attended with true love toward God and toward man, it would be all false, hollow, hypocritical, and really of no value in regard to his own salvation. It would profit nothing. It would not be such an act as God would approve; it would be no evidence that the soul would be saved. Though good might be done to others, yet where the motive was wrong, it could not meet with the divine approbation, or be connected with his favor.
And though I give my body to be burned – Evidently as a martyr, or a witness to the truth of religion. Though I should be willing to lay down my life in the most painful manner, and have not charity, it would profit me nothing. Many of the ancient prophets were called to suffer martyrdom, though there is no evidence that any of them were burned to death as martyrs. Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego were indeed thrown into a fiery furnace, because they were worshippers of the true God; but they were not consumed in the flame, Dan 3:19-26; compare Heb 11:34. Though Christians were early persecuted, yet there is no evidence that they were burned as martyrs as early as this Epistle was written. Nero is the first who is believed to have committed this horrible act; and under his reign, and during the persecution which he excited, Christians were covered with pitch, and set on fire to illuminate his gardens. It is possible that some Christians had been put to death in this manner when Paul wrote this Epistle; but it is more probable that he refers to this as the most awful kind of death, rather than as anything which had really happened. Subsequently, however, as all know, this was often done, and thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands, of Christians have been called to evince their attachment to religion in the flames.
And have not charity – Have no love to God, or to people; have no true piety. If I do it from any selfish or sinister motive; if I do it from fanaticism, obstinacy, or vain-glory; if I am deceived in regard to my character, and have never been born again. It is not necessary to an explanation of this passage to suppose that this ever had been done, for the apostle only puts a supposable case. There is reason, however, to think that it has been done frequently; and that when the desire of martyrdom became the popular passion, and was believed to be connected infallibly with heaven, not a few have been willing to give themselves to the flames who never knew anything of love to God or true piety. Grotius mentions the instance of Calanus, and of Peregrinus the philosopher, who did it. Although this was not the common mode of martyrdom in the time of Paul, and although it was then perhaps unknown, it is remarkable that he should have referred to that which in subsequent times became the common mode of death on account of religion. In his time, and before, the common mode was by stoning, by the sword, or by crucifixion. Subsequently, however, all these were laid aside, and burning became the common way in which martyrs suffered. So it was, extensively, under Nero: and so it was, exclusively, under the Inquisition; and so it was in the persecutions in England in the time of Mary. Paul seems to have been directed to specify this rather than stoning, the sword, or crucifixion, in order that, in subsequent times, martyrs might be led to examine themselves, and to see whether they were actuated by true love to God in being willing to be consumed in the flames.
It profiteth me nothing – If there is no true piety, there can be no benefit in this to my soul. It will not save me. If I have no true love to God, I must perish, after all. Love, therefore, is more valuable and precious than all these endowments. Nothing can supply its place; nothing can be connected with salvation without it.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Co 13:3
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and give my body to be burned.
True charity
I. Though i bestow all my goods to feed the poor. Literally, bestow all my substance in food: turn it all into charitable doles. Well, all this lavish benevolence will bring no profit if unaccompanied with love.
1. A man may be liberal from the mere bent of his natural disposition.
(1) But is it not a blessed thing to have such a disposition? Yes; but the brightest lamp leaves many corners dark and cheerless, while the bright day spring flows into every nook. So it is with the human character, according as natural liberality, or Divine love, prompts it to action. Under the first, much may be bright and lovely, but there will ever be left lurking spots of darkness–enmities, prejudices, partialities, etc.; whereas, if lighted up by Divine love, all these will be resisted and vanish by degrees, and the man will become just and large-hearted. The naturally liberal may give to satisfy his wish and ease his desire of giving; true Christian charity gives in self-denial, often withholding where nature prompts to give; often giving where nature would fain withhold.
(2) Of those who bestow largely without the spirit of love, the indiscriminate almsgiver is one of the chief examples. Not one of the characteristics of love here described is in operation upon him. The indolent giving way to an amiable propensity, the hypocritical getting rid of a troublesome duty, must not for an instant be confounded with the yearning and painstaking self-denial of Christian love.
2. A man may bestow all his goods to feed the poor, out of motives of mere display.
(1) But is it not a laudable thing to give as befits a mans station and income? That depends on the motive. One man bestows up to the mark which is required of him. If he goes further than this, he expects, and gets, no small share of credit. But in this I can see nothing laudable. But another man bestows as responsible to God. He acts not up to, but down upon his earthly position; not as sparing that which is his own, but administering that which is not his own. Now, love is set free, and in that alone is capable of working great and lasting good.
(2) But such is the infirmity of our nature, that the existence of a motive is by no means a guarantee for its full operation. There may be conscientious bestowal in a hard, rigid spirit of duty, without kindliness of heart or manner, just as the seed may appear in the plant, but after all be nipped by unkindly skies and winds. And of a bestowal so defective, what our text says is true. Note how true it is found to be in our public legal provision for the poor. Not that we could in our present state of society do without such a provision. But no one thanks us for it, no one is softened by it: all look to it as a sort of right, and feel no gratitude to its bestowers.
II. If i give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing–i.e., all toil, all sacrifice, etc. How different would have been the history of the world and the Church, if this had been borne in mind by Christians!
1. How many lamentable instances have we seen of self-denial on a vast scale, followed by rule and prescription, where every sign of the spirit of love was wanting; nay, where hatred and rancour not only burned in mens breasts, but led on to wars and massacres, nominally for the truths sake! On what is the greatest amount of self-denying labour spent among men? What answer could be given, but that it is but after all for ulterior objects?
2. And then rise to a higher kind of sacrifice. How often do we see men earnestly devoting themselves, even without any prospect beyond, to the interest or advancement of some favourite scheme, the maintenance of one side of some debated question? Sometimes substance, and family, and peace of mind, are offered generously up; many a man is a wreck of some hopeless voyage, but evermore fitting himself out again for undertaking it afresh. Then again, as in the former case, but here even more, there is temptation, from the very glory of self-sacrifice, to make it unworthily. Often have the words of our text been literally verified. The body has been burned, but no flame of love was lit up in the soul: the martyr has met death with smiles perhaps on his persecutors, but with unsubdued polemical hatred. And many who have not reached this consummation have stripped themselves of all they had, and have gone forth into deserts, there to become renowned in the eyes of the Church, and thence to launch their anathemas upon others, wiser perhaps and better than themselves. Well indeed might it be written, that the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. And just in proportion to this character of our hearts is the necessity of constant and unwearied watchfulness, that in our own case neither our bestowals nor our self-denials may be without love, but indeed all prompted and regulated by it. And how may this be? Now as at the first, by the Spirit of God. (Dean Alford.)
Jewish charity
The Jews, according to Maimomides, reckoned eight degrees of charity in almsgiving. The first was, to give, but with reluctance or regret. The second was, to give cheerfully, but not in proportion the need of the recipient. The third was, to give proportionately to the need, but not without solicitation and entreaty on the part of the poor. The fourth was, to give unsought and unsolicited, but putting the gift into the hand of the receiver, and that even in the presence of others, exciting in him the painful feeling of shame. The fifth was, to give in such a way that the beneficiary should know his benefactor without being known of him, as those did who folded money in the corners of their cloaks that the poor as they passed might take it unperceived. The sixth was, to give knowing the objects of the givers bounty, but remaining unknown to them, after the manner of these who conveyed their alms by some secret agency to the dwellings of the indigent, making it impossible for them to ascertain the source of their relief. The seventh was, to give both unknowing and unknown, like those benevolent persons who deposited their gifts privately in a place prepared for that purpose in the temple and in every synagogue as you are supposed to do in the alms-boxes at the door, from which the most respectable poor families were regularly supplied without ostentation or observation. The eighth and most meritorious of all was, to anticipate charity by preventing poverty, to help the worthy brother by satisfying the claims of his creditors, assisting him to redeem some forfeited portion of his inheritance, furnishing him remunerative employment, or putting him in the way of obtaining it, so that he should be able to secure an honest livelihood without the hard necessity of holding out an empty hand to the rich. These were the eight steps in their golden stairway of charity, but the highest of them does not rise to the level of the Pauline platform; for a man might give all his goods to feed the poor, and yet have no charity; and wanting this, his utmost alms, showered from the top of the ideal stairs, shall profit him nothing. (J. Cross, D.D.)
The greatest performances and sufferings vain without charity
I. There may be great performances and sufferings without love.
1. Great performances (Php 3:3; Luk 18:11-12). Many have been exceeding magnificent in their gifts for pious and charitable uses from fear of hell, hoping thereby to make atonement for their sins, others from pride, or from a desire for reputation.
2. Great sufferings. Many have undertaken wearisome pilgrimages, or spent their lives in deserts, or suffered death, of whom we have no reason to think they had any sincere love in their hearts. In the Crusades thousands went voluntarily to all the dangers of the conflict, in the hope of thus securing the pardon of their sires and the rewards of glory hereafter. And history tells us of some that have yielded themselves to voluntary death, out of mere obstinacy of spirit. Many among the heathen have died for their country, and many as martyrs for a false faith.
II. Whatever men may do or suffer, they cannot make up for the want of love.
1. It is not the work or the suffering that is, in itself, worth anything in the sight of God. The Lord looketh not on the outward appearance, but on the heart.
2. Whatever is done or suffered, yet if the heart is withheld from God, there is nothing really given to Him.
3. Love is the sum of all that God requires of us. And it is absurd to suppose that anything can make up for the want of that which is the sum of all that God requires. As to things without the heart, God speaks of them as not being the things that He has required (Isa 1:12), and demands that the heart be given to Him, if we would have the external offering accepted.
4. If we make a great show of respect and love to God, in the outward actions, while there is no sincerity in the heart, it is but hypocrisy and practical lying unto the Holy One (Psa 78:36).
5. Whatever may be done or suffered, if there be no sincerity in the heart, it is all but an offering to some idol. In all such offerings, something is virtually worshipped; and whatever it is, be it self, or our fellow-men, or the world, that is allowed to usurp the place that should be given to God, and to receive the offerings that should be made to Him.
Conclusion: It becomes us to use the subject–
1. In the way of self-examination. If it be indeed so–that all we can do or suffer is in vain, if we have not sincere love to God in the heart–then it should put us upon searching ourselves whether or no we have this love in sincerity in our hearts. There are these things that belong to sincerity–
(1) Truth–that is, that there be that truly in the heart of which there is the appearance and show in the outward action (Psa 51:6; Joh 1:47).
(2) Freedom. Christ is chosen and followed because He is loved.
(3) Integrity–wholeness. Where this sincerity exists, God is sought, and religion is chosen with the whole heart.
(4) Purity.
2. To convince the unregenerate of their lost condition. If by all you can do or suffer, you cannot make up for the want of love, then it will follow that you are in an undone condition till you have obtained Gods regenerating grace to renew a right spirit within you.
3. To exhort all earnestly to cherish sincere Christian love in their hearts. If it be so, that this is of such great and absolute necessity, seek it with diligence and prayer. God only can bestow it. (Jon. Edwards.)
Goodness without love
I. Its common forms.
1. Benevolence.
2. Attachment to the truth.
II. Its worthlessness.
1. It cannot please God.
2. It fails in motive.
3. It profits nothing. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
Vanity of self-immolation
E.g., when a Buddhist ascetic leaps upon the blazing pyre, immolating his body that he may immortalise his spirit, what does it profit him? Nothing; the fanatic is in love with himself, and with no one else; he seeks his own soul happiness, whether in the shape of a coming deification or a present glorification of self. It is quits possible that this image of a Buddhist priest with his ineffectual fires suggested the thought of this text to Paul; more especially as this text was written in 57 A.D., before the outbreak of Neros fiery persecution. The apostle, just before his visit to Corinth, had been staying in Athens, where he had certainly seen an altar to the unknown God, and had probably seen or heard about, the tomb of the Indian, with its epitaph, Here lies Zarmanochegas, who made his own self immortal. (Canon Evans.)
Self-martyrdom
The cynic philosopher Peregrinus, who was for a considerable time a Christian, burnt himself publicly at the Olympic games, in imitation, as he said, of Hercules; ending a life of extravagance and villainy by an act of the wildest vainglory and ambition. During the dark ages it was no uncommon thing for religious bigots to prove the tenets of their faith by the fervency of their zeal, and their obstinacy was often taken for strength of argument. Under the pontificate of Alexander VI a certain monk in Italy offered himself to be burnt in confirmation of opinions which he professed. This was received as an incontestable proof of their truth, till another monk arose, as obstinate as the former, and made the same offer to establish opinions directly contrary. The history of all ages and countries abounds with examples of inflexible zealots who are ready to burn others, or to be burnt themselves, for the cause which they espouse; for zeal hath no necessary connection with truth, and as little with charity. (A. McDonald.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 3. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor] This is a proof that charity, in our sense of the word, is not what the apostle means; for surely almsgiving can go no farther than to give up all that a man possesses in order to relieve the wants of others. The word , which we translate to feed the poor, signifies to divide into morsels, and put into the mouth; which implies carefulness and tenderness in applying the bounty thus freely given.
And though I give my body to be burned] . Mr. Wakefield renders this clause thus:
1. And though I give up my body so as to have cause of boasting: in vindication of which he, first, refers to Da 3:28; Ac 15:26; Ro 8:32; Php 1:20.
2. He says that there is no such word as .
3. That , that I may boast, is the reading of the AEthiopic and Coptic, and he might have added of the Codex Alexandrinus; several Greek and Latin MSS. referred to by St. Jerome; of Ephraim; and of St. Jerome himself, who translates the passage thus: Si tradidero corpus meum ut glorier: i.e. “If I deliver up my body that I may glory, or have cause of boasting.”
4. He adds that burning, though a common punishment in after times, was not prevalent when this epistle was written.
Some of the foreign critics, particularly Schulzius, translate it thus: Si traderem corpus, ut mihi stigma inureretur: “If I should deliver up my body to receive a stigma with a hot iron;” which may mean, If I should, in order to redeem another, willingly give up myself to slavery, and receive the mark of my owner, by having my flesh stamped with a hot iron, and have not love, as before specified, it profits me nothing. This gives a good sense; but will the passage bear it? In the MSS. there are several various readings, which plainly show the original copyists scarcely knew what to make of the word , which they found in the text generally. The various readings are, , which Griesbach seems to prefer; ; and ; all of which give little variation of meaning. Which should be preferred I can scarcely venture to say. If we take the commonly received word, it states a possible case; a man may be so obstinately wedded to a particular opinion, demonstrably false in itself, as to give up his body to be burned in its defence, as was literally the case with Vanini, who, for his obstinate atheism, was burnt alive at Paris, February l9th, A. D. 1619. In such a cause, his giving his body to be burned certainly profited him nothing.
“We may observe,” says Dr. Lightfoot, “in those instances which are compared with charity, and are as good as nothing if charity be absent, that the apostle mentions those which were of the noblest esteem in the Jewish nation; and also that the most precious things that could be named by them were compared with this more precious, and were of no account in comparison of it.
“1. To speak with the tongues of men, among the Jewish interpreters, means, to speak the languages of the seventy nations. To the praise of Mordecai, they say that he understood all those languages; and they require that the fathers of the Sanhedrin should be skilled in many languages that they may not be obliged to hear any thing by an interpreter. Maim. in Sanh., c. 2.
“2. To speak with the tongues of angels, they thought to be not only an excellent gift, but to be possible; and highly extol Jochanan ben Zaccai because he understood them: 1Co 13:1.
“3. To know all mysteries and all knowledge was not only prized but affected by them. Of Hillel, the elder, they say he had eighty disciples: thirty who were worthy to have the Holy Spirit dwell upon them, as it did upon Moses; thirty who were worthy that the sun should stop his course for them, as it did for Joshua; and there were twenty between both. The greatest of all was Jonathan ben Uzziel; the least was Jochanan ben Zaccai. He omitted not (i.e. perfectly understood) the Scripture, the Mishna, the Gemara, the idiotisms of the law, and the scribes, traditions, illustrations, comparisons, equalities, gematries, parables, c.
“4. The moving or rooting up of mountains, which among them signified the removing of the greatest difficulties, especially from the sacred text, they considered also a high and glorious attainment: See Clarke on Mt 21:21. And of his salvation, who had it, they could not have formed the slightest doubt. But the apostle says, a man might have and enjoy all those gifts, c., and be nothing in himself, and be nothing profited by them.”
The reader will consider that the charity or love, concerning which the apostle speaks, is that which is described from 1Co 13:4-7, inclusive: it is not left to the conjectures of men to find it out. What the apostle means is generally allowed to be true religion but if he had not described it, this true religion would have been as various as the parties are who suppose they have it. Let the reader also observe that, not only the things which are in the highest repute among the Jews, but the things which are in the highest repute among Christians and Gentiles are those which the apostle shows to be of no use, if the love hereafter described be wanting. And yet, who can suppose that the man already described can be destitute of true religion, as he must be under an especial influence of God; else, how,
1st, could he speak all the languages of men? for this was allowed to be one of the extraordinary gifts of God’s Spirit.
2. He must have Divine teaching to know the language of angels, and thus to get acquainted with the economy of the invisible world.
3. Without immediate influence from God he could not be a prophet, and predict future events.
4. Without this he could not understand all the mysteries of the Divine word, nor those of Providence.
5. All knowledge, suppose this to be confined to human arts and sciences, could not be acquired without especial assistance.
6. And without the most powerful and extraordinary assistance, he could not have a faith that could remove mountains, or miraculous faith of any kind: and the apostle supposes that a man might have all these six things, and not possess that religion which could save his soul! And may we not say that, if all these could not avail for salvation, a thousand times less surely cannot. How blindly, therefore, are multitudes of persons trusting in that which is almost infinitely less than that which the apostle says would profit them nothing!
The charity or love which God recommends, the apostle describes in sixteen particulars, which are the following:-
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The apostle proceedeth from common gifts, powers, and habits, to actions, and instanceth in two; the first of which might be a great service to men; the latter, an appearance of a great service to God.
Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor; though, saith he, I feed the poor with my goods, and that not sparingly, but liberally, so as I spend all my estate in that way, and make myself as poor as they:
and though I give my body to be burned; though I die in the cause of Christ, for the testimony of his gospel, or for owning of his ways; and that by the sharpest and most cruel sort of death, burning; and be not dragged to the stake, but freely give up myself to that cruel kind of death:
and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing; yet if I have not a root and principle of love to God in my heart, that carrieth me out to these actions and these sufferings, they all will signify nothing to me, as to my eternal salvation and happiness. From whence we may observe, that:
1. The highest acts of beneficence or bounty towards men, (which we usually call good works), are not meritorious at the hand of God, and may be separated from a true root of saving grace in the soul.
2. That the greatest sufferings for and in the cause of religion, may be separated from a true root and principle of saving grace.
3. That no actions, no sufferings, are sufficient to entitle any soul to heaven, further than they proceed from a principle of true love to God, and a desire to obey and to please him in what we do.
Faith and love must be the roots and principles of all those works which are truly good, and acceptable to God, and which will be of any profit or avail to us with reference to our eternal happiness.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3. bestow . . . goods . . .poorliterally, “dole out in food” all my goods; oneof the highest functions of the “helps” (1Co12:28).
give . . . body to beburnedliterally, “to such a degree as that I should beburned.” As the three youths did (Da3:28), “yielded their bodies” (compare 2Co12:15). These are most noble exemplifications of love in givingand in suffering. Yet they may be without love; in which case the”goods” and “body” are given, but not the soul,which is the sphere of love. Without the soul God rejects all else,and so rejects the man, who is therefore “profited” nothing(Mat 16:26; Luk 9:23-25).Men will fight for Christianity, and die for Christianity, but notlive in its spirit, which is love.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor,…. Of which the Jews give us instances; they say n, that R. Ishcab stood, , “and distributed all his goods to the poor”; and a little after they say the same of King Monbaz, that he stood and gave away, or dispersed, “all his goods to the poor”; and elsewhere o they say of R. Eliezer ben Judah, that the collectors of alms ran away from him, because he would have given them
, “all that he had”; and of another, they say p, that he took all that he had in his house, and went out to divide it among the poor; but of what avail was all this, when what these men did, they did not from a principle of love to God, nor to Christ, nor even to the poor, to whom they gave their substance; but to have honour and applause from men, and have and obtain eternal life hereafter? for they thought by so doing, that they deserved to behold the face of God, enjoy his favour, and be partakers of the happiness of the world to come q:
and though I give my body to be burned; which may be done by a man that has no principle of grace in him; the very Heathens have done it; as the Indian queens upon the decease and funeral of their husbands; and Calenus, an Indian philosopher, who followed Alexander the great, and erected a funeral pile, and went into it of his own accord; and Peregrinus, another philosopher, did the like in the times of Trajan. The apostle here respects martyrdom, and by a prophetic spirit has respect to future times, when burning men’s bodies for religion would be in use, which then was not; and suggests that there might be some, as according to ecclesiastical history there seems to have been some, who, from a forward and misguided zeal, and to get themselves a name, and leave one behind them, have exposed themselves to the flames, and yet “have not” had “charity”, true love to God, a real affection for Christ, or to his saints: wherefore the apostle hypothetically says, supposing himself to be the person that had done all this, it profiteth me nothing: such things may profit others, but not a man’s self; giving all his goods to the poor may be of advantage to them, and giving his body to be burned in the cause of religion may be of service to others, to confirm their faith, and encourage them to like sufferings when called to them; but can be of no avail to themselves in the business of salvation; which is not procured by works of righteousness, even the best, and much less by such which proceed from wrong principles, and are directed to wrong ends; the grace of God being wanting, and particularly that of love.
n T. Hieros. Peah, fol. 15. 2. o Juchasin, fol. 51. 2. Vid. T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 148. 2. p Vajikra Rabba, sect. 34. fol. 174. 4. & Mattanot Cehunah in ib. q T. Pesach. fol. 8. 1, 2. Roshhashanah, fol. 4. 1. Bava Bathra, fol. 10. 1, 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Bestow to feed (). First aorist active subjunctive of , to feed, to nourish, from , morsel or bit, and so to feed, by putting a morsel into the mouth like infant (or bird). Old word, but only here in N.T.
To be burned ( ). First future passive subjunctive (Textus Receptus), but D (future passive indicative of , old word to burn). There were even some who courted martyrdom in later years (time of Diocletian). This Byzantine future subjunctive does not occur in the old MSS. (Robertson, Grammar, p. 876). Aleph A B here read , first aorist middle subjunctive of (so Westcott and Hort), “that I may glory.” This is correct.
It profiteth me nothing ( ). Literally, I am helped nothing. in the accusative case retained with passive verb. See two accusatives with in 14:6. Verb is old and from (profit).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Bestow [] . Only here and Rom 12:20. See on sop, Joh 13:26. The verb means to feed out in morsels, dole out.
To be burned [ ] . The latest critical text reads kauchswmai in order that I may glory, after the three oldest MSS. The change to burned might have been suggested by the copyist’s familiarity with christian martyrdoms, or by the story of the three Hebrews. Bishop Lightfoot finds a possible reference to the case of an Indian fanatic who, in the time of Augustus, burned himself alive at Athens. His tomb there was visible in Paul ‘s time, and may have been seen by him. It bore the inscription : “Zarmochegas the Indian from Bargosa, according to the ancient customs of India, made himself immortal and lies here.” Calanus, an Indian gymnosophist who followed Alexander, in order to get rid of his sufferings, burned himself before the Macedonian army (see Plutarch, “Alexander “). Martyrdom for the sake of ambition was a fact of early occurrence in the Church, if not in Paul ‘s day. Farrar says of his age,” both at this time and in the persecution of Diocletian, there were Christians who, oppressed by debt, by misery, and sometimes even by a sense of guilt, thrust themselves into the glory and imagined redemptiveness of the baptism of blood…. The extravagant estimate formed of the merits of all who were confessors, became, almost immediately, the cause of grave scandals. We are horified to read in Cyprian’s letter that even in prison, even when death was imminent, there were some of the confessors who were puffed up with vanity and pride, and seemed to think that the blood of martyrdom would avail them to wash away the stains of flagrant and even recent immoralities “(” Lives of the Fathers,” ch. 6, sec. 2.).
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor.” (kan psomiso panta ta huparchonta mou) “And if I should dole out (give to the needy) all my goods, earthly possessions.” One cannot acquire or retain salvation by giving away material things, Isa 64:6. Spiritual manifestations, verse 1; influence, verse 2; or material help , void of love, count nothing.
2) “And though I give my body to be burned.” (kai ean parado to soma mou hina kauthesomai) “And if I should surrender or turn my body in order that I shall be voluntarily burned.” God does not want dead, burnt sacrifices, but living ones today -sacrifices of service, motivated by Love, the Supreme spiritual gift, Rom 12:1-2.
3) “And have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” (agapen de me echo ouden opeloumai) “But I have or hold not love, I am not profited one thing.” The first three verses of this chapter emphasize the necessity of love. The next ten verses emphasize the nature and work of high, holy, spiritual love. Rom 13:1-14; Eph 6:24; Gal 5:2; Mar 8:37-38.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
3. And if I should expend all my possessions. (779) This, it is true, is worthy of the highest praise, if considered in itself; but as liberality in many cases proceeds from ambition — not from true generosity, or even the man that is liberal is destitute of the other departments of love, (for even liberality, that is inwardly felt, is only one department of love,) it may happen that a work, otherwise so commendable, has, indeed, a fair show in the sight of men, and is applauded by them, and 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 lovely 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 is destitute of love. The kind of punishment that he makes mention of 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, (780) except that Nero, in his rage, had recourse, also, 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 — that as love is the only rule of our actions, and the only means of regulating the right use of the gifts of God, nothing, in the absence of it, is approved of by God, however magnificent it may be in the estimation of men. For where it is wanting, the beauty of all virtues is mere tinsel — is empty sound — is not worth a straw — nay more, 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 shall refute it afterwards. At present, we must proceed to notice what follows,
(779) ” Et si ie distribue tous mes biens;” — “And if I should distribute all my goods.”
(780) “ Les tyrans faisoyent plustot traneher la teste aux Chrestiens et vsoyent plustot du glaiue que du feu pour destruire l’Egiise;” — “Tyrants practiced rather the beheading of Christians, and made use of the sword, rather than of fire, for the destruction of the Church.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(3) Bestow all my goods.The Greek word literally means to feed others by giving them morsels of food, and so we have the thought of a charity extensive in its diffusion, as well as complete in its self-sacrifice. The whole of the bestowers property given in charity, and so divided as to reach the largest number.
I give my body to be burned.A still greater proof of devotion to some person or cause, is the sacrifice of life; yet even that may be without love. A strange reading has crept into some MSS.that I may boastwhich would make the passage mean that a man gave his body to some torture from a wrong motive, viz., vain-glory. But this would weaken the force of the passage. What renders the self-sacrifice valueless is not a wrong cause, but the absence of love as the motive power. Although burning was not a form of martyrdom at this time, yet such histories as that of the three children in Dan. 3:19 would make the expression intelligible and forcible.
These words are historically interesting to the English Church. They formed the text from which Dr. Smith preached at the martyrdom of Latimer and Ridley!
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. Bestow goods It is curious that the word charity has come to signify just that alms-giving which Paul here declares may be performed without it. Churches, colleges, alms-houses, asylums, may all be founded by loveless men to perpetuate a name, or, vainly, to expiate their sins.
Body to be burned Mr. Barnes pertinently remarks that martyrdoms in ancient times were not by burning, but by axe or sword, by stoning or crucifixion. Burning, first introduced by Nero, was adopted by the Romish Inquisition, and by Queen Mary in England. The words of the apostle were almost prophetical. Yet the fiery furnace was the penalty visited on Shadrach and his comrades in Babylon.
The braving certain death by burning or otherwise is often displayed by men from motives excluding love. There are crises in which men prefer death to life, especially, for instance, when stimulated by a point of honour. For this the North American Indian dares and defies the cruelest of tortures; the Hindu widow mounts the funeral pyre of her dead husband; and the Japanese gentleman executes the hari-kari by ripping open his own body in the presence of a public assembly gathered to witness and honour the deed. These actions may have their own proper reward. But in the apostle’s sense, if loveless, they profit nothing so far as salvation is concerned. Our Lord, in commanding his disciples to flee from persecution, divested martyrdom of its vainglory. Yet in times of bloodiest persecution by pagan powers the expectant victim often rejoiced in the hope of the martyr’s crown. There were those who would have rushed to that end by exposing themselves to arrest, but, instructed by our Lord’s words, the Christian leaders dissuaded such a course.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And if I bestow all my goods to feed others, and if I give my body that I may glory (or ‘to be burned’), but have not love, it profits me nothing.’
”And if I bestow all my goods to feed others.’ Even charitable giving to the extent of total self-sacrifice in which one is personally involved over a long period (the verb signifies feeding bit by bit), the giving of all that one has and with personal involvement, is without benefit (to us) if it is not accompanied by love. He is not suggesting that this is something that we must necessarily do, but describing the ultimate in sacrifice from the world’s point of view, a life of self-giving and involvement and constant giving away of personal wealth, and he emphasise that unaccompanied by love it would be nothing. This is a warning to us that when we ‘surrender all’ we must ensure it is out of love for God. If it is but a gesture in order to earn a reward or to impress others then it profits nothing.
This example may well have been taken from what Jesus said to the rich young ruler, that he should go away, sell all that he had and give to the poor, although there the giving of his wealth was to be once for all. Beware, says Paul, as far as spirituality is concerned, even that is useless without love. It is an empty gesture spiritually speaking if it is not done in the love of God and if it does not result from loving and following Jesus. The poor will rejoice, but the giver will receive no benefit.
‘And if I give my body that I may glory’ or ‘if I give my body to be burned’. The former has by far the stronger and earlier manuscript support, but the change demonstrates the difficulty found in understanding it. ‘And if I give my body to be burned’ gives us a straightforward and sensible meaning. We may see Paul as thinking in terms of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego in Daniel (Dan 3:19-20) who in a sense did ‘give’ their bodies to be burned (Dan 3:16-18). It is the final sacrifice. But if it is done without love it is nothing.
However the extremely strong manuscript support, and the greater difficulty of the sense, emphatically point to the more difficult reading, for while we can see why, once many in the church suffered martyrdom by fire, the change might be made to read ‘burned’, we can see little reason why it should have been altered the other way. And we then have to ask what Paul means.
‘And if I give my body that I may glory.’ We know that in fact Paul did glory in the sufferings that he had to face for Christ (Rom 5:3 compare also 2Co 11:18 with 23-30; 1Co 12:9-10), which he has already mentioned in 1Co 4:9-13, partly because he knew that it would work within him that which was pleasing to God, and partly because it was proof of his genuine concern for the churches.
And in the closing verses of chapter 9 he has spoken of beating his body and bringing it into bondage, giving of himself that he may win the prize, which he now says is nothing if done without love.
So he may well be saying that even if he gives his body up to suffering so as to endure in order to be able to glory in the result, (something which in fact ascetics did constantly), it would be without profit if it was without love. Endurance out of love for Christ and God’s people is praiseworthy. Grim endurance for the sake of some earthly seeking after perfection, or in order to glory in what I am doing because I see it as good, without love for God and His people being involved, is meaningless.
But now lest we now despair because we cannot find the right emotion welling up in our hearts, (for we tend to think of love in a sentimental way), Paul goes on to define love.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 13:3 . “And supposing that I do outwardly the very highest works of love, but without really having love as my inward motive, then I have no advantage therefrom, namely, towards attaining the Messianic salvation” (1Jn 3:14 ). Comp Mat 16:26 ; Gal 5:2 .
means properly: to feed any one with something in the way of putting it by morsels into his mouth; then generally, cibare aliquem aliqua re , Rom 12:20 . See the LXX. in Schleusner, V. p. 569; Valckenaer, p. 303. Only the thing is mentioned here in connection with the verb, but who the persons ( the poor ) are, is self-evident, as also the meaning: cibando consumsero . Comp Poll. vi. 33.
. . [2060] ] a yet higher eternal work of love, surrender of the body (Dan 3:28 ), self-sacrifice .
] (see the critical remarks) in order to be burned . The reading would be a future subjunctive , a barbarism, the introduction of which in pre-New Testament Greek is due only to copyists. See Lobeck, a [2061] Phryn. p. 720 f.; Buttmann, neut. Gramm. p. 31 [E. T. 35]. The sense should not be defined more precisely than: in order to die the death by fire . To refer it, with most interpreters since Chrysostom, to the fiery death of the Christian martyrs, is without support from the known history of that period, and without a hint of it in the text. Probably such martyr-scenes as Dan 3:19 ff., Dan 3:2 Maccabees 7, hovered before the apostle’s mind. Comp Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 20.
[2060] . . . .
[2061] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor , and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Ver. 3. Though I bestow all my goods ] Unless I draw out my soul as well as my sheaf to the hungry, Isa 58:10 . Many shrink up charity to a handbreadth, to giving of alms.
And though I give my body, &c. ] As Servetus the heretic did at Geneva, A. D. 1555. So Mauzius the Anabaptist gave his body to be drowned at Tigure, A. D. 1527 (Scultet. Annal.); Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, to be beheaded for holding the pope’s supremacy; Friar Forest, to be hanged for the same cause. And how many of our popish martyrs (malefactors or traitors, I should say) have worn the Tyburn tippet, a as Father Latimer phraseth it! And more of them must, for they be some of them knaves all, as the L. Audley, chancellor of England, once said to the thirteen Calais prisoners for religion, whom he discharged; and like bells they will never be well tuned till well hanged. For what reason? they are flabella et flagella Reip., &c.
a
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3. ] The double accus. after is found in the reff. to LXX: but here the accus. of the person is omitted, and left to be supplied from the context: If I bestow in food all my substance . See the quotation from Coleridge in Stanley’s note.
. . . .] So ref. Dan., , LXX. Theod.: see also 2Ma 7:37 . He evidently means in self-sacrifice : for country, or friends. Both the deeds mentioned in this verse are such as ordinarily are held to be the fruits of love, but they may be done without it , and if so, are worthless. Stanley prefers and Lachmann has edited it. The objections to it seem to me to be, (1) It leaves standing in a very vague and undefined meaning “deliver, to what ?” (2) It introduces an irrelevant and confusing element, a boastful motive , into a set of hypotheses which put forward merely an act or set of acts on the one side, and the absence of love on the other: and indeed, worse still, (3) it makes an hypothesis which would reduce the self-sacrifice to nothing, and would imply the absence of love; and so would render unnecessary.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 13:3 . The suppositions of these three vv. cover three principal forms of activity in the Church the spheres, viz ., of supernatural manifestation , of spiritual influence , of material aid (1Co 13:3 ); loveless men who show conspicuous power in these several respects, in the first instance are sound signifying nothing ; in the second, they are nothing ; in the third, they gain nothing . Those who make sacrifices to benefit others without love , must have some hidden selfish recompense that they count upon; but they will cheat themselves. . . ., “If I should dole out all my property”. The vb [1972] (derived from f1 , Joh 13:26 ff. a bit or crumb ) takes acc [1973] of person in Rom 12:20 (LXX), here of thing both regular: “Si distribuero in cibos pauperum” (Vg [1974] ), “Si insumam alendis egenis” (Bz [1975] ). The sacrifice of property rises to its climax in that of bodily life : cf. Job 2:4 f., Dan 3:28 , Gal 2:20 , etc.; Joh 10:2 ; Joh 15:13 . But in either case, ex hypothesi , the devotion is vitiated by its motive , “that I may make a boast” ( cf. Mat 6:1 ff.); it is prompted by ambition, not love. So the self-immolator forfeits the end he seeks; his glorifying becomes (Gal 5:26 , Phi 2:3 ; cf. Joh 5:44 ). signifies loss of final benefit ( cf. Gal 5:2 , Rom 2:25 , Luk 9:25 ). This entire train of supposition P. puts in the 1st pers [1976] , so avoiding the appearance of censure: cf. , for the usus loquendi , 1Co 14:14-19 , 1Co 8:13 , 1Co 9:26 f. is a grammatical monstrum , a reading that cannot well be explained except as a corruption of ; it was favoured by the thought of the Christian martyrdoms, and perhaps by the influence of Dan 3:28 . Hn [1977] , Gd [1978] , Ed [1979] , El [1980] , amongst critical comment., are in favour of the T.R., which is supported by the story, told in Josephus ( B.J. , vii. 8. 7), of a Buddhist fakir who about this time immolated himself by fire at Athens.
[1972] verb
[1973] accusative case.
[1974] Latin Vulgate Translation.
[1975] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).
[1976]ers. grammatical person, or personal.
[1977] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).
[1978] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[1979] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
[1980] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
bestow = give away in doles. Greek. psomizo. Only here and Rom 12:20. Compare “sop”, Joh 13:26.
goods = the things belonging (huparcho, Luk 9:48) to me.
give = deliver up. Greek. paradidomi. See Joh 19:30.
to be = in order that (Greek. hina) it may be.
it profiteth, &c. = I am nothing profited.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3.] The double accus. after is found in the reff. to LXX: but here the accus. of the person is omitted, and left to be supplied from the context: If I bestow in food all my substance. See the quotation from Coleridge in Stanleys note.
. . . .] So ref. Dan., , LXX. Theod.: see also 2Ma 7:37. He evidently means in self-sacrifice: for country, or friends. Both the deeds mentioned in this verse are such as ordinarily are held to be the fruits of love, but they may be done without it, and if so, are worthless. Stanley prefers -and Lachmann has edited it. The objections to it seem to me to be, (1) It leaves standing in a very vague and undefined meaning-deliver, to what? (2) It introduces an irrelevant and confusing element, a boastful motive, into a set of hypotheses which put forward merely an act or set of acts on the one side, and the absence of love on the other: and indeed, worse still, (3) it makes an hypothesis which would reduce the self-sacrifice to nothing, and would imply the absence of love; and so would render unnecessary.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 13:3. , and if) This is the utmost that the helps and governments can do, ch. 1Co 12:28.-, though I should distribute) He puts in the highest place, what refers to the human will and seems to be the most closely connected with love, in regard to acting and suffering. He, who delivers up his goods and his body, has much love, 2Co 12:15; but he who delivers them up without love, keeps back his soul to himself:[116] for love is a faculty of the soul; therefore he speaks of profit () in the apodosis. On see Rom 12:20.-, give up) for others.-) even to such a degree as that I be burnt, Dan 3:28; they gave up their bodies to the fire, .
[116] He may give up his body, but he keeps back his soul.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 13:3
1Co 13:3
And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor,-The giving of goods to feed the poor is considered by many to be the very essence of love. When done from a proper motive, it is a fruit of love, but if it is done for any other motive than to honor God, and to bless man in the name of God, it is not love.
and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing.- [A willingness to suffer for ones faith is not in every case a guarantee of the existence of a heart transformed from selfishness to love. Gifts and conduct which bring men prominently before the eyes of men are often no index to the character; and if they be not rooted in and guided by love to God and man, their possessor has but little reason to congratulate himself. Too often it is a snare to judge himself by what he does rather than by what he is. At one period martyrdom became fashionable, and Christian teachers were compelled to remonstrate with those who fanatically rushed to the stake and the arena. It is possible that many suffered through vainglory rather than the love of Christ.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
charity
i.e. love; and so in 1Co 13:2; 1Co 13:3; 1Co 13:4; 1Co 13:8; 1Co 13:13.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
though I bestow: Mat 6:1-4, Mat 23:5, Luk 18:22, Luk 18:28, Luk 19:8, Luk 21:3, Luk 21:4, Joh 12:43, Gal 5:26, Phi 1:15-18
though I give: Dan 3:16-28, Mat 7:22, Mat 7:23, Joh 13:37, Joh 15:13, Act 21:13, Phi 1:20, Phi 1:21, Phi 2:3
profiteth: Isa 57:12, Jer 7:8, Joh 6:63, 1Ti 4:8, Heb 13:9, Jam 2:14-17
Reciprocal: Luk 10:20 – in this Luk 10:42 – one 1Co 13:1 – I speak 1Co 13:2 – and have 1Co 14:6 – what shall I Heb 4:2 – did Jam 2:17 – so
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 13:3. Bestowing goods upon the poor is possible even in the absence of what the King James translation calls charity, which shows the word does not mean what is commonly called “liberality.” The word is from AGAPE, and the common version renders it “love” in 86 places. For further information, see the comments at Mat 5:43, volume 1 of the New Testament Commentary.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 13:3. And though I bestow[1] all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give (deliver up) my body to be burned[2]a practice not unknown even to heathenism, as witness Sutteeism in India, happily now abolished. In the early Church, martyrdom was held in such honour as at length to be fanatically coveted. Yet without love, this will avail me nothing.
[1] The word primarily means to feed by little morsels, as one does children; and Stanley, in illustration of this, quotes from Coleridge a striking MS. note on the passage as follows: The true and most significant sense is, Though I dole away in morsels all my property or estates. Who that has witnessed the almsgiving in a Catholic monastery or the court of a Sicilian bishops or archbishops palace, where immense revenues are syringed away in farthings to herds of beggars, but must feel the force of the apostles half satirical word ? But since the same word is used in Rom 12:20, where no such idea can be intended, we must not put into the translation of it more than the word bestow conveys.
[2] The true reading here is obviously that of the received text. But there is another reading differing from it only by a single letter, for which there is much stronger external evidence, but the sense of which is intolerablethough I give my body that I may glory. And we note it here as one example of a class of readings in which common sense ought to outweigh the strongest external evidence. We may not be able to explain how such readings came to receive such support as they have; but we are not on that account to be forced into the acceptance of violent readings. Tischendort and Meyer justly regard it as a copyists blunder, repeated by successive copyists in moments of haste or weariness.
But what is the love meant here? Certainly, not mere natural benevolence, even in its most disinterested form. Fundamentally, it can only be what Israel was familiar with even from the days of their wilderness journeyings:Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul and mind and strength, and thy neighbour as thyself. Of thiswhich in itself was matter of obligation, as the all-comprehensive law of every reasonable creatureGod promised that under the new covenant He would put it in their inward ports and write it in their heart (Jer 31:33). Essentially it must have dwelt in all who were circumcised in heart; but in its peculiarly evangelical sense it was not under the ancient economy the characteristic term for saintship, which the fear of the Lord was. It was reserved for the lips of Love Incarnate to introduce and inaugurate this term, when in His interview with Nicodemus He told the astonished ruler that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever beheveth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life; and he who drank the deepest of his Masters spirit echoes this in the inspiring words, Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. This love takes possession of our hearts by being shed abroad in them by the Holy Ghost given unto us (Rom 5:5), whereupon we love Him because He first loved us; and from Him this love flows down upon our fellow-men; for this commandment we have from Him, that he who loveth God love his brother also. Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God: he that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love (1Jn 4:7-8).
Such then, is the love here opened up in its varied outgoings towards our fellow-men, and held forth as indispensable, incomparable, eternal.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. That alms amy be given without true love to God, or our neighbour for God’s sake; they may be given out of mere natural pity to the poor, out of a desire to be well thought of, and well spoken of by men, out of an opinion of merit, and obliging God, or from some other cause, which includes not love either to God or man; and wherever they are thus given, they profit nothing to salvation.
The Greek word for feeding the poor here, signifies to divide victuals in several pieces, and so distribute it amongst the poor.
Lord! what a consideration is this, that a man may do all the external works of mercy, even the highest and most transcendent works, and yet want true love to God and his neighbour!
Observe, 2. That as alms may be given, so martyrdom may be undergone, without charity. If I give my body to be burned; that is, if I have so much fortitude and courage as to lay down my life for Christ and his truth, which is such an high expression of my obedience to him as angels are not capable of performing, yet, without charity, burning is but a vain-glorious blaze; and instead of sealing the truth with our blood, we seal but our own shame and folly.
Observe, 3. The apostle says not, If I be burnt, persecuted, and put to death by others: but if I give myself to be burned, if I voluntarily and freely offer up myself, not to imprisonment only, but to death itself, yea, to the most terrible kind of death, burning; yet if all this be not from a right principle and sincere end, if all this be without true love to God, and his glory, church, and truth, it will avail nothing to salvation.
Learn hence, That no kind of external sufferings, though ever so grievous, either for the truth of Christ indeed, or for that which a man’s conscience judges to be the truth of Christ, is a sure and infallible sign of a gracious state: a man may suffer for truth, but not for truth’s sake, only for interest’s sake; he may suffer from a natural strength and stoutness of spirit, and not from a spiritual fortitude wrought in him by the Spirit of God.
Ah, Lord! how miserable is it to be burnt with fire here for Christ; and to hear him say afterward, Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire! It is indeed a great matter to suffer for Christ, but much greater to suffer with such a disposition of heart as Christ requires.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 3. And though I distributed all my goods, and though I gave my body to be burned, but had not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
The apostle here comes to acts which appear to have the greatest value, because they seem identical with charity itself. In the first, it is the office of , help (1Co 12:28), rising to the most magnanimous sacrifice, the complete giving away of all possessed in behalf of the poor. We must read, not the present , but the aorist: . The second denotes a summary gift bestowed once for all; the first would apply rather to a continuous giving day by day; , to break down into pieces to give away. Edwards rightly observes that the term implies two things: (1) the gift bestowed by the giver’s own hand; (2) on a multitude.
Finally, to the sacrifice of means made for men, Paul adds the highest sacrifice, that of life, offered to God. How are we to conceive of this sacrifice? Can it be that of a man who rushes into a house on fire to save one in sickness? But the , in order that, seems to imply the intention of perishing. It is rather the acceptance of martyrdom which is in question. If there is a case in which the Alexandrine reading should be set aside without hesitation, it is that of the variant , that I may glory. Either the copyists have read for , or more likely they have been too eager to introduce the reason which would annul the value of the martyrdom, and have anticipated the following words: but have not charity, which become superfluous. In any of the cases previously pointed out, the expressed cause of nothingness is no other than the absence of love; it is also the only one which suits the context. Here, again, is one of the cases in which Westcott and Hort, by maintaining this reading, abandoned even by Lachmann and Tischendorf, have only proved the inconvenient consequence of partisanship. It is probable that of the readings of C K (future subjunctive) and of the Greco-Lats. (future indicative), we ought to prefer the second. The form of the future subjunctive is a barbarism only found in later writers. The indicative with often occurs in the New Testament (1Co 9:15; Gal 2:4; 1Pe 3:1, etc.).
But how can such acts be done otherwise than from love? The sacrifice of goods may be carried out in the spirit of ostentation, or may proceed from a desire of self-justification, and consequently be dictated by a wholly different feeling from love. It may be so likewise with the sacrifice of life. Witness the funeral pile of Peregrinus, in Lucian, or that of the Hindoo who had himself burned at Athens, under Augustus, and whose tomb was pointed out, according to Strabo, with a pompous inscription, relating how he had immortalized himself. The pagan Lucian himself calls such men . Certainly it is not such the apostle has in view, but a Christian carrying to this degree the appearance of love to Christ, while seeking at bottom only his own fame or self-merit in the eyes of God. There is the well-known case of the presbyter who, when giving himself up to death as a confessor of the faith, was accompanied by a Christian, with whom he was at variance, and who asked him to forgive him before dying. He absolutely refused him the reconciliation asked with such importunity. Arrived at the place of execution, he faltered, denied, while the other boldly confessed and perished in his place. He might have persisted from shame of denying His Lord, and to avoid being taxed with cowardice. His martyrdom would not have been on that account more acceptable to God. The trickeries of self – love are unfathomable, and deceive the very man who is their instrument.
The , it profiteth me nothing, is here substituted for the , I am nothing, of 1Co 12:2, because now it is not the worth of the person but of the acts which is in question. What was intended to assure me of salvation, has no value in the eyes of God, whenever the object of it becomes self, in the form of self-merit or of human glory. Love accepts only what is inspired by love.
Such is the first reason fitted to justify the of 1Co 12:31, the supreme excellence of the way which is called charity. The most eminent gifts, the most heroic acts avail nothing the instant they are not inspired by it. The absolute worth of charity also appears from the opposite consideration: while without it, all is nothing, it produces all of itself. It is the mother of all the virtues, the bond of perfection, as St. Paul himself says, Col 3:14.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing. [Love is here contrasted with those works of charity and self-sacrifice which are included under the term “helps;” so that in his comparison Paul practically exhausts the whole catalogue of gifts described in the last chapter, and shows the entire supremacy of love over all of them. The word translated “bestow to feed,” means to dole away in mouthfuls and suggests that though the giving was entire and exhaustive, yet the manner of giving was so parsimonious and grudging as to emphasize the lack of love. From giving goods Paul passes to that higher order of giving in which the body is presented as a sacrifice to God, either by martyrdom, or as a daily offering (Rom 12:1; 1Co 15:31; 2Co 12:15; 2Co 11:29). It has been urged that Paul could not refer to martyrdom, for, though Christians were burned by fire in great numbers some ten years later, yet there is no account of any such form of martyrdom when Paul wrote. But the mere silence of history proves nothing; besides, the case of the three Hebrews is precedent enough (Dan 3:23; Dan 3:28; comp. Heb 11:34). See also 2 Macc. 7. Willingness to fight and die for Christianity will not take the place of loving obedience to Christ. Having shown the supremacy of love when compared with miraculous gifts, Paul now enters upon a discussion of the intrinsic merits of love, thus preparing his hearers to grasp the superiority of love over the other two graces. He gives nine negative and six, or rather eight, positive qualities of love. All seventeen qualities will be found beautifully exemplified in the life of our Lord. The Corinthians were conspicuously lacking in the four which head Paul’s catalogue, as will be shown by comparing them with 1Co 6:7; 1Co 12:15; 1Co 12:21; 1Co 12:26; 1Co 4:6; 1Co_18-19]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
3. Though I give all my gifts to feed the poor, and my body to be burned, and have not love, I am profited as to nothing. You see this verse flatly contradicts the E.V. translation, charity, as the person here described as not having charity would necessarily be the most charitable person in all the world. The Bible nowhere contradicts itself, hence you may rest assured that charity is a wrong translation, because it makes that verse flatly and irreconcilably contradictory of itself.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 3
And have not charity; honest kindness of feeling. The goods might be bestowed in ostentation and parade.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Even what passed for charity, self-sacrifice for less fortunate individuals, is not the same as real love (Gr. agape). It is inferior to it. It might profit the receiver, but it did not profit the giver.
Paul’s personal sufferings for the salvation of others were also worthless without love (cf. 2Co 11:23-29; 2Co 12:10). Even one’s acceptance of martyrdom might spring from love. Notwithstanding if it did not it was valueless in the sight of God and would bring no divine reward to the one who submitted to it (cf. Dan 3:28; Rom 5:2-3; 2Co 1:14).
Paul was not setting love in contrast to gifts in this pericope. He was arguing for the necessity and supremacy of love if one is to behave as a true Christian.
"Love is the indispensable addition which alone gives worth to all other Christian gifts." [Note: Barrett, p. 303.]
"Love defines which gifts are the ’best’: those that build up the body." [Note: Keener, p. 107.]