1 Corinthians 13:3

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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

charity

i.e. love; and so in 1Co 13:2; 1Co 13:3; 1Co 13:4; 1Co 13:8; 1Co 13:13.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13:3 sacrificed my body, I could boast about it: Some manuscripts read sacrificed my body to be burned; it would have been easy for a copyist to change the text accidentally, because in Greek the two readings differ only by one letter. It is unclear which reading is to be preferred; however, the manuscripts supporting the reading I could boast are generally better. • I would have gained nothing: Even the most impressive sacrificial acts mean nothing if not motivated by love.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 13:3. Καὶ ἐὰν, and if) This is the utmost that the helps and governments can do, ch. 1Co 12:28.—ψωμίσω, 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 (ὠφελοῦμαι) in the apodosis. On ΨΩΜΊΖΕΙΝ see Rom 12:20.—ΠΑΡΑΔῶ, give up) for others.—ἵνα) even to such a degree as that I be burnt, Dan 3:28; they gave up their bodies to the fire, παρέδωκαν τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν εἰς πῦρ.

[116] He may give up his body, but he keeps back his soul.—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

ψωμίζειν τινά τι 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.

καὶ ἐὰν παραδῶ κ.τ.λ[2060]] a yet higher eternal work of love, surrender of the body (Dan_3:28), self-sacrifice.

ἵνα καυθήσομαι] (see the critical remarks) in order to be burned. The reading καυθήσωμαι 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., 2 Maccabees 7, hovered before the apostles mind. Comp Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 20.

[2060] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[2061] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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. ἐὰν ψωμίσω κ . τ . λ ., “If I should dole out all my property”. The vb [1972] (derived from ψωμός f1ψωμίον , 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 ἵνα καυχήσωμαι , “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 κενοδοξία (Gal 5:26 , Phi 2:3 ; cf. Joh 5:44 ). οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι 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. καυθήσωμαι is a grammatical monstrum , a reading that cannot well be explained except as a corruption of καυχήσωμαι ; 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 Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1978] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. Ép. 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 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_13:3

And though l bestow all my goods to feed (the poor), and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth the nothing.

Paul here advances one step further. All outward acts of beneficence are of no avail without love. A man may give away his whole estate, or sacrifice himself, and be in no sense the gainer. He may do all this from vanity, or from the fear of perdition, or to purchase heaven, and only increase his condemnation. Religion is no such easy thing. Men would gladly compound by external acts of beneficence, or by penances, for a change of heart; but the thing is impossible. Thousands indeed are deluded on this point, and think that they can substitute what is outward for what is inward, but God requires the heart, and without holiness the most liberal giver or the most suffering ascetic cam never see God. The original word (ψωμίζω) here used, literally means, to feed by morsels. It is generally followed by two accusatives, to feed a person with something. Here the accusative of the person is omitted, so that the passage stands, Though I feed out my property, i.e. distribute it in food. And though I give my body to be burned, i.e. though I make the most painful sacrifice of myself. A man may not only give his property but his life, and be nothing the better. It is not probable that the apostle refers to martyrdom, or that the idea is, that a man may, from wrong motives, submit to be a martyr. The context requires that the reference should be to a sacrifice made for the good of others. Some suppose that the reference is to the branding of slaves to indicate their ownership. The meaning would then be, Though I not only give away all my goods, but should sell myself as a slave for the sake of the poor, it would profit the nothing. Had Paul intended to say this, he would probably have used the appropriate term for branding. We do not express the idea that an animal was branded, by saying it was burnt. There is no necessity for departing from the simple sense of the words. Though I give my body to be burnt for others, i.e. though I should die for them, without love it profiteth me nothing.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

bestow . . . goods . . . poor--literally, "dole out in food" all my goods; one of the highest functions of the "helps" (Co1 12:28).

give . . . body to be burned--literally, "to such a degree as that I should be burned." As the three youths did (Dan 3:28), "yielded their bodies" (compare Co2 12:15). These are most noble exemplifications of love in giving and 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 not live in its spirit, which is love.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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 ψωμιζω, 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] ινακαυθησομαι. 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 καυθησωμαι.

3. That καυχησωμαι, 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 καυθησωμαι, which they found in the text generally. The various readings are, καυθησομαι, which Griesbach seems to prefer; καυθησεται; and καυθη; 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:-

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. And if I should expend all my possessions. 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, 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,

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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 bestower’s 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 boast”—which 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!

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 ψωμίον, 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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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} A jocular name for a hangman’s rope: usually Tyburn tippet. ŒD

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And though I bestow - The Greek word used here ψωμίσω psōmisō, from ψάω psaō, to break off) meant properly to break off, and distribute in small portions; to feed by morsels; and may be applicable here to distributing one’s property in small portions. Charity or alms to the poor, was usually distributed at one’s 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 one’s 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor. The five words, "bestow to feed the poor," represent the one Greek word psomiso, and after all do not give its force. It is derived from psomion, a mouthful, and so means "give away by mouthfuls," i.e. dole away." It occurs inswmai Rom_12:20 for "feed." Attention to this verse might have served as a warning against the often useless and sometimes even pernicious doles of mediaeval monasteries. Much of the "charity" of these days is even more uncharitable than this, and shows the most complete absence of true charity; as for instance the dropping of pennies to professional beggars, and so putting a premium on vice and imposture. To be burned. The reading is extremely uncertain. The change of a letter gives the reading, that I may glory (kauch) for kauqhswmai). Perhaps the scribes thought that "death by burning" was as yet (A.D. 57) an unheard of form of martyrdom, though it became but too familiar ten or twelve years later in the Neronian persecution. St. Paul was, however, probably referring, not, as some have supposed, to branding, which would bare been expressed differently, but to the ease of the "three children," in Dan_3:23, where the LXX has, "They gave their bodies into the fire; or to the various tortures and deaths by fire in RAPC 2Ma 7. At the burning of Ridley and Latimer, Dr. Smith chose this verse for his text. Its applicability is on a par with millions of other instances in which Scripture has been grossly abused by employing its letter to murder its spirit, and by taking it from the God of love to give it to the devil of religious hatred. The burning of a saint was a singular specimen of the Church"s "love." It profiteth me nothing; literally, I am nothing benefited. A consideration of this verse might have shown the Christians of the early centuries that there was nothing intrinsically redemptive in the martyrdom into which they often thrust themselves.

Love and almsgiving.

Of all the comparisons between love and other qualities, gifts, or practices, this is the one which sounds most strange to our ears. For in our minds charity and almsgiving are so closely associated that it scarcely seems possible that they should be placed in contrast one with the other. Yet so it is; and every observer of human nature and society can recognize both the insight and the foresight of the apostle in this striking, almost startling comparison.

I ALMSGIVING MAY ORIGINATE IN INFERIOR AND UNWORTHY MOTIVES. The apostle supposes an extreme case, viz. that one should give away all his substance in doles to the poor; and he gives his judgment that such a course of action may be loveless, and, if loveless, then worthless. For it may proceed from:

1. Ostentation. That this is the explanation of many of the handsome and even munificent gifts of the wealthy, we are obliged to believe. A rich man sometimes likes his name to figure in a subscription list for an amount which no man of moderate means can afford. The publication of such a gift gratifies his vanity and self importance. His name may figure side by side with that of a well known millionaire.

2. Custom. A commentator has illustrated this passage by reference to the crowds of beggars who gather in the court of a great bishop"s palace in Spain or Sicily, to each of whom a coin is given, in so-called charity. Such pernicious and indiscriminate almsgiving is expected of those in a high position in the Church, and they give from custom. The same principle explains probably much of our eleemosynary bestowment.

3. Love of power. As in the feudal days a great lord had his retinue and his retainers, multitudes depending upon his bounty, so there can be no question that individuals and Churches often give generously for the sake of the hold they thus gain upon the dependent, who become in turn in many ways their adherents and supporters.

II ALMSGIVING MAY IN SOME CASES BE INJURIOUS. In fact, it often is so.

1. To the recipient. The wretch who lives in idleness on rich men"s doles is degraded in the process, and becomes lost to all self respect, and habituated to an ignominious and base contentedness with his position.

2. To society generally. When it is known that the man who begs is as well supported as the man who works, how can it be otherwise than that demoralization should ensue? The system of indiscriminate almsgiving is a wrong to the industrious poor.

3. To the giver. For such gifts as are supposed, instead of calling forth the finer qualities of the nature, awaken in the breast of the bestower a cynical contempt of mankind.

III NEVERTHELESS, TRUE CHARITY MAY EXPRESS ITSELF IN GIFTS. The man who doles away his substance in almsgiving, and has all the while no charity, is nothing; but if there be love, that love sanctifieth both the giver and the gift. For he who loves and gives resembles that Divine Being whose heart is ever filled with love, whose hands are ever filled with gifts. T.

Love and self immolation.

It would seem that Paul had some anticipation of the approaching developments of Christian society. There is no ground for believing that, at the time when he wrote, any member of the Church of Christ had suffered at the stake for fidelity to principle and to faith. Such martyrdoms had occurred in Palestine, when the enemies of Jehovah had been triumphant and had wreaked their vengeance upon the faithful Jews. And even before Paul"s decease, in Rome itself, Christians came to be the victims of the infamous Nero"s brutality, and perished in the flames. Stronger language could not be used to set forth the superiority of love to zeal, fidelity, and devotion than this of St. Paul: "Though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing!

I THE READINESS TO DIE, AT THE STAKE OR OTHERWISE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE, IS GOOD. As the three Hebrew children were content to be cast into the burning, fiery furnace, as the faithful Jews died at the stake under the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes, as Polycarp at over four score years of age gave his body to be burned, as the holy Perpetua suffered this martyrdom with willing mind, as in our own country at the Reformation many suffered in the fires of Oxford and Smithfield, so have multitudes counted their lives as not dear to them for the blessed Saviour"s sake. It cannot but be that such sacrifice of self, such holy martyrdom, ever has been and is acceptable to Christ, who gave himself for us. For he himself has said, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness" sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

II THE ABSENCE OF LOVE TAKES AWAY EVEN FROM THE VIRTUE OF MARTYRDOM. There is a story of a Christian of Antioch who, on his way to martyrdom, refused to forgive and be reconciled to a brother Christian. Such a case is an exact example of the zeal without love which the apostle here pronounces worthless. If Christian charity be absent where zeal is present, there seems reason to fear that the motives which induce to self immolation are pride, self glorification, and an inflexible obstinacy. If there be not love to Christ"s people, there is no real love to Christ: "He that loveth God loves his brother also." It is strange to think that self delusion may go so far that men may suffer martyrdom without being truly Christ"s. Yet so it is. And we may be reminded, from the possibility of this extreme case, how readily men deceive themselves and suppose that they are influenced by truly religious and distinctly Christian motives, when all the while self is the pivot upon which their whole conduct revolves. And it may be suggested to us how inexpressibly essential, in the judgment of our Lord and his Spirit, is that grace of love, the absence of which cannot be atoned for even by a passage through the fiery flames of martyrdom. T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And though I - Deliberately, piece by piece. Give all my goods to feed the poor, yea, though I deliver up my body to be burned - Rather than I would renounce my religion. And have not the love - Hereafter described. It profiteth me nothing - Without this, whatever I speak, whatever I have, whatever I know, whatever I do, whatever I suffer, is nothing.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 ]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor. Though he exhibit what the world calls charity in the highest degree, unless he is filled with love, it is nothing. One might give his goods from a desire of praise. Though I give my body to be burned. Gives not only goods, but his body itself. If, like a Buddhist ascetic, he leaps into the flames to burn away the dross and to etherialize his spirit. These sacrifices are useless unless consecrated by love. All these things are excellencies if sanctified by the divine principle of love, but are profitless without it.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

3. καυθήσωμαι. So CK. Tischendorf reads καυθήσομαι with DEFG. Westcott and Hort read καυχήσωμαι with אAB. We must choose between one or other of the two latter readings. So great a solecism as a future subjunctive must have been the error of the copyist, probably due to his writing from dictation. The former of the two seems preferable.

3. ψωμίσω. Literally, to feed with small mouthfuls as a nurse does a child. See Aristoph. Lysistrata 19 ἥ δὲ παιδίον … ἐψώμισεν: and Chrysostom. It usually takes two accusatives, one of the person, the other of the thing. Here the first of these is not expressed but understood. If I feed people one by one with all my goods, or as Coleridge (see Dean Stanley’s notes in loc.), though I dole away all my property in mouthfuls. See Joh 13:26, where the word ψωμίον, translated sop in our version, is used. In no part of this passage is the inadequacy of the word charity to express St Paul’s meaning more clearly shewn than here. The passage might be rendered: ‘if I give all my goods away in charity and have not love … it profiteth me nothing.’

ἵνα καυθήσωμαι. See Critical Note. Other instances of this form are found in the MSS. but their authority is questioned. See Winer, Gr. Gram. § 13. Instances may be found of such mistakes as that in the text in the very best MSS. καυχήσωμαι seems to be a conjectural emendation of καυθήσωμαι, itself a mistake for καυθήσομαι. For the sentence though I deliver up my body in order that I may boast seems to convey no very satisfactory meaning.

ἵνα here is in order that. 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.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3.] The double accus. after ψωμίζω 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.

παραδ. τὸ σῶμ. μ. ἵνα καυθ.] So ref. Dan., καὶ παρέδωκαν τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν εἰς ἐμπυρισμόν, LXX. Theod.: see also 2 Macc. 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 καυχήσωμαι—and Lachmann has edited it. The objections to it seem to me to be, (1) It leaves παραδῶ 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 ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω unnecessary.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. We now pass on to the administrative gifts, ἀντιλήμψεις (12:28), ministering to the bodily needs of the brethren, and that in what seems to be a specially self-denying form.

κἂν ψωμίσω πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντά μου. ‘And if I should give away in doles of food all my possessions.’ There is no need to say anything about the recipients of the bounty, τοὺς πένηρας (Chrys.), pauperum (Vulg.), ‘the poor’ (AV., RV.): it is the giver, not the recipients, that is in question. The verb implies personal distribution to many, and that the act is done once for all: he could not habitually give away all his goods. The ‘all’ continues the emphatic repetition of πᾶς: throughout he makes the supposition as strong as possible. We have ψωμίζω in Rom 12:20 and in the LXX (Num 11:4, Num 11:18; Deu 8:3, Deu 8:16 of the manna; and often). In class. Grk. it is used of feeding children and young animals with ψωμοί, ‘morsels’ (freq. in LXX): ψωμίον, ‘sop,’ Joh 13:26. Si distribuero in cibos pauperum (Vulg.), insumam in alimoniam (Calv.), insumam alendis egenis (Beza).

κἄν παραδῶ … ἵνα καυθήσομαι. ‘And (even) if I deliver up myself to be burned.’ Literally, ‘deliver up my body, so that I shall be burned.’ In the N.T. ἵνα is often used where result is prominent and purpose in the background. It expresses a “purposive result,” the subjective intention shading off into the objective effect; and hence the use of the future: 9:18; Gal 2:4; Joh 7:3, Joh 17:2, etc. True love, as he proceeds to show, does not need the supreme crises which call for the sacrifice of all that one possesses or of one’s life,—a sacrifice which might be made without true love: it manifests itself at all times and in all circumstances. Sacrifices made without love may profit other people, but they do not profit the man himself. Non charitas de martyrio, sed martyrium nascitur ex charitate (Primasius). St Paul is not thinking of burning as a punishment, which it was not, nor of the branding of slaves, but of the most painful death which any one can voluntarily suffer. It was from this text that Dr. Richard Smith, Regius Professor of Divinity, preached at Oxford beforethe burning of Ridley and Latimer, 16th October 1555. Comp. παρέδωκαν τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν εἰς πῦρ (Dan 3:28, Theod. 95), which may be in the Apostle’s mind, and πυρὶ τὸ σῶμα παραδόντες, of the Indians (Joseph. B.J. VII. viii. 7).

In each of the three suppositions we have a different result: ‘I produce nothing of value’ (v. 1); ‘I am of no value’ (v. 2); ‘I gain nothing of value’ (v. 3). The man who possessed all the gifts mentioned might be useful to the Church, but in character he would be worthless, if the one indispensable thing were lacking. The gifts are not valueless, but he is.

It is by no means certain that καυθήσομαι (D E F G L Latt. Syrr. Arm. Aeth. Goth., Method. Bas. Tert.), to which καύθήσωμαι (C K , Chrys.) give additional support, is the right reading. The evidence for καυχήσωμαι (א A B 17, Aegyptt., Orig. Lat. MSS. known to Jer.) is very strong, and WH. (App. p. 117) argue strongly in favour of it. Clement of Rome (Cor. lv.) may be referring to the passage with this reading when he says, “Many gave themselves up (ὲαυτοὺς παρέδωκαν) to slavery, and receiving the price paid for themselves fed (ἐψώμισαν) others.” If καυχὴσωμαι be adopted, it belongs to both clauses, not to the second only; ‘If I should doleaway my goods in alms, and if I should give up my very body, all for the sake of glory, while I have no love, I am not a whit the better.

But, as in the case of μεθιστάνειν (v. 2), we must consider more than the external evidence. Which would the Apostle be more likely to write, and which would be more likely to be changed by a copyist? ‘Surrender my body,’ without saying how or to whom, is and unlikely expression. In the two preceding verses nothing is said about the presence of an unworthy motive, but only the absence of the one indispensable motive. And the introduction of the unworthy motive spoils the all-important ‘and have no love.’ No need to say that, if the motive is self-glorification. If the thought of Dan_3. might have led a copyist to change καυχήσωμαι into καυθήσωμαι, it might equally well have led the Apostle to write καυθήσωμαι or καυθήσωμαι: comp. ἔσβεσαν δύναμιν πυρός (Heb 11:34). And if the original reading had been καυνχήσωμαι, would not καυθήσωμαι have been a more common reading than καυθήσομαΐ Cyprian twice quotes, si tradidero corpus meum ut ardeam, caritatem kauten non habeam (Tesi. iii. 31 De cath. eccl. unil. 14), and the author of the tract on Re-baptism (13) has etsi corpus meum tradidero, ita ut exurar igni, dilectionem autem non habeam.

The attractive suggestion of Stanley (p. 231) and of Lightfoot Colossians, p. 156, ed. 1875; p. 394. ed. 1892) that St Paul is thinking of “the Indian’s tomb,” with its boastful inscription, which he may have seen at Athens, confirms the reading κανθ. rather than καυχ., but it suits either. The tomb was still to be seen in Plutarch’s time (Alexander 69), and the inscription ran thus; “Zarmano-chegas, an Indian from Bargosa, according to the traditional customs of Indians, made himself immortal, and lies here” (ἐαυτὸν ἀπαθανατίσας κεῖται). He had burnt himself alive on the funeral pyre. But it is more likely that St Paul would think of Jewish examples (1 Macc. 2:59).

Ψωμίζω (K) for Ψωμίσω (א A B C D, etc.) is the correction of a copyist who did not see the significance of the aorist.

With οὐδὲν (B C D F K L, not οὐθέν, א A) ὠφελοῦμαι, comp. Mat 6:1, Mat 6:7:22, Mat 6:23, Mat 6:16. Mat 6:26.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Bestow [ψωμισω] . 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 [ινα καυθησωμαι] . 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.).

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 ἀντίληψις, 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 ψωμίζω, but the aorist: ψωμίσω. The second denotes a summary gift bestowed once for all; the first would apply rather to a continuous giving day by day; ψωμίζειν, 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 ἵνα, 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 καυχήσωμαι, that I may glory. Either the copyists have read χ for θ, 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 καυθήσωμαι of C K (future subjunctive) and καυθήσομαι 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 ἵνα 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 κενόδοξοι ἄνθρωποι. 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 οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι, it profiteth me nothing, is here substituted for the οὐδὲν εἰμί, 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 καθ᾿ ὑπερβολήν 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.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.