1 Corinthians 13:1-7

About agape love

1 If I speak the languages of men, even of angels,*I would say that this is an argument a fortiori, which being freely translated would be, "If I speak the languages of men, or even of angels (if there were such a thing)." Since angels are spirit beings (Hebrews 1:13-14) and do not normally have physical bodies (although they can materialize in our world), they do not have literal tongues and ears, and consequently do not use sound to communicate among themselves—I suppose they use some sort of thought transference (something we cannot do, at least not yet). The claim of any group that calls the gibberish they speak an angelic language I consider to be a plain falsehood, besides being a pitiful insult to the angels. but have not love, I have become a sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains,*Evidently it takes a special level or quality of faith to actually move a mountain, a level to which I myself have yet to attain. but have not love, I am nothing. 3 Even if I give away all my possessions and hand over my body to be burned,*We have here a rather bothersome set of textual variants. For those who can handle Greek I reproduce the statement of evidence from my Greek Text: καυθησομαι f35 (50.6%) OC ‖ καυθησωμαι C (44.7%) HF,RP,TR,CP ‖ καυθησεται (1%) ‖ καυθη (0.8%) ‖ καυχησωμαι 𝕻46(A,B (1.5%) NU ‖ καυχησομαι 048 (0.5%) ‖ four further variants (0.8%). Until 1991, when the collations for select variant sets done by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster, Germany appeared, statements of evidence presented the Future Subjunctive form (that of the Textus Receptus) as being attested by the heavy Byzantine majority. Since Greek grammar does not have a Future Subjunctive, there were those who made sport of the Textus Receptus for reproducing a nonexistent form—usually they were partisans of the Aorist Subjunctive form, that changes the verb and is attested by only 1.5% of the manuscripts (of objectively inferior quality). We now know that the real majority form is the Future Indicative, but since it immediately follows ινα, that usually takes the Subjunctive, many scribes may have made the change virtually without thinking. The verb ‘to boast’, as in the eclectic Greek text, is totally out of place here—how can you boast with love? but have not love, it profits me nothing.

Love described

4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy; love does not brag, is not proud, 5 is not indecent, is not self-seeking, is not ‘short-fused’, is not malicious;*All the negative qualities mentioned derive from self. 6 it does not take pleasure in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 it bears all, believes all, hopes all, endures all;*Wow! But presumably agape love is not blind; it starts out by bearing, believing, hoping and enduring, until confronted with objective contrary evidence. God is love, but He is not blind, and neither is He deceived.