1 Corinthians 13:3

“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 (1 Corinthians 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 (1 Corinthians 9:15; Galatians 2:4; 1 Peter 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 1 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 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, Colossians 3:14.