The division of the Chapter being so absurd, I could not refrain from changing it, especially as I could not conveniently interpret it otherwise. For what purpose did it serve to connect with what goes before a detached sentence, which agrees so well with what comes after — nay more, is thereby rendered complete? It is likely, that it happened through a mistake on the part of the transcribers. However it may be as to this, after having commanded that regard should be had chiefly to edification, he now declares that he will show them something of greater importance — that everything be regulated according to the rule of love. This, then, is the most excellent way, when love is the regulating principle of all our actions. And, in the outset, he proceeds upon this — that all excellencies (774) are of no value without love; for nothing is so excellent or estimable as not to be vitiated in the sight of God, if love (775) is wanting. Nor does he teach anything here but what he does elsewhere, when he declares, that it is the end of the law, and the bond of perfection, (Titus 1:5,) and also when he makes the holiness of the godly consist entirely in this, (Colossians 3:14,) — for what else does God require from us in the second Table of the Law? It is not then to be wondered, if all our deeds are estimated by this test — their appearing to proceed from love. It is also not to be wondered, if gifts, otherwise ex cellent, come to have their true value only when they are made subservient to love.
1. If should speak with the tongues of men. He begins with eloquence, which is, it is true, an admirable gift, considered in itself, but, when apart from love, does not recommend a man in the estimation of God. When he speaks of the tongue of angels, he uses a hyperbolical expression to denote what is singular, or distinguished. At the same time, I explain it rather as referring to the diversity of languages, which the Corinthians held in much esteem, measuring everything by ambition — not by fruit. (776) “Make yourself master,” says he, “of all the languages, not of men merely, but even of Angels. You have, in that case, no reason to think, that you are of higher estimation in the sight of God than a mere cymbal, if you have not love.”
(774) " Quelles qu’elles soyent;” — “Whatever they are.”
(775) Penn, in his Annotations, gives the following account of the term charity, as made use of in our English translation — “If the Latin version had not rendered αγαπη, in this place, by ‘ charitas ,’ instead of ‘ amor — love, ’ we should not have found the word ‘ charity ’ in our English version. But Wiclif, who only knew the Latin Scripture, adopted from it that word, and rendered, ‘and I have not charite. ’ When the knowledge of the Greek was acquired by our learned Reformers, the first revisers of Wiclif were sensible of the unsuitableness of this translation, and rendered this clause — ‘and yet had no love, ’ as it is printed in the ‘ Newe Testament in Englishe and Latin, of 1548;’ and they rendered αγαπη — ‘ love, ’ throughout this chapter. Our last revisers abandoned this sound correction of their immediate predecessors, and brought back the Latinising ‘charity’ of Wiclif, who was only excusable for employing that word, because he translated from a Latin text, in ignorance of its Greek original.” — Ed
(776) “ Par le fruit qui s’en pouuoit ensuyure;” — “By the fruit that might result from it.”