One of the most well-known texts in the New Testament--perhaps the most well-known—is 1 Cor 13. This text is often read at weddings because of its focus on love or, more specifically, the kinds of behavior love prompts and the kinds of behavior love restrains. It’s ironic, really, that this text is read at weddings and on other happy occaisons, since contextually, the chapter is at its core a chastisement of the Corinthian church’s lack of love which manifested itself in division among its members. As Garland (1 Corinthians, BECNT, 607-8) rightly notes,

Since virtually every behavioral problem at Corinth is mentioned in vv. 4–7, Paul seems to say that the real problem is their lack of love, for love does not behave in the way they do. The section becomes quite ironic, because while Paul is praising love, he is at the same time blaming the Corinthians.

Though I believe this interpretation is correct, it begs the question, What is meant by "love" (ἀγάπη)? How, as far as we can tell, would the inhabitants of the ancient circum-Mediterranean world and, specifically, the early Christians have thought of "love"? Here is an instance where social-scientific criticism can help us out. Social-scientific critics are interpreters who draw on social-scientific models and methods, especially those that fall under the umbrella of cultural anthropology, to help answer questions such as the one at hand. [Incidentally, it is equally as important to define "faith" and "hope" as well. Interpersonally, these terms communicate the values of "loyalty/reliability" and "trust," respectively, as social-scientific critics have helped us come to understand.]

Malina ("Love," in Handbook of Biblical Social Values, 127–30 [cf. also Malina and Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul, 375–76]) explains that in the group-oriented culture of the early Christians’ world, love is "the value of group attachment and group bonding"; thus, "to love someone is to be attached and bonded to the person" (Malina, Handbook, 127) and/or their group (Malina & Pilch, Letters of Paul, 376). Among the group of believers, love is, as Margaret Mitchell describes it, "the mortar between the bricks of the Christian building" (Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 171).

By contrast, to "hate" a person is to dissociate or detach oneself from that person and the group to which they belong, or to treat that person and his or her group with indifference (Malina & Pilch, Letters of Paul, 376), which is "perhaps the strongest negative attitude that one can entertain in Mediterranean interpersonal relations (see, e.g., Rev 3:16)" (Malina & Pilch, Letters of Paul, 376).

That 1 Corinthians is at its heart concerned with group attachment, bonding, and loyalty—unity, if you prefer—Paul makes crystal clear at 1 Cor 1:10, which some scholars consider the "thesis" of the letter (NOTE: letters between two ^’s indicate footnotes):

Now, brothers and sisters, I urge you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all would say the same ^a^ and that divisions would not exist among you, but that you would be restored ^b^ in the same mind and in the same purpose. ^c^

Having set this stage, Paul then deals with various issues plaguing the Corinthian congregation, all of which are manifestations of "hate" and not of "love." Here are a few:

- judging one another on the basis of self-aggrandizing "wisdom of this age" (1 Cor 1–4)

- complacency regarding sexual deviance (1 Cor 5:1–8)

- "religious" squabbles over food and dining (1 Cor 8:1–13)

- division on the basis of charismatic gifts (1 Cor 12–14)

As you can see, the "love chapter" appears in the section of the letter where Paul addresses factions that arose because the Corinthian believers were honoring certain charismatic gifts above others (especially speaking in tongues). Paul reminds the Corinthians that each of the gifts were given by the one Spirit for the purpose of building up the one body of believers (cf. 1 Cor 12:4–31).

1 Cor 13:1–3 function not merely as a segue into the description of group allegiance; they present a progressive comparison of charismata and agape (Malina & Pilch, Letters of Paul, 116). With five third class conditional structures in a row (i.e., if/then structures that present hypothetical situations, identifiable by the grammatical features), Paul makes clear that the unity of the group—love—is more valuable than any of the gifts. In fact, the way Paul argues it, exercising the gifts without love is empty and worthless and, thus, has no power to maintain group cohesion.

In fact, so important is the unity of the group that Paul even ranks love as more important than faith and hope!

νυνὶ δὲ μένει πίστις, ἐλπίς, ἀγάπη, τὰ τρία ταῦτα · μείζων δὲ τούτων ἡ ἀγάπη (But now these three endure: personal loyalty, enduring trust in another, group attachment; but the most important of these is group attachment. ^d^)

---

Notes:

^a^ The expression "say the same" (τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε) was "used of political communities which are free from factions" (Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul, 151).

^b^ ἦτε . . . κατηρτισμένοι, a perfect passive periphrastic construction (which is, thus, linguistically prominent) communicates "you would be in a completely adequate/proper condition" or "restored condition" (cf. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT, 43; LN 75.5).

^c^ Translation is my own.

^d^ Cf. Malina and Pilch, Letters of Paul, 376.