1 Corinthians 13:5

1 Corinthians 13:5. doth not behave itself unseemly [1] indecorously, unbefitting oneself and towards others unbecoming. There is in the Christian character a beautiful symmetry, instinctively suggesting what is befitting, and what is out of harmony with propriety and decency: it is sensitive to the amenities and courtesies of social intercourse.

[1] As a verb this word is used elsewhere only in 1 Corinthians 7:36, where it means “uncomely.” As a noun it is used only in the worst sense, as in Romans 1:27, “ that which is unseemly,” meaning ‘indecent.'

seeketh not its own is unselfish, disinterested (1 Corinthians 10:24; Romans 12:10). And who so eminent in this as our apostle himself next to Him “who, though He was rich, yet for our sakes became poor”? How often is this grace inculcated (1 Corinthians 10:33; 2 Corinthians 7:3, etc.); and yet even then, as alas still, rarely found noticeably among Christians (Philippians 2:21).

is not provoked. To distinguish this from long-suffering is not easy. But if we take long-suffering to denote the length of endurance, and this other the self-restraint required to practise it (Proverbs 14:29), we shall have the thing intended. “He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding,” and “is better than the mighty,” and “he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city” (Proverbs 14:29; Proverbs 16:32). It is Jehovah's glory to be “slow to anger,” a quality much dwelt on in the Old Testament (Nehemiah 9:17; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:3). In Christ this was exemplified in perfection (1 Peter 2:23; Isaiah 53:7). See also Proverbs 19:11; Proverbs 25:28; James 1:19.

imputeth not evil. Most modern critics take this to mean ‘taketh not account of evil' done by another, so as to harbour resentment on account of it. This seems to us unnatural, and the Authorised Version seems to us to give the true sense ‘imputeth not ill intention' or ‘motive.' This is the sense given by the Vulgate, which is here followed by all the old English versions (as also by Luther, Calvin, Beza, and Bengel). Love puts the most favourable construction on another's actions; while the absence of love is always indicated by the disposition, when any action is to be accounted for, of two motions always to fasten on the worst.