Verse 5 – or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

The description of love continues, now adding four more traits of what love is not.

Love is not “rude” (οὐκ ἀσχημονεῖ). The “noun σχῆμα refers to someth[ing] that has a pattern or form” and often “of a type that the public considers standard or laudable.”[1] With the α– prefix serving to negate this root idea, our verb points toward actions that defy accepted boundaries of behavior. The compounded form is used only two times in the NT, both in this letter. It has to do with defying either moral (7:36) or social (13:5) standards, or both.[2] Love conversely respects boundaries of socially acceptable behavior and speech. It avoids the outrageous and scandalous. Love does not look to shock, outrage, upset, shame, or create disgrace. Much of the entertainment industry depends on actions and speech embraced for no other reason than their shock value. Popularity in the world of social media requires acquiring each person’s next “click.” Each video must outdo the last. In such a world, social norms get in the way. Not only is love violated, it must be jettisoned for popularity and profit. Love, rather, does not seek attention and thus acts in quiet ways that do not create a stir or draw the spotlight.

Thus, in a related way, “It does not insist on its own way” (οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ ἑαυτῆς). More woodenly the phrase reads, “does not seek the things of herself.” The reflexive pronoun is feminine (ἑαυτῆς) matching up with the feminine noun “love” (ἀγάπη). Thus the KJV’s “seeketh not her own.” Paul exemplified this love when he used the verb earlier to confront the attitude, prevalent among the Corinthians, that one ought to be able to do all that is legitimate under the redemption in Christ. He commanded the Corinthians, “Let no one seek his own good [μηδεὶς τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ζητείτω], but the good of his neighbor” (1 Cor. 10:24) and testified “I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage [μὴ ζητῶν τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ σύμφορον], but that of many, that they may be saved” (v.33). Love does more than seek its own freedom. It seeks what is good for the other. This, Paul knew, the Corinthian believers were struggling to do. They demanded their rights, even if exercising those rights harmed other believers (9:1-27). They demanded their Christian “freedom,” even when the exercise of that freedom might damage a brother or sister in Christ (10:23-11:1). They gobbled up the best food during the love feast, grabbing up what they desired before others were well-nourished (11:20-21). But love “does not seek” those things which are only to one’s advantage. Love heeds the command to “seek [ζητεῖτε] to abound for the edification of the church” (14:12, NASU). As Paul will later assure them, “I seek not [οὐ . . . ζητῶ] what is yours but you” (2 Cor. 12:14).

Also, love “is not irritable” (οὐ παροξύνεται). The verb is compound made up of παρά (“beside”) and ὀξύνω (“sharpen” and as an extension “provoke”).[3] The passive voice indicates that stimulus comes upon one from one’s environment. The negation indicates that despite such sharp, pointed, and painful goads, love does not respond negatively. The suggested rendering, “it does not let itself be provoked,” brings this out well.[4] The only other use of the verb in the NT describes Paul as he waited for comrades in Athens. While detained his “spirit was provoked [παρωξύνετο] within him as he saw that the city was full of idols” (Acts 17:16). The cognate noun is used to describe the contention that arose between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:39) and positively in the exhortation “let us consider how to stir up [παροξυσμὸν] one another to love and good works (Heb 10:24). We cannot eliminate the sharp goads of life, but by God’s Spirit we can keep them from controlling our responses. Love practices self-control. As such it may appear to some as weak, unable or unwilling to respond with strength. But what the blind call weakness is power under the control of love.

Nor is love “resentful” (οὐ λογίζεται τὸ κακόν). The translators have compressed a four word phrase into one word. More literally and woodenly it might read, “no to count the evil.” But what does that mean? The adjective, used here with the definite article as a substantive, means “evil,” that which is “socially or morally reprehensible.”[5] It points to that which is “bad, with the implication of harmful and damaging.”[6] It is active evil. It is evil made personal and objective toward another. The definite article makes it specific and objective. It is “the evil” that comes to mind in the moment, and which threatens to inflame ill-will. This is not an imagined sleight, but an active, personal, historical act that does in fact exist. What does the lover do with those acts and the memories that they form? Love does not “take [it] into account” (NASU). It does not count it, enter it into a mental file, keep a record of it for later use. At its heart, the verb (λογίζεται) is mathematical, meaning to count, calculate, compute. By extension it then comes to describe the process of how one adds up one’s thoughts, reasons through them, and comes to conclusions. “The thinking in view arrives at sound conclusions that demand corresponding actions.”[7] The NLT comes closer to the original: “keeps no record of being wronged,” except it turns an adjective used as a substantive into a verb (lit., “the wrong” becomes “being wronged). The NIV is closer yet, “keeps no record of wrongs,” except that the adjective is singular and articular, (lit., “the wrong” rather than “wrongs”).

[1] BDAG, 1233.

[2] Friberg, 3989.

[3] BDAG, 5711.

[4] TDNT, 5:858.

[5] BDAG, 3878.3c.

[6] Louw-Nida, 88.106.

[7] NIDNTTE, 3:128.