Like I said, I'm no Greek scholar, so I'll defer to your greater knowledge in this area. If the original Greek is better translated as “seething with envious and contentious rivalry” rather than jealousy then I'll bow to your greater wisdom here. Pity that no Biblical translators have rendered it this way as envious and jealous are interchangeable these days. Perhaps the next translation to suit more modern language conventions will correct this point of misunderstanding. We shouldn't have to be Greek scholars to understand the Bible right?

Thanks for your reasoning re the record keeping of God and its relation to love. You clarified well what I was trying to get at with one of my options here. That this is a quality of love that God has for his children, not everyone.

When it comes to which method of translation best “resembles the original Greek text as written by the apostles,” there are strong, compelling arguments on both sides. And I’m quite aware of those arguments. There are good reasons for preferring the ‘formal equivalence’ method, and there are good reasons to prefer the ‘functional equivalence’ method. And there are translations which combine the formal and functional together in order to capitalize on the strengths of both (e.g., NIV). I respect and admire the NAS too, Adam. Don’t get me wrong. I forked out good money to own one. There are three Bibles which I wear out: the New American Standard (formal, for serious study), the New Living Translation (functional, for simple reading), and the New International Version (hybrid, for discourse).

But when it comes to what some word means, I do not rely on any translation. Instead, I consult lexicons and commentaries by scholars trained in the original languages and theologians qualified in scriptural exegesis, and then compare how the different Bibles translated the word in its context. Contrary to the statement you made, I don’t rely on a sort of “consensus vote using the other translations” to find out what the word means. The only thing I was intending to point out with my list was that, in this case, the NAS is in the minority, that most translations render it ‘envious’—which, as the lexical and exegetical support indicated, better captures the original word meaning. I think you got distracted by my list of Bible translations, and missed that my argument was drawn from (a) the original Greek, (b) the context of the passage, (c) the consistency of God’s character, (d) what various commentaries have to say about this chapter, (e) and the overall biblical view of love. I could have listed the lexical and exegetical support I had uncovered, but I thought simply mentioning them would suffice (since you have some experience with my typical thoroughness). See here for example.

As for arguing from formal equivalence, do notice that the list of Bibles that translated the word as ‘envious’ included several formal equivalence translations. Yes, the NAS is from the formal equivalence school, but so is the ESV, KJV, DRB, etc., which seemed to agree that the word ‘envious’ better captured the original word meaning. If one wishes to argue from formal equivalence, then those translations would need confronting.

On comparing ‘jealous’ versus ‘envious’

Is jealousy a quality of love? In the biblical context (as a revelation of, and from, God), yes, it certainly is. It is out of God’s love for us that he wills for our best, which will call upon his jealousy for our reverent obedience and worship because what else but God our Sovereign and Redeemer could constitute our best? So his jealousy stems from his love for us, an ‘agape’ that sacrificially strives for what is best for us. Ergo, when the attention and affection of God’s children drift toward other things away from God, his jealousy springs forth out of his ‘agape’ love because we are plunging into something that is contrary to our best.

Is seething with envious and contentious rivalry (Gk. οὐ ζηλοῖ) characteristic of love? No, and nor is it characteristic of God. So given the lexical and exegetical evidence, the English phrase “is not jealous” wasn’t entirely the best choice, and maybe the other translations captured the meaning best using the phrase “does not envy” (including those formal equivalence translations). For dead-on accuracy, use the Greek οὐ ζηλοῖ. For English-speakers, “does not envy” is arguably closest.

Love and records of wrongs suffered

True, the Bible is written to believers. But it also tell us much about unbelievers, about their standing before God and what he does with them, and about the character and nature of God. A lot of that is central to the relevance and importance of the gospel. We know that the Bible tells us God keeps a record of their sins. Yes? It also tells us that God is characterized by agape love (ἀγάπη, 1 John 4:8). Yes? And it tells us that agape love does not keep a record of wrongs suffered. Yes? So it tells us all of these things, including how to reconcile the curious tension.

God is not characterized by only love (despite the emphasis by some Christians). He is also a God of perfect justice. Although the Bible says that love does not keep a record of wrongs suffered, it also tells us that perfect justice certainly does. The reason why God does not keep a record of our sins is because his justice on that account has already been fully satisfied by the substitutionary atonement of Christ Jesus. Our sins were imputed to Christ, who bore perfectly the full weight of God’s wrath against them, while Christ’s righteousness was imputed to us, by which we will share in the glorification his perfect obedience merited. That is the very means by which God is able to be merciful to us, that sacrificial agape love God has for his sheep, the names of whom are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Those who are not his sheep do not believe. And those who do not believe remain under his just wrath. They have no desire for God, they want nothing to do with God, and so the penalty due for their sins remains outstanding. His justice on their accounts has not been satisfied; Christ laid down his life for the sheep, not the goats. So God’s love for the sheep does not keep a record of their sins; they were paid in full. But his justice against the goats does keep a record of theirs; that debt was not paid. God knows those who are his, and they know him (2 Tim. 2:19; John 10:27; Luke 13:5; 1 John 2:4). On the other hand, the goats do not know him and neither does he know them. Because his justice on their accounts has not been satisfied, he cannot withhold what they deserve (mercy) and so the day of his just wrath awaits them, which will be executed from the complete record of their sins.

Anyhow this is off topic as we are talking about record keeping. God keeps records but love does not. So my question is: Is the standard of love found in 1 Cor 13 a reflection of the love found in God? Or is it the standard that God expects us to keep. A bit like some of God’s commands which are unrelated to His character. For example the food and dress commands given to the Jews in the OT. I don’t know.

Perhaps, since the Bible is written to believers, this is only applicable to God’s children like I said. Love among believers does not keep records? This to me removes any dissonance with Rev 20. 1 Cor 13, along with the rest of the Bible was written to God’s children. The entirety of the Corinthian letters seems to be Church specific rather than world specific. Rev 20 is just explaining what happens to the world come judgment day.

Short of a better explanation, I’ll happily go with this one. If you have a better explanation like you alluded to earlier then I’m all ears.

As for the “jealous” part, the problem might be that you did not examine the original wording or compare it against alternative translations. Or if you did, you neglected to mention what you discovered from having done so. One of the first things I noticed is that only three translations rendered the word that way: NAS, RSV, and NLT. But in all the other main translations I checked (ESV, NIV, KJV, NKJ, ASV, DRB, YLT, ERV), including less common ones (ISV, BBE, WBT, WNT, WEB), the word was consistently translated into English as ‘envious’, which was captured in the text by a Greek word that essentially means to covet earnestly. The Darby Bible Translation chose to use an obsolete English word, ‘emulous’, which means “eager or ambitious to equal or surpass another,” or “characterized or prompted by a spirit of rivalry”—which corresponded quite well to the original Greek (seething with envious and contentious rivalry), the context of the passage, the consistency of God’s character, what various commentaries have to say about this chapter, and the overall biblical view of love.

Does God seethe with envious rivalry? No, and neither does love. But does God keep a record of wrongs suffered? Yes, absolutely. So if love does not keep a record of wrongs suffered, and if God is love, then what is the explanation for this record he keeps? We have a clear dissonance here.

You mentioned that God does not keep a record of our sins, as his children. I agree with you, but that is not what Revelation 20:11-15 has in view. That is describing the great white throne judgment, which does not include his children whose names are written in the book of life (i.e., a different book). This judgment is for the condemned, everyone whose name “was not found written in the book of life,” who are judged according to the record books of wrongs suffered. But love does not keep a record of wrongs suffered. So if God is love, how is it that he has these records?

God Himself says we are not to worship any other god. And that He is a jealous God.
When we read 'jealous', we automatically think of 'wanting something that is not ours'.
God is jealous (in this context) because another god (which doesn't even exist) is getting what BELONGS to God, which is our praise, time, love etc.
So God wants what IS in fact His.

The speaker gave an example of how you might be jealous if your wife/girlfriend was flirting with another man. You would be right to be jealous, because she 'belongs' to you, and not this other man.

This type of jealousy has more to do with Gods justice than His love.

It would also help to look into the original word for 'jealous' in the Corinthians passage. I vaguely remember something being said about how that word is difficult to translate and they just had to go with 'jealous'.

And finally, I'm not 100% sure the passage is talking about God's love per se, either. A lot of people seem to think so.
But wasn't the problem with that church that they were a little too into the whole chasing spiritual gifts and doing them and causing division between those who had certain gifts and those who didn't?

Paul says it is good to pursue the highest gift, but above all, people should pursue love. Which is why he writes his little rant in (I think) the chapter before that.

My first impulse was to check the wording of that verse and the context in which it is used. “…does not take into account a wrong suffered” in the context of Paul writing to the Corinthians concerning their problems. The Corinthians had much to be resentful because of what their fellow brethren had done (Lawsuits, eating all the food… etc). So Paul was defining love to them so that they would see that their behaviour was not loving. Now was Paul’s definition of Love a reflection of the attribute of love found in God? Possibly, or could it be the standard of love that God expects of us?

So, if this love is a reflection of God’s character, in what way does not taking into account a wrong suffered compliment the record keeping of Revelation 20. I’m thinking that when we experience God’s love He does not see our wrongs. He only see’s His Son in us. And when that happens He will “remember our transgressions no-more” Heb 8 and 10. So on judgment day when we stand before God, our wrongs are not taken into account because it will be Jesus standing in our place who has no wrongs to convict us. That’s how God’s love for us is applied. So God loves us by sending his Holy Spirit to us so that He does not see us anymore but rather His Son living in us.

I’m not sure how to reconcile the jealous one.

This is what has immediately come to mind. But I am open to other thoughts and am interested in what you came up with after your lengthy ponderings on the issue.