While researching my masters on the structure Ecclesiastes, I came across John Harvey's "Listening to the Text", where he sets the foundation for how one should and should not seek to understand and describe structures in texts. I found it immensely helpful (I say "chiasm" a lot less these days, preferring "ring structure" or "concentric symmetry"), but his interest is really in Paul's letters (and even then, his Hauptbriefe), so I couldn't make use of any examples, just the theory.
But now I'm in 1 Corinthians, I've been able to refer to some specifics in his book, and while he's sceptical about the second structure (because of a lack of linguistic parallels), his suggestion for the third is pretty convincing. So I'll suggest my own for the first, and develop his (rejected) one for the second, and also show a bigger picture one which I think is helpful.
Bookends, 12:31; 13:13
Beginning at the end then, it's noteworthy that the end of 1 Corinthians 12 finishes with Paul telling the Corinthians that they should rather desire the "greater" (μείζονα) gifts. He then goes on to discuss love, what it is and what it isn't, which seems so out of place that Conzelman for instance suggests ch13 is an interpolation, or has been dislocated from perhaps after ch12. However, after mentioning faith, hope and love, he returns to the word "greater" (μείζων) to describe love in comparison with faith and hope. I think it's fair to say that love, and ch13 as a whole, is the governing principle for the wider unit chs12-14. As good as prophecy, tongues and the other charismata are, it is love which must govern and order their use.
Life without love, 13:1-3
The first section, vv1-3 is just three parallel phrases, beginning Paul's use of triplets in this passage (see also v8, 13). These three verses all have three parts:
- If I am x
- But I have not love
- I am y
Where x is something which could be good, but is probably used to boast in their context, and where y is something not so great: in v1 it is an annoyance, in v2 it is nothing, and in v3 it gains him nothing.
This ties well back to the issues brought up in chs1-4, where the Corinthians are boasting and getting in fights over the wrong thing. Here too, while Paul thinks tongues are great, as is prophecy and great faith and gospel-centred priorities, these things without love are nothing. Instead of things that are not becoming things that are, here they are inverting that, turning things that are into nothing.
What love does/doesn't, 13:4-7
Harvey's issue with any paragraph-wide structure here is the lack of lexical parallels. Which is fair enough. But what we do have are four sections which are each tightly contained, and together forms something of an ABBA structure.
Love is patient
Kind is loveLove doesn’t:
get jealous,
brag,
puff up,
dishonour,
self-seek,
get provoked,
record wrongsLove doesn’t rejoice in evil
but
does rejoice with the truth.Love always protects,
always trusts,
always hopes,
always perseveres.
Note there is a legit chiasm in the first verse (v4a), and then a list of "doesn'ts" (v4b-5), then a contrast between οὐ χαίρει and συνχαίρει, while finally the passage crescendos with a four-fold πάντα. So while there aren't bracketing words or structures to this section, the movements between each sections, with the positive outside and negative inside, I think holds this section together well as a "what love does/doesn't".
Love outlasts, 13:8-13
Finally in the last section there is a more legit concentric ABCDCBA structure, complete with a bookend of ἡ ἀγάπη (v8,13), but also alternating sets of contrasts.
8a Love never ends
8b–d Prophecies, tongues, knowledge will cease
9–10 In part? Won’t matter
11 Children will grow up
12 In part? Will be fully
13a Faith, hope, love will endure
13b Love is the greatest
In summary then, I think ch13 holds together well, in three clear sections, with three clear ideas in each. Each of the three sections hold together tightly and make it clear both where the Corinthians should aspire, but also where they are failing, which makes all the more sense as they reflect on the state of their public worship in the chapters either side.
If you're interested in structure, you should check out John Harvey's book. Here is my goodreads review if you want some more thoughts.