I'm with annalex. I have no idea where you get this exegesis from. The word translated charity here is simply agapon, the usual Greek word for selfless love.
The important part is that under this interpretation, as I understand it, charity (or love) TRUMPS faith on earth. Works trump faith in salvation. I have often criticized Catholics for holding this view, and now it seems that it is being agreed to. :)
Instead of starting out with a theological position and reading it back into Scripture, why don't you form your theological ideas from Scripture -- all of it -- in the first place?
That's exactly what Reformers do; take our ideas from the totality of scripture. In this case a works-based faith clearly does match the totality of scripture. That totality teaches a faith-based salvation. Therefore, since this verse appears to contradict the much greater weight of evidence, it should be interpreted to match that. If, however, the greater weight of evidence was that if we all just do enough good works we will be saved, then this verse could stand alone in agreement.
That way, you don't need "reconcile" a verse by making it meaningless.
Well, there are clearly many verses in the Bible that appear to conflict on their faces. Since I refuse to declare any verses to be "wrong", I don't see any other option than to reconcile them. I have seen tons of examples of Bible verses being reconciled to match the theology the Church has developed.
I would submit that Catholicism reconciles FAR more verses than Reformers do since it is the Church's theology that must be matched. We just say that everything must match the greatest weight of other scripture. So, if the Bible is a fundamentally sound and consistent Book, then we do not need to veer away from plain meaning very often. It does happen, but less for us because we don't have to match Mariology, or praying to saints, or papal infallibility, or some sacraments, etc., etc. All of those must be back matched to the scriptures. The result is the reconciling that you are talking about that, in my opinion, renders many passages meaningless, as you say.
The standard response I get to this is that the belief was first and the writing came second. If true, then the Bible is necessarily the MOST enigmatic volume ever written in the history of literature in terms of what we need. It would necessarily mean that the Bible was NOT intended to be a direct revelation to God's people. I can't accept that, but I know the Church probably has other ideas.
BTW, Paul's point here is simply that agape continues into heaven, and is therefore greater than faith or hope, which aren't needed in heaven. It goes without saying that he thinks all three are necessary here on earth.
I would think that would match the substance of my original point; that love is called greater here because it encompasses more, i.e. God's love for us in Heaven in this case. We didn't say exactly the same thing, but I would take this as a basic agreement. :) I said love in the macro sense. That includes both love on earth and Heavenly love, just as you said. By Alex's post, I thought the Catholic view was that the love spoken of in this verse only applied to the love by people showed in their selfless acts, "charity".
But not salvation by faith alone, as the scripture clearly tells us. It is not a matter of reconciling verses that could be read in a variety of ways: the salvation by faith alone is expressly contradicted by scripture, in a passage that is solely devoted to that question, and in language that couldn't be plainer.