Maximizing Your Yield

If God’s people would, you can
be turning to 1 Corinthians 14. We’ll actually start there this
week. There’s a phrase that I first
heard, I think, in the context of farming. from somebody or those people
that were in one of our first churches. Farmers often speak
of maximizing their yield, and by that they’re referring to
the eventual harvest of crops, and obviously they are desirous
of maximizing what is harvested. There are a great many things
that can affect a farmer’s crop, water and fertilizer and weather
and insect activity. And so the farmer is in an almost
constant battle to get the most out of his harvest. It’s too bad that Christians
don’t think in those terms. They just don’t. They’re too
engaged in farming of sorts, harvesting as well, without a
thought in their mind of increasing that harvest. They don’t often
ponder how to maximize their yield. Please hear me, I am not
crassly thinking only of souls, although there is an element
of truth to the application of harvesting even there. But I’m
thinking much more basically about the return on investment
of our God-given gifts. We don’t tend to think about
maximizing our yield. We don’t often consider how we
might be more fruitful in the exercise of our gifts. We should. And here in 1 Corinthians 14,
Paul wants to address the matter of increasing our effectiveness
in the exercise of our gifts. And so if you’re in 1 Corinthians
14, that is where we’ll begin today. We’ve embarked here in
this final portion of Paul’s discussion of spiritual gifts. The Corinthians greatly needed
and much desired this discourse. They asked for it. And Paul was
only too happy to take up this subject. Paul opens the chapter
with some spiritual instruction of his own by encouraging the
Corinthians to desire the spiritual gift of prophecy. Pursue love,
he says in verse one, yet earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially
that you may prophesy. We considered that passage last
week, and having set prophecy as a gift before them, he proceeds
to show the superiority over prophecy, even over the spectacular
gift in tongues that the Corinthians were so enamored with. And Paul
does so, as we saw last week, by a simple syllogism, reasoning
that presents a series of propositional truth together with a stated
conclusion. You remember this. The first
proposition that Paul advances is that spiritual instruction
is for people, not God. Verse two says it this way, one
who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God. But
one who prophesies speaks to men. That’s Paul’s first point.
The true spiritual instruction is for people, not God. Paul
addresses the second portion of his syllogism, the second
principle, his propositional truth in verse four, is that
one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but one who prophesies
edifies the church. The second portion of his syllogism
is that spiritual instruction edifies the hearers, not the
speaker. And that naturally leads to the
conclusion of his syllogism in verse five. Spiritual instruction
is for people, not God. Spiritual instruction edifies
the hearers, not the speaker. Therefore, spiritual instruction
is of greater value. Or as Paul stated it, greater
is the one who prophesies than the one who speaks in tongues.
The gift of prophecy is greater, more beneficial, more productive,
more fruitful than the gift of tongues. And it’s not only that
such communication is directed to people, that was one of Paul’s
arguments, but that prophecy is more productive, it accomplishes
something. It provides edification, the
building up of God’s people. It provides exhortation, the
necessary address of God’s people. whether encouragement or admonition,
and then it also provides consolation, gracious comfort to a hurting
believer. No matter its particular expression,
prophecy is a powerful and productive gift for the church. And if all
of those things are true, then no wonder that Paul should open
that section by urging the believers to desire earnestly the gift
of prophecy. And so prophecy, Paul says, is
greater, and therefore to be earnestly sought. And based on
Paul’s understanding of the situation there in Corinth, He knew that
those with the gift of tongues, or better, those who thought
they had the gift of tongues, were not going to cease that
activity quietly, just at the mere suggestion that prophecy
was a superior gift. This was, after all, a deep-seated
and very emotionally charged controversy in Corinth, and so
Paul seeks to enhance his case that prophecy is greater than
tongues. And he does so here in verses
six through 12 with a series of arguments. If God’s people
would, I want to take this passage from the beginning and we’ll
course down through verse 12, just so you have it in a bit
of context. 1 Corinthians 14 beginning in
verse 1, Pursue love, yet earnestly desire spiritually gifts. Pardon
me, but especially, I’m going to start completely over. Pursue
love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you
may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue
does not speak to men, but to God. For no one understands,
but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. But one who prophesies speaks
to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks
in a tongue edifies himself, but one who prophesies edifies
the church. Now, I wish that you all spoke
in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy. And greater
is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless
he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying. But now,
brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit
you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge
or of prophecy or of teaching? Yet even lifeless things, either
flute or harp, in producing sound, if they do not produce a distinction
in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute
or the harp? For if the bugle produces an
indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So also you,
unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will
it be known what is spoken? for you will be speaking into
the air. There are perhaps a great many kinds of languages in the
world, and no kind is without meaning. If then I do not know
the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks
a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to
me. So also you, since you are zealous
of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church. You likely grasped there in that
reading, even though a brief and quick read through, that
Paul is setting forth a series of arguments focused on that
secondary gift of tongues. It’s not that he’s picking on
it because Paul will even acknowledge that he too spoke in tongues,
but I say secondary because that is effectively what Paul did
in the opening verses of that chapter. He put tongues in a
secondary position. He implied it in verse one when
he said, desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you
may prophesy. And then as we saw last week,
he set forth that syllogism concluding that spiritual instruction is
of greater value, verse five. And so that’s why I’m referring
to tongues as a secondary gift. They were destined in time to
pass away and there were greater gifts available to the church
even at that time. And here in the passage before
us, verses 6 through 12, Paul sets forth three arguments that
contrast the effectiveness with tongues with the effectiveness
of prophecy. And here is Paul’s basic premise. that if we are Christians, not
only do we wish to be used by the Lord in the service of His
church, but we want that service to be maximized. We want to maximize
our yield as believers. We want to be used to the utmost.
And so if we would maximize our yield in the investment in other
people’s lives, in the investment or in the use of our gift, then
we must pay close attention to Paul’s instruction here in this
chapter. Maximizing your yield, that’s
our goal, that’s our desire as believers. And the first thing
that Paul argues is that if we would maximize our investment
in other people’s lives, then our language must first and foremost
be beneficial. It must be beneficial. we must
articulate something that is profitable for those who hear. Go back, if you would, to verse
six. But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what
will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation
or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? Paul opens with
this initial argument with a hypothetical that is not so hypothetical.
Allow me to explain that, if you would. Paul very evidently
possessed the gift of tongues. Some of you, that’ll surprise
you, but that’s right. Paul spoke in tongues. We don’t
know when or how often. Luke doesn’t even record any
instance of such in the book of Acts. During a visit to the
region around Ephesus, Paul met some converts, you might remember,
converts to Christianity who had not yet received the Holy
Spirit. Some of you will remember that
episode from our study in Sunday school. And Paul was instrumental
in having these people baptized, and that ultimately led to their
speaking in tongues. But even there, it doesn’t record
Paul as joining them in speaking in tongues. The closest thing
that we have to Paul speaking in tongues is his own admission
later in this chapter. Just glance down if you would
at verse 18. In verse 18, it just says that he spoke in tongues. He says there, I thank God I
speak in tongues more than you all. This was probably a frequent
exercise in Paul’s part. And so it wasn’t so hypothetical
for Paul to say, if I come to you speaking in tongues. It was
more than possible. But he quickly points out that
if that’s all there was to his visit with this outburst of expression
in a foreign tongue, there would be nothing for the hearers. If
I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you? How can
I maximize my yield if I’m just speaking to people in a foreign
language? That’s effectively Paul’s argument.
If all I did is bring you even the most fantastic message from
God Himself, if it was delivered to you in a foreign language,
what’s the use? That would be an almost cruel
thing to do to the listeners. What’s the value of a message
that you cannot comprehend? Now, just for a moment, It’s
a fun game since we had the children sing today. I wanna play let’s
pretend, let’s imagine. Let’s imagine for a moment that
you’re living in the first century and you’ve moved to Corinth within
the past year. There’s a very cosmopolitan place,
people coming and going all the time from throughout the world.
And by God’s good grace, you’ve met some people from that church
on a Friday night, and they lead you to Christ, and they introduce
you to their church. Soon after, they tell you about
the man who planted this church, a man named Paul, the one who
led them to the Savior, an apostle, a great evangelist, and a shepherd. And as your heart swells with
appreciation for this renowned man, they tell you he’s coming
to town for a visit. You should come and hear him
speak. But when Paul arrives, he has decided on that particular
day to deliver his remarks entirely in Urdu, the language of Pakistan. And although he speaks for several
hours, most of the people smiling and nodding, you have to admit you have no
idea what he said. He had a good pulpit presence.
He had a powerful voice. He seemed to have the gift of
rhetoric, complete with pauses, modulation, timely hand gestures,
But you couldn’t understand a single word that he said. To you, the
rest of the non-Urdu-speaking crowd, the discourse was pointless. Whatever Paul was to do, whatever
he was to say, it ought to be profitable to the hearers. Even
the most profound message sent from God himself without interpretation
would come off as no more than the ramblings of a lunatic. If
I were to come to you, he says, speaking some fantastic utterance
from God, but I do so only in a foreign tongue without any
interpreter, it does not, it cannot profit you. It’s pointless. and empty and
worthless, it does not benefit you in the least. And he proceeds
to tell them what would benefit them. Some revelation, a powerful
message from God clearly communicated to them. That would profit them.
I mean, how many pillars of fire would you have to see in your
lifetime, right? How many partings of the Red Sea would you have
to see in order to more closely follow the Lord? Revelation,
that would do it. Some measure of knowledge, he
says, a measure of understanding by way of instruction where Paul,
instead of speaking for two hours in Urdu, would speak to them
about the deep things of God from the Old Testament scriptures. or some prophecy, perhaps some
message from God derived from his word and laid out before
the hearers in all clarity. That would benefit them. The
fourth thing he says there, some teaching, some foundational doctrinal
discourse. That would be profitable. And
there are profitable things that are available to the saints,
but only if they’re spoken in an understandable language. All
of these forms of spiritual instruction are intelligible. They’re understandable
to the hearers. And any of these would be profitable. But a message in a foreign tongue
itself is not. What Paul seems to be alluding
here is that any of these four profitable elements could be
presented to them initially through the supernatural means of someone
speaking in tongues. That’s possible. But the only way to get to the
spiritually nourishing portion would be to have an interpreter
lay out the message to them. whether revelation or knowledge
or prophecy or teaching. Whatever we say to others, whatever we communicate, especially
to our brothers and sisters in Christ, it ought to be profitable. It ought to be beneficial to
them. But Paul goes further still. Not only should our communication
to others be beneficial, that is profitable, it should also
be clear. And for that point, look down
at verses seven through eight, seven through nine actually.
Our influence in other people’s lives,
our impact, our yield, if you will. If we’re going to maximize
that, then our language has to be beneficial and it has to be
clear. We must communicate something
that is understandable to those to whom we’re communicating.
Look at verse seven. Yet even lifeless things, either
flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction
in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute
or the harp? For if the bugle produces an
indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So also you,
unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will
it be known what is spoken? for you will be speaking into
the air. And here in verses seven through nine, Paul introduces
a second argument by means of an illustration that will be
familiar to anyone who has ever played a musical instrument.
Or if you’ve had someone in their household take up a musical instrument,
or if you’ve ever heard anyone practicing a musical instrument.
In other words, this is an illustration to which everyone can relate.
He introduces what he calls lifeless things, literally unsold. They don’t have a soul. And rather
than leaving us in some kind of theological conundrum, as
to what an unsold thing is, he tells us. It’s a lifeless musical
instrument. The musical instrument can do
nothing on its own. These instruments, what he points
to as a flute or a harp initially, they are inanimate, unsold objects. And he presents a couple of different
options for us to consider, a woodwind instrument and a stringed instrument. These are just representative
examples. It’s not that other musical instruments
have souls. No musical instrument has a soul. No instrument has life in itself. And Paul’s reference to them
is no more significant than that. Take for example, of lifeless things, he says,
the flute and the harp. When these are played, in producing
a sound, he says, if they do not produce a distinction in
the tones, how will it be known what is played? Now, once a year,
whether I need to or not, I back away from the New American Standard
and criticize it just a bit, and it’s a bit vague here, honestly.
It just translates these words as tones, a distinction in the
tones. Some other translations, and
maybe once a year I also give an advertisement for the ESV.
The ESV included translates this a little more helpfully here
as notes, musical notes. If even lifeless instruments
do not give distinct notes, how will it be known what is played?
And I think that’s much more helpful, but there’s much more
to music than just hitting the right note, or even hitting a
series of correct notes. There’s melody, there’s harmony,
there’s rhythm, and so much more. And I think that’s what Paul
is alluding to here, that one cannot just pick up an instrument
and blow into it or pluck away and make anything like real music. There must be distinct notes
and distinct timing and distinct pitch and order and all the rest. And here comes that familiar,
illustration I promised you a moment ago. You see, I have a neighbor. She teaches piano. And in the
summer months, when the windows are all open, it sometimes is
very pleasant to listen to her students playing their songs.
Sometimes. And I say sometimes because some
of the students at times are very much less accomplished.
And they often hit very sour notes, one right after the other. Their timing is off, their notes
are off, their rhythm is off, everything. You cannot really
tell in those moments what song is being played based on the
sound emanating from the piano. You know this? That’s quite unpleasant
to listen to, isn’t it? Such, Paul says, is someone who
comes speaking in tongues without any interpretation. It’s not
a song, but it’s a stream of sour notes. To use Paul’s illustration,
how will it be known what is played on the flute or the harp?
To the hearer, it is no song. There is no tune or timing or
rhythm at all. It’s just noise. And he implements
another illustration here in verse eight. This time, instead
of the flute or the harp, it’s the bugle. Now the bugle is a
brass instrument, you’ve seen it, shaped like a giant paper
clip with a bell on the end. It doesn’t have any keys, but
different notes can be played. The bugler is limited to about
five notes on the bugle, and forming the different notes with
his or her lips requires great skill. The special thing about
the bugle, as some of you know, is it is a particular instrument
used in the military. And the military does not use
the bugle for entertainment purposes, I’m told. The bugler plays songs
that have a specific purpose. And there are all kinds of different
military calls for which the bugle can be used. Some of us or some of these examples
are more historical. In other words, they’re no longer
in use, but they still will be familiar to us. There is what
is known as the first call, which functions like a brass alarm
clock. This is every soldier’s favorite.
This is the same song that is played immediately prior to a
horse race, if you’re familiar with that. Then there’s also
Reveille. Reveille, you would all be familiar
with, played at the early morning raising of the flag. There’s
also a bugle call for mess hall. This is the summons to clean
your room. Just kidding, just seeing if
you military folks are still awake. The Mess Call is the song
played for mealtime three times a day. There are all kinds of
other different songs. There’s the Guard Mount, the
Sick Call, Assembly, Drill, Retreat. And perhaps the most familiar
of all, Taps. Taps is played not only at the
end of each evening, but at a service person’s funeral as well. And you no doubt have heard all
of these particular bugle calls. And they would all be familiar
to us, whether you’ve served in the military or not, you’ve
heard them. The point is, the songs that are played, those
five notes, do not all sound the same. They are different
songs. They are distinct. there is a
set and specific purpose for each one of those songs. And
if so, if a bugle call is indistinct,
if it’s muffled or garbled, if it’s just noise, then it cannot
meet its intended purpose. And here is Paul’s simple point. If the bugle produces an indistinct
sound, who will prepare himself for battle? If instead of revelry,
what if the bugler woke up that morning and played the mess call
or taps? Worse yet, what if instead of
the call to charge, the hapless bugler played retreat instead?
This is Paul’s point. When he says, what if the bugler
produces an indistinct sound, he’s referring to the sound that
is unintelligible to the ear. It means nothing to the soldier.
One note sounds just like the other. You can’t even tell that
it is a song, let alone a particular song. The soldiers can’t tell
what it is. For all they know, it’s a third
grader that’s picked up the bugle and is merely amusing himself. The only other time this word
is used, indistinct, listen to this. The only other time it’s
used, it’s used by Jesus in Luke 11, 44, chiding the Pharisees. Woe to you, for you are like
concealed tombs. Our word indistinct is translated
there as concealed, hidden. You can’t even tell there’s a
grave there. So when the word is applied to
a bugle cry, you can’t even tell what song is being played. And
if the soldiers can’t understand what song they’re playing, what
is the point? Come to think of it, if you’ve
ever had a person pick up a trumpet and try it for the first time,
that’s about what it sounds like, isn’t it? It’s not a song. It’s
just a series of really uncomfortable notes. And that’s exactly what
it’s like for the hearers of someone speaking in tongues without
the crucial aid of an interpreter. It’s just noise. And in verse
nine, Paul moves to apply the lessons learned from these illustrations
from these musical instruments. So also you, he says, unless
you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be
known what is spoken? Now the word there translated
as clear, uttering speech that is clear, it’s a very rare word,
nowhere else in the New Testament. Basically, Paul is saying that
unless a person communicates clearly and accurately, they
will not bring others along. All three of the instruments
mentioned above were used, and they all made sounds such as
it was, but after all, it was an unpleasant, an unclear sound. Paul says, like a really bad
musician, Whether on strings or woodwinds or brass, if you’re
not clear, no one will understand and appreciate what it is you’re
saying. But here in verse nine, he’s not talking about music
any longer. Now it’s language. Now he’s referring
to verbal communication. The message, unless you utter
by the tongue, speech that is clear, Unless you speak clearly,
no one will understand or appreciate your message. Such a person will
not accomplish their communication goals. The listeners won’t even
know what you’re talking about. You might as well, he concludes,
be speaking into the air. Instead of the spoken word going
into the ear and into the mind and heart, It just flutters out
into space, into the air. You’re just whistling in the
wind, is what Paul says. We are to communicate that which
is beneficial and also that which is clear, but thirdly, we are
to communicate what is meaningful. And this is what he addresses
in verses 10 through 12. If we would maximize our investment
in believers’ lives, in the exercise of our gifts, then our language
must be beneficial, it must be clear, and it must be meaningful.
Look at verse 10. We must enunciate something that
is substantive. There are perhaps a great many
kinds of languages, and no kind is without meaning. If then I
do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one
who speaks a barbarian and the one who speaks will be a barbarian
to me. So also you, since you are zealous
of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.”
Would you glance back at verse 10? Verse 10 begins Paul’s third
argument, this time an argument for the significance of any given
message. It must be meaningful Because
unless a message is meaningful, it is relatively worthless to
the hearer. Paul’s focus, in contrast, is
still the gift of tongues. And ironically, Paul uses or
mentions here different types of language. as his fresh illustration. And it’s important to note here
that Paul is still using this word that we’ve seen earlier
in this passage, phonÄ“, sound. That’s the word that was used
in verse seven when he acknowledged that the musical instruments
generate a sound. The word is generally translated
as sound. But here, the context suggests
that Paul is referring to the sound of language. Just glance
at verse 10. There are, he says, perhaps a
great many kinds of sounds, languages in the world. Now that right
there is what’s known in literature as litotes, an intentional understatement. When Paul says there’s a great
many of languages in the world, you think? It’s an intentional
understatement. Perhaps Paul didn’t know or didn’t
have a really good estimate of the number of languages that
actually existed in first century Christianity, but the sense is
that this is said with an almost dry wit on Paul’s part. Perhaps
a great many languages It’s an intentional understatement, and
it’s difficult to imagine and estimate how many active languages
there were in first century. But linguists estimate that at
present, there are more than 7,000 different languages on
earth. But regardless of how many languages
there are, Paul states a truism here, something that’s true of
every language. Look at what he says. No matter
what language it is, English, Spanish, Japanese, Mandarin,
German, Arabic, and all the rest, all languages have meaning. That’s their function. All 7,000
plus languages are intended to communicate meaning. The communication
of meaningful thoughts and ideas is the very purpose of language. Paul says very directly, there
is no kind of language without meaning. Literally here, the Greek word
means soundless. And that thought right there
ought to capture our attention. What is soundless language? Of course, there’s sign language.
And there is such a thing as nonverbal communication. Paul
isn’t discounting those at all. What Paul is challenging here
is the existence of a language that communicates nothing at
all. unintelligible language, meaningless
language. What Paul is doing here is employing
a very effective oxymoron. As if to call it voiceless voice
or meaningless language. Language with no meaning is no
meaning, no language at all. A language that no one on earth
understands. when I was reading about languages
this past week, how many languages there are, what are the most
popular, I came across an article about a poor man, Amadeo Garcia
Garcia. He’s from a tiny village in Peru
and he speaks Toshiro. Anyone here? Because if you did,
you would be the only second person that still speaks Toshiro. The problem is he’s the last
person on earth that speaks that language. Can we even imagine
such a terrible thing as to have thoughts in our mind and desire
to communicate and not be able to do so? Not to have anybody
understand what it is you’re saying. But that’s what Paul’s
talking about here. Mr. Amadeo can speak, he does
have thoughts, he does speak a language, a real language that
communicates real thoughts. There just aren’t any people
alive that understand his language. And a language that does not
communicate with anyone can hardly be called a language anymore.
There are no languages, Paul says, that do not communicate
thoughts and ideas. That’s their very purpose. The
very idea is illogical. Language and meaning go hand
in hand. God is a God of communication
and He has a message, pardon me, if He has a message for an
individual or a church or humanity itself, it will be delivered
by way of language in a clear, understandable manner. And in verse 11, Paul builds
upon this illustration. Take for instance, he says, verse
11, the occasion where he comes across a person who speaks an
entirely different language. Look at verse 11, if you would,
please. If I then do not know the meaning of the language,
literally the power of the sound, I will be to the one who speaks
a barbarian. The picture he paints is this.
Along comes a man, and he has something very important to communicate,
but he comes across this individual who simply does not speak his
language at all. They stammer, and they make every
effort to understand one another. They even speak very slowly,
and they even speak a little more loudly. as if those two
things will help, but it’s to no avail. They simply cannot
understand one another. And to add a little color to
his picture, Paul injects, I believe, a little humor here. In this
situation, the purpose who does not understand the spoken language
is a barbarian. And he doubles down on this and
says that the hearer draws the same conclusion about the person
speaking. Well, he must be a barbarian.
Now, I need to be really careful here how I explain this. But
the word that Paul uses here is an onomatopoeia. Remember
eighth grade English? It’s a word that sounds like
what it represents. And the suggestion that Paul
gives here to someone who does not speak the language is that
it just comes off as sounding like bar, bar, bar, bar, bar,
bar, bar. I think the Beach Boys had a
song that went something like that. Well, the word came to
refer to a person from another land, another culture, who was
just perceived to be unrefined and uncivilized, a barbarian,
simply because they did not speak the same language. They didn’t
understand the person speaking. At minimum, the word came to
be used to refer to a stranger, a foreigner. And that’s what
Paul says is going on. That’s what’s going to be the
product of two people that don’t speak the same language and yet
come face-to-face with one another for the purpose of communicating. Now imagine that this face-to-face
meeting should occur in the context of church, during a worship service
perhaps. If someone suddenly begins to
speak in a foreign tongue and there’s no one there to interpret
the message, the language has no meaning at all to the hearers
and the two individuals or more are as barbarians to one another. Speaking in tongues is the speaking
of a foreign language. as we’ve seen, and if it’s done
without an interpreter, it would be unintelligible to those who
heard. Without an interpreter, a person
is just muttering soundless sound, meaningless language. See, the
gift of tongues must be a real language. The biblical gift of
tongues must be a real language that the speaker has never learned
or spoken. It’s a supernatural event. The
biblical gift of tongues must be interpreted. The biblical
gift of tongues must be an actual message, not just mere gibberish,
not just noise. The biblical gift of tongues
must be a message that does not in any way contradict scripture. The biblical gift of tongues
must be beneficial, clear, and meaningful. And so in verse 12,
as Paul concludes, and I take this conclusion as covering the
entire section, not just verses 10 and 11, but all the way back
to verse six and down through verse 11. In summarizing, Paul
applies his exhortations that our communication should be beneficial
and clear and meaningful. He gathers those thoughts into
one summary exhortation. So also you. Since you are zealous
of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.
This is the whole reason for gifts in the first place, right?
To edify the church, to build up God’s people. And this is
true not only of the supernatural sign gifts, tongues and prophecy
and healing and all the rest, It’s true of any spiritual gift.
Anything that does not do that is either no gift at all, or
it is a gift that is being improperly employed. And so the question
to us is simple. Do we desire to maximize our
yield? Do we desire to edify the church? in the use of our God-given gifts. And if that is our desire, there’s
no better way than to orient our counsel, our advice to others
from God’s word. Or to use God’s word when we
share the gospel. Or when you teach Sunday school,
you’re not teaching Sunday school if you don’t derive your message
from God’s word. If you’re discipling a brother
or sister in Christ, give them guidance and instruction from
God’s word. And if you’re comforting or encouraging
or admonishing a fellow believer, cite God’s word. That’s a sure
way to be profitable and edifying to the church. Would you humble
yourself before our Lord?