Ok, I'm going to summarize some teaching for anyone actually interested in learning.
One of the common drumbeats you will hear about tongues is that it must me spoken in a natural language. People point to Acts 2 to validate this as we've seen in this thread. (This ignores the fact that the scripture says the tongues were
heard in a natural language, not necessarily spoken in it.)
Another common one, also seen on this thread, is that tongues must be interpreted, or they are not valid. They point to 1 Cor 14:13 for this.
Already we have an issue. If it's spoken in a natural language why would interpretation be needed?
We have two scriptures that are pretty plain that at first glance seem to contradict one another. But God cannot contradict Himself, nor can His word. The answer to this problem lies in 1 Cor 12 where it calls the gift "different kinds of tongues" or diversities of tongues. Natural language only folks try to make that mean different natural languages. Interpretation only folks do something similar. But, what it actually means is that there are different types/manifestations/variations of the supernatural gift of tongues. How do we know this? Because as Paul continues the very same letter he wrote "different kinds of tongues" he goes on to describe 3 major variations.
Paul continues in 1 Cor 13 to give us the proper motivation for operating in the gifts... love. He then continues in 1 Cor 14 to talk mainly about prophecy and tongues. 1 Cor 14:2 says he who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men, but to God, for none understands him (lowercase "h" meaning no one understands the speaker). Verse 4 says he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself. So here we see tongues that others including the speaker cannot understand which have a positive effect (edification). Notice there is no requirement here for the tongues to be interpreted, and they clearly are not a natural language.
Paul then goes on to write quite a bit about the value of tongues for interpretation in a corporate setting. The scripture that best illustrates the difference is 1 Cor 14:5:
I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.
Notice the word unless. This is not saying all tongues MUST be interpreted it is saying there is a different TYPE that CAN be interpreted, and that type provides greater value in a corporate setting because everyone can now understand and be edified.
Then in verse 22, after quoting Isaiah, Paul says, "Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers".
Wait a minute. Didn't he just say that tongues was not for men to understand, but to speak to God? Then he said it was good for tongues to be understood via interpretation so the church could be edified. The church is a body of believers. But here he is saying its not for believers but for unbelievers. If we took the strict one way only interpretation that so many people here promote that would really make Paul schizophrenic or something. He seems to contradict himself mere sentences apart... unless you remember he also wrote 1 Cor 12... "different kinds of tongues"
So what is the tongues for a sign to unbelievers? It's what we see in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost.
What we have here is 3 different major variations (there are other more minor sub types) that Paul is referencing. And what happens so often today in discussions just like this is people have witness one or have an understanding of one type but jump into a discussion about another type and start throwing around the thinly vailed insults we've already seen.
Now let's take it one step further. Forget about the specific verses and interpretations for a moment and ask yourself these questions:
- Would God let language stop Him from ministering to a group unbelievers?
- The power of life and death is in the tongue, right? So would God want to speak life over you personally?
- Likewise would God want to speak life over a corporate group of believers?
- Finally, is God capable of overcoming language barriers to accomplish the above?
The implied answer to all the questions is yes, and all of these things are consistent with God's heart, nature, ability and His Word. God is not going to limit tongues to accomplish only one of these things when He could expand them to accomplish all of them.
Again this is intended for anyone who is interested in actually learning about this, and this is only scratching the surface. If your goal is to pick it apart and argue, please just don't even bother.
