Tongues - Was it Always a Known Language?

Some people assert that Biblical speaking in tongues was always a language known to someone in the audience. The adjective unknown tongue, they point-out, is not in the original text.

Some also assert that the exclusive purpose of tongues was to serve as a sign to Jews from all around the world that the Gospel was also for the Gentiles whose languages they were allegedly now hearing being supernaturally spoken. There is not a single incident in the Bible, they claim, where speaking in tongues ever occurred without a Jew being present.

But Paul wrote that he that speakerh in a tongue speaketh not unto men but unto God, for no man understands him. Evidently then, it often happened even in the early Church that no-one in the audience understood a tongue that was being spoken.

If the gift of tongues was intended exclusively as a sign to Jews that the Gospel was also for the Gentiles, one would think that the Holy Spirit would make sure that He always and only gave speakers of tongues utterance in tongues that happened to be already known by Jews in the audience. But instead Paul implied that it often happened that no-one in the audience understood the tongues that were being spoken.

One of the gifts of the Spirit is the interpretation of tongues. If the tongues that were being given were always tongues that were already known by Jews in the audience, and if the exclusive purpose of speaking in tongues was to serve as a sign to those Jews, then one would think that there would never be any need for the supernatural gift of interpreting tongues. The fact that the supernatural gift of interpreting tongues was needed is evidence that very often no-one present - not even Jews from abroad - understood the tongues that were being spoken.

Paul also said that if no interpreter was present, the speaker of a tongue could pray that he could interpret, or else refrain from speaking publicly in the tongue and instead speak to himself and to God. Most of the members of the Corinthian church to whom Paul gave these instructions were Gentiles. Seeing it was possible that these Gentiles speak in tongues to themselves and to God without anyone listening, it means it wasn't necessary for Jews to always be present before speaking in tongues could serve a valid purpose.

The instructions which Paul gave concerning the public use of tongues, interpreting, and private use of tongues meant that there was a valid use for tongues even when no-one was present who might be able to understand the tongue.

Even in the event that the speaker of a tongue gave the interpretion of the tongue (because no other interpreter was present), as Paul suggested - even then, it couldn't serve as a convincing sign to Jews, since no-one present could attest to the accuracy or otherwise of the interpretation.

Paul mentioned a scenario where potentially everyone in a meeting could be speaking in tongues, and warned that if this action was to be taken, and an unbeliever walked in, the unbeliever would think they were mad because no-one was understanding. If the Holy Spirit gave tongues only to serve as a sign to unbelieving Jews, then this scenario wouldn't have been possible, and Paul's advice would have been uneccessary. It wouldn't have been possible for them to speak in tongues before an unbeliever had walked in. The Holy Spirit would have given them utterance to speak only when Jews were already in the meeting.

Or if He did give them the ability to speak even though a Jew was not present, then when the unbelieving Jew did eventually happen to walk in on the meeting, instead of thinking they were mad because no-one understood, he should have heard a language known to himself. But this isn't what was happening - instead, it was potentially happening that unbelievers including Jews were not understanding the tongues they were hearing - or else Paul's instructions were superfluous.

Paul said that if no-one understands a tongue and no interpreter is present, the speaker could speak to himself and to God. That shows a valid private use for tongues even when it's not understood and even when it's not serving as a direct sign to Jews.

Evidently then it was the exception rather than the rule that Jews sometimes understood a tongue that was being spoken. Most of the time they did not understand it, which is why Paul's instructions (concerning interpreting, or speaking instead to oneself) were needed.

But as for the sign aspect to tongues - if Jews needed that sign then, do Jews no longer need that sign? Of course they still do. The value of tongues as a sign hasn't ceased.

As for instructions on how to begin speaking with tongues, the Bible says they spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance. So the Holy Spirit gives the utterance. But the Bible also says, "I will speak with my spirit". So our own will to begin speaking is involved too.

The Holy Spirit who gives the utterance, and our own will to co-operate with the Holy Spirit by faith, combine to enable us to speak with a tongue. That explains the process of how a person begins to speak in tongues.