Were the tongues in 1 Cor. 14 real languages of particular people-groups?

When the disciples spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2: 1-13), it is undeniable that tongues meant known languages. The Jews of the dispersion say, “how do we hear [them] each in our own dialect in which we have been born …  we hear them speaking in our own tongues the great things of God” (vs. 8, 11)—and many people groups are named in vs. 9-11. When we come to 1 Cor. 14, however, some commentators say that word tongues there does not mean the language of a nationality, but an ecstatic, ‘spiritual’ utterance. At least part of the reason they argue this way is because of a need to explain the so-called ‘speaking in tongues’ that is now so prevalent in Christendom (although the modern phenomena is by no means confined to it). However, the Bible is its own interpreter, and so we must use Scripture to explain Scripture—rather than accommodate Scripture to what we may experience around us. The fact is, in the Bible, there is no hard evidence that tongues ever mean anything other than real languages as commonly understood. Of course, when the word tongue occurs in the singular (as in 1 Cor. 14: 9), it can refer simply to the physical organ—but the organ of what? Speech that is intelligible to someone somewhere! How could speaking in tongues be a sign (see v22) if it was simply noise? In Acts 2, those amazed at hearing the Word of God proclaimed in their native tongue ask, “What would this mean?” (v12, my emphasis), to which Peter then provides an answer. Yes, the Corinthians later misused the gift (probably to vaunt themselves in the assembly), but that is no grounds for suggesting that the word tongues there must be something other than known languages.

   Some draw attention to the expression ‘unknown tongue’ that occurs several times in the AV of 1 Cor. 14 (see vs. 2, 4, 13, 14, 19, 27) as if the apostle was speaking of something outside the realm of ‘known languages’, but the word unknown is not in the original text. Of course, Mark 16: 17 refers to speaking “with new tongues” but the word new does not have to mean any more than a language previously unfamiliar to the speaker rather than one never heard by anybody before.

   1 Cor. 14: 21 ought to settle the matter, for the “other tongues” (eteroglwssoV) there are clearly of the same order as the tongues (glwssa) in the rest of the chapter. Paul quotes there from Isaiah 28: 11, 12 where it is clear that the actual ethnic language of a Gentile conqueror is intended. In that context, the children of Israel might not understand the language (see Deut. 28: 49; Jer. 5: 15), but they would comprehend that what was being spoken was a language—a language understood amongst those who had come up against them. There is no basis whatsoever for saying that Is. 28 refers to ecstatic utterances—and the fact that Paul follows up his quotation with the conclusion “So that tongues” (glwssa) “are for a sign” (1 Cor. 14: 22) is proof that real languages are what is in view.

   Feeling the force of this, some argue that two sorts of tongues are presented in 1 Cor. 14—foreign languages, and ecstatic utterances. To support this, an entirely arbitrary distinction is introduced into the chapter based on whether tongues is singular or plural, and whether it is coupled with a singular or plural subject. By this means, while the tongues in vs. 21, 22 are admitted as being ‘normal’ languages, most of the other references in the chapter are made to refer to ecstatic utterances (although note, no evidence is produced that that is what they are!). However, the words so that in v22 imply a summary and conclusion of an argument, and it makes no sense at all if the tongues there are not the same as what has been before the reader in the earlier part of the chapter. The argument Paul is making throughout is that prophecy is superior to tongue-speaking, and introducing a fictional distinction between one sort of tongues and another just produces confusion. Yes, Paul speaks earlier of “kinds of tongues” (1 Cor. 12: 28) but that does not refer to a supposed differentiation between true languages and ecstatic utterances, but merely different languages (it is not credible to view this as referring to different sorts of ecstatic utterances which by their very nature are not open to categorisation).

   Corinth was a city with a significant Jewish element (see Acts 18: 4 etc.) and the sign gifts (see Mark 16: 17) were particularly for the Jew (see 1 Cor. 1: 22). The sign of tongues was only manifested after the Jewish nation rejected Christ, and was a sign of imminent judgment if they did not repent. The fact that the Corinthians were using this gift in the assembly does not detract from it being a sign “to unbelievers” (1 Cor. 14: 22) for such an “unbeliever” might come in and be “convicted” (v24). The gift might be used to deliver “the great things of God” (Acts 2: 11), or to edify the Assembly (see 1 Cor. 14: 5), but the primary purpose was always as a sign.