There are two types of “tongues” mentioned in the Bible. The first, described in Acts, are “known tongues.” This is where the Apostles proclaimed the Gospel in their own language, but many in the diverse crowd heard it in their own language. The only reason that people figured out that a miracle was taking place was because they saw that these diverse people all seemed to understand what was being said. But not everyone was able to understand.
First an observation. The Charismatic Renewal cannot be reduced to the gift of tongues, whether foreign languages or angelic. It seems, however, that all cessationists (Catholic or otherwise) seem to single out tongues in particular as the representative symbol of the movement. That strikes me as unbalanced since anyone familiar with the movement knows that tongues is a very small part of it. “Do all speak in tongues?” asks Paul. It’s a rhetorical question that expects “no” as the answer. I consider myself Charismatic (and Reformed!) but the only other tongue I speak is Spanish.
Second, in point of fact, the miracle you mention was one of speaking, not hearing. That is, “they began to speak in other tongues [or languages] as the Spirit gave them utterance” (2:4). So while the crowd was “hearing them speak in his own language” (v.6), that is because they were actually hearing Galileans speaking foreign languages. This was truly the miracle and not at all to be expected from provincial Galileans (cf, Mark 14:70) who were generally looked down upon for their funny accents and certainly not widely regarded as linguists.
It is not uncommon that miracles accompany new revelation but not continue. This sign “undid” what happened at Babel.
One hears this asserted quite a bit, especially in sermons. Unfortunately there is little to no indication in the text that Luke has Genesis 11 in mind. Far more likely is that he has the actual OT texts he goes on to cite, such as Joel 2. In any event, it’s a cool connection to make, but one that is hard to prove exegetically.
Then there are “unknown tongues” which is described in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
That depends. While it may be possible to distinguish the “tongues of angels” (assuming Paul is speaking literally here) of 1 Cor. 13:1 from the other “tongues” mentioned in the letter, there is really no reason to suppose that the tongues in question were in every case “unknown” to the speaker. In other words, when we compare “tongues” in Acts to “tongues” in 1 Corinthians, it’s quite possible that it’s not so much “tongues” that are different but rather the audiences in each venue. In Jerusalem there were Jews from all over the Roman world gathered, and so they would be expected to speak different languages. But in Corinth they were probably speaking Greek and not, say, Arabic (cf, Acts 2:10) which was one of the languages that the Galileans were speaking.
That said, I think you’re correct that most of the time Paul has an unintelligible language in mind that he associates with prayer and praise.
This was a liturgical abuse, and Paul chastised them for it.
In a worship setting, tongues should be used sparingly and only with interpretation (cf, 1 Corinthians 14:26-28.) So to be clear, Paul only chastises the Corinthians for the
abuse of tongues, not the
use of tongues in public worship.
There is not one verse in Scripture that is favorable to speaking in unknown tongues.
[Sigh] “Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy” (1 Cor. 14:5). Would you like to see more verses?
At any rate, neither known nor unknown tongues were practiced by any Christian community since the very early days. The Church Fathers tell us that the practice ceased:
That’s highly debatable. That said, the fact that the “Charismatic gifts” may have ceased to be practiced may say more about the sorry state of the church than the desire of the Holy Spirit to gift those who ask for them.
In any event, it strikes me as funny that if the Jewish fathers say that prophecy had ceased sometime during the so-called “intertestamental period,” Catholics will disagree with them since if they’re right, then none of the dueterocanonical books could be regarded as inspired. The parallel is striking. Jewish “cessationists” witness to the departure of the Spirit of prophecy in much the same as Christian “cessationists” argue that the “sign gifts” [a dubious category imposed on scripture] ceased with the death of the last apostle and/or the closing of the New Testament canon. But where is the indication in Scripture that a certain category of spiritual gifts would come to an end during the church age?
Continued next post…
) the truth no matter what it is. These arguments can get extremely heated and I don’t want anyone to go away with hatred. So, I hope no one takes this in the wrong way and I hope that no one gets offended. Now back to the topic 
