You only wrote part of the verse. The verse continues 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me'.
My goodness - what are you trying to say? That the miracle of speaking instantly in other languages doesn't work? It
DID work in Acts 2. They spoke in various languages and thereby preached the Gospel...then Peter got up and spoke in the common language (probably Aramaic) which all the merchants and travelers almost certainly had a working knowledge of...and 3000 people were converted. Obviously. the miraculous tongues-speaking contributed hugely to the evangelization effort. What are you struggling with?
You make the arbitrary argument that people didn't have the ability to go around speaking in languages. But the whole thrust of 1 Cor. 14 was that people were getting a bit 'willy nilly' with their tongues-speaking. In other words, they had the ability to speak in these foreign languages. Paul was saying to make sure they were using it properly for its primary designated purpose, as a "sign" to the unbelieving (1Cor.14:22). Again, as an evangelistic tool. And yes, if interpreted, it also edified the believers.
And we see this in Acts 2 when some of those present heard speaking in tongues and accused the disciples of being drunk.
And 3000
didn't mock them. Some did and some didn't. Those 3000 accepted the Gospel message which the tongues-speakers and Peter were declaring unto them.
Paul's explanation of tongues has to do with unbelievers responding to it with unbelief, which doesn't fit with the theory that it is for evangelization.
No, unbelievers were responding by
believing the Gospel...
as 3000 of them did that day.
1Cor.14:22 says
"tongues are a sign...for unbelievers" obviously as a tool to bring them to salvation.
Where do you get your cultural history on this?
What in the world? There are dozens of languages all over the mediterranean world...even to this day. Don't know what else to tell you. He was reaching out to common working people who didn't have sophisticated linguistic skills. He says he spoke in foreign languages ("tongues") more than anyone. Why else was he having the necessity to speak in foreign languages...other than because he was in foreign lands?
Again, it's ironic that folks who otherwise want to
play up miracles, signs and wonders...now want to downplay it...since there is obviously no "tongues-speaking" going on. Other than claims that
"a little girl in Africa spoke German in tongues, 12 years ago, [etc.].
Repeatedly? He said it once in scripture.
Good grief, is this a major point you're making?
he said if he prayed in a tongue, his understanding was unfruitful,
That's right. The entire thrust of 1Cor. 14, contrary to popular Charismatic doctrines, is that we are
NOT to engage in the mindlessness of uninterpreted tongues-speaking. And actually, he is indicating he specifically does
NOT "pray in a tongue" precisely because it is mindless.
He was talking about speaking in tongues other people do not understand, not tongues that others would understand that he could use for evangelism.
No, he wasn't talking "about" speaking in tongues...he was talking
AGAINST speaking in tongues other people are not understanding. He advocates translation.
Why did Peter stand up and preach in Acts 2 if speaking in tongues was to be directly used for evangelism for explaining the Gospel?
In a plain reading of Acts 2, "tongues" was killing two birds with one stone - for the purpose of evangelization and to provide a crediting and confirming miracle.
That IS the definition of "tongues" in the Bible. It is a definition provided to us in Acts 2. Quite obviously, Acts 2 is the "Rosetta Stone" of the doctrine of tongues.
The people there spoke in foreign languages and evangelized in the process...no matter how you try to deny tongues were used for evangelization. Peter then stepped in at that point and expanded on their evangelistic comments. What's to not understand?