The reason that it is the one who speaks in tongues who does not understand is because in a few instances there have been individuals in a meeting who knew the language spoken. So to say that "no one understands" would not be totally correct. In the spirit, i.e. speaking with the spirit, i.e. speaking in tongues, is speaking mysteries to God considering that is who the one speaking in tongues is speaking to - "not unto men but to God".
The above does not hold true for ‘tongues’ referenced in the Bible. There is no mention of some people understanding and some not.
There are, unfortunately, no known documented provable cases of what is known as xenoglossy/xenoglossia; the ability to speak a language one has never had any previous contact with in any way, shape or form. The only evidence offered is anecdotal at best.
Despite the above, the Pentecostal/Charismatic community is rife with examples of ‘tongues’ being heard/understood as real language(s). It is truly unfortunate that no such cases have ever been documented and studied as it would answer a lot of debates and questions. I am not beyond believing that that the divine can speak to a third party through someone. In fact, this is common in a lot of faith traditions around the world and, is more the “correct” (if I can call it that) usage of the tool of glossolalia as it is practiced around the world.
That a person will supposedly hear what is being said in their native language begs a few questions:
1. Is the speaker actually shifting their non-cognitive non-language utterances (NC-NLU’s, a/k/a glossolalia) to a real language?
2. Is the recipient physically hearing the speaker in his/her language?
3. Is the recipient only subconsciously hearing his/her own language?
4. While this person is hearing his/her native language; what are other people hearing?
5. What is the person actually hearing? Is it simply a word or phrase repeated over and over, or is it an actual monologue?
Again, unfortunately, no one seems to have any concrete answers to the above.
People only need to believe what God says concerning the matter.
God seems to be silent in the matter – it’s Paul who is discussing the use of foreign languages (‘tongues’) in the church.
Then how is it that some people in meetings have understood the language being spoken? There are many languages that is why there are very few times that the "tongues" (languages) are understood by the people present and why God gives the interpretation when someone speaks in tongues.
See the above.
Speaking in tongues is not used for "missionary" work or to "spread the gospel". There is not one verse of scripture that says that this is what it is for. How can it be used for missionary work when the person speaking does not know what language he is speaking - the language is given by God. The key - tongues is not a learned language, i.e. one did not and was not taught the language they are speaking - it is given by God. In order to do mission work, one would have to learn the specific language for where ever they are being sent.
The speaking in tongues is a sign to those who do not believe. The attention of the unbeliever is drawn to the words spoken. When the manifestation of kinds of tongues is heard, the unbeliever perks up and listens. Then the interpretation follows. The message is designed to edify (build up) the believers present (1 Cor 14:5).
Of course it is – the person speaking knows exactly what he’s saying. Nowhere is it implied that tongues (i.e. languages) are not a learned language.
Yes, they are a sign to those who do not believe (i.e. those who have never heard of Christianity). To teach them about it, the ‘teacher’ has three choices: learn the language of the person/people he’s teaching, have the people learn his language, or (the more practical alternative) if possible, find an interpreter (a person who not only speaks the language in question, but the teacher’s language as well).
The ‘sign’ is that people are being taught and are talking about and discussing Christianity in their own language as opposed to a specific prescribed language (as was done with many religions of the day). So, you could talk to a Gaul about Christianity in Gaulish (either yourself or via an interpreter).
If it’s the teacher who’s speaking, he’s either speaking through an interpreter, or he’s learned the language the old-fashioned way. There just isn’t anything there to suggest that this was some sort of supernatural process, i.e. he is speaking ‘tongues’ and it’s being heard as say Gaulish to a Gaulish speaking audience, or he’s speaking ‘tongues’ and an interpreter is telling the audience what he’s saying.
Yes, the person teaching may be filled with the Holy Spirit, but that simply suggests/implies the person has a true zeal for teaching about Christianity.
With reference to the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of ‘tongues’; they are not a ‘learned language’ as can be seen in how they are produced. In fact, they are not language at all.
Why aren't they language?
Language at its very basic level, can be described as consisting of two things: (1) discrete units of various sorts, and (2) rules and principles that govern the way these discrete units can be combined and ordered. Glossolalia/modern tongues contains neither one.
To be completely fair, one may argue that tongues do contain at least one discrete unit: a specific phonemic inventory (i.e. a group of specific sounds); however this doesn't quite hold up as inventories will vary from speaker to speaker – no two will ever be quite the same.
