What makes Acts 2 so striking is that Luke—who never hesitates to report tongues when they occur—says nothing about the three thousand new believers speaking in tongues. He carefully records the apostles’ tongues at the start of the chapter, then describes the crowd’s conversion through *intelligible* preaching, and then moves directly to baptism and fellowship. The absence of tongues at this decisive moment is not accidental; it is a deliberate narrative silence that shows tongues were not the expected or universal sign of receiving the Spirit.
To the contrary, Paul actually discourages the use of tongues in the gathered church, precisely because uninterpreted tongues do not edify anyone. His repeated instruction in 1 Corinthians 14 is that the church should prioritize prophecy—the gift that builds up the whole body through intelligible speech. Tongues, unless interpreted, create confusion and mirror the judgment pattern of Isaiah 28, so Paul restricts their use and elevates prophecy as the proper gift for congregational worship.
Paul never tells a tongues‑speaker to look for someone with a separate “gift of interpretation.” Instead, he commands the one who is speaking to *pray that he himself may interpret* (1 Cor 14:13). This shows that interpretation is not a second person’s supernatural ability to decode another person’s ecstatic speech; it is the speaker’s own Spirit‑enabled capacity to make his message intelligible. Paul’s instruction collapses the charismatic two‑gift model and reinforces his larger point: **intelligibility is the responsibility of the speaker**, and without it, tongues have no place in the gathered church.
Understand? The gift of tongues is NOT the ability to speak a foreign language. The gift of tongues is in the ear of the listener; it is when the hearer understands what is being spoken in his own language.