But that isn't really the point of this thread.. not a debate on whether tongues are for now or not.. but what they are in scripture.
In Acts 2, disciples spoke in tongues (language) and some present understood. Others did not and mocked. In a I Corinthians 14 situation-- which occurs in church rather than on the street in the 'evangelism' type situation we see in Acts 2, someone speaks in tongues and no one present understands.
I don't see any reason to think that what speaking in tongues in Acts 2 is fundamentally different from I Corinthians 14. The difference is the situation-- whether the people present understand the language. In a I Corinthians 14 situation, which is in church, the use of tongues is 'regulated'. Speaking in tongues needs to be interpreted to edify others.
In the 400's, two guys, both called St. Gregory, wrote differing opinions on what speaking in tongues was in Acts 2. The passage says that the people heard them speak in their languages, and lists the languages. One St. Gregory thought the miracle was in the ears of the hearers. The other disagreed. A straightforward reading of the text, IMO is that the disciples actually spoke in these languages, because it says they heard them speak in their languages, not that they heard their languages but what they heard wasn't actually spoken by these 120 disciples.
I Corinthians 13 mentions 'the tongues of men and of angels.' I don't see any reason to insist that this must be hyperbole. Extremes yes, but not 'impossible hyperbole.' Some of the other things mentioned in the passage are possible. It is possible to give all one's belongings to the poor. It is possible to give one's body to be burned. These are extremes, not impossibilities. Why is that some cessationists will read this verse and insist that it is hyperbole and impossible, but won't take the same approach to an 'extreme' mentioned in chapter 12, where Paul says that no one says that Jesus is accursed while speaking by the Spirit of God. Paul uses two extremes in that passage as well.
Paul leaves open the possibility for someone speaking in tongues in 'tongues of angels.' And if no one present in the assembly understands the tongue, anyway, what difference does it make whether it is a living human language, a dead human language, or 'tongues of angels'? From a practical perspective it doesn't matter much, since we need to hear the interpretation in our own language to be edified.
John McArthurs tapes (at least on this topic) though had a lot of historical and biblical context. Made a whole lot of sense.
Maybe you listened to a different recording than the one I heard on YouTube and that's printed as text on his website, from the early 1990's, I think. One of his sermons was probably the worst exposition of the passage I've ever encountered. He tried to make out the speaking in tongues of the Corinthians to be 'pagan tongues.' The problem with that is that you then have Paul endorsing synchretism in the very passage. If Paul was talking about 'pagan tongues' when he said that he who speaks in tongues speaks mysteries with his spirit, then his comment, "I would that ye all spake with tongues' would be an encouragement to pagan tongues.
I think John MacArthur is so prejudiced against speaking in tongues that he has even rejected the very examples of genuine tongues in the Bible themselves. That's a dangerous approach to scripture.
One of his arguments had to do with 'speaks mysteries with his spirit' and trying to tie that into the 'mystery religions.' The problems with that are, first of all, the interpretation leads to Paul encouraging the interpretation of pagan tongues to 'edify' the assembly. And secondly, the word translated 'mystery' in Paul's writing are always good things-- e.g. the mystery of Christ-- and never refer to mystery religions.
John MacArthur also tried to tie speaking in tongues to the Oracle of Delphi somehow. There is no justification for this from anything in the text of I Corinthians. It looks the same sort of misuse of the cultural and historical approach that LBGT apologists and other liberals use to argue for strange ideas when they deal with texts of scripture.