The modality of tongues
Jan 27, 2024 8:44:19 GMT
Post by Colossians on Jan 27, 2024 8:44:19 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
Forward
The purpose of this work is to show whether the gift of tongues is manifested in existing earthly languages, languages which do not exist on earth, or either, and the circumstances related thereto.
In our analysis we shall be drawing heavily on logic, context and common sense.
Prerequisite reading
For a proper and balanced perspective on this issue, it is vital that the reader be conversant with our work: “The Baptism in the Holy Spirit”.
_________________________
THE MODALITY OF TONGUES
“they shall speak with new tongues” Mk 16:17.
The first instance
In view of our Lord’s (above) prophecy, when the disciples who were gathered together in the upper room received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, it is not surprising that some of them, perhaps even all, began to speak in new tongues
The modality
“And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” Acts 2:4.
: “other tongues”
The nuance here of this “other”is unmistakably that which speaks to existing foreign earthly languages: the tongues were “new” in that they were other than the usual language of the speaker.
And so we are told in the same passage that foreign speakers who were present heard the disciples glorifying God in their (those of the foreigners) own tongues.
: “as the Spirit gave them utterance”
As with any gift received as a result of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, tongues are manifested in accord with the urge of the Holy Spirit in the believer and not according to the believer’s own volition. For they are given to glorify Christ, and such activity is solely the jurisdiction of the Holy Spirit.
However and conversely, they are (nevertheless) ‘permitted’ in the (mature) believer in accordance with circumstance: we are reminded by the apostle in his letter to the church at Corinth that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. This is not to say that the second and third Persons of God are in any degree of discord, but simply that the gifts of the Spirit relate primarily to the ‘body’ of one’s spirit, and the mind of Christ to the ‘head’ of one’s spirit: just as our own physical bodies contain urges which are satisfied as our head permits, so too our spiritual urges are satisfied as He who is our Head permits. For the believer has the mind of Christ.
The second instance
When Peter preached to the household of the Roman Centurion Cornelius, the Holy Spirit fell on the gathering and tongues were manifested.
The modality
“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God” Acts 10:44-46.
We are here introduced to a significant omission: Luke doesn’t speak here of “other” tongues, but simply “tongues”: the nuance has shifted so that it is not the kind of tongues that is the focus, but the speaking (itself) with tongues: it has become irrelevant whether the tongues were of existing earthly languages or not. Commensurately, no foreigners were present who might witness their own (foreign) tongue being spoken, so no foreign language was warranted.
The third instance
When Paul on his third missionary journey laid his hands on certain disciples at Ephesus so that they might receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, tongues were manifested.
The modality
“And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied” Acts 19:1-6.
The omission continues: the nuance is unmistakably that which relates speaking with tongues as a modality in and of itself and therefore that which pays no regard to the particularity of language. And again, no foreigners were present who might need to hear their own (foreign) tongue being spoken anyway.
The teaching to the church at Corinth
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal” 1 Cor 13:1.
Some have thought Paul’s reference here to “tongues … of angels”, as a literal and therefore ‘proof’ that tongues can be in a form not extant on the earth.
However whilst it will have become clear by now that we are indeed teaching that tongues are not necessarily in existing earthly languages, Paul’s statement here cannot be used to support such notion, but is rather and simply the oration of grandiloquence: he is saying that no matter how apparently majestic and desirable one’s gift is, it amounts to nothing if one does not have love. The statement is in fact Shakespearean in manner.
“he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries” 1 Cor 14:2.
Just as we cannot take “tongues of angels” to be in reference to languages not extant on earth, we also cannot take this “unknown” to mean similar, for any language not known by the speaker qualifies as “unknown”.
However and notwithstanding, this statement here by Paul does in fact imply that the particular unknown language in which one speaks mysteries to God plays no part in the decision as to whether such manifestation be legitimate or not, for it is clear here that such speech is defined independently of whether or not it is interpreted, especially if it is in one’s own private prayer life: setting aside certain peculiar circumstances such as those at Pentecost where foreign-speaking Jews were present, there were no good reason for the Holy Spirit to limit Himself to French, Swahili or Japanese when He speaks mysteries to God through the believer. In line with this, it goes without saying that the languages produced at Babel had never existed before.
“He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself” 1Cor 14:4.
Although the apostle informs us in his letter to the church at Corinth that “tongues are for a sign … to them that believe not”, he firstly informs us they are for edification of the believer; which stands to reason, for he in whom the gift is experienced is necessarily primary and he who overhears necessarily secondary. That is, it is not the particularity of the language manifested which edifies the speaker, but the manifestation that is the speaking itself.
For – with regard to those in the Body who speak with tongues – the speaking constitutes the satisfaction of the urge of the Spirit, and it is this satisfaction which constitutes the edification of the one so speaking … this in tandem with the fact that, because the mind is not ‘consulted’, the spirit experiences unbridled expression toward God.
With regard to the purpose of this work then, we again necessarily infer that the language manifested need not be restricted to an existing earthly tongue.
“I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all” 1 Cor 14:18.
It would be absurd to suggest that Paul, who was often alone or in prison, would speak in earthly foreign languages when speaking in tongues. For even if he did, how would he know they were existing languages? As of the time of writing there are over 7000 languages in the world, and there were more in Paul’s day.
So again, there is no good reason for the Holy Spirit to contain Himself to existing earthly languages when expressing Himself through the believer. The primary purpose of such gift is edification of the speaker, not a job at the United Nations.
The definitive dichotomy
Thus far we have drawn on circumstance, nuance and logic to show why the gift of tongues will rarely if ever be manifested in existing earthly languages.
We now seal the issue via Paul’s most incisive application of prophecy:
“In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not” 1 Cor 14:21-22.
Paul draws on Is 28:11 to show that tongues are a sign to the unbeliever.
But how so? In what way?
Well firstly we must understand that the statement in Isaiah that God will speak to Israel with men of other tongues, does not mean, as many bible versions errantly presume, that God will adopt a ‘see if I care’ attitude toward Israel and speak to them in languages they can’t understand just to spite them.
Nor is Isaiah foretelling of the advent of tongues at Pentecost.
No rather, Isaiah is essentially employing what the grammarian refers to as a synecdoche: he is referring to nations other than Israel by that which primarily distinguishes them as other nations, their (other) tongue, and saying that God will show Israel that despite their zealousness for the law, people of other nations will enter into God’s rest without having had the (ostensible) advantage of the oracles of God. (Cf. Rom 3.)
And so the same prophet immediately goes on to say:
“To whom He said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear”,
such refreshing being in reference to the Sabbath rest into which those in Christ have entered (Heb 4:10)1, and such refusal to hear being in reference, among many other things, to that of which is spoken at Heb 4:2.
1 See also Acts 3:19.
By “a sign … to them that believe not” then, Paul does not intend that tongues are a sign in and of themselves, but rather that they point to that which Isaiah prophesies, viz., that other nations will come to God and that (much of) Israel will miss out.
So (elsewhere):
“What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law” Rom 9:30-32.
And again:
“What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded” Rom 11:7.
The conclusive amalgamation
We have shown why tongues at Pentecost were in existing earthly languages: they were a sign to the unbelieving Jew that all was not well in Tel-Aviv and that things were about to change. (See then Mt 21:43.)
But/and we now (therefore) come to the crux of things, namely, that Paul does not say that tongues are a sign to the unbelieving Jew, but to the unbeliever, period, which on the face of it introduces a certain incongruity in that tongues in existing earthly languages cannot possibly function as a sign to unbelieving Gentiles, there being in such case no linguistic contrast provided them (and certainly no (new) condemnation as they were not supposed to be God’s people anyway).
Thus we understand that Paul understood the modality of tongues in accord with the (his) experiential awareness of the Spirit’s power having accompanied such manifestation (whether in himself or in those upon whom he had laid his hands) – more generally, the witness of the Spirit – and therefore independently of the particularity of language: it was the manifestation of power that was the delineator, not the wisdom of man.2
2 Such is indeed commensurate with the modality of Christianity as a whole: we do not believe God because of the bible, but believe the bible because the witness within of the Holy Spirit informs us that the written word is of God. For there is no power in the letter. (Cf. 1 Cor 2:4,5, 4:19,20.)
And so in that the Jew seeks a sign but the Greek wisdom (see 1 Cor 1:22-24), the sign to the Jewish unbeliever would consist of that which informed him that his heritage in the flesh was of no real advantage, and the sign to the Gentile unbeliever that which informed him that the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men.
Thus the Jewish unbeliever would be given a sign which pointed to his own prophet’s words that other nations were entering God’s kingdom while he was being left out (i.e. tongues at Pentecost were languages which pointed to those other nations) and the Gentile unbeliever a sign which spoke to an apparently desirous phenomenon which could not be attained to by the intellect (i.e. tongues would not be aligned with any identifiable language but appear to come from ‘somewhere else’, even perhaps from “the unknown God” – see Acts 17:23).
To the Jew first and also to the Gentile
In our several works we have pointed out that in the kingdom of God the Gentile is “also first” with the Jew, there being no distinction between the two in Christ. And we have at those times been referring to the rewards/benefits of being in Christ.
However Paul also speaks to the converse:
“Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile” Rom 2:9.
Commensurately, and with regard to the matter at hand, we are told at 1 Cor 14:22 not that tongues are a sign “for” the unbeliever, but “to” the unbeliever: the first had related somewhat of an encouragement to believe, but the latter condemnation.
The point is, and again with regard to the matter at hand, an unbeliever is an unbeliever is an unbeliever: it matters not what his heritage may be. That is, once the Jew had been given the sign that other nations were being brought to the refreshment of communion with God via faith and not the law, there was no further reason for tongues to be in existing earthly languages: the Kingdom had been taken from the Jew and given to a ‘nation’ bearing the fruits thereof: the horse had bolted never to return to its stable. (Cf. Rom 9:8, Gal 4:26.)
By default then, and setting aside peculiar circumstances in which God might indeed choose to manifest tongues in existing earthly languages, the overwhelming majority of instances of the gift of tongues will be in languages not extant on the earth.3 They will be primarily for the edification of the speaker, and when accompanied by interpretation, (secondarily) for the edification of the church.
3 This is not to say that such languages exist in heaven, for language is expressed linearly in time, and there is no time in the spiritual realm. Suffice to say along with the apostle that such speech expresses mysteries to God.
In closing …
“How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying” 1 Cor 14:26.
Amen.
(See also postscript below.)
____________________________
Postscript: A final point of logic
Tongues at Pentecost required no interpreter as they were in languages which targeted the various listeners. But when Paul refers to tongues in the setting of the church, he implies that an interpreter will be required. Indeed, when he suggests that a visiting unbeliever will think the believers mad if he (the unbeliever) were to hear them speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:23), he makes no provision for the situation where the unbeliever’s native tongue might be other than that of the believers and that a situation similar to that of Pentecost might be on the cards. No rather, the assumption is that such speech will not be intelligible to any visitor.
Forward
The purpose of this work is to show whether the gift of tongues is manifested in existing earthly languages, languages which do not exist on earth, or either, and the circumstances related thereto.
In our analysis we shall be drawing heavily on logic, context and common sense.
Prerequisite reading
For a proper and balanced perspective on this issue, it is vital that the reader be conversant with our work: “The Baptism in the Holy Spirit”.
_________________________
THE MODALITY OF TONGUES
“they shall speak with new tongues” Mk 16:17.
The first instance
In view of our Lord’s (above) prophecy, when the disciples who were gathered together in the upper room received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, it is not surprising that some of them, perhaps even all, began to speak in new tongues
The modality
“And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” Acts 2:4.
: “other tongues”
The nuance here of this “other”is unmistakably that which speaks to existing foreign earthly languages: the tongues were “new” in that they were other than the usual language of the speaker.
And so we are told in the same passage that foreign speakers who were present heard the disciples glorifying God in their (those of the foreigners) own tongues.
: “as the Spirit gave them utterance”
As with any gift received as a result of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, tongues are manifested in accord with the urge of the Holy Spirit in the believer and not according to the believer’s own volition. For they are given to glorify Christ, and such activity is solely the jurisdiction of the Holy Spirit.
However and conversely, they are (nevertheless) ‘permitted’ in the (mature) believer in accordance with circumstance: we are reminded by the apostle in his letter to the church at Corinth that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. This is not to say that the second and third Persons of God are in any degree of discord, but simply that the gifts of the Spirit relate primarily to the ‘body’ of one’s spirit, and the mind of Christ to the ‘head’ of one’s spirit: just as our own physical bodies contain urges which are satisfied as our head permits, so too our spiritual urges are satisfied as He who is our Head permits. For the believer has the mind of Christ.
The second instance
When Peter preached to the household of the Roman Centurion Cornelius, the Holy Spirit fell on the gathering and tongues were manifested.
The modality
“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God” Acts 10:44-46.
We are here introduced to a significant omission: Luke doesn’t speak here of “other” tongues, but simply “tongues”: the nuance has shifted so that it is not the kind of tongues that is the focus, but the speaking (itself) with tongues: it has become irrelevant whether the tongues were of existing earthly languages or not. Commensurately, no foreigners were present who might witness their own (foreign) tongue being spoken, so no foreign language was warranted.
The third instance
When Paul on his third missionary journey laid his hands on certain disciples at Ephesus so that they might receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, tongues were manifested.
The modality
“And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied” Acts 19:1-6.
The omission continues: the nuance is unmistakably that which relates speaking with tongues as a modality in and of itself and therefore that which pays no regard to the particularity of language. And again, no foreigners were present who might need to hear their own (foreign) tongue being spoken anyway.
The teaching to the church at Corinth
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal” 1 Cor 13:1.
Some have thought Paul’s reference here to “tongues … of angels”, as a literal and therefore ‘proof’ that tongues can be in a form not extant on the earth.
However whilst it will have become clear by now that we are indeed teaching that tongues are not necessarily in existing earthly languages, Paul’s statement here cannot be used to support such notion, but is rather and simply the oration of grandiloquence: he is saying that no matter how apparently majestic and desirable one’s gift is, it amounts to nothing if one does not have love. The statement is in fact Shakespearean in manner.
“he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries” 1 Cor 14:2.
Just as we cannot take “tongues of angels” to be in reference to languages not extant on earth, we also cannot take this “unknown” to mean similar, for any language not known by the speaker qualifies as “unknown”.
However and notwithstanding, this statement here by Paul does in fact imply that the particular unknown language in which one speaks mysteries to God plays no part in the decision as to whether such manifestation be legitimate or not, for it is clear here that such speech is defined independently of whether or not it is interpreted, especially if it is in one’s own private prayer life: setting aside certain peculiar circumstances such as those at Pentecost where foreign-speaking Jews were present, there were no good reason for the Holy Spirit to limit Himself to French, Swahili or Japanese when He speaks mysteries to God through the believer. In line with this, it goes without saying that the languages produced at Babel had never existed before.
“He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself” 1Cor 14:4.
Although the apostle informs us in his letter to the church at Corinth that “tongues are for a sign … to them that believe not”, he firstly informs us they are for edification of the believer; which stands to reason, for he in whom the gift is experienced is necessarily primary and he who overhears necessarily secondary. That is, it is not the particularity of the language manifested which edifies the speaker, but the manifestation that is the speaking itself.
For – with regard to those in the Body who speak with tongues – the speaking constitutes the satisfaction of the urge of the Spirit, and it is this satisfaction which constitutes the edification of the one so speaking … this in tandem with the fact that, because the mind is not ‘consulted’, the spirit experiences unbridled expression toward God.
With regard to the purpose of this work then, we again necessarily infer that the language manifested need not be restricted to an existing earthly tongue.
“I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all” 1 Cor 14:18.
It would be absurd to suggest that Paul, who was often alone or in prison, would speak in earthly foreign languages when speaking in tongues. For even if he did, how would he know they were existing languages? As of the time of writing there are over 7000 languages in the world, and there were more in Paul’s day.
So again, there is no good reason for the Holy Spirit to contain Himself to existing earthly languages when expressing Himself through the believer. The primary purpose of such gift is edification of the speaker, not a job at the United Nations.
The definitive dichotomy
Thus far we have drawn on circumstance, nuance and logic to show why the gift of tongues will rarely if ever be manifested in existing earthly languages.
We now seal the issue via Paul’s most incisive application of prophecy:
“In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not” 1 Cor 14:21-22.
Paul draws on Is 28:11 to show that tongues are a sign to the unbeliever.
But how so? In what way?
Well firstly we must understand that the statement in Isaiah that God will speak to Israel with men of other tongues, does not mean, as many bible versions errantly presume, that God will adopt a ‘see if I care’ attitude toward Israel and speak to them in languages they can’t understand just to spite them.
Nor is Isaiah foretelling of the advent of tongues at Pentecost.
No rather, Isaiah is essentially employing what the grammarian refers to as a synecdoche: he is referring to nations other than Israel by that which primarily distinguishes them as other nations, their (other) tongue, and saying that God will show Israel that despite their zealousness for the law, people of other nations will enter into God’s rest without having had the (ostensible) advantage of the oracles of God. (Cf. Rom 3.)
And so the same prophet immediately goes on to say:
“To whom He said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear”,
such refreshing being in reference to the Sabbath rest into which those in Christ have entered (Heb 4:10)1, and such refusal to hear being in reference, among many other things, to that of which is spoken at Heb 4:2.
1 See also Acts 3:19.
By “a sign … to them that believe not” then, Paul does not intend that tongues are a sign in and of themselves, but rather that they point to that which Isaiah prophesies, viz., that other nations will come to God and that (much of) Israel will miss out.
So (elsewhere):
“What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law” Rom 9:30-32.
And again:
“What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded” Rom 11:7.
The conclusive amalgamation
We have shown why tongues at Pentecost were in existing earthly languages: they were a sign to the unbelieving Jew that all was not well in Tel-Aviv and that things were about to change. (See then Mt 21:43.)
But/and we now (therefore) come to the crux of things, namely, that Paul does not say that tongues are a sign to the unbelieving Jew, but to the unbeliever, period, which on the face of it introduces a certain incongruity in that tongues in existing earthly languages cannot possibly function as a sign to unbelieving Gentiles, there being in such case no linguistic contrast provided them (and certainly no (new) condemnation as they were not supposed to be God’s people anyway).
Thus we understand that Paul understood the modality of tongues in accord with the (his) experiential awareness of the Spirit’s power having accompanied such manifestation (whether in himself or in those upon whom he had laid his hands) – more generally, the witness of the Spirit – and therefore independently of the particularity of language: it was the manifestation of power that was the delineator, not the wisdom of man.2
2 Such is indeed commensurate with the modality of Christianity as a whole: we do not believe God because of the bible, but believe the bible because the witness within of the Holy Spirit informs us that the written word is of God. For there is no power in the letter. (Cf. 1 Cor 2:4,5, 4:19,20.)
And so in that the Jew seeks a sign but the Greek wisdom (see 1 Cor 1:22-24), the sign to the Jewish unbeliever would consist of that which informed him that his heritage in the flesh was of no real advantage, and the sign to the Gentile unbeliever that which informed him that the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men.
Thus the Jewish unbeliever would be given a sign which pointed to his own prophet’s words that other nations were entering God’s kingdom while he was being left out (i.e. tongues at Pentecost were languages which pointed to those other nations) and the Gentile unbeliever a sign which spoke to an apparently desirous phenomenon which could not be attained to by the intellect (i.e. tongues would not be aligned with any identifiable language but appear to come from ‘somewhere else’, even perhaps from “the unknown God” – see Acts 17:23).
To the Jew first and also to the Gentile
In our several works we have pointed out that in the kingdom of God the Gentile is “also first” with the Jew, there being no distinction between the two in Christ. And we have at those times been referring to the rewards/benefits of being in Christ.
However Paul also speaks to the converse:
“Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile” Rom 2:9.
Commensurately, and with regard to the matter at hand, we are told at 1 Cor 14:22 not that tongues are a sign “for” the unbeliever, but “to” the unbeliever: the first had related somewhat of an encouragement to believe, but the latter condemnation.
The point is, and again with regard to the matter at hand, an unbeliever is an unbeliever is an unbeliever: it matters not what his heritage may be. That is, once the Jew had been given the sign that other nations were being brought to the refreshment of communion with God via faith and not the law, there was no further reason for tongues to be in existing earthly languages: the Kingdom had been taken from the Jew and given to a ‘nation’ bearing the fruits thereof: the horse had bolted never to return to its stable. (Cf. Rom 9:8, Gal 4:26.)
By default then, and setting aside peculiar circumstances in which God might indeed choose to manifest tongues in existing earthly languages, the overwhelming majority of instances of the gift of tongues will be in languages not extant on the earth.3 They will be primarily for the edification of the speaker, and when accompanied by interpretation, (secondarily) for the edification of the church.
3 This is not to say that such languages exist in heaven, for language is expressed linearly in time, and there is no time in the spiritual realm. Suffice to say along with the apostle that such speech expresses mysteries to God.
In closing …
“How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying” 1 Cor 14:26.
Amen.
(See also postscript below.)
____________________________
Postscript: A final point of logic
Tongues at Pentecost required no interpreter as they were in languages which targeted the various listeners. But when Paul refers to tongues in the setting of the church, he implies that an interpreter will be required. Indeed, when he suggests that a visiting unbeliever will think the believers mad if he (the unbeliever) were to hear them speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:23), he makes no provision for the situation where the unbeliever’s native tongue might be other than that of the believers and that a situation similar to that of Pentecost might be on the cards. No rather, the assumption is that such speech will not be intelligible to any visitor.