The New Testament bears out both of these definitions and one other found only in 1 John 3:18. (The passages in First Corinthians are yet to be considered.) Examples parallel to the Old Testament may be found in Acts 2:11 and Revelation 14:6. In First John glwssa is used to represent anything one might say to express love.
In Acts 2:11 the crowd exclaims that they are hearing the wonders of God being proclaimed in their own tongues. In Acts 2:8 the crowd makes a parallel statement using the word dialektoV, which is found only six times in the New Testament, three times in conjunction with EbraiV to mean "in Aramaic" (Acts 21:40, 22:2, 26:14) and three times to mean "language" (Acts 1:19, 2:6, 2:8), noticeably all in Acts. In Acts 1:19 it is referring to the language of those in Jerusalem.
Revelation 14:6 and several other passages in Revelation make reference to the four divisions in Genesis 10:5, here every eqnon (nation) and fulhn (tribe) and glwssan (tongue) and laon (people).
Apart from three places in Acts and all of its occurrences in 1 Corinthians, there is no reason to believe that glwssa should be understood to refer to something outside of actual human language (other than the physical organ). The first thought that "tongues" might mean something other than real languages occurs in 1 Corinthians 12:10. Here "kinds of tongues" is listed among several supernatural gifts given by the Holy Spirit and is followed with "interpretation of tongues." This raises two questions: To what extent are these tongues supernatural, and why must they be interpreted (or translated)? One possible interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:7-10 would regard only the middle five gifts listed as wholly supernatural because they are set apart by two occurrences of eteroV. This is unlikely, however, because Acts 2:4, 10:46, and 19:6 all record spontaneous events, not the ability to learn a language quickly, and because tongues with interpretation is said to be just as useful as prophecy (one of the five) in 1 Corinthians 14:5.
In answer to why tongues must be interpreted, 1 Corinthians 14:2 relates that when one speaks in a tongue, no one can hear with understanding, but he speaks things unrevealed (musthria). This is not the case in Acts 2, which must be taken to mean "human languages," because the Spirit would not give the gift of interpretation to most of the crowd (some mocked), who were hearing with understanding in their own dialects. Because that day of Pentecost is so paramount to salvation history, the sign experienced could have been a one-time event, and all subsequent tongues may be defined with this ideal situation in mind.
Returning to the first question now, speaking in tongues is supernatural at least in as much as it requires interpretation in order to be understood, and only the Spirit can provide the true interpretation. This nullifies the argument that glwssa represents exclusively the Hebrew language in 1 Corinthians 14 (Henry 137; also Clarke 274).
1 Corinthians 13:1 offers particular insight into a definition by providing the highest possible level of ability for speaking in tongues, presented in a third class conditional statement. Just as fathoming all mysteries and knowledge and literally moving mountains are the highest attainments of prophecy and faith respectively, so also is speaking (not necessarily with understanding) in the tongues of men and of angels. The condition does not rule out the possibility of this actually happening; it is simply uncertain, though it is again the highest possible attainment. Here tongues should be understood as the actual languages of men and of angels, which may very well be the same.
Two final observations taken from 1 Corinthians 14:19 and 14:10 are in order. As noted above, the word for "interpretation" can just as fittingly be rendered "translation." In 14:19 tongues are characterized by logoV, the same word translated "intelligible words" in the preceding verse in the NIV. In 14:10 tongues are associated with sounds (fwnh), particularly the articulations of human languages (i.e. syllables; or German ch, Spanish rr, etc.).
Therefore if one is unwilling to admit that the Spirit's gift of speaking in tongues is the gift of speaking in other known languages, that person must account for the intimate association glwssa has with real languages. This can be done in several ways; here are two:
1. Tongues carry all of the distinctive attributes of language (words and sounds) simply unrealized; they are potential languages that are experientially unknown to humans. 2. Tongues are equivalent to sign language or any encryption code that must be deciphered into a native language.
Each of these views has merits, but only the first view will remain a possibility under scrutiny. In favor of the first solution, apart from the day of Pentecost the Scriptures offer no evidence that on any other occasion those present understood what was being spoken in tongues. The second proposition is a modern idea and would probably not be conceived of in many other cultures of the past.
Tongues Section 2: The Role and Duration of the Gift, Part 1
Papers
