IN THIS CHAPTER we will address two important and related questions. They pertain primarily to the place where tongues-speech should occur. Some argue that tongues should only be exercised in the corporate gathering of the local church and always with interpretation. These folks do not believe tongues is meant for private devotions in one’s prayer closet. So what does the Word of God have to say in response to these questions?
The answer to this question is an unequivocal yes. But a bit more explanation is in order. There can be little doubt that Paul places a high value on the edification or spiritual strengthening of believers in the body of Christ. In fact, he earlier said in 1 Corinthians 12:7 that all spiritual gifts, of whatever sort, are given by the Spirit “for the common good.” By “the common good” he means the building up of all Christians in the local church. Gifts are not primarily intended by God to build up the one who is the recipient. Rather, we are each to use our gift or gifts so others will be encouraged and instructed in the truths of Christianity. That does not mean, however, that a person who exercises his or her gift won’t or shouldn’t be edified by it. It is inevitable, and good, that a believer is built up spiritually when one’s gift is being used. It’s just not the direct and primary goal. But it is certainly an indirect and secondary effect.
That the edification of others is preeminent in Paul’s thinking is clear from a close reading of 1 Corinthians 14. Paul’s preference for the gift of prophecy over that of uninterpreted tongues is due to the fact that the former builds up other believers. Tongues, when interpreted, also edifies others (v. 5). Prophecy is especially suited to edify, encourage, and console our brothers and sisters in the body of Christ (v. 3). Indeed, “the one who prophesies builds up the church” (v. 4).
In 1 Corinthians 14:6–12 Paul unpacks this principle in some detail. His point is that in order for a spiritual gift to be a blessing to someone else, there must be intelligibility. Incomprehensible communication in the corporate assembly is of no benefit to anyone. You have to understand and comprehend what is being said in order to profit from it. Uninterpreted tongues in the gathered assembly of God’s people, says Paul, amounts to little more than “speaking into the air” (v. 9). Unintelligible speech simply cannot instruct or encourage or rebuke or bless others. So make absolutely certain that if someone speaks in tongues when the church is gathered together, there is an interpretation. Otherwise, keep silent. The bottom line for Paul is this: “when you come together,” whatever spiritual gift is put into practice, “let all things be done for building up” (v. 26).
Now, some draw the wrong conclusion from this. They think that since Paul speaks with such energy about the failure of uninterpreted tongues in the gathered assembly to edify others, he must be opposed to the use of uninterpreted tongues anywhere and everywhere. But that is not what he says. I’ll take up that issue momentarily, but first let’s take a close look at the instruction Paul gives on how tongues is to be used when the whole church is assembled. He writes this:
If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.
—1 CORINTHIANS 14:27–28
It would appear that some of the Corinthian believers had made two mistakes in their exercise of this gift. First, they had overemphasized its importance, thinking those who exercised a gift so obviously supernatural must themselves be extraordinarily favored of God. Their childish immaturity led them to conclude that tongues-speech was evidence of a transcendent and superior spirituality. Second, they were employing (indeed, flaunting) their tongues-speech in the public assembly without interpretation. Paul’s response to such abuse is not to ban the gift of tongues from church life. Sinful, selfish abuse does not nullify the reality of a divine gift. His recommendation is not rejection but correction.
Briefly, the apostle’s counsel in 1 Corinthians 14:26–40 is this. First, steps must be taken to prevent a simultaneous cacophony of tongues-speech. Try to imagine an entire body of believers all speaking loudly in tongues at the same time. One might think this would be a sign of the Spirit’s powerful presence, but Paul forbids it because of the obvious failure of such a scenario to build up others.
Second, only two, or at most three, should speak during the course of a service. This is so the meeting does not become disorderly or unwieldy. Furthermore, he does not want those with the gift of tongues to assume a more prominent place in the body than is justified. Finally, tongues-speakers should never think they cannot control the gift. The Holy Spirit does not compel or overwhelm. If two or three have already spoken, Paul expects the others to keep quiet (implying that they have control or mastery over their gift). No one can ever say, “But I just couldn’t help myself. The presence and power and impulse of the Holy Spirit were just too much for me to contain. I would have been quenching the Spirit’s work had I kept silent!” No. The Holy Spirit never, ever moves or prompts someone to violate what He has previously said in Scripture.
There is another interpretation of Paul’s instruction that should be noted. Some argue that he is not restricting tongues-speech to only two or three in the course of a corporate meeting; rather, he is saying that after two or three have spoken, room should be given for an interpretation of each. It is assumed that once this is done, two or three more may then speak, again to be followed by interpretation. On this view Paul isn’t insisting that only two or three can speak in tongues at any one meeting of the church, but only that after two or three have spoken, there should be interpretation. Whether others would then speak in tongues as well is not something he directly addresses.
I’m not inclined to embrace this latter view for the simple fact that it would have played into the hands of those in Corinth who believed tongues was such a superior gift to all others that it should be given extraordinary prominence in the gathering of the church.
That is to say, would not this view make it possible for those with the gift of tongues to justify dominating the meeting to such an extent that those with other spiritual gifts never, or rarely, had an opportunity to exercise them?
We have already come across evidence in 1 Corinthians 14 that Paul believed there was spiritual benefit in a person praying in tongues in private without a subsequent interpretation. I argued earlier that when Paul says he wants “all to speak in tongues” (v. 5), he has uninterpreted tongues in view. The reason we know this is because he immediately asserts his preference for prophecy on the basis of the fact that prophecy, unlike uninterpreted tongues, “builds up the church” (v. 4). However, if someone interprets the tongues-speech, “the church may be built up” (v. 5) by it no less so than they are when someone prophesies.
But there is considerably more evidence that Paul not only believed in the great value of prayer in tongues in private but that he himself regularly practiced it.
Let’s go back for a moment to a verse briefly noted previously. When the church is gathered together, tongues must be followed by interpretation. In the absence of someone with that gift, Paul tells the person with the gift of tongues to “keep silent in church and” to “speak to himself and to God” (v. 28). But where should this happen? I think it’s quite obvious. Given the explicit prohibition of uninterpreted tongues-speech “in church,” it seems virtually certain that Paul had in mind prayer in tongues in private, i.e., in a context other than the corporate gathering.
Some insist that Paul is instructing the tongues-speaker to pray silently to himself and to God while yet in the church gathering. But even if this is true (which I doubt), we would then have apostolic endorsement of private tongues-speech. If, as many cessationists contend, all tongues-speech is revelatory and is designed only for rational communication, Paul’s counsel makes no sense. Why would God impart infallible, revelatory knowledge only for the recipient to speak it to himself and back to God? It seems as if the cessationist must envision the tongues-speaker waiting patiently until an interpreter arrives, at which time he can then speak audibly. But this is reading into the text a scenario conspicuous by its absence. Paul’s instruction is for a situation in which there is no interpreter. He says nothing about the tongues-speaker waiting until one is present.
Furthermore, is it consistent with Paul’s emphasis in 1 Corinthians 14 on all working together for mutual edification that he should recommend that some (perhaps many) focus their spiritual energy inwardly (praying in tongues) while someone else is speaking outwardly, ostensibly to edify the very people who on Paul’s advice aren’t even paying attention? No, I don’t think so. Let me try to clarify that point. It simply makes no sense for Paul to say to the person who has the gift of tongues, “Hey, if there isn’t anyone present to interpret your tongue, you can still use your gift in the gathered assembly. Just keep it low and speak quietly enough that no one can hear you except God.” But if Paul was opposed to the private use of tongues in which no one but the speaker can be edified, this counsel would make no sense. The cessationist can’t have it both ways. He can’t argue that tongues is never intended for private use and then argue that private tongues-speech is precisely what Paul commands in 1 Corinthians 14:28.
Before proceeding, let me address one other question that is often asked. Unfortunately it is a question for which no explicit answer is given in the biblical text. Unavoidably then, any answer is going to be somewhat speculative in nature.
The question is this: How would the person with the gift of tongues know whether someone else has been given the interpretation of it? Paul seems to assume that the tongues-speaker would know this. He says it clearly: “But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them [i.e., the ones speaking in tongues] keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God” (1 Cor. 14:28). There are a couple of possible ways to answer this.
First, we should remember that most local churches in the first century were comparatively small. People didn’t meet in huge auditoriums or conference centers. They met in homes. I suspect that on average most local churches in the first century rarely exceeded one hundred fifty people. Some homes had open courtyards or terraces that might conceivably have had space for more. But even in such instances it would be quite the norm for virtually all people to know everyone else who was a member of that particular congregation. I once pastored a church of some two hundred people, and I knew everyone by name and most everyone else did as well. In such a scenario it could be expected that the person speaking in tongues could look around and identify a person whom they knew had the gift of interpretation. In the absence of such an individual, Paul expected them to keep quiet.
Second, in 1 Corinthians 14:13 Paul exhorts the person who speaks in tongues to pray to God that he might also be given the gift of interpretation. Here it is:
Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret.
—1 CORINTHIANS 14:13
There are many things to learn from this passage, not least of which is that not all spiritual gifts are bestowed at the moment of conversion. The person who has the gift of tongues is obviously a born-again believer, and yet Paul urges that individual to pray that the Spirit would be pleased to grant yet another spiritual gift. We also learn from this text that even though it is the Spirit’s will to determine who gets what gift (1 Cor. 12:11), He expects us to ask Him for them. The Spirit’s sovereignty in the distribution of spiritual gifts does not preclude the responsibility of each believer to pray for a particular gift, or perhaps even for several. It may well be the Spirit who has Himself evoked in the heart of a believer a desire for a particular gift because it is the Spirit’s will to grant it to him or her.
In any case, what is most important for us here is that the potential absence of a person with the gift of interpretation can be overcome by simply praying that God would grant that ability to the very person who feels led to speak in tongues. Perhaps you are tempted to ask this question: Well, if the Spirit can provide an interpretation, why bother with speaking in tongues in the first place? Why not simply skip the tongue and go straight to the interpretation so everyone else can be edified and instructed by what is said? Paul doesn’t answer the question. We can only assume he believed there was something profoundly important and of value to others to hear the word in tongues followed by its interpretation. Perhaps it is the supernatural phenomenon itself that he thinks would be uplifting to others, and he doesn’t want them to miss out on the opportunity to witness this gift in operation. Beyond that we can only speculate.
Now, as we return to the original question of how the person with the gift of tongues might know if there was present a person with the gift of interpretation, Paul had a good answer: Pray that God might give you yourself this gift and you can exercise both for the benefit of others! But there is yet another possible answer to our question. Look at the following passage, where Paul gives this word of instruction:
What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
—1 CORINTHIANS 14:26
It would appear from this that Paul envisioned people coming to the meeting already in possession of a gift and a sense for how it should be utilized. When you come to the meeting, says Paul, some of you might have in your heart a hymn to sing, while others may have prepared a “lesson,” or a word of theological instruction. Still others might have already received from God a revelation on the basis of which they would then prophesy. Someone else might be strongly inclined to speak in tongues, while yet another would come either with an interpretation already in her heart or at least with the assurance that God would provide it should another choose to speak in tongues.
What this suggests is that at any gathering of a local church someone with the gift of tongues who feels prompted to speak out loud could, as it were, coordinate or connect in advance with those they know have the gift of interpretation to see if they have come to the meeting with an interpretation already in mind. Or those who regularly provide interpretation would enter the meeting already in possession of something God had revealed to them and would communicate this to the person who regularly speaks in tongues. My point is that Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 14:26 (“when you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation,” emphasis added) indicates that people arrive already prepared to exercise their gift. It would only require the person who “has” a tongue to communicate with the person who “has” an interpretation (or vice versa) in order to make Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 14:27–28 more easily obeyed.
But I digress! Our concern here is to find evidence that Paul himself prayed and sang in tongues in his private devotional life. For that we turn our attention to 1 Corinthians 14:14–19. What follows is somewhat repetitive of what I wrote earlier, but it is so critically important that it calls for careful consideration yet again.
Paul says the person who speaks in tongues is truly praying to God (v. 14), praising or worshipping God (v. 15), and thanking God (v. 16). But he also says this can be done all the while his “mind” is “unfruitful” (v. 14). As noted earlier, the word unfruitful means either “I don’t understand what I am saying” or “other people don’t understand what I’m saying,” or perhaps both (with the primary emphasis on the former). I’m inclined to think he has in view his own lack of understanding. After all, he says, “My mind is unfruitful,” not that the minds of others are unfruitful. In other words, Paul doesn’t understand what he is praying or how he is giving thanks or in what manner he is worshipping. But praying, praising, and giving thanks are most certainly taking place! And all this at the same time he lacks cognitive awareness of what is happening.
The immediate response of many is to say: “Well, if one’s mind is unfruitful, if one doesn’t understand what one is saying, then it is worthless. Why would anyone find benefit or blessing in something he doesn’t understand? Surely Paul’s response to his mind being ‘unfruitful’ is to stop speaking in tongues altogether. Shut it down. Forbid it.”
But that isn’t Paul’s conclusion! No sooner does he say that his “mind is unfruitful” then he makes known his determined resolve: “I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also” (1 Cor. 14:15, emphasis added). We know Paul is referring to praying and singing in tongues because in the next verse he describes giving thanks with one’s spirit as unintelligible to those who may visit the church meeting.
This reading of Paul’s intent makes many Christians extremely uncomfortable. They insist that if one’s mind is not engaged in such a way that the believer can intellectually and cognitively grasp what is occurring, the experience, whatever its nature may be, is useless, perhaps even dangerous. Worse still, might this sort of practice expose a person to demonic influence? Once the safeguards of intellectual discernment are lowered, are we not exposing ourselves to the potential for theological heresy? Failure to engage the mind, so goes the argument, serves only to diminish the centrality of Scripture in the life of the believing community.
I strongly disagree, and so does Paul. If the apostle had been fearful of transrational experience (which, as noted earlier, is far and away different from being irrational), he would have repudiated speaking in tongues and warned others of its inherent dangers. After all, what possible benefit can there be in a spiritual experience that one’s mind can’t comprehend? At the very least we should expect Paul to say something to diminish its importance or to marginalize its practice. But he does no such thing.
Let’s look again closely at Paul’s conclusion. He even introduces it by asking the question, in view of what has just been said in 1 Corinthians 14:14, “What is the outcome then?” (1 Cor. 14:15, NASB), or “What am I to do?” (ESV). I know what many of you think he should do: “Put a stop to this ridiculous and useless practice of speaking in tongues. There is only one viable response, only one reasonable conclusion: I’ll never speak in tongues again since my understanding is unfruitful.” But that isn’t what he says.
His response is found in 1 Corinthians 14:15. There we read that he is determined to do both! “I will pray with my spirit,” i.e., I will pray in tongues, and “I will pray with my mind also,” i.e., I will pray in Greek or the language of the people so others who speak and understand the language can profit from what I say. Clearly Paul believed a spiritual experience beyond the grasp of his mind, which is what I mean by transrational, was yet profoundly profitable. He believed it wasn’t absolutely necessary for an experience to be rationally cognitive for it to be spiritually beneficial and glorifying to God.
This isn’t in any way to denigrate or impugn the crucial importance of one’s intellect in the Christian life. Paul insists that we submit to the renewal of our mind, not its repression (Rom. 12:1–2). All I’m saying, what I believe Paul is saying, is that praying in tongues is profoundly beneficial and glorifying to God even though it exceeds or transcends the capacity of our minds to decipher.
How? I don’t know! Paul doesn’t say. Nowhere does he make an attempt to explain the spiritual dynamics of what happens when a person prays, praises God, or gives thanks in uninterpreted tongues. We simply don’t know how it can be beneficial and edifying. But Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Spirit, says it is. And his personal practice of praying in tongues confirms it. If that isn’t enough for you, there isn’t much more I can say.
This leads to an important question. If Paul is determined to pray with the Spirit, i.e., pray in uninterpreted tongues, where and when will he do it? Since he has ruled out doing it in the public meeting of the church, he must be referring to his private, devotional prayer life. Paul’s private prayer experience was also characterized by singing in or “with the Spirit” (1 Cor. 14:15, NASB), an obvious reference to singing in tongues, what must have constituted a free and more melodious and musical form of tongues-speech.
What Paul proceeds to say in 1 Corinthians 14:18–19 becomes grist for the mill on both sides in this debate. The Charismatic appeals to verse 18, while the cessationist points a finger at verse 19:
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.
—1 CORINTHIANS 14:18
Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
—1 CORINTHIANS 14:19
In verse 18 it’s as if Paul opens the door to his prayer closet and allows us a brief peek into his private devotional life with God. His quiet times with the Lord were anything but quiet, as they featured praying and singing and praising in tongues, an experience for which he is profoundly grateful to God.
“But wait a minute,” responds the cessationist. “The crucial issue with Paul isn’t whether he speaks in tongues but what is appropriate in the public assembly of the church. Paul is determined only to do what is cognitively rational and thus edifying to others in the meeting of the church.”
That’s right. So how do we resolve this problem? It’s really not that difficult. Paul has said that tongues-speech in the public gathering of the church is prohibited unless there is an interpretation. Since the purpose of such meetings is the edification of other believers, Paul prefers to speak in a language all can understand. Consequently, he rarely speaks in tongues in a public setting and will only do so if assured that an interpretation will follow.
However, if Paul speaks in tongues more frequently and fervently than anyone else, yet in church almost never does (preferring there to speak in a way all can understand), where does he speak in tongues? In what context would the affirmation of verse 18 take shape? The only possible answer is that Paul exercised his remarkable gift in private, in the context of his personal, devotional intimacy with God. Again, the only grounds I can see for objecting to this scenario is the reluctance that many cessationists have for spiritual experiences that bypass or transcend the mind.
Let’s remember, this is the man who wrote Romans. This is the man whose incomparable mind and power of logical argumentation rendered helpless his theological opponents. This is the man who is known to history as the greatest theologian outside of Jesus Himself. This is the man who took on and took out the philosophers in Athens (Acts 17)! Yes, logical, reasonable, highly educated Paul prayed in tongues more than anyone!
My conclusion is that while we must vigorously affirm the critical importance of loving God with our minds and pursuing the edification of others in the church, the Charismatic exegesis of this passage in 1 Corinthians 14 is on the mark. I simply don’t see any way around the fact that Paul not only believed in the spiritual value of praying in private in uninterpreted tongues but also himself practiced it. In fact, he happily declares that he prays in private in uninterpreted and therefore unintelligible tongues more than all the tongue-happy Corinthians combined!
Thomas Edgar is one cessationist who has devoted considerable energy in an attempt to prove that tongues was never intended for private prayer. 1 British New Testament scholar Max Turner has responded to each of Edgar’s arguments in precisely the way I would. So I will take advantage of Turner’s excellent response to help us navigate our way to an answer for this question. 2
Edgar’s first argument is to direct our attention to 1 Corinthians 14:22 where Paul says tongues are for a “sign” (he also appeals to verses in the dubious ending of Mark, 16:15–17). 3 If tongues is intended to provide a “sign,” they obviously have no role in one’s personal and necessarily secretive prayer life. Turner rightly responds by reminding us that this is an example of unwarranted reductionism. 4 The latter term refers to the tendency to reduce the purpose of tongues (or any other gift) to one and only one purpose. But tongues clearly has a multiplicity of functions, one of which is the building up of the believer in private prayer. Edgar also stumbles in how to reconcile his view with what we’ve already seen in Acts 10 and 19. There is no indication in these texts that tongues served either an evangelistic purpose or as a sign.
Another argument is that a gift used in private could not edify the church as a whole, and that would put tongues in a separate category, different from all other spiritual gifts, each of which is supposed to build up the body of Christ. But Turner is quick to point out that when tongues is exercised in the public gathering of the church, there is always to be an interpretation. When that occurs, people are clearly edified. (See 1 Corinthians 14:5.) And as I’ve already argued, any time a believer is built up spiritually, the rest of the church stands to benefit. This argument of Edgar also fails to realize that every spiritual gift serves to build up or edify the one who makes use of it. When I teach, I’m built up by the exercise of my gift. That isn’t my primary reason for teaching, but it is a wonderful, albeit indirect, product of my teaching gift. The same is true of all other gifts.
But wouldn’t the private exercise of a gift like tongues be self-centered? No. When employed in prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, as Paul says of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, it is profoundly and unmistakably God-centered.
Edgar also argues that if tongues can edify the one who uses it, wouldn’t God give it to all His children? Again, however, this fails to realize that all spiritual gifts and not just tongues have the capacity to edify the person exercising it. Therefore, “the person who has not received the gift [of tongues] is not thereby necessarily impoverished.” 5
If the purpose of tongues is to aid one in private prayer devotions, why would there be a need for the gift of interpretation? Turner responds to this by pointing out that “on Edgar’s view it should be an anomaly that the gift of interpretation is required at all.” 6 Yet we see in 1 Corinthians 14 that when tongues is accompanied by interpretation, it edifies both the congregation as a whole and the person who is speaking. Interpretation is thus needed for the corporate expression and edifying fruit of tongues while it is unnecessary when used in private. There is nothing in the least inconsistent with these two assertions.
But tongues don’t edify the speaker, says Edgar. Doesn’t Paul himself say that his mind is “unfruitful” when he speaks in tongues without interpretation? Yes, he does. But that doesn’t mean tongues aren’t helpful to the speaker. It simply means they are unintelligible. And that, I suspect, is the stumbling block for Edgar and other like-minded cessationists. They can’t fathom how something that is not comprehended can be spiritually beneficial. But Paul clearly believed it was or he would not have resolved to continue to pray in tongues in private.
Edgar also seeks to connect Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:2 that speaking in tongues is speaking only to God and his statement in 1 Corinthians 14:9 that tongues without interpretation is “speaking into the air.” In other words, it must therefore be something negative, of no benefit, and thus to be avoided. But Paul’s reference to “speaking into the air” is an indictment of making use of the gift in the public assembly without interpretation and has no bearing on whether the gift may be used privately for prayer, praise, and the edification of the speaker. That Paul endorses private prayer in tongues is clear from his expressed desire in 1 Corinthians 14:5 that all speak in tongues. We know this is private prayer because Paul contrasts it with prophecy, which needs no interpretation and thus more readily edifies others. Since Paul says interpreted tongues are the functional equivalent of prophecy and equally capable of edifying others (v. 5), he could only say that he who prophesies is “greater” than the one who speaks in tongues if the tongues in view is uninterpreted. And, of course, as we’ve just seen in 1 Corinthians 14:14–19, Paul clearly testifies of his own practice of praying in tongues in private. To this we might add his exhortation that if interpretation is not forthcoming, the believer “keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God” (v. 28).
Edgar does not believe praying “with my spirit,” referenced in 1 Corinthians 14:14–16, is praying in tongues. Thus he believes Paul is discouraging praying in the Spirit and instead tells us only to pray with the mind. But it is virtually certain that praying and singing with the Spirit is Paul’s way of describing tongues. How else could he contrast these with praying and singing “with the mind”? This is clearly confirmed in 1 Corinthians 14:19 where Paul contrasts speaking “with” his “mind” and speaking “in a tongue.”
Finally, I’ve recently encountered yet another attempt by cessationists to deny that either Paul spoke in tongues in private or that he encouraged others to do so. The argument is that when Paul spoke in tongues outside the public gathering of the church, he did so in the same way the early disciples did in Acts 2. In other words, this argument proposes that there are multiple scenarios in which Paul found himself that were like unto that which occurred on the day of Pentecost. Thus, we are being asked to believe that on countless occasions Paul found himself in a crowd of people gathered from around the inhabited world, all of whom spoke only in their native languages, and that Paul declared to each in their own dialect the “mighty deeds of God” (Acts 2:11, NASB).
There are several insurmountable problems with this view. One is that it would have to ignore all the other evidence I’ve provided in this chapter that demonstrates the legitimate use of tongues as a private prayer language that also serves to praise and give thanks to God. Another problem is that it fails to account for Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 14:18 where he declares and gives thanks to God for the fact that he speaks in tongues “more than all of you.” It seems we are being asked to believe that Paul spoke in tongues in scenarios identical to Acts 2 far more frequently than the Corinthians did in their private devotions or in their corporate church gatherings. I find that highly improbable, if not impossible, to believe.
Furthermore, Paul has just described his tongues-speech as being prayer, praise (singing in tongues), and the giving of thanks. So are we now asked to believe that when Paul found himself in the midst of numerous people who didn’t speak his language, he would pray in tongues publicly in front of them, sing praises to God in tongues in front of them, and express his heartfelt personal gratitude to God in tongues in front of them, all with a view to lead them to Christ? I don’t think so.
And let’s not forget that Paul expressed his desire that all the Corinthians (and all Christians) speak in tongues (1 Cor. 14:5). Are we then being asked to believe that what Paul desired for the people in Corinth (or any other church) is that all of them would likewise find themselves in scenarios similar to Acts 2 so they could then speak in tongues somewhere other than inside the church gathering? Are you beginning to see the multiple weaknesses of this attempt to evade the inescapable fact that Paul prayed in tongues in private and recommends that others do the same?
There is one more fatal flaw in this cessationist argument. There is not one verse nor even a single syllable in the New Testament to suggest that Paul spoke in tongues in public settings or scenarios proposed by this theory. Where in the New Testament, in Acts or anywhere else that describes Paul’s public ministry, do we ever get so much as a hint that he spoke in tongues in the presence of people from foreign lands in the way we read in Acts 2? Since Paul himself says he speaks in tongues more than all the tongue-happy Corinthians combined, wouldn’t you think we would have at least one (that’s all, just one) example of him addressing crowds of foreigners in tongues-speech? For there not to be a single, solitary corroborating example of something Paul says was a regular feature of his spiritual life is simply too much for me (and I hope for you) to believe.