Why do some people speak in 'tongues' , which have to be interpreted, when angels do not?

Short Answer

Among those who practice "speaking in tongues" they would have understood the activity as something other than angelic speech in heaven (no one has heard it) and also something other than angelic speech to humans on earth (intelligible).

Long Answer

Anthony C. Thiselton's NIGT Commentary on 1 Corinthians (2013) provides extensive discussion of possible meanings of the "various kinds of tongues" in 1 Cor 12:10 along with pros and cons of each meaning:

• i. Tongues as Angelic Speech (emphasis mine)

  Ellis and Dautzenberg argue for this view, and Witherington and Barrett express sympathy with it. ... We may also add that the notion of angels' speech as being among that which passes away at the parousia (13:8) would be most curious. This is one of the least plausible proposals. Other reasons for the unintelligibility and transcendent, God-directed nature of tongues more readily suggest themselves, especially on the analogy of “sighs too deep for words” (Rom 8:26).

• ii. Tongues as the Miraculous Power to Speak Other Languages

• iii. Tongues as Liturgical, Archaic, or Rhythmic Phrases

• iv. Tongues as “Ecstatic” Speech

• v. Proposed Modification from Theissen: Conscious, Unconscious, and a Release (Cf. Rom 8:26)

  Gerd Theissen has produced one of the most incisive and innovative treatments of tongues available in any language in his major study Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology. He argues that tongues are “the language of the unconscious which becomes capable of consciousness through interpretation.”²⁸² In his chapter “Tradition Analysis” relevant to 1 Corinthians 12-14, however, he does defend certain specific ways tongues relate to ecstatic states. It is extremely disappointing that neither Forbes nor Turner sees fit to address this very important work with seriousness since Theissen also works firsthand not only with Euripides, Virgil, Plato, and Philo but also with apocalyptic and Paul as well as social psychology. Turner has pleaded for such skills.²⁸³ In Euripides, The Bacchae, e.g., “unconscious aggressive impulses develop in the ecstatic state and overcome deeply rooted moral inhibitions” which result in the death of Pentheus at the hands of his mother.²⁸⁴ Theissen discusses the classic work of E. R. Dodds on this subject. Similarly, in Plato, Phaedrus 265A, ecstasy entails “divine release from the customary habits,” while in Ion 533D-535A inspiration entails “being put out of one’s senses.”²⁸⁵ To be filled by God (enthusiasm) entails relinquishing one’s own thoughts to make room for God (Plato, Ion 534E). Philo takes up this “ecstatic filling” from Plato. “The light of God shines when human light sets” and thus “divine possession and madness fall upon us” (Philo, Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 263-65).

  Although he notes Origen’s insistence that this view is not “Christian,” Theissen traces themes in 1 Corinthians 12-14 which allow him to see elements of both angelic tongues (Testament of Job 48:1-3; 49:2; and 50:2) and ecstatic utterance as aspects included in various species of tongues.²⁸⁶ Nevertheless, he agrees with those who regard this as no more than a starting point for further inquiry, in which radical differences between the three respective stances of Paul, Corinth, and the hellenistic world clearly emerge.

• vi. Tongues as Language of the Unconscious Released in “Sighs Too Deep for Words” (from the Depths of the Heart)

  We have already established with detailed argument on 4:3-5 (above) that the secrets of the heart (4:5) and inarticulate groans associated with longings of heart or our inmost being (Rom 8:26, Gk. heart, and REB, inmost being) relate to Bultmann’s observation that often Paul uses heart for that which “need not penetrate into the field of consciousness at all, but may designate the hidden tendency of the self.”²⁸⁷ The specific work of the Holy Spirit in actualizing inarticulate yearnings directed toward God from the depths of the heart of the believer in Rom 8:26-27 forms a retrospective summary from Paul’s point of view of the phenomenon which occupies many verses in 1 Cor 12:10-14:40 but very few elsewhere in the NT. It is in no way anachronistic to associate Paul’s language about the heart or what transcends cognitive consciousness (the mind) with modern notions of the preconscious, subconscious, or unconscious. Paul simply used available terminology for depths of the human self which may now be described in the more developed language of modern psychology. The conclusions of Bultmann, Jewett, Stendahl, Theissen, and others establish this claim beyond all reasonable doubt. The one proviso is, once again, to heed our own warning that of various species of tongues, in principle some manifestations may fall outside this category.

  Stendahl also begins his essay on “Glossolalia” in the NT in the same place as that which is emphasized by a more “Pentecostalist” writer, F. D. Macchia. Both focus on a study of “unspeakable groanings” or “Sighs Too Deep for Words” and “he who searches the hearts ... the Spirit” in Rom 8:26 and 27.²⁸⁸ The “groaning” is a longing for the eschatological completion of redemption to take place, prompted by the Spirit through Christ to God, like all authentic Christian prayer. This befits the believer’s experience of weakness. ...

  It is striking to find Stendahl and Kasemann, who differ so radically on some fundamental issues in Paul, agreeing that “the gift of glossolalia is not a sign of spiritual accomplishment” which is “not suited for evangelism or for publicity. It can become divisive... ”²⁹² It may be “wise to let glossolalia gush forth ... so that those who are not professional in the shaping of words are free to express freely their overwhelmed praise to the Lord.”²⁹³ On the other hand, “few human beings can live healthily with high-voltage religious experience over a long period of time.”²⁹⁴ Stendahl attempts not only to show the nature of the contrast between articulate and inarticulate expression, but also to show how this coheres with the theme of the body and limbs in 1 Cor 12:12-31. He writes, “Thus we need them” [Stendahl means that the literate and articulate need warmly committed charismatic enthusiasts] and they need us [enthusiasts need the literate and articulate for growth and development; Stendahl’s italics].” “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you ...’” (12:21; cf. 12:29-31). While we cannot be certain that this is the precise application of 12:21, in a broad sense the principle constitutes a coherent whole, in Stendahl’s account of the issues.

  Without doubt, however, Theissen’s treatment is the most detailed, incisive, and innovative, and sheds much light on the issues. He shows beyond doubt that Paul, glossolaliasts at Corinth, and inspired speech in the external Graeco-Roman world are all to be viewed and understood differently, but with points of overlap.

  (a) Paul and the Corinthians agree that tongues have “a personal value for the individual. One who speaks in tongues edifies oneself (1 Cor. 14:4).”²⁹⁵ “Feelings of happiness” or of release, intimacy with God, or other “positive inner consequences are then a motive for repetition of the behavior”²⁹⁶ But here Paul, unlike many at Corinth, feels unease. For the main need is the common good, and tongues, at least in public, can become divisive.

  (b) Tongues can become divisive for at least three reasons. ... ...

Thiselton argues for meaning vi :

Tongues may then be viewed as “the language of the unconscious” because it is unintelligible (unless it is “interpreted”) not only to others but also to the speaker.³⁰⁴ In 14:11 “foreign language” is unintelligible to the listener but intelligible to the speaker. But this represents “a logical jump.” Paul prepares to urge “the speaker, not the listener” (my italics) “to pray for the power to interpret,” i.e., to articulate what he or she utters, bringing it up from levels of unconscious depths to those of cognitive consciousness.³⁰⁵ This is precisely the understanding of 14:13 which I proposed in 1979, drawing both on exegesis and on lexicographical explorations of διερμηνεύειν in Philo and in Josephus.³⁰⁶ Paul does not say that the glossolalist does understand his or her utterances, but that he wishes that they would, and urges them to pray for this further gift.³⁰⁷ Usually the gift of tongues is given “to one,” and intelligible articulation of tongues-speech “to another” (12:10). But ideally “one and the same person can possess both gifts,” as 14:27-28 probably presupposes, and as I argued in my 1979 article.³⁰⁸ Theissen convincingly concludes that “glossolalia is language of the unconscious — language capable of consciousness.”³⁰⁹

Glossolalia, therefore, makes “unconscious depth dimensions of life accessible,” which may involve “reassumption of a more primitive level of speaking” to which many at times regress as “a return to egocentric use of language” and is likely to constitute “socially learned behavior.”³¹⁰ Theissen appeals to 14:4, 20 (cf. 13:11; 14:21). We must postpone further comments until our exegesis of 14:2-38. However, we shall see that it lends further plausibility, over against a publicly reinforced, learned behavior which becomes a socially public habit, to Paul’s triple strategy: first, to establish a hierarchy of gifts based on Christomorphic service to others and love for others; second, to “privatize” glossolalia in the home (as both Theissen and Wire stress); and, third, to encourage prayer for the gift of articulating buried longings, yearning, and emotions. Paul does not appear to endorse a view found in some modern churches that public tongues-speech is attractive and melodious; again, assumptions of a one-to-one match between ancient and modern phenomena remain speculative. Meanwhile, Paul see tongues as a genuine gift of the Spirit which can help the individual, but subject to the three factors outlined above. Rom 8:26-27 should be kept in mind.

On 1 Cor 13:1 where "tongues of angels" appear, Thiselton comments:

...

The dative is a straightforward instrumental use: to speak with human or angelic tongues. The distinction between human and angelic could either (i) reflect a difference of view at Corinth as to whether speaking in or with tongues signified inspired human utterances or a “language of heaven”; or ... ... Here in our view Paul begins with the notion of tongues as that which gives expression to the secret yearnings and praise of the depths of the human heart, and escalates to a hypothesis considered at Corinth but not necessarily endorsed by Paul, that tongues is the angelic language of heaven.

CONCLUSION: Those who practice "speaking in tongues" today would have understood "tongues of angels" in 1 Cor 13:1 as a completely different species, the kind that angels do in heaven (i.e. not when angels have a message for humans). Paul's use of it in 1 Cor 13:1 was to correct a misunderstanding by some in the Corinthian church who thought that what they were doing was angelic speech, when it was merely human (albeit its being a spiritual gift). Thus, there is no contradiction between instances of an angel delivering a message to human (no word-level interpretation needed) and instances of a human "speaking in tongues" (which DO need interpretation).

In cases like in Daniel 8:19-26 where Daniel still "did not understand it" (v. 27), the natural sense of the Bible narration of the story is that Daniel DID understand at word-level what the sentences mean, but because the message is symbolic & prophetic it requires further interpretation which God did NOT give to Daniel at the time, similar to how many prophecies given to Isaiah, Ezekiel and John remain opaque even to us, although we understand them at word level.

Whether the spiritual gift of the "interpretation of tongues" (1 Cor 12:10) enables us to understand these prophecies is beyond the scope of this question. Personally I don't think there is any Biblical basis to conflate speaking in tongues with uttering prophecies, as most Pentecostal theologies I read associate speaking in tongues with praising God or with groaning longings of the heart.