Did Jesus Speak In Tongues?

Did Jesus speak in tongues? Of all people, as our supreme example, why wouldn't he if it really mattered? He did experience the Spirit coming upon him, he performed all kinds of miracles, and prophesied incredible revelation. That is astonishingly rich spiritual life, no doubt, so where are the tongues?

To our knowledge, Jesus never spoke in tongues.

We have so little insight into his personal life, it is difficult to say anything definitive about his private practices. If he did speak in tongues for his own edification, no one was there to witness it. If some one did witness it, no biblical author was ever impressed by the Holy Spirit to record it. Although if someone had witnessed him doing so, I feel fairly certain it would have been recorded in light of Acts 2.

As far as his public ministry goes, we have no recorded incidence of Jesus ever speaking in tongues. We do have incidences of him speaking in Aramaic, but that was his native language, not the supernatural occurrence of speaking in tongues. Again, in light of Acts 2, had he spoken in tongues, I feel fairly certain one of the gospel authors would have recorded it. Something so seminal in the birth of the church would have surely had a precedent in the life of Christ recorded if there was one.

Regardless, I think the real issue implied by this question is that if Jesus never did, why should we? The answer is that regardless of what Jesus' experience was in this respect, at its beginning the church unanimously spoke in tongues, and the experience was promised to all that followed. For the disciples and those selected to be Apostles by Jesus, the clear choice of God was that every one of them spoke in tongues upon their baptism in the Spirit, even though Jesus never did.

So, the particular experience of Jesus in regard to speaking in tongues is not the controlling precedent for those who follow him. Instead, it is the experience of those who first followed Jesus which is the model for Christian experience. Jesus may have not spoken in tongues, but his followers did, and so can we!

What About Those Who Don't Speak in Tongues?

Many folk at my church, and at other Pentecostal churches, have not spoken in tongues... yet. I say that because it is my desire that every one of them would. It is not something that can be forced or enforced, but I believe that each Christian who hasn't spoken in tongues... yet, would be blessed and more in line with biblical practice if he or she did.

Jude, in his brief epistle, says that we build up our faith by praying in the Spirit. The Apostle Paul said in his letter to the Romans that the Spirit is able to pray that which we can't find the words to utter. The phrase: "praying in the Spirit" is just another way to describe tongues, which are incomprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit. Clearly, the Bible highlights the benefits to the believer of praying in the Spirit, and I see no possible downside to speaking with other tongues when the scriptures testify to the upside.

Of course, what really matters is what Jesus wants for us. He told the first believers to wait until they were baptized in the Spirit before going off and trying to fulfill the Great Commission. They waited, were baptized in the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues as a result, and then proceeded to go out and turn the world upside down. Why would anyone expect a different pattern for those who came after them? Certainly, only really bad interpretation musters 1 Corinthians 13 for that duty.

Evangelism and church planting took off globally when Pentecostals began to follow that pattern early in the last century. More has been accomplished toward fulfilling the Great Commission by tongue-speaking charismatics in the last 100 years than has been accomplished by the cessationist church for the entirety of its 17 centuries of history. Honestly, this is the definition of a no-brainer.

We need to be baptized in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. If someone hasn't received it... yet, he or she should not be treated badly or ostracized, but should merely be encouraged to continue waiting in faith. The only division this experience needs to cause within the family of God occurs when someone tries to prevent folk from speaking in tongues. That is clear disobedience to the Word and is awful, but trying to force someone to do so who doesn't... yet might be just as bad.

Why Do We All Speak In Tongues?

Pentecostals believe that every believer who has been baptized in the Holy Spirit can speak in tongues. It's the initial physical evidence that the experience has in fact occurred according to their reckoning. Charismatics don't necessarily concur, and so I ask, "Are tongues the only initial evidence of being baptized in the Spirit?" Beyond doubt, tongues are one of the possible evidences found in the scriptures, but what about the fruit of the Spirit or prophecy and visions?

People wonder, perhaps you do too, why this fixation upon tongues among the Pentecostals? Simply, it is biblical. Except for the experience of Christ (as dealt with in this post), speaking in tongues is either directly associated or can be inferred to have occurred in every incidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit recorded in the Bible. In Acts 2, 10, and 19, tongues are specifically referenced; in Acts 8, it is clear that the baptism in the Holy Spirit was anticipated to have some physical, visible sign. Given the facts of what they accepted as evidence in chapter 10, what would that evidence be but tongues?

Even though it's not mentioned in Acts 9, we know that Paul could speak in tongues after his baptism (filling) with the Spirit (as noted in this post). Minimally, it was widespread, if not universal (as I believe) in Corinth. That other signs, like prophesying, may manifest in conjunction with tongues should not seem incredible, but that tongues is associated with every scriptural account of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit cannot be reasonably disavowed.

The earliest church had an experience that then became precedent for the church that followed. The first church used that first occurrence as a rough template to judge that which happened in their time, we should do the same. For the vast stretch of time that the historical church did not follow suit, there were no tongues and precious little other miraculous manifestations. In 1901, when that which became the Pentecostal Movement rediscovered this pattern and embraced it as normative, tongues and miracles resurfaced with vigor.

I think we can know the tree by its fruit in respect to this doctrine. Those who believe it experience what is found in the scriptures, whereas those who don't clumsily scramble about trying to explain why they don't practice what is found in the scriptures. Why would anyone attempting to abide by the Bible as instruction in godly living not want to speak in tongues?

There is, however, a big difference between the evidence for birth by and the evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit. The fact of conversion is evidenced initially by the Holy Spirit inwardly inspiring an awareness of God as Father and Jesus as Lord. Over time, it expresses itself outwardly by a lifestyle of holiness and the fruit of the Spirit. The initial evidence of baptism in the Spirit is speaking in tongues. Ideally, a Christian will evidence both.