The Bible offers no evidence that Jesus spoke in tongues. Many today see “tongues” as some sort of unintelligible, supernatural form of speech. Biblically, the gift of speaking in tongues occurs when someone speaks a language he does not know in order to edify someone who does speak that language ( 1 Corinthians 14:6 ).


If Christ were going to speak in tongues, it would have been logical for Him to do so at His baptism when “the Spirit descended on him like a dove” ( Mark 1:10 ). We know that, moments after Jesus’ baptism , the Father spoke from heaven in words that all could understand (verse 11), but we have no record of Jesus speaking in tongues on this or any other occasion.


Many advocates of today’s tongues movement assume that Jesus must have spoken in tongues. To bolster their point, they point to passages such as Mark 7:34 , in which Jesus “He looked up to heaven . . . with a deep sigh,” and Mark 8:12 , when Jesus “sighed deeply in his spirit” (ESV). However, a sigh is not the same thing as the supernatural gift of tongues. Anyone can sigh, for any number of reasons, but it is no proof of the Spirit’s power.


We have record of Jesus speaking in Aramaic, the commonest language spoken in Israel at that time (see Mark 5:41 and Acts 26:14 ). Most likely, He was also conversant in Hebrew and Greek, since both of those languages were used as well. But whether or not Jesus ever spoke with supernatural power in another language, the Bible does not say.

Mark 16:18 - 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

GoodMuyis:
Mark 16:18 - 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new s;

Gbam..God bless you..Wicked and pervese Nation,They will always find a way to nail you,moreover tongue is nothing but a sign to an unbeliever but to a believer it's an encrypted communication between man and God

GoodMuyis:
Mark 16:18 - 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

My brother, did you read the above article at all and study the Bible verses therein ?

You are correct with the Bible verse you quoted, but does it mean that Jesus Christ spoke in tongue or prayed in tongue in the entire Bible? No to the question but Yes! He did encourage us to speak in tongue but Apostle Paul elucidated on the use of it through the help of the Holy Spirit.

Tongue speaking is just one of the nine gifts of the Holy Spirit. Why the hype on just one?

In fact, tongue speaking, if properly used in accordance to the Bible, is very essential in the Church or evangelism of the Gospel but it has been diluted by many.

According to the Holy Scripture, it is useless unless someone else is there to interpret it. If there is no interpreter, tongue speaking should be between you and your God and not to be used within a congregation to show off.

According to the Bible, should someone speaks in tongues and no else has the gift of interpretation, let the tongue speaker be silent.

Many are after the gifts of the Holy Spirit but put aside the FRUITS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Though without the gifts of the Spirit, one may not attain the FRIUTS of the Spirit, but what is the end result or purpose of planting or having a tree without bearing the good fruits

adeniyitheprof:
The Bible offers no evidence that Jesus spoke in tongues

Correct, Jesus didnt speak in any of those tongues uttered post-Pentecost
besides Jesus didnt have to anyway,
as those particular ''speaking in tongues'' exercise were left to be done and carried out by ''them that believe'' (i.e. Mark 16:17)

The entire prophecy in Mark 16:17-18 has already being fulfilled, except for the ''drink any deadly poison'' specified condition
The specified IF statement, found in the Mark 16:18 conditional prophecy wasnt true and so wont run during the Mark 16:17-18 prophecy flow execution

Apart from other executors of the prophecy, Paul in Acts 19:1-7, fulfilled the Mark 16:17-18 prophecy
Paul in Acts 28:3 -5 also fulfilled one part of the Mark 16:17-18 prophecy when he shrugged off a snake he picked up
The other part not fulfilled is the ''if drink any deadly poison'' ''it will not harm''

If during or after the snake pick up, Paul had drank the snake's poison, the same ''it will not harm'' outcome would have still panned out
Paul wasn't bitten by the snake, so guess no need for ''if drink any deadly poison'' to come into play (i.e. no need to use the IF condition)
Win win situation for ''the snake pick up'' and ''if drink any deadly poison'' crew

adeniyitheprof:
Many today see “tongues” as some sort of unintelligible, supernatural form of speech.

Correct, ''speaking in tongues'' or ''speak with other tongues'' as done in the New Testament chapters, IS NOT THE SAME AS what is widespread and generally uttered today

adeniyitheprof:
Biblically, the gift of speaking in tongues occurs when someone speaks a language he does not know in order to edify someone who does speak that language ( 1 Corinthians 14:6 )

Not correct, the gift of speaking in tongues has nothing to do with edifying no bagga.
Also 1 Corinthians 14:6 isnt suggesting speaking a language you dont know in order to edify someone who does speak that language

Pre-1 Corinthians 14:6 and post-1 Corinthians 14:6 entails a comparison of tongues and prophecy
Prophecy won the day,
it got the edge over tongues because as far as Paul was concerned, prophecy builds up and enriches the lives of the believers
whereas tongues, objectively, is used for the unbelieving and/or an unbeliever's persuasion
(i.e. tongues primarily is used to bring around the unbelieving and/or an unbeliever,
to win over the unbelieving and/or an unbeliever, to convince the unbelieving and/or an unbeliever)

There are only 3 instances of recorded speaking in tongues in the Bible,
after that we dont see or read of the disciples or Apostles willy nilly haphazardly or not, taking part in speaking in tongues activities
Nada about them recorded speaking in tongues privately or corporately, (i.e. in closets or in groups) after those three instances

adeniyitheprof:
If Christ were going to speak in tongues, it would have been logical for Him to do so at His baptism when “the Spirit descended on him like a dove” ( Mark 1:10 ). We know that, moments after Jesus’ baptism, the Father spoke from heaven in words that all could understand (verse 11), but we have no record of Jesus speaking in tongues on this or any other occasion.

LOL, good observation.
Correct, it would be premature for Jesus Christ to do any of languages out of the post Pentecost ''speak in tongues'' before the acme and culminating point of His mission or purpose.
Aramaic, was suffice, possiby maybe Hebrew and Greek too

Jesus Christ didnt speak any of languages out of/from the post Pentecost ''speak in tongues'',
He however in Mark 16:17, did leave the speaking in tongues exercises to be carried out by the ''them that believe''

adeniyitheprof:
Many advocates of today’s tongues movement assume that Jesus must have spoken in tongues

Correct, just not the imaginary or fabricated banded about at homes and gatherings.
Jesus preached, teached and concersed in Aramaic, that right there is speaking a tongue
Well if Jesus were to speak intelligible tongues, the likely languages He would have spoken, apart from the obvious Aramaic, would be Hebrew and Greek, these three because biblical recordings shows he had Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek audiences or listeners

adeniyitheprof:
To bolster their point, they point to passages such as Mark 7:34 , in which Jesus “He looked up to heaven . . . with a deep sigh,”
and Mark 8:12 , when Jesus “sighed deeply in his spirit” (ESV).
However, a sigh is not the same thing as the supernatural gift of tongues.
Anyone can sigh, for any number of reasons, but it is no proof of the Spirit’s power

When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her,
he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,
- John 11:33

Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave.
It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.
- John 11:38

You should have used John 11:33 and John 11:38 instead of Mark 7:34 and Mark 8:12,
as John 11:33 is the closest you will get of Jesus speaking in an unintelligible sound,
and that's if looking for what to match with the unintelligible and meaningless stuff being practised in christians'
and most supposedly believers' gatherings

I have these very strange and difficult to understand emotions with goosebumps each time I read John 11:33 and John 11:38
Its like am in the midst, reliving the moment in John 11:33 and John 11:38 all over again along with Jesus

adeniyitheprof:
We have record of Jesus speaking in Aramaic, the commonest language spoken in Israel at that time (see Mark 5:41 and Acts 26:14 ). Most likely, He was also conversant in Hebrew and Greek, since both of those languages were used as well. But whether or not Jesus ever spoke with supernatural power in another language, the Bible does not say

Absolutely correct coupled with acute observations

One is not in the camp, that subscribes to the notion that speaking in tongues has petered out
To believe, for believing, is the underlining theme and primary objective of speaking in tongues is used for.
Speaking in tongues is a sign, not for believers but for the unbelieving and/or an unbeliever

From the pilgrim Jews in the upper room ''returning'' home to participate in the Jewish Feast of Weeks aka the Day of Firstfruits or Pentecost as we know it
to Peter and the Jews present with when'' the door'' was flung open for Cornelius, a gentile
to the disciples at Ephesus familiar only with the baptism of John
unbelief is the common denominator, back to back, in the above three, the gift of speaking in tongues is deployed to neutralised

The gift of speaking in tongues is not a talisman,
nor is it something to be waved around as if it's a magic wand to make wishful things happen

If you one doesnt know what to pray for, dont how to pray or cant articulate, then groan or sigh
Most times groaning and sighing in the spirit are worth a thousand words and are more effective than utterred words
Jesus groaned in spirit, Jesus sighed.
The bible even tells that the Spirit helps us in our weakness
and that for we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.

So, praying in the Spirit, is praying in tune with the Spirit, it is not praying in tongues.
Praying in tongues, is not meant to be double dutch. You simply just pray in any human language.
Thats what praying in tongue is and means. Period

Praying in tongues, is praying in humanly understandable, meaningful or intelligible language(s)
and any notion trying to suggest that praying in tongues is about using a firewalled ''secret holy language'' or ''heavenly language'' channelled through a demilitarized zone to block off satan or throw satan off the prayer scent, is an evil inspiration from the pit of darkness and fantasy world

Furthermore in closing, the men and women of Samaria and Ethiopian eunuch did not speak in tongues.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:30, states: All do not speak with tongues, do they?

Also Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:5 states: I wish that all of you could speak in other languages (i.e. speak with tongues)
but especially that you could speak what God has revealed (i.e. one who prophesies)
The person who speaks what God has revealed (i.e. one who prophesies) is more important than the person who speaks in other languages (i.e. speak with tongues)
This is true unless he can interpret what he says to help the church grow.

In 1 Corinthians 14:22, Paul concludes: Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers.
Prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.…

If Paul can state the above three, again weighing speaking in tongues against prophesying, then I humbly rest my case