The Temple in Prophecy

by carlos@thehumanjesus.org

Daniel 9 provides the prophetic framework behind the disciples’ question to Jesus in Matthew 24:3.

“Please explain to us when these things will happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and end of the age?”

Daniel’s prophecy moves from the cutting off of Messiah to the destruction of Jerusalem and its sanctuary, and then to the halting of Temple sacrifices and the Abomination of Desolation. Both Jesus and his apostles have in mind the one and same prophecy of Daniel.

The “sanctuary” in Daniel 9:26 is plainly associated with Jerusalem’s Temple and its sacrificial worship. The same terminology appears in Daniel 8:11–13; 11:31; and 12:11, where the sanctuary is profaned and the regular sacrifice removed. It also connects with Daniel’s prayer concerning the “desolate sanctuary” and “Your city” (Dan. 9:17–19), to which Gabriel responds by speaking of “your holy city” (9:24) and the destruction of “the city and the sanctuary” (9:26). Daniel 9:27 again joins desolation with the cessation of sacrifice and offering.

Later, on the Mount of Olives, Jesus says of the Temple then standing, “There will not be one stone left on another. All will be torn down” (Matt. 24:2). He then explicitly returns to Daniel: “When you see the ‘Abomination of Desolation’ predicted by the prophet Daniel standing in the holy place…” (Matt. 24:15).

For his apostles, steeped in the prophecies of Daniel—particularly chapters 7–11—Jesus’ own prophetic words naturally hark back to and coincide with Daniel. The immediate prediction concerned the destruction of the existing Temple, but Jesus’ appeal to Daniel’s Abomination of Desolation keeps the Temple, sacrificial worship, desecration, and final judgment within the same prophetic pattern.

Paul develops the same picture in 2 Thessalonians 2. Before the parousia, a wicked “man of lawlessness” exalts himself above everything called God or worshiped and “takes his seat in the temple of God,” presenting himself as God (2 Thess. 2:3–4). He is then destroyed by Jesus at his parousia (v. 8). The same pattern appears in John’s Revelation 11:1–2, which depicts a Temple, altar, worshipers, and the holy city being trampled. The connection between an actual sanctuary and the events immediately preceding the Kingdom is therefore unmistakable.

Jesus could therefore speak of Herod’s Temple as belonging to a prophetic story stretching across centuries. The Temple had been destroyed and rebuilt before, yet Scripture could still speak of the sanctuary as one continuing institution associated with the same holy place and worship. Haggai provides an important precedent.

God asks, “Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory?” (Hag. 2:3), and then promises, “The latter glory of this house will be greater than the former” (2:9). Solomon’s Temple had been destroyed, yet the rebuilt Temple of Zerubbabel—later enormously expanded by Herod—could still be spoken of as “this house.” The physical structures were not identical, but Scripture treats the Temple as possessing a continuity of identity across destruction and rebuilding.

That helps explain the prophetic language of Daniel, Jesus, Paul, and John’s Revelation. The Temple can be destroyed and later restored without ceasing to be, prophetically and institutionally, “the Temple of God.” Thus, the destruction announced in Matthew 24:2 does not by itself rule out a subsequent Temple standing in the “holy place,” desecrated by the final wicked ruler before the parousia, the resurrection of dead Christians, and the establishment of the Kingdom of God on a restored earth.

Ningún cristiano es una Isla.

La fe cristiana no está destinada a vivirse en soledad. Desde el principio, los creyentes fueron llamados a formar parte de una comunidad de creyentes que compartían la misma fe. En otras palabras, ningún cristiano es una isla, tomando prestada la conocida expresión.

Hebreos 10:24-25 dice a los cristianos que consideren cómo estimularse unos a otros al amor y a las buenas obras, sin abandonar nuestras reuniones cristianas, sino animándonos unos a otros, y mucho más al acercarse el Día del regreso del Mesías.

Por tanto, la comunión cristiana no es un añadido opcional, sino una expresión fundamental de la obediencia de la fe.

La iglesia primitiva no se limitaba a creer las mismas doctrinas desde hogares separados. Después del bautismo, “se dedicaban a la enseñanza de los Apóstoles, a la comunión, al partimiento del pan y a la oración” (Hechos 2:42). Se reunían con regularidad, compartían comidas, oraban, adoraban, atendían las necesidades de los demás y vivían como una comunidad unida (Hechos 2:42-47). Pablo da expresión teológica a esa misma unidad cristiana en Efesios 4.

Los cristianos deben hacer todo lo posible por mantener “la unidad del espíritu en el vínculo de la paz”, porque:

“Hay un solo cuerpo y un solo espíritu… un solo señor, una sola fe, un solo bautismo” (Ef. 4:3-5).

Por tanto, la comunión cristiana no se basa simplemente en la amistad, la personalidad o la conveniencia. Los cristianos pertenecen unos a otros porque Dios nos ha llamado a formar un solo cuerpo, unidos en una sola fe, compartiendo un solo espíritu, bajo un solo señor Mesías y un solo Dios y Padre de todos (Ef. 4:6).

Esta unidad se expresa de manera hermosa en la comida de Comunión del Nuevo Pacto establecida por Jesús (Lucas 22:19-20; comp. 1 Cor. 11:25-26). La última cena de Jesús se convirtió en un acto continuo de recuerdo para su pueblo reunido.

Más adelante, Pablo enseña más acerca del significado de este acto profundamente personal para la iglesia:

“La copa de bendición que bendecimos, ¿no es una participación en la sangre del Mesías? El pan que partimos, ¿no es una participación en el cuerpo del Mesías? Puesto que hay un solo pan, nosotros, aunque somos muchos, somos un solo cuerpo, porque todos participamos del mismo pan” (1 Cor. 10:16-17).

Por tanto, la Comunión no es simplemente un momento privado con tu propio “Jesús personal”. El único pan representa al único cuerpo: la iglesia. Como Pablo deja igualmente claro:

“Porque en un solo espíritu todos fuimos bautizados en un solo cuerpo… y a todos se nos dio a beber de un solo espíritu” (1 Cor. 12:13).

El cristiano no puede decir correctamente: “Yo pertenezco al Mesías, pero no necesito a su pueblo”. Pablo utiliza precisamente esa imagen: “El ojo no puede decirle a la mano: ‘No te necesito’” (1 Cor. 12:21). Pertenecer al Mesías significa pertenecer a su cuerpo.

Algunos cristianos se aíslan voluntariamente, quizá por desacuerdos, heridas del pasado o simplemente por temperamento. Otros se encuentran aislados involuntariamente por la distancia, la edad, una discapacidad, circunstancias familiares o persecución. La respuesta no es la condenación, sino la reconexión. Busca una auténtica comunión cristiana allí donde pueda encontrarse, para que podamos orar, estudiar, enseñar, animarnos y crecer juntos.

Y cuando la presencia física no sea posible, la tecnología moderna puede ser de enorme ayuda. En lugar de limitarnos a criticar los peligros de la era de internet, aprovechemos sus beneficios para orar, estudiar y tener comunión con creyentes que se encuentran a grandes distancias. Sin embargo, siempre que las circunstancias lo permitan, la comunión cara a cara sigue siendo el ideal del Nuevo Testamento.

Por último, la comunión cristiana no consiste simplemente en asistir a un edificio por el mero hecho de hacerlo. La iglesia es el pueblo de Dios: el cuerpo del Mesías reunido, compartiendo una sola fe, una sola esperanza, un solo bautismo, un solo espíritu, un solo señor Mesías y un solo Dios y Padre. Esa unidad se expresa visiblemente cuando participamos juntos del único pan y de la copa, porque somos un solo cuerpo.

Así que no nos dejemos llevar hacia alguna isla solitaria creada por nosotros mismos, porque ningún cristiano es una isla.

Busquémonos unos a otros, animémonos unos a otros y permanezcamos en comunión, “y tanto más cuanto veis que el Día se acerca” (Heb. 10:25).

No Christian is an Island

The Christian faith is not meant to be a solitary faith. From the beginning, believers were called into a community of like-minded believers. In other words, no Christian is an island, to borrow the familiar phrase.

Hebrews 10 reminds us to "hold tightly to the hope that we confess without wavering, because He who made the promise is faithful. And let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good works, not abandoning our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and even more as you see the Day approaching. (vv. 23-25)

Christian fellowship is therefore not an optional extra, but a defining expression of the obedience of faith.

The early church did not simply believe the same doctrines from separate homes. After baptism, “they devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching and to fellowship in the breaking of bread and in prayer” (Acts 2:42). They met regularly, shared meals, prayed, worshipped, cared for needs and lived as a united community (Acts 2:42-47). Paul gives theological expression to that same Christian unity in Ephesians 4.

Christians are to make every effort to maintain “the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace,” because:

“There is one body and one spirit…one lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:3-5).

Christian fellowship is therefore not based merely on friendship, personality or convenience. Christians belong together because God has called us into one body, united in one faith, sharing one spirit, under the one lord Messiah and the one God and Father of all (Eph. 4:6).

This unity is beautifully expressed in the New Covenant Communion meal established by Jesus (Luke 22:19-20; cp. 1 Cor. 11:25-26). Jesus’ final meal became a continuing act of remembrance for his people together.

Later, Paul teaches more about the significance of this deeply personal act for the church:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Messiah? The bread which we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Messiah? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, since we all share the one bread." (1 Cor. 10:16-17)

Communion is therefore not some private time with your own “personal Jesus.” The one bread represents the one body—the church. As Paul makes equally clear:

“For in one spirit we were all baptized into one body…we all were made to drink of one spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13).

The Christian cannot rightly say, “I belong to Messiah, but I have no need of his people.” Paul uses precisely that image: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’” (1 Cor. 12:21). To belong to Messiah is to belong to his body.

Some Christians isolate themselves willingly, perhaps because of disagreement, past hurt or simply temperament. Others are isolated unwillingly through distance, age, disability, family circumstances or persecution. The answer is not condemnation, but reconnection. Seek genuine Christian fellowship wherever it can be found, so that we can pray, study, teach, encourage and grow together.

And when physical presence is impossible, modern technology can be a tremendous help. Rather than only criticizing the pitfalls of the internet age, use its benefits to pray, study and fellowship with believers across great distances. Yet whenever circumstances permit, face-to-face fellowship remains the New Testament ideal.

Lastly, Christian fellowship is not about attending a building for its own sake. The church is the people—the body of Messiah together, sharing the one faith, one hope, one baptism, one spirit, one lord Messiah and one God and Father. That unity is visibly expressed when we partake together of the one bread and the cup, because we are one body.

So let us not drift onto some lonely island of our own making, for no Christian is an island.

Instead, let us seek one another, encourage one another and remain in fellowship—“all the more as you see the Day drawing near” (Heb. 10:25).

Genesis Creation: Allegory or History?

Some modern interpreters argue that Genesis 1–11 should be understood primarily, or even exclusively, as allegory rather than as an account of real people and events. But is that how Jesus and his apostles understood Genesis? 

The New Testament consistently refers to the creation of humanity, the fall, Adam and Eve, Abel, Noah, and the Flood as realities within biblical history. This does not mean Genesis contains no symbolism, literary structure, or theological depth. Historical events can also carry typological meaning. But that is very different from saying the events themselves never happened.

When questioned about divorce, Jesus appealed directly to the Genesis creation account:

“Have you not read that the One who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” Matthew 19:4

Jesus grounds marriage in what God did “from the beginning,” and Mark records him saying:

“From the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” Mark 10:6

His argument assumes that the creation account describes a real divine act with continuing significance for human marriage. This same pattern is reflected in Luke when he includes Adam within Jesus’ genealogy, tracing the line back through “Seth, the son of Adam” (Luke 3:38). 

Jesus treats Abel as a real righteous man whose blood was shed (Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:50–51). Jude likewise identifies Enoch as “the seventh from Adam” (Jude 14), placing Adam within a genealogical sequence. The New Testament repeatedly appeals to these Genesis figures in ways consistent with historical reference. 

Paul is even more explicit. He calls Adam “the first man” and says that he was “from the earth” (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). In Romans 5:12–19, Paul traces sin and death to the transgression of “one man,” Adam, and contrasts Adam’s disobedience with the obedience of the one man Messiah Jesus. The argument depends upon a deliberate Adam–Messiah parallel: through one man came sin and death; through another man come righteousness and life. Paul also accepts the creation order in Genesis, saying: 

“Adam was formed first, then Eve.” 1 Timothy 2:13

He then refers to Eve being deceived (1 Timothy 2:14; compare 2 Corinthians 11:3). He also appeals to the fact that woman came from man in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9. Whatever conclusions one draws from Paul’s application of these passages, his reasoning clearly assumes that the Genesis account conveys real events, not merely fictional symbols. 

Jesus treats Noah and the Flood in the same way. He compares his future coming with “the days of Noah,” describing people eating, drinking, marrying, entering the ark, and then being overtaken by the Flood (Matthew 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–27). His future coming is not allegorical, and his comparison naturally treats the Flood as a real past judgment. Peter does likewise. 1 Peter 3:20 refers to the eight people preserved through the water, while 2 Peter 2:5 speaks of Noah and the ancient world being judged by the Flood. In 2 Peter 3:5–7, Peter places creation, the ancient world, the present heavens and earth, and future judgment within one continuous framework. The writer of Hebrews similarly lists Abel, Enoch, and Noah alongside Abraham and other figures of faith in Hebrews 11:4–7.

Genesis itself also presents continuity rather than an obvious break between “myth” and later history. Genesis 5 begins, “This is the book of the generations of Adam,” and proceeds from Adam through Seth and later descendants toward Noah. Genesis 10–11 continues genealogically toward Abraham. Luke’s genealogy follows the same basic continuity backward from Jesus through Abraham and Noah to Adam. 

This does not mean every element of Genesis must be stripped of symbolism. Scripture regularly gives historical events typological significance. Paul uses Sarah and Hagar allegorically in Galatians 4:21–31, yet they were real women. He treats Israel’s Exodus typologically in 1 Corinthians 10:1–11, yet he plainly regards the Exodus as historical. The biblical pattern is therefore not symbolism instead of history, but often history with symbolic and theological meaning. That distinction matters when modern theories are used to reinterpret Genesis. 

We should be cautious about assuming that the biblical authors meant something fundamentally different from what their words naturally communicate merely because later scientific models create pressure to reread the text. If God had intended to communicate that humanity gradually developed from earlier life forms, He was perfectly capable of expressing that idea in ordinary language. Ancient people did not possess modern scientific terminology, but they were not intellectually incapable of understanding the basic concept that one form of life could gradually give rise to another over many generations. The Bible itself never says that Genesis was written in a deliberately misleading form because ancient people were too unsophisticated to understand what really happened.

The more important point, however, is that Jesus and his apostles never reinterpret Genesis that way. They appeal to the creation of male and female, Adam’s priority, Eve’s deception, Abel’s murder, Noah, the Flood, and the early genealogies as realities that ground theological arguments about marriage, sin, death, judgment, resurrection, and salvation.

The best Christian approach is therefore to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture and to read Genesis in harmony with Jesus and his apostles: as real history, and foundational to the biblical story of creation, sin, judgment, redemption, resurrection, and the coming Kingdom of God on a restored earth.

The Trinity: Theological “Guilt by Association”

So-called triadic passages or verses, where the LORD God or Father is mentioned alongside the Son and spirit (e.g., Isa. 48:16; 61:1; Matt. 28:19; John 3:34-35; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2), continue to be misused as proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. The argument, just to be clear, is not based on the non-biblical word “Trinity,” but on the claim that whenever Father, Son, and spirit appear together, the later doctrine is somehow implied. But to force such texts to say something their writers never actually say amounts to a kind of theological “guilt by association.”

The fact is that Scripture never provides the later Trinitarian formula that the one God eternally exists as three distinct yet co-equal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These passages simply name or associate three subjects or titles—Father, Son, and holy spirit—but it does not follow that the writers are somehow mysteriously revealing a triune God. Indeed, some of the clearest of these texts distinguish the three: God anoints Jesus with holy spirit (Acts 10:38); God sends His Son and then sends the spirit of His Son (Gal. 4:4-6); and Paul identifies the “one God” specifically as “the Father,” alongside the “one Lord” and the “one Spirit” (Eph. 4:4-6; cp. 1 Cor. 8:6).

Therefore, to confess God as Father, His Son, and the one spirit is not to affirm some later Trinitarian ontological union, but rather a unity of purpose and function in the life of a baptized Christian convert. Hence the repeated mention and appearance throughout the NT of this threefold pattern. For example, verses such as Titus 3:5-6; 1 Cor. 6:11; 1 Pet. 1:1-2 (also 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 3:14; Heb. 9:14) show that Christian baptism was to be a public demonstration of the individual’s conversion, baptism, and integration into the one body—that is, the Christian church community. They were never meant or understood as some veiled reference to God as a Trinity, let alone as a formula to be recited like abracadabra.

In other words, in the case of baptism, these are not instructions about the actual words to be used, but an indication that the baptized person would, through baptism, come into relationship with and belong to the Father and the Son through the one spirit. As a matter of fact, that is what the Greek idiom “into the name”—not simply “in the name”—could very well imply.

Trinitarian theories about these verses has been especially reinforced through the so-called Johannine Comma at 1 John 5:7-8. Medieval Western theologians came to regard the expanded Latin reading—“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”—as an important Trinitarian proof text. Yet the noted Catholic scholar and humanist Erasmus omitted the Comma from the first two editions of his Greek New Testament in 1516 and 1519. Erasmus acknowledged that he could not find the text in the Greek manuscript tradition available to him. Only in his third edition of 1522, after a Greek manuscript containing the reading had been brought forward, did he include it; that edition subsequently helped transmit the passage into the Textus Receptus and the influential KJV. Modern textual scholarship recognizes that the Comma is absent from the early Greek manuscript tradition. Erasmus himself was deeply suspicious of over-defining such theological matters. In the preface to his 1523 edition, he wrote:

“If I believe the tradition that there are three of one nature, what is the use of labored disputation? If I do not believe, I shall not be persuaded by any human reasons,” adding that “the sum of our religion is peace and concord” and that as few matters as possible should be dogmatically defined (Erasmus, Preface to Hilary of Poitiers, 1523, Ep. 1334; cf. Collected Works of Erasmus, Ep. 1334:232-34).

This and many other comments from Erasmus reveal how far these later metaphysical definitions had moved beyond the simple language of Scripture. Thus, Erasmus has gone down in history as a leading Renaissance humanist who courageously opposed the coercive theological excesses of his own church, despite the dangers posed by the Catholic inquisitorial system of his time.

Lastly, note how even major architects of later Trinitarian theology were forced to confront the apparent tritheistic problem. One of the so-called Cappadocian Church Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa, in To Ablabius: On “Not Three Gods,” explains the Trinitarian difficulty plainly. His argument turns on the fact that Peter, James, and John, though sharing one human nature, are nevertheless called three men; yet Trinitarians confess three distinct divine persons sharing one divine nature while refusing to speak of three Gods. Gregory himself acknowledges that this presents a “very difficult” problem and at times seems to question why Trinitarians cannot speak in such tritheistic terms!

The very existence of this fourth-century philosophical problem should give anyone pause, since nowhere do the biblical writers wrestle with invented logical and mathematical conundrums such as how three divine persons can nevertheless be “one God.” The biblical language from the Old to the New Testament is far simpler:

“Do we not all have one Father? Has not one God created us?” (Mal. 2:10)

For us Christians, “there is one God, the Father” (1 Cor. 8:6), whom Jesus identifies as “the only one who is true God” (John 17:3). And Jesus is the one this one God commissioned and “made both Lord and Messiah” (Acts 2:36), not another LORD God.

La Trinidad: “Culpabilidad por asociación” teológica

Los llamados pasajes o versículos triádicos, en los que el SEÑOR Dios o el Padre es mencionado junto al Hijo y al espíritu (p. ej., Isa. 48:16; 61:1; Mat. 28:19; Juan 3:34-35; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Ped. 1:2), continúan siendo utilizados indebidamente como prueba de la doctrina de la Trinidad. El argumento, para que quede claro, no se basa en la palabra no bíblica “Trinidad”, sino en la afirmación de que, siempre que el Padre, el Hijo y el espíritu aparecen juntos, de algún modo queda implícita la doctrina posterior. Pero forzar tales textos a decir algo que sus autores en realidad nunca dicen equivale a una especie de “culpabilidad por asociación” teológica.

El hecho es que las Escrituras nunca presentan la fórmula trinitaria posterior según la cual el único Dios existe eternamente como tres personas distintas y, sin embargo, coiguales: Padre, Hijo y Espíritu Santo. Estos pasajes simplemente nombran o asocian tres sujetos o títulos —Padre, Hijo y espíritu santo—, pero de ello no se sigue que los escritores estén revelando misteriosamente a un Dios trino. De hecho, algunos de los textos más claros distinguen a los tres: Dios unge a Jesús con espíritu santo (Hech. 10:38); Dios envía a Su Hijo y luego envía el espíritu de Su Hijo (Gál. 4:4-6); y Pablo identifica específicamente al “único Dios” como “el Padre”, junto al “único Señor” y al “único Espíritu” (Ef. 4:4-6; cp. 1 Cor. 8:6).

Por lo tanto, confesar a Dios como Padre, a Su Hijo y al único espíritu no significa afirmar una unión ontológica trinitaria posterior, sino más bien una unidad de propósito y función en la vida de un cristiano convertido y bautizado. De ahí la repetida mención y aparición a lo largo del NT de este patrón triple. Por ejemplo, versículos como Tito 3:5-6; 1 Cor. 6:11; 1 Ped. 1:1-2 (también 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 3:14; Heb. 9:14) muestran que el bautismo cristiano debía ser una demostración pública de la conversión, el bautismo y la integración del individuo en el único cuerpo, es decir, la comunidad de la iglesia cristiana. Nunca tuvieron la intención ni fueron entendidos como alguna referencia velada a Dios como una Trinidad, y mucho menos como una fórmula que debía recitarse como si fuera abracadabra.

En otras palabras, en el caso del bautismo, estas no son instrucciones sobre las palabras exactas que deben pronunciarse, sino una indicación de que la persona bautizada, por medio del bautismo, entraría en relación con el Padre y el Hijo y pasaría a pertenecerles mediante el único espíritu. De hecho, eso es precisamente lo que el modismo griego “en el nombre” —más literalmente, “hacia el nombre” (eis to onoma), y no simplemente “en el nombre”— podría muy bien implicar.

Los teólogos occidentales medievales llegaron a considerar la lectura latina ampliada —“el Padre, el Verbo y el Espíritu Santo; y estos tres son uno”— como un importante texto de prueba trinitario. Sin embargo, el destacado erudito católico y humanista Erasmo omitió la Coma de las dos primeras ediciones de su Nuevo Testamento griego, publicadas en 1516 y 1519. Erasmo reconoció que no podía encontrar el texto en la tradición manuscrita griega disponible para él. Solo en su tercera edición de 1522, después de que se presentara un manuscrito griego que contenía esa lectura, la incluyó; esa edición ayudó posteriormente a transmitir el pasaje al Textus Receptus y a la influyente KJV. La crítica textual moderna reconoce que la Coma está ausente de la tradición manuscrita griega antigua. El propio Erasmo desconfiaba profundamente de definir en exceso semejantes cuestiones teológicas. En el prefacio a su edición de 1523 escribió:

“Si creo la tradición de que hay tres de una misma naturaleza, ¿de qué sirve una disputa laboriosa? Si no lo creo, no seré persuadido por ninguna razón humana”, añadiendo que “la suma de nuestra religión es la paz y la concordia” y que deberían definirse dogmáticamente el menor número posible de cuestiones (Erasmo, Prefacio a Hilario de Poitiers, 1523, Ep. 1334; cf. Collected Works of Erasmus, Ep. 1334:232-34).

Este y muchos otros comentarios de Erasmo revelan hasta qué punto estas definiciones metafísicas posteriores se habían alejado del lenguaje sencillo de las Escrituras. Así, Erasmo ha pasado a la historia como uno de los principales humanistas del Renacimiento que se opuso valientemente a los excesos teológicos coercitivos de su propia iglesia, a pesar de los peligros que representaba el sistema inquisitorial católico de su época.

Por último, nótese cómo incluso algunos de los principales arquitectos de la teología trinitaria posterior se vieron obligados a enfrentarse al aparente problema triteísta. Uno de los llamados Padres Capadocios de la Iglesia, Gregorio de Nisa, en A Ablabio: Sobre que no hay tres dioses, expone claramente la dificultad trinitaria. Su argumento gira en torno al hecho de que Pedro, Santiago y Juan, aunque comparten una sola naturaleza humana, son llamados tres hombres; sin embargo, los trinitarios confiesan tres personas divinas distintas que comparten una sola naturaleza divina, mientras se niegan a hablar de tres Dioses. El propio Gregorio reconoce que esto presenta un problema “muy difícil” y, en ocasiones, parece preguntarse por qué los trinitarios no pueden hablar en términos semejantes al triteísmo.

La mera existencia de este problema filosófico del siglo IV debería hacer reflexionar a cualquiera, puesto que en ninguna parte los escritores bíblicos luchan con enigmas lógicos y matemáticos inventados, tales como explicar cómo tres personas divinas pueden, no obstante, ser “un solo Dios”. El lenguaje bíblico, desde el Antiguo hasta el Nuevo Testamento, es mucho más sencillo:

“¿No tenemos todos un mismo Padre? ¿No nos ha creado un solo Dios?” (Mal. 2:10)

Para nosotros los cristianos, “hay un solo Dios, el Padre” (1 Cor. 8:6), a quien Jesús identifica como “el único Dios verdadero” (Juan 17:3). Y Jesús es aquel a quien este único Dios comisionó y “hizo Señor y Mesías” (Hech. 2:36), no otro SEÑOR Dios.

Make the World to Come Crowded

“Make heaven crowded” has become a popular evangelical slogan, promoted by prominent American voices like the late Charlie Kirk and the group he founded, TPUSA. It may sound inspiring, but it is not the biblical hope. Scripture points instead to what the prophets of old called the Day of the Lord, which Jesus and his apostles described in terms of the coming Kingdom of God established on a restored earth.

The Old Testament repeatedly presents the hope of God’s people as inheriting and ruling on the earth, not going to heaven at death. God promised Abraham and his descendants the land as their inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 13:14–17; 17:8), a promise that becomes foundational to the biblical Kingdom hope. David repeatedly declares in the Psalms:

“The righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever” (Ps. 37:9, 11, 22, 29, 34).

He also clearly says that heaven belongs to God, “but the earth He has given to the sons of men,” i.e., humanity (Ps. 115:16). Hence the key vision shown to the prophet Daniel of the saints receiving the Kingdom and ruling over “all the kingdoms under the whole heaven” (Dan. 7:18, 27).

Jesus deliberately echoes this seminal Old Testament hope when he says:

“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5).

And Revelation says of Christians that “they will reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:10). This is the Gospel hope Jesus proclaimed: death is like sleep because we await being awakened at his parousia to enter the coming Kingdom on a renewed and restored earth—not an escape to heaven. The Great Commission is to preach this Gospel of the Kingdom to all nations (Matt. 24:14; 28:19–20).

So perhaps, instead of “make heaven crowded,” a better slogan is:

Preach this Gospel about the coming Kingdom—and make that future restored earth crowded!