El don de lenguas como señal, no para la obra misionera

A menudo se supone que el don de lenguas en el Nuevo Testamento fue dado para que los cristianos pudieran viajar a países extranjeros y predicar sin tener que aprender los idiomas locales. Sin embargo, en ninguna parte del Nuevo Testamento se dice realmente que ese fuera el propósito del don. Más bien, tales dones milagrosos servían como testimonio del evangelio de salvación proclamado primero por el señor Jesús y predicado después por su iglesia (Heb. 2:3-4).

En Pentecostés, los discípulos no viajaron a naciones extranjeras. Al contrario, personas de muchas naciones habían venido a Jerusalén (Hech. 2:5). Dios capacitó milagrosamente a los discípulos para hablar idiomas que antes desconocían, de modo que los allí reunidos pudieran oír “las poderosas obras de Dios” en sus propias lenguas maternas (Hech. 2:8-11). Esto también explica el asombro de la multitud:

“Miren, ¿no son galileos todos estos que están hablando?” (Hech. 2:7).

En otras palabras, las naciones mencionadas en Hechos 2 identifican de dónde habían venido los oyentes, no destinos misioneros a los que los cristianos estuvieran siendo enviados. Del mismo modo, en Hechos 19:6, los creyentes en Éfeso hablaron en lenguas extranjeras y profetizaron cuando el espíritu santo vino sobre ellos. Una vez más, no se dice nada acerca de que el don sirviera como algún tipo de entrenamiento lingüístico para la obra misionera.

Más adelante, escribiendo a la iglesia en Corinto, Pablo da una explicación aún más clara del don cuando lo llama “una señal milagrosa, no para los creyentes, sino para los incrédulos” (1 Cor. 14:22). Su función como señal también se observa en Hechos 10:44-46, cuando Cornelio y los de su casa hablaron en lenguas después de recibir espíritu santo. El milagro no tenía el propósito de prepararlos para una obra misionera en el extranjero. Más bien, como Pedro dejó claro posteriormente en el Concilio de Jerusalén, sirvió como testimonio de que Dios había dado a los gentiles espíritu santo tal como se lo había dado a los judíos, “sin hacer distinción entre nosotros y ellos, purificando sus corazones por la fe” (Hech. 15:8-9).

Pablo también muestra que, cuando se usaban lenguas extranjeras en la iglesia, era necesaria su traducción para que los demás pudieran entender y ser edificados (1 Cor. 14:13, 27-28). Incluso dice: “En la iglesia prefiero hablar cinco palabras con mi entendimiento, para poder instruir a otros, que diez mil palabras en otra lengua” (1 Cor. 14:19). En ese caso, el contexto y el propósito eran para la iglesia. Pero, nuevamente, el don no consistía simplemente en aprender de manera práctica idiomas en la iglesia para utilizarlos después en la obra misionera.

En resumen, el Nuevo Testamento muestra que el don de lenguas funcionaba principalmente como testimonio y como comunicación divinamente inspirada en ocasiones especiales, no como una especie de curso sobrenatural de idiomas para misioneros. La Gran Comisión consiste en que los cristianos prediquen el Evangelio del Reino a las naciones, y el don de lenguas servía como testimonio de esa palabra de Dios, no como un medio para superar las barreras lingüísticas a fin de llevar a cabo esa obra.

The Gift of Languages as a Sign, Not Missionary Work

The gift of languages in the New Testament is often assumed to have been given so that Christians could travel to foreign countries and preach without having to learn local languages. Yet nowhere does the New Testament actually say this was the purpose of the gift. Rather, such miraculous gifts served as a witness to the gospel of salvation first proclaimed by the lord Jesus and later preached by his church (Heb. 2:3-4).

At Pentecost, the disciples did not travel to foreign nations. Instead, people from many nations had come to Jerusalem (Acts 2:5). God miraculously enabled the disciples to speak languages previously unknown to them so that those gathered could hear “the mighty works of God” in their own native languages (Acts 2:8-11). This also explains the crowd’s astonishment:

“Look, are not all those who are speaking Galileans?” (Acts 2:7).

In other words, the nations listed in Acts 2 identify where the hearers had come from, not missionary destinations to which Christians were being sent. Likewise, in Acts 19:6, believers at Ephesus spoke in foreign languages and prophesied when the holy spirit came upon them. Again, nothing is said about the gift serving as some kind of missionary language training.

Later, writing to the church at Corinth, Paul gives an even clearer explanation of the gift when he calls it “a miraculous sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers” (1 Cor. 14:22). Its function as a sign is also seen in Acts 10:44-46, when Cornelius and his household spoke in languages after receiving holy spirit. The miracle was not intended to prepare them for overseas missionary work. Rather, as Peter later made clear at the Jerusalem Council, it served as a witness that God had given the Gentiles holy spirit just as He had given it to the Jews, making “no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:8-9).

Paul also shows that when foreign languages were used in the church, they required translation so that others could understand and be built up (1 Cor. 14:13, 27-28). He even says, “In the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, so that I can instruct others, than ten thousand words in another language” (1 Cor. 14:19). The setting and purpose in that case are for the church. But again, the gift was not simply practical language learning in the church for their missionary work.

In sum, the New Testament shows that the gift of languages functioned primarily as a witness and as divinely inspired communication on special occasions, not as some kind of supernatural missionary language course. The Great Commission is for Christians to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to the nations, with the gift of languages serving as a witness to that word of God, not as a means of overcoming language barriers in order to carry out the word.

Did Circumcision Exclude Women Under the Old Covenant?

Some seem to think that the law of circumcision for males excluded women from being equal members of God’s covenant people under the Old Covenant. However, circumcision was never the qualification for being an equal believer. It was the covenant sign commanded for males only (Gen. 17:7–14), while women were explicitly included among Yahweh’s covenant people. Deuteronomy 29:10–13 includes Israel’s “wives” and “little ones” in the covenant, and Joshua 8:33–35 records men, women, children, and resident aliens gathered together to hear the words of the Law. Other examples include Sarah, Hannah, Ruth, and Anna (Heb. 11:11; 1 Sam. 1–2; Ruth 1:16; Luke 2:36–38).

Regardless, for the New Testament physical circumcision no longer defines your identify as the people of God. Paul says that what matters is not circumcision or uncircumcision, but faith working through love and becoming a new creation (Gal. 5:6; 6:15; cf. 1 Cor. 7:18–19). Romans 2:28–29 also shifts the emphasis from outward circumcision to the inward condition of the heart.

So Galatians 3:28 does not mean women were previously unbelievers or excluded from God’s covenant people. Rather, in Messiah, distinctions such as Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female give no one a superior status in relation to the promise. Paul immediately concludes: “And if you belong to Messiah, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29).

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.