When studying Scripture, we rely on careful, contextual interpretation to understand the Bible’s teachings accurately. This principle of “exegesis” is essential to keep interpretations true to the text, honoring its original meaning. However, misunderstandings or fallacies can sometimes arise, even among sincere believers. In the context of Oneness Pentecostalism, some common exegetical fallacies influence its theological stance, particularly around the doctrine of the Trinity and the nature of Jesus. This post will explore some of these common interpretative mistakes, with the goal of promoting careful biblical study and respectful theological dialogue.
1. Equivocation Fallacy: Using “Name” as a Singular Identifier for All Titles of God
One of the foundational beliefs in Oneness Pentecostalism is a non-Trinitarian view of God, which holds that Jesus is the singular name for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This view is often supported with verses like Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Oneness proponents claim that the singular term “name” refers exclusively to Jesus, implying that all three are simply titles of one person rather than distinct persons.
However, this interpretation commits an equivocation fallacy—it assumes that the word “name” refers strictly to a single, personal name, while in biblical language, “name” can also imply authority, power, or representation. For example, in ancient Jewish culture, acting “in the name of” someone meant acting with their authority, not necessarily sharing their exact identity. Furthermore, the verse does not imply that “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” are merely titles; rather, it presents them as distinct persons with a shared divine essence. Therefore, interpreting this text to support Oneness theology risks reading into the text something it doesn’t actually say.
2. Illegitimate Totality Transfer: Transferring All Divine Attributes Exclusively to Jesus
Another fallacy found in Oneness interpretation is illegitimate totality transfer, where the totality of divine attributes and titles are applied to Jesus alone, excluding any notion of distinct persons within the Godhead. For example, Oneness theology interprets Colossians 2:9—“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”—to mean that Jesus encompasses the entirety of the Godhead, thus ruling out the existence of the Father and the Spirit as separate persons.
This approach overlooks the specific context and purpose of Paul’s message. The passage does affirm the full deity of Christ but doesn’t address the inner distinctions within the Godhead. The verse does not claim Jesus is the only manifestation of God; instead, it emphasizes that Jesus is fully divine and possesses all the attributes of God. Misinterpreting this leads to a truncated understanding of God’s nature and the New Testament’s broader teaching about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. Anachronistic Interpretation: Imposing Later Theological Terms on Biblical Texts
Oneness Pentecostals often reject Trinitarian terminology, arguing that terms like “persons” are absent from the Bible and are later, unbiblical inventions. This argument can inadvertently fall into an anachronistic fallacy, which involves imposing modern or later concepts onto ancient texts, potentially distorting their original intent.
For instance, while it’s true that the specific term “Trinity” does not appear in Scripture, the concept of a triune God is present in texts like Matthew 3:16-17, where the Father speaks, the Son is baptized, and the Spirit descends—all interacting in distinct ways at the same event. The challenge is not to impose post-biblical terminology but to faithfully interpret these passages without reading out the distinctions they present. The later development of Trinitarian language helps clarify what Scripture already implies about God’s nature, rather than introducing foreign ideas.
4. Selective Literalism: Overemphasizing Certain Passages at the Expense of Others
Selective literalism occurs when interpreters treat certain passages in an overly literal way while downplaying or allegorizing others that don’t fit their doctrinal stance. This approach is sometimes evident in Oneness interpretations of John 10:30, where Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” Oneness advocates often interpret this verse to mean that Jesus and the Father are the same person. However, the verse does not clarify the nature of the “oneness” it describes, whether it is oneness of purpose, mission, essence, or personhood.
Jesus’ prayer in John 17:22, where He asks that His followers “may be one, even as we are one,” indicates that the term “one” can imply unity in purpose rather than absolute singularity in identity. Without a balanced reading of both passages, it’s easy to overemphasize one perspective and miss the broader context.
5. Neglect of Contextual Interpretation: Isolating Key “Proof Texts”
Proof-texting involves isolating verses from their context to support a specific doctrinal position. This is particularly common with texts like Isaiah 9:6, where the Messiah is referred to as the “Everlasting Father.” Oneness adherents may interpret this to mean that Jesus is Himself the Father, thus negating the distinct personhood of God the Father.
However, the context of Isaiah 9:6 suggests that the term “Everlasting Father” is a title indicating care and eternal oversight, much like a father provides for his children. It does not necessarily imply that the Messiah and the Father are one and the same person. Without examining the cultural and linguistic context of Isaiah’s prophecy, this verse can be misunderstood to support a doctrine it does not inherently propose.
Conclusion
Faithful interpretation of Scripture requires rigorous study, contextual understanding, and the humility to recognize our limitations in understanding the mysteries of God. Oneness Pentecostalism brings passion and sincerity to the Christian faith, but its doctrines may be strengthened through more contextually accurate exegesis, particularly around the nature of God’s oneness and the scriptural basis for the Trinity. Engaging respectfully with these passages and addressing interpretative fallacies can foster greater clarity and unity in understanding who God is according to the fullness of Scripture.
