“Sólo Jesús,” Hispanic Modalism, Oneness Christology, and Paul’s First Epistles
Daniel S. Steffen, PhD
This paper proposes to explain the popular hispanic modalistic or “Oneness” Christology as to its particular beliefs and strong influence in several Latin American nations.1 The movement is known as “Sólo Jesús,” in Spanish. This explanation includes comparing and contrasting this movement with historical second and third century modalistic monarchianism (Noetus, Praxeas, and Sabellius).2 Of particular interest in this paper is to compare these beliefs and interpretations of the statements of Paul in his letters to the Galatians and to the Thessalonians that give evidence of early trinitarianism.3 Paul’s letter to the Galatians will be considered Paul’s first Epistle and therefore represents his first written expression concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is broad agreement that his correspondence to the Thessalonians also represent the earliest period of Pauline theology. The paper will defend the position that the letters contain the earliest expression of Paul’s belief in the Trinity.4 Several key passages in Galatians, 1.00 Thessalonians, and 2.00 Thessalonians will be interpreted as expressing an early trinitarianism on the part of Paul in contrast to “Oneness” Christological interpretations of those key passages.
1.00 Recent academic articles include Lloyd Barba and Andrea Shan Johnson, “The New Issue: Approaches to Oneness Pentecostalism in the United States,” Religion Compass 12.00 (2018): 1-11; David K. Bernard, “Early High Christology in Oneness Pentecostal Perspective,” Religion and Theology 26.00 (2019): 147-167; and Frank D. Macchia, “The Oneness-Trinitarian Pentecostal Dialogue: Exploring the Diversity of Apostolic Faith,” Harvard Theological Review 103, no. 3.00 (2010): 329-349.
2.00 Xavier Morales, “The Biblical Hermeneutics of Noetus of Smyrna,” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 27, no. 3.00 (2023): 291-412; and William H. Oliver, “The Praxis of Adversus Praxeam: Tertullian’s Views on the Trinity,” Verbum et Ecclesia 42, no. 1.00 (2021): 1-9.
3.00 Gordon Fee wrote about a “proto-Trinitarian” Paul who affirmed at least an “economic Trinity.” Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 586–93. Or, “incipient trinitarian theology,” according to N. T. Wright, “Jesus and the Identity of God,” Ex auditu 14.00 (1998): 46. In contrast, Gorman defends Paul’s belief in the economic, immanent, experienced, and ontological Trinity. Michael J. Gorman, “Traces of the Trinity in 1.00 Corinthians,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 15, no. 2.00 (2021): 304.
4.00 Annang Asumang, “The Role of the Doctrine of Trinitarian Worship in Paul’s Dispute with the Judaizers: Galatians 4:6 and Philippians 3:3 as Test Cases,” Conspectus 14.00 (2012): 1-55; David W. Congdon, “The Trinitarian Shape of πίστις: A Theological Exegesis of Galatians,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 2, no. 2.00 (2008): 231-258; C. Kavin Rowe, “Biblical Pressure and Trinitarian Hermeneutics,” Pro Ecclesia 11, no. 3.00 (2002): 295-312; and John Suggit, “The Fatherhood of God: Galatians 1:3,” Neotestamentica 37, no. 1.00 (2003): 94-100.