“There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved.” — Acts 4:12
Introduction: When Names Become Battlefields
In the dynamic world of Christian discourse, few debates have generated as much linguistic and doctrinal heat as the “Jesus Name Only” movement. Emerging from early 20th-century Oneness Pentecostalism, this movement insists that baptism and salvation must be performed exclusively “in the name of Jesus,” rejecting Trinitarian formulations. More recently, this insistence has overlapped with ideas from the Sacred Name and Hebrew Roots movements—groups that claim that the English name Jesus is a false, even blasphemous, name, and that only Yeshua or Yahshua should be used.
This article addresses the theological and linguistic misunderstandings at the heart of these claims. It demonstrates that transliteration is not corruption but communication, and that the apostles themselves bore names that changed across languages without losing their identity or authority. Most importantly, it affirms that salvation is not a matter of phonetics, but of faith in the person to whom the name refers.
The “Jesus Name Only” Movement: A Brief Overview
The “Jesus Name Only” doctrine arose during the Pentecostal revivals of the early 1900s, particularly after R.E. McAlister’s 1913 sermon at the Arroyo Seco camp meeting. This sparked what became known as the “New Issue,” eventually leading to the formation of Oneness Pentecostal denominations such as the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI). These groups emphasize baptism “in the name of Jesus” as the only valid formula, citing passages like Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:48.
While the movement affirms the deity of Christ, it rejects the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, often interpreting “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” as mere titles or modes of the one God, Jesus. This modalistic theology has been critiqued by scholars such as Gregory Boyd and David K. Bernard, the latter being a leading Oneness theologian who defends the movement from within.
For a historical and theological analysis, see Paul Buford’s thesis, “The Jesus Name Controversy: A Doctrinal Development in the Pentecostal Movement.” (1)
A Note on Modalism: A Rejected Heresy
Modalism, sometimes called Sabellianism, was formally rejected by early theologians like Tertullian and condemned in church councils by the 3rd and 4th centuries. The church fathers affirmed the Trinitarian understanding of God as one in essence yet three in person. Modern Oneness theology, while distinct in some areas, echoes this ancient error. As theologian Matt Ayars writes, “Modalism undermines the relational nature of the Trinity and contradicts key scriptural distinctions between the persons of the Godhead.” (2)
Misreading Acts 4:12: Is “Jesus” the Only Salvific Sound?
The claim that only the Hebrew or Aramaic form Yeshua is valid for salvation stems from a hyper-literal reading of Acts 4:12. However, this interpretation collapses under both linguistic scrutiny and biblical context.
The Greek text of Acts 4:12 uses the name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), the standard Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua. This same form appears throughout the New Testament, written in Koine Greek—the lingua franca of the Roman world. The apostles, including Peter who spoke these words, were not demanding a specific phonetic pronunciation but were proclaiming the authority of the risen Christ.
As Clark Pinnock notes in his article “Acts 4:12: No Other Name Under Heaven,” the verse emphasizes the exclusivity of Christ’s role in salvation, not the exclusivity of a particular linguistic form. (3)
Enter the Sacred Name and Hebrew Roots Movements
The modern insistence on Yeshua or Yahshua over Jesus often finds its roots not in early apostolic teaching, but in movements like the Sacred Name Movement and the Hebrew Roots Movement. These groups argue that God's name (Yahweh) and Jesus’ original Hebrew name (Yeshua or Yahshua) must be used in worship and that using transliterated names, especially Jesus, is invalid or even blasphemous.
The Sacred Name Movement emerged in the 1930s and teaches that restored Hebrew pronunciation is essential to salvation. The Hebrew Roots Movement, while more varied, often encourages believers to return to Torah-observant practices and “original” Hebraic customs, including the use of Hebrew names for God and Jesus.
While such groups aim to reclaim authenticity, they sometimes fall into linguistic legalism—attaching salvific weight to pronunciation rather than to the faith that the name represents. As James Patrick Holding notes, the evolution from Yehoshua to Iēsous to Jesus follows natural linguistic paths and does not compromise the theological integrity of the name. (4)
Transliteration vs. Translation: What’s in a Name?
Transliteration is the process of rendering a name from one writing system into another while preserving its phonetic structure as closely as possible. It is not the same as translation, which conveys meaning rather than sound.
Consider the following examples:
If the apostles themselves used Greek forms like Iēsous, Simōn, and Iōannēs, then insisting on a single Semitic pronunciation today is not only historically inaccurate—it’s theologically misguided.
For a deeper dive into the transliteration of multicultural names, see the study “Sideways Transliteration” by Cohen and Elhadad. (5)
Theological Implications: Salvation by Sound or by Savior?
The insistence that only Yeshua is valid for salvation risks turning the gospel into a form of linguistic legalism. It echoes the error Paul confronted in Galatians, where some insisted that Gentile believers must adopt Jewish customs to be saved (Galatians 2:14).
The New Testament affirms that salvation comes through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ—not through uttering a specific syllable. As Paul writes in Romans 10:13, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” The emphasis is on calling in faith, not on phonetic precision.
Conclusion: The Name Above Every Name—In Every Language
The gospel is not bound by language. From the Aramaic-speaking apostles to the Greek-speaking churches of Asia Minor, from Latin manuscripts to modern translations, the name of Jesus has crossed linguistic and cultural boundaries without losing its power. To claim that only one pronunciation is valid is to misunderstand both Scripture and the nature of language itself.
The name Jesus is not a counterfeit—it is a faithful transliteration used by billions of believers across centuries and continents. What matters is not the syllables we utter, but the Savior we trust.
“Therefore God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name…” — Philippians 2:9
No comments:
Post a Comment