1

The gospel says that God has given us one name under heaven by which we a saved. It appears throughout scripture that God puts great importance upon names in both old and new testament. The bible says there is no other name by which we should be saved, so if the apostles did not attribute that to the name "Jesus" why should we?

I understand that some say it does not matter whether or not we say the right name because God sees our intent but is that just our own reasoning justifying our own error?

The apostles spoke Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, they therefore either called him Yeshua, Iesus or Yehoshua haMoshiach.

If the apostles did not caste out demons or perform miracles in the name "Jesus" or even use the name, why should we continue to use it?

Improve this question
  • 1
    "...they therefore either called him Yeshua, Iesus or Yehoshua haMoshiach." So, would you say that's three names or three ways of saying one name? If it's three names, then "one name under heaven by which we should be saved" is not just a modern error, but a contradiction in the Bible. If it's just one name, then there's no problem. – MR. TOODLE-OO'D Aug 4 '14 at 21:08
  • Possible duplicate of When did the pronunciation of "Jesus" change? – curiousdannii♦ Dec 11 '16 at 11:23
  • A good case could be made that the "name of Jesus" referred to in scripture and tradition is the holy Name of God, traditionally rendered YHWH, rather than his (ultimately unremarkable) birth name. – lonesomeday Dec 11 '16 at 13:44
14

Your question seems to be referring to:

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. - Acts 4:12 ESV

Which in context is referring to the name given in verse 10:

let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. (ESV, emphasis added)

Given this, your focus (while not actually explicit) can only be on the issue of whether this translation of the name of the Lord is correct. The context of verse 10 particularly the 'of Nazareth' component, reveals the Apostle Peter is denoting a person who is identifiable by that name and description. The significance of the name is tied directly to the person it refers to. Since 'all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved' indeed from 'every tribe and tongue and nation', the appropriate name for them to use to call on him, must be the name used to identify that person in their language.

Improve this answer
  • 1
    Great answer because it makes sense in reference to this particular question, every language would therefore have there own way of pronouncing his name rather than every nation only pronouncing his name in its hebrew form. As long as the meaning of his name is intact then its the same name with a different pronounciation. But I still feel inclined to say his name in its original hebrew form being that it feels more proper and accurate. – eliyah Aug 4 '14 at 22:49
  • I want to use the name that the apostles were casting out demons with, the name that they performed miracles in, it just seems more logical that way. – eliyah Aug 4 '14 at 22:51
  • 3
    There is nothing more proper about Hebrew compared to Greek or even English. If God wanted us to speak one language he wouldn't let languages change by themselves. – curiousdannii♦ Aug 5 '14 at 2:24
  • 1
    @eliyah I agree it's a great answer. Is there anything hindering you from accepting it? – MR. TOODLE-OO'D May 6 '15 at 21:51
  • Bruised Reed - I believe adding the verses you are referring to, would greatly strengthen the answer: Philippians 2:11 - "and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." - In the text, the fact that there were different languages - contributed to the glory. – elika kohen Jul 28 '16 at 21:46

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.