No other name under heaven

[agedman]

In Acts 4 Peter states that there is no other name under heaven in which a person can be saved.

Now this thread is NOT about how one gets saved. Rather, this thread is an attempt at exploring what is meant by the "name under heaven" part of the statement.

Some declare that one must actually use the name, Jesus, or some translation. Yet, the name was translated "Joshua," also. Does that count?

How far does one take this statement used by Peter.

The passage goes on to clarify exactly who Peter was talking about as to where He lived and what was done to Him. If one doesn't know or use the name, but comprehends and believes that the messiah has come and salvation is in that messiah (death, burial, and resurrection of the messiah) "has the name under heaven" then accomplished?

What importance do you place upon the name as significant.

For example, the name of the Lord (Jehovah) was first recorded as to be called upon as early as Genesis 4:1. Is Jehovah (the name of the Lord) which is quoted by the 1 Kings and Psalms, and referred to in Romans, sufficient?

Thoughts?

 

[Covenanter]

It's repentance & a living faith in the person of Jesus, & his saving work for us.
There are many variants of pronunciation.

 

[agedman]

It's repentance & a living faith in the person of Jesus, & his saving work for us.
There are many variants of pronunciation.

By the sentence, “There are variants of pronunciation,” is that making the actual name being spoken and known as significant to the salvation?

What is meant in your use of “a living faith?”

How is a “living faith” different from that faith residing as a common faith in all?

 

[Deacon]

In Acts 4 Peter states that there is no other name under heaven in which a person can be saved.

Now this thread is NOT about how one gets saved. Rather, this thread is an attempt at exploring what is meant by the "name under heaven" part of the statement.

Some declare that one must actually use the name, Jesus, or some translation. Yet, the name was translated "Joshua," also. Does that count?

How far does one take this statement used by Peter.

Would it bother you if I told you that if someone called our Lord “Jesus” while he walked about in Jerusalem he wouldn’t even have turned around to look.
The Greek and Hebrew languages don’t have the letter J.

It’s not the pronunciation that matters, it’s the person behind the name.

Rob

 

[agedman]

Would it bother you if I told you that if someone called our Lord “Jesus” while he walked about in Jerusalem he wouldn’t even have turned around to look.
The Greek and Hebrew languages don’t have the letter J.

It’s not the pronunciation that matters, it’s the person behind the name.

Rob

I agree, however if the actual name is so unimportant as to not be recorded appropriately in the Scriptures, then why is it recorded that at that name every knee shall bow?

And, should it not be important to know such a name that one not bow to other then who bears the name?

 

[Rob_BW]

"we hear them declaring the mighty works of God in our own tongues!” Acts 2:11b.

Transliteration poses problems just like translation. Sometimes the right tools aren't in the toolbox, when it comes to certain alphabets.

And I wonder how I would view this topic if I were deaf?

 

[agedman]

"we hear them declaring the mighty works of God in our own tongues!” Acts 2:11b.

Transliteration poses problems just like translation. Sometimes the right tools aren't in the toolbox, when it comes to certain alphabets.

And I wonder how I would view this topic if I were deaf?

Asl, would show one touching the alternate palms of the hands with the middle finger.

Sign for JESUS

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I'm not inclined to think that 'name' in this context means simply what you call God.
The JWs believe that the name 'Jehovah is somehow important, but no one in the NT ever uses that word or 'Yahweh.' When I address God, I call Him 'Father.'

To call on the Name of the Lord is to call upon His attributes like mercy, love and power to save-- it is to show that you know who He is and what He is like.

 

[Jerome]

In Acts 4 Peter states that there is no other name under heaven in which a person can be saved.

To call on the Name of the Lord is to call upon His attributes

Context!

vv. 8-10
"Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,...Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead"

now v. 12:
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Context!

vv. 8-10
"Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,...Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead"

now v. 12:
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

And what difference do you see between those two extracts?

 

[Jerome]

Two extracts? It's all from the same passage. As I wrote: Context!

You don't have to ask, "I wonder, just what name is (or isn't!) it?" It says what it was two verses back.

 

[agedman]

From some of the responses, it would seem that the actual name (Jesus) is not the focus, but what that name is associated as far as the actual person and character as the Christ (the anointed one) and Lord (ruler).

So, to branch a bit on the topic, is it possible for one to believe the association without being able to place a figurative name to that association and it be endorsed by God as salvation?

How far does one take the actual name as important in this aspect of salvation?

For example: A person presents the gospel, that which we would all acknowledge as important and Biblical to all aspects of the presentation. Yet, that person does not present the name Jesus, but presents the name Joshua. Have they presented the truth? What if they used the title rather then the name, "King of Kings," have they presented the truth?

Again, how far does one take the actual name as important in this aspect of salvation?

 

[Rob_BW]

So, another desert island gospel hypothetical question? If a version of the gospel, using only words like "the Father, the Son, the son of God," along with a few pronouns, washed up onto the shore, would the means of salvation be available to our marooned resident?

 

[agedman]

Two extracts? It's all from the same passage. As I wrote: Context!

You don't have to ask, "I wonder, just what name is (or isn't!) it?" It says what it was two verses back.

Jerome,
Isn't the word "name" also "reputation, character, authority..." in the Greek?

And isn't Jesus a transliteration from the latin Jehoshua shortened to Joshua, which means in Hebrew "Y(J)ehoshua saves?"

 

[agedman]

So, another desert island gospel hypothetical question? If a version of the gospel, using only words like "the Father, the Son, the son of God," along with a few pronouns, washed up onto the shore, would the means of salvation be available to our marooned resident?

In the example, I was taking it more from one presenting not from one finding, however, I suppose that the opening statement of the post suggests such a scenario as you present?

Can one with validity present the gospel in such a manner?

Is it important that one actually use the correct name and just what might that name be if it is necessary to use?

To use your own presentation above, would such a presentation be sufficient?

 

[HankD]

Acts 4
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

Name: ὄνομα - onoma

According to UBS (04354) onoma is a multi nuanced word including the following : Authority, power, status, person...
i.e. the authority of Jesus.

Therefore a proper alternative to the passage in question would be

12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other authority under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Kind of like "open the door in the name of the king".

HankD

 

[Rob_BW]

In the example, I was taking it more from one presenting not from one finding, however, I suppose that the opening statement of the post suggests such a scenario as you present?

Can one with validity present the gospel in such a manner?

Is it important that one actually use the correct name and just what might that name be if it is necessary to use?

To use your own presentation above, would such a presentation be sufficient?

So an itinerant preacher washes up on the shore of an island. His memory of all things theological is intact, except for the name of Jesus. He meets a previously unreached tribe...

Is that a better hypothetical situation?

 

[agedman]

So an itinerant preacher washes up on the shore of an island. His memory of all things theological is intact, except for the name of Jesus. He meets a previously unreached tribe...

Is that a better hypothetical situation?

Perhaps it is the inability to speak and having washed up as a mute, upon meeting those who are of a different language with no understanding of Western culture must be presented the Gospel.

As one who holds the Doctrines of Grace, it would be a matter of God's providence and appointment, and such a commission given that the mute must share what he knows of the Grace of God.

What is important in the name that would limit, hinder, prevent the Gospel and salvation should the name, Jesus, not be included?

Could that name be missing from the presentation and it still be the Gospel?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Two extracts? It's all from the same passage. As I wrote: Context!

You don't have to ask, "I wonder, just what name is (or isn't!) it?" It says what it was two verses back.

No idea what you're on about. It was the power of the Lord Jesus Christ and faith in that power, that healed the lame man, not the bare recital of the name (Acts 19:13ff).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

When a policeman calls out, "Stop in the name of the law!" It is not the bare name "the law" that he is invoking but the authority and power of the law.