Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and questions. I agree with you that the name of our Savior is important. Scripture certainly emphasizes His name, and I would never suggest otherwise. The question I’m examining in this article is whether Scripture teaches that salvation depends upon using one particular pronunciation of that name.

You’re correct that the English name “Jesus” was not the name Peter would have spoken in his everyday language. Jesus’ Hebrew/Aramaic name was most likely *Yeshua* (ישוע), a form related to the Hebrew name *Yehoshua* (Joshua). I have absolutely no objection to someone calling Him Yeshua.

You’re also correct that the letter J, as we use it today, developed much later. However, its history is more complicated than saying it appeared in the 500s. The letter J gradually developed from the Latin letter I, eventually becoming a distinct letter in European languages. That development doesn’t mean someone deliberately changed the Savior’s name or identity.

You also mentioned that your name remains the same in every language. While people can certainly retain their preferred names when speaking another language, names have historically taken different forms across languages. My own name is Thomas, but in Spanish the traditional equivalent is Tomás, and in Italian it’s Tommaso. Interestingly, Thomas is itself a biblical name that came into English through Greek and Latin from an Aramaic name. Yet these different forms don’t mean we’re referring to different people.

The same principle helps explain how Yeshua became *Iēsous* (Ἰησοῦς) in Greek, *Iesus* in Latin, and eventually Jesus in English.

But perhaps the most important consideration is what we find in Scripture itself.

Although Peter likely spoke Aramaic in everyday life, Luke recorded Peter’s words in Acts 4 in Greek. In Acts 4:10, the name Luke uses is *Iēsous*. This is the same Greek form used throughout the New Testament to identify our Savior.

We also find something interesting in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Both passages use the Greek name *Iēsous* when referring to Joshua, the successor of Moses. In other words, Scripture itself demonstrates how a Hebrew name could be represented in Greek without changing the identity of the person being discussed.

This raises an important question: If salvation required believers to pronounce the Savior’s name only in its original Hebrew or Aramaic form, why does the inspired Greek New Testament consistently use *Iēsous* without instructing Greek-speaking believers to use a different pronunciation?

I also think it’s important to consider the context of Acts 4:12. When the religious leaders asked Peter by what power or name the man had been healed, Peter identified Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom they had crucified and whom God had raised from the dead (Acts 4:10).

Peter’s emphasis wasn’t on teaching his audience the correct pronunciation of a name. He was identifying the One through whom God had accomplished this miracle and through whom salvation is available.

That’s why I believe the phrase “no other name” emphasizes the exclusive identity and authority of Jesus Christ as Savior, rather than establishing a particular pronunciation as a requirement for salvation.

So I agree wholeheartedly that His name matters! But I want to be careful not to add a requirement that Scripture itself does not establish.

I appreciate you raising these questions, and I hope you’ll consider the distinction I’m making. My desire isn’t to defend an English pronunciation or discourage anyone from using the name Yeshua. It’s simply to understand and faithfully communicate what Scripture teaches.

Ultimately, our salvation rests not in our ability to pronounce His name in a particular language, but in the person and finished work of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Savior.

Thank you again for engaging in the discussion. I appreciate the opportunity to examine these things together.