Two days from now, many folks will hear the following read by lectors from Acts 4:5-12: "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved."
"No other name" is what usually gets all the attention, for its exclusionary language. Very little attention is paid to the word "must", which is a curious word. It seems to me if "No other name" is meant to be our main focus, the more natural word for "must" would be "can". Of course, I'm no greek linguist so I'm going out on a limb and assuming that "must" is the appropriate translation.
If it is, it's a word that sticks out and seems ripe for much more attention than we've given it in the past.
The question that's usually put "before the house" focuses on "no other name". Whole books have been written wrestling with this exclusionary claim made by Peter. It seems to some that this excludes too many people from salvation. Then again, Peter and his colleagues were faced with a situation where they were being forced to choose what salvation they would claim, the Emperor, Moses, or Christ, so they were not the ones doing the excluding.
But so much attention has been focused on making everyone choose Jesus over every other messiah, that no one seems to notice that Peter is really claiming that Jesus must save us. We are given this name to invoke in our hearts, and when we do, our salvation is guaranteed. Peter has the audacity to assert that the Almighty creator God is bound by the promise inherent in Jesus' name -- the promise of salvation via the forgiveness of sins, and that brings Life with a capital L. Against this astounding promise, Caesar, Herod, and Moses don't stand a chance. The reason why Peter claims Jesus is the only way to salvation and the reason Jesus himself makes that claim is not arbitrary or imperialistic. Don't picture Jesus wielding a sword, saying, "if you don't believe in me, I'll smite you with my death ray." Don't picture God flashing lightning bolts from heaven and a thundering voice saying, "Believe in him or else!" Don't picture Peter strutting down the street or pounding on a bully pulpit, threatening Sodom and Gomorrah style reprisals to anyone who doesn't worship Jesus. Don't picture Luke as the head of the Moral Majority inflaming the divide between believers and unbelievers.
Instead, picture all of them saying, "Here's my candidate for ultimate salvation: Jesus. You think you got a better candidate? By all means, trot them out here and show me!" It's not an imperialistic power play against unbelievers; it's a hard-core challenge against other messiahs. Don't think "A Handmaid's Tale". Think "Welcome to Thunderdome". This is not Christians against pagans (or unbelievers or whatever you prefer). This is Jesus against Mohammed, Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, Ayn Rand, the Dali Lama, and whoever else is vying for the title in our hearts and minds these days. And this is not a popularity contest, nor is it a political battle filled with hype and propaganda. This is a pure contest of skill. The winner is the one who takes us all to the ultimate Promised Land. In a way, the winner has yet to be revealed, the final judgment yet to be made. The final judgment is not just on us, it is on Jesus as well. Christians aren't qualified to do anything more than to place our boldness along side that of Peter and Luke, and hang all our integrity and reputation on a promise by Jesus that has yet to be fulfilled definitively. We can declare the positive impact that Christ's crucifixion and resurrection has on our lives here and now, but all of that could still turn out to be transitory if we are wrong when the moment of truth comes. And we won't be able to blame ourselves -- for all the good that would do anyway -- since we've pinned it all on Jesus, our choice for champion.
