Jeremiah 23:5-6 is often employed as a proof-text from the Hebrew scriptures for the deity of the Messiah by trinitarian apologists in debates with non trinitarians or on apologetics websites. Here is how the passage reads in most English versions:
“The days are coming,” declares Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. 6.In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘Yahweh is our righteousness.’”
This is a prophecy about the Messiah, whom God is promising to raise up for David. It is claimed by the trinitarian apologists that because it is said that this king will be called ‘Yahweh (is) our righteouness’, then this king must be Yahweh himself. Hence, they think they have in this passage a strong attestation to the deity of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. I will give two different arguments against this interpretation of the passage.
Argument 1
Given the correctness of the traditional understanding of this passage, that it is indeed saying that the coming Messiah would be called ‘Yahweh our righteousness’, then this would simply be a theophoric designation applied to the Messiah.
Theophoric names are names or titles which contain the name of a deity. There are many theophoric names in the Hebrew bible, containing either el, a shortened form of elohim which means God, or yah a shortened form of Yahweh, the personal name of the God of Israel. Some examples of El theophory are Abiel = my father is God; Daniel = my judge is God; Elisha = my God saves; Emmanuel = God is with us. Here are some examples of Yah theophory – Abiyah = my father is Yahweh; Adoniyah = my lord is Yahweh; Isaiah = salvation of Yahweh; Nehemiah = Yahweh comforts; Zechariah = Yahweh remembers. One name which combines both el and yah is Eliyah = Yahweh is my God. Theophoric names usually say something about God rather than saying something about the one who is so named. Why could this not be the case with the Messiah in Jer. 23:6? Why must the name be taken to be revealing something about the Messiah himself rather than to be revealing something about the God who raised him up?
The only answer that trinitarians have offered to rebutt this argument is that theophoric names involving Yahweh typically do not include the full name but only the shortened form Yah. The fact that Jer. 23:6 applies a name to the Messiah that contains the full name of God, Yahweh, instead of the short form, Yah, is said to stand out as unusual and therefore means that this is not a typical theophoric name but a title denoting the Messiah’s actual ontological nature. But this seems to me to be an ad hoc argument. On what basis do they make this claim? Is there some rule written somewhere which tells us that if a name or title contains the full name of Yahweh then it cannot be a simple theophoric name, but must be taken as signifying the nature of the one bearing the name? Even if this were the only example of a theophoric name given to a person which contains the full name Yahweh, does this then require it be understood as denoting the ontology of the bearer? The assertion is simply absurd, groundless, and without merit. A proof-text cannot be established as such on such flimsy reasoning.
Argument 2
It may be that the traditional understanding of this passage is simply wrong, that the epithet “Yahweh our righteousness” is not at all being applied to the coming Messiah in Jer. 23:6. What gives us a clue that this is likely the case is the parallel passage in Jer. 33:15-16, which reads:
“In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from David’s line; he will do what is just and right in the land. 16.In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: ‘Yahweh our Righteousness.’ “
In case you didn’t notice, this passage says that it is the city of Jerusalem that shall be called “Yahweh our righteousness,” instead of the Messiah. Now I am going to get a little technical, so please pay close attention. The reason we know that Jerusalem is being given the epithet here, and not the Messiah, is because of the feminine form of the preposition le which appears in the text just before the title “Yahweh our righteousness.” The le preposition has the meaning of to or for, and in the feminine form, to her or for her. This must refer to a feminine noun in the context of the passage. The word “land” in v. 15 and the word “Jerusalem” in v. 16 are the only feminine nouns, so it must refer to either one. It is probably best to take Jerusalem as the referent, being the nearest antecedent, but it could possibly refer to the “land”, i.e. the land of Israel. The last sentence contains the masculine verb for “to call” followed by the feminine preposition and so literally reads, “This is that which he will call for (or to) her: Yahweh our righteousness.” It is probably best to take it as “for her” which would indicate that this is what he (i.e. the king) will call her instead of Jerusalem. The “he” would best be understood as referring to the king.
Now, why would 23:6 say that the Messiah will be called “Yahweh our righteousness” but 33:16 say that Jerusalem will be called “Yahweh our righteousness”? It just doesn’t seem like there is congruence between the two passages if 23:6 is understood in the traditional way.
But what if 23:6 could be understood in a way that was congruent with 33:16, would this not be preferable. If we look at the last sentence of 23:6 it reads literally from the Hebrew, “This is his name which he will call him: “Yahweh our righteousness.” Here we see that there are three masculine pronouns referring to two entities. In the traditional interpretation it is just assumed that the first and third pronouns refer to the Messiah and the second one is usually not even expressed in English versions; why, I don’t know. So the typical resulting translation is “this is the name by which he (the Messiah) will be called: ‘Yahweh is our righteousness.’” But this is not necessarily how the verse should be read. The second and third masculine pronouns must refer to some masculine antecedent in the text, the options being 1. the king in v. 5 2. Judah in v. 6 3. Israel in v. 6. Again, it is simply assumed by most expositors that it refers to the king, but I propose instead, that it refers to Israel, i.e. the nation and the land of Israel. The position which the word “Israel” occupies in relation to the final clause of 23:6 is exactly parallel to the position which the word “Jerusalem” occupies in relation to the final clause in 33:16. So if the final clause of 33:16 refers back to Jerusalem, then why shouldn’t we take the final clause of 23:6 to refer back to Israel rather than to the king? Since “Israel” here refers to the nation and land, it is impersonal. When translating from another language into English, impersonal nouns which have grammatical gender are typically translated as “it”. Following this practice we could translate the final sentence of v. 6 as – “this is it’s name which he will call it . . .” So then the text would be saying that the promised king, the Messiah, will call Israel, the nation and the land, by the epithet Yahweh our righteousness. This makes this passage congruent with 33:16 in which the king calls Jerusalem or the land of Israel by the epithet. If 33:16 refers to Jerusalem we can understand it as the nation of Israel being represented in it’s capital city.
It would not be without precedence that a theophoric name is given to an inanimate or impersonal object. We know such is the case in Jer. 33:16, but there are earlier examples of this phenomenon, the most significant being found in Gen. 22:14 – “So Abraham called that place “Yahweh Yireh”. We note that this epithet includes the full name Yahweh and not just the abbreviated form Yah, once again showing the apologists’ answer to my first argument to be without merit.
Conclusion
Though I have presented two arguments against the use of Jer. 23:6 as a proof-text for the deity of Messiah, I think the second one is the better option. The first argument is good if the traditional understanding of the passage can be maintained, but trinitarians will not likely be convinced since they have their answer to it, even as weak as it is. But the second argument completely takes away from the apologists any reason to even think this passage refers to the Messiah as Yahweh.
Let the Truth Come Out 