Jer. 23:6 does not talk about Jesus because it says: “this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness.” Jesus was never called by this name or title in his lifetime as New Testament depicted.  What is your response?


As they say, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.  Let me assume, for the sake of argument, that Jesus is not recorded as being called “The Lord Our Righteousness” in the New Testament.  Does this prove that he was not called by this name in his lifetime?  It is reasonable to suppose that many names were used of Jesus during his lifetime which are not recorded in the Scripture.  This is a TRULY weak argument that Jeremiah 23:6 is not talking about Jesus.  Besides, let us call him The Lord Our Righteousness today.  That is what Jesus is!  Jeremiah 23:6 is not a prophecy that the Messiah will be called this during his lifetime and that the label will enter the New Testament.  It is a prophecy that he will be called this name.  Well, I am calling him this right now, so the prophecy is fulfilled!
Besides, a look at Jeremiah 23:5-6 makes this quite obviously a messianic prophecy.  ALL Jews who believed in the Messiah would have agreed that this is a messianic prophecy.  The Jews called their Messiah the Son of David.  That the Messiah is the Righteous Branch is established by multiple other messianic passages, such as Isaiah.  Isaiah 11:1, Isaiah 11:10, and Zechariah 6:12 are examples that prove that the Messiah is known as the Branch, and the root of Jesse (the father of David).  I would argue that Isaiah 11 and Zechariah 6 are evidence that Jeremiah 23:6 is also a messianic passage.  Again, look at Jeremiah 23:5-6. It is about a “king who will reign wisely.”  It is about a king through whom “Judah will be saved.”  Besides, Jesus is in fact Lord, and Jesus is a Righteous Savior.
This argument that Jeremiah 23:6 is not a messianic prophecy because the actual phrase “The Lord our Righteousness” is not found in the New Testament is so weak that it has every appearance of being made, not because of the evidence, but as a desperate ad hoc argument against the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah—one that only a pre-decided enemy of Christianity would be willing to use.  The argument is so weak that, to me, it is really a reverse argument FOR Jesus being the Messiah.
John Oakes

Comments are closed.