Isaiah prophesies something about a “New Name”. Christians argue that this means the Jews will be replaced by Christians. They say the name “Jew” has become a slur, and (ex. 1 Peter 4:16) the 'new name' given was 'Christians'; “However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. ” (1 Peter 4:16 NIV)
What is the scriptural basis for this and how does it bear out?
Christians quote Isaiah in Revelations as well;
and “Verse E”;
3:12's “the one who conquers,” is reminiscent of Isaiah 56:5; otherwise it espouses only a very slightly different theology as Isaiah.
Let us begin at some random verse such as Isaiah 66:21; ““For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the Lord, so shall your offspring and your name remain.” Therefore we see something is going on in the text which we may not be aware, and we must do a deeper dive to find out. Let's re-examine VA, VB and VC above in the light.
Isaiah 55:13 is found in the context of 55:6-56:2 and the typology is repeated in V.B. (Isaiah 56:5; see VB, below).
'Now is the time,' says the Lord, to seek him, 'Now is the time,' says the Lord, for the wicked to repent of their actions (wicked works) and thoughts (wicked thoughts; false faith, etc) for 'he will abundantly pardon' and, in fact, to the point we do not understand his reasoning (see v.8-9). I.E. He is the Lord and we have no right to question his judgement on this matter.
Ex. “Have I said, and I will not do it?”
Here, “make a name for the Lord” means to make him well-known, ex. “On that day, you shall know that I am the Lord.” The meaning is different than 56:5, but we'll use this as a starting point to explain the hermeneutic; the point being, that the new name will come about from people seeking the lord and repenting. One cannot wonder who this people is, for Jacob's name was changed to Israel. It is surely this people who is being referenced here; see v.3-5;
because of the Lord your God, and of the Holy One of Israel, for he has glorified you.”
This directly states “the people” are the ones of “the everlasting covenant” and that God has glorified them.
Isaiah 56:5 is in Isaiah 56:3-5 and the context is 56:1-8.
First we begin by the Lord himself telling us to keep the law as a primary requirement “for soon my salvation will come and my righteousness revealed”.
Once again we see, that it is about keeping the law; leaving aside the notion that even if one cannot keep the law fully (ex. one is a convert or a eunuch) if one keeps what one can, “to those” (i.e. those who keep the law!) to those people will be given a new name.
Thus we see directly from V.B. that it is not a statement that Christians have replaced Jews, but rather only the Jews themselves – even a convert, or a eunuch – only those who keep the law will have such a new name!
This confirms the previous passages as well.
Isaiah 62:2 is a part of the context of Isaiah 62:1-12.
Here we see that it is Zion and Jerusalem whom will be made righteous, and “her salvation” will be “as a burning torch”. This is the mandate of a light to the nations which was given to Jerusalem, but it also says “shall see your righteousness, … and *you shall be called by a new name…” meaning, Jerusalem/Israel.
Luckily, this verse also tells us the exact name which will be the new name:
This is a stunning reversal of the Christian proposition, which states that in fact the nation of Israel will be redeemed in the messianic era and all the nations of the world will see their light and turn to God.
Verses 5-11 contain amazing and relevant prophecy, but on the issue of name we are primarily concerned with v.12;
Isaiah 65:15 is part of the context of, at least , v.13-16 and possibly earlier such as 11-16 or even 8-16. But starting with only the most relevant context,
Who are these people who forsake the lord? They have rejected God's word (they did not listen) but instead did the opposite. This is part of the scene-setting of 65:1-12 and is not necessary to understand that a dichotomy is being set up in v. 13-16:
Here we see it is made explicitly clear precisely who the servants of the Lord are; the entire section of 1-7 is explicit; those who eat pig's flesh, those who practice idolatry, those who are hypocrites, etc. Those people are not the servants of the Lord. Then it says as written “I will not remain silent,” which is a reference at least back to VC –> “For Zion's sake… I will not remain silent” (!!) meaning that for the sake of the righteous in zion!
The servant, i.e. the nation of Israel, for their sake, God will pick the righteous out from among them and doom the others. Ezekiel 20:38 confirms: “I will purge out the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against me. I will bring them out of the land where they sojourn, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Lord.” (Ezekiel 20:38).
(“On that day, you will know that I am the Lord.”) All of the contemporaneous (synoptic) prophets agree.
Thus once again we see that this cannot mean the christian church because it is explicitly stated everywhere that it is Israel “as written”.
There are no other verses from TNK that discuss this.
The sole other verses are in Revelation;
and “Verse E”;
3:12's “the one who conquers,” is reminiscent of Isaiah 56:5; otherwise it espouses only a very slightly different theology as Isaiah. “I will make him a pillar,” i.e. I will make for him a monument; nothing here is new. “and my own new name,” ex. “and you shall be called by a new name that the mouth of the Lord will give.”
If we assume this means “that no one knows except the one who receives it,” then it cannot refer to a people and is a different kind of new name (ex. a spiritual or 'heavenly' name such as a 'Christian Name' or a 'Hebrew name' or a 'Chinese Name' all given for religious or study purposes).
Ibn Ezra: An everlasting sign, a miracle that will remain for ever.
I.E. means either that the rivers and fountains produced in the wilderness by a miracle will remain for ever, and thus continually testify the glory of God, or that the miracle will be of such an extraordinary character, that it will for ever remain in the memory of mankind.
Rashi: Instead of the briar, etc. Our Rabbis expounded [Targum Jonathan]: Instead of the wicked, righteous people shall arise. briar…and…nettle They are species of thorns; i.e., to say that the wicked will be destroyed and the righteous will take their rule.
Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I 14:2
The explanation [of this passage] is that [Solomon], the wise one, through Divine Spirit, cautions scoffers [not to mock earlier generations] merely because these later generations were accustomed to the science of pilpul. Previous generations did not employ this [analytical] approach, and even so, they reached a level of competence as authoritative as the written Torah, for their main goal was to learn for the purpose of religious practice. [Solomon therefore warns] that it is wrong to mock them [and think] that if you were as knowledgeable regarding the sources that were available to the previous generations, you would reject the structure of laws developed by that generation [because they did not possess the art of pilpul].
“That is not a question prompted by reason,” since you do not possess a monument or name2 in the area of adjudication. On the other hand, if you condescendingly believe that if you were given the opportunity to make decisions and that you can do so without the art of pilpul, that is only foolishness and arrogance. Since you lack the traditions of the clearly-defined laws from the great Torah academies, we are compelled to draw from the deep waters with [deep] analysis.
This is a statement that the holy spirit to understand scripture, and the ecumenical authority to interpret scripture, was given solely to the Jews.
Ibn Ezra: new name Numbers 1:17 “So Moses and Aaron took those participants, who were designated by name,
Radak on Genesis 30:28:1; as rendered by Onkelos, “spell out, determine!” We find this word in a similar sense in Isaiah 62,2 אשר פי ה' יקבנו, “which the Lord Himself will determine.” Lavan meant that he was amenable to any terms Yaakov would demand in order to retain his presence and his services.
If the meaning of this is that there is a new name, so there is an old name, then in the manner the Lord gave the old name, he will (and only he will) give the new name, and in a like manner. Then we see that the name was given by angelic messenger; “Then he said, 'Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel,'” and looking further we see that this is typologized in the four expressions of deliverance:
“And I will take.” Our Sages of blessed memory state (Tractate on Marriage, page 2b): “Why do we find that marrying a woman is called “taking,” as the verse says, ‘When a man takes a woman?’ [The Talmud answers:] Since it is written in the Torah [in Genesis] that G‑d made Adam fall asleep and took part of his side and [from it] made a woman, and called her Woman [in Hebrew, “Isha”] because she was taken from a Man [in Hebrew, “Ish”]. [The Talmud continues:] This is comparable to a person who has lost an object. [Who searches after whom?] The person searches after the lost object [i.e. the lost object does not search for its owner]. Therefore it is the nature of a man to go after a woman. [The man lost part of his side and searches for the woman] and therefore, it is written, “When a man takes a woman [in marriage].
Therefore, “I will take you out…” and “I will take you for me…” is to name; is it not explicitly written in VC thusly? and again:
From the context the meaning is opposite; those whose name will be cursed are not God's servants; his servants will be called by a different name. Thus the following render is a better translation:
Rashi: your name for an oath* From your name shall be taken a curse and an oath for generations, “If it does not befall me as it befell So-and-so.” (my svara is; “may what happened to those wicked people never happen to me, and so I will do my best and not slack off from keeping the law, or fall into hypocrisy, as they did”)
but to His servants He shall call another name A good name and a mention for a blessing. (svara; this is obvious from the text which explicitly states this and gives several such names. not much of a svara really)
Ibn Ezra: a curse and an oath see Numbers 5:21 (Rashi; THE LORD MAKE THEE AN EXECRATION — i.e. that everybody will curse through thee (i.e., by mention of thy name), saying, “May misfortune come upon you just as it came upon Mrs. so-and-so!” and [THE LORD MAKE THEE AN EXECRATION] AND AN OATH — This means, that everybody will swear through thee (i.e., by mention of thy name) — “If not (i.e., if I am not speaking the truth) may misfortune happen to me just as it happened to Mrs. So-and-so!” In a similar sense it states, (Isaiah 65:15) “and ye shall leave your name as an oath unto my chosen” which means that the righteous take an oath by mention of the punishment that came upon evil-doers. So, too, in reference to the blessing, does it state, (Genesis 12:3) “and through thee (i.e., by mention of thy name) shall bless themselves [all the families of the earth]”; (Genesis 48:20) “By thee shall Israel bless, saying, [God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh]” (Sifrei Bamidbar 14).)
Also see Jeremiah 29:22; upon we find Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:2:2:
We have another Midrash (Tanchuma Vayikra 6) according to which the emphasis of the verse is on the words בשגגה, inadvertently. The Torah refers to what Solomon spoke about in Proverbs 19,2 “it is also not good for a person (נפש) to lack knowledge, he who rushes in with his feet sins.” This verse applies to two individuals, Achav ben Kulliah and Tzidkiyah ben Massiayh who were junior prophets (disciples of a school of prophets) at the time of the last King of Yehudah Tzidkiyah in Jerusalem, and who, according to tradition committed sins in Jerusalem and even after having been exiled continued sinning in Babylon. Their sin consisted in abusing their supposed prophetic powers to gain access to married women having in mind immoral and illegitimate relations with these women. They would obtain these women’s husbands permission to be alone with their wives by claiming that they had a message for them from G’d which was only for their ears. Once they had gained access to these women they told them that G’d wanted them to become the mothers of future prophets. They would therefore suggest that the woman in question have intercourse with their respective friend and partner in crime so that the lady would become pregnant. Seeing that they did not demand sexual satisfaction for themselves but for another their story sounded more plausible and they were not suspected of being corrupt. They made this kind of deceit their regular mode of operation. Although they were such exceedingly wicked men they established for themselves a reputation of being great prophets in Babylon. Seeing that they had such a reputation pregnant women would ask them if they were going to give birth to a male child or to a female child. They would tell the pregnant woman that she would have son, but at the same time tell her girlfriend that the woman in question would have a daughter. When the woman who had been told she would have a son found that she gave birth to a daughter, her girlfriend would tell her that she knew this all along as the prophet had told her in confidence. The reason he had not told this to the pregnant woman was in order to save her the distress over expecting a daughter and having to endure pregnancy with such a prospect all the time. Eventually, one of them approached the wife of King Nebuchadnezzar in a similar fashion, asking that she sleep with his friend if she wanted to become the mother of a prophet. The lady said that she would not agree unless her husband had agreed to this first. She told the King about what Tzidkiyah had proposed to her, i.e. that she sleep with Achav. The King called in both Achav and Tzidkiyah repeating what his wife told him, but adding that he was aware that the G’d of the Jews hated all manner of sexual licentiousness. He quoted the example of Zimri ben Salu who had been slain by Pinchas on account of sleeping with the princess of Midian, and how prior to Pinchas’ deed 24,000 Israelites had died by the plague because they committed the sin of sexual licentiousness. He challenged them to prove that they were not false prophets. He told them that once before he had wanted to know if Chananyah, Mishael and Azzaryah had been true prophets of the G’d in heaven and in order to know he heated a kiln for seven days, threw them into it bound hands and feet and they walked out unharmed. The King proposed that when examining Tzidkiyah and Achav he would heat up the same kiln for only one day. If G’d would save them he would recognise them as true prophets and would agree that his wife become pregnant by one of them. Thereupon these two fakers said that seeing Chananyah, Mishael and Azzaryah were three it was understandable that G’d extended Himself in order to save them. Seeing there were only the two of them, it was unlikely that G’d would perform a miracle on their account. Nebuchadnezzar countered that there was indeed a third man, a Jew who used to be the High Priest in Jerusalem. He, Nebuchadnezzar, would throw all three of them into the heated kiln and they would find out the result. The two false prophets were now encouraged by this, thinking that G’d would save them as He would not allow the High Priest to die such a death. They therefore agreed to the test. Nebuchadnezzar threw all three of them into the kiln; the two false prophets were burned whereas the High Priest Yehoshua was saved. This is the reason that Zecharyah 3,2 described this High Priest as “a brand who had been saved from the fire.”
The incidence of these two false prophets Achav and Tzidkiyah became so widely known during the exile of the Jews in Babylon that when people had occasion to curse someone they would curse them by saying: “may G’d treat you as the King of Babylon treated Achav and Tzidkiyah whom he consigned to the flames (Jeremiah 29,22).” When trying to determine what was the downfall of these two men, we are reminded of their eagerness to run and commit sins [in] (Proverbs 19,2), something far worse than being unable to resist temptation when it comes one’s way.