Why does Jer 23 say he and 33 says she?

[DonP]

In one passage the name Jehovah Tsidkenu which is the actual YHVH,
is used of the BRANCH referring to Christ and the other to Jerusalem the same name is used.
Why would this be?
And is it referring to the new heavenly Jerusalem that descends from heaven to the new earth? Or Jerusalem as the temple and city of God and Christ referring to his person? Why is this branch passage used two different ways?


Jer 33:15-16

15 In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.

16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.
KJV

Jer 23:5-6

5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
KJV

 

[VictorBravo]

The translation reflects the Hebrew, it looks like to me. It seems that in Jer 33, "she" is refering to Jerusalem.

 

[VictorBravo]

Calvin, in his commentary on this passage, agrees that it is Jerusalem, and therefore a figure of the church:

In chapter 23 this name is given to Christ, and to him alone it properly belongs; but it is here transferred to the Church, for whatever belongs to the head, is made common to all the members.

 

[DonP]

Calvin, in his commentary on this passage, agrees that it is Jerusalem, and therefore a figure of the church:

In chapter 23 this name is given to Christ, and to him alone it properly belongs; but it is here transferred to the Church, for whatever belongs to the head, is made common to all the members.

If that is the case, that Jerusalem here refers not to the temple as Christ, but the people of God, then does this nullify the name as a sign of deity for Jesus the Branch in 23?

I have used JEr 23 to support His deity since others like Zechariah, Jeremiah, etc have names that mean Jehovah is my righteousness, etc. These names are not the tetragrammaton but only 2 or 3 letters of it. Therefore they are a name that points to or are relating to Jehovah; where this name is His name and is all 4 YHVH


If it also is the NAME of the people of God then perhaps it does not signify deity.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think its a statement about how closely God identifies with us, how he unites his people to himself.

I think we find this sort of thing elsewhere. Israel means "the Lord strives." God gives Jacob a new name--one that he passes on to his descendants. It is an identifier, and at the same time it is a theological statement.

Who is it that strives (wrestles) to gain our salvation? As Calvin puts it when commenting on the night of wrestling--when God battles with us, he strives "against" us with the left hand, and "for" us with the right. How else could we live through such a battle?

Jesus is the ultimate "Israel," for he sums up all of what it means that "the Lord strives" for our salvation. And, he is also the Lord WHO strives.


Similarly, but in reverse historical order, first in Jer.23 a name is produced for the coming Messiah: "The Lord, our righteousness." It is another a bit of God's self-revelation, a testimony to the alien righteousness that saves sinners.

Then, in Jer.33, the same name is impressed upon Israel/Jerusalem, the objects of salvation, who are identified with the King they follow. In other words, in the first case "Lord" is emphasized. In the second, it is "our" that is emphasized.

Consider, we "Christians" bear our Master's name. "Little christs" are we. He is the Christ, the One, the Only. He is ISRAEL. We are "israel." He is THE LORD, our righteousness.


In the end, if you can persuade someone that Jer.23 demonstrates, by the use of the tetragrammaton, that the Savior is divine (or has a divine nature), great. But in the end, the whole OT argument for a divine Christ is cumulative. The disciples of Jesus were brought to a complete understanding that Jesus was more than mere Man by their personal acquaintance with him. This enabled them to see the OT evidence properly.

 

[DonP]

I think its a statement about how closely God identifies with us, how he unites his people to himself.

Then, in Jer.33, the same name is impressed upon Israel/Jerusalem, the objects of salvation, who are identified with the King they follow. In other words, in the first case "Lord" is emphasized. In the second, it is "our" that is emphasized.

Consider, we "Christians" bear our Master's name. "Little christs" are we. He is the Christ, the One, the Only. He is ISRAEL. We are "israel." He is THE LORD, our righteousness.

.

Then are we also properly little YHVH also.

I thought God's name was pretty holy and for Himself alone.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I wouldn't apply the sort of logic you have to my statement, Don. It seems to me, whatever name we're talking about, it would have to relate in some way to us. The Name of the Lord was one that was meant to convey his Otherness.

I've heard of "Jahwist", although I find the term strange, myself.

I guess, I'm just not seeing what potential problems there might be with this once-off name being bestowed on the covenant people, after the true Owner of the name has been designated. Is it not true that the Lord (Jesus Christ) is indeed our righteousness?

Joshua, Isaiah, and Hosea are all forms of the same name: meaning "Jehovah saves" or "Jehovah is salvation." OK, they used a shortened variant of the name when forming the word. But the meaning of the term is more important than it having two or four letters.

Now, other than Jesus/Joshua of Nazareth, which of these persons (or any others of the same name) was ever mistaken for the "JaH" or "JaHu" or JaHoVaH himself? None, because it was a name that made (or should have made) a statement of faith.

Which is exactly what "the Lord our Righteousness" does. In fact, it's one name that makes an explicit corporate confession of faith by the use of the word "our".