Isaiah 62:1

The big thing in this chapter is the New Name God promised to give his people in Isaiah 62:2; and much to the surprise of this writer, none of the writers we have consulted on this subject has anything convincing to say about it. Only one writer, namely, the 19th-century Adam Clarke, knew what it was (and is); and his total comment was less than four short lines; but he did tell us what the new name is, CHRISTIAN.[1]

True to Isaiah's pattern of "here a little and there a little" (Isaiah 28:10,13), the prophet here returns to the revelation regarding that new name, mentioned also in Isaiah 56:5, where the passage affirms that: (1) the name will be given by God Himself, (2) within his walls and in his house, in his Church, (3) a memorial name, (4) a name better than that of sons and of daughters, and (5) an ever-flaming name that shall never be cut off.

We find ourselves absolutely astounded that so many present-day commentators profess not to know what God's name for his people really is. We shall certainly attempt to clarify that.

This chapter, of course, is a continuation of the same theme which has dominated several of the preceding chapters, namely, the blessings of God under the New Covenant. The speaker is thought to be Jehovah, the Servant, or the prophet Isaiah; but regardless of which is correct, the message is that of God Himself. "The close connection with the preceding chapter is evident."[2]

Isaiah 62:1-2

"For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until her righteousness shall go forth as brightness, and her salvation as a lamp that burneth. And the nations shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory; and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of Jehovah shall name."

Terms like salvation, and righteousness, identify the period envisioned as that of the New Covenant in Christ. Some very significant additional information about that `name' which God promised his people appears in this passage: (1) it shall be a new name; (2) it will be given at a time when the Gentiles have been accepted into the family of God, and when kings have become aware of God's salvation, and (3) there is a repetition here of the fact that God Himself will give the name. These statements, added to those in Isaiah 56:5, make seven earmarks by which that New Name may be positively and unerringly identified. We shall discuss them in order, beginning with the five from Isaiah 56:5.

THE NEW NAME IS THE NAME "CHRISTIAN"

1. It was given by God Himself. This means that God assigned it, commanded it, and ordered his children to wear it. Where? In the Holy Scriptures, where all the rest of his commandments are recorded. "Let none of you suffer as a thief, or a murderer, or an evildoer, or as a meddler in other men's matters"; but if a man suffer as a CHRISTIAN, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name (1 Peter 4:15,16). To be perfectly candid about it, this command of God through the apostle Peter is as plain, definite, and binding upon the followers of Christ as are the other commandments in the same verses, namely, "Thou shalt not kill"; and "Thou shalt not steal."

Since the name was given and commanded by God Himself, this means that the name "Christian" was not invented and applied by the enemies of Christianity, as some vainly and erroneously assert. There is no way that men could intelligently assert that Satan would have assigned any name to the followers of Christ that contained a memorial to the Son of God as does the name Christian.

As to the question of how men can glorify God in the name Christian, the answer is "by wearing it," applying it to themselves, and using it to the exclusion of unauthorized, sectarian, and divisive names.

2. The name "Christian" was given by God "within his walls, within his house," This means that it was assigned and worn first within the church of our Lord, that being the only "house" God ever had. And where was that? It occurred at Antioch where, "The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11:26).

The appearance of the name Christian in Antioch was no casual, accidental, or insignificant occurrence. It came as the result of a number of very impressive developments. God selected a very important person to bring that name and bestow it upon the disciples, namely, Paul the mighty evangelist of the New Testament, the reason for that choice evidently being the truth that the Twelve Apostles seemed unlikely, at that time ever to meet the conditions under which the New Name would require to be given (see under No. 7, below). (a) Thus Paul was converted in Acts 9; and in that very chapter God revealed that the apostle Paul was that "chosen vessel unto me (God), to bear my (God's) name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15). The use in this passage of the very phraseology of this chapter in Isaiah declares the evident truth that the apostle Paul was to be the "Name Bearer," who would be the person through whom the New Name would be given to the church. (b) But as we shall see under 7, below, the Gentiles were first to be accepted into God's fellowship before the New Name would be given. Very well, the basis of that general acceptance of Gentiles took place in Peter's baptism of the house of Cornelius, as recorded in Acts 10. (c) Then in Acts 11, the New Name appears. Note the remarkable progression: Acts 9, the name bearer was converted and designated; Acts 10, a great Gentile congregation appeared in Antioch; and Acts 11, the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch! It is simply impossible to believe that all of these events fell into such a pattern accidentally. Some will wonder at our reference to Paul as the person "through whom" God delivered the New Name; but the last portion of Acts 11 shows this to be the case. When the Church in Jerusalem heard of the Gentiles being accepted into the faith in Antioch, they sent Barnabas, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Barnabas immediately went to Tarsus and brought Paul to Antioch, where a great Gentile church was gathered in about a year. Significantly, it was after Paul's arrival, that the New Name was given.

3. The name "Christian" is a memorial name, appropriately memorializing the holy Head and Redeemer of the body of his Church. The mention of the marriage tie several times in this chapter is appropriate in connection with the sublime truth that all of the members of the Bride of Christ should indeed wear the name of their bridegroom, the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing could possibly be more appropriate in this context than the New Name, CHRISTIAN!

4. The New Name was promised to be a name better than that of sons and of daughters; and whatever is included in such a declaration, it has to mean that the New Name will be different from that of sons and of daughters.

5. The New Name was to be "an everlasting name that would never be cut off." The name "Christian" qualifies under this characteristic also, because followers of Christ are today wearing the name "Christian," just as Paul attempted to persuade Herod Agrippa to do (Acts 26:28) during the first century of our era.

6. It was promised to be a New Name, and this is a most important qualification. This means that it could not be "Hephzibah," which Adam Clarke and others suggested as a possibility,[3] or Beulah, as some Bible concordances affirm; because neither of these was a new name. Hephzibah was the name of the mother of Manasseh, and our text also declares that "Beulah" would be the name of "the land," not of the people of God. This same qualification eliminates all thought of "disciples" being the New Name, because that is a very old name. In the days before Christ, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees, and the Herodians, and John the Baptist all had their "disciples."

7. The appearance here, in conjunction with the promise of the New Name, of the declaration that the kings and the Gentiles should see the righteousness of God, as well as the mention of the very same things by Ananias upon the occasion of Paul's baptism when the "Name-bearer" was designated, is a powerful indication that the New Name would never be given until Gentiles were generally accepted into God's Church; and, as we have seen, the name was never given until a great Gentile congregation had been gathered in Antioch. This accounts for the use of the term "disciples" as the name of Christ's followers throughout the gospels and throughout most of Acts of Apostles. Significantly, after the Book of Acts, no sacred writer ever used the word "disciples" again as a designation of the Lord's people. The apostle John, for example, used "disciples" dozens of times in the Gospel, but never used it all in the four other books that he wrote later!

We do not believe that "disciples" is a proper term at all when used in place of the word Christian. What is wrong with the name God gave, commanded, and that he requested we should use to glorify God "in this name"?

McGuiggan is an able writer; and his suggestion that this New Name might have something to do with the name "Of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," into which Christians are baptized,"[4] is interesting. However, my own conviction is that the name "Christian" is indeed "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," in the sense of being the name that originated with the Godhead, was commanded by the Father, memorializes the name of Christ, and is received by the power of the Holy Spirit.