Who is God’s Son?
In an attempt to prove the divine origin of Jesus, Christian theologians
pointed to Proverbs 30:4 and Psalms 2:7 as proof for their claim.
However, an examination of what the text actually says will dispel any attempt
at such a forced interpretation.
“The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man
spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal, Surely I am more brutish
than any man, and have not the understanding of a man. I neither learned
wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the
wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established
all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his
son's name, if thou canst tell?”
(Proverbs 30:1-4)
After informing us that he does not have all the wisdom and
understanding that he should possess, Agur, the son of Jakeh, poses a series of
rhetorical questions, the answers to which he realizes all men who seek
knowledge should possess:
The answer to the question "What is his name?" is given in the
Scriptures, where we are informed that only God, the creator of heaven and
earth, is in complete control of the forces of nature. Following this question
a second question is asked: "What is his son's name?" As the first
question is readily answered through a reading of the Scriptures, the source of
all true knowledge, so, too, the second question is to be answered by studying
the same source. We thus obtain the answer by studying such verses as Exodus
4:22: "Israel is My son, my firstborn"; Deuteronomy 14:1: "You
are the children of the Lord your God"; and Hosea 2:1: "It will be
said to them: 'You are the children of the living God.'" Consequently, it
is Israel that is the name of His son, His firstborn. True, we find elsewhere
in the Bible that David and Solomon stand in a filial relationship with God
(Psalms 89:27-28, 1 Chronicles 22:10, 28:6). Indeed, this will also be true of
the future Messiah. But the right to this title is due, in the final analysis,
to the fact that they are the representatives or personifications of Israel as
a whole. Hence, it is Israel that is the sole bearer of the august title of the
"son" or "firstborn" of God.
Christian theology may argue that any reference to Israel's relationship
with God only points to an allegedly greater relationship between God and
Jesus, but this argument remains unproved, having no basis in Hebrew
Scriptures. It is an argument based on misguided motives, trying to prove the preconceived
by forced interpretation. Only in a figurative sense will the future Messiah
enter into the "sonship" of God, a position he will
share with all of God's chosen servants.
Another source that Christians allege proves that God has a human son is:
“I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said
unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”
(Psalms 2:7)
When this verse is considered in context, it becomes
clear that it refers to the relationship between God and David, similar to the
one that existed between God and Solomon (2 Samuel 7:14, 1 Chronicles 22:10).
It is not unusual for a unique relationship between God and an individual or
nation to be termed as the latter being “begotten” of God (cf. Deuteronomy
32:18).
Considering the surrounding verses makes it impossible to
consider it to be a discussion between God and Jesus. If it refers to the
member of the Trinity bearing that name, then God could not have said “this day
have I begotten thee” or “Ask of me, and I shall give thee”. If it
refers to the human Jesus, and God is addressing a fertilized egg (hardly
likely) then the promises that God made in that chapter were not fulfilled: “I shall
give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost
parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod
of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.”. There is no way to claim that the earthly Jesus ever achieved this.
There is no way to force-fit either of these two verses to
make them refer to Jesus.