The
second question (“what is the name of His Son?”) is a more challenging inquiry.
It is linked with the first name request, and “since ‘God’ is the only possible
answer to that question, it is striking that the text speaks of his ‘son.’” (D.
A. Garrett, “Proverbs” in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, The New
American Commentary, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1993) 237.) Although this
question is frequently glossed over by commentators, it is essential to
understanding the passage. The answer lies at the heart of solving the riddle:
What is the name of His Son in this passage? Several identities have been
suggested as the answer to this puzzling question. (C. F. Keil and F.
Delitzsch, “Proverbs” in Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 6 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 279.)
First,
perhaps the weakest possibility is that it refers to Agur’s sons, Ithiel and
Ucal. This is based on the lexical presupposition that in Proverbs “son” refers
to the son being taught by his father (Prv 1:8; 2:1; 3:1; 5:1; 6:20). There are
two problems with this view. First, although Agur identifies Ithiel and Ucal,
they are not identified as his sons. Furthermore, the question of the son’s
identity is not linked to Agur, but to the Lord, the One who is described in
the four “Who?” questions.
Second,
the people of Israel have been suggested as the name of the son. This links the
name of the son with that of the Lord, as Israel is related to Him. At the time
of the exodus, Israel is called God’s firstborn son (Ex 4:22). Israel is often
called the son of God throughout the OT (e.g., Dt 14:1; 32:5-6, 19; Isa 43:6;
45:11; Jer 3:19). The problem with seeing the people of Israel as the answer to
the riddle of the name of the Son is that the people of Israel are a group, whereas
the question of the name of the Son seems to be demanding an individual person.
Jewish interpreters wrestled with this verse by understanding the noun as plural,
rather than singular, identifying son as “the children of Israel” or “the name
of his sons.” This is the LXX translation, as well as Midrash Yalkut Shimoni, (Visotzky,
Midrash on Proverbs, 118.) but does not seem true to the question of the
name of the son as an individual.
Third,
the son has been identified as the demiurge, based on the description of God in
Prv 30:4. Understood thus, the son is not God, but is somehow involved in the
creation, having been created by God. A similar idea is to identify the son as
the LXX concept of logos (Ps 33:6) but not fully God. (NET Bible 30:4. fn 2,
1144.)
Fourth, it has been suggested that this
individual is an ideal son. He is a son who gains wisdom from his father who teaches
him the Scriptures as the source of divine knowledge and understanding. This is
a good general description of any individual who has a right relationship with
the Lord and applies the Word of God to his (or her) life, as Prv 9:10-11
teaches; however, it seems to fall far short of the urgent question regarding
the name of the son. (Eva Rydelnik, “Proverbs 30:4: The Riddle of the Son,” in Michael
Rydelnik and Edwin eds., The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies
and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament [Chicago: Moody
Publishers, 2019], 752-53)
