What Is His Name?

Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Those words echoed through the centuries in the hearts of faithful Israelites. The oneness of Jehovah God set the Hebrew people apart from their neighbors, who were immersed in a pantheon of competing gods.

Despite this core teaching of Jehovah's Covenant, many Israelites repeatedly succumbed to the temptation to "rise up and play" with the false gods of other nations (Exodus 32:6). The Old Testament records the sorry history of this ongoing struggle between the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the hearts of the people who yearned for different gods. This struggle ultimately reached its peak when Jehovah sent Nebuchadnezzar to destroy Jerusalem and eliminate polytheism from among his people. For the next 600 years, the Jews' fascination with idols was set aside.

Remarkably, though, some 3,000 Jews on the day of Pentecost recognized a man, Jesus of Nazareth, as God. What was the earth-shattering piece of evidence that would tempt them back to worshiping another "god" other than Jehovah?

This: he was not another god. He was God. He is God. Through his preaching, he revealed that God is three yet one—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three persons, one Divine Nature. Not polytheism. One God in three—equal in power, holiness, and majesty, working in perfect harmony to save mankind, who is created in their singular image.

But like Israel of old, it wouldn't be long before certain men secretly crept into the body of believers, denying the Master and Lord Jesus Christ who bought them (Jude 4). Some denied he actually died on the cross. Others denied his authority on earth, claiming it for themselves. And some denied that he is truly God, at least in the same sense as the Father. He was just ... a god.

These philosophers and theologians began weaving elements of Greek and Roman pagan ideology into Christianity, and their meanderings influenced the thinking of those who claimed to follow Jesus for generations to come. Some of these theologians believed that the persons of the Godhead shared a divine nature in a limited way, similar to ancient Greek and Roman gods who shared deity but differed in attributes. These philosophers affirmed that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not cooperative roles assumed by the divine persons to save mankind. Rather, these identities are inherent, immutable, and eternal individual natures. In other words, their distinct identities are their individual natures, not merely cooperative roles.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD) believed that the pre-incarnate Logos (i.e., Jesus; cf. John 1:1-3, 14) was created by the Father before the rest of creation (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 61). He called Christ "another God and Lord" under the Creator. Thus, Jesus, as a divine person, is "in second place" (First Apology, ch. 13). His invention of ordinal subordination (the first, second, and third persons in the Godhead) was rooted in the idea that the Father is the supreme God of the Godhead (like Zeus or Jupiter), with Christ and the Holy Spirit as other Gods created by the Father.

Tertullian (c. 155-220 AD) coined the term "trinity" (i.e., trinitas), yet affirmed, "The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole" (Against Praxeas, ch. 9; emphasis added). In his view, the Son and the Holy Spirit were derived from the Father by some form of divine mitosis. In this sense, Jesus was the "eternal Son." Eternal because his "divine essence" (i.e., substance) exuded out of the eternal Father, but as an independent deity, he was generated as a derivative Son.

In his poem, Thalia, preserved by Athanasius, Arius (c. 250-336 AD) wrote: "the Son was not always," for "He was not before His origination" but "had an origin of creation" (Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, I.5). For Arius, the Son was only a god by the Father's grace (Disc. I.5).

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) condemned Arius as extreme but retained the deeply held belief in eternal sonship promoted by influential church "fathers." Thus, the creed they promoted affirmed: "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father." In this way, Tertullian's view of the Son being derived (i.e., begotten) from the eternal substance of the Father was enshrined in church history.

Have you ever used the terms "first person in the Godhead," "second person in the Godhead," or "third person of the Godhead"? You probably didn't realize that this language, introduced by Justin Martyr, referred to the supposed order of their independent existence.

Like so many other evolving errors, logic, vocabulary, and consistency were abandoned in the feeble effort to affirm what cannot be true. The divine person who became flesh either always possessed the nature of God (John 1:1-3, 14), was always on equal footing with the other members of the Godhead in every respect before taking on the role of a servant (Philippians 2:6), and was in no way inferior to them in his independent divine nature (Colossians 2:9)—or he is not God.

Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one (Deuteronomy 6:4).

The idea of the eternal sonship of Jesus continues in various forms to this very day, and many "convincing proofs" have been offered to defend his eternal submission. In the balance of this article, we will focus our attention on one such proof, which some believe is an insurmountable argument for the "eternal sonship and submission" of the so-called "second person in the Godhead."

A "Powerful" Argument for the Eternal Sonship Answered

Some argue that an obscure reference in Proverbs, written centuries before Jesus was born, refers to Christ as God's Son and provides irrefutable proof of Christ's eternal sonship.

Here's the passage: "What is His name or His son's name?" (Proverbs 30:4, NASB).

The eternal sonship proponents ask, "Could there be any better proof than that?!"

A Closer Look at Proverbs 30:4

Does Proverbs 30:4 settle the matter on the eternal sonship question? Not hardly. In fact, just the opposite. But we actually need to study God's Word to understand why this claim has absolutely no merit.

As we work our way through the text, it will be a valuable exercise in careful Bible study. It is so easy to pull a verse out of its setting and make it say whatever we want. But careful Bible students slow down, read the context, and let the Scriptures speak. If we understand Proverbs 30 properly, we'll discover what the text actually teaches.

Perhaps more importantly, we'll sharpen the skills we need every time we open the Sacred Text. Whether you are a young preacher preparing your first sermon or a seasoned student of scripture, the habits we practice here will benefit you in every Bible study.

Who Is Speaking? And What Is this Chapter About?

Proverbs 30 stands out from the rest of the book. Most of Proverbs is attributed to Solomon, but this chapter is attributed to Agur, son of Jakeh, the oracle ("of Massa" ASVfn). We know very little about him. He appears nowhere else in scripture. The chapter as a whole is a collection of wise sayings focused on a single theme: human knowledge is limited compared to the sovereign God.

There is a debate about verse 1, as reflected in various translations. Is Agur addressing men (Ithiel and Ucal)? Or is he addressing God, as reflected in the English Standard Version? If the latter is correct, his words begin: "I am weary, O God; I am weary, O God, and worn out."

The debate is technical and beyond the scope of this article. While we may not be able to definitively state which is correct, the latter seems to fit the context better, whereas the former has the weight of many reliable translations. Either way, the force of Agur's oracle is the same. The reader is expected to learn something significant about God from this inspired source.

Agur begins with a confession of ignorance (vv. 1-4), dismissing any confidence in man's ability to reach the Holy One on his own merit. If we cannot match God's wisdom and power on our own, how can we understand his will?

In verses 5-6, Agur provides the answer to human limitations. God has spoken, and his word is sufficient. Human wisdom fails, but God's word endures.

Everything Agur says afterward is built on that foundation. He observes the natural world and human behavior—things "too wonderful" to understand (vv. 18-19), things that cause the earth to tremble (vv. 21-23), and creatures that are small yet wise (vv. 24-28). If these are mysteries to people, then how much greater is the Creator's wisdom?

This contextual background matters to the question before us. Verse 4 is not an isolated proof-text. It is the climax of Agur's opening confession:

Surely I am more brutish than any man,
and I do not have the understanding of a man.
I have not learned wisdom,
nor do I possess knowledge of the Holy One (vv. 2-3).

This is a humble admission of human weakness. Agur clearly states that he cannot fully understand God's knowledge. He is emphasizing what man cannot do and cannot know. This context shapes our understanding of verse 4.

The Impossible Questions

With his confession in place, Agur fires off a series of bold questions:

Who has ascended into heaven and descended?
Who has gathered the wind in his fists?
Who has wrapped the waters in his garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!

The force of his questions is not simply that no man has done this, but all these things are impossible for man to do. No man has ascended to heaven where God is and come back. No man has held the wind in his hands like God. No man has wrapped up the oceans like cloth. No man has set the boundaries of the earth.

No man!

These questions follow a pattern similar to that found in the conversation between God and Job (Job 38-41). God humbles Job with a long series of impossible challenges: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding" (38:4). The point is not to discover Job's answers, but to humble the hearer. If God's incomparable power cannot be matched by man, then neither is man a match for God's wisdom.

"What Is His Name?"

After the four impossible questions, Agur adds a final declaration.

What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know! (v. 4b)

Many readers assume "his name" refers to God and "his son's name" refers to Christ. But look at the flow of thought. Agur has been asking who among men has done these mighty works. The answer is no one. Now he adds: "If you can find such a man, tell me his name."

He is not asking for God's name. Rather, the question is perfectly aimed at the man who does not exist. "Has someone done these things? Fine. What is his name? And what is his son's name?"

The "son" adds another layer. Produce the man and trace his line if you can. The Hebrew word beno (beh-NO) simply means "his son." There is no contextual reason to think that Agur or his readers would have understood this to mean the "eternal son." To suggest that interpretation is simply reading into the text what someone wants to see.

If Agur is addressing friends, as reflected in most translations, the final phrase ki teda ("Surely you know!") drips with ironic confrontation. It reveals man's ignorance by implying the answer should be obvious. "Of course, you don't know. Because no such man exists." If Agur is addressing God in his frustration, it is an appeal for help.

Regardless of which force of Agur's question, the answer is the same. He continues:

Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Man cannot know the mind of God without divine revelation. And because of man's inability to know God's will independently, he must handle it with the utmost care. This is the contextual focus of Proverbs 30:1-6.

The Capitalization Problem

Some English translations capitalize "His" and "His Son's name" in this verse. The NASB and NKJV are common examples. This nudges the reader toward the idea that the translators believed the final question in verse 4 refers to God and his Son. However, most other versions do not capitalize these pronouns (KJV, ASV, ESV, NIV).

Here's an important point. Capitalized pronouns in English Bibles reflect the translator's judgment, not the original Hebrew or Greek. Hebrew script doesn't even distinguish between upper and lowercase characters. So in this instance, the capital pronouns in this verse introduce an interpretive intrusion into a poetic riddle that the context does not support.

Does this Passage Refer to Christ?

As we've already noted, the contextual flow asks for the name of a nonexistent man. It isn't about God or God's Son; it's about human inability.

Consider this important fact. Although the deity of Christ is one of the preeminent doctrines of the gospel, no New Testament author ever cites Proverbs 30:4 as a prophecy about Christ. The apostles built their teaching about Jesus from clear Old Testament texts. They used Psalm 2:7—"You are my Son; today I have begotten you" (Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5). They used Psalm 110:1—"Sit at my right hand" (Acts 2:34-35). They used Isaiah 53, 2 Samuel 7:14, and Daniel 7:13-14. But they never turned to Proverbs 30:4.

And, not that it matters much, but the early church councils that introduced and refined the doctrine of the "eternal sonship" of Christ never cited it either! Isn't it such a curiosity that a passage used to "settle the matter" should be so obscure?

An unanswered riddle in a wisdom poem without any inspired application doesn't carry the weight needed to make the case for the eternal sonship doctrine.

The pre-existence of Christ is certain. John 1:1 states the Word was with God and was always (Greek, ēn) God. Philippians 2:6 states he always existed in the form of God. Colossians 1:17 states he is before all things. These truths stand firm on their own and require no assistance from Proverbs 30:4.

Jesus Answers Agur's Riddle

After all of this—the context, the Hebrew, the rhetorical structure, the silence of every New Testament author, the complete ignorance of Tertullian and others of this alleged proof-text, one fact remains: Jesus himself answered Agur's question.

In his conversation with Nicodemus, he says: "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man" (John 3:13). Who? No one. That is the answer.

In Proverbs 30:4, Agur asks about a man who first ascended and then descended. But Jesus reverses the order. The only one who can ascend is the one who first descended from heaven.

The order is important. Agur is asking about a man who ascends and then returns, not the divine Logos. Christ says, there is no one except the "Son of Man" who descended.

What Agur Really Teaches Us

Proverbs 30:4 is a powerful verse. Its strength comes from teaching us to humble ourselves before a God whose works no man can match.

We honor the text by reading it as the Holy Spirit intended. It is a confession that man is small and God is great. That truth needs no improvement. It only needs to be believed.

That is the exercise we have walked through together. We slowed down, read the context, and asked who was speaking, what they were saying, and why. We let the text answer its own questions instead of forcing the text to mean what we want it to.

These are not advanced skills. They are the basic habits every student and teacher of scripture must have, essential for responsibly handling God's word for those who trust him (2 Timothy 2:15).