Rats, I was hoping you wouldn’t notice.
Who is the speaker here, and to whom is he speaking?
The words of Agur son of Jakeh of Massa. The man says to Ith'i-el, to Ith'i-el and Ucal: (Proverbs 30:1)
And what are the nature of his comments? They are rhetorical questions!
And who are they talking about?
Who has ascended to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered the wind in his fists?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is his son's name?
Has God ascended to heaven and come down? Nope.
Well yes He has, even if you discount the Incarnation. Who was talking and walking with Adam in the Garden? Who was that talking to Moses on Sinai? Who was that leading the Israelites through the wilderness in a pillar of cloud and fire? Who was that dwelling in the Holy of Holies?
And its in the past tense, so it cannot be a reference to Jesus.
God, and therefore Jesus, are eternal. They do not change. Everything they do has occurred, is occuring, will occur, from an eternal reference.
In the previous verse Agur sarcastically refers to his own lack of wisdom and understanding. Verse 4, then, is contrasting his own "lack of wisdom" with those who claim to have worldly wisdom. The "who" of verse 4 refers to "wise men" who put their own worldly understanding above God. It is saying "who are these people, and what have they done compared to what God has done?"
I think you are stretching here. The verse is not asking who said they COULD do these things, it is asking who DID do those things. The answer is obviously God.
In verses 5 and 6 Agur tells Ithiel and Ucal to rely on scripture rather than on worldly wisdom.
Aahh, it’s good to see Sola Scriptura has been around longer than the Renaissance.
This passage supports Havoc's argument against philosophy, but it does not support the idea of a divine son.
If you say so, but I think you are wrong. BTW, here’s some good advice, stay out of the woods near Mack’s house. ;^)
-ksen
As I said, they are rhetorical questions. The point is that these men could not do these deeds. Compare to the end of Job. You are confused in this case as to who the "who" refers to!
Furthermore, consider "What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!" Ìf your interpretation is correct, then "surely" the Jews of the time of Agur knew the name of the son. It must have been common knowledge if they were expected to know it. And yet there is no mention of of the name "Jesus" as the son of God.
BTW, here’s some good advice, stay out of the woods near Mack’s house. ;^)
Heh heh, I invited Mack to come up to Milwaukee for the Harley Davidson 100 year reunion. When he does, a minyan of Sicilian Jews are gonna take him and dunk him in the mikveh. I wonder if he's circumcised...? ;o)