Page 78 - Countering Trinitarian Arguments With Historical Reference

Proverbs 30:4 is a pluralistic argument?
Quoting Jason Dulle “Proverbs 30:4 is one of those verses that some Trinitarians have tried to make into a powerful Trinitarian verse, but to their own embarrassment. Not only does this verse fail to confirm that God is a Trinity or the existence of an eternal Son, but a proper interpretation of the verse in its context will demonstrate that this verse has nothing to do with God.
Notice verses 2-3. Agur said, "Surely I am more stupid than any man, and do not have the understanding of a man. I neither learned wisdom nor have knowledge of the Holy One." (NKJV) The author is stressing His ignorance in light of the Holy One by exaggeration, claiming that he is more stupid than any man, and then goes on to say that he does not even have the understanding of a human being. He is trying to show how great God is, and how insignificant our understanding of Him is. Compared to God all of us are "stupid”. It is at this point that the author stated the verse in question. Agur asked several rhetorical questions:
1. Who has ascended or descended into heaven? 2. Who has gathered the wind in his fists?
3. Who has wrapped up the waters in their cloak? 4. Who has established the ends of the earth?
Seeing that these rhetorical questions were asked immediately after highlighting man's ignorance in lieu of God's wisdom, the expected answer is negative, "Not man!" What man has ascended or descended into heaven? There is no man, thus highlighting man's insignificance in light of the Holy One. Who has gathered the wind in his fists? There is no man, again highlighting man's insignificance in light of the Holy One. The same can be said of wrapping up the waters in one's cloak and establishing the ends of the earth. There is no man who can do such, only God. Only after this series of rhetorical questions does the author ask his readers to tell him who has done these things. The author is not asking what divine being has done these things, but what man has done these things. Essentially, he was asking, "If you know a man who has done these things, tell me his name and the name of his son”. (The whole idea of giving the name of the individual and the name of his son serves to identify the man who did these things. It must be remembered that in Biblical times people did not have last names to distinguish themselves from others with the same name. To name one's son was a further mark of identification, clarifying which individual is being named.) Obviously no man did these things, thus neither he nor his son could be identified. Seeing that no man could be identified (and thus no man's son) it demonstrated that only God could do these things, and man was nothing in comparison to Him. That was precisely the point the author was trying to stress to his readers. No man can do what God can do. He is so much greater than we are.
This seems so simplistic that I am surprised Trinitarians continue to use this verse to support their theology. This is just another example of Trinitarians scraping at anything in order to find Biblical support for the Trinity. Trinitarians have made such a big deal over
77