Well Hebrews 1:5 says it's the Son of God !
For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”?
I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
(Hebrews 1:5, quoting from Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14, ESV)
also see here:
Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your
feet”? (Hebrews 1:13, quoting Psalm 110:1)
Who's right? The commentaries (referred to in the answers above. The Matthew Henry Commentary for one) or the Bible. Are both wrong? Is Hebrews errant?
2 Samuel 7:2 does say "When he commits iniquity" and we know Jesus never committed iniquity.
So then is Hebrews wrong if its stating that this verse refers the the Son of God referring to Jesus?
Hebrews does put question marks by the scriptural references. The question marks also aren't in the original references. So in my opinion the author admits to being a little confused. Which is fine and acceptable. The author wasn't pining for inclusion in the cannon, the author was just writing from his heart. That is fine. It was from my perspective allowed so the "The Son's" Son could be hidden until he was full grown, old enough to understand who he was and to assume his duties.
It's a spiritual battle you know, we can't forget that. The one referred to in these verses is the child born in Revelation 12.
She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. (Revelation 12:5)
This is not Jesus. Jesus is referred to here in Revelation 1:9-20. So Jesus already did his work on earth and is in heaven. The one referenced in Revelation 12 is also the one referred to in Psalm 2.
The two Gods are interleaved in scripture and it's sometimes hard to separate them, but just to be clear wherever it refers to forgiveness of sin that is Jesus the second one of the Godhead, and sometimes when the Bible refers to possession of the kingdom then it is referring to the Son's Son.
To understand why the Son's Son can and does commit iniquity read Psalm 132:11-12:
The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which he will not turn back:
“One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne.
If your sons keep my covenant and my testimonies that I shall teach them,
their sons also forever shall sit on your throne.”
Since this one is from David's own body ... Of course! He will be a sinner! Most Christians understand that those born of the seed of Adam, let alone the seed of David are sinners in need of redemption.
So just to be clear: All authority was given to Jesus in heaven and on earth, he is "The King" and He begot a Son. See Psalm 2.
He gives His Son the earth to rule! So the Son's Son is a prince, Jesus is the King. But that prince will inherit the Earth and be King of the Earth. His Father, who is Jesus "The Son", will keep the heavens.
The name given by The Son to His begotten child is "The Lord of hosts" which is one of "The Son's" names which he passes onto His newly begotten Son, a practice that should be understood by all men of this earth. (Nothing strange going on here.)
This "newly" begotten Son is only a baby as far as Gods are concerned. He of course has a lot to learn and will be under his Father's tutelage for a long time to come.
Does that make sense? I hope that clarifies who 2 Samuel 7 is referring to.
It was suggested I include the following ... that I identify which Christian tradition/denomination/teaching supports this reasoning and analysis.
As far as I know.... none. I think in certain circles and they would be small circles an interpretation of similar vein is pondered or even understood but I am not sure who that would be.
No this interpretation is from Me.
I am the Son of God's, Son. I am the one of whom Psalm 2 speaks ....
when it says ...
7 I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me,
“You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.
8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession."